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

Mass killings under Communist regimes

In 2011, the above linked page was placed under indefinite protection. As you were intimately involved with the placing the consensus required notice, you are doubtless aware of the article's contentious history. As the gold padlock was placed so long ago, and as progress has stalled on the article, with only one substantive edit request having been made in the past six months, I wonder if it is not the time to discuss a gradual scaling back of protection.

How might I go about opening such a discussion? Where would be the appropriate forum to do so? I'm contacting you because you were an involved administrator, but if you aren't able to answer my question, where might I turn to receive an answer? I'm also leaving a similar message at User talk:Timotheus Canens, who was also involved in the controversy those many years ago. Thanks for your time. schetm (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can either ask Timotheus Canens to unprotect it, or start a discussion at WP:RPP. Sandstein 11:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last time Timotheus Canens was contacted, he said he wouldn't unprotect it as long as your restriction remained in effect (on the argument that 'consensus required' is effectively equivalent to full protection anyway) and directed anyone with requests to contact you. Given that the sandbox page and talk page have both been stable for the past few years, I think it's safe to remove your restriction at this point; the specific conflict that led to that restriction has long since died down, and it can now be safely covered by the standard discretionary sanctions for the general topic area (which, after all, are much more refined and better-enforced today than they were back in 2011.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Sandstein 21:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandstein,

Can you please clarify if you both are talking about "a gradual scaling back of protection" or you removed all restrictions completely, and the article can be edited in a standard way?

Paul Siebert (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All existing restrictions are lifted. The page can be edited normally but remains subject to discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 17:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks.Paul Siebert (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either of us can lift NuclearWarfare's 1RR/day from 2010, so I've restored the 1RR edit notice on the page. T. Canens (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any administrator is welcome to lift that restriction at their discretion (though I would advise against it if we are just now removing full protection?). NW (Talk) 23:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain this. It is not clear

I see that you have speedily deleted Kelly Sadler. I promise not to recreate it or make any kind of trouble. I ask that you answer the following questions to help me understand wikipedia.

Q1. Why is WP:ARBAP2 a reason for deletion. I have read it over and over and cannot see the reason for using it.

A1.

Q2. What is the reason for citing WP:BLPDELETE as the reason. WP:BLPDELETE says "Page deletion is normally a last resort....Summary deletion is appropriate when the page ...cannot readily be rewritten. To me it can be rewritten.

A2.

Q3. Why did you decide on an article that you already deleted instead of letting another administrator do it? It may seem that you feel so strongly about it that you want to approve your original decision. Is this intentional?

A3.

Your original reason is that it is contentious but the article was not written in an overly negative or overly positive tone.

Help me understand Wikipedia by explaining your actions by answering the 3 questions above. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowdung Soup (talk • contribs) 20:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Q4. What does "salted" mean?

A4.

Q5. Final question. "may not be recreated unless an admin determines". Where does it say that except you saying it. I'm not challenging it. I just want to know if all deletions are like this or where it says this.

Thank you for not ignoring these questions. That is what administrators are for, helping. I appreciate your help.

1. WP:ARBAP2 allows administrators to use sanctions of their own choosing as described at WP:AC/DS, which may include deletion.

2. Rewriting would need checking all the links you indifferently provided to determine which of them references which assertion. This would be slower than competently rewriting from scratch.

3. Admins routinely take actions in the same cases or repeat their admin actions; there's nothing particular about that.

4. See WP:SALTED. Regards, Sandstein 21:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you unsalt Kelly Sadler and also re-open your AFD (or allow recreation). I propose the following: see https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASandstein&type=revision&diff=841319364&oldid=841066873 If you don't want to unsalt the article, just let me know. If you don't unsalt it, I probably won't do much but don't take advantage of the fact that I told you so. Thanks. Cowdung Soup (talk) 03:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft removed (see history). Don't paste drafts on talk pages. Use the draft space or your userspace. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please post this as a separate draft page, it can't be seriously evaluated otherwise. Sandstein 06:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is, Sandstein. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASandstein&type=revision&diff=841319364&oldid=841066873

Cowding Soup (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC) (formerly known as Cowdung Soup)[reply]

Clarification filing

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Civility in infobox discussions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea

Sandstein, I think it was a bad idea to block Cassianto for this edit on my page. He wasn't "discussing infoboxes" but reporting what he thought bad behaviour on the part of a user who had uncollapsed a collapsed infobox, in defiance of a hidden edit notice and without even an edit summary, and asking me to tell that user it was disruptive. I wasn't around, but NeilN and RexxS who both watch my page, promptly took it in hand, by adding a more formal edit notice to the article (Neil), and giving the user in question a discretionary sanctions alert (RexxS). When I returned, I acted also, by writing a reproachful note on the user's page. So two admins and another user were concerned about the facts of Cassianto's report, and joined in dealing with them; I guess none of us thought of the report itself as a ban violation. I think your contention that it was, is rather fine-spun. What would you have had him do? Secret off-wiki e-mailing with admins? A warning would surely have been enough. Bishonen | talk 18:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I wasn't even thinking of Cassianto's topic ban, to be honest. I know there's some dispute about it, but haven't been following the proceedings. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, I understand your point, but Cassianto was subject to an infobox topic ban without exceptions for edits such as the one at issue here. WP:BANEX does not apply here. Indeed, the point of the topic ban (and the preceding ArbCom sanction) was exactly to get Cassianto out of acrimonious disputes about infoboxes. The conduct at issue here was therefore exactly the kind of conduct the sanction was supposed to prevent. Sandstein 18:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that this was exactly the kind of conduct the sanction was supposed to prevent. It would appear, if taken to this level, to remove any avenue for Cassianto to report problems. He did not engage in an acrimonious dispute, but sought assistance from an admin renowned for her impartiality and perspicacity. That must surely represent some mitigation? I will advise Cassianto that he can feel free to contact me off-wiki, should a similar circumstance arise in future, and I'll do my best to find a meaningful resolution. Given that he now has another mechanism available to him to help cope with issues as they arise, he is correspondingly less likely to breach his topic ban in this way in future, so in the spirit of blocks being preventative, how would you feel about reducing the length of the block? --RexxS (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. The topic ban means that any problems related to infoboxes are no longer the problems of Cassianto. If you assist in circumventing the ban, you may yourself be sanctioned. Only the blocked user themselves may appeal a block. Sandstein 21:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The hell I will be. The ArbCom remedy was enacted to keep Cassianto away from conflict on-wiki, not to prevent him from raising genuine concerns. Any assistance I give will be to help ensure that he doesn't involve himself in on-wiki conflict going forward, but what contributions I make on-wiki are the product of my own reasoned decisions, not as a proxy, and you'd better understand that. If you threaten me again with sanctions when I am doing my best to defuse situations that you have just exacerbated, you and I are going to find ourselves at AN, where I'll be arguing strongly to have you banned from these sort of enforcement actions permanently. --RexxS (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I feel that the block is probably still preventative at this time (especially after this - the case was regarding civility, after all), I don't believe that RexxS's offer is assisting in circumventing the topic ban. SQL ^{Query me!} 22:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AE appeal

I've copied this over to AE. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding deletion/Buildabazaar

Dear Sandstein,

Buildabazaar is already a brand and the page was running fine. From ourside we haven't made any changes. Can you please share what was the reason for the deletion. We need the page to come live again. Refer the official url: https://www.buildabazaar.ooo/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigargondalia (talk • contribs) 07:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for the deletion can be seen in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buildabazaar. Wikipedia is not a place in which you can promote your business, and I am not going to help you do so. If your business is important, somebody other than you may eventually recreate the article. Sandstein 07:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for explanation for deleting Criticisms of medicine

You wrote: "The length of the discussion disguises the fact that, in terms of headcount, there is a relatively clear consensus that this is not a useful article topic because of the disparate nature of the content assembled here." Please provide some clarification. The length of discussion was partly due to several editors worrying that an article about criticisms of medicine would be pro-alt-med; the original poster accused me of bad faith, that is, having a "problematic agenda", by which I think he meant an alt med agenda. This accusation is false, and I tried to make the case that the article is not pro-alt-med (for example, I and some other editors pointed out that its sourcing is consistent with WP:MEDRS and it has no alt-med sources).
I asked for references to Wikipedia policy concerning breadth of the topic, but no one supplied any. Can you point me to Wikipedia policy concerning what you call "the disparate nature of the content"? In connection with "disparate nature of the content," please compare the Criticisms of medicine article with the two related articles Criticism of science and Alternative medicine. What would you say about which of the three has more "disparate content"?
From my reading of Wikipedia policy, I don't see how "in terms of headcount" establishes consensus (From WP:Consensus: "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)"; from WP:WMD#Deletion discussions: "they are not `votes'. The weight of an argument is more important than the number of people making the argument"; and from WP:AFTERDELETE: "Remember that deletion discussions are not votes, and opinions are weighed according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.").
In the AfD discussion what argument grounded in Wikipedia policy did you see for deletion?
In what manner (other than headcount) did you conclude that there was a consensus for deletion? Thanks.NightHeron (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is your decision?

You didn't write an answer. I provided a link to the draft above. Is your decision not to un-salt Kelly Sadler? Thank you. Cowding Soup (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]