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

Kitten

62.194.6.92 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi

Hi. The Afd about Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi has just closed with the label "consensus to merge the content into the article Mahmudiyah killings". As i and many other people in the discussion have always strongly opposed this. Some points have not been clarified i see the discussion far away consensus. I was just writing another reply. I think the debate could have been at least extended. So i wonder why. As i am new could you please explain your decision to me? Iqinn (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Per WP:DGFA#Rough consensus, administrators must take the strength of arguments into account when assessing consensus. In this case, as I explained, many people who supported keeping the article did not either not address our policies WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, or they said that they disagreed with those policies. Because I must evaluate the strength of arguments in the light of these policies, I had to give the opinions of these people less or no weight. That is why I found that there was consensus to merge the article. Best regards,  Sandstein  09:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. Now let me ask you some question because i am still confused. The argument of the people in favor of delete or 'merge' was: "She is only notable for her role in one event" and that fails WP:ONEEVENT. I and other people have addressed this issue extensively. We basically agreed that she is only notable for one event. But that this in her specific case is consistent with WP:ONEEVENT because of a policy in WP:Notability_(criminal_acts). We explained the new policy and it has not been opposed. Our argument was that secondary sources have devoted more than significant attention to her role in the killings. So that she has become notable just for this single event and as WP:Notability_(criminal_acts) says this is consistent with WP:ONEEVENT. We put also effort in providing secondary sources which have devoted more than significant attention to Abeer's role in the killings. The Time[[1]], the Guardian[[2]]. Just one person said her role was not significant but that may be his personal view. We have to look at the sources! And try to answer the question. Do they devote a significant attention to her role in the killing? My answer is yes. And in this case we can not come to the conclusion she fails WP:ONEEVENT. What's wrong with my argumentation? The second point i want to mention is about addressing of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. The discussion started off with the claim of violation of WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E then WP:ONEEVENT and i and maybe others put effort to address these policies. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL had been brought in later. I and maybe others have not specially address it because it can only be applied to not notable persons what could be seen as in insult. As we where still busy finding out if she is notable under WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E and WP:ONEEVENT. Sorry for the trouble but as i am new i have a big headache dealing with all this policies. Iqinn (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

These are certainly valid arguments, but there is no point in discussing their merits with you here. The time for such a discussion was during the AfD. My role as closing administrator is to find consensus in the finished AfD based on the number of people who provide valid arguments. In this case, relatively few people (including especially you) made valid (i.e., policy-based) arguments for keeping the article separate, and relatively many made valid arguments for merging it. That's why the discussion closed as "merge". You can at any later time continue the discussion on the article talk page and attempt to establish a new consensus for splitting the article out again.  Sandstein  15:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have two requests. Firstly i would like you to extent the discussion for another seven days as the discussion was not finished at closing time. For example i would like to point out that i had ask NoCal100 for clarification less than two hours before the AfD was closed. That did not leave me and others enough time to reply. In fact i was just writing a reply and could not submit it. Secondly, if you can not extent the discussion. I would like you to change the outcome of the debate to No consensus. The reason is that the valid argument i have made in the discussion based on WP:Notability_(criminal_acts) is stronger than all other arguments people have presented. WP:DGFA#Rough consensus is not determined based on the number of people who provide valid arguments it is the strength of the argument. Finally, the incivility of this debate was dominated by rudeness and aggressive behaviors that disrupted the AfD to a point it can not be seen as valid under the core values of Wikipedia. Many people who have been in favor of keeping two separate articles have complained about the frequent rudeness and aggressive behavior in one or another way. And when we in good faith were working on clarifying how and if one policy is violated and to discuss that, another policy was thrown at us instead of following up on the presented arguments and discussions about specific points and i mentioned at the beginning of the debate that i am a newcomer. Under these conditions it was impossible to work towards consensus and have a valid debate. I would like you to consider this when answering my two requests. Kind regards Iqinn (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but I won't do either. AfDs run for 7 days only, unless there are insufficient contributions to establish consensus. With respect to your argument concerning WP:N/CA, that guideline supports the notability of the Mahmudiyah killings, but not the notability of the individual victims; on the contrary it says that "a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission". Any incivility in the AfD is regrettable, but it did not rise to a level that prevented relevant discussion. As I said, you can continue the discussion and seek consensus for a re-split at Talk:Mahmudiyah killings. If you disagree with my closure, you can contest it at WP:DRV.  Sandstein  21:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why should i be disappointed? I appreciate your response and time you spent on it. I hope it is fine when i ask you one last question. For the decisions you made: Did you read the secondary sources, i have provided to decide if she had a significant role in the Mahmudiyah killings? And if so. Do you think Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi had a significant role in the Mahmudiyah killings according to these sources? Finally thanks for the links you send to me. Kind regards. Iqinn (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I did not read those sources, because even if they do support your argument, this would not have changed the outcome of the AfD: too few made the sort of policy-based arguments that you did in order for me not to find a "delete" consensus.  Sandstein  07:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

TalkBack

Hello, Sandstein. You have new messages at Domer48's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BigDunc^Talk 20:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Merging a Block of AfD Nominations

SpacemanSpiff and I were talking, and it would probably be best if the huge pile of AfD nominations I put up this evening on Judo articles could be merged into three nominations (as there were some differences between a few sets of articles). How should we go about this, and could you help?Tyrenon (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you'd have to redirect the old AfD pages to the target AfD, link the articles with {{la}} at the new AfD and mention the merger there. This should only be done to the AfDs that have not yet been commented on, or it will be difficult to establish consensus. I haven't the time to help you out, sorry.  Sandstein  06:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Smith 2006

Hi, I left a message over at User:AGK's talk page regarding User:Smith2006 and the recent Arb Com Enf notification of him ([3]) by User:PhilKnight [4]. Just making you're aware of it. Also, please note that I haven't made a single edit to the page - despite Smith2006 and "that disruptive anon" (whom I've talked about before) making several - since you left the message at my talk page.radek (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

General Notability Issues for Listings "Musikvergnuegen" and "Walter Werzowa"

Walter Werzowa, who is the owner of Musikvergnuegen, has asked me to work on these Wikipedia pages, and I'd like to know how to get rid of the warning appearing above both articles, which state that the articles may not meet General Notability Guidelines. However, all the sources refer to either the Musikvergnuegen website or a third-party site, which supports the information on the pages. I'd like to know what can be done to make this "official." Please let me know via e-mail. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyasuzawa (talk • contribs) 21:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please provide links to the relevant pages.  Sandstein  07:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Iqinn (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

User Smith2006

Hello Sandstein, sorry to bother you with this one since I'm not sure if this is o.k. or not. You have placed user Smith2006 on E.Europe topic ban for 6 months. He however, keeps making rude comments on the talk page of Jan Dzierzon such as:[[5]],[[6]],[[7]]. Is this acceptable?--Jacurek (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I already noticed due to his post to WP:AE, which I have watchlisted, and have blocked him for 48 hours for violating the topic ban.  Sandstein  17:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh o.k. thank you, his comments were very rude also...--Jacurek (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, just to let you know that he is active and back at it again right after his block expired.[[8]][[9]] Regards.--Jacurek (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked.  Sandstein  20:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For pointing out that copyvio; I was about to do so. For fun, check this Google search: [10] The last one is my favourite :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, total discomfiture indeed.  Sandstein  19:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Kiachi

Why the monkey nuts did you delete the page I was making?!

That is really unfair because it is not vandalism and blatant misinformation and what ever else it said in the deletion log! It is what I believe I was making that as a reference for others and I think this could be taken as racism(or religionism or something(I'm not sure what the real word is :P) by some. I don't, just. Give me some decent reason why I can't post that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaail of Hrusk (talk • contribs) 20:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Because you appear to have made that religion up. You are not allowed to submit content that others cannot verify in reliable sources, see WP:V.  Sandstein  20:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

carrying on from the above

what about other Kiachen? They can verify it surely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaail of Hrusk (talk • contribs) 16:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:RS.  Sandstein  16:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your closing

Hi Sandstein, Obviously I feel that this was an unfortunate decision, I believe that I showed you 3 concurrent edit wars that never should have been. This does not constitute a simple content disagreement but a state of mind and an unfortunate strategy. I believe that you were in a position to facilitate an atmosphere more conducive to actual discussion and avoiding edit wars. I realize that you probably have better things to do, but I hope you will comment on the following:

1. Wikipedia uses labels dictated by the prevalence in sources, yes? no?

1. Ignoring discussion is disruptive, yes? no?

Thanks in advance, Unomi (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that it would be helpful to discuss these questions of editorial policy here. In general, please take into account that the administrators patrolling WP:AE depend on the clarity and conciseness of your report to decide whether a situation is actionable. More complicated situations involving multiple editors are ill-suited to AE, but should be resolved through dispute resolution. AE administrators will generally only act if they are convinced, without undue effort on their part, that a situation is ripe for an enforcement action. That is not the case here.  Sandstein  15:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What I am asking for here is advice. I think we both agree that in absolute terms the answer to both of my questions is yes. I can only understand your closing as an indication that I had not shown that those 2 premises were violated. Is that correct? Please understand that I am not asking you to revisit or modify your closing, I am simply trying to find out how I can avoid such misunderstandings in the future. Further, I would like to request that you accept me for mentorship so that I may learn the proper application of wikipedia policy. I hope that you will accept. Best Regards, Unomi (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What you have not shown is clear and sanctionable misconduct. We do not generally sanction people for violating content policies, such as WP:NPOV or WP:V, as long as we believe that there may be a good faith disagreement about the application of such policies to the facts at issue. Disputes of that nature are generally referred to as "content disputes" and are expected to be resolved amicably through consensus as provided for in WP:DR. Administrative sanctions are really only applicable to conduct issues such as edit warring, incivility, sockpuppetry or really obvious and blatant violations of, say, WP:NPOV. In either case, it is up to you to provide a persuasive report through the use of well-selected and well-explained diffs. If you provide dozens of unexplained diffs, and I click on a few of them and most appear unproblematic, I will not investigate further. Remember, admins will not usually comb through contributions and histories to find misconduct; it is up to you as a requesting user to explain the pertinent facts.

Because I do not engage in mentorship programmes, I must unfortunately turn down that request also.  Sandstein  18:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that my initial post to WP:AE could have been more clear. I deliberately wanted to avoid singling out other editors involved because I believed that my desired outcome would have cleared the air more efficiently. The problem I am facing now is that it is likely that when I involve other venues of DR I will be met with allegations forum shopping such as ice cold beer already did when I first brought it to AE. I am sorry to hear that you cannot be my mentor but thank you for your consideration. Unomi (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I note that you appear to have made an edit after the closing. Perhaps you should consider removing it. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It was an edit conflict, I had the editing window open while finding some sources. I have now moved the offending response outside the archived box, I trust that you are directing jehochman to do the same. Unomi (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. However, you were carrying on the dispute, Jehochman's edit was procedural, and in any case the closing Administrator replied to it and it seems obvious that therefore I shouldn't intervene. And in any case, someone else has moved these comments into a separate box making the issue moot. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it to our attention. Unomi (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Don't worry, I just was wondering lol xD, I know, thank you for your reply. --TownDown ^{How's it going?} 17:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Roblox

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Roblox. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --gordonrox24 (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded with 56 in support, 12 in opposition and 3 neutral votes. I am truly honored by the trust that the community has placed in me. Whether you supported me, opposed me, or if you only posted questions or commented om my RfA, I thank you for your input and I will be looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas :). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). All the Best, Mifter (talk)

Mifter (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions regarding proper course of action.

Hi Sandstein, While I do not wish to 'drag you' into this, I need some guidance as to a proper course of action. This is in regards to reversing the burden of evidence in the BRD process as well as contested claims of existing consensus. initial discussion and now Please do have a read thru and inform me of what you believe would be a proper course of action. Unomi (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend continued, civil, ontopic discussion, perhaps posting to the WP:FTN with a neutral description, and if you aren't satisfied then starting an RFC. I wouldn't go straight to an RFC as it would look like trying to short circuit discussion. Verbal chat 10:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, prior to reading this I had followed Tom Harrisons previous suggestion to open an RFC. I am not quite sure what FTN has to do with parsing a quote. It becomes difficult to carry on a proper discussion when a. it degrades in to "I'm right, you are wrong" and b. proper process is ignored and the contested material is kept in thru edit warring. I tried to explain how I came to my view on the quote and the points in my argument seemed to be ignored. I suggested to include the quote in full, but this too has been ignored. I did not 'abandon' the discussion, merely waiting for a response to my arguments. So quite frankly I am at a loss. Unomi (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Posting to FTN with a quick outline "There is disagreement as to how this quote should be used in the article (quote) Please give your opinions and help establish consensus here (link to discussion, the first one maybe)." would bring more people and help establish consensus. I don't think proper process has been ignored (and I don't mean thzt edit warring is a normal process.... ;). Verbal chat 10:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Proper process would have been to ask if parties agreed to the manner in which the contested material was presented in the article, the article history shows clear signs of edit warring, one which is continuing even now. Please address the arguments I present in the initial thread. Unomi (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Federer

I was trying to remove the doubling we seem to have on the page, we have the same sections on the page twice, hence it was not vandalism as I was removing the duplication, I hope this clears the matter up?Joshuaselig (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)