User talk:Sandstein: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:24, 18 November 2019

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

Deletion review of Groww

Hi, I am the original author of the Groww page and unfortunately, I could not be part of the deletion discussion earlier in the year. I would like to request your suggestions on how to reopen the discussion, considering the following is true about Groww.in. I am keen to ensure the Indian audience gets non-marketing real facts about such companies, not marketing puff pieces.

As per Alexa, it is top #2310 page in India and top #33K page in the world. Source: https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/groww.in
Has 2.5 million users as per https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/19/groww-series-b/
Has since raised $21.4 million in a Series B financing round, led by U.S.-based VC firm Ribbit Capital. Existing investors include Sequoia India and Y Combinator.
Most of the other firms in similar space have a wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuvera.in, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zerodha, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FundsIndia
Product coverage in Times of India, Deccan Chronicle, Morning Star
Investment coverage in TechCrunch, Economic times and more.
1. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/newsbuzz/groww-raises-6-2-million-from-sequoia-others/articleshow/67667395.cms
2. https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/19/groww-series-b/

Looking forward to your guidance - Ashok Bhat 08:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you personally involved with Groww? Sandstein 08:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly. I happen to be from Bangalore and I know the CEO from my previous work experience. But I value my Wikipedia credentials more than having a page for the people I know, which you can see from 1000+ edits and 20+ new pages. I especially care about creating pages for topics that are not covered, so that others can add to it. Guidance welcome.

Ashok Bhat 08:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Asking the participants of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groww: @Jéské Couriano, Piotrus, and The Gnome: would these sources change your mind? Sandstein 08:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, no. Page popularity is not an official criteria, but personally rule of thumb is that >1000 is not important enough. Number of users is also a mostly random number (where do we draw the line? Would 2m be enough? 1m? 100,000? etc.). Other sources seem to be business as usual coverage. That said, I have no objections to restoring this in userspace draft, and then it can be submitted to AfC. At which point if it passes if someone (like me) would be concerned about it we could have a new AfD. It's possible others may consider those sources a sufficient improvement, after all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should I submit a new AfC then? I think it is better to name it Groww.in to keep it consistent with the other site Kuvera.in Ashok Bhat 13:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

You're free to do that. Without agreement by the other AfD participants I'll not restore the article. Sandstein 15:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, Sandstein - when DS are imposed (post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people), and noted on the TP of the article, where is the link that describes what DS/restrictions have been imposed? IOW - 1RR consensus required, etc.? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All discretionary sanctions should be logged at WP:AELOG. Sandstein 12:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio on Trapiche emerald article

Hi, I would like to sincerely apologize for the copyvio and my in-expertise in editing the wiki article on Trapiche emerald. I have now learnt the proper process from my supervisor and would not make this mistake again. Thank you for understanding and sorry for the inconvenience. Harsimar21 (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something strange in Pullman-land

Hi, I don't quite know why, but the various His Dark Materials pages you AfD'd, all seem to link back to only the one discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Races and creatures in His Dark Materials. Pincrete (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is intentional. This allows all of these articles to be discussed together. Sandstein 12:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note on ArbCom/Poland sourcing restrictions

The phrase "reputable institutions"[1] was added to cover in-house publications by dedicated research institutions, such as the USHMM, IPN and Yad Vashem. See comment by Arb here. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(I came here to comment about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#MyMoloboaccount, but this is a relevant issue so I'll reply here). First, re your question. That comment does not exclude reliable newspapers. You have used newspapers yourself as a source (ex [2]). In fact, in that diff I see even youtube as a source. Is Youtube a better source than course notes? I thought that course notes are borderline, but if they are out, I don't think YouTube acceptable, neither. And about course lectures: you created this article, which uses [3] - just like the Cienciala's coursenotes that Sandstein ruled as 'bad sources' in Molobo's AE report, this appears to be an article by a reliable scholar but not peer reviewed or otherwise published by a reliable source. I wonder what would Sandstein say about them if they were to be discussed at AE? But I specifically don't want to bring them there, because they show that even experienced editors in this topic area are unsure what is allowed or not, the ArbCom ruling is not very clear (also per your disagreement with Sandstein here re reliable newspapers, which I certainly consider fine). But sources like Cienciala's notes or your [4] are case in point, I'd have considered them reliable - until the current ruling. This should be discussed first, and the ArbCom ruling should not be 'weaponized' to bring editors one disagrees with to AE on the off chance that they will get blocked for an edit that was 'ok' few months ago, or worse, on a borderline source that an admin has interpreted as not good enough anymore. Which is why I find the speedy one week block of Molobo problematic. Per my comment at Talk:Home Army (which ocurred pre-block and pre-AE report, which was I think all reported and resolved in few hours I was asleep at), I concur one of the diffs he restored was problematic, but I disagreed about the course notes. Nonetheless I thought that we can discuss it on talk, over few days, per WP:BRD. Instead, bam, we have an editor banned for a week, with a note that topic bans can be applied. Does that new ruling superceeds BRD? Can an editor be indeed blocked for adding/restoring a single bad source without a prior warning that said source is bad and no evidence that he chose to ignore such warnings before?? This is not a healthy attitude - it will encourage battleground reports, and may end up with almost everyone active topic banned in few weeks, particularly if they don't follow such incidents. I'd therefore suggest de-escalation. Molobo should be unblocked and WARNED, not blocked. We should also create a list of source examples that are problematic, to which we could refer editors from such warning. An editor who adds or restores a bad source should first be warned. Then we can enter into a territory of escalating blocks and eventually topic bans. But I think it would be very, very bad if the warning step is bypassed. Sandstein, please advise if I should bring this to ArbCom for clarification (and please reconsider Molobo's block vs a warning; I'd have no objections to a block or such post warning, but I am pretty sure he doesn't understand why one diff is enough to get wa block...the rule envoked here is new and we must tread with caution or, as I said, everyone involved will get blocked soon on similar technicalities). PS. A technicality, but was Molobo actually notified of that particular ruling? His DS 'reminder' I see on his talk page was from May, so preceding that sanction. Are editors responsible for checking what new areas/topics are added to DS on a daily basis? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MyMoloboaccount has decided to appeal the block. I will address their concerns in the context of that appeal once it is copied to the appropriate forum. Sandstein 06:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can a banned editor copy anything to any 'more appropriate' forum? Anyway, do you have any other thoughts concerning the more general issues here, not concerning this specific bloc? Like other sources mentioned, advise for editors on how they should behave, necessity for the warnings before blocks, etc.? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A blocked editor can't do the copying, but an admin who reads the unblock request can. As an enforcing admin, it's not really my job to have an opinion about the merits of this remedy. That's ArbCom's job. My role is to apply the remedy as it is written and as I interpret it. Sandstein 08:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then as a blocking editor, can you comment on whether Molobo was sufficiently warned about the existence of this remedy before a block was applied, and what constitutes a sufficient warning before an editor can be reported for violating it to the ArbCom? Also, as a blocking admin, why did you chose a week, instead of let's say a month, a day or just a warning? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question you raise is whether I correctly blocked MyMoloboaccount. But only the blocked editor may appeal an arbitration enforcement action. You are not the blocked editor. I will therefore comment on this matter only in response to an appeal. Sandstein 12:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: The whole point of the sourcing restrictions was to exclude non-academic, non-peer-reviewed sources, non-scholarly sources from discussions of historical affairs (in particular WWII-related), and that includes newspapers. That's why the Rzeczpospolita piece, which was used to support historical claims, is unusable; while the Haaretz article, which was used to discuss current affairs, is. In fact, the entire article is about events from 1998 onwards, with some 85% of the content from 2018 onwards. Funny thing is Molobo removed that source twice, stating it "[is] not fulfilling required criteria", but now he support using Rzeczpospolita for wartime events, stating it's "generally reliable". François Robere (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 :::::Then as a blocking editor, can you comment on whether Molobo was sufficiently warned about the existence of this remedy before a block was applied, and what constitutes a sufficient warning before an editor can be reported for violating it to the ArbCom? Also, as a blocking admin, why did you chose a week, instead of let's say a month, a day or just a warning? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 10:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 ::::::The question you raise is whether I correctly blocked MyMoloboaccount. But only the blocked editor may appeal an arbitration enforcement action. You are not the blocked editor. I will therefore comment on this matter only in response to an appeal. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 12:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
+:: {{re|Piotrus}} The whole point of the sourcing restrictions was to exclude non-academic, non-peer-reviewed sources, non-scholarly sources from discussions of historical affairs (in particular WWII-related), and that includes newspapers. That's why the ''Rzeczpospolita'' piece, which was used to support ''historical claims'', is unusable; while the ''Haaretz'' article, which was used to discuss ''current affairs'', is. In fact, the entire article is about events from 1998 onwards, with some 85% of the content from 2018 onwards. Funny thing is Molobo removed that source twice, stating it "[is] not fulfilling required criteria", but now he support using ''Rzeczpospolita'' for wartime events, stating it's "generally reliable". [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 13:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)