This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hey Sandstein, recently you deleted
Swadhinata Home Box per
deletion request. I am was the creator of that article. So I'm requesting to userfy that deleted article.--
Pratyya
(Hello!) 13:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Senkaku Islands. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Lvhis ( talk) 01:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Sandstein,
I was supposed to have this discussion with you couple days before, but I had an unfortunate accident in my real life that I could not responded your closure of that Request Move until today. I want to discuss with you on your closure decision before I request a WP:MR.
First of all, there was quite obvious consensus that the current title "Senkaku Islands" is not in line with regarding wp policies and guidelines. Although there were 5 users insisted on retention of this current title, their arguments lacked good quality as some of them based on cherry-picking, misleading information, wrong search results from wrong search methods. Nine users suggested to change the current titles based on good quality of arguments of comments in line with wp policies and guidelines including WP:COMMONNAME, WP:POVTITLE, WP:NCGN#Multiple local names, and WP:NPOV. You closure opinion obviously ignored the quality of arguments and then ignored the consensus that the current title "Senkaku Islands" should be changed. Please pay enough attention that "Senkaku Islands" is not an English name but a local non-English name.
You listed three your findings in your closure decision. Except the 1st one, two of the three are not objectively reflecting the true fact in the move discussion.
The last words is regarding your
warning on this moving discussion. You said "discussion contains quite a bit of nastiness, edit-warring, inappropriate language and confrontational attitude by various participants", but who was the starter or initiator of this kind of nastiness? Who did such misbehaved so most? It is user Phoenix7777. He did so with such tricks for a obvious purpose to disrupt this discussion and to make it looked like "non-consensus". He got what he wants now as you showed your partiality for him. Your such partiality is not fair and makes your closure statement not neutral or fair and more like an involved discussion.
Based all of above, may I request you reconsider your closure and re-open the Request Move. Thank you. -- Lvhis ( talk) 03:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Pratyya
(Hello!) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.
-- Pratyya (Hello!) 13:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
With respect, I'm very disappointed that this article was deleted so suddenly. I've been asking for feedback on it literally for weeks and got none. I tried to make it it clear on the discussion page that I can provide other references if the ones I used were unsuitable, but I wasn't given an opportunity to fix the problems between the time the feedback was given and the time the page was deleted.
I'm 95% certain I can bring this article up to Wikipedia's standards if I'm given the opportunity. Is there any chance of getting it undeleted and allowing me to at least attempt to fix the problems that concern you and/or the other editors in question? I'm absolutely behind keeping Wikipedia accountable and verifiable and will never dispute deletion of an article that doesn't meet that standard, but I don't feel that I was given a fair chance on this one because of the lack of timely feedback.
Either way, thank you for your help. Have a good week. -- edi (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I'm CJCurrie, and I've written several articles on Canadian politics, including politics in Quebec. I was absent from Wikipedia from December 19 until today; during my absence, an afd took place concerning 27 articles that I created concerning school board elections in Quebec. I see that you were the closing admin for this afd, and that a decision was made to delete all 27 of the pages in question.
I would like to request that you reconsider your decision to delete these pages. My reasons are as follows:
The afd was entitled, "Articles for deletion/Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys election, 2003." The elections in question took place between 1973 and 2007, and they received extremely divergent levels of coverage.
The afd's short discussion section was focused primarily on two questions: (i) whether or school board elections are inherently notable, and (ii) whether the school board elections in question received coverage beyond a purely local level. Without here offering an opinion on the first question, I'll note that some of the elections in question did receive widespread coverage.
The 2003 Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys election was a relatively minor event in Quebec's political history, but the same cannot be said of school commission elections in the 1970s (and, to a lesser extent, the 1980s). The nature and governance of Quebec's education system was a major political issue in the 1960s and 1970s, and the elections that took place during this period received attention that was both extensive and national (and scholarly: Henry Milner's The Long Road to Reform includes an academic analysis of Montreal school board elections in the 1970s). My view is that, regardless of whether or not one believes school board elections are inherently notable, the mass deletion removed articles about some events that were notable on their own terms.
I do not think this particular afd was the proper forum for an omnibus decision concerning all of the elections in question. For this specific reason, I am requesting that you undelete the 26 "other" pages, such that they may be addressed if and as necessary on a case-by-case basis.
I would also request that you temporarily undelete the 2003 CSMB election page such that a more complete discussion may take place.
Thank you. CJCurrie ( talk) 03:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I quite believe you when you say that the nature and governance of Quebec's education system was a major (if only local or regional) political issue in the 1960s and 1970s, but in this case it is that broader topic (if there are sources for it) that should be the subject of an article, with the election results summarized at an appropriate level of detail, not necessarily individual elections. In addition, individual editors or projects are not entitled to be informed about any particular deletion proposal; that would run counter to WP:OWN and might even give rise to concerns of canvassing.
For these reasons, I'll not restore and relist all of these articles. But if there is any specific article that you believe would benefit from an individual discussion because there are reliable sources discussing that particular election in some detail, such that the article about it could pass WP:GNG, I'm ready to restore and relist that specific article. Sandstein 09:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
As concerns the three articles you would like relisted, can you please provide references to independent reliable sources covering them, so that I can ascertain whether these articles would have at least a remote chance of passing AfD on individual notability grounds?
Concerning the creation of new articles, any new articles that contain essentially only the content of the deleted articles (i.e., election results) would likely be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4. If they contain additional, sourced encyclopedic text, they would likely require a new deletion discussion. Sandstein 10:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Any opinion or suggestions for a) deletion or b)improvement of the article? -- Lexein ( talk) 17:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
| |
Hello Sandstein: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Any chance I can get the interaction ban to include me? I was unavailable during the AC, so I couldn't speak up. His irrational behavior towards me on the United Poland article, including his contrived edit war, included edit comments directed toward me such as please stop unjustified removals. taking an english course instead of wasting your time on edit warring might be an idea to consider, too), (together against porn and filth!), (@ Ajh1492 - removing sourced stuff and replacing it with unsourced propaganda? Very constructive indeed!), Stop adding unsourced agitprop! and Rv absurd edit. a 2000 (!!!) source for a party founded in 2012?. I'd personally like to get the block removed from my record since I think the related admins only superficially studied the problem and responded to Estlandia's specious counter-charge. I tried to bring up the fact that neither was 3RR violated plus they never took into account the personal attacks, nor even looked at Talk:United Poland to see the discussion to attempt to engage Estlandia. Instead someone who was being rather rudely treated and verbally brutalized with personal attacks was swept up in a knee-jerk reaction by two admins. Ajh1492 ( talk) 20:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Sandstein, can I ask you a couple of questions about the recent AE block you carried out on RoslynSKP? I'm asking not as an arbitrator, but as someone who commented at the recent amendment request (I recused in the case itself). I made two comments at the amendment request, one here and one here. The questions I had was how you decided on the block length of two weeks and whether you were aware that this would be RoslynSKP's first ever block (is it that common for editors to end up at AE without having been blocked before)? I think you came up with the block length from the AE discussion. I'm not familiar enough with RoslynSKP's editing history to know how often she edits or when she is likely to become aware of the block, but would you, as the blocking admin, be willing to keep an eye on her talk page for the next two weeks? People react in various ways when they are blocked for the first time, and as I said at the amendment request, a lot depends on her response to this block. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
To expand slightly on what I said at the amendment request, I'm not sure if you (or indeed the arbitrators) are aware, but this has all put a visible strain on the MILHIST co-ordinators (that was evident from the tone of some of the comments at the AE request and the co-ordinators talk page). If any of the co-ordinators are reading this (I'll ping Nick-D and HJ Mitchell who commented at the request), they have my sympathies, though I am puzzled that this was apparently the first ever block or topic ban imposed in relation to this dispute (surely something less draconian could have been tried first before arbitration?) - if I'd realised this during the case I would have said something. FWIW, I have plans to suggest to MILHIST that they go ahead with increased co-ordination of the WWI topic area, but as I said to Kirill here the timing isn't great ( his reply). Trouble is, the timing's not really getting any better. Carcharoth ( talk) 17:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
As regards the editing conditions in WWI-related articles or in the military history wikiproject, I'm sorry to say that I'm not at all familiar with them and so I can't comment about that. For this reason, I also don't have an opinion about whether the Committee's sanction was appropriate. Sandstein 18:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The question of the userspace drafts does need consideration, because I'd hate to see an argument at AE over whether it is OK for someone coming off a block like this to work on such drafts or not. The aim for everyone here should be to get those drafts worked on and published so that readers of Wikipedia can benefit from them. The final point I want to make is that, like Newyorkbrad at the amendment request, you make the common misconception of thinking that she can ask "for this [topic ban] to be lifted in a few months". The case pages explicitly say that she cannot appeal earlier than nine months. This is the inflexibility I was talking about earlier. I've seen it in other arbitration cases and I know from experience why that sort of inflexibility is built into cases (to prevent excessive and premature appeals), but I think that was a mistake here. Anyway, I'll leave this now, as the only way anything will change here is if we see change from RoslynSKP when (if) she returns from her block. The ball really is, as they say, in her court. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm replying on your talk page. Sandstein 13:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Sandstein, your decision is totally unacceptable. You are killing my motivation for contribution for Wikipedia without knowing more closely the situation. And what does "everything related to both Armenia and Georgia" mean? What does Armenia has to do with it? I have zero interest in Armenia or Armenian related articles. I am improving the Georgian related articles and all I do is to contribute, improve them. Check the history of the Georgian alphabet, all I did was I reverted it to the balanced and neutral version as it was back then before it was changed into biased version. I've done nothing wrong to have this kind of sanction from any administrator. Jaqeli ( talk) 12:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC) |
I saw Gm545's unblock request, and while he does seem more experienced than a genuinely new editor, I didn't see any problems with his edits. In fact his AfD comments are better than average, I'd say. Thus I'm tempted to assume good faith and unblock; at worst that'll just give him some WP:ROPE. Any objections? Any evidence of disruption or strange intents I missed? Huon ( talk) 19:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Please explain how you reached a no consensus on this. Majority of Keeps gave no reason within policy to keep, just said Keep. Votes for deletion are higher than those for keep, and the majority of deletes voiced policy concerns regarding the list. Darkness Shines ( talk) 19:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Sandstein. Please kindly note that User Jaqeli has recently violated his AA2 topic ban by editing [4] a controversial article on Armenia, Mithridates of Armenia. The article does not cite any sources and is written in a tendentious manner. Thanks. Hablabar ( talk) 17:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
[5] Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
generic question about sanctions. For Darkness Shines, is the sanction you placed considered a 0RR? Are any edits that remove content then prohibited, or only reverts of recent additions? Is there a page that outlines what list of sanctions are appropriate? (IE, did you just pick a sanction from a menu that may or may not have criteria for use, or are admins allowed to invent sanctions at will for topics that have discretionary sanctions applied? ) I am not attempting to criticize your action, just trying to make sure I understand the policies and process. (I am deeply involved in another topic that will likely have DS applied shortly by arbcom, so want to make sure I know what the new rules are going to look like) Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
You may want to take a look at this. [6] I was not previously familiar with WP:REMOVED, but it appears that this is violation of bullet point 1:
"Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction."
A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 20:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Twice in your excellent close of the AFD on scientists opposed to the mainstream view of global warming you used the word "criterium." I suggest that the word you want in future postings is actually "criterion." Regards. Edison ( talk) 21:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein Re removal of my update of threshold levels for EU Public Procurement that you removed as anti-copyright. The values, terminology and exceptions are specific and therefore cannot be reworded. Can you advise how I can update the entry with the new thresholds without it being a violation of copyright? Regards, Stuart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdavidson79 ( talk • contribs) 10:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
This bloody article again. I didn't opine (as I protected it) but I suspect it's one of those that's eventually going to get deleted. Not being familiar, I couldn't work out if it was a POV article designed to disprarage those who disagree with climate change as nutcases, or a POV article trying to point out that there are many respected scientists who don't agree. Either way, it's rubbish. Black Kite ( talk) 18:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
The edit summary on the above says that you closed the discussion as no consensus. It still appears on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity as having been relisted. There is currently no tag on the AFD page. You seem to have changed your mind in the course of closing the discussion, with the result that something is wrong. Could you please sort this out? Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Allowed to restore comments or editprotect templates added by myself to a talk page which another editor removed? Without even mentioning or asking me in violation of TPG. Darkness Shines ( talk) 09:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I've heard your arguments, thanks. Further discussion, if needed, should take place at WP:AE. Sandstein 12:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am sorry to object to your last AE comment (I usually agree with your judgement), however I simply do not think that you can declare "fringe" any source based on its citation (and use this as a reason for sanctions). There are lots of sources with zero citation index in bibliographic databases. That does not make any of them "fringe" or inappropriate for use in Wikipedia. Thanks, My very best wishes ( talk) 18:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Thanks for the heads up that this topic is sanctionable. The article, as it stands now, is quite different from my first few edits (more sources, sort of "sugarcoated" less direct/controversial claims). Is it still objectionable, in your opinion? -- Kaj Taj Mahal ( talk) 21:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I have filed an appeal against the sanction you imposed here Darkness Shines ( talk) 22:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I've heard your arguments, thanks. Further discussion, if needed, should take place at WP:AE. Sandstein 12:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am sorry to object to your last AE comment (I usually agree with your judgement), however I simply do not think that you can declare "fringe" any source based on its citation (and use this as a reason for sanctions). There are lots of sources with zero citation index in bibliographic databases. That does not make any of them "fringe" or inappropriate for use in Wikipedia. Thanks, My very best wishes ( talk) 18:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Thanks for the heads up that this topic is sanctionable. The article, as it stands now, is quite different from my first few edits (more sources, sort of "sugarcoated" less direct/controversial claims). Is it still objectionable, in your opinion? -- Kaj Taj Mahal ( talk) 21:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I have filed an appeal against the sanction you imposed here Darkness Shines ( talk) 22:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I removed what you appear to indicate are clear violations of WP:BLP and think it is time to lock up this puppy James Delingpole before anyone tries to re-add the clearly inapt snippets. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
If you think that the article needs protection, WP:RPP would be the place to request that. At a glance, there does not seem to be ongoing edit-warring that would need immediate protection. If somebody adds content in violation of the BLP policy, it might be preferable to request targeted sanctions against them at WP:AE instead of locking up the article for everyone. Sandstein 14:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I just read your bubble up above, and I'm not sure really how to proceed so I'll just ask anyway. Please steer me to your preferred process (there seems to be several different views on the current notice/logging process!)
What I cam here to say, before I saw the bubble, is.... Please consider giving and logging the ARBCC notice to DHeyward ( talk · contribs), formerly known as [struck as irrelevant, Sandstein 15:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)]. While the notice is not supposed to carry any stigma, or be an indication of any wrong, but rather is supposed to just be an FYI, I did become concerned due to recent edit warring stopping just shy of 3RR. But since I just linked to a post with the diffs I suppose I should say for super clarity that I am not asking for any enforcement over those diffs. Just the FYI notice (and logging at ARBCC) in case there's a future problem. Thanks for your attention NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 03:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for striking, Sandstein, I should have thought of that, though I still don't see the problem.... but if I created one, I apologize to anyone effected including DHeyward ( talk · contribs). NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, as you know my topic ban includes from everything concerning Armenia and Azerbaijan has been made indefinite, but with a sports exemption. I want to ask, can I edit this Chovgan article, it is related to history but Chovgan known as sport? -- NovaSkola ( talk) 00:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein,
FYI, the book mentioned above was published in Russian by the Prosveshcheniye ("Enlightenment") publishing company, a Russian publisher that has been around since the 1930's ( http://prosv.ru/). This publisher has a lot of titles [12] and it's the subject of a Russian Wikipedia article ( ru:Просвещение (издательство)) which says it has annual revenue of 3.1 billion (if that means rubles, it's around 90 million USD). "[N]owadays almost all serious physics publications except those aimed at laypeople are in English" is a non-sequitur. The book is not exactly aimed at laypeople, but it's not a research publication either. It appears to be an expository book on relativity written at the level of undergraduate physics textbooks that we're used to here. There's no reason to expect such a book to be written in English if the expected readers were in Russia.
The book doesn't appear to advance any unusual scientific claims (at least that I've spotted from a minute of flipping around the English version), but rather its goal appears to be explaining standard topics in a novel way for pedagogical purposes. Googling the Russian title and author gets 4000+ hits, a lot of which are sites hosting pirate scans, indicating that the book had some following. I don't read Russian either but I was able to figure out the above with a couple minutes of pasting Russian words into Google and transliterating a few of them back to recognizable English. So I think your overall assessment of the book didn't take enough information into account. One of the Russian-speaking physics editors might be able to advise further. Regards, 50.0.121.102 ( talk) 12:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
WHY WAS DAVID HOCKING'S NAME DELETED? e-mail suppressed 108.193.254.175 ( talk) 00:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Please where can I access the text of the deleted Feathercoin article. I have made textual contributions to it, of which I have no backup. Could you please paste the deleted article to my user space? Kokot.kokotisko ( talk) 04:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
As the article has been deleted again and I'm the original author, please move it to my user space at Feathercoin according to WP:USERFY - WSF ( talk) 22:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure whether you are realizing that what is being disputed here is your decision to close the discussion with 50:50 delete/keep votes. Kokot.kokotisko ( talk) 00:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Wrong forum. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Since you are one of the active admins in this field, I have to inform you that user:Slovenski Volk decided, some months now, to ignore his indefinite ARBMAC ban [ [14]] (and this wp:ae [ [15]]) and launched a full scale campaign editing and edit-warring into the ARBMAC field (hist last block due to edit war was in Scythians). This occurred as soon as he realized that user:Athenean, who sent him to wp:ae in the past, isn't active and therefore he saw this as a great opportunity to return. Right now he edits in all historical periods (classical, iron age, medieval, etc except from the modern era) and in all related ethnic groups (Bulgarians, ethnic Macedonians, (origin of) Albanians, Illyrians etc). For the record he is still allowed to edit only in Prehistory and Roman era Balkans per: [ [16]], but he decided to render the entire ARBMAC ban useless, pretending that his ban concerns only the modern Macedonia naming dispute, which by the way, was never one of his interests. Therefore, I believe that a precise definition of his area of restriction is needed. Alexikoua ( talk) 08:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Alexikoua, you have already made this complaint on the talk page of the sanctioning administrator, The Blade of the Northern Lights, and they have not yet replied to it. To avoid confusion, you should make such complaints only in one forum at a time, and generally only at WP:AE. If you disagree with whatever The Blade of the Northern Lights decides to do about your complaint, you may request enforcement of the sanction at WP:AE. Sandstein 09:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Würden Sie bitte so freundlich sein und sich zu ihrer Aussage ...this is a temporary exhibition about a niche topic in a small country, and of exceedingly limited interest to everybody... hier [18] erklären. Danke schön!-- Schönegg ( talk) 10:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed the edit you have just made to this page. This page is not a guideline. It is only a proposal. Changes to it do not have to reflect consensus, because there is no consensus for any of it in the first place. The whole point of the proposal process would be defeated if we have to wait for consensus before changing a failed proposal. James500 ( talk) 20:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear Sandstein, you banned me, because on the Global Warming Talk page, I was making good faith efforts to ensure a new editor on his first day was treated fairly and to protect the integrity of the Talk page against censorship - deleting and hiding with fallacious unsigned editorial comments - that would likely lead to bias in the article. However, I recognise that however badly I feel other editors may have behaved, that the 3RR rule is sacred, and even applies when multiple edits are only distantly related, and that the Talk Page Vandalism exemption may only used for cases of vandalism that would be more clear to a majority of other editors. So I will endeavour to reform and edit within the rules in the future. How do I get myself unbanned? cwmacdougall 13:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, they were well-founded. If you are of the view that an article is biased, you must not edit-war to have it display a "POV" tag, because that tag in and of itself does nothing to improve the article. You should instead propose and seek consensus for specific changes that would remedy the bias you allege. If you can't find consensus for these changes, then there is also no basis for the "POV" tag. Likewise, per WP:NOTFORUM, article talk pages are not forums for general discussions of the topic of the article, and threads that do not help editors improve the article may be removed.
Because, as you say, you do not understand why I banned you from the article Global warming, the sanction is still necessary. The appeal is declined. You may appeal the sanction to the AE noticeboard or to the Arbitration Committee. Sandstein 17:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about the reversions. I've only just realised that the page no longer exists. I wouldn't agree that it should no longer exist. But I missed the debate so that's moot. However, the decision seems ton have been "merge", not "delete". Is this correct? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 22:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response. Saving those of us on the front lines from more work picking up after this fellow. Bah. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 22:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
It was closed as moot due to IHAMD being checkuser blocked with technical evidence; however, the editor was subsequently unblocked (due to identity confirmed), and therefore this thread should be reopened. I will reopen this shortly. I am leaving this note here because you were involved in the discussion regarding what to do about the editor. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 18:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm reading ambiguity about the scope of IHAMD's TBAN: is it (1) BLP articles related to climate change (using the logical AND) or (2) BLP articles, as well as climate change articles (using the logical OR)? - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 14:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ZeroesAndOnes/Archive
I am definitely not a sock puppet account. I AM however a user of the software Feith. I was made aware of the possible deletion of the article so I chimed in. I don't actively contribute to wikipedia and I still don't understand why the page was deleted as compared to other business pages in the same type of business. Maybe the page was too commercial, I don't know.
Scvff ( talk) 18:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Should this subject have its own article? It currently redirects to Geographical indications and traditional specialities in the European Union but I am not seeing it well covered there on first glance. There is an article for Fracne's Appellation d'origine contrôlée and the respective organizations in the U.S. Came across the issue starting an article on Pain de seigle valaisan. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 17:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I am not an editor, just a thankful Wikipedia user. I would like access to a page on John Michael Greer that you deleted. I am not the creator of the page, but I need to review this page for research purposes. And no, I am not John Michael Greer, nor am I a member of the large 100-year old religious order that he heads. I am not even acquainted with Mr. Greer other than through his works and the frequent citation of his works.
As I understand the page was deleted because editors were unaware of his "notability." Before I attempt to quantify Mr. Greer's "notability," in short, if you were to ask 10 people who were familiar with Peak Oil who the "most notable" current peak oil theorist was, Greer, along with James Kunstler (who has a wiki page) would be one of the most common responses. But if you were to ask people familiar with occultism who the "most notable" living occultist was, they would all name Mr. Greer.
Within the Peak Oil community his "notability" has made him one of the most sought-after keynote speakers, including keynote addresses at: 5th Peak Oil and Community Solutions Conference, Great Lakes Bioneers Conference, Chicago Bioneers, Greensong, etc.
As you are aware, the purpose of a "Keynote" address is to "establish a key underlying theme for an event" Mr. Greer's ideas have certainly helped "establish the key underlying themes" within peak oil and certain environmental circles (especially those associated with "deep ecology" opposed to the new "bright green" environmentalism. This can be demonstrated by his inclusion as the "keynote" piece in the first Dark Mountain Project http://dark-mountain.net/mountaineers/john-michael-greer/
This "Dark Mountain Project" was the primary contribution of the certainly less notable Paul Kingsnorth, who has a wikipedia page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kingsnorth
This search will verify a long list of environmental and peak oil groups where he has recently been the keynote speaker: https://www.google.com/search?q=John+Michael+Greer+keynote&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Clearly, quite a broad audience of people consider him noteworthy enough to set the agenda for their conferences and festivals, and his celebrity within these communities is considered good publicity!
The reason for this notability is that he is the originator and foremost proponent of a "long decline" theory in opposition to the "crash" scenarios proposed by Kunstler. Mr. Greer's contribution has been so profound that the "long decline" scenario has become the most common view and even Kunstler has changed his predictions considerably to follow Greer's. This theory has become one of the most sited underlying tenants of "deep ecology" influenced environmentalism as well.
It seems quite impossible to assert that Mr. Greer is not "noteworthy" within this field when he is a perennial keynote speaker and even has books written about him by some of the other most noteworthy people in the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.26.161 ( talk) 16:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
In addition, he is an extremely prolific author of more than 30 published books, some of which are best-sellers within their genres: http://www.amazon.com/John-Michael-Greer/e/B001IOFELW
In terms of his contribution to occultism, he has authored some of the best selling and most influential recent books on the topic, including the New Encyclopedia of the Occult. In addition, he is the appointed head of a large initiate religious order with a history that goes back a century. http://aoda.org/AODA_History.html
This is not, as was suggested, a self-appointed, "meaningless," or "made up" role.
Thank you for your consideration. I hope you will promptly return this page. 97.83.26.161 ( talk) 15:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
97.83.26.161 (
talk) 15:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The deletion was decided by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Michael Greer. If you want this result overturned, the best way to go about it is to produce references to reliable independent sources about Greer that weren't already mentioned in the discussion. Sandstein 16:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I could pretty easily find many more citations and references, but would this be a start? (Note, I tried to avoid the citations such as by library associations, which were included in the discussion)
John Michael Greer is an American author, blogger and speaker, most notably on the topics of Peak Oil, Resource Depletion, and Occult spiritual practice. Mr. Greer has been a contributing author throughout the Peak Oil Community, including The Oil Drum ( http://www.theoildrum.com/tag/john_michael_greer) zero hedge ( http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-11/guest-post-john-michael-greer-if-four-horsemen-arrive-offer-beer) and resilience.org.
Mr. Greer's works are frequently cited, recommended and discussed by peak oil experts, organizations, and publications, such as the Transition Towns (network) ( http://transitionvoice.com/2011/11/transition-plans-meetings-a-waste-of-time-says-greer/) and James Howard Kunstler ( http://kunstlercast.com/tag/john-michael-greer)
He has become influential lecturer, delivering keynote addresses for organizations including the Bioneers ( http://bioneerschicago.org/category/2013-saturday/) and the Greensong Festival. ( http://www.greensongfestival.org/keynote.html)
His recent books include the wealth of nature reviews: 1. http://transitionvoice.com/2011/09/adam-smith-got-it-way-way-wrong/ 2. http://www.earthtimes.org/going-green/wealth-nature-new-book-john-michael-greer/1085/ 3. http://www.resilience.org/stories/2011-12-07/review-wealth-nature-john-michael-greer 4. http://www.alternativesjournal.ca/community/reviews/wealth-nature
and the Blood of the Earth reviews: 1. http://www.bookslut.com/blog/archives/2014_01.php#020489 2. http://dgrnewsservice.org/2012/05/04/book-review-the-blood-of-the-earth/ 3. http://www.rootsimple.com/2012/10/book-review-the-blood-of-the-earth-an-essay-on-magic-and-peak-oil/
In 2003, Mr. Greer was elected the 7th head of the Ancient Order of Druids, the AODA http://aoda.org/AODA_History.html He has published many books on the occult. 97.83.26.161 ( talk) 20:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I believe all or most of these citations are appropriate for the claims they support. I have read and used the guidelines in providing you sources.
I would assume that Greer would fall under the category of "creative professionals," and that references showing that he is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers" would suffice. Greer meets the criteria in a ROBUST way. I can and have provided many references, including those with editorial oversight. I specifically selected sources that would meet the criteria, including "significant" sources with wikipedia pages themselves. An example given of an appropriate source is that of Slashdot. In no way is Slashdot substantively different as a source than The Oil Drum. Greer is frequently mentioned in print media and in books that have Wikipedia pages, but I thought it easier to provide easily verifiable online sources. In addition, Greer meets the criteria as the author of books which are widely discussed. I provided references for that, but I could provide HUNDREDS more.
Truly, I'm a professional in this field. Greer is discussed by 3rd parties ALL THE TIME. It would be very unusual to hear a discussion of Post Industrial Future within this community and NOT hear Greer referenced or quoted. Really, omitting Greer in such a discussion would be cause to question credibility. 97.83.26.161 ( talk) 21:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Out of context, would you like some 3rd party references to Greer? There are several above, but I could provide more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.26.161 ( talk) 20:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Thought I'd add another discussion of Greer's work from the publication of the Post Carbon Institute http://dev.energybulletin.net/50751 Again, not a personal blog, has an editorial board, is a "notable" organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.26.161 ( talk) 21:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
And here by Skyscript, founded by Deborah Houlding http://www.skyscript.co.uk/rev_geomancy.html 97.83.26.161 ( talk) 21:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
And another 3rd party discussion of his work in Patheos http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wildhunt/2012/07/guest-post-the-blood-of-the-earth.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.26.161 ( talk) 21:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
And more, frequently these citations actually point out how famous and influential Greer is in Peak Oil circles. "Famous for his Archdruid Report, John Michael Greer is one of the most clear-sighted of authors who are grappling with the multiple crises..." http://www.earthtimes.org/going-green/wealth-nature-new-book-john-michael-greer/1085/ Again, Earthtimes is not a personal blog, but an online magazine. And here Transition Voice, another online magazine assumes that its readers would be familiar with Greer. http://transitionvoice.com/2010/11/greer-finds-power-in-nature-spirituality/ And here at Transition US: http://transitionvoice.com/2010/11/greer-finds-power-in-nature-spirituality/ 97.83.26.161 ( talk) 21:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
(note, corrected some links including the Skyscript link.) 97.83.26.161 ( talk) 22:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Reviewed in Plenty: http://www.plentymag.com/magazine/reviews_green_media.php?page=2 Popular Anthropology Magazine: http://popanthro.org/ojs/index.php/popanthro/article/view/32 And here a response to Greer's ideas by Oil Drum founder Sharon Astyk: http://www.resilience.org/stories/2010-02-11/pick-your-hat-response-john-michael-greer 97.83.26.161 ( talk) 22:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Much appreciated. I think I will leave it to your judgement (or to someone with more time to devote to Wikipedia.) I actually don't disagree that the sources are "fringy." However, the sources I chose ARE the leading sources, organizations, and experts on Peak Oil as cited in Wikipedia's Peak Oil article, and as I have demonstrated, Greer is a constant topic of discussion among those leading sources, organizations, and experts. This is not exactly an "academic" field of study with peer-reviewed journals. Nor are the subtleties of Peak Oil theory the topic of mainstream media attention. And when Greer is mentioned in mainstream media outlets, it is by less-than-reliable sources, like Glen Beck: http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/11/12/glenn-live-like-people-determined-to-be-free/ It could even be that the whole topic of Peak Oil is too fringy to merit a Wikipedia page, but Greer's contributions have fundamentally changed the discussions within that community. As the links above show, it is increasingly becoming the case that one can no longer have an in-depth discussion of Peak Oil--both as an environmental topic and as a social phenomenon--without mentioning Greer.
Anyway, this has given me insight into how much work goes into maintaining Wikipedia. Sincerely, thanks for doing it. 97.83.26.161 ( talk) 14:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The appeal of your enforcement action has been declined. The comments made by the arbitrators may be useful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee, Rs chen 7754 20:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Lecen Cambalachero ( talk) 21:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Sandstein, I'm sure you don't care about what I have to say and I am sure you think I hate you. I don't and I wanted to clarify that. I do think you are too heavy fisted when it comes to AE and sanctions. In a lot of the cases you are, IMO, much to fast to jump to exteremes and particularly lengthy blocks or bans. Wikipedia admins need to be fair and unfortunately I don't think you, with your block them and foget them mentality is healthy for the project. So although I have mentioned your name several times in discussions I wanted you to know that I don't think you are a bad person, I just think you are too extreme in your use of the block button and that sort of behavior isn't beneficial to the project or to the reputations of the admin group as a whole. Kumioko ( talk) 17:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if he was still under a ban from everything related to Armenia and Georgia, because he has been editing articles on Georgia. -- Երևանցի talk 00:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
You blocked User:NinaGreen for edits in violation of her topic ban on the Shakespearean authorship question. (I haven't reviewed the details of what she edited, but the Groatsworth is only significant in modern times because of its reference to Shakespeare.) An IP address has posted to WP:ANI complaining about the block. I have filed a sock-puppet investigation request. Although editing logged out is often simply a mistake, editing logged out when blocked is more typically a form of block evasion. I don't know if you are interested or would prefer to let other admins look into the issue. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, she has been discussing her issues with the complexity and unfairness of Discretionary sanctions, but she wasn't topic-banned by Arbitration Enforcement under the discretionary sanctions, but in the original decision by the ArbCom. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Sandstein, can I edit sport section of Azerbaijan article? Just want to clarify with you as you put ban on me shown in here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:ARBAA2 Just to be clear, I just want to add few little details, that's not related to political problems between Azerbaijan and Armenia.-- NovaSkola ( talk) 02:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hey Sandstein, recently you deleted
Swadhinata Home Box per
deletion request. I am was the creator of that article. So I'm requesting to userfy that deleted article.--
Pratyya
(Hello!) 13:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Senkaku Islands. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Lvhis ( talk) 01:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Sandstein,
I was supposed to have this discussion with you couple days before, but I had an unfortunate accident in my real life that I could not responded your closure of that Request Move until today. I want to discuss with you on your closure decision before I request a WP:MR.
First of all, there was quite obvious consensus that the current title "Senkaku Islands" is not in line with regarding wp policies and guidelines. Although there were 5 users insisted on retention of this current title, their arguments lacked good quality as some of them based on cherry-picking, misleading information, wrong search results from wrong search methods. Nine users suggested to change the current titles based on good quality of arguments of comments in line with wp policies and guidelines including WP:COMMONNAME, WP:POVTITLE, WP:NCGN#Multiple local names, and WP:NPOV. You closure opinion obviously ignored the quality of arguments and then ignored the consensus that the current title "Senkaku Islands" should be changed. Please pay enough attention that "Senkaku Islands" is not an English name but a local non-English name.
You listed three your findings in your closure decision. Except the 1st one, two of the three are not objectively reflecting the true fact in the move discussion.
The last words is regarding your
warning on this moving discussion. You said "discussion contains quite a bit of nastiness, edit-warring, inappropriate language and confrontational attitude by various participants", but who was the starter or initiator of this kind of nastiness? Who did such misbehaved so most? It is user Phoenix7777. He did so with such tricks for a obvious purpose to disrupt this discussion and to make it looked like "non-consensus". He got what he wants now as you showed your partiality for him. Your such partiality is not fair and makes your closure statement not neutral or fair and more like an involved discussion.
Based all of above, may I request you reconsider your closure and re-open the Request Move. Thank you. -- Lvhis ( talk) 03:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Pratyya
(Hello!) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.
-- Pratyya (Hello!) 13:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
With respect, I'm very disappointed that this article was deleted so suddenly. I've been asking for feedback on it literally for weeks and got none. I tried to make it it clear on the discussion page that I can provide other references if the ones I used were unsuitable, but I wasn't given an opportunity to fix the problems between the time the feedback was given and the time the page was deleted.
I'm 95% certain I can bring this article up to Wikipedia's standards if I'm given the opportunity. Is there any chance of getting it undeleted and allowing me to at least attempt to fix the problems that concern you and/or the other editors in question? I'm absolutely behind keeping Wikipedia accountable and verifiable and will never dispute deletion of an article that doesn't meet that standard, but I don't feel that I was given a fair chance on this one because of the lack of timely feedback.
Either way, thank you for your help. Have a good week. -- edi (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I'm CJCurrie, and I've written several articles on Canadian politics, including politics in Quebec. I was absent from Wikipedia from December 19 until today; during my absence, an afd took place concerning 27 articles that I created concerning school board elections in Quebec. I see that you were the closing admin for this afd, and that a decision was made to delete all 27 of the pages in question.
I would like to request that you reconsider your decision to delete these pages. My reasons are as follows:
The afd was entitled, "Articles for deletion/Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys election, 2003." The elections in question took place between 1973 and 2007, and they received extremely divergent levels of coverage.
The afd's short discussion section was focused primarily on two questions: (i) whether or school board elections are inherently notable, and (ii) whether the school board elections in question received coverage beyond a purely local level. Without here offering an opinion on the first question, I'll note that some of the elections in question did receive widespread coverage.
The 2003 Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys election was a relatively minor event in Quebec's political history, but the same cannot be said of school commission elections in the 1970s (and, to a lesser extent, the 1980s). The nature and governance of Quebec's education system was a major political issue in the 1960s and 1970s, and the elections that took place during this period received attention that was both extensive and national (and scholarly: Henry Milner's The Long Road to Reform includes an academic analysis of Montreal school board elections in the 1970s). My view is that, regardless of whether or not one believes school board elections are inherently notable, the mass deletion removed articles about some events that were notable on their own terms.
I do not think this particular afd was the proper forum for an omnibus decision concerning all of the elections in question. For this specific reason, I am requesting that you undelete the 26 "other" pages, such that they may be addressed if and as necessary on a case-by-case basis.
I would also request that you temporarily undelete the 2003 CSMB election page such that a more complete discussion may take place.
Thank you. CJCurrie ( talk) 03:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I quite believe you when you say that the nature and governance of Quebec's education system was a major (if only local or regional) political issue in the 1960s and 1970s, but in this case it is that broader topic (if there are sources for it) that should be the subject of an article, with the election results summarized at an appropriate level of detail, not necessarily individual elections. In addition, individual editors or projects are not entitled to be informed about any particular deletion proposal; that would run counter to WP:OWN and might even give rise to concerns of canvassing.
For these reasons, I'll not restore and relist all of these articles. But if there is any specific article that you believe would benefit from an individual discussion because there are reliable sources discussing that particular election in some detail, such that the article about it could pass WP:GNG, I'm ready to restore and relist that specific article. Sandstein 09:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
As concerns the three articles you would like relisted, can you please provide references to independent reliable sources covering them, so that I can ascertain whether these articles would have at least a remote chance of passing AfD on individual notability grounds?
Concerning the creation of new articles, any new articles that contain essentially only the content of the deleted articles (i.e., election results) would likely be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4. If they contain additional, sourced encyclopedic text, they would likely require a new deletion discussion. Sandstein 10:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Any opinion or suggestions for a) deletion or b)improvement of the article? -- Lexein ( talk) 17:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
| |
Hello Sandstein: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Any chance I can get the interaction ban to include me? I was unavailable during the AC, so I couldn't speak up. His irrational behavior towards me on the United Poland article, including his contrived edit war, included edit comments directed toward me such as please stop unjustified removals. taking an english course instead of wasting your time on edit warring might be an idea to consider, too), (together against porn and filth!), (@ Ajh1492 - removing sourced stuff and replacing it with unsourced propaganda? Very constructive indeed!), Stop adding unsourced agitprop! and Rv absurd edit. a 2000 (!!!) source for a party founded in 2012?. I'd personally like to get the block removed from my record since I think the related admins only superficially studied the problem and responded to Estlandia's specious counter-charge. I tried to bring up the fact that neither was 3RR violated plus they never took into account the personal attacks, nor even looked at Talk:United Poland to see the discussion to attempt to engage Estlandia. Instead someone who was being rather rudely treated and verbally brutalized with personal attacks was swept up in a knee-jerk reaction by two admins. Ajh1492 ( talk) 20:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Sandstein, can I ask you a couple of questions about the recent AE block you carried out on RoslynSKP? I'm asking not as an arbitrator, but as someone who commented at the recent amendment request (I recused in the case itself). I made two comments at the amendment request, one here and one here. The questions I had was how you decided on the block length of two weeks and whether you were aware that this would be RoslynSKP's first ever block (is it that common for editors to end up at AE without having been blocked before)? I think you came up with the block length from the AE discussion. I'm not familiar enough with RoslynSKP's editing history to know how often she edits or when she is likely to become aware of the block, but would you, as the blocking admin, be willing to keep an eye on her talk page for the next two weeks? People react in various ways when they are blocked for the first time, and as I said at the amendment request, a lot depends on her response to this block. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
To expand slightly on what I said at the amendment request, I'm not sure if you (or indeed the arbitrators) are aware, but this has all put a visible strain on the MILHIST co-ordinators (that was evident from the tone of some of the comments at the AE request and the co-ordinators talk page). If any of the co-ordinators are reading this (I'll ping Nick-D and HJ Mitchell who commented at the request), they have my sympathies, though I am puzzled that this was apparently the first ever block or topic ban imposed in relation to this dispute (surely something less draconian could have been tried first before arbitration?) - if I'd realised this during the case I would have said something. FWIW, I have plans to suggest to MILHIST that they go ahead with increased co-ordination of the WWI topic area, but as I said to Kirill here the timing isn't great ( his reply). Trouble is, the timing's not really getting any better. Carcharoth ( talk) 17:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
As regards the editing conditions in WWI-related articles or in the military history wikiproject, I'm sorry to say that I'm not at all familiar with them and so I can't comment about that. For this reason, I also don't have an opinion about whether the Committee's sanction was appropriate. Sandstein 18:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The question of the userspace drafts does need consideration, because I'd hate to see an argument at AE over whether it is OK for someone coming off a block like this to work on such drafts or not. The aim for everyone here should be to get those drafts worked on and published so that readers of Wikipedia can benefit from them. The final point I want to make is that, like Newyorkbrad at the amendment request, you make the common misconception of thinking that she can ask "for this [topic ban] to be lifted in a few months". The case pages explicitly say that she cannot appeal earlier than nine months. This is the inflexibility I was talking about earlier. I've seen it in other arbitration cases and I know from experience why that sort of inflexibility is built into cases (to prevent excessive and premature appeals), but I think that was a mistake here. Anyway, I'll leave this now, as the only way anything will change here is if we see change from RoslynSKP when (if) she returns from her block. The ball really is, as they say, in her court. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm replying on your talk page. Sandstein 13:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Sandstein, your decision is totally unacceptable. You are killing my motivation for contribution for Wikipedia without knowing more closely the situation. And what does "everything related to both Armenia and Georgia" mean? What does Armenia has to do with it? I have zero interest in Armenia or Armenian related articles. I am improving the Georgian related articles and all I do is to contribute, improve them. Check the history of the Georgian alphabet, all I did was I reverted it to the balanced and neutral version as it was back then before it was changed into biased version. I've done nothing wrong to have this kind of sanction from any administrator. Jaqeli ( talk) 12:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC) |
I saw Gm545's unblock request, and while he does seem more experienced than a genuinely new editor, I didn't see any problems with his edits. In fact his AfD comments are better than average, I'd say. Thus I'm tempted to assume good faith and unblock; at worst that'll just give him some WP:ROPE. Any objections? Any evidence of disruption or strange intents I missed? Huon ( talk) 19:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Please explain how you reached a no consensus on this. Majority of Keeps gave no reason within policy to keep, just said Keep. Votes for deletion are higher than those for keep, and the majority of deletes voiced policy concerns regarding the list. Darkness Shines ( talk) 19:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Sandstein. Please kindly note that User Jaqeli has recently violated his AA2 topic ban by editing [4] a controversial article on Armenia, Mithridates of Armenia. The article does not cite any sources and is written in a tendentious manner. Thanks. Hablabar ( talk) 17:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
[5] Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
generic question about sanctions. For Darkness Shines, is the sanction you placed considered a 0RR? Are any edits that remove content then prohibited, or only reverts of recent additions? Is there a page that outlines what list of sanctions are appropriate? (IE, did you just pick a sanction from a menu that may or may not have criteria for use, or are admins allowed to invent sanctions at will for topics that have discretionary sanctions applied? ) I am not attempting to criticize your action, just trying to make sure I understand the policies and process. (I am deeply involved in another topic that will likely have DS applied shortly by arbcom, so want to make sure I know what the new rules are going to look like) Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
You may want to take a look at this. [6] I was not previously familiar with WP:REMOVED, but it appears that this is violation of bullet point 1:
"Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction."
A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 20:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Twice in your excellent close of the AFD on scientists opposed to the mainstream view of global warming you used the word "criterium." I suggest that the word you want in future postings is actually "criterion." Regards. Edison ( talk) 21:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein Re removal of my update of threshold levels for EU Public Procurement that you removed as anti-copyright. The values, terminology and exceptions are specific and therefore cannot be reworded. Can you advise how I can update the entry with the new thresholds without it being a violation of copyright? Regards, Stuart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdavidson79 ( talk • contribs) 10:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
This bloody article again. I didn't opine (as I protected it) but I suspect it's one of those that's eventually going to get deleted. Not being familiar, I couldn't work out if it was a POV article designed to disprarage those who disagree with climate change as nutcases, or a POV article trying to point out that there are many respected scientists who don't agree. Either way, it's rubbish. Black Kite ( talk) 18:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
The edit summary on the above says that you closed the discussion as no consensus. It still appears on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity as having been relisted. There is currently no tag on the AFD page. You seem to have changed your mind in the course of closing the discussion, with the result that something is wrong. Could you please sort this out? Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Allowed to restore comments or editprotect templates added by myself to a talk page which another editor removed? Without even mentioning or asking me in violation of TPG. Darkness Shines ( talk) 09:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I've heard your arguments, thanks. Further discussion, if needed, should take place at WP:AE. Sandstein 12:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am sorry to object to your last AE comment (I usually agree with your judgement), however I simply do not think that you can declare "fringe" any source based on its citation (and use this as a reason for sanctions). There are lots of sources with zero citation index in bibliographic databases. That does not make any of them "fringe" or inappropriate for use in Wikipedia. Thanks, My very best wishes ( talk) 18:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Thanks for the heads up that this topic is sanctionable. The article, as it stands now, is quite different from my first few edits (more sources, sort of "sugarcoated" less direct/controversial claims). Is it still objectionable, in your opinion? -- Kaj Taj Mahal ( talk) 21:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I have filed an appeal against the sanction you imposed here Darkness Shines ( talk) 22:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I've heard your arguments, thanks. Further discussion, if needed, should take place at WP:AE. Sandstein 12:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am sorry to object to your last AE comment (I usually agree with your judgement), however I simply do not think that you can declare "fringe" any source based on its citation (and use this as a reason for sanctions). There are lots of sources with zero citation index in bibliographic databases. That does not make any of them "fringe" or inappropriate for use in Wikipedia. Thanks, My very best wishes ( talk) 18:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Thanks for the heads up that this topic is sanctionable. The article, as it stands now, is quite different from my first few edits (more sources, sort of "sugarcoated" less direct/controversial claims). Is it still objectionable, in your opinion? -- Kaj Taj Mahal ( talk) 21:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I have filed an appeal against the sanction you imposed here Darkness Shines ( talk) 22:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I removed what you appear to indicate are clear violations of WP:BLP and think it is time to lock up this puppy James Delingpole before anyone tries to re-add the clearly inapt snippets. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
If you think that the article needs protection, WP:RPP would be the place to request that. At a glance, there does not seem to be ongoing edit-warring that would need immediate protection. If somebody adds content in violation of the BLP policy, it might be preferable to request targeted sanctions against them at WP:AE instead of locking up the article for everyone. Sandstein 14:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I just read your bubble up above, and I'm not sure really how to proceed so I'll just ask anyway. Please steer me to your preferred process (there seems to be several different views on the current notice/logging process!)
What I cam here to say, before I saw the bubble, is.... Please consider giving and logging the ARBCC notice to DHeyward ( talk · contribs), formerly known as [struck as irrelevant, Sandstein 15:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)]. While the notice is not supposed to carry any stigma, or be an indication of any wrong, but rather is supposed to just be an FYI, I did become concerned due to recent edit warring stopping just shy of 3RR. But since I just linked to a post with the diffs I suppose I should say for super clarity that I am not asking for any enforcement over those diffs. Just the FYI notice (and logging at ARBCC) in case there's a future problem. Thanks for your attention NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 03:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for striking, Sandstein, I should have thought of that, though I still don't see the problem.... but if I created one, I apologize to anyone effected including DHeyward ( talk · contribs). NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, as you know my topic ban includes from everything concerning Armenia and Azerbaijan has been made indefinite, but with a sports exemption. I want to ask, can I edit this Chovgan article, it is related to history but Chovgan known as sport? -- NovaSkola ( talk) 00:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein,
FYI, the book mentioned above was published in Russian by the Prosveshcheniye ("Enlightenment") publishing company, a Russian publisher that has been around since the 1930's ( http://prosv.ru/). This publisher has a lot of titles [12] and it's the subject of a Russian Wikipedia article ( ru:Просвещение (издательство)) which says it has annual revenue of 3.1 billion (if that means rubles, it's around 90 million USD). "[N]owadays almost all serious physics publications except those aimed at laypeople are in English" is a non-sequitur. The book is not exactly aimed at laypeople, but it's not a research publication either. It appears to be an expository book on relativity written at the level of undergraduate physics textbooks that we're used to here. There's no reason to expect such a book to be written in English if the expected readers were in Russia.
The book doesn't appear to advance any unusual scientific claims (at least that I've spotted from a minute of flipping around the English version), but rather its goal appears to be explaining standard topics in a novel way for pedagogical purposes. Googling the Russian title and author gets 4000+ hits, a lot of which are sites hosting pirate scans, indicating that the book had some following. I don't read Russian either but I was able to figure out the above with a couple minutes of pasting Russian words into Google and transliterating a few of them back to recognizable English. So I think your overall assessment of the book didn't take enough information into account. One of the Russian-speaking physics editors might be able to advise further. Regards, 50.0.121.102 ( talk) 12:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
WHY WAS DAVID HOCKING'S NAME DELETED? e-mail suppressed 108.193.254.175 ( talk) 00:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Please where can I access the text of the deleted Feathercoin article. I have made textual contributions to it, of which I have no backup. Could you please paste the deleted article to my user space? Kokot.kokotisko ( talk) 04:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
As the article has been deleted again and I'm the original author, please move it to my user space at Feathercoin according to WP:USERFY - WSF ( talk) 22:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure whether you are realizing that what is being disputed here is your decision to close the discussion with 50:50 delete/keep votes. Kokot.kokotisko ( talk) 00:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Wrong forum. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Since you are one of the active admins in this field, I have to inform you that user:Slovenski Volk decided, some months now, to ignore his indefinite ARBMAC ban [ [14]] (and this wp:ae [ [15]]) and launched a full scale campaign editing and edit-warring into the ARBMAC field (hist last block due to edit war was in Scythians). This occurred as soon as he realized that user:Athenean, who sent him to wp:ae in the past, isn't active and therefore he saw this as a great opportunity to return. Right now he edits in all historical periods (classical, iron age, medieval, etc except from the modern era) and in all related ethnic groups (Bulgarians, ethnic Macedonians, (origin of) Albanians, Illyrians etc). For the record he is still allowed to edit only in Prehistory and Roman era Balkans per: [ [16]], but he decided to render the entire ARBMAC ban useless, pretending that his ban concerns only the modern Macedonia naming dispute, which by the way, was never one of his interests. Therefore, I believe that a precise definition of his area of restriction is needed. Alexikoua ( talk) 08:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Alexikoua, you have already made this complaint on the talk page of the sanctioning administrator, The Blade of the Northern Lights, and they have not yet replied to it. To avoid confusion, you should make such complaints only in one forum at a time, and generally only at WP:AE. If you disagree with whatever The Blade of the Northern Lights decides to do about your complaint, you may request enforcement of the sanction at WP:AE. Sandstein 09:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Würden Sie bitte so freundlich sein und sich zu ihrer Aussage ...this is a temporary exhibition about a niche topic in a small country, and of exceedingly limited interest to everybody... hier [18] erklären. Danke schön!-- Schönegg ( talk) 10:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed the edit you have just made to this page. This page is not a guideline. It is only a proposal. Changes to it do not have to reflect consensus, because there is no consensus for any of it in the first place. The whole point of the proposal process would be defeated if we have to wait for consensus before changing a failed proposal. James500 ( talk) 20:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear Sandstein, you banned me, because on the Global Warming Talk page, I was making good faith efforts to ensure a new editor on his first day was treated fairly and to protect the integrity of the Talk page against censorship - deleting and hiding with fallacious unsigned editorial comments - that would likely lead to bias in the article. However, I recognise that however badly I feel other editors may have behaved, that the 3RR rule is sacred, and even applies when multiple edits are only distantly related, and that the Talk Page Vandalism exemption may only used for cases of vandalism that would be more clear to a majority of other editors. So I will endeavour to reform and edit within the rules in the future. How do I get myself unbanned? cwmacdougall 13:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, they were well-founded. If you are of the view that an article is biased, you must not edit-war to have it display a "POV" tag, because that tag in and of itself does nothing to improve the article. You should instead propose and seek consensus for specific changes that would remedy the bias you allege. If you can't find consensus for these changes, then there is also no basis for the "POV" tag. Likewise, per WP:NOTFORUM, article talk pages are not forums for general discussions of the topic of the article, and threads that do not help editors improve the article may be removed.
Because, as you say, you do not understand why I banned you from the article Global warming, the sanction is still necessary. The appeal is declined. You may appeal the sanction to the AE noticeboard or to the Arbitration Committee. Sandstein 17:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about the reversions. I've only just realised that the page no longer exists. I wouldn't agree that it should no longer exist. But I missed the debate so that's moot. However, the decision seems ton have been "merge", not "delete". Is this correct? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 22:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response. Saving those of us on the front lines from more work picking up after this fellow. Bah. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 22:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
It was closed as moot due to IHAMD being checkuser blocked with technical evidence; however, the editor was subsequently unblocked (due to identity confirmed), and therefore this thread should be reopened. I will reopen this shortly. I am leaving this note here because you were involved in the discussion regarding what to do about the editor. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 18:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm reading ambiguity about the scope of IHAMD's TBAN: is it (1) BLP articles related to climate change (using the logical AND) or (2) BLP articles, as well as climate change articles (using the logical OR)? - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 14:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ZeroesAndOnes/Archive
I am definitely not a sock puppet account. I AM however a user of the software Feith. I was made aware of the possible deletion of the article so I chimed in. I don't actively contribute to wikipedia and I still don't understand why the page was deleted as compared to other business pages in the same type of business. Maybe the page was too commercial, I don't know.
Scvff ( talk) 18:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Should this subject have its own article? It currently redirects to Geographical indications and traditional specialities in the European Union but I am not seeing it well covered there on first glance. There is an article for Fracne's Appellation d'origine contrôlée and the respective organizations in the U.S. Came across the issue starting an article on Pain de seigle valaisan. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 17:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I am not an editor, just a thankful Wikipedia user. I would like access to a page on John Michael Greer that you deleted. I am not the creator of the page, but I need to review this page for research purposes. And no, I am not John Michael Greer, nor am I a member of the large 100-year old religious order that he heads. I am not even acquainted with Mr. Greer other than through his works and the frequent citation of his works.
As I understand the page was deleted because editors were unaware of his "notability." Before I attempt to quantify Mr. Greer's "notability," in short, if you were to ask 10 people who were familiar with Peak Oil who the "most notable" current peak oil theorist was, Greer, along with James Kunstler (who has a wiki page) would be one of the most common responses. But if you were to ask people familiar with occultism who the "most notable" living occultist was, they would all name Mr. Greer.
Within the Peak Oil community his "notability" has made him one of the most sought-after keynote speakers, including keynote addresses at: 5th Peak Oil and Community Solutions Conference, Great Lakes Bioneers Conference, Chicago Bioneers, Greensong, etc.
As you are aware, the purpose of a "Keynote" address is to "establish a key underlying theme for an event" Mr. Greer's ideas have certainly helped "establish the key underlying themes" within peak oil and certain environmental circles (especially those associated with "deep ecology" opposed to the new "bright green" environmentalism. This can be demonstrated by his inclusion as the "keynote" piece in the first Dark Mountain Project http://dark-mountain.net/mountaineers/john-michael-greer/
This "Dark Mountain Project" was the primary contribution of the certainly less notable Paul Kingsnorth, who has a wikipedia page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kingsnorth
This search will verify a long list of environmental and peak oil groups where he has recently been the keynote speaker: https://www.google.com/search?q=John+Michael+Greer+keynote&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Clearly, quite a broad audience of people consider him noteworthy enough to set the agenda for their conferences and festivals, and his celebrity within these communities is considered good publicity!
The reason for this notability is that he is the originator and foremost proponent of a "long decline" theory in opposition to the "crash" scenarios proposed by Kunstler. Mr. Greer's contribution has been so profound that the "long decline" scenario has become the most common view and even Kunstler has changed his predictions considerably to follow Greer's. This theory has become one of the most sited underlying tenants of "deep ecology" influenced environmentalism as well.
It seems quite impossible to assert that Mr. Greer is not "noteworthy" within this field when he is a perennial keynote speaker and even has books written about him by some of the other most noteworthy people in the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.26.161 ( talk) 16:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
In addition, he is an extremely prolific author of more than 30 published books, some of which are best-sellers within their genres: http://www.amazon.com/John-Michael-Greer/e/B001IOFELW
In terms of his contribution to occultism, he has authored some of the best selling and most influential recent books on the topic, including the New Encyclopedia of the Occult. In addition, he is the appointed head of a large initiate religious order with a history that goes back a century. http://aoda.org/AODA_History.html
This is not, as was suggested, a self-appointed, "meaningless," or "made up" role.
Thank you for your consideration. I hope you will promptly return this page. 97.83.26.161 ( talk) 15:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
97.83.26.161 (
talk) 15:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The deletion was decided by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Michael Greer. If you want this result overturned, the best way to go about it is to produce references to reliable independent sources about Greer that weren't already mentioned in the discussion. Sandstein 16:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I could pretty easily find many more citations and references, but would this be a start? (Note, I tried to avoid the citations such as by library associations, which were included in the discussion)
John Michael Greer is an American author, blogger and speaker, most notably on the topics of Peak Oil, Resource Depletion, and Occult spiritual practice. Mr. Greer has been a contributing author throughout the Peak Oil Community, including The Oil Drum ( http://www.theoildrum.com/tag/john_michael_greer) zero hedge ( http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-11/guest-post-john-michael-greer-if-four-horsemen-arrive-offer-beer) and resilience.org.
Mr. Greer's works are frequently cited, recommended and discussed by peak oil experts, organizations, and publications, such as the Transition Towns (network) ( http://transitionvoice.com/2011/11/transition-plans-meetings-a-waste-of-time-says-greer/) and James Howard Kunstler ( http://kunstlercast.com/tag/john-michael-greer)
He has become influential lecturer, delivering keynote addresses for organizations including the Bioneers ( http://bioneerschicago.org/category/2013-saturday/) and the Greensong Festival. ( http://www.greensongfestival.org/keynote.html)
His recent books include the wealth of nature reviews: 1. http://transitionvoice.com/2011/09/adam-smith-got-it-way-way-wrong/ 2. http://www.earthtimes.org/going-green/wealth-nature-new-book-john-michael-greer/1085/ 3. http://www.resilience.org/stories/2011-12-07/review-wealth-nature-john-michael-greer 4. http://www.alternativesjournal.ca/community/reviews/wealth-nature
and the Blood of the Earth reviews: 1. http://www.bookslut.com/blog/archives/2014_01.php#020489 2. http://dgrnewsservice.org/2012/05/04/book-review-the-blood-of-the-earth/ 3. http://www.rootsimple.com/2012/10/book-review-the-blood-of-the-earth-an-essay-on-magic-and-peak-oil/
In 2003, Mr. Greer was elected the 7th head of the Ancient Order of Druids, the AODA http://aoda.org/AODA_History.html He has published many books on the occult. 97.83.26.161 ( talk) 20:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I believe all or most of these citations are appropriate for the claims they support. I have read and used the guidelines in providing you sources.
I would assume that Greer would fall under the category of "creative professionals," and that references showing that he is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers" would suffice. Greer meets the criteria in a ROBUST way. I can and have provided many references, including those with editorial oversight. I specifically selected sources that would meet the criteria, including "significant" sources with wikipedia pages themselves. An example given of an appropriate source is that of Slashdot. In no way is Slashdot substantively different as a source than The Oil Drum. Greer is frequently mentioned in print media and in books that have Wikipedia pages, but I thought it easier to provide easily verifiable online sources. In addition, Greer meets the criteria as the author of books which are widely discussed. I provided references for that, but I could provide HUNDREDS more.
Truly, I'm a professional in this field. Greer is discussed by 3rd parties ALL THE TIME. It would be very unusual to hear a discussion of Post Industrial Future within this community and NOT hear Greer referenced or quoted. Really, omitting Greer in such a discussion would be cause to question credibility. 97.83.26.161 ( talk) 21:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Out of context, would you like some 3rd party references to Greer? There are several above, but I could provide more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.26.161 ( talk) 20:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Thought I'd add another discussion of Greer's work from the publication of the Post Carbon Institute http://dev.energybulletin.net/50751 Again, not a personal blog, has an editorial board, is a "notable" organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.26.161 ( talk) 21:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
And here by Skyscript, founded by Deborah Houlding http://www.skyscript.co.uk/rev_geomancy.html 97.83.26.161 ( talk) 21:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
And another 3rd party discussion of his work in Patheos http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wildhunt/2012/07/guest-post-the-blood-of-the-earth.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.26.161 ( talk) 21:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
And more, frequently these citations actually point out how famous and influential Greer is in Peak Oil circles. "Famous for his Archdruid Report, John Michael Greer is one of the most clear-sighted of authors who are grappling with the multiple crises..." http://www.earthtimes.org/going-green/wealth-nature-new-book-john-michael-greer/1085/ Again, Earthtimes is not a personal blog, but an online magazine. And here Transition Voice, another online magazine assumes that its readers would be familiar with Greer. http://transitionvoice.com/2010/11/greer-finds-power-in-nature-spirituality/ And here at Transition US: http://transitionvoice.com/2010/11/greer-finds-power-in-nature-spirituality/ 97.83.26.161 ( talk) 21:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
(note, corrected some links including the Skyscript link.) 97.83.26.161 ( talk) 22:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Reviewed in Plenty: http://www.plentymag.com/magazine/reviews_green_media.php?page=2 Popular Anthropology Magazine: http://popanthro.org/ojs/index.php/popanthro/article/view/32 And here a response to Greer's ideas by Oil Drum founder Sharon Astyk: http://www.resilience.org/stories/2010-02-11/pick-your-hat-response-john-michael-greer 97.83.26.161 ( talk) 22:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Much appreciated. I think I will leave it to your judgement (or to someone with more time to devote to Wikipedia.) I actually don't disagree that the sources are "fringy." However, the sources I chose ARE the leading sources, organizations, and experts on Peak Oil as cited in Wikipedia's Peak Oil article, and as I have demonstrated, Greer is a constant topic of discussion among those leading sources, organizations, and experts. This is not exactly an "academic" field of study with peer-reviewed journals. Nor are the subtleties of Peak Oil theory the topic of mainstream media attention. And when Greer is mentioned in mainstream media outlets, it is by less-than-reliable sources, like Glen Beck: http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/11/12/glenn-live-like-people-determined-to-be-free/ It could even be that the whole topic of Peak Oil is too fringy to merit a Wikipedia page, but Greer's contributions have fundamentally changed the discussions within that community. As the links above show, it is increasingly becoming the case that one can no longer have an in-depth discussion of Peak Oil--both as an environmental topic and as a social phenomenon--without mentioning Greer.
Anyway, this has given me insight into how much work goes into maintaining Wikipedia. Sincerely, thanks for doing it. 97.83.26.161 ( talk) 14:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The appeal of your enforcement action has been declined. The comments made by the arbitrators may be useful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee, Rs chen 7754 20:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Lecen Cambalachero ( talk) 21:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Sandstein, I'm sure you don't care about what I have to say and I am sure you think I hate you. I don't and I wanted to clarify that. I do think you are too heavy fisted when it comes to AE and sanctions. In a lot of the cases you are, IMO, much to fast to jump to exteremes and particularly lengthy blocks or bans. Wikipedia admins need to be fair and unfortunately I don't think you, with your block them and foget them mentality is healthy for the project. So although I have mentioned your name several times in discussions I wanted you to know that I don't think you are a bad person, I just think you are too extreme in your use of the block button and that sort of behavior isn't beneficial to the project or to the reputations of the admin group as a whole. Kumioko ( talk) 17:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if he was still under a ban from everything related to Armenia and Georgia, because he has been editing articles on Georgia. -- Երևանցի talk 00:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
You blocked User:NinaGreen for edits in violation of her topic ban on the Shakespearean authorship question. (I haven't reviewed the details of what she edited, but the Groatsworth is only significant in modern times because of its reference to Shakespeare.) An IP address has posted to WP:ANI complaining about the block. I have filed a sock-puppet investigation request. Although editing logged out is often simply a mistake, editing logged out when blocked is more typically a form of block evasion. I don't know if you are interested or would prefer to let other admins look into the issue. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, she has been discussing her issues with the complexity and unfairness of Discretionary sanctions, but she wasn't topic-banned by Arbitration Enforcement under the discretionary sanctions, but in the original decision by the ArbCom. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Sandstein, can I edit sport section of Azerbaijan article? Just want to clarify with you as you put ban on me shown in here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:ARBAA2 Just to be clear, I just want to add few little details, that's not related to political problems between Azerbaijan and Armenia.-- NovaSkola ( talk) 02:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)