User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2015/August

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John R. Schindler

Hello Sandstein. On 27 July (three days ago) you relisted the abovementioned discussion. Today this discussion was closed as keep by User:North of Eden. This is a highly controversial discussion and probably should not be closed by a non-admin. Subsequently the closure was reverted by User:Dan Murphy, one of the !voters, contrary to WP:NACD ("Participants, including participating administrators, should not reopen non-admin closures. If this happens, any editor other than the closer may restore the closure") Subsequently, the closure was restored by North of Eden, also contrary to NACD. In my understanding, a relisted discussion is supposed to stay open for another week, until it appears again in the "Old AfDs" section, so this was also closed early, out of process. What do you think how we should proceed? Kraxler (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry to jump on this so quickly, but I just got notification that I was mentioned here. While I firmly believe that my closure reflects consensus, I also agree that I made a major mistake in closing it following Dan Murphy's reversion. Foolishly, I was unaware that the NAC closer may not do what I did; I merely thought I was undoing an improper edit. I would be happy to undo my last edit to the article and allow an administrator to close the discussion at the end of the relisting period. My sincere apologies for this. North of Eden (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• @Kraxler: Perhaps an admin should rollback my last two edits to the page, leaving it at Dan Murphy's reopening of the article. Although I think it was improper of him to undo a closure, he is technically right in reopening it, and this would allow the discussion to continue. I'm kind of kicking myself for closing something that was clearly relisted for discussion. Again, my apologies for complicating your work. North of Eden (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sandstein is not on-line right now. I'll re-open the discussion, linking to this thread. Kraxler (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

That sounds great. North of Eden (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This seems to have been resolved, thanks to all.  Sandstein  19:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Question

Do you still have the email I sent you? I've been busy lately but I'm thinking of reporting it now. I would appreciate if you could send me the evidence I included in the email. I'm also not sure if it expired or not yet. If a ban violation is discovered after the ban expires, can a request still be made at AE? --Steverci (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not your e-mail archive. A violation reported after a sanction expires is unlikely to be acted upon.  Sandstein  19:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I was just wondering if you still had the email, because I don't have a copy. Didn't mean to sound rude. --Steverci (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably not, I tend to delete such things.  Sandstein  19:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Medford knife and tool

Hello,

Why did you deleted the article? in the following link there are two articles (wiki) that mentioned that company and link to them show that there is "no article about them yet". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=medford+knife+and+tool&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go Did you read that the strong objection on the article was on a different one? and even one of the Editors erased his recommendation for delete?

Thank you Eytankey (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the article because that was the result of the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medford knife and tool. The editor Peter Rehse changed their opinion from "speedy delete" to simply "delete", which doesn't change anything with respect to the otucome.  Sandstein  11:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Sir, I'm asking to reconsider The entire conduct around the article is a farce;

1. The consideration to be deleted and some of the responses were the old article pretty quickly deleted and was replaced with a new one. In fact the article originally proposed to be deleted is not the article that you've deleted. 2. The new article confirmed by other editors, who supported him. 3. This article describes work on industry, jobs and products, which require attention as if it were a doctorate on the implications of global jihad expansion. 4. This is a recognized manufacturer, and like other manufacturers are mentioned on the site, there is room to remind him and establish him an article. In fact there is no reason not to. Thank you Eytankey (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I have difficulty understanding what you mean, but such arguments should have been made during the deletion discussion. Now it's too late. I'm merely assessing the consensus outcome of the discussion.  Sandstein  18:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hoseman listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hoseman. Since you had some involvement with the Hoseman redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting your attention for an AE thread

You haven't been very active at AE recently, but I was wondering if you could examine this report. It's a complex case involving multiple editors, in which admins are having trouble deciding what to do, and it would benefit from the attention of an experienced AE admin. You also have experience handling previous reports related to this arbitration case, including about some of the same individual editors. 107.6.114.91 (talk) 05:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not working at AE, too much of a bother frankly and not very effective. Besides, in these cases, I find requests from IPs very suspect.  Sandstein  06:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Clinton

Thank you for closing the HC/HRC infobox discussion. Would it be possible to clarify what "no consensus" means in this instance? Another editor just took your closure to mean it should use Rodham [1] even though I thought it was pretty clear you said there was no consensus to add it back. Calidum T|C 18:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• More specifically, can you determine what the status quo ante was, with respect to WP:NO CONSENSUS, which states that "[i]n discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit"? Cheers! bd2412 T 19:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think that I have any particular authority to speak to that. I've written what I think the result of the discussion was - it's up to interested editors to determine how to proceed. To the extent I have an opinion it is that this is a profoundly silly thing to edit-war over. I realize that this won't help much, though.  Sandstein  19:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• You shouldn't close a discussion if you are not prepared to follow through on the closure. You made a no consensus finding, and now your finding is being used to game the system to solidify the change for which there was no consensus. bd2412 T 21:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Have to agree with BD2412 here - the status quo, for over 10 years, was HRC as the infobox header. It was changed without discussion to HC and then protected as such. If indeed there is no consensus to change, it is no consensus to change from how it had been all along, not no consensus to change from how it was changed a month ago. Tvoz/talk 22:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with this. The status quo ante was HRC. Calidium and colleagues were edit-warring to impose HC when the article was protected. The wording of your close is ambiguous, and will just draw this thing out even more. Please clarify what you mean. Your present wording is being used by Calidium and colleagues to push their bold change onto the article, despite no consensus. Is that what you intended? Be clear.

I really don't see how there can be no consensus for a change from HRC to HC but "even less consensus" to retain HRC. Unless you are just referring to the numbers (15 !votes vs. 20 !votes), it defies logic. If you intend to sit on your hands here and just let this thing fester and consume more and more ordinarily-productive editors' time, I consider that to be grossly irresponsible.

It looks very much like you didn't notice what the status quo ante was when you made your decision. That's fine. I don't think it was mentioned in the RFC. But if that's the reason for your odd comment in the close, please explain that and clarify your meaning and save us all a lot of time. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Just a heads up, but this was brought to WP:ANI by BD2412. Calidum T|C 01:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I named both involved admins, so that they would be pinged by the discussion. bd2412 T 01:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I've replied there.  Sandstein  04:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Your close on pair of AfDs on Susiya

I am unsure of policy here: since the two article were created as a split of the Susiya article, what happens now? I am aware that usually "no consensus" at AfD means articles are kept, but the other articles are simply duplicates of the original one at this point. What is the scope of the original article now, since it covers all the sites? Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

That's up to interested editors to determine through the editorial process. All I can tell you as a result of the AfD is that there is no consensus to delete the spinoff articles.  Sandstein  05:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planio

Hello, About the no consensus on this AFD...on the keep side there were 2 SPA/COI accounts (one of whom is the CEO), and an account who's only prior significant work was a suspiciously COI article (and by the way they managed to find and vote in this, only their second AFD despite the fact that the AFD was not listed in any log at that time). On the delete side are three "normal" accounts, shouldn't the COI/SPA aspect be factored into the weight of those keep !votes?

Cheers, Vrac (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't take this aspect into account. I've reclosed the discussion as "delete".  Sandstein  05:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder whether Vrac has a hidden agenda, as he clearly misrepresented the facts, which misled you into deleting the page. There were, in fact, only two accounts (not three) favouring Delete, one of which was Vrac. The other person did not give any arguments beyond their opinion. There were three accounts favouring Keep, including myself, all of which gave arguments on the merits. Tommycarney (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I do have an agenda, but it's not hidden. I am here to build an encyclopedia. You appear to be here to promote your company, which is a goal that does not align with a neutral and verifiable encyclopedia. This is why Wikipedia has a conflict of interest policy. Take it to WP:DRV or WP:MOVEON, a user talk page isn't really the place for an extended debate on this subject. Vrac (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I've noticed that my first wikipedia page was deleted. Would you re-consider your decision? I feel that the delete decision is influenced by the fact that it was my first wikipedia page rather than the content page itself, which had lots of secondary, reliable sources.

At the very least I believe that arguments themselves should take priority over any debate as to how many wikipedia edits I've made. I would be open to leaving the discussion for deletion open a little longer, so we can have a little more discussion (I have a few more sources I'd like to add) Tommycarney (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I've given the opinion of established editors greater weight because with very new editors there is a much higher likelihood that they are motivated by a personal interest or benefit in the topic rather than by Wikipedia's mission. The discussion ran for a month, much more than the normal 7 days, so I'm not prolonging it again.  Sandstein  09:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I've had a Wikipedia account for 2 years now, so I'm not a very new editor. In addition, it's Wikipedia policy that the arguments themselves should outweigh whether a person is an established editor or not. The fair thing to do in this case would be to label this discussion as no consensus. Tommycarney (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

But you have made 30 edits, of which about half concern Planio. Even if you are not subject to a conflict of interest, the others who wanted to keep the article are much more likely to than average established editors. I therefore decline to reopen the discussion. You can appeal its outcome at WP:DRV.  Sandstein  10:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm the CEO of the company in question, so I obviously will be considered as having a COI here and I have stopped adding to the discussion after being pointed to the concept of COI by Vrac. However, it seems that the decision was not taken by looking at the arguments at all. Leaving the "who wrote what" aside for a moment and looking at the page and the discussion, all one can see is an article about a company which has quite a few reputable sources and which satisfies all the requirements of Wikipedia's notability standards. I understand that not every small company or startup should have a Wikipedia article, but looking at the plain facts, Planio is not "another startup". It has been founded over 5 years ago, has gotten reviews in the press and is used by notable clients. All these are facts which can be verified by looking at the sources - it should not matter who presented these facts if they are undoubtedly true.

The only two arguments favouring "delete" were:

- "Sources are primary or not independent. The book source contains content written by the CEO which does not count as a notability argument for this corp." by Vrac which is not true as was explained later in the discussion. I did not write this book. The part where I'm quoted in first person speech is the transcript of an interview with me as is made clear in the book. This is not also the part which was cited in the article. The cited part describing Planio is not part of the interview. The book can be downloaded for free if you would like to verify this. Furthermore, the Fraunhofer institute writing the book are not and have never been clients.

- "another project management startup. Nothing indicates that WP:ORG criteria is met." by Rpclod which is also not true. It seems to be a mere statement of opinion as it is not based on any verifiable sources. Looking at the article shows quite a few notable sources satisfying WP:ORG.

The fact that remains is, that - even leaving the Fraunhofer book aside - there are many high quality sources in the article that establish notability. And yet, the article was deleted while the default policy for "no consensus" is "keep". The way this process went down leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It does not seem to be fair towards new or inexperienced editors. Janschulzhofen (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

These are potentially valid arguments, but they should have been made in the deletion discussion. It's not for me to judge the notability of the topic. I'm here only concerned by what the result of the discussion was, and as explained, after discounting opinions by persons with a potential conflict of interest, it was to delete the article.  Sandstein  11:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

So it seems you haven't read the discussion, Sandstein, as these arguments have in fact been made there. To be honest, I believe that you are mistaken in "discounting opinions by persons with a potential conflict of interest". You did not discount opinions, you discounted stated and verifiable facts. Which is exactly my point and my criticism towards your decision at this point. Janschulzhofen (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

To the extent such arguments were made in the discussion, they did not persuade editors without a (probable) conflict of interest, which is what matters to me. The merits of the arguments themselves – and the opinion that a company is notable because of such and such coverage is an argument, not a fact – do not. My role as AfD closer is a procedural one, not to determine who is right or wrong on the merits.  Sandstein  13:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Stanley (musician) as keep

Hello Sandstein, could you elaborate why this was a clear "Keep" in your opinion please? I don't know, if you checked some of the background of this controversial nomination. Several of the "Keep" votes have been stated by very new accounts, some arguments like "meets WP:MUSIC" are provable false. Of course as admin you probably can't evaluate every tiny detail of every given case, but this nomination should have been given more time and would need a detailed look into all circumstances before a final decision is made. Please reconsider the closure, if that is possible process-wise. Or is it allowed to re-nominate the article with a more detailed overview about the complete situation? Thanks for your efforts and any advice. GermanJoe (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on this. I've reclosed the discussion as "delete" and explained why.  Sandstein  20:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Pile of socks blocked per CU. T. Canens (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Winjit Technologies

Winjit Technologies Page Deleted by you. Could you please let me know what is the concern regarding this page that I have updated yesterday? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajashreeDeshpande (talk • contribs) 04:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The article was deleted because that was the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winjit technologies.  Sandstein  06:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sandstein

Can you create new page for Winjit Technologies? I have created and added solid links and created new content...can you please review the page and approve it?

I have included links of media release to support the articles.

Looking forward to your reply... RajashreeDeshpande (talk) 06:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)RajashreeRajashreeDeshpande (talk) 06:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No, the community decision was clear, and your message does not tell me what has changed since then that would cause its outcome to be no longer applicable.  Sandstein  07:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandstein, can you please help to develop this article?

The change was in content for article- revised it all together, also I have added links those were covered in Media in India and SouthAfrica. Below are the links for awards that have been own by Winjit:

Winjit have received Redherring Award, this is big in Asia. http://www.redherring.com/events/red-herring-asia/finalists2013/ |title=2013 Red Herring Asia http://www.redherring.com/events/red-herring-asia/finalists2013/ |title=2013 Red Herring Asia — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajashreeDeshpande (talk • contribs) 08:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted versions of this talk page in which you added article content to it. Please don't do that again. My talk page is not your sandbox.  Sandstein  09:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I will not help to develop this article because it does not interest me. My role was only to determine the outcome of a deletion discussion. Any content arguments should have been made in that discussion, not now.  Sandstein  09:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

After five article space/sandbox creations, I've blocked COI editor User:RajashreeDeshpande for three months — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs)

Deletions

Why was Gina Mastrogiacomo's page deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:764:8CC1:DFB:9446:AC7E:4358 (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Because that was the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gina Mastrogiacomo.  Sandstein  07:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Ruby RfC closure

Thank you for your closing statement regarding the Ruby RfC. I must say I am perplexed at your conclusion that consensus was a full on ban on all usage of ruby, when the discussion explicitly went the lengths of allowing exceptions, which most editors agreed to and few editors opposed. A relaxation of the guideline from "do not" to "is discouraged" would achieve that. I would like to hear how you reached the conclusion that consensus of banning it again, and, if possible, re-evaluate your decision. Thanks. _dk (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I read consensus as being that ruby characters should not be used to annotate Japanese characters for the purpose of making them more understandable – with some obvious exceptions such as in articles about ruby characters themselves, or where they are needed to accurately quote something that includes ruby characters. I understand that such exceptions are considered implied in the nature of a style guideline.  Sandstein  07:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Since an IP is taking your decision to the letter and started reverting ruby where they are needed to quote something (including on our oft-used example A Certain Scientific Railgun). Do you mind if I change the wording on the style guide to state the exceptions explicitly? _dk (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I've no objection to that.  Sandstein  09:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Brianna Wu

Some photographs of Brianna Wu on Wikipedia Commons, once used in her article, were deleted over copyright concerns. I understand those have now been cleared up, but trying to upload the images again fails because the same images were previously deleted. (It's not contentious issue as I understand it; she owns the photographs, she’s the subject, they’re work for hire.) There's probably a correct way to do this, but I am ignorant in the ways of commons. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hm, have you asked the Commons admin who deleted the files to undelete them?  Sandstein  04:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I had thought that admin might have been you. I don't know offhand how to find out who deleted something that isn't there anymore. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Take a look here. She undeleted the two in the article, you could ask her about the others.  Sandstein  21:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Jeffrey Allen Sinclair

That close at best was a no consensus close. I disagree with your close. I plan on taking this to DRV in a couple hours if you want to respond before then. I don't expect you will reverse yourself based on your past history but they like people going through the motions so here I am. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Because you don't tell me why you think the discussion should not have been closed as it was, I don't really have any grounds on which to reevaluate the closure. Am I to assume from your message that this is not an oversight?  Sandstein  19:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I concur with HIAB. At best, this was a no consensus. You did not properly evaluate either WP:BLP1E or the general notability of one of the only general officers to go through a court-martial in the last 60 years. In addition, there was sufficient coverage aside from the WP:SOLDIER criteria to show notability. I would urge you to reconsider. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 20:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

the result of the discussion would have been a no consensus. There were valid points on both sides but there was no consensus that this would be a delete. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

That's merely counting heads. As explained in the closure, I think I need to give more weight to BLP1E, as part of a core policy, than to an essay. Many "keep" opinions went little further than "he's a general officer, so he's notable", which leads me to largely discount them.  Sandstein  20:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, I'll take it to DRV. GregJackP Boomer! 21:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jeffrey Allen Sinclair

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GregJackP Boomer! 00:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 15#Passmap

Hi Sandstein. You closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 15#Passmap. Please move Passmap to Draft:Passmap. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm too old-fashioned to know what this Draft thing you speak of is, but I've moved the article into your userspace at User:Cunard/Passmap.  Sandstein  16:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Limberbutt McCubbins

Additional coverage has come into existence since the AFD closed, including Limberbutt being the inspiration for Deez Nuts. A good case can be made that, although he may have failed WP:1E at the time, he no longer does. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Coverage of what? A cat being nominated for president as a joke? That's nothing else than what got it redirected the first time.  Sandstein  18:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Coverage indicating the influence the joke has had on the course of the election thus far (a month ago when the AFD closed it was too soon for there to be much impact). Deez Nuts, for instance, is polling at 9% and was inspired by Limberbutt. Over the weekend Rush Limbaugh gave a tirade about fake candidates, and earlier today I stumbled across an article bemoaning the fact that Limberbutt and Deez Nuts have more support than some of the "real" candidates and speculating on the reasons that might be. At any rate, I and at least two other people seem to think there is notability now, so perhaps a new AFD is in order. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The cat is not the issue in these stories, it is merely being mentioned as an example. The issue in these articles is US voters not liking the human candidates. That does not warrant an article about the cat.  Sandstein  19:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ali Shahbaz page deletion

I did not understand how you could interpret a "community consensus" for deletion of wikipedia page of Ali Shahbaz. There was enough substantiation, and support for keeping the page on wikipedia. And besides, there was sufficient expression of agreement to have the subject on wikipedia. Seems unjust, and I recommend the article is retrieved. --Mastaanbalram (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Mastaanbalram

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Shahbaz. As per usual practice, I discounted the opinions of apparent sockpuppet accounts (WP:SOCK), and given that the above was your first edit, I'll do the same with yours.  Sandstein  16:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I fail to understand how you can deduce credibility on the basis of the number of edits a user has made. Just translates to your narrow mindset I guess; in any case, instead of over analysing novel accounts, I recommend you weigh the content/arguments by the users with neutrality than your own personal bias against them. Still advocating to retrieve Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Shahbaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastaanbalram (talk • contribs) 20:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Flyin.com Deletion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyin.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.82.108.253 (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't understand on what basis you have deleted a brand page on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.82.108.253 (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

On the basis of the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flyin.com.  Sandstein  10:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

B.S. name

Hello. I am considering changing the B.S. article to my edit or something like that. But I thought let's discuss it here before I do anything.

1) BLP says that "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source." For B.S. no such sources exist. This person (as far as I can see) has never met anyone in person to be interviewed (let alone by a professional journalist) and certainly never shown an interviewer any identity documents. (Presumably her publisher does know who she is in so to know who to send the money to.) So the only source for anything about this person is...that person, someone known for creating at least two online personas and not admitting the connection between them, and accused of creating many more. Obviously with BLP articles one does tend to take a lot in trust that is said by the person, but in this case we are arguably better off having no biography at all than a completely self-authored one.

2) I have not said and will not say this person is not using their real name. I have no evidence for this at all. So I would rather use terms like 'has said in interviews' and 'is the name used by' to avoid suggesting this.

Thoughts? Blythwood (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the situation is indeed peculiar in that respect. But it is not normal for a Wikipedia biography to begin with "Foo is a name used by". This practically spells out the underlying assumption that this is not in fact her real name; same with her origin. Such an unusual aspect of her biography would need to be explained in the article and be supported by reliable sources (in the vein of, "according to X, this may not be her real name"). That, in my view, would be the correct way of noting any sourced doubts about her identity. If such doubts cannot be reliably sourced, they are WP:OR and do not belong in a BLP article.  Sandstein  21:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

OK I'll let that slide. But I think "has said in interviews" for the biography segment is certainly right, though. We have no evidence for this at all. (For the record, though, Mixon has said "I have seen evidence with my own eyes of an email she wrote to a former supporter, in which she admits that even “Benjanun Sriduangkaew” is yet another constructed identity. Frankly, I don’t know who the person behind these many constructed identities is, or if it’s even really just one person." So there are at least doubts about this person's identity though I grant that this is not a reliable source. What I've decided to do is put 'has said in an interview' in the biography section (which is true, and does not specifically insinuate that this is false), and made some other minor copyedits. I hope that this is acceptable to you. Blythwood (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

OK.  Sandstein  21:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

6th Filmsaaz

Hie,

You have closed 6th Filmsaaz to be merged with Filmsaaz. I would like to point it out that the last two opinions of merger by CoffeeWithMarkets and Inks.LWC were made without applying mind as it can be seen clearly that they have simply said that it be Merged as per above discussion/arguments. They have not searched own their own.

Moreover another editor TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom have biased opinion against the university which I had already pointed out in the Talk:Filmsaaz. He has ignored dailies of international repute like The Hindu, The Bollywood website Planet Bollywood which detailed the award list. Indian Express , Glamsham and many more. He is just sticking only to Times of India which also is a national daily. Despite several reputed and reliable secondary and third party authored sources he nominated for deletion as he has biased opinion against the University. He never improved any article and instead nominated for deletion. First of all he will raise issue with the notability and when it gets sorted by putting more references then he will raise some another issue diverting from the main issue.

The article has been fully covered by Indian media at that time. Not necessarily all media has internet editions and whichever could be found in the internet has been put in the references. Even after that I don't understand why it cant have its own article as according to WP:GNG it is notable. No one gave a reason as why it is not notable!!!!

My take on this festival is that it has completed 8 successful years in a row and is going to organize its 9th edition very soon. It is growing day by day and it is not possible to put everything in a single page. Just imagine how all the award list (all editions) would be accommodated in a single Filmsaaz page!!!

Therefore, it is requested not to count the last two Merge opinion given without applying any mind and keep it as a standalone article.Arifjwadder (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No. These arguments should have been made in the discussion. If they were, and didn't convince others, that's not my concern. As closer, I only look at what the consensus in the discussion was.  Sandstein  11:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion took place in the Talk:Filmsaaz which was not considered by you while taking the decision. My opinion was also not taken into consideration where I gave the reasons.Arifjwadder (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

What I considered was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6th Filmsaaz and nothing else, yes.  Sandstein  11:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree your consideration, but other editors did not get time to evaluate as you closed very soon after two Merger opinions. I can clearly see User:Firangee started arguing but it got promptly stoped because of the closer. There is nothing wrong for a detailed discussion.Arifjwadder (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That does not make sense to me. If you wish to appeal the outcome further, you can do so at WP:DRV.  Sandstein  11:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That will be done, but that does not mean that you would not consider other things. Wikipedia is for all and by this you are blocking flowing of articles related to a particular organisation and India. You must consider things before jumping into a conclusion.Arifjwadder (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

References

ArbCom

Hello Sandstein,

I am not at all familiar with the way Arbitrages work on wp:en. FYI.

I remember that you wrote at a time that each contributor had to comply with WP:NPoV alone and that WP:NPoV was not a question of a consensus of different assertions provided by a couple of contributors with different minds. But I also remember that you didn't get consensus at the time.

But I totaly agree with you. NPoV is the matter of each contributor and a contributor should be able, even alone on an article, to report all pov's on a topic. And therefore, it should be hard to determine if a contributor has any pov himself. NPoV is not a matter of collaboration. Collaboration is a matter of knowledge and in which you inform other that they may have missed some scholar analysis or some facts reported by them.

It is quite obvious and easy (from my point of view). If someone can disagree with someone else. At least they should both agree on what they disagree and be able to explain the other one point of view. That also reminds me of the essay : "writing for the oponent", which I found great.

Whatever. If you think that this Arbitrage could be the right place to put forward this idea and make a proposal out of this I will support that.

Pluto2012 (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrage is not what you think it is. I am not at this time planning to contribute to an arbitration case.  Sandstein  10:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein,

Are you sure it is not the right place to discuss your proposal ?

Here is what an Arbitre has written about this case :

When we accepted the case it was with a motion stating that we will be "reviewing and if necessary modifying by motion existing sanction provisions in the prior Palestine-Israel articles case." I'm in discussion with my colleagues about how we can make this more explicit. Doug Weller (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think anybody who is one-sided in his editing should be sanctionned for pov-pushing. And I have the feeling, but I may be wrong, that it is what the Arbcom plans to discuss. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead and make any proposals you like, but I am not interested in the issue.  Sandstein  16:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok.

Just FYI and I leave you alone. This could have helped for the discussion in which you had defended the idea that each editor should be neutral "alone"...

Interview of Jimbo Wales

Mehdi Hasan: There’s also the issue, of course, of really, really contentious issues that people feel strongly about on lots of different sides. A few years ago, I believe, an Israeli lobbying group was accused of encouraging its members to become Wikipedia editors so that they could control the narrative on the Israeli conflict. How, then, can I take any pages on Wikipedia seriously about Israel-Palestine?

Jimmy Wales: There's one model people have of how Wikipedia should work, which is a battleground. So the battleground is: Wikipedia will get to neutrality because people from different sides will fight it out until they somehow have to come to a compromise. We reject that approach. That approach is not healthy. That approach just leads to endless conflict. Instead what we like to say is, “Look, Wikipedia - every Wikipedia editor has a responsibility to try to be neutral. To try to take into account different perspectives on an issue, and if there is no one…”

(source [2]).

Pluto2012 (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Revasi

Hi Sandstein.
Per this log you deleted the Revasi page in April after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revasi. It is back, apparently by another author, as the 're-creator' has no mention of it on their talk page or its history. Just FYI. 220 of ^Borg 05:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Redeleted. In such cases you can tag the page as {{db-g4}}.  Sandstein  08:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Yoe Flash Wolves

Hi, so I was the creator of the Yoe Flash Wolves article, and I've been unable to put work into the article for the past few days. Could you possibly re-open the deletion discussion so I can deal with some of the non-sensical and biased arguments being presented there. Thanks.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

No. Deletion discussions last for 7 days, and that was the case with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoe Flash Wolves.  Sandstein  21:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay in that case can I have the source text back so I can work on it on user space or use it on another website?--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Available at http://pastebin.com/6pTSZsjf for a week, then it will be deleted for copyright reasons.  Sandstein  08:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)