User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2017/June

Topic ban at for Nishidani

Explanations provided, no further comments forthcoming outside of an appeal.  Sandstein  21:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What's the logic of instituting a topic ban? Many admins commenting on the request disagreed that there was anything to the request. Why were their comments disregarded? I see no consensus for a topic ban in the discussion. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC) A consensus is not needed. AE actions are unilateral. I am of the view that a ban is appropriate for the reasons given in the AE thread.  Sandstein  14:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Of course, a consensus is not needed. You are free to think whatever you find appropriate. But what's the point of AE admins commenting if any admin can unilaterally impose sanctions? If Black Kite had acted unilaterally, Nishidani would not have been sanctioned, while Debresser would have been (perhaps). What kind of procedure is this, when admins' reactions cover such a wide area and they can act as they wish? I quote from this page: Administrators do not need explicit consensus to enforce arbitration decisions and can always act unilaterally. However, when the case is not clear-cut they are encouraged, before acting, to seek input from their colleagues at arbitration enforcement. When a consensus of uninvolved administrators is emerging in a discussion, administrators willing to overrule their colleagues should act with caution and must explain their reasons on request. Again, what was the need for this hurried action? And why was Debresser's conduct not sanctioned? If you consider "piss off" to be a personal attack, what on Earth is a "patronizing dick"? A compliment? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC) I've explained the reasons for my actions, and will comment further if and when Nishdani appeals the sanction. Any discussion prior to such an appeal or with editors other than Nishidani themselves seems pointless to me.  Sandstein  14:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC) You are free to have whatever view you want about Nishidani's conduct, I am not complaining about that. What you have failed to do, either here, or in the AE request, is to explain why you considered it advisable to overrule the consensus of admins commenting (as the AE policy I quoted above says). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC) I do not think that there was a consensus against a topic ban.  Sandstein  17:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC) That's a weird way to put it. One can just as well say that there was no consensus for a topic ban. Indeed, "no consensus" is a perfectly valid outcome of any discussion, including ANI and AE discussions. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC) I also agree that there was no consensus. --NSH001 (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Sandstein, if Nishidani appealed the block, would you provisionally lift it to await an unambiguous consensus to develop? I felt that the ANI should have ran another 24 hours or so. Others would have liked to have contributed to the discussion. I would have liked to certainly. Irondome (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC) There being no consensus is not relevant. Consensus is not required for AE action. The opinions of random bystanders, particularly other editors involved in disputes in the topic area, are not of interest to me, so you didn't miss anything by not contributing. If there is an appeal by Nishidani, I will decide what to do after reading the reasons put forth in the appeal.  Sandstein  20:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Don't take that tone with me mate eh? I would drop the arrogant tone. Remember Sandstein, you are a servant to the community. Keep that in mind when you compose future posts. Irondome (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Yes, I think there might be something for us to look at here. Sandstein, you cannot, in fairness, in one sentence state that 'there was a consensus against a topic ban' and then claim that 'there being no consensus is not relevant.' Either use consensus, or don't. But it isn't a malleable thing, particularly. Imho, of course. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 21:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC) I wrote, "I do not think that there was a consensus against a topic ban", emphasis added. And now I think I have made my view sufficiently clear.  Sandstein  21:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I acknowledge that Sandstein has closed this discussion, and I hope he won't be angry at me for adding to it. It is my personal feeling that in view of the circumstances, Sandstein decided quickly on a monthlong ban, to avoid more serious sanctions. As I see it, admins were just starting to discuss Nishidani, and after the first few editors were less impressed with the seriousness of his edits, the consensus was shifting towards an opinion that Nishidani displays an overall pattern of disruptive behavior, this in view of his previous indefinite topic ban, the warning issued recently by The Wordsmith, and the great number of edits that one way or the other display an uncooperative attitude from Nishdani's side towards his colleagues here. If anything, Sandstein did Nishidani a favor by closing this with only a one month topic ban. And please, don't even try to suggest that I should be sanctioned for only one edit, especially since it was in direct reply to his previous edit and referred in a legitimate way to WP:DICK. Debresser (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response!

Thanks for moving Frederick S. Dunn (Klansman) to Frederic Stanley Dunn. I was just formulating evidence for the change in the spelling of his first name, and puzzling over how to remove the term "Klansman" without glossing over Oregon's sad history of racism. I may expand the article a bit, mentioning his prominent role in the Eugene Klan in the lead and also in a separate section. Thanks again for your bold, decisive action! --Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

AfD closure

Hey Sandstein, hope you're doing well. I just wanted to let you know that your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha 1 (Robert Silverberg anthology) had unintended consequences. You basically closed it as both "keep" and "merge", so the articles have both been merged and kept separately, with the two sides of the debate both citing your AfD closure as justification for their stances. In the future, you may want to be more clear about whether you are closing as "keep" or "merge" since those are two different outcomes. Anyway, not trying to criticize you, just thought it might be useful feedback for the future :) Kaldari (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Sorry if my closure caused confusion, but I think the AfD is short enough to allow everybody to determine the result for themselves.  Sandstein  09:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Al-Andalusi block

The statement in your close: The talk page section to which Al-Andalusi contributed was titled "2014 Acid Attack in West Bank" and was about how to cover acid attacks by Palestinians against Israelis. is wrong. The last edits Al-Andalusi made to the section ([1], [2]) pre-dated the topic ban. Both of the diffs mentioned in the report were to another section. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You're right; I misread that. Nonetheless the block remains valid. The first reported edit did reference Hamas, and the second was to the section "Hamas' reaction", which already makes clear that we are dealing with A-I issues here.  Sandstein  12:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't we allow talk page discussion as long as it's appropriate? I didn't check the case fully, but I just want to make sure the block is on edits to mainspace not to the talkpage, unless they were disruptive. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: No, standard topic bans apply to any page on Wikipedia - article, talk, and project pages are all included in the ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN:, I understand that, I was asking about the ARBPIA talk pages to a new/IP editor. I'm not sure of the timeline and didn't look at it, I might have misread that some of the posts pre-block was on the talk page, which would not be an issue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that enacting a block for a violation on a talkpage, especially where the editor is claiming the edit was not related, is a bit harsh. I mean, even if he is wrong, there is no need to block him, simply pointing out that he is wrong should be enough. Assume good faith. Debresser (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I have to disagree, given the comment at AE that he did not violate an alleged topic ban because the article was not in ARBPIA since Gaza is not part of Israel, this seems pretty clearly deliberate and willful lashing out against a topic ban that he felt was unjustified. He's claiming the edit is not related because Gaza is not in Israel. Sandstein should be commended for responding to that with good faith. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems like an honest misunderstanding on his side, which can easily be clarified to him, without the need for a block. Debresser (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI I have copied Al-Andalusi's appeal to AE as he requested at his talk page. Consider this your notification of the appeal. There's probably a template for this or something. Sorry. GoldenRing (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Big Fish Theory

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Big Fish Theory. 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. Jax 0677 (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

How do you suggest I could have done this differently

Regarding your closing of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jewish_diaspora. My post was definitely not a mess, but a chronological (and logical) explanation of the situation. Since I am not reporting another user, but asking for admins to intervene in a sanction that I was threatened with, and that was actually enacted later, the usual template is not applicable. Your claim that it "can not be processed in this form, is factually incorrect. In any case, since you clearly think it is possible to put the information in the regular form, and think that insistence on that form is more important than taking care of the issue at hand, the abuse of admin privileges that is ongoing, I will make an attempt to do so. Debresser (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I see you have resubmitted this in a slightly less weird form, so I suppose this question is moot.  Sandstein  22:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, in a sense it is. On the other hand, with a bit of goodwill, resulting from a sense of duty to the cause, somebody simply could have added the comments section and admin section, and the result would have been the same. The present format is also weird, as it looks as though I am reporting somebody, while in reality I am asking for broader input on his admin actions. Debresser (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Dated at TfD

Hello. The Template:Dated is relisted for discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 7#Template:Dated at least one week ago. Join in. --George Ho (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

File:James Thomas Hodgkinson.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:James Thomas Hodgkinson.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Khadija Saye listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Khadija Saye. Since you had some involvement with the Khadija Saye redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

UrbanClap

A recreation of this article, for whose prior incarnation you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (4th nomination), is now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 16, and this is your probably-redundant notice of it. —Cryptic 18:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Need Some Help

I don't know why Wikipedians keep deleting "UrbanClap page that I created, it is a notable company and passes WP:GNG and has reliable sources to establish notability as well. As far as language is concerned I have checked a lot of similar pages with similar language. By now it has gained enough of credibility to be worth a wiki page. The whole Wikipedia experience for a novice like me has been intimidating where people don't encourage/help but label your work and mock at you with sarcasm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coxnix (talk • contribs) 13:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, if your article is deleted multiple times for being promotional, I think you should take the not-very-subtle hint about where the problem lies.  Sandstein  08:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Mildred and Richard Loving

Can we discuss possibly recreating a biography of this couple. A lot has changed since the merger with Loving v. Virginia in 2012: movie, countless newspaper articles, books and even memorials.

Per WP:BIO1E: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It's conceivable, but is there really much to say about their lives that does not essentially overlap with Loving v. Virginia? Do we have coverage of them as people outside the context of the case?  Sandstein  08:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe so. It will require a concerted effort by editors to limit the court case to a small section and expound mostly on their lives before and after. I am willing to do the heavy lifting at the beginning. I have found several articles published on the anniversary of the case every 5 years: 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007, 2012, 2017 and at least two full books. I think it is worth a try at least in a draft. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I think starting this as a draft would be a good idea. I'd certainly support moving it to main space if we can come up with something of substance.  Sandstein  08:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

James Hodgkinson

Mr Sandstein:

What can I do to help with the reinstatement of the Wikipedia article on Mr James Hodgkinson? This is so obviously politically motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.76.142 (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

You need to talk to Chrissymad (talk · contribs), who redirected James Hodgkinson back to the incident article. See generally WP:DR for how to resolve such disagrements.  Sandstein  04:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Knight's Cross list AfD

I loved your closing comment here; my sentiment exactly :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Bleeding-heart libertarianism

Hello. I see you deleted and re-directed this article. I would like to rescue it, if possible. I believe it is notable, it was just gutted by the editor who nominated it for deletion -- and it could use some attention, new sources etc. How would I go about this? Can you reverse your action? Or what would I do? Thanks. Isenta (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't seem to have ever deleted or edited Bleeding-heart libertarian.  Sandstein  07:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry the main page was: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bleeding-heart_libertarianism&action=history Isenta (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

What do you think has changed such that the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleeding-heart libertarianism no longer applies?  Sandstein  16:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I would say that I disagree with that "consensus" and don't even really feel it was a strong consensus. Most editors there were just spitballing/guessing and didn't really seem to know the topic or have strong opinions one way or the other. If I spend a little time and clean up the article + add RS's, I doubt those passerby editors would feel the same way. Isenta (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, nobody in that AfD wanted to keep the article, so consensus looks pretty solid to me. You can always start a better draft and ask the AfD participants if they've canged their mind.  Sandstein  17:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Isenta (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)