User talk:Sandstein

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

• Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

• Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

• If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Start a new talk topic

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)

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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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)

Please can you review this close

The discussion was tainted by 3 socks - see this shocking SPI Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

 Erledigt Sandstein 14:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

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 oder 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)

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)

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)

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)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Bergmanson

Were there policies other than WP:DEL8 and WP:ATD that you considered in this closing?  If not, how is it that you didn't conclude that ATD prevails over DEL8 in this case?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

What I considered was that consensus was that coverage of this person in reliable sources was insufficient for notability. Sandstein 14:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how to work with that, as a failure of WP:N notability doesn't explain why an ATD merge doesn't prevail over a DEL8 delete.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Although, if your response literally means that that is what you considered, it means that you haven't considered whether or not ATD prevails over DEL8.  To that end please review WP:IGNORINGATD, which is no longer an essay but "an explanatory supplement to Wikipedia:Deletion policy":

The fact that a topic is not notable is not, in and of itself, valid grounds for deleting a page, its content, or its history. If merger and/or redirection is feasible in a given case, either is preferable to deletion. To validly argue for deletion, editors need to additionally advance separate arguments against both merger and redirection, on relevant grounds. (Since "merger" includes a history merge without redirection, an argument against redirection is not an argument against merger). Since any verifiable topic/content can in principle be redirected/merged to an article on a broader topic, this should be exceptionally difficult. Valid arguments against merger might be based on WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT or WP:BLP, in particular. ...Valid arguments against redirection must be based on the criteria specified in WP:R...See further WP:ATD.

Citations

and Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion:

...valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements... When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be...redirected oder merged to another article, then consider recommending..."Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why.

Citations

Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be that non-notability should not be a reason for deletion. Constant practice at AfD is to the contrary. The pages you cite are not policies or guidelines (very explicitly so in the case of WP:ATA) and are therefore not relevant for closing discussions. They contain advice to those who participate in discussions, and it is therefore them you need to convince, and not me, by making arguments in favor of this view in the individual AfDs. Because your idiosyncratic views are frequently in a minority of one in AfD discussions, however, I don't think that continuing this discussion is worth the while. Sandstein 18:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nonce_(slang)

You closed it as delete but it did not get deleted. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Obvious sock

Hello Sandstein, I believe User:Dank Chicken is a sock for the following reasons: He registered on 17 November, his very first edits shows that he is a veteran editor who has probably spent years at Wikipedia:[1], he registered his account at Commons only 4 days after and immediately started creating several advanced maps:[2]

He has spent his time at Wikipedia/Commons almost exclusively editing Arab-Israel conflict articles, including pushing a strong pov that occupied territories "are part of Israel":[3]

I asked him at his talkpage and he admitted that he has had a previous account, he has then refused to give me a real answer to what his previous account name was:[4], anyone with half a brain can easily see that he has spent several years at wikipedia/commons, how is it possible he doesn't remember his old account? does that make any sense?

Considering the large amount of editors who where sanctioned/blocked/banned several years ago (2009-2012) its basically impossible to locate the sock master, so a SPI wouldn't help here. I think you should just block him per being someones obvious sock. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, what's a "sock"? Just because you don't agree with me, doesn't mean you have to accuse me of things. I did NOT spend SEVERAL YEARS at Wikipedia before, I probably spent a few months.

Secondly, I never claimed that the occupied West Bank is part of Israel. You are under the false belief that the annexed east Jerusalem and Golan are occupied. If you scroll though the Israel talk page, you'll find that almost everyone agrees with me, and I'm always listing reliable sources and Wikipedia precedents to back up my proposals.

Thirdly, I'm not editing Arab-Israeli conflict images on Wikimedia commons, I'm creating one map. And I've never included it in a Wikipedia article yet because all the shit last month made me pretty aware to not edit such articles yet... Dank Chicken (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Supreme Deliciousness: Without an indication of who Dank Chicken might be a sock of I have no grounds for action. If you think you have more substantial evidence, please submit it to WP:SPI where the experts on such issues are. Sandstein 10:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The Indelicates

Hi there. Not sure how two editors with a combined 13 edits managed to get this article deleted but I think I can attribute that to the Xmas season and low participation. Judging that it took me literally five seconds to find this, I don't think you will mind when I restore this article to work on it, do you? Regards SoWhy 14:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

No, if you can rewrite the article such that the reason for deletion no longer applies, the AfD is superseded. Sandstein 14:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you called this AfD correctly. There were two !votes that paraphrased WP:JNN and a week's relisting with nothing. That's a "no consensus" in my book. While it's good for the project to expand the article (possibly using the many news sources available), it's not mandatory to do so and I would support quietly putting it back into mainspace (unless you really want to take this to DRV?) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It was an uncontested 2-week AfD with people making, on their face, valid policy-based deletion rationales. The "delete" arguments were more than "just not notable", but addressed the quality of the article's sources at a level of detail that is quite common at AfD. So, procedurally, this is a clear delete. But as indicated above, I've no problem with SoWhy restoring the article with additional sources that clearly establish notability. Sandstein 15:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)