User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2008/January

Talkheader

Hey Sandstein,

Could i copy your talkheader script to my user talkpage i'm wanting to modify it for my talk page. →Yun-Yuuzhan→ 13:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. All text on Wikipedia is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Sandstein (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. →Yun-Yuuzhan→ 13:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shake (cannabis)

I have nominated Shake (cannabis) for deletion, an article you've edited. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shake (cannabis). Zenwhat (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've no objections to deleting this article. Sandstein (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your review of the controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. It will do a lot of good, I think.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(PS there is something wrong with your "click here to start new discussion" link, I think.)--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I fixed the bug. Sandstein (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Pakistanphobia

Hello, while the term "Pakistanphobia" is a neologisms, anti-Pakistani sentiment has been used in reliable sources. See [1], [2], [3], [4][5], [6]. Please reconsider the deletion, and I can post more sources if you like. Noor Aalam (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide links to the article(s) or AfD(s) at issue. Thanks. Sandstein (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistanphobia. Noor Aalam (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, these sources mention "anti-Pakistan sentiment", but in very different contexts, and they do not at all discuss it as a concept. As such, these sources do not provide the basis of a verifiable, non-original-research article without running into WP:SYNTH or WP:COATRACK problems. I'm not ready to reevaluate the AfD on that basis. Sandstein (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

You missed a few. As near as I can tell, eight other users have that same userbox.

• Mohammad adil
• Aisha uk
• Mrizwankhan
• Enlil Ninlil
• Yahussain
• Arab League
• Eshay
• Eleland

The last user added the box to make a point. IrishGuy ^talk 00:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. These have been taken care of now. Sandstein (talk) 08:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok I see, I understand. If I see any other biased userboxes than I too will ask for them to be deleted as being biased. And maybe they will offend me. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Technical administrative question, and request for action

If a user opens an account, but then edits without logging in, and violates several Wikipedia's rules for which the IP address gets block, can he then log back in to his previous account and continue to edit, or will the blockage of an IP prevent him/her of logging in to the account created prior to the blockage?

I am asking this because 201.218.79.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), making spurious claims that Argentina is a developed nation rivaling European countries, after being reverted, violated WP:3RR (he has reverted by three users, but he kept on reverting 8 times); developed a theory by engaging in WP:OR at Talk:Argentina#Developed country, was warned by three users to stop, and his account was blocked. A few hours later Cocoliras (talk · contribs), using the same arguments (and even claiming that the ideas of "dual economies", originally pushed by the anon, were his ideas), reverted the article once again. Not only has he used the same arguments, but he has the exact same history of edits (focused on Argentina, North America and Panama City. The anon user also engaged in an edit war and violated 3RR in North America, and Cololiras is repeating the same pattern of behavior there too.

I was considering making a notice of possible sock puppetry, but I wanted to make sure that technically it is possible to log in to a previously opened account before the blockage of the IP. (Although it is also possible that the user is logging in from different location; the pattern of behavior is strikingly identical). Please advise. --the Dúnadan 23:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the block type. In this case, you can see from the block log that 201.218.79.62 was blocked as "anon. only, account creation blocked". This means that a user account could edit from this address even while the address was blocked. Sandstein (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Block rejection

Sandstein,

I would like to personally appeal to you to overturn the unblock application you rejected for User:Freedomfighter1112. As I have stated previously, this user was blocked as a result of a spat between myself and User:ChrisCh. Freedomfighter1112 was unfortunately caught-in-the-middle during this spat for stating their own opinion and as a result I was labelled a sockpuppeter and he/she was labelled a sub-account of a sockpuppeter. By simply viewing Freedomfighter1112's contributions, their FIRST edit resulted them in being indefinitely blocked. While Wikipedia is not a democracy (it is neither a tyranny or anarchy also) I would personally feel if I were in their situation, I had been judged very harshly. - one simple statement, and indefinitely banned. You, as an administrator, would understand how the Wikipedia Community help each other out with contributions; however, this ban against Freedomfighter1112 has tarnished this user's view on the Wikipedia Community. So I plead to you, please overturn this user's ban; this user has been treated extremely harsh as a result of the spat between myself and ChrisCh and has unfairly been treated.

Sincerely Yours,

Australia2world (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

N Appeal declined. A brief review of the contributions of yourself and Freedomfighter1112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) makes it very evident indeed that the latter is a sock- or meatpuppet of yours. A genuinely new user would not have made these contributions. Be advised that any further sockpuppetry or disruptive activity on your part may lead to yourself being indefinitely blocked. Sandstein (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Intended purpose of Template:IPsock

What specifically, do you believe the intended purpose of this template to be? It is _not_ merely to identify any connection between a user and an IP, no more than it would be appropriate to tag User:Sandstein II with {{sockpuppet}} and your main userpage with {{sockpuppeteer}}. It's, quite plainly, a black mark, and I've seen no convincing evidence that it is deserved. —Random832 16:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The intended purpose of this template is to mark the evasion of a block or ban by an editor so sanctioned. This is a discussion probably better suited to Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:IPsock. Sandstein (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw no evidence that the user had actually evaded any block or ban. —Random832 22:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Which user was that again? Sandstein (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My post was related to a protected edit request you declined on User talk:67.135.49.177. Sorry for not making that clear. —Random832 17:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, currently User:67.135.49.177 says that it has been used to evade the block of Jinxmchue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Looks useful enough to me. Sandstein (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Threats

Sandstein, this is clearly crossing over the line. You're threatening to edit and then "protect" somebody's userpage over content which has absolutely not been shown to be offensive to the wider community. You were the first person to comment on the revised suggestion, "This user supports the political wing of Hezbollah," yet you took it upon yourself to decide what the community thought about it. <eleland/talkedits> 23:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The enforcement of policies, including WP:UP and WP:NOT, is my job as admin. If you want a community discussion about this box, you can create it as a userspace template and we can discuss its appropriateness in a MfD. Sandstein (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

... that is, unless the template meets WP:CSD#T1/WP:CSD#G10, where policy empowers admins to make unilateral content decisions of this sort. Sandstein (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

my username...

about my username...

i understand your point of view, but i dont agree with it, please tell me why is my username as Arab League might cause problems in Wikipedia??

especially that all links to my name will include user:Arab League rather then simply Arab League ..

the username Arab League , i have used it since i started using wikipedia, lots of people know me by that name, and i have also used it in other political forums, im pretty sure people will be able to tell the diference between my Arab League username and the organization, plus the organization is actually called League of Arab States and not Arab League...

im not sure what exactly your message asked me to do... but can you please inform me where i can formally discuss this, i mean if you still find it a problem...

thank you, and happy new year... Ma assalama (peace be with you) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arab League (talk • contribs) 20:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Tomkraft.at

This seems to be a good faith user who has been editing for almost a year. The point of blocking usernames that look like URLs is because they are often used for spam. This is clearly not the case here and I have unblocked him. Please be more careful in checking contributions before blocking. Mr.Z-man 11:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The username corresponds to http://www.tomkraft.at, and such usernames are routinely blocked as promotional. The actual contributions of the user are irrelevant. Please do not undo any more blocks without requesting the opinion of the blocking administrator, as detailed in WP:APB. Sandstein (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, we block if they are trying to promote something or they are brand new. This was a good faith user making helpful edits for almost a year. In such cases, you should ask the user first using {{Uw-username}} or a personal message. Mr.Z-man 21:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right in this respect, but you should not have unblocked him unilaterally without at least requesting that he agree to change his username. Sandstein (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:USERNAME - "Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited" If you would like to make that request you are more than welcome to, but since he is doing nothing wrong, I saw no reason to make the unblock conditional. Mr.Z-man 21:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocking of newbee and fair play

Hi I just had a look of the blocking of newbee Twpx who asked me to look at a debate. It appears that he had little guidance about the rules, and that he was blocked when he made a technical error in an edit war which was, according to him, mainly because he "merely restored what was deleted. Since the deletion came first, the deletions must have first violated the multiple update rule first whether individually or deceptively acting in tandem."

I have not checked the edit history to see if that is true or nearly true. But if so, please give him good advice how to deal with such a situation instead of just confirming a block (perhaps he should go for Rfc?

Also, if his accusation about the edit war against him is correct, then why was the other party not equally blocked? Fair play must be enforced.

Regards, Harald88 (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the user, in the following form: {{userlinks|Username}}. Sandstein (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:TwPx

I don't request him to be unblocked before due time (1 week isn't long), but to be kind to inexperienced contributors.

Regards, Harald88 (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I see no need for intervention here. The user has received ample warnings with links to the applicable policies. There are no "technical errors" in an edit war; all edit warring is prohibited. You are free to give the user any advice that may be required (our page about dealing with disputes is at WP:DR). Also, we don't block users for "fairness", only to stop disruption. If you think the other user must be blocked right now to stop ongoing disruption, you may report him at WP:AIV or WP:ANI. Sandstein (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of receiving a standard Welcome with Good Advice, he was just attacked by everyone, even (as far as I can see) by administrators. OK then, I'll take the role of welcoming him appropriately to Wikipedia and also copy your suggestion (HE thinks the other user should be blocked) to his page. Often it's the shrewd ones that are most skilled to make the rules work in their favour...

Regards, Harald88 (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)