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

DRV

I would object to your closure of the DRV request as "No Consensus".[1]

What I know is that DRV is supposed to give more weight to the argument by the uninvolved observers who were not the participants of the AfD.

Counting those who were entirely uninvolved, it seems that there was only 2 support for "Endorse", by Nomadicghumakkad and Enos733, but there was support for "Overturn" from 4 editors: Hobit, Alalch Emis, Jclemens and DGG.

Looking at the contribs, I can say that Hobit, DGG and Jcemelns clearly seem far more experienced at DRVs.

What is more striking is that there was one "Endorse" for the AfD closure, but the user later struck their "Endorse".[2] Clearly because the BLP1E argument still does not hold water. TolWol56 (talk) 07:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there a policy or guideline that says that "DRV is supposed to give more weight to the argument by the uninvolved observers who were not the participants of the AfD"? Sandstein 14:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:DRV say "Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic," obviously so that the obvious bias can be easily observed, but this wasn't seen in any of the 3 bolded "endorse" who participated in the DRV as they failed to reveal their prior involvement with the AfD. As earlier discussions show, it is a pretty established fact that DRV is supposed to uphold the views from uninvolved editors over the involved editors because it is 100% predictable that those who participated in AfD would only rehash their already posted views. This is same with any other venue where the original closure is disputed. TolWol56 (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Not a happy camper

So, in my opinion this was certainly not an excellent edit. You actually came out with the result that I myself wanted (overturn), but there's a lot more here than that, and my objections are:

• "I'm discounting the opinion of the appellant, Supermann, because their 24(!) contributions to this DRV have been disruptive." I'm not seeing that as true at all and, echoing to your dismissal of the thread above (happened to see it when I came here), "Is there a policy or guideline that says that 'Commenters who make excessive posts [or "...24 or more posts", whatever] in a thread should have all their comments ignored'"? This seems a cogent kind of point to you, so... is there?

• "Because of the walls of text, any good arguments on either side are not easily discerned"... An unfriendly person could interpret that as devolving to "I personally lack the time, ability, and/or interest to properly judge the complex points made" which isn't a good look. Describing arguments where one writes a good amount of material but to to good effect -- vetting individual refs in detail, finding new sources and describing them in sufficient detail to be useful, that sort of thing -- as a "wall of text" (visualizing eye roll and hair flip up the reader) is pretty anti-intellectual and is not a good look I don't think.

• ...and I'll have to do with the headcount" No, I don't think so. Let's see... I wrote about 2,300 words, plus another 600 which didn't address the question at hand directly but dealt with meta-issues. I'm not perfect, but the great bulk of that was not repeating myself but delving into and describing important details. And I hatted most of it with an executive summary for reader convenience, and also some of these were responses to other editors' comments. In contrast, ScottyWong wrote 16 words, all of which were useless at best: "close was an obvious delete..." [poor analysis, since it looks like it's going to be kept after the relisting -- ed] "...not sure why we're wasting so much time discussing it" [casual disdain of established process -- ed]]. And you counted us the same? That's... not even wrong, colleague. I dispute your right to even do that. I hope you never do that again.

So, for instance, I spent 880 words on describing one role alone, trying to make a best guess if Hogan's role there was a lead role (since the nom and supporters were averring that he had no lead roles). I was laying down detailed facts, hoping to convince other editors of my interpretation but willing to let them interpret them differently. I could have dumbed it down to "His role in Dracula: The Dark Prince was probably a lead role according to my analysis" which could have been gainsayed with "Nuh uh was not" and would that have been better. Is that the level of discussion you want to encourage and require. I stand by my right to do rigorous vetting, analysis, and argument and I won't back down on that nor accept that as a bad thing.

I could say more and we could look at Supermann's contributions and see if they really were useless and to be discounted. But I'm sure I'm in your TL;DR zone already and maybe you haven't read even this far.

Anyway, all this matters because other editors are holding up this poor close as a paradigm. You're spreading this anti-intellectual attitude. Don't. I will repeat myself this once: I know you guys are super busy. That's a good reason for doing nothing, but not for doing non-excellent things. Herostratus (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry that you're disappointed, but: life is short, we are all volunteers here and we need to respect each other's time as a matter of collegiality. Brevity is key to effective collaboration. I'll continue to disregard logorrhoeic contributions. Sandstein 07:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

OK. Yes, brevity is a good thing when it's functional. Sometimes it's not. Depends partly on what kind of response it gets.

I think there's a difference between "this is really long and detailed, and I haven't time do do more than skim or even skip it" and "this is really long and detailed, and that's a behavior problem. What we need is off-the-cuff soundbites here, and people coming here with buckets of facts and cogent points are uncollegial and maybe need to be shown the door."

Yeah its a hobby. But if you're doing model trains and don't have the time or skill to make a model right, don't make it. Same with this hobby. Can't do it right, don't do it. There's plenty other things to do here. That'd be my suggestion.

Also, with this link, you're suggesting that the editor in question is mentally ill or brain damaged. Me too I suppose. I don't care for that, in fact I think its filthy, and probably not true, and even it it is true, speaking harshly of people's disabilities is not a good look. I mean, if you had a double-digit IQ (I'm saying if; who knows?) I wouldn't make fun of you for that. If that's the kind of environment you want promote here I'll hinder it if I may. Herostratus (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

In Kemelet AfD

Hi Sandstein, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Kemelet also included In Isendjef and In Oudad, but those two are still up. Can you delete them? Thanks! Lennart97 (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Sandstein 16:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Unblocking

Hello! Is it possible for you to unblock my user account?. It has been blocked for four years now. It will have many benefits if the user account is unblocked it will be easier to reach me. I think i have learned for the previous four years. I am frustrated that my user account can be used. I know that i have used multiple IP-adresses and accounts. I think it would be more beneficial that my user account can be used again. Yours sincerely, Sondre --88.88.103.30 (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The account Sondre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does not exist. Sandstein 12:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Unblocking my user account

Hello! Can you unblock my user account User:SndrAndrss. The reason is that my account has been blocked for four years now. And I think i have learned during the course of that period. It will be much easier to communicate with me when i have an account. I know that i have one. It is very beneficial with an account because I have always edited with an IP-address. I have used several IP-addresses to evade blocks in the past. Socking is a bad thing and I have admitted to have done so. Yours sincerely, Sondre --88.88.103.30 (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This is an inadequate unblock request because it does not adress the reasons for the block, and at any rate unblocking is not possible because of the existing community ban of SndrAndrss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'm blocking this ban-evading IP. Sandstein 12:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

AfD discussion

I saw this closure that you closed as "no consensus". But AfD should be more than vote counting and it should consider policy reasons behind each vote. WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS says "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." The most relevant policy here was WP:GNG, which requires the existence of multiple secondary sources giving in-depth coverage, but during the AfD only a single such source was provided. Other sources provided were WP:Primary sources, which can't satisfy WP:GNG. How can keep possibly be justified if WP:GNG is not met? VR _talk 03:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, nobody in the AfD agreed with you that deletion was warranted, so there was no way that I could find a consensus for deletion. The option of merging the content to a related article remains open, and seems to be well supported by the AfD if a suitable target article can be found. Sandstein 07:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Sandstein's close was absolutely correct, and specifically suggests bringing the question of a merge to the article talk page, which is the appropriate next step at this point. The discussion certainly could not have been closed as having consensus to delete. BD2412 T 07:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sandstein and BD2412: thanks for your responses. Can you explain why the "merge to Banu Fazara" would not have been a better close? It was suggested by one person[3] and supported by me[4] and no one objected to that destination nor suggested an alternative one. I'm also not seeing how a talk page discussion on keep vs merge would be any different than the discussion that just took place. And I still don't understand why the keep votes are being given any weight at all? I might be fundamentally misunderstanding policy, but shouldn't votes that are not based in policy be discarded? VR _talk 13:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

You're right, "merge" would be the more consensual outcome; I'm changing the closure accordingly. I can't discount the "keep" opinions because they make prima facie valid arguments. Sandstein 14:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

How "merge" is the correct option here? My "keep" was discarded by Vice Regent with very misleading comment that this scholarly publication by Routeledge is not "secondary source". I couldn't bother to respond such a misleading comment also because the participation of Vice Regent looked nothing more than WP:BLUDGEONING on entire AfD. Interestingly, the scholarly source in question discusses "Umm Qirfa",[5] but makes no mention of a "Banu Fazara".[6] Same with other good sources that discuss the subject,[7] but again, makes no mention of "Banu Fazara".[8] A 'merge' would make no sense. Even if merging was a viable option then still, like BD2412 said, it should be better discussed on talk page. You should restore the original closure or just relist the AfD. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)