User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2024/October

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 February 8

I'm not sure why this was declined – could you just restore or recreate it? 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear what you refer to or why it concerns me. Sandstein 17:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Apparently I didn't notice that @Stifle, who closed the discussion, was also an administrator. If it can't be restored via WP:DRV could it be restored under WP:REFUND? 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

As per the advice in the DRV, you can recreate it if you want. Sandstein 18:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

That makes it unnecessarily harder compared to restoring the content that was there. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Smith (underwater search sonar expert

Yet again, you make a bad decision just because of your long-standing animosity to me personally. WP:INVOLVED much? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I make AfD decisions based on the quality of the arguments presented, and where necessary, I explain why. It was necessary here because had your opinion been taken into account, it might have contributed to an impression that there was no consensus. If you want to avoid such situations in the future, you should make arguments in AfDs that address why an article should be kept or not based on our applicable policies and guidelines, and I'll be happy to take such arguments into account for assessing consensus. Sandstein 15:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm also unclear why you think I have a "long-standing animosity" to you personally. I do not know you and am not interested in what you do on Wikipedia or why. See, generally, WP:AGF. Sandstein 15:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Why did you close a discussion on improperly deleted maps?

You have closed a discussion on whether a speedy deletion that was clearly incorrect as a matter of wikipedia policy. On what grounds?

Map 1 was allowed for many years. IT WAS DELETED FOR NO REASON except that it was the same as map 2.

Map 2 was redundant. IT WAS DELETED FOR NO REASON except that it was the same as map 1.

Both maps were deleted speedily without discussion. The sole consensus is that it is improper to delete BOTH of two redundant maps on the grounds they're the same as each other. No NFCC issues were ever properly raised.

If you disagree with this point, I propose arbitration. But I know you know that that would be a ridiculous reason to delete an entry. If that were true, I could create redundancies throughout wikipedia and then delete every single image!

So on what grounds do you close discussion?

I ask you respectfully to reopen the discussion and to restore one of the maps (preferably the older one). If you then want to delete the older map, you can make your NFCC arguments and we can have a full and complete discussion on the issue.GreekParadise (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Please link to the discussion you refer to. Sandstein 06:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Telegraph RFC

Thanks for closing the RFC. Do you intend to update WP:RSP with the details of your close? It was a point of contention in the prior close. If not I'll open a discussion on WT:RSP about how it should be updated. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested, thanks for asking - I'm not a regular editor of RSP, so I leave any update to those more familiar with that page's practices. Sandstein 14:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again Sandstein. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

		The Closer's Barnstar
		I promised one of these as an incentive on WP:CR, and, in slaying this beast after two separate unsuccessful attempts, you have certainly earned it. Enjoy!--Licks-rocks (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

+1 HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'd like to reiterate the thanks above, but I'm a bit confused about the close. AFAIK when closing a discussion vote-counting is at most a supplement to the more important assessment how arguments are supported by PAGs. Near as I can tell, you haven't commented about the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines (WP:CON). Would it make sense for you to amend the close to include, at the very least, an explanation of why vote-counting was the only way to decide the discussion? Sincerely, Dilettante 16:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

(watching) A cast of characters bigger than Ben Hur has already commented on the "quality of arguments"; we needn't hear them again. The important thing is that the hydra was ousted discussion was closed. SerialNumber54129 17:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

In my view, this RfC was not amenable to or appropriate for an assessment on the basis of the strength of the arguments presented. This works where there are well-established policies and guidelines establishing broader community consensus on matters that are often in dispute, e.g. the inclusion guidelines often cited at AfD. They provide a basis on which a closer can assess the strength of individual arguments (e.g., by discarding "delete because I don't like it" types of arguments). But when it comes to the application of WP:RS, the arguments are very fact-specific: based on their prior reporting, their corporate structure, etc., do we trust a source to reliably report the facts? I see no basis on which I as closer could assess whether somebody makes a good or bad argument about this, except by imposing my own view, which I must not. So, yes, vote-counting it is. I don't really see a need to amend the closure to spell this lout, though. Sandstein 17:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Good arguments were brought up in the discussion e.g. The Telegraph giving fringe voices disproportionate weight. If think that assessing the arguments is an impossibility, you should not have closed the RfC to begin with. Cortador (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course there were good arguments, as well as bad ones, on either side. But as soon as I as closer attempt to take that into account, without a very clear basis in guidelines and policies on which arguments to discard and which to weigh more heavily, I'll be accused of supervoting by all who disagree with the closure - and not without reason. Sandstein 11:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

And what exactly did vote counting achieve here? I ask you to revert your close and let someone else close it based on arguments. Cortador (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It achieved an assessment of rough consensus (or in this case the lack thereof). I decline to undo my closure. Attempting to assess the strength of individual arguments in this case would be a fool's errand, because there is no prospect of the RFC participants or the community agreeing on the standards by which arguments should be considered persuasive or unpersuasive. Moreover, given the sheer number of opinions, there is no practical way of assessing the degree to which consensus exists (or not) other than a quantitative assessment, i.e., counting. Sandstein 14:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I broadly endorse this view. Even in the absence of perfectly suited policies/guidelines to guide the closer in evaluating arguments, there are classes of arguments that are still discardable: vote-style responses with no reasoning given, ones based on falsified evidence, etc. I think it's extremely unlikely that a reasonable closer who was not supervoting would have found enough such responses to tip the balance away from a no consensus close. I strongly urge that a closure review based on these grounds not be started. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it did not. Consensus isn't achieved by counting votes. As an admin, you should know that. The RfC was, in fact, closed before, and now you decided it's too difficult to close properly. Cortador (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sandstein Your closure has been challenged at the administrators' noticeboard. Cortador (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Glad to see this was speedy-endorsed at AN. Rightly so. Thanks for stepping up and closing the RfC, Sandstein. Daniel (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Lake Bell demonstrating sexy baby voice on NPR.ogg

Thank you for uploading File:Lake Bell demonstrating sexy baby voice on NPR.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)