User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2017/December
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sandstein. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Sandstein. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Roy Moore / Atsme / Volunteer Marek
Thanks, all, for your input. I do not intend to comment further or perform additional admin actions at this time. If you want to continue to discuss this matter among yourselves, please do so elsewhere than on my talk page. Thanks, Sandstein 20:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Why are you suppressing my ability to voice my complaints about another user's misconduct? I modified my edit in accordance with your claim that it was a "screed"
Logged vs. closedIt was my understanding that a sanction that is in place is based on how the sanction was logged, NOT in the wording used in the closing of the WP:AE request. This has been the practice in the past. Additionally, aside from the logging, the nature of the sanction is specified in the relevant notification to the user, and, again, not in the wording used in the closing. Can you please clarify which one is it. What the admin says in the closing. What the admin logs. What the admin says in the notification left on a user's page. What the admin says subsequently. Or is it some kind of "average" of these three? Basically, I'm wondering what the hey are you guys doing? Volunteer Marek 14:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The Atsme AEHi, Sandstein. While you were closing the Atsme AE (and closing it properly — I don't mean to criticize you), I was writing up a proposal for it, namely to topic ban Atsme from American politics for her battleground attitude — not for the "consensus required" thing — which IMO makes her a net negative in the area (though a good editor in other parts of the encyclopedia). I'd really like to make this proposal. Do you think it would be proper for me to re-open the thread, or would you rather I started a new one, which is only about my proposal (but where of course I would refer to things said in the previous discussion)? What do you think — which is better? Bishonen | talk 14:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC).
Hi, Sandstein! Thanks for closing the Atsme report at AE. A question, though: You closed it with warnings to VM and Atsme, but you did not place warnings on their talk pages. Would you consider giving them individual warnings in addition to the close of the AE report? I think it is helpful to have such warnings as part of their talk page history - for reference in future incidents or discussions. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I've decided against starting a new AE thread, because it's simply taking more time than I can spare at this point, with the goddam AE template etc. Sorry to have worried you needlessly, Atsme, and sorry to have woken your so often voiced concern about my "railroading" and "ill-will". Since you mention my 2015 block, I'll say a few words about it: I placed it not from myself but as a summary of a very long and well-attended ANI: the context can be seen here and here. Do you recollect how you ranted on your page about the ill will of my supposedly "retaliatory" block for a week, and then got the block lifted by apologizing to me and others, taking it all back, and stating you had learned a valuable lesson?[1] And yet here we are again, with me again an involved admin (god knows where that ever came from — not from a reading of WP:INVOLVED, that's for sure) who has always shown you ill will etc etc. The "valuable lesson" of 2015 doesn't seem to have stuck for very long, to put it as politely and good-faith-assumingly as possible. Another way of putting it would be that you simply used the words that would get you unblocked. Bishonen | talk 19:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC).
|
A goat for you!
I just happen to like goats, so I chose this one to thank you for your BLP cleanup.
SPECIFICO talk 21:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font>
tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.
You are encouraged to change
<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small>
→ Sandstein
to
<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small>
→ Sandstein
Respectfully, Anomalocaris 21:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Notification
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=814205379&oldid=814154270 --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
User talk:Luděk Sosnovec
You deleted User talk:Luděk Sosnovec? While his article was under discussion at AfD he took a copy & pasted it into his sandbox. He's now pasted it back as a new article. He's due some kind of warning but I can't tell at what level because the talk page has gone? Help! Cabayi (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- This was probably a script issue. I've undone the deletion. Thanks. Sandstein 08:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. In the meantime I'd tracked down the AfD (which you'd handled, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Applied mathematics in industry) & G4'd the article... which meant Twinkle recreated his talk page. So, on a general idea of where he was at I gave him a level 4 for creating inappropriate pages. Then saw the restored page - so I've added back the previous entries and now see he's already had a level 4, and a level 3 after... Should I take him to AIV or would you like to deal with his whole mess? Thanks again, Cabayi (talk) 08:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that there is anything to do here. Feel free to take it to AIV though if you think there is. Sandstein 08:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I'm not going admin-shopping - and given his persistence this far it doesn't seem like this will be his last attempt. Thanks for taking the time. Cabayi (talk) 09:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that there is anything to do here. Feel free to take it to AIV though if you think there is. Sandstein 08:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. In the meantime I'd tracked down the AfD (which you'd handled, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Applied mathematics in industry) & G4'd the article... which meant Twinkle recreated his talk page. So, on a general idea of where he was at I gave him a level 4 for creating inappropriate pages. Then saw the restored page - so I've added back the previous entries and now see he's already had a level 4, and a level 3 after... Should I take him to AIV or would you like to deal with his whole mess? Thanks again, Cabayi (talk) 08:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you
For this closure. I can tell you took into consideration the serious off-wiki canvassing rather than hastily doing a head-count. Obviously, I am slightly disappointed by the outcome because I felt arguments leaned towards deletion before the canvassing but your closure allows for a more legitimate AFD in the future.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Editing closed discussion
Apologies for these edits . When I looked at the discussion it was not closed and I did not notice your close when I made my edit. Pincrete (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Question
Ok, verification please? Per Wikipedia:NEWBLPBAN, my impression is that per Decorum, an AfD that results in MERGE and there is no merge because a small group of editors decide to ignore consensus and maintain the status quo, another editor can make a request for additional sanctions, or does it mean that sanctions can be enforced against the editors who are not honoring the results of the AfD consensus? Ohhh, my head hurts. I'm at a fork in the road and I've decided to take it. Atsme📞📧 23:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- In general terms, "ignoring consensus" isn't the type of conduct sanctions are usually imposed for, but if this results in, for example, edit-warring, then sanctions may be called for. Sandstein 23:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Stefan-Pierre signed
A very good morning to you, my name is Stefan-Pierre I’m a super model and most known as Mr Tinder , I was very disappointed when I was contacted last week by a fan notifying me that my wiki has been deleted, I have done a fair amount of research myself and my manager can’t get our head round it, please could you kindly let us know why this was made and is there anyway we could restore it please?
I look forward to your response and a very good day to you
Kindest regards Stefan-Pierre
88.98.200.177 (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi. We have never had an article called Mr Tinder, so I can't help you. Sandstein 08:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi the article was named after Mr
Stefan-Pierre Tomlin please find the link below
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Pierre_Tomlin
Thank you
88.98.200.177 (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- The article was deleted as a result of the community discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan-Pierre Tomlin, in which there was unanimous consensus that you don't meet our inclusion criteria, WP:GNG. Therefore I can't restore the article, sorry. Sandstein 10:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Did not mean to vandal revert you
Sorry about that; wrong click. Anyways, I did want to revert your deletion of the Paltrow mention. It's relevant because, as the cite discusses, Weinstein often mentioned Paltrow—one of the most successful and famous actresses of her generation—as someone who, he implied, became such because she let him sleep with her. Ylee (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
AfD
Per your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Shipping Day, I feel that the discussion would benefit from further discussion via relisting. So, requesting restoration of the article and an AfD relist. Let me know what you think about this notion. Also, your closure as per WP:WAX seems a bit dismissive, and it's an essay page. North America1000 13:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, it's appreciated, and happy holidays. North America1000 13:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
John Hoffmire
Dear Sandstein.
I have uploaded for review another biography of Dr. John Hoffmire which you deleted few weeks ago. This new version is now updated and in contrast with the other, this one uses verifiable third party sources, hope you like it!
Thank you and best wishes. Mario5554 (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- John Hoffmire is still a red link. Sandstein 11:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Harvey Weinstein
Hi there, you're right, removing a reference to his activism from the lede is better overall. It just said "activist" which I thought was too imprecise. If I'd checked, I would have seen that that description itself was a recent and untested edit. Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
About your reversion of my edit on Code Name Verity
I may be wrong, but I think that having a list of characters is very much relevant to the book and its article. I have seen a characters section on Wikipedia pages for other books, plays, and shows and cannot see why it should not be included for this article.2601:2C1:C280:3EE0:8073:A8FF:655F:7B4A (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi. These sections are contrary to our policy. Please read WP:WAF, which summarizes "Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself." This means that we have a problem when plot content (plot summaries or character lists) are longer than the rest of the article. Sandstein 09:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
AfD
You closed the AfD for Realist Left, but didn't delete the article. Natureium (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
Happy Holidays | |
Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC) |
Request to review deletion of the article at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_boxing
Hello, Please review deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_boxing.
The topic was called a hoax and claimed to include insufficient or sub-par references. The topic is real and describes an actual discipline that is practiced by many individuals, including myself. As far as references, I'm not sure what is expected from an article about a kung fu style. I did include references to 2 books, 1 of them published by University of Hawaii Press. It is also noteworthy that many other articles of this sort exist for other kung fu styles, and I believe this article to be of higher quality than many of its counterparts.
Thank you for your times and please advise.
Tomehr Ben Johanan
- Hi. sorry, but these arguments should have been made in the deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zui quan. That discussion concluded with consensus that the sources are not sufficient for us to have an article about this topic. Sandstein 10:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately I was not around for that discussion. The recent article includes a secondary academic source, and details the primary manuscript that book quotes. How can you judge the recent article according to a discussion about an older one? Does this article not deserve to be judged by its own merits?
- What "recent article"? Zui quan was deleted based on the state it was in at the time of the deletion discussion in September 2017. Sandstein 21:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_boxing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomehr (talk • contribs) 04:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't get it. Zui quan and Drunken boxing are different articles. Drunken boxing is now subject to an AfD; please make your arguments there. Sandstein 07:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomehr (talk • contribs) 08:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, per WP:DELREV I would like to try to resolve this issue with you. You did not give an explanation on your closing of this [2] articles for deletion page. The arguments for keep were much stronger. Some of the deletes were even saying the page should be shortened, if not deleted. thank you Subuey (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- In numerical terms the outcome is clear: 12 delete vs. 4 keep. The "keep" arguments were clearly not stronger than the "delete" arguments. Only one "keep" opinion argued with sources, the others were "per X", "it has many views" and "the information is appropriate", all very weak arguments. I decline to change the outcome of the discussion. Sandstein 07:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Deletion review for List of most-followed Instagram accounts
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of most-followed Instagram accounts. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subuey (talk • contribs)
- Also Protectorate of Westarctic again, though I'm sure you've seen it already. —Cryptic 18:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of Lee Busby for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lee Busby is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Busby (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mélencron (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Hijiri88 / John Carter
Hi - I'm a bit confused about that ANI close. The Hijiri/John Carter IBAN doesn't appear to relate at all to what is currently at ARCA - I was about to block John Carter for a flagrant breach of his IBAN. If I was about to do something obviously wrong, let me know ... Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Me too. Acknowledging my memory of the ban's specifics are rudimentary at best, I thought discussion of the appeal was generally in the safe range. If I'm wrong of course and that clearly happens feel free to block away. John Carter (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: My thinking was that the complaint concerned an edit to WP:ARCA, and therefore conduct in an arbitration forum. I believe that it is established that only ArbCom themselves should take disciplinary actions regarding conduct in their own fora. However, if you are of a different view, I have no particular objections to you taking whatever actions you consider appropriate. Sandstein 23:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- No, that's fine - if interactions at ARCA and other ARBCOM venues are "outside" normal editing then there's no problem, I just wasn't aware that was the case (until now). Black Kite (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I noted this at ARCA. If arbitrators are fine with this being examined separately, you can go ahead with your block, or Hijiri88 can bring this to AE. Sandstein 00:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- No, that's fine - if interactions at ARCA and other ARBCOM venues are "outside" normal editing then there's no problem, I just wasn't aware that was the case (until now). Black Kite (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: My thinking was that the complaint concerned an edit to WP:ARCA, and therefore conduct in an arbitration forum. I believe that it is established that only ArbCom themselves should take disciplinary actions regarding conduct in their own fora. However, if you are of a different view, I have no particular objections to you taking whatever actions you consider appropriate. Sandstein 23:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- I strongly doubt the Committee will deal with enforcing the community-enacted IBAN. I would view that as outside of our jurisdiction, since we usually try to avoid butting our heads into community restrictions. Enforcement here can be handled by an uninvolved admin such as Black Kite if they believe a clear violation has occurred. If it's less clear and a discussion is needed, I would consider the appropriate venue to be WP:ANI. On the other hand, please leave it to the clerk team to deal with whether the section should be removed. ~ Rob13Talk 00:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. However, my understanding is that the ban at issue was a discretionary sanction, not a community sanction. I'm not sure whether that makes a difference. Sandstein 00:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's actually a community sanction. See Special:Diff/761985265. ~ Rob13Talk 00:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Sandstein, just as a procedural note, this appears to be a community sanction based on my reading of the discussion. I have no opinion on the matter at hand, just noting it for you. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose someone can ping Beeblebrox if they want clarification. John Carter (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. However, my understanding is that the ban at issue was a discretionary sanction, not a community sanction. I'm not sure whether that makes a difference. Sandstein 00:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The discussion was tainted by 3 socks - see this shocking SPI Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 08:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Save Sibelius merge
As agreed (or at least not opposed by anyone, and supported by one other editor) in the closure discussion, the intention is to Merge Sibelius Software and Sibelius (software) first, rename the merged page as 'Sibelius (scorewriter)' and then incorporate 'Save Sibelius' campaign into the newly merged page. Merge notices have been placed in both the pages. Assuming the consensus continues to build for the Merge of Sibelius Software to Sibelius (software), the Merge of 'Save Sibelius' campaign will be executed once the Merge of the two pages is complete as per Wikipedia:Merging policy. Please advise if there are any problems with this approach. Chrisdevelop (talk)
- Sorry, I'm not interested in the topic and can't advise you. Sandstein 19:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- What is the deadline for completion? Chrisdevelop (talk)
- There isn't any. Whoever is interested in doing the merger will do it in their own time. If it is not done, the article may eventually be renominated for deletion. Sandstein 00:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- What is the deadline for completion? Chrisdevelop (talk)
Review
Hi, Sandstein
Please can you review your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naila Nayem (4th nomination)? Thanks –Ammarpad (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC) –Ammarpad (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I reviewed it. Sandstein 10:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- But please how do we arrive at no consensus.? –Ammarpad (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Because opinions were divided about whether the article should be kept or deleted. Our deletion policy requires a consensus in favor for deletion in order for an article to be deleted. Sandstein 10:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- On every AfD, even those Kept or Deleted opinions do vary. That's not what's important. The substance of the argument is. Let me dissect the !votes here
- 1-Delete per nom. (JNN, empty, No policy-based reason)
- 2-Delete the last vote in the last discussion was from a Bangledeshi editor who knew what was up and should have been headed. As he pointed out, Nayem did not act in a film, she had a role as a dancer in one song in a film. At present her career just does not pass the notability requrements for (Wikipedia is based on verifiability, WP:NOTTRUTH, what Bangladeshi editor knows is "up", is immaterial, empty. This argument is actually belittling of Wikipedia policy of WP:V)
- 3. Strong Delete. (I don't need to copy all his comment here but he already summarized it
"...although she does not hold the highest fan base in facebook from Bangladesh, for that she does not pass the notability for entertainers criteria.
(That's clear cut misinterpretation of guideline, this is obvious. Add to that, I already shown how he tried (albeit unsuccessfully) to delete the article 4 times across 2 wikis, and on multiples talkpages. I believe the Keep !votes and weakness of delete !votes are clear evidence of Keep close, I hope you'll now re-evaluate and close it as such or at least leave for others to close. You've been doing excellent work, and I know such closures are not as easy as they seems, but I am hoping this to be resolved here. Thanks. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- On every AfD, even those Kept or Deleted opinions do vary. That's not what's important. The substance of the argument is. Let me dissect the !votes here
- Because opinions were divided about whether the article should be kept or deleted. Our deletion policy requires a consensus in favor for deletion in order for an article to be deleted. Sandstein 10:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- But please how do we arrive at no consensus.? –Ammarpad (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, notability is frequently a matter of opinion, and different editors weigh sources differently. Similar critiques could be made of some "keep" opinions. I don't have enough of a policy basis here to dismiss enough "delete" opinions to arrive at a "keep" consensus. Besides, the outcome is the same: the article is not deleted. Sandstein 12:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks you admit some keep opinions are not policy/guideline-based; that shows some are. But all the delete ones are not and have been dissected here. In fact, 2/4 of the !dvotes denigrated core standards by advancing personal knowledge (Neighbor of the subject?) to reign supreme above WP:V and WP:N. However no point to continue arguing this since you already answered me why the oddness;
"Besides, the outcome is the same: the article is not deleted"
. Thanks. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks you admit some keep opinions are not policy/guideline-based; that shows some are. But all the delete ones are not and have been dissected here. In fact, 2/4 of the !dvotes denigrated core standards by advancing personal knowledge (Neighbor of the subject?) to reign supreme above WP:V and WP:N. However no point to continue arguing this since you already answered me why the oddness;
- Sorry, notability is frequently a matter of opinion, and different editors weigh sources differently. Similar critiques could be made of some "keep" opinions. I don't have enough of a policy basis here to dismiss enough "delete" opinions to arrive at a "keep" consensus. Besides, the outcome is the same: the article is not deleted. Sandstein 12:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Request your comment
Because of your recent close of an RFC in the page, I would ask for your comments here: Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier#The media and the intelligence community have stressed that most of the accusations in the dossier have not been verified. Casprings (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)