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

Telegraph RFC

Thanks for closing the RFC. Do you intend to update WP:RSP with the details of your close? It was a point of contention in the prior close. If not I'll open a discussion on WT:RSP about how it should be updated. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested, thanks for asking - I'm not a regular editor of RSP, so I leave any update to those more familiar with that page's practices. Sandstein 14:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Sandstein. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Closer's Barnstar
		I promised one of these as an incentive on WP:CR, and, in slaying this beast after two separate unsuccessful attempts, you have certainly earned it. Enjoy!--Licks-rocks (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to reiterate the thanks above, but I'm a bit confused about the close. AFAIK when closing a discussion vote-counting is at most a supplement to the more important assessment how arguments are supported by PAGs. Near as I can tell, you haven't commented about the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines (WP:CON). Would it make sense for you to amend the close to include, at the very least, an explanation of why vote-counting was the only way to decide the discussion? Sincerely, Dilettante 16:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) A cast of characters bigger than Ben Hur has already commented on the "quality of arguments"; we needn't hear them again. The important thing is that the hydra was ousted discussion was closed. SerialNumber54129 17:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, this RfC was not amenable to or appropriate for an assessment on the basis of the strength of the arguments presented. This works where there are well-established policies and guidelines establishing broader community consensus on matters that are often in dispute, e.g. the inclusion guidelines often cited at AfD. They provide a basis on which a closer can assess the strength of individual arguments (e.g., by discarding "delete because I don't like it" types of arguments). But when it comes to the application of WP:RS, the arguments are very fact-specific: based on their prior reporting, their corporate structure, etc., do we trust a source to reliably report the facts? I see no basis on which I as closer could assess whether somebody makes a good or bad argument about this, except by imposing my own view, which I must not. So, yes, vote-counting it is. I don't really see a need to amend the closure to spell this lout, though. Sandstein 17:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good arguments were brought up in the discussion e.g. The Telegraph giving fringe voices disproportionate weight. If think that assessing the arguments is an impossibility, you should not have closed the RfC to begin with. Cortador (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there were good arguments, as well as bad ones, on either side. But as soon as I as closer attempt to take that into account, without a very clear basis in guidelines and policies on which arguments to discard and which to weigh more heavily, I'll be accused of supervoting by all who disagree with the closure - and not without reason. Sandstein 11:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly did vote counting achieve here? I ask you to revert your close and let someone else close it based on arguments. Cortador (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It achieved an assessment of rough consensus (or in this case the lack thereof). I decline to undo my closure. Attempting to assess the strength of individual arguments in this case would be a fool's errand, because there is no prospect of the RFC participants or the community agreeing on the standards by which arguments should be considered persuasive or unpersuasive. Moreover, given the sheer number of opinions, there is no practical way of assessing the degree to which consensus exists (or not) other than a quantitative assessment, i.e., counting. Sandstein 14:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly endorse this view. Even in the absence of perfectly suited policies/guidelines to guide the closer in evaluating arguments, there are classes of arguments that are still discardable: vote-style responses with no reasoning given, ones based on falsified evidence, etc. I think it's extremely unlikely that a reasonable closer who was not supervoting would have found enough such responses to tip the balance away from a no consensus close. I strongly urge that a closure review based on these grounds not be started. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it did not. Consensus isn't achieved by counting votes. As an admin, you should know that. The RfC was, in fact, closed before, and now you decided it's too difficult to close properly. Cortador (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein Your closure has been challenged at the administrators' noticeboard. Cortador (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see this was speedy-endorsed at AN. Rightly so. Thanks for stepping up and closing the RfC, Sandstein. Daniel (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Lake Bell demonstrating sexy baby voice on NPR.ogg

Thank you for uploading File:Lake Bell demonstrating sexy baby voice on NPR.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"List of Neverwinter Nights characters" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of Neverwinter Nights characters has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 30 § List of Neverwinter Nights characters until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neverwinter Nights characters

Please undelete the pre-2016 content at the now-redirected title. It's been substantially undisturbed for 8 years, but now Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 30#List of Neverwinter Nights characters may blow it away entirely because... the content was never merged or recreated at the merge target. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neverwinter Nights characters was to delete and redirect, not only to redirect. Undeleting the deleted content would be contrary to the AfD outcome. What's more, I can't even find deleted content to undelete. The deletion log indicates some sort of technical issue in 2016. Sandstein 07:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: there is nothing to undelete. All the history is in your userspace. See User:Jclemens/List of Neverwinter Nights characters from 2006 that you refunded, and the redirect with 5 edits at List of Neverwinter Nights characters. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 10:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Injection

Hi, I am messaging you since you closed the last AFD. This article is created for the 3rd time. Does it look different enough to be different or does it look like it might qualify under Speedy Deletion of previously AFD'ed article? Graywalls (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls, I don't think the article is substantially similar, there's a lot of new text and sources. You'd need to start another AfD if you think the topic is not notable. Sandstein 06:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]