User talk:Sandstein

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].

If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Start a new talk topic

Question

Although not directly related to the above discussion, my warnings to Tuscumbia and petitions to other administrators stem from the belief that he, as well as editor named Atabey, have been retaliating against the actions of a certain administrator named Buckshot08, who took the decision to delete three articles on massacres related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (Buckshot08's actions are being discussed here). I can only direct you to the Maraghar Massacre and Kirovabad Pogrom, where both Tuscumbia and Atabey have added tags and questioned the notability, the sources, and the POV of the articles, the same three tags and issues that were placed and raised on the articles Buckshot08 deleted. My contention, and implicit admissions by Atabey on the Administrators Noticeboard and an edit here, is that these edits are violations of WP:POINT, i.e., they are being carried out in reaction to Buckshot08's decisions. I have already informed two other administrators, including Buckshot08, but having not received any response from them, would you mind weighing in on the matter or, barring that, direct me elsewhere to pursue the matter? Thank you.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you taken any steps to resolve the dispute about these tags and issues with these editors? Sandstein 20:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, as well as editor Kansas Bear (see his comments and main space edits on the history page of Maraghar here), have voiced our concerns on the talk page, yes, albeit with little (otherwise unhelpful) to no response.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, it is difficult for an outsider like me to determine whether this is a genuine content disagreement or a mere POINT issue. I frankly do not wish to become involved in these content issues, since I may need to have to take sdministrator actions in this topic area, so I'll refrain from offering an opinion myself. I recommend requesting more non-admin opinions via a noticeboard or WP:3O. Only if there is clear evidence of persistent problematic conduct in this topic area, as shown by opinions from editors who are not involved in similar disputes, should sanctions be requested per WP:ARBAA at WP:AE. Sandstein 21:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment, another editor has removed the notability tag but I suppose I'll first try my luck at the respective article page. In addition to the POINT edits, if I may borrow your attention briefly, there is also the rather contradictory manner the article is being written up: while there are several sources published by third-party authors that any editor would find acceptable, if not trustworthy, which unequivocally assert that a massacre took place and was carried out by Azerbaijani troops, there appears to be the disingenuous use of the word "allegedly" to discredit the notion of the massacre. Like I said, it's a contradiction of sorts; on the one, the lead clearly says that the massacre occurred ascribes the perpetrators, while in the body editor Atabey has made liberal use of the word "allegedly", for the reasons I stated above, instead of simply attributing statements to their sources.

I would understand if after this you are unwilling to take further action. But since you mentioned a noticeboard - which one would you recommend for such content disputes, should this one soon become difficult to resolve? --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. After reading Kansas Bear's comments below and after further controversial additions to that article by Atabey, I think your presence in the article would be very much desirable at the moment. You should take a look at the article as it stands now. Thank you.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't currently have time to address this matter in more detail. See, generally, WP:SEEKHELP. Sandstein 07:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some assistance

Can you direct me to the page to report a violation of 1RR[1][2](according to AA2) on the article Maraghar Massacre? Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be WP:AE if an arbitration-based sanction has been violated, or WP:AN3 otherwise. Sandstein 07:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, [3].--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for stepping in with Laternix and Nableezy. The holidays have been keeping me pretty busy the past couple of days. I hope yours are treating you well. Cheers! --Vassyana (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and a good New Year to you as well! Sandstein 10:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hogmanay greeting

Thank you very much for working with me in 2010 to make the encyclopedia a better place. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I want to wish you all the very best for 2011. I look forward to working with you, and I hope for health and happiness to you and your family in the year to come. I therefore send you this glass of the cratur, so you can celebrate, whether it is Hogmanay or New Year's Day where you are. Warmest regards, --John (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sandstein 10:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To you as well! Sandstein 10:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pbl1998 block

I believe you are in error with your judgement on this users unblock request. The Wokingrocks sock was used by user Willrocks10, Pbl1998's supposed sock master. So Pbl has not admitted to using this unless he is a sock himself, which is a circular argument if used to support him being a sock. In the same vein, Pbl1998 had not made significant disruptive edits, that was all done by Willrocks10, who was blocked for 24 hrs for disruptive editing, and who is ironically now free to edit again after a 7 day block for being a sock master. So again, Pbl1998 has only disruptively edited if he is actually a sock, so that argument cannot be used to show he is a sock as it's self referential. I really think an injustice has been done here. If nothing else, the Pbl1998 account predates his supposed master, so surely the block should be the other way round. It seems bizare to me that as a community we've indef blocked an inexperienced but relatively inoffensive user, while leaving the disruptive editor who repeatedly ignored policy and consensus free to edit.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is at any rate too much coordination of edits going on, via meat- or sockpuppets, and the edits of Pbl1998 are of so low a quality, that I have no compelling reason to draw the checkusers' confirmation of identity into question. Sandstein 22:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a bit odd that the relavent policy pages on sock puppet all make a big deal about how behaviour is the only true way to determine a puppet, but repeatedly this block has been upheld based primarily on the checkuser result. As I've pointed out in several places, from what I have seen these are two friends at school who edit together in the school library, which explains both the common IP and time of edits (i.e. lunch break, etc). This is obvious from the edits and comments they have made over the last month, but you need to wade through a months worth of editing on multiple articles to see this. I only saw it because I was watching all those articles at the time, and despite initially thinking PBL might be a sock, it became apparent over time that he clearly wasn't, as he argued and edit warred with Willrocks. Willrocks has consistently flown head long aginast both policy and consensus in ways that were obviously not going to work if you know anything about wikipedia. The idea that he could be so sophisticated in using a sock while so ignorant in general editing doesnt add up. What's even more bizare is that the supposed third sock, Jargonia, only ever edited to oppose Willrocks10 in AfD, so it would be counter productive to have as a sock, in fact it would make the entire exercise pointless as PBL and Jargonia cancel each other out in votes. Again if you look at the edit histories, Jargonia appears to be a third student, not a freind of these two, who only came on to wikipedia to cause mischief with thier work. If Jargonia is not a sock but checkuser suggests they are, that throws the whole thing into doubt. If the issue is of meat puppets then surely Willrocks should be the blocked account, as he was created later. Although both accounts were created and made edits long before any AfD appeared. WP:MEAT also doesn't appear to mandate indef blocking for meat puppets, but rather that they be treated as a single entity for voting purposes. With regards quality, Willrocks10s contributions are also of much lower quality than PBL, being often actively against policy and disruptive. If you look through the repeatedly blanked talk page of Willrocks it is full of warnings, whereas PBL is actually pretty clean. Not to mention, neither has been bad enough to warrant an indef block. PBL's content might not have been notable enough, I AfD'd one myself and have voted in several others, but he is keen and just needs to learn. If you accept he isn't a sock of Willrocks then indef blocking him for making common newbie errors seems a particularly extreme example of biting the newcomers. There is no love lost between me and Willrocks, it was me who put him into SPI in the first place as the Wokingrocks account was a blatantly obvious sock (WP:DUCK, never mind checkuser), previously I reported him to 3RR for edit waring, which led to a block, and he considers me to be wiki-stalking him as I've voted delete in various AfDs for his articles. Frankly I'd be more than happy to see him deep sixed out of wikipedia permanently, but despite all that I honestly believe that PBL1998 is not a sock, and also could make some useful contributions once he gets a bit more experience under his belt. Thanks in advance for your time in considering this.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, WP:TLDR. PBL1998 needs to convince the checkusers in order to be unblocked. Any problems with Wokingrocks/Willrocks should be addressed via WP:DR. Sandstein 11:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok short version. 1. Socks are supposed to be judged on behaviour not just checkuser. Having watched the pair of them edit on multiple articles for over a month its clear they are seperate people. What checkuser is seeing is two people at the same school 2. The suggestion they might be meat puppets could be argued, but the penalty for that is not an indef block. 3. Neither is an indef block a reasonable sanction for poor quality editing by a new user.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lingua Franca Nova

Sandstein

Re the Lingua Franca Nova deletion discussion, I note that you state the decision reached was 'No consensus'. What does this mean exactly?

Will the item be deleted or not?

Thank you

--Guido Crufio (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It will not be deleted as a result of that discussion. Sandstein 11:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

--Guido Crufio (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nemrud

Dear Sandstein,

This is Mert Gocay, the founder and the leading member of the Turkish music group Nemrud. I would like to respond to the discussion on the possible deletion of Nemrud's page (which had been prepared by a devoted fan of the Group) from Wikipedia.

Nemrud is a Turkish progressive rock band which made its first album very recently in 2010 under Lirik muzik label.Nemrud has gone beyond the Turkish standard rock or popular line-chorus structure songs and pushed the technical and composition limits of rock music. In a few weeks Journey of the shaman sold out in Turkey; following the domestic success, world wide well known progressive rock label Musea Records approached the band and released the album in December 2010.

Please kindly note that the band actually exists (contrary to the comments published on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nemrud), and the Group is currently preparing for a few concerts (as well as their second album). More info about our group can be found at the following websites:

- myspace/nemrudmusic - musea records.com - nemrudband.com

here are some evidences of album selling websites: - itunes http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/journey-of-the-shaman/id405196378 -amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Shaman-Nemrud/dp/B004GAISKO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1294324234&sr=8-2 - cduniverse http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=8432230

To my understanding there has been a misunderstanding (or a false connection) between the historical/touristic region/place Nemrut in Turkey with the name of our Group. The name of our Group is inspired from Nemrut, however, there should be no direct connection between Nemrud and Nemrut in Wikipedia. I would hence like yourselves to confirm that Nemrud's page should be staying on Wikipedia on the back of the above reasons.

Thank you. Kind regards,

Mert Gocay