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

Non-admin closures by Alpha Quadrant

Hi Sandstein. I've had prior history with Alpha Quadrant (talk · contribs), after I asked him to cease making early closures. He has accused me of harassment, so I have stayed away from his talk page. Today, I noticed on Malleus Fatuorum's talk page that Alpha Quadrant closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wife selling (2nd nomination) as "keep". There is also a discussion on his talk page regarding his inappropriate non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network.

Had I not had prior history with Alpha Quadrant, I would have reverted these two closures as being inappropriate. He is wikilawyering (WP:NACD says that it is often better for close calls to be closed by admins. It never says non-admins cannot close them.) and unwilling to own up to his errors.

This is reminiscent of my discussion with him at User talk:Alpha Quadrant/Archive 9#Early AfD closures, where he was unwilling to cease closing AfDs early and User talk:Alpha Quadrant/Archive 9#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad, where he refused to undo his inappropriate relist.

As an uninvolved admin, would you review these non-admin closures and see whether Alpha Quadrant should be restricted from closing AfDs owing to his repeated early closures, inappropriate relists, and inappropriate non-admin closures? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't notice the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network until now. Cunard (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have undone the "Anti-Zionist" closure. I have reviewed the "Wife selling" closure and consider it correct. I cannot unilaterally restrict users from closing AfDs, but if you think that such a measure should be considered, I recommend initiating a RfC first.  Sandstein  19:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the Anti-Zionist AfD. I agree that individual administrators should not be able to unilaterally impose restrictions on users. I asked you to provide an uninvolved opinion about whether a restriction to end the controversies surrounding this user's problematic AfD closings would be helpful.

RfCs are a drain on time for both the initiators and the subject, so I am loath to initiate one unless it becomes absolutely necessary. I hope Alpha Quadrant heeds Flatscan's advice at User talk:Alpha Quadrant#Archiving of Early AfD closures and the community's advice about contentious closures. Cunard (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs

Hi Sandstein. You participated in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Standard of review for non admin closes, which was snowball closed. A subsection of the discussion has been created. Titled Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs, it pertains to {{Request close}} and Category:Requests for Close, which were created after a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 78#Template to request a discussion be closed. I have posed several questions there and am interested in your thoughts. Cunard (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Too bad...

I know making mistakes is human, like the one you made with Bank Tranfer Day. In ten days it shall show it was just a nice orchestrated soap bubble... Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but that's not for Wikipedia to speculate about. But if it turns out to be a soap bubble, at least it will be a notable soap bubble, and if reliable sources say so, we can report that in the article.  Sandstein  21:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Sandstein! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sandstein. You have new messages at Causa sui's talk page.
Message added 17:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

causa sui (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Questions regarding you comments to the "Magnetic Tower of Hanoi" article

Hello Mr. Sandstein,

In reference to your comment on the Magnetic Tower of Hanoi article, could you please explain:

• Single purpose account
• Conflict of interest account
  

Also - don't you expect third-party coverage later on?

Overall - do you think the subject warrants a stand-alone article?

Uri-Levy (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, see Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, respectively. I've offered my opinion about whether the subject warrants a stand-alone article in the deletion discussion.  Sandstein  13:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

You might recall this article. I suggest that Paul Siebert does not understand WP:CONSENSUS as his posts at

[1] Reverted the changes that have been made in violation of the editing restrictions. See talk page,

[2] where he somehow feels he alone determines consensus,

and [3] with the (ominous?) otherwise I'll have to take other steps. You have 48 hours

none of which sounds remotely like seeking consensus by a few miles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not currently active in arbitration enforcement, as I've come to seen it as a waste of time due to insufficient Arbitration Committee support. I recommend that you make a report at WP:AE if you think this requires administrative action.  Sandstein  21:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not at that level yet, but I feel that as you placed the restriction, it is you who well ought to be made aware of the problem. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Notes about Articles for deletion/Hetek

Hi. After your note about Articles for deletion/Hetek I have checked user Nedudgi. You can do also. Nedudgi has contribution only in enwiki and huwiki. Nedudgi has been blocked for infinit time in huwiki. The reason is "harci zokni", which means sock puppet soldier. Since Nedudgi was the only one who suggested to keep article Hetek I have a question: Can reconsider your note? --Euty (talk) 11:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)