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

Hetoum

Hi. After my report here you blocked the IP 216.165.12.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 1 year for death threats. Now we have 128.122.90.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) reverting the same set of articles to the same versions. Both IPs point to New York University, and previously a similar IP 128.122.253.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from NY University was blocked as a sock of Hetoum I: [1]. Can you please look into the issue with 128.122.90.186? Also, I think that the article Khanate of Erevan should be semiprotected due to edit warring by IPs and socks. Grandmaster 05:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not currently working at AE.  Sandstein  06:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hot_stain_(2nd_nomination)

I urge you to reexamine your closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hot_stain_(2nd_nomination). skip sievert's keep vote was based on an inherited notability argument. kgrr's keep vote admits that there are no reliable sources. Richard Arthur Norton's keep vote is the only one with even a little validity. Gigs (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. Skip also said "and the term is used by others because of her notability also"; Kgrr said that "The reliable sources come from a very small group of internationally renown water scientists and activists - and of course closely associated with Maude Barlow." These arguments assert the existence of reliable sources for the topic of "hot stains" and are not exclusively WP:INHERITED arguments.  Sandstein  14:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

They have still yet to come up with a single academic reliable source (or arguably, much of any reliable source) that even trivially mentions the term that wasn't authored or co-authored by Maude Barlow. Asserting that sources exist without actually providing them is an invalid AfD argument. Gigs (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That goes a little beyond what an AfD closer usually does, sorry. I can discount obviously bogus arguments, but whether adequate sources exist is a matter for consensus to determine, and here we have no consensus that the sources are inadequate.  Sandstein  20:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"There are reliable sources out there" (yet no one can find them) is obviously bogus. A voter making a bogus argument into a wall of text doesn't change whether it's bogus or not. I guess we'll just let DRV decide. Gigs (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Hot stain

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hot stain. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gigs (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a copy of the email sent to you from Vecrumba

Hi Sandstein, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#My_topic_banning I have introduced evidence regarding the email that Vecrumba sent to you, and I have noted that despite the notice on your user page, you did not reproduce this email in your reply onwiki, as you disclose you would do. As there is discussion from this cabal on how to manipulate you into furthering my ban, and I will be introducing more into evidence, this email needs to be produced as evidence so that it can be investigated. Note, that I am not accusing you of any impropriety, but I am suggesting that you were successfully gamed by these editors...for which evidence will be forthcoming as well. I am posting this on your talk page, as I believe you stated that you wouldn't be keeping an eye on the arbcom as you don't consider yourself involved? --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume you refer to the e-mail of September 9, 2009 mentioned by me at User talk:Vecrumba#Your e-mail. The rules published in the red box at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence state that: "No quoting of any email is to be done by persons other than the author or intended recipient(s)". I am not sure if that is intended to mean I may only reproduce e-mails in this matter on-wiki with the sender's consent (although it does not say so). To avoid making a procedural mistake, I would prefer to have permission either by Vecrumba or by an arbitrator or clerk to publish the e-mail here. I do not know whether it has any relevance to the matter currently under arbitration, though. Any permission should be noted below.  Sandstein  10:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the operative word there is or. As you were the intended recipient, you would be able to disclose the email, as per your disclaimer that is on your user page (which really should also be on your talk page as well). But at the very least, you should be able to provide a copy of that email to the Committee, in order for them to have a copy of it for perusal. I believe the disclaimer on your userpage is why Offliner had questioned you about the email, because despite the disclaimer no email was reproduced. The existence of the email is relevant to the matter of course, as its existence is discussed on the list, and in the discussion it is discussed how to manipulate, and continue to manipulate yourself, in regards to my case. Therefore it is entirely relevant one could assume. Of course, Arbcom can't force any editor to release anything to them, but as there is a suggestion of underhandedness going on, and which doesn't necessarily implicate yourself, one would hope that you would do this. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Russavia. I have already explained extensively the content to Offliner and indicated I had not copied myself. I am sure you have seen that, if not, please read my talk page. I regret your taking the opportunity to beat the proverbial dead horse by heaping your bad-faith innuendo upon Sandstein: per "not accusing" + "am suggesting" + "successfully gamed".

   As it is demonstrably the only way to get you and your fellow attack dogs to stop harassing and attacking Sandstein—whose only role in any and all of this has been to act with the utmost and complete integrity—your inquiry here being part of the blatant attempt by yourself and others to discredit him in attempting to make the case that your heinous behavior was not of your own choice to get you off the hook, Sandstein is free to provide the complete copy for public view, XXX'ing out Email addresses and any other of Sandstein's personally identifiable information. (As I don't find it necessary to hide my identity, he can leave my name at the bottom of the Email.) VЄСRUМВА  ♪  14:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The text of the e-mail, dated Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:16 PM, subject "Wikipedia e-mail, re: Russavia et al." is as follows:

Dear Sandstein -

I've noticed Russavia bandy about my name in vain, protesting to look at my edit logs and all. I've been on WP quite a while now having locked horns with all sorts of editors including paid propagandist pushers (where I've spent well over $1,000 of my own money on sources when I've needed them to counter blatant mischaracterization). It would be silly for me to contend that my personal background does not inform my personal perspective, but my editorial perspective and whatever I contribute is based only on fairly representing legitimate and reputable sources--if you go back far enough you will even find me adding (!) Russian/Soviet positions on issues of contention.

And as for first editing to properly position and only then deleting *upon further consideration* the Dyukov protest regarding the Nazi-German parade in Brest-Litovsk, I hope my edit comment first expanding the original text and edit comment subsequently removing it are explanation enough. Dyukov already has far too much WP press, being a fringe historian whose sole occupation is denial of Soviet wrong-doings, and whose claim to fame is being featured regularly on English language official Russian cable TV broadcasts so that he can state as an "expert historian" what official Russia wants the world to hear. Frankly, leaving Dyukov in properly positioned, it read more like an opportunity to attack Dyukov for being a twit than to document reliable contentions that the parade never happened. (If after reading the intermediate edit you think I'm wrong, I'd be glad to restore it, but in this case, any mention at all is really WP:UNDUE, and "less is more.")

If you have any questions at all regarding any edit or any past conflicts (sadly, there have been many, but that is the nature of WP in the geopolitical sphere), I'll be more than happy to provide any information you'd like.

My apologies for contacting you off-Wiki--I really didn't want to get into some ugly tit-for-tat with Russavia.

Warm regards, Pēters Jānis Vecrumba

(unlike my opposition, I have no need to hide behind Wiki-aliases)

My only reaction to this e-mail was this on-wiki reply.  Sandstein  14:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirect of Florida State Road 600A

I see that you closed the AfD for this article by establishing a redirect. Can you tell me which editing guideline was used as the basis for doing this? When I review WP:Redirect for "What do we use redirects for?," I can only think that this was established because FL SR 600A is perceived to be a subtopic of FL SR 600 (an alternate name for US 92 in Florida). Did you determine that the redirect satisfied the "principal of least astonishment?" I don't see where the article does that. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I did so because that was the outcome most compatible with consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida State Road 600A (2nd nomination). I have no opinion about the editorial merit of the redirect. If you disagree, there is always WP:RfD.  Sandstein  15:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Need a block review

Hi Sandstein, I just noticed that several months ago you placed User:Matthead under a 1RR restriction here. He has broken that and I recently blocked him, but I do not know if there are any specific instructions for how long the block should be; I made it 72 hours for now, pending your review. See User talk:Matthead#Blocked. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I've offered an opinion on his talk page. West Germany is indeed not understood to be in Eastern Europe (That's why it's called West :-), but other aspects of this edit war might warrant attention or blocks. In particular, I find the conduct of new account Flroian River (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), edit-warring jointly with Matthead, rather suspicious.  Sandstein  05:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)