Jump to content

User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2015/April

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Space Cadet

This user came to my attention when he made an edit that seemed rather odd (and disruptive) regarding a German scientist's PhD and with a comment that also seemed rather odd.[1] I then learned that you have in fact indefinitely banned him from "the topic of Germany and Germans, broadly construed"[2] and that he has been engaging in this sort of disruptive editing for more than a decade. His recent edit seems to be in violation of this ban, so I thought I should bring this to your attention. Bjerrebæk (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, weird, that. Blocked for a week.  Sandstein  18:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Strike that, unblocked again. I didn't notice that this was in fact a self-revert.  Sandstein  18:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
But seriously now, can I correct such minor stuff like "phd → PhD" and other simple, non-controversial stuff (and non-disruptive, might I add), or rather not? Space Cadet (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
No, a topic ban means that you may not edit any pages related to the topic.  Sandstein  10:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

An AfD you closed as delete

Hi Sandstein, I just ran across this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlatsa Resources Corporation, which you closed as delete. The title however has been redirected to a recreated article: Atlatsa Resources. I'd like to have you, Kudpung (who commented in the AfD about a slew of these articles), and possibly Davidwr (who nominated the article but seems semi-retired now), assess that article and also the other standing articles that ReganChai created. If you would. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

  • General response to both Sandstein and Davidwr (and Kudpung and anybody else if interested; by the way Tryptofish is on a Wikibreak): I myself don't personally have time to look at the individual articles (or editors). However it seems that a cursory glance by anybody can tell whether any given one of them has at least a couple of independent significant-coverage write-ups in WP:RSs as citations, and if not then nominate them at AfD. I don't see any problem with nominating them, because if in fact they do turn out to be notable, the editors !voting at AfD will figure that out. As to whether these articles were submitted in (somewhat) good faith as homework assignments, or whether there was some COI going on -- I am troubled by the fact that, for one thing, ReganChai seems like a sockpuppet of MeganKing, both in name and in the re-posting of at least one deleted AfDed article. In any case, it's all troublesome and it wouldn't even hurt if the whole group of articles were AfDed -- at least it would get more eyes on them. Softlavender (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I take the editors' claims that this was a class project at face value. In any collaboration of this type, you are going to have some instances where collaborators "go to bat" for each other. This is not sock-puppetry. At worst, it is intentional meat-puppetry (and by intentional, I mean intentionally "going to bat" for each other for the purpose of putting their own collective agenda ahead of Wikipedia's), but it is much more likely to be "unintentional" - that is, it is much more likely to be collaboration combined with an incomplete understanding of Wikipedia's goals, resulting in the appearance of intentionally-disruptive meat-puppetry. If memory serves (and it has been awhile, so the memory is hazy), I got the sense that at least some of these editors, perhaps even most, didn't quite "get" the purpose of Wikipedia. If they didn't "get" the purpose of Wikipedia, it's hard to claim that they were deliberately trying to sabotage that purpose. Having said all of that, the articles should be reviewed and should stand or fall on their own merits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

An AE question

Question is that when an editor is appealing the topic ban on his own user-talk page, because it has been actively observed by the enforcing admin, the same editor is allowed to talk about the content of the article in those particular appeal messages that fall under the enforced topic ban? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

In my view, only to the extent that it is necessary for the purpose of the appeal. That is, if you are banned from X, you may say in your statement of appeal that "I am an expert about X and therefore should be allowed to edit about it", but not "unban me now, and by the way, X is a vile abomination that needs to be eradicated from Wikipedia!". See generally WP:BANEX.  Sandstein  08:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

IP vandals

86.168.193.197 who you recently blocked is the same as 86.159.94.13 (blocked for a month) and 86.168.194.64 (sitting in the AIV queue for the last three hours with no action). I have no idea why they keep vandalizing those same articles or what to do about it to stop them. Helpsome (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Third one now also blocked. Perhaps somebody with a mental or similar disorder and a knowledge of how to IP-hop, there are apparently a few WP:LTA cases of this sort. Nothing to do but report and block.  Sandstein  19:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you

Kitten - 03
 Thanks
Hi Sandstein, you recently closed a couple of afds with no consensus - [3] and [4]. Just a word of thanks for all the work that you administrators do for the wikiverse Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!  Sandstein  16:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Brogrammer

I was wondering what your rationale was behind the no consensus closure on Brogrammer. By my count there were 10 Delete, 8 keep, 1 weak keep, and 8 open to a merge possibility. I could see not counting 1 of the deletes as it was by an IP address, and I wouldn't count the weak keep. So that would be 9 delete, 8 keep. I thought the delete side cited a lot more guidelines/policy and had better arguments (though I can't really judge that without bias as I was the nominator and agreed with that side). Anyhow, I was just curious if you had any further thoughts/reasoning on the closure as you didn't leave any comments on the AFD page. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure. It's pretty clear that there's no consensus numerically, so I need to check whether one side's argument is clearly more convincing in terms of policies and guidelines. I don't think that's the case. This is a typical case of a topic that has acquired a catchy moniker but is also part of a larger issue already covered by other articles. In these cases, it's really a matter of editorial judgment whether we cover it separately or in the context of another article, and whether this word is just a dictionary definition or a cultural topic going beyond that. That's not something that can be decided by applying policy in black-and-white manner. As it is, views are about equally divided, with valid arguments made on both sides, and I can't find a consensus to delete or merge, so the article is kept by default.  Sandstein  20:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hadiths

May I make a comment on your ruling regarding AdF "Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi?" Even if not, please read my comment @ [AdF Hadith Persian]. I hope it's better quality than that other discussion, and it touches on WHY that discussion wasn't so good. Regards Tapered (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input.  Sandstein  10:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Contravention of topic ban by Nado158

G'day Sandstein, I haven't had much to do with Nado158, but when I checked his user talk page history I noticed an ARBMAC topic ban on anything to do with Serbia. He just removed mention of the Chetniks that were involved in the Kozara Offensive alongside Axis troops, here, with an edit summary "No Chetniks". This is factually incorrect, the involvement of the Chetniks led by Rade Radic in this offensive is comprehensively documented in the academic literature. As far as I am concerned, Chetniks (being almost all Serbs) would be included in Nado158's ban. Over to you though to take whatever action you see fit, as the banning admin. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, but enforcement requests should be made at WP:AE, where there is a structured environment for discussion.  Sandstein  10:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Copy. I should know that. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Notify user of AA2 restrictions

User:Karak1lc1k appears to have a problem editing on Wikipedia. Said user has edit warred on two articles(Qajar dynasty, Russo-Turkish War (1676–81)) to include/change information to his liking. After the initial revertion by Karak1lc1k, I started discussions on both articles' talk pages.[5][6] I then posted a 3rr warning and notification of discussions on user:Karak1lc1k's talk page,[7] which he subsequently changed to a personal attack(ie. "A pathetic Anti-Turkist's pathetic Anti-Turkism struggle").[8]

Today, I noticed that user:Karak1lc1k, again, re-added "Decisive Ottoman victory" to the Russo-Turkish War (1676–81) article, without bothering to engage in the discussion.[9] He was reverted by Ghirlandajo.[10]

I believe, the continued edit warring, ignoring any discussion on the talk page(s) and outright personal attacks at another editor, are sufficient grounds for user:Karak1lc1k to be notified of AA2 editing restrictions. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but you can do that. See WP:AC/DS for how to.  Sandstein  20:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
It would not be seen as exacerbating the situation? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I simply place the {{Ds/alert}} on their talk page? Or does there need to be something else for AA2? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I can't say how it might be seen in this case, but in theory this is a neutral notification which anybody can make. You need to use the Ds/alert template with the proper code, yes, if this conduct is indeed within the scope of that case, which I haven't checked.  Sandstein  12:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

An impertinent question...

...which you should feel free to ignore if you wish: Was there a particular reason you stopped editing at AE? I've noticed that the process there is much slower than it was, with cases languishing for considerable periods of time, and I'm tempted to correlate that with your not being around to move things along. I'd like to suggest that, if possible, you return to editing there if you can -- I think it would be a very useful thing. BMK (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, no problem. I stopped editing at AE for the moment because it felt increasingly exhausting and time-consuming, perhaps also as a result of my impression of increasing bureaucratic requirements and increasing expectations by some of discussion and consensus instead of individual admin actions. As a consequence I decided to focus my Wikipedia editing on topic areas that, to me, feel more fulfilling. I may in the future return to contributing at AE, but at the moment I don't plan on it. Regards,  Sandstein  09:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I too believe that you should come back to it. IMO you are/were the best admin at AE. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@Sandstein:I can certainly understand what you're saying. Still, I hope you'll be able to go back to AE at some point, where I (for one) very much appreciated your contribution. BMK (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - I appreciate your feedback. Regards,  Sandstein  10:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Sandstein. Your absence from AE is noted. WP:AE works better when more admins are participating. In my opinion there is no need to wait for consensus before taking action in blatant cases. Sometimes people may wait for consensus just because they don't feel strongly enough to act on their own. That's not a bar to someone else going ahead. The appeal process ought to be sufficient to limit anything that goes too far. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I know that's how it ought to work in theory, but my experiences over several years indicate that AE, like all of our disciplinary processes, in practice does often not work effectively (or not without inordinate effort) when applied to ill-behaved but popular users, and I profoundly dislike systems with rules that can't be enforced equally. It's also, in the most recent incarnation of discretionary sanctions, bureaucratic overkill when applied to many of the rest of AE's clientele, i.e., run-of-the-mill POV-pusher trolls with no friends. So right now I don't feel it's worth investing my free time in, but the experience of others may differ - and besides, no process ought to depend on a few individuals.  Sandstein  17:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
You know, Sandstein, I disagreed with a lot of your AE decisions which, at the time, I thought were too quickly decided and overly harsh. But you were very effective at the noticeboard. Now cases at AE can linger on weeks, not days and even though I might have a different opinion on you about enforcement, I now appreciate your decisiveness and willingness to make what might be unpopular decisions. By the way, a light admin presence at AE is especially acute but it is noticeable at ANI as well. It could be that admins want to work in less confrontational areas of the project or the ones who made the tough decisions have retired, I'm not sure. Probably a bit of both. Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for this feedback. I've entirely given up on ANI because of its chaotic and unstructured environment, where any controversial issue devolves into a shouting match and where even if an admin decides to take action, any other admin can overrule them at will by undoing a block or other action. Such a mess of a working environment is, in my view, not worth anyone's time.  Sandstein  12:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

GAB

Well, I've seen that excuse in a few unblocks recently, like I said, but if you don't want to have it, that's fine. Origamiteⓣⓒ 15:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, not every stupid unblock request needs to be listed, just enough to get across what we understand by "bad" requests. In this case, with this topic, better err on the side of caution.  Sandstein  18:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Green tickY Understood. Origamiteⓣⓒ 18:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Edits to The Hugo Awards page

Recently you deleted an edit I made to the Hugo Award page saying that I can't post original research. Okay, I can respect that you feel that even though I've been involved in the Sad Puppies campaign, I may not be an unbiased source able to post what actually happened. Apparently though, you will allow actual liars to post whatever they want about as long as they can find a bit of Yellow Journalism that supports their perspective. You should know that Larry Correia, the originator of the Sad Puppies 1 through 3, is pursuing legal action for libel against many of the quoted sources in your accepted edit. At the very least, you should note that the Hugo Award page has issues, and stop allowing the libelous, incorrect characterizations of Sad Puppy supporters that is being advanced on your supposedly non-partisan, scholarly endeavor. I know that Larry Correia, and Brad Torgersen are not angry white, misogynistic racists, yet you are allowing them to be portrayed worldwide as if they are. Apparently Brad Torgersen hates people of color so much, that he decided more than twenty years ago that he would marry a black woman and have black children, just in case he should some day need a "shield" for his overt racism. And Larry Correia? He ticks the Hispanic box on EEOC forms as a Portuguese person. Yes, they seem so racist to me also... Robsteeler66 (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[1]

It's not clear to me which sources exactly you refer to, but I suggest that you identify them and propose any possible improvements at the article talk page, Talk:Hugo Award. I also don't get the point about racism, as our article doesn't make any allegations of such. By the way, alleging libel on Wikipedia can be interpreted as a legal threat, which can cause problems.  Sandstein  20:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, if you are personally involved in an issue, that's exactly the reason why you should not edit articles about it. See, in this regard, WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Also, Wikipedia does not recognize personal experiences as sources, but only reliable publications, see WP:V.  Sandstein  20:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://archive.today/0NH1i

WP:ANRFC and a couple requests

First, I want to thank you for all of the time that you have put in at WP:ANRFC. You are moving right along, and I think that is wonderful. I wish there were more people willing to spend a little time managing that board. Second, I'm wondering if I can convince you to add |done=yes someplace in the {{Initiated}} template call when you mark a section as done. Doing this will make the automatic categorization work correctly and prevent the archive page from showing up in the categories. Finally, I was wondering if I could convince you to update your signature to HTML5 standards. If you are interested and willing to do this, I suggest replacing: 

<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</span>]]</span></small>
with:
<small style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<b style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;</b>]]</small>
which will result in a 165 character long signature (26 characters shorter) with an appearance of:  Sandstein 
compared to your existing 191 character long signature of:  Sandstein 
— Either way. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Noman Group of Industries

Your handle is on the AfD page showing "Delete," but the article is still available. Tapered (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm relatively new to AfD, and now realized that 'Noman' was just reposted and almost immediately tagged for "Proposed Deletion." In addition [[11]] was created, and again, nominated for "Proposed Deletion." Would it be ethical to remove the 'proposed deletion' tags and AfD both these articles, where some administrator could, perhaps, delete both quickly on grounds that the creator/editor of both articles is floutng concensus by reposting so quickly? Regards Tapered (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I declined the speedy deletion of Noman Group of Industries, because it had more sources than the deleted version. However, anybody can renominate it for deletion if they think the new version is also not indicative of notability. As to Noman Terry Towel Mills Limited, that's a separate issue. If PROD fails, then it can be nominated normally for deletion.  Sandstein  08:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The ongoing AfD has shown that there was a prior AfD closed as delete. Thus, ongoing AfD notwithstanding, this is a (presumed) re-creation of the prior text. Unless you can see differently. Fiddle Faddle 15:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the recreated version is different from the deleted one, which rules out speedy deletion.  Sandstein  16:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. There ought to be a better way of noting this for us non admins :) Fiddle Faddle 16:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
There is - the log.  Sandstein  17:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

T-Ban question

Minor edits, that are made by the hands(no automation) are also considered as T-Ban violation? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes.  Sandstein  08:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Then would you like to look into one T-Ban violation? This edit violates the DS of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan. I had reported this issue at AN, no admin seems to have taken it up. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't react to a request like this, either - there isn't even a link to the ban supposedly violated. Also, requests concerning discretionary sanctions belong at WP:AE.  Sandstein  17:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
That's far better, I would rather move this to AE. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

One more. If an admin has voted for I-Ban on AN/I, is he allowed to take any AE enforcements against these 2 users in question? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

There are no votes at WP:AE or on WP:AN/I. An admin may impose a sanction if they are not involved in a dispute with the other user, see WP:INVOLVED.  Sandstein  08:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Voting like "Support Iban - ............" now that would be considered as WP:INVOLVED? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Not in my view, no.  Sandstein  17:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Concern

I am confident that I am being wikihounded by an admin, who has not only commented on a user talk page where he had never commented before, but he commented on something where he wasn't even involved, he is not only making misrepresentation in his comment but also notifying a number of editors through {{ping|}} feature. This happened 2nd time today. Would you check? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

No. You're not providing any diffs or links, to start with, and I'm not the complaints department. I advise you to talk to the admin themselves, or to pursue dispute resolution as described in WP:DR.  Sandstein  18:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

India Earthquake of 1341

Would you be willing to restore India Earthquake of 1341 to my userspace? I'd like to try to get the article up to meet WP:V and WP:RS. Thank you. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem with that article is the apparent lack of reliable sources to make any content verifiable. I think that any recreation or userfication would not be helpful until relevant, reliable sources are found.  Sandstein  06:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I had hoped to use the sources on the deleted page as a starting point to do so. Even if you won't userfy the deleted version, could you give me the original sources from that article? I really don't care about or need the original text; the sources are all I actually want (I just figured userfying would be less work for you). Inks.LWC (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The sources are:[1][2][3][4] [5][6]  Sandstein  08:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.geosocindia.org/abstracts/2009/june/fullpapers/f5.pdf
  2. ^ "Historic Alleys". historicalleys.blogspot.in.
  3. ^ "Ukraine: Crimea Earthquake of 1341". Earthquakes.findthedata.com. Retrieved 2015-04-07.
  4. ^ http://www.stephenpoickattil.com/templates/Articles/Periyar.pdf
  5. ^ "A book on Kochi's rise at the cost of Muziris". The Hindu.
  6. ^ Reassessing the Earthquake Hazard in Kerala Based on the Historical and Current Seismicity — Paper by C.P. Rajendran, Biju John, K. Sreekumari And Kusala Rajendran In Journal Geological Society Of India.
Thank you! Inks.LWC (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Kirby Delauter

Sandstein, I'm sorry but that's a pretty horrible close. We finally got everyone to agree where to hold the discussion and we had it. If that's a NC close, then we should have the article. It is clear what the discussion was about. It is was well described what the purpose of the AfD was at the top of the AfD. The other admins involved wanted it this way. To claim, 3 weeks later, than everyone as wrong and there was no venue is just a horrible way to further kick down the road the whole issue. There are nearly no valid arguments for deletion and the entire thing has been out-of-process.

Further, the merits of the case are actually really clear. There are nearly no policy-based arguments for deletion that can stand up to the facts on the ground. Numerically there was consensus here to keep.

So, if you are going to insist that everyone else involved in the disussion was wrong about the venue, can you give an exact way to proceed and a promise that if we follow that way you will support the venue when the _next_ admin claims that too is the wrong venue? This entire thing has been an exercise in bureaucracy. There was never a consensus to delete nor was there ever a valid speedy criteria. Hobit (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I wrote in the closing statement what I believe the correct fora would be, depending on what one wishes to discuss. If you disagree with the original (speedy) deletion, that would need to be contested at WP:DRV. To add another complication: if the new draft is substantially different from the speedily deleted one, anybody can recreate the article with it, and if the only thing preventing this is the protection on the redirect, one can go to WP:RPP and ask for the protection to be lifted. But what you can't do is use AfD, a process intended to ask for the deletion of mainspace pages, to ask for the creation of an article - that turns the purpose of the process on its head. So far, the community has declined to unify all the xFD processes into a single "pages for discussion" scheme, which personally speaking might be a better idea, but as it is we're stuck with using the processes there are for their intended purposes.

All that aside, in this discussion, I can't find consensus for or against recreation. Opinions are roughly divided, and they are about such issues as BLP1E, which is a matter of individual judgment, and not something that I as the closer can decide by fiat. As always, if there's no consensus, the status quo doesn't change - meaning, in this case, that the article isn't recreated. Sorry.  Sandstein  06:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. There was a DRV, then an AN discussion. That AN discussion resulted in an agreement to go to AfD as the right venue. Jumping in and claiming that 3 or 4 weeks later everyone else had it wrong is probably non-optimal. And given that another admin kept relisting it, it's clear he didn't have a venue problem. After those relists we got 2 more folks wanting the draft restored. Pretty hard to see how that's a NC too. Ah well. Hobit (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I visit here because editor Hobit in this diff at my Talk page suggested that I look at the close and perhaps comment here. Sorry the following is a bit long, but I think this is important and it's worthwhile for me to explain my view properly.
First, I was not the one who "moved the Delauter discussion to AfD and out of AN"...that credit goes to Cunard for this diff opening a proper AfD (converting from a mere link to what I term the "informal AfD at wp:AN") and per Cunard's 17 March notice at the informal AfD that "I have started the AfD [at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby Delauter]". That created an unusual AFD calling for restoration/moving of a non-mainspace article TO mainspace. But the informal AfD was non-standard too. I supported Cunard's effort and tried to make the unusual AFD work ( by my edits at the top of the AFD trying to clarify the context, by my 17 March edit at WP:AN asserting the "informal Afd" at WP:AN was superseded by the new AFD discussion (per my indented notice at top of, and my statement at bottom of, the archived version of the "informal Afd"), and by my edits at Talk:Kirby Delauter during 17 March and 18 March seeking to create a "notice of AFD" in mainspace.
In my opinion (IMO) editors Cunard and Hobit are justified in being a bit frustrated. Cunard is "right" in complaining that "the admins involved cannot agree among themselves about where to discuss the article draft. One admin suggested an informal AfD. When this was taken to AfD, the closing admin then suggested taking this back to DRV. We've been discussing this since January 2015. Three months! / I'd rather not take this to yet another noticeboard for further discussion. This has been discussed enough already." (quoting from Cunard at Draft talk:Kirby Delauter#Move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter ).
But also I think Sandstein's close of the AFD as "no consensus" was reasonable too, at least in Sandstein's asserting that there's no action required by the unusual AFD. There was in fact disagreement within the AFD. And I think Sandstein's main assertion that there was not "a consensus on the merits" would be upheld in a deletion review; it would not be overturned at wp:DRV as unreasonable. Arguably there was no consensus on the merits either way, either to force the move of the Draft:Kirby Delauter article into mainspace, or to prevent the move. So in that sense I support Sandstein's close.
However I do disagree with Sandstein's secondary closing assertion, that "To the extent [the AFD was about the] page now at Draft:Kirby Delauter [(which it almost wholly was, IMO), then] it belongs ... at WP:DRV if restoration is desired." Rather, I think that the way forward for AFD-"Keep"-voters is different, and completely open: they may simply copy or move the Draft:Kirby Delauter article to mainspace. The "salting" (move-protection) by administrator Bishonen in this edit with summary "Protected Kirby Delauter: Needs protecting during AN discussion ([Edit=Allow only administrators (expires 15:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only administrators] (expires 15:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)"] has expired...it no longer applies. IMO anyone now can start a new mainspace article on Kirby Delauter, and it should not / will not be speedy-deleted as long as it is different and has improved upon the original version of Kirby Delauter article that was effectively deleted by Bishonen's redirection plus Bishonen's protection of the redirect, so that speedy-deletion reason G4: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" does not apply. IMO the draft is indeed different and improved. I tend to agree with Hobit's "Quick (biased) summary of the split !vote" posted 13:35, 25 March 2015, in the AFD, that the draft version was improved sufficiently that previously stated AFD-type objections are no longer justified. IMO the previous objections are certainly not obviously valid, and they certainly are not so extremely valid that Speedy deletion would be justified. (Of course any new article must not be an egregious violation of BLP policies (i.e. it must not be entirely unreferenced, and it must not be a wp:ATTACKPAGE for which speedy deletion by wp:G10 would apply. The draft version is completely supported by references and is not an unbalanced attack.)
So IMO anyone could right now re-create the Kirby Delauter article by copying the Draft:Kirby Delauter version over the redirect. (Simply copying the text would not achieve the history-merge that would be better, but only an administrator can perform that. But that's no problem: anyone can just do the copy and post a request for an administrator to perform the history-merge later.)
I would do that copying right now, myself, but it occurs to me that it could be even better to take one further set of steps first. I would prefer to create articles about the Frederick County's executive Jan H. Gardner and about some of Delauter's peer Frederick County council-members first, to reduce the possibility that Wikipedia could appear to be selective in covering Delauter but not others. It has been argued in the AFD and other discussions, that Delauter is just one of many Wikipedia-notable county-level council members. In the AFD, I suggested that the emerging Wikipedia notability standard may even be that "all county-level council-members and equivalents deserve articles, while not yet town-level councilors" (for the U.S. and for equivalents in Category:Subnational legislators world-wide). I don't want to create articles for all other equivalents to Delauter everywhere in the U.S. or in the world before re-creating the Delauter article. But it seems to me that creating articles for some Frederick County-equivalents first is sensible, just to convey/support publicly that we / Wikipedia deem that Wikipedia coverage of Delauter-equivalents is reasonable in general. (So watch: Draft:Jan H. Gardner, Jan H. Gardner, Draft: Bud Otis, Bud Otis, Draft:Billy Shreve, Billy Shreve, Draft:Jerry Donald, Jerry Donald, Draft:Tony Chmelik, Tony Chmelik,Draft:M.C. Keegan-Ayer, M.C. Keegan-Ayer, Draft:Jessica Fitzwater, Jessica Fitzwater. Hopefully some of these others will indeed prove to be Wikipedia-notable.)
In summary, IMO the separate AFD and its close with "no consensus" have been useful, and have cleared the way so that Kirby Delauter article can now be re-created. Any serious objections to the new article can be raised in a new, proper AFD, but IMO the draft version is good enough, and the sense of immediate crisis at wp:AN is now in the past, so it's conceivable that there may be no serious objections. --doncram 19:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I think I understand your explanation that there is no forum especially well suited to handle this issue, but I was wondering if you could comment on the merits of the article itself? Perhaps identifying what it is specifically lacking, or what it violates, exactly? Bangabandhu (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on the merits because the topic does not interest me at all. At first glance, this sort of very local political figure is often a borderline case in terms of notability and BLP1E, but I don't care enough to read the article and its sources and form an opinion.  Sandstein  10:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Just trying to understand your reasoning here. If the consensus on the previous discussion were restore, would you have allowed it? Or is the fact that the forum was inappropriate mean that consensus, even if reached, would be meaningless? Bangabandhu (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not my job as AfD closer to allow or disallow anything, only to find whether there's consensus in a discussion and for what. In this case, I found that there wasn't. But even if there had been consensus to restore the article, it wouldn't have been up to me what to do about it, because no admin tools are required for such a restoration.  Sandstein  08:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Closure request -

Hey Sand,

I'm looking for formal closure on this. Would you be willing?

If not, where does one request closure for this stuff? The closure board doesn't seem to have a section for informal polls of this nature. NickCT (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I recommend asking at WP:ANRFC under RfCs nonetheless. Although I'm not familiar with this topic, asking a specific admin to close a discussion may be more controversial than asking any admin.  Sandstein  17:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Will do. I thought asking you directly might be appropriate as I don't think you've ever weighed-in on this topic. NickCT (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Multiple IPs of blocked user

There has been for the past 2 months, a set of IPs, edit warring, removing references, removing referenced information and now removing other editors' talk page comments. I am formally asking for page protection for the following articles and their talk pages:

The IPs are either 106.x.x.x or 223.x.x.x. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Add this "new user", Shah439 who just removed my talk page comment.[12] --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, can you please ask at WP:RPP? They have the experts for protection issues there.  Sandstein  05:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Accidental deletion of Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev?

I suspect that you made a (big) mistake by deleting Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The article that should have been deleted was Tsarnaev family, not that one. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

No, that was a correct (automatic) deletion, because Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev redirected to the deleted article. See WP:G8.  Sandstein  19:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Maybe I haven't been paying attention for a while. Not so long ago, there weren't separate articles on each of the brothers. I guess there was a split, which makes sense. But there's still a lot of incoming links (for example, Portal:Current events/Sidebar has "[[Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev#Dzhokhar Tsarnaev|Dzhokhar Tsarnaev]]"). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I just redirected that to Boston Marathon bombings#Identification of suspects: Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Tsarnaev article history

Hi Sandstein. I missed the fact that Tsarnaev family was up for AfD, but the close seems correct; there's no way we should have an article about "Uncle Ruslan". However, because of the way that the three related Tsarnaev articles were created, there is currently a problem with attribution for the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev articles.

In short, the two individual articles on each of the brothers were split from the previous combined Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev article, and each of the new articles got an attribution template directing readers to the history of the original article for attribution. Then the Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev article was moved to Tsarnaev family, leaving a redirect, so the attribution templates still worked. You deleted Tsarnaev family per the AfD, then deleted Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev and some other redirects because the article they pointed to was deleted. Then another editor recreated Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev as a redirect to Boston Marathon bombings. The result is that the original article history that the split articles were based on is now gone, but the attribution templates don't reflect this.

Regardless of the current target for Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the original article history needs to be available somewhere to comply with licensing requirements. Also, the attribution templates for the split articles need to point to wherever that history is located. I realize that it's probably a huge pain to do that, but without the history we don't have the required attribution. Thanks in advance for seeing it gets taken care of. Also, I take it back, that's not "in short". Oh well. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I suppose, hypothetically, the article history of Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev could be restored underneath the current redirect, so that it's still a redirect but the old history is there for those who might look for it. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
That would be the simplest way, but I don't personally care where the history is, so long as it's ...somewhere. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've restored the history.  Sandstein  05:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Sorry you hit the "extra work" lottery on that one. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Markélla Marína Konstantínou

Hey, why did you delete Markélla Marína Konstantínou (Star Cyprus 2014) on wikipedia? Thank You.

Because that was the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markélla Marína Konstantínou.  Sandstein  11:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Kathmandu Durbar Square

Regarding my use of a copyrighted image on the above-named article, I have reverted to the state before the image was added.

This is to make the page similar to other pages of sites affected by the 2015 Nepal earthquake such as this one of the Dharahara tower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Essilfie (talk • contribs) 18:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Question about jurisdiction

Hi, Sandstein - quick question, if you are an admin on English Wikipedia, does the adminship also apply to other areas as well, such as the Dutch Wiki, Swedish Wiki, etc.? Where is the best place to find such information with regards to coverage and duties, etc.? Thank you in advance... Atsme☯Consult 22:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No, each Wikipedia has a separate community, adminship in one does not apply to others. Here, the information you seek is at WP:ADMIN.  Sandstein  05:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

SECOND BATTLE OF ANANDPUR

Excuse me admin Second Battle of Anandpur is false acount it must be deleted i have a source which claims that it must be deleted.Please if you have time i want to talk to you .Thank youLittleaman369 (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If you have information from a reliable source that contradicts what's in the article, you can add that information to the article while referencing the source. See WP:NPOV, WP:V.  Sandstein  05:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Mutiny Of Colour

Hi dear sand I'm Mahan khomamipor and I created the page "Mutiny of Colors" as you know this page was deleted I wanted to Know How can I recreate this page and what was the problem? Please Advise me , I'm new at wiki best regard(Mahan khomamipor (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC))

The article was deleted as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutiny of Colours. You may recreate it if you find new sources that indicate that the topic is notable as described at WP:N.  Sandstein  21:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Please check out these links and tell me if they are ok for recreating "mutiny of colours" article

thanks again (Mahan khomamipor (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC))

At a glance, only the funkhauseuropa.de coverage appears relevant for WP:N, and it was already discussed in the AfD, so: no.  Sandstein  19:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein/Archives/2015/April&oldid=1151039717"