User talk:Sandstein

Welcome to my talk page!

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

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

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

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

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

Start a new talk topic

Request to Restore

I believe there was an error in deleting Nomiki Konst's page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nomiki_Konst

She was on the DNC's Unity Reform Commission this past year and has been a constant guest on Megyn Kelly's shows and other networks. She was also on the DNC's platform committee as a Sanders representative. She is currently the most well known investigate reporter for the YouTube Network, The Young Turks. Sure the last page had issues, but they can be fixed. Capriaf (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That's as may be, but there was near unanimous consensus to delete the article in the community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nomiki Konst, so I have no choice but to delete the article. Sandstein 16:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Regarding the issue raised at User_talk:Huldra#1RR, is it Icewhiz, or myself who is correct with regard to the 1RR issue? If I broke the 1RR on Shuafat, I will of course immediately self revert, but to my best understanding, I didn't. Am I correct here? Huldra (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

AfD closure

Hello there. Hope you will be doing fine. It was little surprising that Samee closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Six Sigma Entertainment as no consensus when there were two explicit policy based arguments. WP don't work on head count but policy-based arguments. Companies need significant coverage to have an encyclopedic entry. I think this needs admin closure and I connected you because you were involved with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azad Film Company so it will be better if you close it per WP:CORPDEPTH or relist it. Störm (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The AfD is already re-opened by Samee so sorry for inconvenience. Störm (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Palaye Royale

Hi Sandstein. You deleted Palaye Royale back in July 2016 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palaye Royale. An article using the same name has just be directly added to the mainspace. Can you tell if this is something which should be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:G4 or if it's an improvement of the deleted version? — Marchjuly 02:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

Not sure if it's an improvement, but it is different in terms of content and sources. Not a G4 case in my view. Sandstein 11:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Finally, just a general question about re-created articles. Do they need to have a WP:HISTMERGE? It seems like a lot of the edit history would be lost if they are just recreated in the mainspace. {{Old AfD multi}} templates are added by bots to the talk pages of AfD-deleted articles qhich are are recreated, but there's nothing in the article history which ordinary editors can use for comparion purposes. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The history of deleted articles is not ordinarily restored if they are recreated. Sandstein 11:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems you're active...

Can you look into this IP? 94.109.22.116. Lots of vandalism and WP:NOTHERE. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's been handled. But the page needs semi-protection for sure. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

AE Appeal by Anythingyouwant

There was no consensus of uninvolved admins to extend Anythingyouwant topic ban. I think it would be more conducive to a collaorative editing environment if you would modify the decline with what the other admins said which was simply "Decline." It will end the drama and prevent a full ARCA kerfuffle about what consensus is and means regarding AE appeals. --DHeyward (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Sandstein and NeilN were the only ones who urged or commented about extending the topic-ban. So, Sandstein, if you re-open the section to allow more votes in there, please let me know so I can fix my typo that Coffee insisted on preserving. Thanks. And if you re-open it, I also recommend leaving it open for more than the 25 minutes you allowed from your suggestion of an extension to your closure. Alternatively, please leave it closed, and just reassess whether you and NeilN are enough for a consensus, seeing as how Neil didn’t even affirmatively support an extension. Thanks again. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Edited.02:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Not objecting is not the same as advocating. Regardless, Sandstein can modify it without opening it. It's more problematic that it was impossible to explain your edits within a system that only allows a Hobson's choice without compromise. It's like the discussions regarding material in the lead with Group A wanting it entirely removed, Group B wants it in the body, but not in the lead and Group C wants it in the lead and body. Page restrictions force everyone to Group A or C. Even if consensus is split into thirds, a Group A editor that removes it from the lead (2/3 agree to remove A&B) but then acknowledges that there is consensus for retaining it in the body (2/3 agree B&C), AE just announced that not following either the A choice or the C choice is gaming the system which forces extremes and punishes compromise. That's a structural problem with the sanction and nobody seemed to consider that you would have been fine with complete removal and readding it was not nefarious but a nod to consensus that the material itself belong. The lesson is to just delete. --DHeyward (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, in retrospect it would have been better for me to simply delete the material which would have more clearly triggered the DS consensus-required provision, instead of me trying to please opposing editors. Alas, I don’t think Sandstein is interested in such niceties. Not in the least, and never has been. And not interested in how many of his colleagues affirmatively supported extending the sanction, I expect. Which was zero uninvolved editors out of three. Are those numbers correct, Sandstein? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Edited.02:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

"There was no consensus of uninvolved admins to extend Anythingyouwant topic ban", "Sandstein and NeilN were the only ones who urged or commented about extending the topic-ban"'

Lol. I guess that's technically correct. But actually the other admin, T.Canens, said: "We have indeffed people for shenanigans like this." Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I’m quite sure they have indeffed in cases like this. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I will not reopen the AE thread. AE sanctions are not a matter of either votes or consensus. Sandstein 07:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Sandstein, was there any feedback from the last ARCA about one of your administrative decisions that you accepted? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I always take feedback I receive into consideration. Sandstein 20:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

"clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved" administrators is required to undue an AE sanction. Your extension was not an original sanction, it was a change to an existing sanction. That requires consensus. It should be pretty clear from the sanctions log that you were changing a sanction, not originating it. It was clearly an appeal. --DHeyward (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I forgot to take Sandstein's talk page off my watchlist after the last discussion here. Anythingyouwant; you are on my "one of the good ones" list, and you are a valuable editor whose contributions here I appreciate. But frankly, if any of the other admins have a problem with extending the topic ban, they are free to express that themselves. They don't need you to do it for them.

Continuing to argue about it now, after having it reduced once and then re-increased after continuing to appeal isn't going to accomplish anything. So please, make a note that you think this was a miscarriage of justice, collect some diffs for the day when we all get together to try to overhaul some of the policies here (I think you'd be surprised at how many editors would join you in that, me included) and wait this one out. I'd hate to see this situation turn into one hairy enough that people start speculating about your value to the project, and I'm sure you have seen that sort of thing happen before. I just saw an editor get blocked for refusing to stop complaining about a topic ban two or three days ago.

I don't want to see this escalate any further, because in a month, I want to see Anythingyouwant right there on the next politics article offering his views and helping to improve the content. So please, just ride it out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

America, where are you now...

Greetings! I took the liberty to ask for the import (de:WP) for "America". Translation - America (Plastik) - should be finished in 2 days. Cheers! GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 14:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)