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

Georgia for Georgians

Hello Sandstein. Regarding your closing summary, I believe single comment suggesting move to draftspace did not deserve more attention than the consensus. Although some editors were Georgian, I don't find it strange that Georgian editors would edit the articles related to Georgia

The consensus of the AfD was to TNT the bad article and instead create more balanced article on Georgian nationalism. Can any single editor overturn the consensus? I've already contested the undeletion, but another admin didn't understand the problem. WP:UND says: "controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process. Copyright violations and attack pages will not be provided at all." The deleted article obviously was attack page, because the article's aim was to portray Georgian nationalism negatively. The article was grossly misquoting poorly selected references to imply something that didn't actually exist. The notability of the slogan has never been questioned, only the existence of such policy. One editor noticed Tiptoethrutheminefield's POV-pushing intent during the discussion [1]. Tiptoethrutheminefield then used the phrase Georgia's lies during the discussion [2]. Another editor became suspicious of the article's intentions [3]. Tiptoethrutheminefield left similar anti-Georgian comments here [4] proving his strong animosity towards Georgia.

After the article was deleted, George Ho, the editor who suggested move to draftspace during the discussion, became concerned about Tiptoethrutheminefield's intentions [5] [6] [7] [8]. Then George Ho told Tiptoethrutheminefield that there was no more need for the article's revival [9], because Georgian nationalism was created in its place as suggested in the AfD. Tiptoethrutheminefield then removed the entire section from his talk page to hide both his WP:IDHT attitude and his dislike for you [10]. Tiptoethrutheminefield was sanctioned in the past for edit-warring on the articles related to Georgia [11]

Tiptoethrutheminefield has just suggested that I edit with another account [12]. Is that a personal attack? I don't edit Wikipedia with any other account. I have to admit, I've been watching the edit histories of the articles related to Turkey-Armenia relations and associated discussions. Over time, I acquired some understanding of the inner workings of Wikipedia. Integrist (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please link to the AfD and provide a brief summary? Sandstein 20:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to this AfD. Upon discovering that article, the statement on the expulsion of Azeris from Georgia under the policy "Georgia for Georgians" was the red flag. There is nothing known about this forced expulsion or policy in the Azerbaijani historiography. If such policy and the resulting expulsion of Azeris had happened, the government of Azerbaijan wouldn't have been silent. Such policy and the resulting expulsion would be remembered in the same way as the Khojaly massacre. Numerous content and sourcing issues in the article indicated that the article was attack page. I've explained every issue in the AfD. Most editors agreed with my rationale. The existence of such policy was questioned by most editors. Please, review the diffs in my original comment. There was no justification for undeleting that article.

I have nothing personal against Tiptoethrutheminefield, however, I noticed that he was the only one defending the problematic content and his comment mentioning Georgia's lies alarmed me, because neither my name is Georgia nor the discussion was about the truthfulness of the Georgian authorities. Integrist (talk) 10:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A newly created single purpose account with 6 edits to its name is unlikely to have gained an instant ability to code in editing diffs or policy wikilinks or, as you observed in the AfD closing, initiate AfDs from just "watching the edit histories of the articles", and Integrist in these post-AfD pursuits made here and also here [13] is veering into harassment and stalking territory. I would initiate a SP investigation but at the moment I do not know which blocked account to reasonably attach the case to. The only suspicious account that edited the article was, ironically, the initiator of its first AfD, SourAcidHoldout, who edited here for a mere 4 days [14] and whose edit history summaries also seem sprinkled with an unusually knowledgeable (for a 1-day-old account) display of Wikipedia jargon. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some people don't register on the first day when they discover Wikipedia. I have no past blocked accounts. My edit count does not render my arguments invalid. Hopefully, my edit count will increase over time. However, it's not mandatory to make over 100 edits in one day. Registration was the only way to nominate that article for the deletion. Integrist (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Integrist, after reading your summary above, I note that you disagree with the outcome of the AfD, but that in and of itself is not enough to undo the closure. I decline to do so. Sandstein 11:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the blocked user is a sockpuppet, what about the outcome of the AfD? Would this change the consensus or something? I think the article should be moved back to the mainspace due to the damage done. If not, shall I take this to the DRV? --George Ho (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the fact that Integrist as the AfD nominator is now blocked as a sock changes the outcome of the AfD, because even without Integrist there is a consensus to delete. Sandstein 07:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, perhaps can you add the latest update about the sockpuppet to modify your rationale? The user is still working on the draft. George Ho (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since Integrist is now unblocked, that seems a moot point. Sandstein 16:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, thank you for reading my summary. I don't want you to misunderstand me. I have never challenged the closure or the consensus. I have neither positive nor negative view on Georgian nationalism. I believe that the article threatened the integrity of Wikipedia. I had seen media reports of hoaxes on Wikipedia, so I started the AfD nomination to let other people share their opinions. I tagged the article [15], because about half of the content was falsified. Later, Tiptoethrutheminefield removed the tags [16], claiming "No talk page justification for them." I had already explained in the AfD nomination that not only the content was falsified, but the article so grossly misrepresented the slogan of Gia Chanturia as a name for state policy of Georgia aimed at extermination of Georgia's ethnic minorities that it bordered on hoax. Although I was surprised by Tiptoethrutheminefield's action, I decided to wait for the outcome of the discussion. I believe my opinion was supported by several editors in the AfD. Kober wrote in the AfD [17]: "Most reliable sources mentioning this slogan just say that the slogan was allegedly used by a politician or a group of politicians but none of them attempt to illustrate it as the basis of political ideology or state doctrine." Wikimandia wrote in the AfD [18]: "I say delete, and let someone recreate it as Georgian nationalism instead of just being about one phrase that may or may not have been attributed correctly." She also wrote [19], "Georgia for Georgians may not have been Gamsakhurdia's own slogan, but the slogan existed in some way (was it really actual policy?)" An IP editor wrote in the AfD [20], "Although your sources say that tensions arose between Georgians and the ethnic minorities during Georgia's transition to independence, they don't absolutely prove that Gamsakhurdia in his official capacity sanctioned a state policy named "Georgia for Georgians" with the aim of discriminating non-Georgians." Yahya Talatin wrote in the AfD [21]: "The problem is not if such a wording like Georgia for the Georgians ever existed, but if there is anything peculiar with Georgia for the Georgians in comparison with any X for the Xians." IP editor also wrote in the AfD [22]: "As the origins and the meaning of the slogan are unclear, it is misleading to portray it as Gamsakhurdia's invention purportedly materialized into law and politics."

The closure determined that the consensus was to delete. It was Tiptoethrutheminefield who challenged the consensus when he wrote on his talk page [23]: "numerous RS sources indicated notability, so the number of Georgians wanting it gone should have been irrelevant. Sandstein has in the past gone out of his way to delete or attempt to get deleted articles created by Russavia." Then he added on his talk page [24]: "A slogan naming and representing a policy that led to civil wars, the deaths of tens of thousands, massive population movements and incalculable material destruction is not notable, yet minor trope slogans like Your papers, please are all but certain to be kept." This comment came after the editors in the AfD had questioned the existence of such policy. This came after Wikimandia had written in the AfD [25]: "Clearly, the article has problems with biased sources." This came after IP editor had written in the AfD [26]: "Sources also say that the slogan did not actually intend to suppress ethnic minorities, but rather it was probably wrongly interpreted as such. Actual meanings and interpretations are two different things. Insistence on correctness of one given interpretation is not neutral." This came after Georgiano had written in the AfD [27]: "The issue is not notability of the slogan, but unencyclopedic and POV nature of the article." and "The refusal of certain editors to accept the explanations of serious flaws of the article is disruptive."

I only challenge the undeletion. I read the notice at the top of the WP:UND: "controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process. Copyright violations and attack pages will not be provided at all." I believe that the deleted article was attack page. That's what I meant when I called the article 'inflammatory' in the AfD nomination. Three editors had expressed similar views in the AfD. Kober wrote in the AfD [28]: "The entry was intended by its now community-banned editor (and his permanbanned ally) to illustrate the alleged exclusionist character of Georgian nationalism, but, as expected, the article and its talk page has long become a hotbed for anti-Georgian sentiments." Yahya Talatin wrote in the AfD [29]: "I question the intentions and sincerity of the creator of this article, for having created an article which had no parents (like Georgian nationalism etc.)." Georgiano wrote in the AfD [30], "The only purpose of the article is to cultivate anti-Georgian sentiments among those, who are not well-versed in modern history." Tiptoethrutheminefield had used the deleted article to attack Zviad Gamsakhurdia in another AfD [31]. IP editor noticed in the AfD that Tiptoethrutheminefield had something against Gamsakhurdia [32]: "you have an agenda to impute Zviad Gamsakhurdia."

I'd like to thank George Ho for expressing his opinion. However, his final comment was made just before the closure and other editors could not respond to him. It should be noted that George Ho wrote in the final comment [33]: "The article may be anti-Georgian; so are the sources." However, Wikimandia had written a different opinion in the AfD [34]: "Clearly, the article has problems with biased sources." WP:ATTACK explains that attack pages are poorly sourced. George Ho also wrote in the final comment [35]: "However, the article is too large and valuable to be deleted." However, Georgiano had already written [36]: "The issue is not notability of the slogan, but unencyclopedic and POV nature of the article." and "The refusal of certain editors to accept the explanations of serious flaws of the article is disruptive." So, George Ho's comment was not suitable as an example of consensus.

What was so astonishing is that one editor managed to overcome the consensus. I think I will continue to be a casual reader of Wikipedia for a while. Hopefully, I will detect other cases of problematic content on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time. I rest my case. Integrist (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's too long for me to read. Sandstein 16:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

Hello Sandstein: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Brad Delaney

Could I ask that the deleted article for Brad Delaney be sent to my sandbox please. Many thanks in advance.Fleets (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't undelete content. You may ask others at WP:UND. Sandstein 18:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry thought you were the one who deleted it. My apologies.Fleets (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic Underground (2nd nomination)

Could you please add some analysis to your close to for this AfD? The close fails to adequately summarize the discussion. There are several !votes that are buttressed by policy and guideline that challenge the notion that the sources establish notability, per WP:WEBCRIT vs !!votes that simply said "sources exist" or "Google returns hits".That man from Nantucket (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to the deletion discussion. Sandstein 19:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic Underground (2nd nomination) per your request. That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how one can find a delete consensus in that discussion. Yes, there were some "keep" opinions that were based only on "it has many Google results" or similar, but there were also several that addressed the issue of the quality of the sources. On the other side, there was only you and one other person in favor of deletion. Under these circumstances, you'd have needed an absolute killer of an argument to force deletion against a substantial numerical majority, such as a copyright violation, and I don't see that. Sandstein 17:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually three people, but who is counting? None of the keep arguments that addressed the "quality of the sources" discussed the central point of the delete arguments. Namely that the sources were trivial mentions of the subject, which is counter to WP: WEBCRIT. I was hoping the close would address this guideline. If there is a "killer argument" to be made, this is it. It is a well defined guideline, which a minority feels has not been met, and the majority doesn't even address. I understand people come to these discussions and some may just look at the hit count or examine a few sources for a mention of the subject and may not bother to read some of the other opinions. There aren't even any challenges like "no, it's not a trivial mention". That would at least be an "agree to disagree" situation. Regardless, I wasn't coming here to lobby you to change your position (though I guess I have now) but asking if you could flesh out the central disagreement in the close summary.That man from Nantucket (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of timberline knolls

Good afternoon,

I wanted to reach out to you and see if you are able to restore the Timberline Knolls article as a draft so I can make edits to it. I am happy to share with you the new content if you'd like to see it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickQuad (talk • contribs) 19:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to the article or deletion discussion. Sandstein 19:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link to deletion discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timberline_Knolls_Residential_Treatment_Center&action=edit&redlink=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickQuad (talk • contribs) 20:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Timberline Knolls Residential Treatment Center was an advertisement, and you have no edits to other topics. I am not interested in helping you advertise your company on Wikipedia. Sandstein 21:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And here's another present for you...

                    /"\
                   |\./|
                   |   |
                   |   |
                   |>~<|
                   |   |
                /'\|   |/'\..
            /~\|   |   |   | \
           |   =[@]=   |   |  \
           |   |   |   |   |   \
           | ~   ~   ~   ~ |`   )
           |                   /
            \                 /
             \               /
              \    _____    /
               |--//''`\--|
               | (( +==)) |
               |--\_|_//--|

More compliments of the 4th Power! So bow.

Suprised? They didn't tell you about another one of these, did they?

-- GENIUS