User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2018/May

Clarification requested

I have thrown out the last three articles that I had on my watchlist that were part of the "forbidden fields". But I like a tiny bit clarification to prevent accidents. I do not know what companies are active in the "forbidden fields" beyond three of them. Is it a violation when I come across navigation templates with links to disambiguation pages and I fix those links? (of course not when a template is clearly a forbidden field, then I stay away all together). The Banner talk 08:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't really say much more than: in case of doubt, do not make the edit. Sorry. Sandstein 09:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Alterra Mountain Company deletion

Hello,

I respectfully request review or re-opening of the deletion decision of Alterra_Mountain_Company. See Talk page for further discussion. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The article is currently not deleted. I don't see what more could be done. Sandstein 18:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for being a bit new to the deletion portion of wikipedia, but the deletion policy page says WP:XFD "To implement a 'delete' outcome: close the deletion discussion as 'delete'; delete the page, and link to the deletion discussion in the deletion summary...". It appears you closed the discussion as delete but didn't delete the page. I'd like for the page to remain, at least pending further discussion on the Talk page. If you're not planning to implement the delete, that's fine but I suppose any editor could implement the deletion at this point and point to the AFD result to justify doing so. Any idea how to prevent that? Can closing editors re-open an AFD discussion? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Somebody recreated the article after I deleted it per the AfD. The new version is substantially different from the deleted one, so it will not be deleted via WP:G4 unless somebody renominates it for deletion. Maybe the original nominator, DGG (talk · contribs), has an opinion about this. Sandstein 18:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. That explains things. Nothing more for you to do here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Sockpupped related AfD lookup request

Sandstein, can you discover who wrote the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slate Star Codex? I ask because there is an odd/problematic new editor User:ApolloCarmb who has just recreated Slate Star Codex. I doubt that I am the only editor wondering what names he has used before.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The creator was Greenrd on 17 March 2017. Sandstein 18:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Bad 'law' makes for sub-standard decisions

Sandstein, that's a shocking bad decision, considering Cassianto did not breach the restriction as it is currently written (in other words there is no breach, and particularly not a "clear violation"). Perhaps you should read through the comments thoroughly, (and take on board the filer's inaccurate representation of what the restriction is) before you make your decision. It's a ridiculously counter-productive decision that will only appease the IB warriors, stalkers and trolls. - SchroCat (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Related to this:

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Civility in infobox discussions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, GoldenRing (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Kalisochina Adrustum

Dear Sandstein, this is regarding the movie article Kalisochina Adrustum which has been deleted lack of references according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalisochina Adrustum. But these are maximum available and the same are used in other articles which are accepted. Can you please guide me how to recreate the article. Regards Dr. Bhargava Teja.(B.Bhargava Teja (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC))

You can recreate the article if in doing so you can address the deficiencies identified in the deletion discussion. Sandstein 05:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Get your gear in order

So, not only were the committee (deliberately) ambiguous with regards to their awful writing at the ArbCom case with regards to "no more than one comment" bullshit, but perhaps the biggest fraud of it all was calling the case "civility in infobox discussions". I think you'll find my recent comments were very civil, which kind of contradicts the case title, don't you think? Yet more evidence of this case being about me in all but name. The bungling incompetence of the committee, highlighted further by your own display of the same, is evident for all to see. Well done. Happy editing. Cassianto^Talk 23:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

As a follow up, and according to your AE FAQ, I would like to ask you why you did not wait for further comment from other uninvolved administrators regarding this particular request for arbitration enforcement. Thank you. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Because I considered that a quick closure of this rather obvious case was preferable given the considerable acrimony and battleground mentality in the statements, which might have required additional sanctions if it had been allowed to accumulate. Sandstein 05:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

An obvious case to who? Perhaps you consider yourself to be inherently better than us mere morsels that you can understand the ambiguous garbage spouted by ArbCom a few months ago; or maybe administrators talk in a language exclusive only to them? Either way, you are in a minority. It's perhaps not surprising that such a fraudulent case attracts such fraudulent behaviour. Even your your stupid template on my talk page is fraudulent as my efforts to discuss this on your talk page has so far been ignored. Cassianto^Talk 07:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Rather than answer people's difficult questions, Mr Ernie, Sandstein will no doubt find it much easier to unilaterally delete this entire thread, so watch this space. People like him stalk the site, with admin tools flung over their shoulder in a potato sack, actively looking for the next poor individual to fuck over in a show of "I'm the boss and you're the minion, now get back in your place". Truth is, he's just another megalomaniac in amongst a plethora of other like-minded individuals. Cassianto^Talk 04:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Ruchir Modi new page

I would like to grab your attention, I am going to create a page about Ruchir Modi which has been deleted twice. I am confused, can you guide me? Is there any way to share my own written content? Spconnor (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You can recreate Ruchir Modi if you can address the deficiencies identified in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruchir Modi (2nd nomination). Sandstein 13:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Notifying

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Anythingyouwant and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cassianto^Talk 20:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate Relist of AfD

[1] is inappropriate. Don't do that please. Obvious consensus to delete existed before the first relist. Legacypac (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. Sandstein 07:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

KYE Systems Corp. deletion

Hi Sandstein, I don't agree with the deletion of KYE Systems Corp. (see [[2]]). What can I do? Sbwoodside (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You can recreate the article if you can address the deficiencies identified in the deletion discussion. Sandstein 11:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Afd for Quek See Ling

Hi @Sandstein: ,

Just for your information, not to contest anything, I did ping nominator at talk page for further discussion, but it had not been answered [3]. So I am also waiting for discussion but the nominator just did not reply. The is a lack of discussion which is true which I hope there is also. Thanks --Quek157 (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

To add, I did not offer the source, but just analysed whatsoever is on the page via Singapore Library Informations. But we need really look at whether G11 is breached --Quek157 (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Page Sanctions

Hello Sandstein. I've seen you comment a few times that the admin who placed a page sanction should be the one to evaluate violations of that sanction. What should do therefore in the case where the sanctioning admin has left the project? I'm referring to the many AmPol2 pages Coffee placed discretionary sanctions (consensus required, civility) on - should another admin take over these restrictions? What do you think? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's up to individual admins whether they want to do that. Sandstein 17:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I have a related question. Is there a neutral way that we could recruit some additional Admins to be keeping an eye on the AP2 articles under DS. At the moment there seem to be just one or two Admins watching (aside from those who are involved as editors) and it places an undue burden on the Admins who watch. I think it would relieve some of their stress and also give them fresh Admin eyes to share observations or deal with difficult situations among themselves. Would AN be an appropriate place for a "help wanted" notice? SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure, you can ask at WP:AN. Sandstein 17:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Joseph Steinberg

User:Thetechgirl has asked for a deletion review of Joseph Steinberg. 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. —Cryptic 21:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Article Joseph Steinberg

User_talk:Sandstein/Archives/2018/April#Article_Joseph_Steinberg

You say not being notable a decade ago is a reason he should be not notable now = ridiculous

You say you ignored the 3 articles I sent you about him with his name in the headline = ridiculous

You say WP:AUTHOR doesn’t apply to an author cited millions of times including 200 times in journals and patents in the last few years = ridiculous

You deleted an article and salted it for ridiculous reasons and ignoring WP:RS , WP:OZD and WP:AUTHOR and valid points and now you say you will not respond further = ridiculous

Don’t destroy other people’s good work for ridiculous reasons. The article belongs.

I found some people who worked on the article from links from other articles. But you should notify all the people who worked on the article as I cannot see the list since you deleted the article.

Deletion review for Joseph Steinberg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Joseph Steinberg. 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. Thetechgirl (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions: Motion

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 1.1 of the Civility in infobox discussions case is amended to replace dot point 3: *making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. with the following: * making more than one comment in a discussion, where that discussion is primarily about the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Civility in infobox discussions: Motion

Mike Aho

What can I do so that my name is not deleted from wiki? I can delete my bio if that is the issue. that bio is taken from IMDB which was written by Endemol Shine America. I would love to get the banner taken away that my article is up for deletion because it looks bad. I won't add info or use this as a personal web page now that I am very clear on the rules. Can you help or suggest something I can do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeaho (talk • contribs) 18:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You can comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Aho (2nd nomination) and discuss how you meet our inclusion criteria, WP:BIO. Sandstein 19:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Request to recreate deleted page

Sandstein, I would like to re-create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing, which caught my attention by recently coming back into the news cycle. (I have learned a great deal about editing over the past three years, and now create better pages and argue less.) Reasons are: 1.) You and several other editors suggested that it could be redirected to Palestinian stone-throwing#Deaths and casualties, but this merge was blocked by editors on that page by the creation of a rule limiting mentions of deaths caused by rock throwing to bluelinked pages. 2.) Ongoing coverage of this incident as the first killing in wave of violence that began in September/October 2015, and as one of the triggers for the Israeli decision to erect a security barrier between Jabel Mukaber and Armon Hanatziv, and, 3.)Perp (convicted,) turned out to have carried out a firebombing attack on Israeli target in 2014, and he has received ongoing press attention because he is one of a small group on a short list of Arab citizens of Israel drawing attention because of the new policy being pushed by Interior Minister Aryeh Deri to revoke the Israeli citizenship of convicted terrorists including this perp. Thank you for considering this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

You can recreate a deleted article if you can address the problems that led to its deletion. You may want to try a stub at WP:AFC first. Sandstein 13:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Rick Mitry

Hi Sandstein!

You closed the discussion for the request for undeletion of this page. I am still new to this wikipedia stuff and still learning.

I wanted to change the article Rick Mitry and add significant new information. I tried previously to add it to the deleted article, but i did not have the permission to do so. Could you please advise me on what step to take.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chbeaini (talk • contribs) 01:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You cannot edit the article Rick Mitry on Wikipedia because it has been deleted. What you link to is another website, not Wikipedia. Sandstein 05:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

In 2011, the above linked page was placed under indefinite protection. As you were intimately involved with the placing the consensus required notice, you are doubtless aware of the article's contentious history. As the gold padlock was placed so long ago, and as progress has stalled on the article, with only one substantive edit request having been made in the past six months, I wonder if it is not the time to discuss a gradual scaling back of protection.

How might I go about opening such a discussion? Where would be the appropriate forum to do so? I'm contacting you because you were an involved administrator, but if you aren't able to answer my question, where might I turn to receive an answer? I'm also leaving a similar message at User talk:Timotheus Canens, who was also involved in the controversy those many years ago. Thanks for your time. schetm (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

You can either ask Timotheus Canens to unprotect it, or start a discussion at WP:RPP. Sandstein 11:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The last time Timotheus Canens was contacted, he said he wouldn't unprotect it as long as your restriction remained in effect (on the argument that 'consensus required' is effectively equivalent to full protection anyway) and directed anyone with requests to contact you. Given that the sandbox page and talk page have both been stable for the past few years, I think it's safe to remove your restriction at this point; the specific conflict that led to that restriction has long since died down, and it can now be safely covered by the standard discretionary sanctions for the general topic area (which, after all, are much more refined and better-enforced today than they were back in 2011.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, done. Sandstein 21:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein,

Can you please clarify if you both are talking about "a gradual scaling back of protection" or you removed all restrictions completely, and the article can be edited in a standard way?

Paul Siebert (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

All existing restrictions are lifted. The page can be edited normally but remains subject to discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 17:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.Paul Siebert (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think either of us can lift NuclearWarfare's 1RR/day from 2010, so I've restored the 1RR edit notice on the page. T. Canens (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Any administrator is welcome to lift that restriction at their discretion (though I would advise against it if we are just now removing full protection?). NW (Talk) 23:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Clarification filing

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Civility in infobox discussions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Bad idea

Sandstein, I think it was a bad idea to block Cassianto for this edit on my page. He wasn't "discussing infoboxes" but reporting what he thought bad behaviour on the part of a user who had uncollapsed a collapsed infobox, in defiance of a hidden edit notice and without even an edit summary, and asking me to tell that user it was disruptive. I wasn't around, but NeilN and RexxS who both watch my page, promptly took it in hand, by adding a more formal edit notice to the article (Neil), and giving the user in question a discretionary sanctions alert (RexxS). When I returned, I acted also, by writing a reproachful note on the user's page. So two admins and another user were concerned about the facts of Cassianto's report, and joined in dealing with them; I guess none of us thought of the report itself as a ban violation. I think your contention that it was, is rather fine-spun. What would you have had him do? Secret off-wiki e-mailing with admins? A warning would surely have been enough. Bishonen | talk 18:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC).

I wasn't even thinking of Cassianto's topic ban, to be honest. I know there's some dispute about it, but haven't been following the proceedings. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Bishonen, I understand your point, but Cassianto was subject to an infobox topic ban without exceptions for edits such as the one at issue here. WP:BANEX does not apply here. Indeed, the point of the topic ban (and the preceding ArbCom sanction) was exactly to get Cassianto out of acrimonious disputes about infoboxes. The conduct at issue here was therefore exactly the kind of conduct the sanction was supposed to prevent. Sandstein 18:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that this was exactly the kind of conduct the sanction was supposed to prevent. It would appear, if taken to this level, to remove any avenue for Cassianto to report problems. He did not engage in an acrimonious dispute, but sought assistance from an admin renowned for her impartiality and perspicacity. That must surely represent some mitigation? I will advise Cassianto that he can feel free to contact me off-wiki, should a similar circumstance arise in future, and I'll do my best to find a meaningful resolution. Given that he now has another mechanism available to him to help cope with issues as they arise, he is correspondingly less likely to breach his topic ban in this way in future, so in the spirit of blocks being preventative, how would you feel about reducing the length of the block? --RexxS (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

No. The topic ban means that any problems related to infoboxes are no longer the problems of Cassianto. If you assist in circumventing the ban, you may yourself be sanctioned. Only the blocked user themselves may appeal a block. Sandstein 21:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The hell I will be. The ArbCom remedy was enacted to keep Cassianto away from conflict on-wiki, not to prevent him from raising genuine concerns. Any assistance I give will be to help ensure that he doesn't involve himself in on-wiki conflict going forward, but what contributions I make on-wiki are the product of my own reasoned decisions, not as a proxy, and you'd better understand that. If you threaten me again with sanctions when I am doing my best to defuse situations that you have just exacerbated, you and I are going to find ourselves at AN, where I'll be arguing strongly to have you banned from these sort of enforcement actions permanently. --RexxS (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

While I feel that the block is probably still preventative at this time (especially after this - the case was regarding civility, after all), I don't believe that RexxS's offer is assisting in circumventing the topic ban. SQL^{Query me!} 22:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

AE appeal

I've copied this over to AE. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Please explain this. It is not clear

I see that you have speedily deleted Kelly Sadler. I promise not to recreate it or make any kind of trouble. I ask that you answer the following questions to help me understand wikipedia.

Q1. Why is WP:ARBAP2 a reason for deletion. I have read it over and over and cannot see the reason for using it.

A1.

Q2. What is the reason for citing WP:BLPDELETE as the reason. WP:BLPDELETE says "Page deletion is normally a last resort....Summary deletion is appropriate when the page ...cannot readily be rewritten. To me it can be rewritten.

A2.

Q3. Why did you decide on an article that you already deleted instead of letting another administrator do it? It may seem that you feel so strongly about it that you want to approve your original decision. Is this intentional?

A3.

Your original reason is that it is contentious but the article was not written in an overly negative or overly positive tone.

Help me understand Wikipedia by explaining your actions by answering the 3 questions above. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowdung Soup (talk • contribs) 20:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Q4. What does "salted" mean?

A4.

Q5. Final question. "may not be recreated unless an admin determines". Where does it say that except you saying it. I'm not challenging it. I just want to know if all deletions are like this or where it says this.

Thank you for not ignoring these questions. That is what administrators are for, helping. I appreciate your help.

1. WP:ARBAP2 allows administrators to use sanctions of their own choosing as described at WP:AC/DS, which may include deletion.

2. Rewriting would need checking all the links you indifferently provided to determine which of them references which assertion. This would be slower than competently rewriting from scratch.

3. Admins routinely take actions in the same cases or repeat their admin actions; there's nothing particular about that.

4. See WP:SALTED. Regards, Sandstein 21:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Would you unsalt Kelly Sadler and also re-open your AFD (or allow recreation). I propose the following: see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASandstein&type=revision&diff=841319364&oldid=841066873 If you don't want to unsalt the article, just let me know. If you don't unsalt it, I probably won't do much but don't take advantage of the fact that I told you so. Thanks. Cowdung Soup (talk) 03:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft removed (see history). Don't paste drafts on talk pages. Use the draft space or your userspace. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please post this as a separate draft page, it can't be seriously evaluated otherwise. Sandstein 06:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Here it is, Sandstein. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASandstein&type=revision&diff=841319364&oldid=841066873

Cowding Soup (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC) (formerly known as Cowdung Soup)

Regarding deletion/Buildabazaar

Dear Sandstein,

Buildabazaar is already a brand and the page was running fine. From ourside we haven't made any changes. Can you please share what was the reason for the deletion. We need the page to come live again. Refer the official url: https://www.buildabazaar.ooo/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigargondalia (talk • contribs) 07:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The reasons for the deletion can be seen in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buildabazaar. Wikipedia is not a place in which you can promote your business, and I am not going to help you do so. If your business is important, somebody other than you may eventually recreate the article. Sandstein 07:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Special Counsel investigation (2017–present)

You'll notice that I "liked" this edit, but I see that it ended up being something quite different than what I thought you intended to do, and unlike at Facebook, I can't "unlike" that "like". I thought you were going to move each ref(s) to its logical spot after some name(s), but instead you appear to have just deleted all of them and used only one reference to Politico for all of those names. Normally mass deletion of references is frowned upon. Now we have a bunch of redlinked refs. What gives? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see what the point of this block of refs was? Each entry in the list was already referenced. And without knowing which name each ref refers to, they don't seem to serve much of a purpose. Sandstein 16:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

All but one was being used elsewhere, so I've gone back and restored them in better locations. Now all the red linked refs are fixed.  Done -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I see, thanks - normally bots quickly fix this sort of thing, I think, but perhaps not here because the page is protected or something. Sandstein 05:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for explanation for deleting Criticisms of medicine

• You wrote: "The length of the discussion disguises the fact that, in terms of headcount, there is a relatively clear consensus that this is not a useful article topic because of the disparate nature of the content assembled here." Please provide some clarification. The length of discussion was partly due to several editors worrying that an article about criticisms of medicine would be pro-alt-med; the original poster accused me of bad faith, that is, having a "problematic agenda", by which I think he meant an alt med agenda. This accusation is false, and I tried to make the case that the article is not pro-alt-med (for example, I and some other editors pointed out that its sourcing is consistent with WP:MEDRS and it has no alt-med sources).
• I asked for references to Wikipedia policy concerning breadth of the topic, but no one supplied any. Can you point me to Wikipedia policy concerning what you call "the disparate nature of the content"? In connection with "disparate nature of the content," please compare the Criticisms of medicine article with the two related articles Criticism of science and Alternative medicine. What would you say about which of the three has more "disparate content"?

• I don't really have an opinion of my own about this or about which policies apply; I summarized what I understood to be the consensus in this matter. Sandstein 09:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• From my reading of Wikipedia policy, I don't see how "in terms of headcount" establishes consensus (From WP:Consensus: "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)"; from WP:WMD#Deletion discussions: "they are not `votes'. The weight of an argument is more important than the number of people making the argument"; and from WP:AFTERDELETE: "Remember that deletion discussions are not votes, and opinions are weighed according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.").
• In the AfD discussion what argument grounded in Wikipedia policy did you see for deletion?

• Editors supporting deletion cited several, including OR/SYNTH and NPOV. I'm not saying that they're right, necessarily, but these are arguments based on policy. Sandstein 09:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• But what about "quality of arguments"? The editors who wanted deletion, including the original poster, claimed that the mere combining of disparate subtopics into a single article constituted OR and SYNTH. I don't see that anywhere in WP:OR or WP:NPOV or WP:SYNTH (please see WP:SYNNOT#SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition). As I said, there are many articles in Wikipedia that combine disparate subtopics, such as Alternative medicine and Criticism of science.NightHeron (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• In what manner (other than headcount) did you conclude that there was a consensus for deletion? Thanks.NightHeron (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• In situations as here, where there's no side that has the clearly stronger arguments (both sides made defensible arguments), a clear headcount is usually determinative for consensus. Sandstein 09:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• WP:DELAFD says pointblank "These processes are not decided through a head count" and also in WP:DEL "If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators normally will not delete it."

• The trouble with a headcount in such a situation is that it makes it possible for a group of like-minded editors to delete an article that they find offensive or threatening to a strong viewpoint of theirs. I have tremendous respect for the other editors in the AfD discussion, several of whom have devoted a lot of work to WikiProject Medicine. However, it was clear from the discussion that some of them felt that the very idea of a "Criticisms of medicine" article was improper because it would play into the hands of CAM ("Complementary and Alternative Medicine," i.e., non-science-based treatments). Even if this were true (which I and some other editors argued that it wasn't), according to WP:Censor material should not be removed from Wikipedia because some (in this case possibly a majority of participating editors) thought it would be detrimental to a cause they believe in. (In this case it is a cause that I strongly support, namely, combating fraud and pseudoscience.)

• Please reconsider. Thanks.NightHeron (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Declined, sorry. I do not think that the policies you cite apply to this situation where there is a reasonably clear consensus to delete something. Sandstein 05:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&diff=841763890&oldid=841762004 appears to me to indicate a problem when one editor accuses another editor of "bad faith" because they ask that WP:CONSENSUS be followed. I rather feel that asking that WP:CONSENSUS be followed is not "bad faith" as a rule, but the attack shows that the problems found previously on this article abide, which included such personal attacks on others in the past, as well as massive posts on the talk page which do not elicit discussion and which are seemingly not framed in a manner calculated to elicit discussion. Collect (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

And how do you think this concerns me? Sandstein 05:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

You have acted on this article's status recently, and I rather felt that you should be apprised of the current state thereof. It does not concern you as a person, but it appears to likely concern you as the administrator who made the recent change to the status of that article. Collect (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Criticisms of medicine

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Criticisms of medicine. 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. NightHeron (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

What is your decision?

You didn't write an answer. I provided a link to the draft above. Is your decision not to un-salt Kelly Sadler? Thank you. Cowding Soup (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

As I wrote above: please post this as a separate draft page, it can't be seriously evaluated otherwise. Sandstein 09:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Per your request, here it is on a separate page. User:Sandstein/Draft for Sandstein to see per request Cowding Soup (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Moved to User:Cowding Soup/Draft for Sandstein to see per request. The draft is reasonably sourced. I have unsalted Kelly Sadler. Sandstein 05:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the unsalt. I plan more work on it before using the unsalted page. Are you planning to delete the article if it is in article-space? Cowding Soup (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The article is no longer salted, but do not recreate it with the words "No longer salted", or it will just be re-deleted. Seriously, please try to understand how we work here or you may find yourself blocked just for sheer lack of editorial competence. Sandstein 06:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Sandstein. Administrator Dekimasu ‎wrote that it was still salted (it wasn't) and I didn't know where to look if it was or was not unsalted. The only way was to test to see if it would accept an edit. Sorry if there is an unsalted noticeboard that I don't know about. Cowding Soup (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions: request for clarification archived

A recent request for clarification that you were involved in has been archived. The committee have clarified that the topic ban you imposed is within the scope of discretionary sanctions. GoldenRing (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Following a reopening, this request has been closed with the same conclusion. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual Dark Web

May I ask that you re-open Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectual Dark Web for another few days to see what happens? I think your close was premature. There were 4 5 !votes all in the same direction on Thursday-Friday. It is quite possible that we'll see a consensus emerge in the next few days. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No, there's been plenty of discussion, and I see no particular reason (such as new sources) to believe that consensus will become clearer with more discussion. Sandstein 21:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Please don't take offense but I'm considering taking this to DRV then. The tide turned on Thursday when Jytdog raised the new argument that the subject hadn't received sustained coverage. That changed my !vote and led to three more !deletes along nearly identical lines. No !keep voter has weighed in on this line of argument at all; it would be interesting to hear what they had to say about it. This seems like a perfect AfD to keep open for a short while longer. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, we can try whether that works out; I've relisted the discussion. Sandstein 21:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I'll promote it to see if we can get more participants. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Buildabazaar

An editor has asked for a Deletion review of Buildabazaar. We checked from ourside as there is no activity done still the page was removed. The Buildabazaar is a brand of Infibeam. Please review and share your feedback on the same. Send us what was the issue to delete the page from Wikipedia Jigargondalia (talk) 05:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC) --> Jigargondalia (talk)

We want this page to be live. Sandstein Can you please explain so that we can do the needful on priority or you can make the changes. We request you to look into the matter and solve the same.

I've already told you that I will not help you to promote your company on Wikipedia. Sandstein 10:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

If there are necessary changes required share with us. We can take it on priority and as per your suggestions we will put the things. Please Sandstein guide us on the same. Jigargondalia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jigargondalia: I've already told you that I will not help you to promote your company on Wikipedia. Further requests about this will be ignored. Sandstein 07:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Why?

Was there really a necessity in this heavy-handed response? Six months for pointing out bias and declining to comment on what was said eight days ago? What was the point in making it an issue eight days later? Drmies, another admin, saw it as did several other editors but they did not decide to blow up the issue. And several editors, including me, pointed out the hypocrisy; why was MShabazz singled out and where are our t-bans? When someone advocates for deleting/merging articles like this or this (instances of Israeli violence), yet support/create articles like this or this (instances of Palestinian violence with similar coverage) it is easy to be frustrated when it becomes a long-term problem like it has. A simple warning (the lost art of deescalating) for an editor with countless contributions to actual content seems more beneficial than making a point.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Editors are sanctioned (or not) without regard to their positions in content disputes, but only based on their conduct. Which articles should be deleted or merged, or not, is a content issue, and has no bearing on sanctions. But if somebody personally attacks fellow editors, they may be sanctioned for it, no matter what their point of view is. Sandstein 16:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Sadly, but expectedly, your response fails to explain why your sanction was necessary eight days after the fact, nor does it touch on why MSbazz was singled out when other editors made similar comments on the hypocrisy. You also failed to address why it was necessary after Drmies, an admin, and others did not feel it necessary to escalate the situation. When you lose touch with the groups of editors who contribute to actual content, it is easy to also lose understanding and sympathy. Editors are human; humans make mistakes. Unfortunately, losing touch with the editors you are supposed to be helping leads to decisions that needlessly escalate a situation that was over with eight days ago.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I did ask Malik Shabazz ‎to comment about my concerns about his conduct. His decidedly unconstructive response convinced me that sanctions were still needed to prevent recurrent problems. In my view, such sanctions are helping the majority of editors that behave collegially rather than battleground-like. Sandstein 16:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a big difference between commenting on the post and commenting on the poster. What others were doing in that thread was pointing out their perceived opinion of hypocrisy. What MS did was personalize the dispute and insult editors. That is not allowed and that is what got the sanction. It has nothing to do with a content dispute or any topic, MS is overly aggressive and this time an admin put his foot down. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Whatever you have to tell yourself, I suppose. Obviously, Shabazz didn't want to respond to something that came and gone eight days ago. The fact that "convinced" you that sanctions were necessary just tells me you were looking for an excuse to sanction specifically him. Thank you for the unsatisfactory response.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

At ANI now. Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Now moved to WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

List of rulers of the Mossi state of Gwiriko

Hi Sandstein, I noticed you closed the List of rulers of the Mossi state of Gwiriko AFD [4] but didn't remove the AFD template from the article. Just letting you know. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban violation

Hi Sandstein. This editor was indefinitely banned from all edits related to the Balkans [5]. However they continued to edit such articles and per this they were warned by an admin [6]. Now they repeated their topic ban violation [7], [8]. The second edit is made on an article that is considered a battleground due to political situation in the Balkans. Can you have a look at this case? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, but to allow proper consideration and discussion of this case, I'd prefer it if you made a request at WP:AE. Or you could ask the sanctioning admin, GoldenRing. Sandstein 20:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Since I have never reported on AE, I think that the sanctioning admin should have a look at this. Although you pinged them, I am placing a comment on their talk page. Thanks for your help. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

A pie for you!

A pie for you, for your ongoing work in various areas of AfD, such as discussion closures and relistings. Thanks for your work to address AfD matters in a timely manner, which helps to keep things running smoothly. North America1000 06:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partridge Creek monster (Cryptid)

I see you closed the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partridge Creek monster (Cryptid) as a merge to Living dinosaur. There is a problem in the fact that the article Living dinosaur was not notified of this at all. There is no chance it fits in the article as this is not what the Living dinosaur article is about. Yes there is a cryptozoology section, but it's not a list of cryptids, it's a generalization section. If it goes anywhere in wikipedia it's probably List of cryptids but that's a different merge request, and of course "List of cryptids" would have to be notified. As it stands now a merge to "Living dinosaur" is invalid and should say as much in the merge closing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@The Mighty Glen, Nanophosis, and Plantdrew:, you were in favor of merging, what is your view? Sandstein 20:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. My original idea was to add a short list of examples to the cryptozoology section of Living dinosaur, but after reading the current text on the page several times and thinking about it, I doubt it would be appropriate to create an "example" section just for one cryptid that doesn't even have a page anymore. After this consideration, I'd agree with Fyunck that the article should be either merged with List of cryptids with proper notification, or deleted entirely. Nanophosis (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes thanks for the ping. I'm persuaded by Fyunck and Nanophosis, but List of cryptids is nearly all a list of separate articles. Not sure what to do at this point: should we propose a merge, which would effectively be a re-run of the AFD discussion? The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would be an exact re-run. My guess is those that would tend to edit "Living dinosaur" would say a resounding "no" to the idea. The List of cryptids merge I'm not so sure about the outcome. Two other things that's a little strange with this. If it's a merge you usually merge the entire contents somewhere else, unless it's duplicate contents. Maybe you'd cut a little but mostly you merge it all. Redirecting and simply mentioning the name of the beast on another article is not a merge of content. Second, this beast was mentioned in an article of The Strand in France. I'm not convinced this was some made-up publicity stunt perpetrated by Arthur Conan Doyle who wrote often in the magazine, and whose book The Lost World came out a couple years later. But those are my musings. I don't really care if this stays as an article, is deleted, or gets merged, as long as it follows protocol and the mergeto article is notified of the discussion beforehand. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody. I've relisted the AfD in view of your input. Sandstein 18:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding article Vikram Sakhalkar

Hello Sandstein,
Can you please undelete the article Vikram Sakhalkar · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions], as I intend to work on it further. I am here making a request as because of the discussion held here. | Thank you, --Gpkp (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Are there any sources that could make the subject pass WP:GNG? Sandstein 14:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Are these sources applicable? : Source1, Source2, Source3, Source4, Source5, Source6, Source7, Source8, Source9 | --Gpkp (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Are these sources that were not in the article or in the AfD? Sandstein 06:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I added all of these sources and re-wrote the article, only a few minutes after a vote: Delete was made in favor of AfD. Later the discussion had no more votes.--Gpkp (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've relisted the AfD to allow the discussion to take your sources into account. Sandstein 18:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Sandstein. --Gpkp (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your page about SF writer JY Yang. Much appreciated. Kellyoyo (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

AfD decision on list of Canadian names

I apologize for taking so long to bring this up. While I've been editing wikipedia pages for a couple years, I'm new at AfDs and it took me a while to figure out the first step in appealing these decisions.

Decision: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of non-Canadian places that have a Canadian place named after them

I feel that you missed much of my argument in this decision, but this is mostly my fault. As I said I'm new at them and thought that I could only post one entry in that discussion with the "delete" tag. So the rest of my arguments were under "comment" tags. And, as best I can tell, comments were ignored in making the decision. Perhaps I'm wrong about this.

At the beginning of the discussion, I was totally ignorant of what kind of arguments would be effective when debating "notable". It seems such a subjective quality that I was at a loss as to what to say about it through most of the discussion. Finally I figured out that citing authors who'd previously covered the topic in published books or papers. Well, I did cite some, but mostly at the end of the discussion. I've even found one or two more since then. Dtilque (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, yes, everybody should make only one "delete" or "keep" recommendation, but your comments weren't ignored. Sandstein 10:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Old school

Nice - [9] is how we used to do it back before the wikilawyers took over. A proper close, thanks. And I'd have said the same if you'd come down the other way with the same policy-based rationale. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual dark web

I didn't know which way you'd go on your revisit of that AfD. And frankly I didn't care much one way or the other. However I do appreciate you reopening the AfD and keeping an open mind. Cheers. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Except for the statement My reading of these rules is that opinion pieces alone are insufficient to establish notability, because the purpose of our notability guidelines is to ensure that there are enough reliable sources to base an article on. And as seen above we can't write an article, which always includes assertions of fact, based solely on opinion pieces. Despite the protests of some delete !voters, it was not based on "opinion pieces alone" or "solely on opinion pieces"... there were three non-opinion sources... "Spectator Life", "Washington Examiner" and "El Confidential". And I'm not sure why it was first closed as "no consensus" and then, after re-listing, it flipped to a sort of... OK, no agreement again, but this time, I'm going to now say "no reliable sources"... when the sourcing had actually increased. Not a close I can feel good about, but that's Wikipedia for ya. Marteau (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I mean, this edit tends to make me think you based your decision on the presumtion that there was not any news sources. There were in fact three, despite the protestations of some of the delete !voters Marteau (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Was it your belief that all of the sources for this article were opinion pieces? Marteau (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I closed the AfD based on the assumption that they were, because this assertion wasn't substantially contested in the AfD. Sandstein 11:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Understood. I perhaps should have been more vocal about the fact that there were, in fact, reliable non opinion pieces being used to support the article. Many !voting "Delete" repeatedly said in the RfC there were absolutely no non-opinion based sources, which was incorrect, and I should perhaps addressed each one of their objections. I did, however, say in the RfC that Several delete voters here , including this one, say there are no reliable news sources... I disagree, I count two, the Spectator Life piece and the Examiner one. but in hindsight, I certainly should have been more vehement and more visible.

For what it's worth, those sources were, "Inside the intellectual dark web" in Spectator Life, and "Media, liberals mock New York Times op-ed for promoting 'dark web' intellectuals" in the Washingto Examiner We had much discussion about those in the talk pages but of course reviwing that was not something you needed to do or should have done. Also, just a couple days before your close, "Cómo ganar un millón de euros al año siendo un intelectual (oscuro)" was published in the Spanish newspaper "El Confidencial" and is about the IDW and was not opinion, and referenced a documentary about the IDW "A Glitch in the Matrix" by journalist David Fuller, both of which I added to the article a couple days before the close, and mentioned so in the RfC.

As I said, I should have been more vocal about the fact that there were, in fact, non-opinion based reliable sources. And it is true, those are but three sources, and that is not many. But "not many" is not "none".

As your rationale for deciding "delete" stated your assumption there were absolutely no non-opinion sources used to support the article, if you had know about these non-opinion sources and their use in supporting the article been brought to your attention, would it have in any way affected your decision to decide for "Delete" or changed your rationale? Marteau (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Possibly, but my own view about whether these are non-opinion sources isn't all too relevant. This is something editors can in good faith disagree about, as they in fact did at the end about the "El Confidencial" source. Had this been discussed in more detail, that discussion would have informed my closure. Sandstein 17:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'm going to drop the stick on this at this point because, in the realm of important things, this does not appear. "Mistakes were made" as they say... mine was not jumping up and down and yelling in the RfC, and I am in no way satisfied with the decision for reasons I've stated, but I'm going to Kirk out on this. Thanks again for your time. Marteau (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)