User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2016/May

Un-protection of Hoverbike

Hi. Could you lift the semi-protection of Hoverbike? This topic definitely merits a general article rather than merely promulgating the Aero-X model, and we need editors to be free to expand it. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done  Sandstein  12:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Modern Gaulish

I really think that ignoring discussion, whether you think it was TLDR or not, means that you should have ignored the AfD, not summarily ruled on it. I think that was an abuse of your admin powers. Moreover, you've offended the newbie and put him off the Wikipedia entirely. That was not well done. I may protest your action; the right thing to do was to reduce the thing to a stub and let things develop. -- Evertype·✆ 11:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Sandstein, I wouldn't go as far as calling it "abuse", nor do I even dispute the outcome of the AfD itself, and I understand your point about "walls of text" as well (being a moderator on WP.NL myself, I know very well what this means). But for the rest, I have to concur. I very much disapprove of using the WP:COI argument for completely discarding somebody's arguments. In my book, this is nothing short of an ad hominem argument. I know perfectly well that writing/editing articles about yourself, your group or your work is often frowned upon, but it is surely not forbidden, and there is most certainly no policy stating that arguments used by a person involved in a subject should be ignored. An argument is an argument, no matter who uses it. I'd even say arguments of a person who actually knows a lot about the subject should be taken more seriously than "votes" of those who merely toss abbreviations into such discussions.

I had a similar situation myself lately in this closure by RoySmith. I was the only person in that discussion who actually knew what he was talking about, but my arguments were completely ignored for the very reason that I happened to be a member of its board of directors, so obviously I had a conflict of interest. As if that would invalidate any of my arguments (which, I should add, were completely policy-based). I can assure you that this is really disheartening! Best, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 12:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

These things drive both newbies and experts away from the English-language Wikipedia. Too many "rules" (and they are only guidelines), too many people who don't have anything better to do than putting templates everywhere and nominating other people's work for deletion. It's disheartening indeed. -- Evertype·✆ 12:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, but I maintain the view expressed in the closure.  Sandstein  12:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Saudi role in September 11 attacks

Hey, thanks for your intervention here, but there's still a question. Can you please say where the mentioned consensus is built and how you found the keep votes and their explaining inapplicable here? --Mhhossein (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I refer to the consensus in that discussion, and I didn't say anything about "keep" opinions being inapplicable.  Sandstein  11:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm also questioning to see what 'consensus' you are referring! Moreover, The keep opinions had to be considered when closing the discussion and I think I provided enough sources directly regarding the subject of the article in that discussion and other users also expressed logical arguments against deletion. Mhhossein (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Your disagreement is noted, but what you say doesn't make me reevaluate my closure.  Sandstein  10:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, anyway I'd still like to see what 'consensus' you are referring! --Mhhossein (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Galassi TBAN filing

Hey, I checked WP:RESTRICT before posting this to verify that Galassi wasn't already under 1RR, but his/her name doesn't appear anywhere on RESTRICT. Apparently, though, he/she is subject to a TBAN. I know this was literally years ago, but do you have any recollection of why this wasn't logged on RESTRICT? Sorry for an odd question. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

No. But logging restrictions there is not required by any policy.  Sandstein  10:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Shit, really!? What's the point of even having a page to list off editor restrictions if it's not comprehensive? I'd be happy to help hunt down uncatalogued restrictions and list them up, but I don't think a non-admin, even an uninvolved one, should be crafting the wording of restrictions after the fact (I don't even really trust most admins to do that)... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

There's also WP:AC/DS/Log, which is more comprehensive. But generally, it's an indication of our amateurish approach to disciplinary issues.  Sandstein  12:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Sandstein. Do you have some ideas for being less amateurish? Re the above, WP:RESTRICT is supposed to be used but people may forget. For tracking 1RRs, I suppose we could have something like the block log, but for sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I'm no longer active with enforcement tasks because I think there is insufficient community support for an efficient, rules-based disciplinary system. I used to think that at least AE works, but I quit that because I decided that it wasn't worth the effort: one editor, I don't remember who, threw something like a month-long temper tantrum in all possible fora because I enforced a sanction against them, and because they had many friends, the show went on and on. Until the issue of "vested contributors" being much more difficult to sanction than others is addressed, fiddling around with details such as logs is, in my view, not really worth the time.  Sandstein  14:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attilan

Could you take a look at this AfD you closed a while back and see if the current state of the article falls within bounds to redirect it again per that AfD or if it should instead be relisted? And this one if you feel like it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tel'aran'rhiod. It was a non-admin closure, so asking the closer seems pointless. Both articles are in the same state as when the AfDs took place, so their precedent should still be valid.

And how would you recommend dealing with a user possessing a weirdly pointed vendetta? Regardless of the merit of the AfD, he keeps commenting with stuff like this. And it looks like he'll automatically revert any article I redirect regardless of validity, such as the two above that should be redirects as per the AfDs. TTN (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I concur that the AfD consensus still applies in both cases and have re-redirected the pages. As to the behavior issue, I can't give any more specific advice than to proceed per WP:DR, sorry. If any editing is in areas subject to WP:ACDS, those procedures may also apply.  Sandstein  20:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

If possible, could you look at this one as well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slag (Transformers)/Slag (Transformers). It's a bit older than the others, but still pretty much in the same state as from the AfD. The closer is very infrequently active, so asking for his opinion probably would take a while. TTN (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Saudi role in September 11 attacks

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Saudi role in September 11 attacks. 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. Mhhossein (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Hello, would you clarify for me if Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry is within the scope of the Ukraine topic ban you gave me some years ago?--Galassi (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sandstein. You probably remember that it was me who brought the WP:.AE complaint about Galassi which resulted in his topic ban. Since then I occasionally interacted with him. Even though his editing is still far from ideal, my suggestion would be to actually lift or relax his ban at this point (may be to replace it by 1RR restriction on Ukrainian subjects), since I think he is actually highly knowlegable and capable of productively contributing in this area. Maybe that's because I am feeling guilty of bringing that complaint. I would not do it now. Thank you, My very best wishes (talk) 03:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Please link to the ban at issue.  Sandstein  05:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Here. My very best wishes (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Galassi, at first glance I don't see a link between Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry and Ukraine, and therefore conclude that the article is not covered by the topic ban. However, should any substantial links between the topics be pointed out later, I or another admin may come to a different conclusion. My very best wishes, I do not address your appeal of the topic ban, because the restricted user themselves may appeal it.  Sandstein  14:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for a sober assessment.--Galassi (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, it was pointed out that (a) all major books on Ukrainian history deal with the Khazars and (b) the automatic revert pattern that had Galassi banned from Ukrainian related articles was being repeated on the Khazar articles.Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Virtually everything is related to Ukraine in one way or another(including the American tripartite government system!), so that is not a good argument. And Khazar/Ashkenazy debacle atypically has no relation to Ukraine. Just for the record, user Nishidani is simply trying to have one less vote against his POV.--Galassi (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Galassi, if you continue this discussion with Nishidani, you will be violating your topic ban by doing so. Nishidani, if you consider that a specific edit by Galassi violates their topic ban, you can make an enforcement request at WP:AE.  Sandstein  15:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Sandstein. I have no intention of pursuing this further than I did at A/1. Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Emil Beurmann

In Emil Beurmann please check that the Baslerdüütsch operetta title E liederlig Kleeblatt translates well to "A lascivious trio". Would make sense since the vorleg ist Der böse Geist Lumpacivagabundus oder Das liederliche Kleeblatt von Johann Nestroy. Danke, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd translate E liederlig Kleeblatt to "A dissolute trio".  Sandstein  11:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tracy_W._Bush

Hi, my name is Tracy Bush, and I'm a video game composer and audio director. I found out recently that my page had been deleted, and found this dicussion page which debated the merits of my work.

I'm at a bit of a loss as to why my page was deleted; I continue to work in my industry, and while for the last several years I have worked for a company that hasn't shipped any major games, I have produced many good works, including the audio work for Sphero's BB8 (and was recently hired to be their audio director for all future projects).

However, if you need evidence that I'm still relevant in my industry, there's a new documentary which came out: http://www.gamessound.com/. It's a movie which documents the history of game sound, and I'm in it, as myself. I'm even in the trailer.

Thank you for your consideration. Tracy W. Bush 50.46.237.180 (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the experience of finding your own article deleted, I imagine it isn't pleasant. But Wikipedia has particular requirements for coverage, most importantly that reliable sources that are independent from you have covered you in some detail. Please see WP:BIO and tell me why you think you meet the criteria described there.  Sandstein  07:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

request an undeletion

Hi, would you please do me the favor of providing a copy of deleted List of courthouses in the United States (which you deleted at the conclusion of its AFD), to my userspace or to Draft:List of courthouses in the United States. Please see my request already at wp:REFUND, specifically at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#List of courthouses in the United States, where I explain about my purpose and the version sought. There someone says wp:REFUND is not for return of articles like this one, which is confusing because the instructions seem to indicate that it is (as I was not requesting return to mainspace). --doncram 21:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I replied at RFU.  Sandstein  07:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Allen Career Institute

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Allen Career Institute. 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. 103.6.159.93 (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

List of Neverwinter Nights characters

Would you mind userifying it to my userspace? I want to review what of the material is salvageable in light of BOZ's research, so I can't exactly ask him to do it. Note that if you'd simply redirected without deleting this, I wouldn't need to ask, but since I'm not an admin anymore, deleting and THEN creating a redirect serves to render the content invisible to me.... Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I tried, but got this: "To avoid creating high replication lag, this transaction was aborted because the write duration (11.778044700623) exceeded the 5 seconds limit. If you are changing many items at once, try doing multiple smaller operations instead." Er... unsure what to do now.  Sandstein  18:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That's weird. No rush, maybe it will work later when the servers are less busy. Jclemens (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Gloria Gifford

Hi, I have written here once before. I am writing because a person that I work for Gloria Gifford her Wikipedia page has been deleted again. Please put it back up. We are working on putting more references on the page so that it will be up to date. But it seems as if her page keeps getting picked on when I have seen other pages with less info. Not to mention that just because someone has not heard of the movies she was in is not cause to delete a page. Please put it back up and we will include more references. Thank you. Please put the page back up as I cannot add more references If it is not put back up. I work for Gloria Gifford. Please do so. You can email me if you like at allaboutevetm@gmail.comAllaboutevetm (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Gifford, Gloria. "New film 'Mother's Day' is personal for director Garry Marshall". The Tolucan Times. The Tolucan Times.

• Gifford, Gloria (August 22, 2013). "One-On-One with Gloria Gifford". The Tolucan Times. The Tolucan Times. {{cite web}}: More than one of |author1= and |last1= specified (help)

• Gifford, Gloria (Decemeber 28, 2005). "John Kenneth Muir's Reflections on Cult Movies and Classic TV". Reflections on Film and Television. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); More than one of |author1= and |last1= specified (help)

• Gifford, Gloria. "Halloween II Interview-Gloria Gifford". Halloween Movies.

Please link to the page or discussion at issue.  Sandstein  16:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review of NUCCA

While I'm sure you'd see it eventually, your close of NUCCA (AfD discussion) is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 May 25. —Cryptic 17:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Al Giordano

I had just found pretty conclusive indications that the deletion preceding the nomination and the nomination were politically motivated as suspected by several participants in the discussion and I was going to post my info when I discovered that you had deleted the article, apparently for good. In mid-discussion and after at least two people had clearly stated that they were working on improvements and had already presented a bunch of references! Great! For what it's worth, here's what I found.

• The nominator for deletion, Underdog 456, spent two days in January on a Hillary Clinton page, deleting references: Here’s his contributions page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Underdog456, and here is Clinton’s page (another editor caught on pretty soon, called it vandalism): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016&dir=prev&offset=20160107061059&limit=500&action=history; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign_endorsements%2C_2016&type=revision&diff=701551084&oldid=701550155. The dates and times you need to look for are from 21:09, 24 Jan 16 (Underdog456) to 05:57, 25 Jan 26 (PotvinSux). I checked on one of the deleted non-endorsers (Marge Hoffa, Minnesota), and she is indeed supporting Mrs. Clinton and listed in the reference (7th line from the bottom in the “Hosted By” section).

Meanwhile, over on the Leatherface page and on all the porn pages, business as usual. Thanks again. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

What deletion is this about? Please link to it.  Sandstein  16:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

This one which has apparently been replaced a few minutes ago by this new one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Giordano. The old history is gone, but someone should still look into the actions of Underdog456 (see above). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• OK. Even assuming that the deletion nomination was politically motivated, that has no bearing on the consensus formed in the deletion discussion, and on the closer's assessment of that consensus, which is what was under review at WP:DRV. No idea what "Leatherface" and porn have anything to do with this.  Sandstein  16:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• I was referring to the vandalism (i.e., deletion of a reference) that initiated the whole process and the same vandalism (deletion of a bunch of valid references) that the same user perpetrated on another page. As for the last sentence, I was being facetious. My apologies; I have since cooled down. "Leatherface" RE signficance/importance of suject but, hey to each his own. Porn RE this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_position. Try explaining that to the two eight-year olds who found it. Again, just blowing off steam. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Question

Just wondering if it was possible to do an unofficial sockpuppet check without official investigation, can you do a quick check with admin privileges to see if my accusation of two editors has possible merit or should I just go for it? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, admins have no antisock tools, you want WP:CHECKUSER.  Sandstein  16:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought admins have a user interaction tool. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if so, I don't know it.  Sandstein  17:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't ever used them, but I think you're thinking of Wikipedia:Tools#User interaction analysis, not something specific to admins. —Cryptic 18:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Also I listed multiple sources in this discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia University rape controversy) which shows continual coverage regarding the controversy specifically the lawsuit with a second lawsuit pending, I was hoping you may reconsider. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Detail into Deletion of Hamilton Jewelers Article

Good afternoon,

I work for Hamilton Jewelers and just discovered that our page had been deleted. I was looking over the deletion summary for the Hamilton Jewelers page and would like to know exactly why the decision was made to delete our page and some guidance as to how I can edit or recreate our page so that it might be considered acceptable for Wikipedia.

Thank you, 108.24.111.130 (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Please link to the article or deletion discussion.  Sandstein  18:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is the link to the deletion discussion. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hamilton_Jewelers

Hamiltonjeweler (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, you should not attempt to recreate the article because you are affiliated with the subject, see WP:COI.  Sandstein  19:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Then how can we possibly have a page? We have to wait until someone outside of the company starts an article about us? Hamiltonjeweler (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Just so. That is, after all, the only way to know for sure that somebody outside of the company is interested in an article about it.  Sandstein  20:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification.

Hamiltonjeweler (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I do have one more question. If I, or a third party were to write a non-biased article using purely outside sources for citations and disclosed that we were affiliated with the company, would we be within the proper guidelines?

Hamiltonjeweler (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, I cannot recommend that you write about yourself or your company because of your conflict of interest.  Sandstein  08:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Carey

Hello Sandstein! I'd like to take you up on your offer to "userfy" the recently deleted Emily Carey – I'd like to move it to Draftspace to incubate... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't do drafts, but can put it in your user space.  Sandstein  21:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean – if you put it in my Userspace, than I can move it to Draftspace on my end... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that drafts are good idea in general, and for BLPs in particular. Please ask somebody else.  Sandstein  09:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Nah. Not that big a deal... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

State Crimes Against Democracy

Hello Sandstein,

I participated in the delete discussion of this article. This was my first delete discussion at Wikipedia. Since there was not any actual consensus (three editors including myself voted keep or weak keep), I am curious on what basis the 'keep' opinions were discounted? Do you agree that the article topic was 'fringe', that the sources were not independent, and that GNG was not met?JerryRussell (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State Crimes Against Democracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryRussell (talk • contribs) 22:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

This was a brilliant close. Clearly the discussion had run its course! Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi JerryRussell. Deletion discussions are not votes, but here we have a clear majority in favor of keeping, so the only way to escape a consensus to delete would be if the "keep" opinions were particularly compelling, or the "delete" opinions were particularly weak. That's not the case. Discussion centers on the quality of sources, and that's something people can disagree about in good faith. If anything, SageRad's opinion to keep because it's "a useful article about an actual term" would need discounting because it isn't based in policy or practice, see WP:USEFUL.  Sandstein  08:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Sandstein, thank you for your view that this was a good faith disagreement. I'm thinking that the real topic addressed by the SCAD authors, is whether conspiracy theory in general deserves the contempt associated with 'fringe' or 'clearly bogus' topics, as well as what to call a 'conspiracy theory' after it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (such as Watergate for example). Maybe the article could be reframed around that topic, and given a new name? Do you think such an article would have a better chance of passing AfD scrutiny?JerryRussell (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. I am not interested in the topic and so don't have an opinion of my own regarding its importance, etc.  Sandstein  16:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Try reading WP:USEFUL. The article was about a real term used by people as evidenced reliable sources. For that reason, it's both useful and encyclopedic to have an article about it. This was a witch hunt. SageRad (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Even the witchfinders required an actual person to call a witch. 'Burn the wikipedia article!' doesnt have the same ring to it. Although Sandstein it would be nice if when you close a discussion you at least say *why*. It might be obvious to those of us who understand consensus and the weighting of policy-backed arguments, but the above are good indications that some people do not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)