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

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Phishing emails

Wikipedia:Phishing emails, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Phishing emails and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Phishing emails during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. funplussmart (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Byron House

I worked very hard and spend most of my day rebuilding, attributing and providing sources for the Byron House page you deleted. Can you give me the exact reasons it was deleted so my next one will stay put? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.186.58.125 (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk reader) I assume you refer to this discussion. Please read WP:MUSICBIO. Generally, if a musician hasn't charted, sold a gold record, or won a Grammy, they're not notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough... but I used pages by bassists like Dave Driewitz and Chuck Dukowski as a guide - neither of whom have collected those accolades but have played in notable bands. Byron has played on gold records that have charted, played in the bands of very notable articles and appears on numerous wiki pages of musicians with whom he's played. Your criteria seems rather rigid considering the number of wiki pages for notable musicians who don't meet the criteria you specified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethgravy (talk • contribs) 20:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is a common problem. New editors often use other articles as a guide. The problem is that Wikipedia receives more new articles than it can successfully triage, and we still include many articles from the bad old days of ten years ago when there were far fewer rules. I can empathize with your frustration. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect vs. Deletion?

Hello! I have seen that you have been closing some deletion discussions about Dungeons & Dragons subjects, of which there are many at the moment. In cases where you come to the conclusion to delete the article, would you perhaps consider changing the article into a redirect rather than outright deletion? Some more secondary sources have been found during the notability discussions, and there are probably still more out there. It would be helpful to still be able to access the old articles, to see if notability can be established at some future point. Thank you very much for your consideration. Daranios (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I find consensus to delete, I close as delete. You are free to recreate a redirect where appropriate, which others may then contest at WP:RfD. Sandstein 16:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert the Deletion of page Bandari_(AVC)

Hi Sandstein,

Today I come the page Bandari_(AVC) and sadly find it is been deleted. I propose to recover it.

From the page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bandari_(AVC), I read several reasons for its deletion. In one sentence that is "Not finding any significant coverage for this band. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND".

I admit that there are few material can be found about this "band". Actually, from the Chinese news paper dated 2015-07-29 (which is an interview of the founder of Bandari), we know that the "Bandari" as a stable band never exist. But its musics and the styles are real, the musics are performed by invited musicians and some songs are composed by invited composers. And all these arrangements are done by Peter Pozza, the founder of AVC. AVC is producing [meditation musics].

Bandari not only confuse you people outside China, but also confuse us. In a stackoverflow-like chinese ask-and-answer website called Zhihu, there is a question about [the existence of Bandari]. The top answer there is convincing, and the most vital evidence is the Chinese news paper interview mention in the above paragraph and the existence of [AVC].

I think, Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should not miss such a (countrywide) famous music production team. They are not typical band, thus the rules of WP:BAND should not apply. Instead, to my understanding, Bandari is a brand of a small company. This brand is almost unknown to the rest of the world because it is a cooperation between AVC and a Taiwan company, and the CD was released only in Chinese regions.

If anyone need assistance about Chinese language (e.g. in order to understand related reference), I could do it, although I'm not wikipedia-online every day.

Wanttoknow (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000, Onel5969, Richard3120, and 31.61.114.124: What is your view as AfD contributors? Sandstein 16:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I always go back to GNG. If sources can be found, then by all means I wouldn't care if the article was created. Looking at the AfD, the nom, the two delete !votes and the single comment all seem to agree that issue is scarcity of sources. As User:power~enwiki points out, due to the media control by China, we might never be able to find appropriate sourcing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much to add here, and find myself in agreement with the view of Onel5969 above. Ultimately, notability rests upon Wikipedia's notability guidelines: essentially, in this case we need at least two independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage. Some indication of meeting WP:BAND would be helpful, but WP:BAND does not provide presumed notability, only stating that acts that meet some of its requirements may be notable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me answer the questions above asked by Onel5969, Northamerica1000 and 31.61.114.124.

Q: At least two independent reliable sources.
A: See below. I consider Source 1 and Source 2 been reliable.

Source 1: 2005-07-29 Guangming Online (Chinese) (sorry I mistakenly wrote 2015-07-29 at the beginning). The author is Jun Liu a Guangming Daily journalist at Geneva. In this news interview, Liu meet Peter Pozza the "father" of Bandari at Zurich. Mr. Peter talked about why and how Bandari was created. If you want to know more about this news or related, I could translate.

Source 2: [AVC meditation music], where the first sentence reads: "Music for relaxation and dreaming has a name - BANDARI.". And the songs listed in that page under category Bandari are occured in the published CD sold in China. This (together with source 1) proves that AVC is the producer of Bandari.

Source 3: [Bandari Global (Chinese)]. Probably a fan-made website. Has a full list of Bandari albums.

Source 4: [last.fm/Bandari]. This shows the existance of Bandari outside China. iTunes also contains Bandari songs.

Q: Due to the media control by China, we might never be able to find appropriate sourcing.
A: A trolling topic. You can freely access the web site I listed, including the two in Chinese (Source 1 and 3). And you are freely to use any search engine to search Chinese website. There is no point to "control" anything in this particular topic.
Q: "A search by a Chinese-language-speaking contributor would be helpful.", "Will never happen as communist China cannot access Wikipedia."
A: OK, OK, I'm here now, what do you want me to do? I speak Chineses, and I have done various search about Bandari already.

Wanttoknow (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryszard Walkiewicz

I'm not sure why a relist wouldn't have been useful. I've already said that if I thought the AFD was anywhere close to a delete, I'd have tried to improve the article and find more references - which I've never tried to do - and isn't a part of the DRV process. Given the false claims that GNG isn't a guideline, but a policy (?!?) surely the DRV should be closed by someone who is comfortable commenting on the the relationship between specific notability guidelines and the GNG! Nfitz (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is part of Wikipedia:Notability, which is a guideline, not a policy. We normally relist AfDs only twice. Sandstein 16:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can point to dozens of AfDs that were relisted 3 times, and some that were relisted four times. Lightburst (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, it's a guideline. Though during the DRV, many endorsements gave GNG undue weight, with the belief it was a policy. (WP:V is the policy - which was met ... GNG is a guideline, like WP:ATH). Normally we don't have DRV discussions for AfDs ... so we are already past normal here. Nfitz (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nfitz here and will also point out that many (not all) of the endorse !votes simply attempted to rehash the AfD by saying the article failed GNG without addressing whether the closer addressed consensus correctly. Smartyllama (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long time since there was a DRV of a DRV. But this one is probably there. I'd ask that you please take another look at this. My sense is that you do have a fairly strong opinion on the GNG/SNG issue and that most other admins would have closed it differently. Again, just asking that you consider undoing the close and letting someone else have at it. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. I don't see how I can find a consensus to overturn here. I did write that I do not want to put my thumb on the scale regarding the GNG/SNG issue, so I'm not sure where you get your sense from. It is normal that in a 11:7 situation there will be people who are disappointed with the closure no matter how the discussion is closed. But such is life. Sandstein 06:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again I am puzzled by your interpretation Sandstein. I agree with the 11 others who came to the review and with Hobit's call for a review. The first close of the AfD was wrong, and now you have endorsed the wrong. I do not think you should close these as I have said before. This is at least the third puzzling review closure. Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure "too bad so sad" is the appropriate next step here. What's the DRV appeal process? Nfitz (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, the deletion process does not provide for an appeal of a DRV discussion. But the article can be recreated if it is substantially different and the reasons for which it was deleted are addressed. Sandstein 19:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few DRVs have been discussed at ANI over the years, but almost all of the ones that were overturned were egregiously bad closes. I'm not sure this qualifies, and filing an ANI report is not something one should do frivolously. However, if as Lightburst suggested there is a pattern of bad closes from Sandstein (I don't follow DRV closely enough to weigh in on that), ANI would be the place to address that. Smartyllama (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: ANI is a soul crushing place.

Here is a close where Sandstein says they could find reason to overturn since it is 20-15, but nah they do not want to because they did not like three of the !votes.
In the same situation, here they again find no consensus but decides to relist. Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway Incident 8 endorse, 5 overturn, so he went against the 8 !voters.
In this case 2 to 1 in favor of overturning the closure on JK! Studios but nah...Sandstein declined. overturn and reclose 14 to 8 endorse.
In this clear no-consensus Sandstein cast a Supervote and deleted the article at AfD. Clear no-consensus at AfD.
Then of course there is the latest one Ryszard Walkiewicz. It seems Sandstein decides, sometimes relist, sometimes endorse, sometimes reject consensus in favor of a supervote. Not evenly applied IMO.

We are at the mercy of administrators and they do not evenly apply the policies and guidelines. I was involved in these examples so I imagine I have a COI. However I have questioned Sandstein each time. And you can see this last time they have not responded to me. IMO Going to deletion review and getting support for a desired outcome means nothing if Sandstein closes. Lightburst (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you want to complain and Sandstein is unresponsive, the next step is probably ANI. Smartyllama (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI doesn't feel like the right course of action here. Though I'm puzzled how if this was soley a review of the AFD, and there was only one valid delete comment at AFD (given both the nomination and the other delete claimed that NFOOTBALL wasn't met), and little more said than name-checking AFD, how this isnt' a simple case. I'm also confused how it's difficult, given that WP:N cleary says that either GNG or things like WP:FOOTBALL must be met, with no particular over-riding emphasis given to either.

When are you gonna take action against Toa Nidhiki05?

This editor has called Tamsier a "dick" on the the deletion discussion in which you blocked Tamsier for but took no action against this editor. I disagreed with that block anyway because I found nothing in Tamsier's remarks that deserved a block, and they also did a great job improving that article, but that's beside the point. @Toa Nidhiki05: also went on to make personal attacks against another editor by calling them "an imbecile", and believes that we are here to mock or ridicule other editors with this statement: "Sometimes, when responding to sockpuppet trolls, ridicule is an adequate solution". How many passes is this editor going to get before any action is taken against them for their behaviour, or are we only in the habit of blocking our Black and African editors? Just curious! Senegambianamestudy (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't take action against something I'm not aware of. I'm aware of it now, but I'm not really inclined to respond to a request that is itself phrased very confrontatively and implies racism on my part. You or the offended editor may want to ask at WP:ANI. Sandstein 11:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please resolve this elsewhere. Sandstein 20:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What on earth? Yes, I called a sockpuppet troll account an imbecile. Sue me. Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, but there is no point reporting them to ANI. They will just give them another pass and try to ridicule me for bringing it to their attention. I have seen that done to so many editors reporting serious issues and I will not lower myself to that kind of foolishness. Since you proclaim to have zero tolerance for personal attacks, I was surprised you let that pass. Your explanation is clear. Well noted. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do not make any personal attacks against other editors whether they are trolls or not. I thought that was the policy? Comment on their edits not the editor. Isn't that what we've been told? So why do you have a history of making attacks against others yet nothing has been done? Senegambianamestudy (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the reason your friend got blocked. I didn’t ask for it, I didn’t lobby for it, and it wasn’t my decision. This has already been discussed in detail months ago when you tried to do the same thing. From what the blocking admin said, Tamsier got blocked because of their behavior at both the deletion discussion and previous discussions. Please stop blaming me for this and trying to get me blocked as revenge - I had nothing to do with it. Toa Nidhiki05 13:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toa Nidhiki05 13:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the user is admitting to calling anyone (be they a sockpupet, or not) an imbecile, why are they not facing consequences? It's a clear violation of the WP:5P4, which is fundamental. Ironically sockpuppetry isn't a fundamental violation, though treated far more seriously. Nfitz (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When someone isn’t here to build an encyclopedia but instead to edit war inaccurate content into an article, and it’s as patently obvious as that sockpuppet troll as that account was, sometimes you get a bit frustrated. In this instance, a user was abusing two accounts to try and edit war a reliable source out of an article in favor of outdated information from years earlier. He was also (falsely) claiming to have called a source to prove it was inaccurate. He had genuinely no clue what he was talking about and was not listening to anyone. I called him an imbecile out of frustration with his dishonesty and utter inability to understand even the basics of how this website works. The user has now been blocked for being a sockpuppet. I probably should not have called him that, but frankly the level of concern I have with interacting with blatant sockpuppet trolls is far, far less than when working with actual, legitimate editors. Toa Nidhiki05 19:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]