User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2017/February

Spidey-sense is tingling

Since you made a comment or two on Talk:Serena Williams article a couple sections ago I'm wondering if you'd take a minor glance at the "Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2017" section. I almost feel that I'm talking to the same person in Fatality1 and Svrodgers. They are attacking me in similar fashion, the both pretty much only edit Serena Williams and affiliate articles, Fatality1 is brand new, they are similar to another editor who I had to deal with in the past Thad caldwell aka TJC-tennis-geek. Same edits, same attacks, same Serena-or-bust attitudes. I sure hope I'm not dealing with clones. Your sense is better than mine on these things, but others are now starting to sound off on these guys talk pages... so I'm not alone in feeling attacked. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not a socking expert and not a checkuser, so I can't help you here. There is some reason to believe from behavior that we are dealing with sock- or meatpuppetry, though, so I recommend opening a WP:SPI case. Just a word of advice, if you want to convince others to edit collegially, using terms such as "Knock it off!!!! Keep the bias crap to yourself" is not a good idea. Try to focus on content, not on the collaborator.  Sandstein  09:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Creating Comparison of online interactive charts

Hi (Sorry for the three messages something went wrong :( )

I know you are trying to keep Wikipedia neutral and clean, but plz let me know why did you delete the web page "Creating Comparison of online interactive charts"? it is a good information about the comparison between different online interactive tools.

Take care

Museagle (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I never deleted "Creating Comparison of online interactive charts".  Sandstein  20:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Query on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative facts

Firstly, while I do not believe this constitutes requesting arbitration enforcement action (as it's a RFC rather than a request for action), if this is the wrong forum, I do apologise preemptively and ask you to direct me to where it may be appropriate. But this is rather also a clarification of WP:Notability, since there is nothing I can find there referring specifically to notability in phrases or terminology. In closing the AfD, you described being doubtful of "the lasting importance of this recently coined phrase", but there are some (admittedly sparse) citations referring to the term long preceding Trump's campaign for presidency which contradicts it being "recently coined" per se. I have the impression that this signifies a distinctive usage and implication of the phrase preceding Trump, which may or may not lend to notability, and thus may lead to a deletion of the article being a case of WP:Demolish Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built (Edited in due to failed hyperlinking) and therefore prompting a need for an expansion needed tag for usage preceding the mid 2010s. Is my understanding correct, and if not, would you be able to point out where my thinking is wrong (eg. does the historicity of the phrase provide an argument for notability)? Many thanks! Benjitheijneb (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on this, sorry.  Sandstein  08:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Very glad...

...to see you active again on AE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I had to take a break for a time because of the amount of tension this board generates; good to see it's still around and seems to work.  Sandstein  08:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is an example of a decision where you found a way to close it convincingly and without the long palaver which sometimes happens at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Small mistake with your close

• Hi Sandstein, I'm sure it must be a mistake you committed unknowingly while closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sangita Phogat. I think you redirected the page to the wrong article. Thanks. Lourdes 02:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, fixed.  Sandstein  09:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

File:National Bank of New Zealand logo.svg

You have closed this discussion with the comment: "Keep" closure endorsed. I brought it to deletion review because the image was removed from the specified articles. Can you please clarify your understanding? 2.25.221.253 (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

DRV only addresses the result of deletion discussions about whether to delete or keep the image file. Individual page edits about whether or not to display the image are a matter for editors to resolve through editing and consensus.  Sandstein  13:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein. I think what IP 2.25.222.253 is asking for is clarification on your use of the word "keep". The FFD was about the file's non-free use in multiple articles. The close of the FFD was that such use is compliant in one of the articles, but not the rest. All the !votes in the DRV were to endorse the close, so I'm assuming that your use of "keep" means "keep the close as usual"; if, however, that is not the case and your "keep" means "keep in all articles", then could you make that point clear. Thanks in advance -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@2.25.222.253: I am assuming you're the same person who has been involved in the discussion of this file from the start. It might help avoid confusion if you register for an account because every new post from you about this seems to come from a new IP. Also, assuming you are the same IP as before, there's no reason to continue to engage in edit warring over this. It's best just to follow proper process since edit warring, even if you truly believe you're in the right, is only going to be seen as disruptive and may lead to your IPs being blocked. I don't think that's an outcome that anyone participating in the discussion about this file's use really desires, but it is something which may happen if you continue to re-add the file to various articles as you've been doing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Transition Design page

Hello, I see that you are the admin that approved the deletion of the article Transition Design. I also saw that the article was moved to draft status here Draft:Transition_design. What edits would you suggest to restore the page? One of the complaining editors on the AFD page called the article "uncited spam" but the original article had over 50 citations and reads to me as informative, not spammy. The other complaint was that the article seemed to be about a neologism, which would imply that the idea exists only as an idea, but there are several books published on the topic, conferences, and an academic program at a major US university. Thanks for any suggestions for next steps. UnkleFester (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have an opinion on that. I suggest you ask the person who proposed the deletion of the original version of the article.  Sandstein  08:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Relist

This seems like a formality, but regarding this relisting, the entirety of the page is copy/pasted from another article (List of the causes of genital pain). The only reason it wasn't speedied is the article creator reverted it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, then I suppose that needs to be made more clear in the AfD and it will reach a suitable conclusion eventually.  Sandstein  08:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

AE closure

Hi, I was wondering why you closed the AE when it was only open one day, especially since your closing argument is incorrect. I posted the required DS notice to his talk page, he then continued to revert. That is a DS violation, regardless of the BLP issue or the 1RR issue. I also don't appreciate being called a sock (and my radar goes off when someone with 50 edits knows about socks and sandboxes, etc.) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

As I noted in the comments, in my view the report did not establish that the requirements for enforcement action were met.  Sandstein  14:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

So what are the requirements for notification, if not posting a required DS notice? (Besides, I did spell out to him that if he reverts against seeking consensus, he can be reported and blocked.) That, plus you still closed the AE without letting other admins comment, less than one day is way too short for an AE. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I have given my reasons at WP:AE. There is no set time for a request to remain open. You remain free to request direct action by other admins.  Sandstein  14:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand that, but I asked you what is proper notification. Can you please answer that? On the AE page it says a DS notice is required. I provided that. So if you feel that a different notice is required, please let me know so I know for next time. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Users must be notified both of discretionary sanctions in general, in the prescribed form per WP:AC/DS, as well as of any page-specific restrictions prior to making the edits for which they are to be sanctioned.  Sandstein  15:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And which part didn't I do? I notified him of the DS in the form of the required DS notice. He then reverted without seeking consensus which went against the restrictions. I am not seeing where you see no notice was given. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

As I said in the closure, I see no evidence that the user was made aware of the 1RR restrictions applying to the article. They do not seem to show up in the edit notice, at least for me. Also, you did not date the diff of the DS notice, which left me unable to determine from looking at the report whether the notice was made prior to the revert. My discussion about this matter ends here.  Sandstein  15:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

What does 1RR have to do with DS? His violation of 1RR was in addition to him violating the DS. But hey, be a typical admin and "end the conversation" when you can't admit wrongdoing. Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

de.wiki Question

Congrats, your're active and also listed on Wikipedia:Local Embassy. I've done a touch of image additions to non-English articles lately, and I'm a bit confused about this revert on de. Everything I've seen so far seemed to indicate that they followed similar conventions as en when it came to lead image placement. Am I mistaken on that? Because I will be careful not to repeat the same mistake if I am. TimothyJosephWood 20:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

That's an odd revert. I think your edit was correct. de:Wikipedia:Formatvorlage Biografie is a sort of template for biographies, and it places the lead image below the lead paragraph. However, actual practice on de: as here is to put the lead image at the top. There's a long discussion about this at de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Formatvorlage Biografie#Bildposition, where as far as I can tell consensus is that putting the image at the top is indeed preferable, but Otberg, who reverted you, is opposed to this because they believe that this hurts accessibility. Looks like a WP:OWN issue.  Sandstein  22:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Got it. Good to know I didn't totally miss the mark on that. Unfortunately, I'm pretty much constrained to making unambiguous and uncontested improvements, so I suppose they'll have to take it from here. TimothyJosephWood 23:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Edits which change a correct postion are realy odd. Please stop that. --Otberg (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your edit on the Benjanun Sriduangkaew topic on october 31 2016

Benjanun_Sriduangkaew is certainly a controversial one and I agree with your edit a point but I wanted to ask about one specific part. The Mixon report cites rape threats by her on an anonymous source of since deleted conversations by usernames that don't check out.

That statement seems to be the most controversial and least supported by actual evidence. I would cite a blog arguing it's bunk but that's not a reliable source. Thoughts? I don't want to start an edit war or some shit and I'm a new account so I wondered if in you opinion that part should be removed, seeing as all sides pointing at it are unreliable, IMHO.

I can't quite follow you. Can you please sign your message and identify the specific text you would like to be removed?  Sandstein  22:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh! Sure. "Using these Internet identities, she published violently intimidating and harsh critiques, which included death and rape threats,", I think the part with dead and rape threats is not accurate, especially the rape accusation. Kitisa 00:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the rape part is sourced to what seems a reliable source, the Daily Dot: "Equally alarming, Sriduangkaew's behavior as Winterfox included death and rape threats" ([1]). Because Wikipedia's content is based on reliable sources, it would be inappropriate to just remove this content just because we believe it is false (see WP:TRUTH). But if there is another reliable source that contradicts it, we can mention that in the article, such as "... according to the Daily Dot, but contradicted by X".  Sandstein  08:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Well the Daily dot was quoting a anon source and it's an old topic... I mean, it's quite a serious accusation and at the very least lacks that context from the Daily Dot article, right? There's a difference between aggressive and angry troll and violent troll that doesn't seems clear here. Kitisa 06:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that any particular context is needed for rape threats. We don't second guess the sources our reliable sources use - that would again be original research. If there is more nuance to be provided for this issue, it would have to be based on (other) reliable sources.  Sandstein  08:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Twice As Nice page

Hello Sandstein,

I note that you are the admin who deleted the Twice As Nice page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Twice_as_Nice

As the discussion indicates, the group failed general notability guidelines but easily achieved the guidelines for subject specific notability, specifically WP:Notability_(music) - criteria states you only need to meet either the general guidelines or the subject specific guidelines.

Would you be able to comment on the discussion on the deletion page? It would great to get some clarification on what criteria the group requires to have a article.

Thanks (Haydon.h. (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC))

I don't have an opinion on that. I only determined that the discussion resulted in consensus to delete.  Sandstein  19:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Would you recommend that I ask for a deletion review? My position is that the deletion process did not pay attention to the relevant criteria. (Haydon.h. (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC))

I do not recommend it. The discussion was unanimous except for you. Pretty good indicator that you're on the wrong track, that.  Sandstein  20:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Closure vs. relist

In my experience this would have been a good candidate for a relist - there was only one comment of keep/delete, and it was "leaning towards delete". The page was subsequently deleted, but I think the debate over GNG should have continued, as not even rough consensus had been established. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps. But in unanimous cases (and no opinion other than "delete" was voiced"), I normally do not relist.  Sandstein  15:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeon Jungkook

To whom it may concern,

I see that you deleted Jeon Jungkook Wikipedia page. I'd like to know why and if that could be resolved. QueenVthe2nd (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeon Jungkook was most recently deleted by Explicit. Please ask them.  Sandstein  18:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Copy of old Project Peanut Butter page?

Hi, you are noted as the admin who deleted Project Peanut Butter. I would like to work on the page to improve it (and make sure the notability is clear). Could I get the page userfied or the wikitext sent to me? Thanks! Riceissa (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't undelete pages, please ask at WP:UND.  Sandstein  08:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Erin_Marcus

Hi there. I noticed that you closed the AfD for Erin Marcus as "no consensus." The vote was 7-4, in favor of delete. Policy cited in that discussion included: failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF, while being WP:TOOSOON. -Delta13C (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

AfDs are not votes.  Sandstein  17:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletions at WP:AE

Is there a reason you deleted people's statements at WP:AE without the courtesy of informing them of that fact? --Calton | Talk 14:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I do not consider such a notification necessary.  Sandstein  14:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Zoran Terzić

I disagree with your closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoran Terzić as keep. Those advocating keep didn't make a policy-based argument. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

You have a point. Relisted.  Sandstein  16:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal of my comment on AE

I left a short comment on AE explaining what editors working at 2016 United States election interference by Russia had been told about the policy on 1RR. In detail, we have been told that if long-standing material is removed from the article, and then restored by a revert, then the material cannot be removed again without consensus. You removed my comment. But now, you're considering a topic ban on JFG, using an opposite interpretation of 1RR from the one we were given (and which I explained in my now-deleted comment at AE) on the talk page of 2016 United States election interference by Russia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

What you say seems accurate, but in general, each administrator exercises their own discretion and judgment when applying discretionary sanctions, and is not bound by opinions other admins may have expressed.  Sandstein  17:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Just think of the implications of different admins applying opposite interpretations of policy on one page. One admin has told us that the 1RR policy means one thing, so we're acting in accordance with that interpretation. What happens if another admin comes around and punishes us for following the policy advice of the first admin? Sure, you might have leeway under the discretionary sanctions system to take an opposite view on policy from another admin, but the consequences of doing so (especially handing out topic bans to users who followed the first admin's prescriptions) seem chaotic to me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, this is mitigated somewhat by admins generally discussing enforcement actions with each other at AE, as well as the possibility of appeals. But basically Wikipedia does not work on a hierarchical model, and neither do its enforcement mechanisms.  Sandstein  18:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I would hope, nevertheless, that you would take into account the fact that another admin gave the opposite interpretation of 1RR on the talk page as you're giving, and that you're proposing to topic ban an editor precisely because they followed the other admin's interpretation. Surely the fact that JFG was acting in line with what they had been told was policy must carry some weight in determining whether or not you hand out sanctions to them. For me (and other editors who are involved at 2016 United States election interference by Russia), the outcome you're proposing (a topic ban for an editor who followed MelanieN's interpretation of 1RR) puts me in an awkward situation, because we now have no idea what the 1RR restriction means. Does it mean that we cannot remove any material from the article ever? Or does it mean that we cannot revert when someone else removes material from the article? Whatever we do, one or another admin may sanction us. It's a total roll of the dice - the policy may be one thing or its exact opposite, depending on which admin happens to be paying attention. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure the confusion you refer to even exists. But, in general, an editor who, when in doubt, does not revert but instead waits for consensus to support their edit should not have problems under any circumstances.  Sandstein  21:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

It certainly exists, and is detailed in the comment I made at AE (the one you removed). We were told precisely the opposite of what you're claiming here: that the person who wants to remove long-standing material has to first gain consensus, rather than the other way around. So you can see the confusion: one admin tells us that removal requires consensus, and that reverting a removal of material is legitimate, while another admin tells us that adding back in long-standing material requires consensus, and that reverting the removal is worthy of a topic ban. The result of your interpretation of 1RR, as was discussed on MelanieN's talk page by a number of admins (I linked to this discussion in my now-deleted AE comment), is to destabilize articles, by making it very easy to delete material, but very difficult to maintain the current status of the article. This is the opposite of what 1RR is meant to achieve. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The relevant point, which was discussed on article talk, is that while some editors are extremely active 24/7 others review content less frequently. Text that's been in the article for only a month is not really "longstanding", especially if no previous discussion has indicated consensus or even attention to it. At any rate, that acknowledged BLP violation doesn't gain anything by a month-long standing. Talk page consensus is clear on that. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, please make a statement about your AE case at AE. I am not interested in hearing your views elsewhere for the moment.  Sandstein  18:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC) I understand. I don't really have anything to add. I could write that I am not in violation, but I think others have made that clear and it would only incite further off-topic discussion. I am going to be back this evening so if you don't mind and you require a statement from me, please just say so and I will do that in about 8 hours. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

CIA activities in ... deletions

Hi. Back in November, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIA activities in Asia and deleted the following articles:

However, looking at the discussion, it appears that the AfD actually listed only four articles: CIA activities in Asia, CIA activities in Africa, CIA activities in the Americas and CIA activities in Russia and Europe. Are you sure you interpreted the discussion correctly? Or am I missing something? --Paul_012 (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. The AfD closing script seems to have deleted all of these in error. I'll restore them.  Sandstein  18:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

No, actually, these were all redirects to the deleted articles. The deletions were therefore correct.  Sandstein  19:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

AE

I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for keeping the AE submissions orderly by discouraging comments that don't bring specific evidence or diffs to the table. It's been a bit of a long-running issue that involved editors come in and comment about how one side is "right" in the dispute. Steps to making AE a leaner process are valuable. --Laser brain (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback!  Sandstein  14:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I second that. I do have one comment. I have never initiated an AE thread, and I was not aware that there's a template that requires dates and possibly other information in a specificed format. On a recent thread, when OP omitted those diffs, I added them only to have them deprecated because they did not follow the date-diff format. I'm not sure whether this is a problem or whether the process would benefit from some enhancement or amendment, but it took me by surprise and I think that other editors may also be unaware of this. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It's in the AE template, but yes, we might need to make this more clear.  Sandstein  16:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for your volunteer efforts in this difficult role. SPECIFICO talk 17:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Assistance

I was hoping my complaint did not have less than understandable elements. I am requesting assistance guidance here for what you need. First, I do see two possible revert restriction violations. I may not need assistance here for that.

Second, I looked up WP:ACDS and have come up with Gaming the System. With the following I cite aspects of that page - per WP:GAME - "to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view" - Per WP:GAMETYPE - 4. "Spuriously and knowingly claiming...justification or support...for a viewpoint or stance which actually contradicts policy."

Page example: "Saying that content meets the policy on verifiability because it is cited to a source, when in fact the source is not reliable, or the content twists the source's point of view." I don't like using Gaming the system as that seems to be strong wording.<//s>

However...moving on...without actually expecting a decision here (of course), with Gaming the system I would be trying to show that material is assertively being inserted which is undue, and which contradicts wp:v, and which has no support in reliable secondary sources. Essentially, in terms of DS this is attempting to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view (a view which contradicts policy). Actually, two or three paragraphs (or sentences) in this article are involved so that would be a different non-neutral POV for each one.

And I am trying to avoid "content dispute" here. First, is this a reasonable DS violation issue, as long as it is not about resolving a content dispute, but is actually about doing an end around content policies? This is actually what I was trying to show with the set of reverts at the top of the page - in terms of reverts. I added a sprinkling of talk page comments to demonstrate the basis of policy violations. But, now I have no idea if this works for DS.

Next, if this rationale is acceptable, then I will probably add some of Thucydides411 talk page responses. I suppose my overall question is - does this work for AE and demonstration of DS violations? Should I do without Thucydides411 talk page responses? What are your general thoughts on how this might work? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I should have said I am asking for guidance - not assistance. I also refer you to the DS page itself and the relevant section: Guidance for editors - and the following two bullets:

2. comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

5 refrain from gaming the system.

So, it appears what I am getting at is non-compliance per #2 above - noncompliance with (some) applicable policies and guidelines. But gaming the system also seems to work.

In any case, right now I am amending my complaint to reversion restriction violations. Depending on your response here, I will see about adding something pertaining to this - or I won't add it. Thanks in advance for you guidance. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Well, it is obvious you are already doing a lot. What I have written above seems complicated. So, for now, I think it is best to just drop this. I can study this material on my own to see what I can do for a later time if necessary.

For now, I am going to let it go for this AE and sticking with my amendment. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

GMO logging

When browsing ARBGMO for some other reason I just happened to see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Enforcement actions where you logged some recent sanctions at the end of the case. My impression is that the committee now wants these in the WP:DSLOG instead: All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the sanction at issue was not a discretionary sanction.  Sandstein  08:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, point taken. It was enforcement of a topic ban imposed directly by Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Reinstating Music News (Music-News.com) page

Hi Sandstein

I hope all is well. The below seeks to represent the validity and growing reach and importance of Music-News.com through the years since 2003. I hope the information provided below can be added to your original Music News page http://web.archive.org/web/20161018011154/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_News and be reinstated to provide an informative article for the numerous Wikipedia mentions Music-News.com continues to accrue. There are over 70,000 link quotes attributed to Music-News.com, below is a small sample spread. If alternatives are required please let me know. I have tried to supply this in the correct format if I need to alter in any way please let me know. Thanks for your time and patience.

Lots of confusing content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Music News (also Music-News.com) is an independent online music magazine based in North London, UK. A respected news and review resource since 2003, its reach has filtered through to all areas of the music and entertainment industry. The site features album, single, live and festival reviews from a dedicated team of over 250 contributors, the site is regularly quoted by the BBC [2][3]. Articles from Music News have been re-produced by newspapers[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15], music publications [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38], and news/entertainment outlets[39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49] In a piece on Music News, New Media Age journalist Michael Nutley wrote that it "reads like a superior fanzine" and "does well" on the news front, albeit with an "idiosyncratic" writing style [50]. Conversely, Andrew Eaton-Lewis in the Scotland on Sunday wrote an article in which he criticised the site after it broke news of a Smiths reformation, which was later denied by band members. The article went viral[51] and reunion plans were not confirmed, a fact that could be explained by later health revelations[52]. Music News has a link on True To You, widely seen as Morrissey’s personal voice piece.[53] Music News also publishes high-profile exclusive filmed interviews with multiple chart musicians available on the MusicNewsWeb youtube channel [54] and frequently republished and quoted [55][56][57][58][59][60][61] Music News is also quoted on many band sites direct [62][63][64] Music News Underground [65] actively promotes and discovers new talent [66] and has become platform to premiere new songs and videos [67][68][69] Roy Stride, lead singer of Scouting For Girls commented "Music News gave us our first review and it was a good one. A well needed boost right at the start of our career." Marco Gandolfi is the longstanding editor of Music News and is a voting panel member of The BRITs, BBC Music Awards and a BBC News contributor [70]. Music News garners over two million visitors a month, and has kept the prized top Google ‘music news’ search for 12 years. Music News also operates internationally with Italian and Maltese [71] sites and forms part of an entertainment network alongside Film News [film-news.co.uk], Theatre News [theatre-news.com], and Game News [game-news.co.uk] Music News Presents… 2008-2011 In 2008 Music News launched ‘Music News Presents…’ providing a platform for unsigned and up-and-coming bands. These nights were originally held in Fulham but then moved to several different Camden venues. In October 2013 ‘Music News Presents…’ was brought back for a one-off special to celebrate the 10th Anniversary of the site with live sets including Billy Lunn of The Subways, Ghetts, IV Rox, Charlie Brown and Forget The Down. External links: Website: http://www.music-news.com/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/musicnewsweb Twitter: https://twitter.com/MusicNewsWeb Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/user/MusicNewsWeb

Why should any of this concern me?  Sandstein  19:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Was this not your original page? I have been working to reinstate the page that you took down. What should I be doing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Gandolfi (talk • contribs) 20:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I deleted a page? What was its exact title?  Sandstein  20:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think it was under your remit, it was Music News (Music-News.com) here is the link http://web.archive.org/web/20161018011154/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_News — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Gandolfi (talk • contribs) 21:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music News. What are the best two new sources that you think address that discussion's result that the topic fails WP:N?  Sandstein  21:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

With regards to notability I put together the original text at the start of this thread. With this in mind could you consider adding the new information and reinstating the page as a news source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Gandolfi (talk • contribs) 21:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Two important articles which quote from our exclusive breaking news interviews are http://www.nme.com/news/music/the-who-83-1272512 and http://ultimateclassicrock.com/kiss-gene-simmons-thinks-axl-rose-deserves-a-beatdown/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Gandolfi (talk • contribs) 01:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

By your use of "our" I assume you are affiliated with the subject. I will not help you promote your business on Wikipedia. See WP:COI. Request declined.  Sandstein  12:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, this was a page which already existed and I have nothing to do with. I was asked to provide supporting content because of the deletion. This is not a promotional exercise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Gandolfi (talk • contribs) 16:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I was asked to contribute to this debate, I did not in any way instigate it. This has been requested because of the number of links on Wikipedia attributed to Music-News.com. Can you please see the validity two previous links sent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Gandolfi (talk • contribs) 12:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

This does not even make sense. I will not reply further.  Sandstein  13:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you tell me

How is it that the Everipedia article, in the one AfD discussion I can find, has you concluding no consensus, but then one cannot still find the article in the article main space? Was there a subsequent AfD? I would like access to the old article, because an article is now called for, by the business sourcing, at least (likely other news as well). If you give me access to the old, I would dust it off and give it a go—I can ensure any stub that goes in is well-sourced, and otherwise encyclopedic. My interest is solely in having information on this startup, appearing in article form. However much we might detest its concept and execution, it is a real entity, and is out there, and appearing in the news. It is to our detriment to not have it covered (and gives the appearance of bias). Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Never mind on this, Beeblebrox is going to userify the latest version prior to deletion, so I can take a look, and assess its value and prospects in light of further reporting. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The Red Tyger Church

Hello, I am a long-time Wikipedian but spend most of my time writing on my Facebook page about what I call "under appreciated rock bands", i.e., those with no Wikipedia article. I am not trying to revive the article on The Red Tyger Church, but I am interested in seeing if I can view the deleted page. I guess I have not tried to look at a fully deleted article before; can you help me take a look? Thank you in advance. Shocking Blue (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't view The Red Tyger Church. Only admins can view deleted articles.  Sandstein  17:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and notice

Thank you for clarifying what the "six months" referred to; I thought I could appeal at any time, and was thinking that maybe I would have a "better shot" in six months, but wasn't quite sure. Now I know the difference between appealing to you personally and appealing to AE. With that said, I have filed an appeal at AE, and this is your notice. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

i need to create a wikipedia article you deleted

I need to create "Aniyan Midhun" wikipedia Aticle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhanu246 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

How interesting.  Sandstein  20:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

AE sanction

Is my sanction indefinite? Mr Ernie (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes.  Sandstein  19:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Please explain to me how an indefinite sanction is warranted based on my comments in that particular AE request, so that I may avoid such actions in the future. I had apologized for my comments, and struck another comment that I deemed inappropriate. I would request that you please place a 1 year duration for the sanction. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to appeal it after whatever you think is an appropriate time, and provide examples of useful AE comments you would have made if you had been able to. Because sanctions are preventative, not punitive, I don't particularly like time-limited sanctions.  Sandstein  20:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

You want me to write hypothetical AE comments for my appeal process? If you will place an expiration time of 1 year or something, I will voluntarily withdraw from AE on the whole, indefinitely. I do not like having an indefinite sanction hovering over my account. In my 10 years of editing, your administrative action is one of the most offensive things I've had happen to me. Per WP:ADMINACCT, please take my comment seriously and with good faith. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I mean, at the time you decide to appeal the sanction, point to ongoing AE threads and say, "if I could, I would write X, Y and Z, and that would help admins decide what to do with the request". Bonus points if it is not in support of an editor whose opinions you share. – Generally speaking, I am profoundly disinterested in your feelings; I am only interested in an AE board that does not make me waste my time. As your comments have so far.  Sandstein  20:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, per WP:ADMINACCT your flippant responses are in fact having quite the demoralizing affect on me. I have asked for good faith explanations as to why the sanction was indefinite, and for an enactment of an expiration date so I do not have to participate in the appeal process. I do not want to participate any longer in AE, yet instructions you gave me for a potential appeal include a hypothetical participation in AE. So, per the law of holes and WP:STICK, this will be my final comment to you. Please take it seriously and provide a substantive response. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you don't want to participate in AE, then why do you care? TimothyJosephWood 20:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a valid point, and I addressed it above. I don't want an indefinite sanction hanging on to my account. I've seen such sanctions and block logs used against editors in content spats. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I mean, it is a powerful debuff...makes it nearly impossible to roll crits. TimothyJosephWood 21:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't understand that reference. Sandstein am I allowed to open new requests for arbitration enforcement, like to file an appeal for example? The sanction you wrote does not say so, but the appeal process you linked does. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you may appeal your sanction at any time.  Sandstein  22:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)