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

Zoran Terzić

I disagree with your closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoran Terzić as keep. Those advocating keep didn't make a policy-based argument. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

You have a point. Relisted.  Sandstein  16:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal of my comment on AE

I left a short comment on AE explaining what editors working at 2016 United States election interference by Russia had been told about the policy on 1RR. In detail, we have been told that if long-standing material is removed from the article, and then restored by a revert, then the material cannot be removed again without consensus. You removed my comment. But now, you're considering a topic ban on JFG, using an opposite interpretation of 1RR from the one we were given (and which I explained in my now-deleted comment at AE) on the talk page of 2016 United States election interference by Russia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

What you say seems accurate, but in general, each administrator exercises their own discretion and judgment when applying discretionary sanctions, and is not bound by opinions other admins may have expressed.  Sandstein  17:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Just think of the implications of different admins applying opposite interpretations of policy on one page. One admin has told us that the 1RR policy means one thing, so we're acting in accordance with that interpretation. What happens if another admin comes around and punishes us for following the policy advice of the first admin? Sure, you might have leeway under the discretionary sanctions system to take an opposite view on policy from another admin, but the consequences of doing so (especially handing out topic bans to users who followed the first admin's prescriptions) seem chaotic to me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, this is mitigated somewhat by admins generally discussing enforcement actions with each other at AE, as well as the possibility of appeals. But basically Wikipedia does not work on a hierarchical model, and neither do its enforcement mechanisms.  Sandstein  18:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I would hope, nevertheless, that you would take into account the fact that another admin gave the opposite interpretation of 1RR on the talk page as you're giving, and that you're proposing to topic ban an editor precisely because they followed the other admin's interpretation. Surely the fact that JFG was acting in line with what they had been told was policy must carry some weight in determining whether or not you hand out sanctions to them. For me (and other editors who are involved at 2016 United States election interference by Russia), the outcome you're proposing (a topic ban for an editor who followed MelanieN's interpretation of 1RR) puts me in an awkward situation, because we now have no idea what the 1RR restriction means. Does it mean that we cannot remove any material from the article ever? Or does it mean that we cannot revert when someone else removes material from the article? Whatever we do, one or another admin may sanction us. It's a total roll of the dice - the policy may be one thing or its exact opposite, depending on which admin happens to be paying attention. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure the confusion you refer to even exists. But, in general, an editor who, when in doubt, does not revert but instead waits for consensus to support their edit should not have problems under any circumstances.  Sandstein  21:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

It certainly exists, and is detailed in the comment I made at AE (the one you removed). We were told precisely the opposite of what you're claiming here: that the person who wants to remove long-standing material has to first gain consensus, rather than the other way around. So you can see the confusion: one admin tells us that removal requires consensus, and that reverting a removal of material is legitimate, while another admin tells us that adding back in long-standing material requires consensus, and that reverting the removal is worthy of a topic ban. The result of your interpretation of 1RR, as was discussed on MelanieN's talk page by a number of admins (I linked to this discussion in my now-deleted AE comment), is to destabilize articles, by making it very easy to delete material, but very difficult to maintain the current status of the article. This is the opposite of what 1RR is meant to achieve. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The relevant point, which was discussed on article talk, is that while some editors are extremely active 24/7 others review content less frequently. Text that's been in the article for only a month is not really "longstanding", especially if no previous discussion has indicated consensus or even attention to it. At any rate, that acknowledged BLP violation doesn't gain anything by a month-long standing. Talk page consensus is clear on that. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, please make a statement about your AE case at AE. I am not interested in hearing your views elsewhere for the moment.  Sandstein  18:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC) I understand. I don't really have anything to add. I could write that I am not in violation, but I think others have made that clear and it would only incite further off-topic discussion. I am going to be back this evening so if you don't mind and you require a statement from me, please just say so and I will do that in about 8 hours. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Reinstating Music News (Music-News.com) page

Hi Sandstein

I hope all is well. The below seeks to represent the validity and growing reach and importance of Music-News.com through the years since 2003. I hope the information provided below can be added to your original Music News page http://web.archive.org/web/20161018011154/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_News and be reinstated to provide an informative article for the numerous Wikipedia mentions Music-News.com continues to accrue. There are over 70,000 link quotes attributed to Music-News.com, below is a small sample spread. If alternatives are required please let me know. I have tried to supply this in the correct format if I need to alter in any way please let me know. Thanks for your time and patience.

Lots of confusing content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Music News (also Music-News.com) is an independent online music magazine based in North London, UK. A respected news and review resource since 2003, its reach has filtered through to all areas of the music and entertainment industry. The site features album, single, live and festival reviews from a dedicated team of over 250 contributors, the site is regularly quoted by the BBC [1][2]. Articles from Music News have been re-produced by newspapers[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14], music publications [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37], and news/entertainment outlets[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] In a piece on Music News, New Media Age journalist Michael Nutley wrote that it "reads like a superior fanzine" and "does well" on the news front, albeit with an "idiosyncratic" writing style [49]. Conversely, Andrew Eaton-Lewis in the Scotland on Sunday wrote an article in which he criticised the site after it broke news of a Smiths reformation, which was later denied by band members. The article went viral[50] and reunion plans were not confirmed, a fact that could be explained by later health revelations[51]. Music News has a link on True To You, widely seen as Morrissey’s personal voice piece.[52] Music News also publishes high-profile exclusive filmed interviews with multiple chart musicians available on the MusicNewsWeb youtube channel [53] and frequently republished and quoted [54][55][56][57][58][59][60] Music News is also quoted on many band sites direct [61][62][63] Music News Underground [64] actively promotes and discovers new talent [65] and has become platform to premiere new songs and videos [66][67][68] Roy Stride, lead singer of Scouting For Girls commented "Music News gave us our first review and it was a good one. A well needed boost right at the start of our career." Marco Gandolfi is the longstanding editor of Music News and is a voting panel member of The BRITs, BBC Music Awards and a BBC News contributor [69]. Music News garners over two million visitors a month, and has kept the prized top Google ‘music news’ search for 12 years. Music News also operates internationally with Italian and Maltese [70] sites and forms part of an entertainment network alongside Film News [film-news.co.uk], Theatre News [theatre-news.com], and Game News [game-news.co.uk] Music News Presents… 2008-2011 In 2008 Music News launched ‘Music News Presents…’ providing a platform for unsigned and up-and-coming bands. These nights were originally held in Fulham but then moved to several different Camden venues. In October 2013 ‘Music News Presents…’ was brought back for a one-off special to celebrate the 10th Anniversary of the site with live sets including Billy Lunn of The Subways, Ghetts, IV Rox, Charlie Brown and Forget The Down. External links: Website: http://www.music-news.com/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/musicnewsweb Twitter: https://twitter.com/MusicNewsWeb Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/user/MusicNewsWeb

Why should any of this concern me?  Sandstein  19:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Was this not your original page? I have been working to reinstate the page that you took down. What should I be doing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Gandolfi (talk • contribs) 20:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I deleted a page? What was its exact title?  Sandstein  20:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think it was under your remit, it was Music News (Music-News.com) here is the link http://web.archive.org/web/20161018011154/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_News — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Gandolfi (talk • contribs) 21:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music News. What are the best two new sources that you think address that discussion's result that the topic fails WP:N?  Sandstein  21:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

With regards to notability I put together the original text at the start of this thread. With this in mind could you consider adding the new information and reinstating the page as a news source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Gandolfi (talk • contribs) 21:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Two important articles which quote from our exclusive breaking news interviews are http://www.nme.com/news/music/the-who-83-1272512 and http://ultimateclassicrock.com/kiss-gene-simmons-thinks-axl-rose-deserves-a-beatdown/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Gandolfi (talk • contribs) 01:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

By your use of "our" I assume you are affiliated with the subject. I will not help you promote your business on Wikipedia. See WP:COI. Request declined.  Sandstein  12:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, this was a page which already existed and I have nothing to do with. I was asked to provide supporting content because of the deletion. This is not a promotional exercise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Gandolfi (talk • contribs) 16:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

CIA activities in ... deletions

Hi. Back in November, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIA activities in Asia and deleted the following articles:

However, looking at the discussion, it appears that the AfD actually listed only four articles: CIA activities in Asia, CIA activities in Africa, CIA activities in the Americas and CIA activities in Russia and Europe. Are you sure you interpreted the discussion correctly? Or am I missing something? --Paul_012 (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. The AfD closing script seems to have deleted all of these in error. I'll restore them.  Sandstein  18:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

No, actually, these were all redirects to the deleted articles. The deletions were therefore correct.  Sandstein  19:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

AE

I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for keeping the AE submissions orderly by discouraging comments that don't bring specific evidence or diffs to the table. It's been a bit of a long-running issue that involved editors come in and comment about how one side is "right" in the dispute. Steps to making AE a leaner process are valuable. --Laser brain (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback!  Sandstein  14:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I second that. I do have one comment. I have never initiated an AE thread, and I was not aware that there's a template that requires dates and possibly other information in a specificed format. On a recent thread, when OP omitted those diffs, I added them only to have them deprecated because they did not follow the date-diff format. I'm not sure whether this is a problem or whether the process would benefit from some enhancement or amendment, but it took me by surprise and I think that other editors may also be unaware of this. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It's in the AE template, but yes, we might need to make this more clear.  Sandstein  16:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for your volunteer efforts in this difficult role. SPECIFICO talk 17:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Assistance

I was hoping my complaint did not have less than understandable elements. I am requesting assistance guidance here for what you need. First, I do see two possible revert restriction violations. I may not need assistance here for that.

Second, I looked up WP:ACDS and have come up with Gaming the System. With the following I cite aspects of that page - per WP:GAME - "to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view" - Per WP:GAMETYPE - 4. "Spuriously and knowingly claiming...justification or support...for a viewpoint or stance which actually contradicts policy."

Page example: "Saying that content meets the policy on verifiability because it is cited to a source, when in fact the source is not reliable, or the content twists the source's point of view." I don't like using Gaming the system as that seems to be strong wording.<//s>

However...moving on...without actually expecting a decision here (of course), with Gaming the system I would be trying to show that material is assertively being inserted which is undue, and which contradicts wp:v, and which has no support in reliable secondary sources. Essentially, in terms of DS this is attempting to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view (a view which contradicts policy). Actually, two or three paragraphs (or sentences) in this article are involved so that would be a different non-neutral POV for each one.

And I am trying to avoid "content dispute" here. First, is this a reasonable DS violation issue, as long as it is not about resolving a content dispute, but is actually about doing an end around content policies? This is actually what I was trying to show with the set of reverts at the top of the page - in terms of reverts. I added a sprinkling of talk page comments to demonstrate the basis of policy violations. But, now I have no idea if this works for DS.

Next, if this rationale is acceptable, then I will probably add some of Thucydides411 talk page responses. I suppose my overall question is - does this work for AE and demonstration of DS violations? Should I do without Thucydides411 talk page responses? What are your general thoughts on how this might work? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I should have said I am asking for guidance - not assistance. I also refer you to the DS page itself and the relevant section: Guidance for editors - and the following two bullets:

2. comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

5 refrain from gaming the system.

So, it appears what I am getting at is non-compliance per #2 above - noncompliance with (some) applicable policies and guidelines. But gaming the system also seems to work.

In any case, right now I am amending my complaint to reversion restriction violations. Depending on your response here, I will see about adding something pertaining to this - or I won't add it. Thanks in advance for you guidance. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Well, it is obvious you are already doing a lot. What I have written above seems complicated. So, for now, I think it is best to just drop this. I can study this material on my own to see what I can do for a later time if necessary.

For now, I am going to let it go for this AE and sticking with my amendment. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

GMO logging

When browsing ARBGMO for some other reason I just happened to see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Enforcement actions where you logged some recent sanctions at the end of the case. My impression is that the committee now wants these in the WP:DSLOG instead: All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the sanction at issue was not a discretionary sanction.  Sandstein  08:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, point taken. It was enforcement of a topic ban imposed directly by Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)