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

Abeokuta Girls Grammar School closing

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abeokuta Girls Grammar School - My argument appears to have been ignored as "anyone mentioning WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES gets ignored".

There's no guidance as to what a reliable source for a high school in Nigeria would be, or what types of schools are notable. Half the participants claim there is a consensus, half claim there is none; this is by definition "no consensus".

In particular, there's no consensus as to whether references such as [1] would be sufficient for notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that sources for Nigerian schools are in any way more problematic than sources for other schools. They just need to meet WP:RS.  Sandstein  04:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Big Fish Theory

Why did you close Big Fish Theory as delete instead of redirect with history? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Why should I have?  Sandstein  19:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - "redirect until more content is added to the article would have been my preferred option" - gongshow

"@Gongshow:, to keep the article history, I would be on board with a redirect" - ME

"If a standalone article is not appropriate at this time, just redirect." - Another Believer

"Reply - @Another Believer:, in the interest of keeping the article history, I do not disagree." - ME

Three votes to redirect, and two votes to delete. Redirects are cheap, and may have useful history. The default is to redirect with history if there is a proper target. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

There isn't a default to redirect, and there are no votes. A redirect might make sense here, but then, why did you nominate the article for deletion, rather than just redirecting it yourself?  Sandstein  20:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - I tried to {{PROD}} the article, however, that got reverted, and I am certain that the same thing would have happened to a redirect. With that said, there is no forum entitled "Articles for discussion", so I took it to WP:AFD, which has teeth. There is consensus not to have an article, but no consensus to delete the article history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It is an abuse of process to nominate an article for deletion and then request a redirect closure. A PROD would also have resulted in deletion. Request declined. If you think a redirect is warranted, you can still create it.  Sandstein  04:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - Because there is no forum entitled "Articles for discussion", and "redirect"/"merge" are valid outcomes of an AFD, I am going to disagree with your statement that "It is an abuse of process to nominate an article for deletion and then request a redirect closure". In any event, I have redirected the article, whose old version can be moved to a user space. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Silent Wife

Hello, Sandstein. If you would, you can translate artile of Silent Wife by A. S. A. Harrison to English. Thanks. gigho (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't speak Indonesian.  Sandstein  08:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

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 ([2], [3]) 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)