User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2017/December

Why are you suppressing my ability to voice my complaints about another user's misconduct? I modified my edit in accordance with your claim that it was a "screed"
What's the deal? I take exception to your deletion of my talk page comment based purely on the claim that it was a "screed" even after I modified it to remove anything "screed"-like about it. I kindly request that you re-instate my comment. I should be allowed to voice my complaints about the user's bad conduct. 2600:1017:B417:846E:F12D:1D47:5942:26F7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)  Sockpuppet - Kingshowman. --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me that you are WP:INVOLVED, and just misused your tools to suppress evidence. Shame!70.199.68.135 (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC) This one too. --MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You do not have a right to free speech on Wikipedia. Administrators determine what is or is not useful to them to help reach them a decision at WP:AE. Your contribution was not helpful, and I removed it. If you continue to disrupt the arbitration process, you may be made subject to blocks or other sanctions.  Sandstein   10:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Logged vs. closed
It was my understanding that a sanction that is in place is based on how the sanction was logged, NOT in the wording used in the closing of the WP:AE request. This has been the practice in the past. Additionally, aside from the logging, the nature of the sanction is specified in the relevant notification to the user, and, again, not in the wording used in the closing.

Can you please clarify which one is it. What the admin says in the closing. What the admin logs. What the admin says in the notification left on a user's page. What the admin says subsequently. Or is it some kind of "average" of these three? Basically, I'm wondering what the hey are you guys doing?  Volunteer Marek  14:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that the three should be identical. If by chance they are not, clarification should be sought with the sanctioning admin or, failing that, at WP:ARCA.  Sandstein   14:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, first, if the three were identical this wouldn't be an issue and no need for me to ask this question.
 * Second, I disagree, since the log is the "official record" and in the past you've refused to sanction an editor based solely based on the fact that their original sanction was improperly logged, rather than the evidence of their violation (it would take me awhile to find the specific case since there's so many, but obviously I'm familiar with the history of AE).
 * Third, and most improperly, putting the above aside, in this case you've closed the AE request DESPITE and in CONTRADICTION to the clarification made (multiple times actually) by the sanctioning admin, so that doesn't seem like the practice you're following either.
 * So I'm still at a complete loss as to what is the actual practice you follow, since your own actions contradict your words.  Volunteer Marek   14:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me which actions of me you refer to.  Sandstein   14:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Your action: " Volunteer Marek is warned that Roy Moore is within the scope of their Donald Trump topic ban"
 * Your words: "clarification should be sought with the sanctioning admin"
 * The clarification from the sanctioning admin: "I would tend to agree with VM that non-Trump-related edits to Roy Moore and related articles are not a violation (...) if you're going to construe a topic ban that widely then it seems to me it's effectively a ban from all current American politics (and any historical American politics Trump happens to have commented on). If I'd meant to do that, I'd have done it and I didn't." (GoldenRing) (my emphasis)
 * (note that GoldenRing had said more or less the same thing, in even clearer terms prior to the AE report - which is why I thought it obvious the topic ban did not apply to Roy Moore).
 *  Volunteer Marek  14:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course it's unfortunate if they're different, but if they are, and if push comes to shove, it's my opinion that what really counts is the notification to the user, on the user's talkpage. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC).
 * Volunteer Marek, it's still not clear to me where you see the difference in my actions. I closed the AE thread with no action, and accordingly I logged none. As to what other admins might have said or done, I cannot respond for them.  Sandstein   14:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * By saying in the closing "" Volunteer Marek is warned that Roy Moore is within the scope of their Donald Trump topic ban"" you effectively extended the topic ban from just Donald Trump to all current American Politics (per GoldenRing), or, at the very least issued a statement which directly contradicted the clarification issued by the sanctioning admin. Before I was free to edit the Roy Moore article as long as the edits didn't involve Donald Trump. Now I can't. If you want to change the wording of the close, or somehow formally note that I am NOT in fact banned from Roy Moore (as long as it doesn't have to do with Trump), given that you only closed the report a few minutes ago, please do so.  Volunteer Marek   15:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The closure reflects my understanding of the topic ban. Another admin, or indeed the imposing admin, may see it differently. If you wish to have this clarified, I can't do that because I can speak only for myself. But you can ask the sanctioning admin, who unlike myself can modify the wording of the topic ban, to clarify in all appropriate places (your talk page, the sanctions log) that Roy Moore is excluded from the ban if they are of that view.  Sandstein   15:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, so when you said "clarification should be sought with the sanctioning admin" you actually meant "closure reflects my understanding of the topic ban" (and has nothing to do with the clarification issued by the sanctioning admin). Why didn't you say so in the first place?
 * Holy Freaking Platypus. Can you AE guys please get your shit together? You're logging sanctions incorrectly. You're contradicting each other. You're contradicting yourselves. You have no idea what you're doing. And then you blame us editors for it. You've been active at AE for years so why is it amateur hour over there?  Volunteer Marek   15:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that everyone at AE is acting on their own, not necessarily in concert with others. That's by design, I suppose. Don't expect AE admins to act any more coherently than any other group of random editors.  Sandstein   15:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That might be a problem, but the problem here is that you, specifically you, say one thing then do another.  Volunteer Marek   15:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) So that would seem to say yes: Marek is effectively banned from all modern politics articles unless Golden Ring specifically rewords the sanction to exclude every other potential topic he might edit (despite GR specifically saying that was not his intention)? Is it really hard for you to understand where the confusion is coming from here? I have been watching all of this with a mix of bewilderment and horror... Similarly, I suppose, to what people who used to pay to watch train wrecks must have felt. By the by, as an Alabamian, I can assure you Moore was controversial LONG before Trump, and possibly in a way that fostered a political environment where Trump could thrive (that is to say Moore predates Trump, by a lot... The idea that Moore is popular BECAUSE of Trump is laughable, even if their politics seem similar today... What's that old adage? Correlation is not causation.) 207.222.59.50 (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Since this has been raised on my talk page by DHeyward seeking it as justification for lifting his topic ban, I don't see how Roy Moore could possibly fall within Marek's ban. He's an individual politician, and most of the coverage focuses on him individually. By this standard, Kim Jong-un would be within Marek's ban because he is a frequent target of Trump tweeting. I stayed out of the case because of the Atsme angle, but I honestly have no opinion on Marek one way or the other, and I think it'd be best to amend the AE closure in this case, and if the question comes up in future AE threads, to address it then.TonyBallioni (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also from Cinco De Mayo, Mexicans and Tacos. Holy shit, am I topic banned from tacos?  Volunteer Marek   16:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also,, it might be worth you clarifying the sanction per the IPs (somewhat sarcastic), point above, if this is getting confusing to other administrators, making the logs clearer would be important. As a user from the US, I'm honestly baffled that non-American editors consider Moore Trump-related rather than an something on his own. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I will do so. However, topic bans are broadly construed "unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise" (see the wording at WP:TBAN) so I don't see this having any practical effect.  While I agree with TB and VM to Roy Moore is not necessarily covered by the ban, the attempt to wikilawyer the TBAN and tell us to get our shit together is not very impressive; a TBAN is a TBAN and is broadly construed unless specified otherwise, as someone of Marek's experience o isl know - because that's what the policy says.  GoldenRing (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , I suppose my point is that if people are taking broadly construed to mean things that the average person in the United States would consider to not be related to Trump, it might be best to make it clear that it is not broadly construed. If your intent was to TBAN Marek from Trump, Trump-orbit, and Trump scandals, perhaps something like Volunteer Marek is topic banned from Donald Trump, associated political events and scandals, and closely related people, narrowly construed. That seems to be getting more at what you were trying to do. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You're confusing the articles - Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations is not "political" - it's about sexual abuse allegations but editors have made it political because the man is running for the Senate and by doing that, they brought Trump into the article - President Donald Trump, however, endorsed Moore, and accepted his denials.[13][14] Alabama Republicans have largely defended Moore from the allegations.[15][16] The Republican National Committee initially cut ties with Moore after the accusations were made publicly, but later restored funding to Moore's campaign.[14] - and that is what I was attempting to do when VM reverted my edits before I completed adding the material. I don't see how anyone can deny that the two are connected - Trump endorsed Moore despite the sexual abuse allegations. Atsme 📞📧 17:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Roy Moore article offers a detailed look at Moore's political career. He didn't get to where he is today because of Trump. The points above need to be addressed, and VM's ban needs to be clarified. I'm not impressed by GR's insinuation that asking for clarification of the ban is "wikilawyering"... Clearly leaving the edges blurry has opened the door for either genuine confusion, or partisan gaming if one doesn't assume good faith. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The AE was not about Roy Moore - it's about Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations which is a completely different topic. It's a BLP and Trump supports him, endorses him and the two are inseparable. Your argument is not convincing. The correlation between the two also involves the implied sexual abuse allegations against Trump. Atsme 📞📧 17:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The Atsme AE
Hi, Sandstein. While you were closing the Atsme AE (and closing it properly — I don't mean to criticize you), I was writing up a proposal for it, namely to topic ban Atsme from American politics for her battleground attitude — not for the "consensus required" thing — which IMO makes her a net negative in the area (though a good editor in other parts of the encyclopedia). I'd really like to make this proposal. Do you think it would be proper for me to re-open the thread, or would you rather I started a new one, which is only about my proposal (but where of course I would refer to things said in the previous discussion)? What do you think — which is better? Bishonen &#124; talk 14:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC).
 * Well, you could of course impose the sanction yourself in your individual capacity as an admin; there is no discussion needed for this. If you think discussion would be beneficial, I recommend that you open a new discussion to avoid confusion.  Sandstein   14:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Yes, I know I can do it on my own discretion, and usually do, but in this case I'd like input from others. Thanks. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC).
 * Talking as a non-admin here, I do want to say that I really hate the idea of complaining about an AE being closed too quickly after seeing many languish for days, but it was open less than 24 hours before it was closed. That's not really enough time for admins imposing previous sanctions to chime in. Including that Bishonen had already warned Atsme of an impending topic ban in August as I mentioned at the AE case and that the case was about Atsme's behavior in politics topics, it would seem valid for admins continue the conversation there. Understandable too how reopening it now would result in more confusion considering the following AE case that was just opened in response to it, so the conversation should probably at least happen somehwere. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Sandstein! Thanks for closing the Atsme report at AE. A question, though: You closed it with warnings to VM and Atsme, but you did not place warnings on their talk pages. Would you consider giving them individual warnings in addition to the close of the AE report? I think it is helpful to have such warnings as part of their talk page history - for reference in future incidents or discussions. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sandstein - I came here to, but saw Bishonen's comment, and considering I don't normally edit political articles and that my presence at AE has been minimal if even 3 times over the 6 years I've been actively editing, what is being asked of you is beyond the pale for my single revert of a user violating his topic ban and who has frequented AE many times. Bishonen has shown me nothing but ill-will from when I first became an editor and it has not changed. I brought the conduct up at an ArbCom case I filed against COIN abuse. The case was denied but my statement is still available for you to review, and may very well deserve review now considering how I was treated at AN/I when she, as an involved admin, overruled a trout close by another admin there as well (back in 2015) - here she is again doing the same thing again. MelanieN is also an involved admin as an editor at the few political articles I have edited and the partisan edits may well deserve review as well. I have not been disruptive, have accepted consensus without issue but have made note of why I felt the closes were inappropriate. What I'm seeing here by these two admins is railroading at its finest, and I retract my statement and extend my sincerest apologies to but I'm feeling as though I've been backed into a corner when all I did was revert a single edit by a highly disruptive editor I thought was TB.18:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC) I am saddened beyond words. Atsme 📞📧 16:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you at the very least stop making personal attacks or insulting me when you make these comments? Every. Single. Time. You bring me up you just HAVE TO throw in some false accusations, aspersions and name calling. I'm quite sick and tired of it. Seriously, your attitude alone here is enough for a separate sanction, as User:Bishonen said.  Volunteer Marek   18:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What PAs and false accusations, VM? I will gladly strike them if you'll provide the diffs. For example, this diff contradicts your allegations. I have tried my best to get along with you and I don't understand why you have taken such an aggressive posture toward me. Please try to control your anger. Atsme 📞📧 19:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Atsme, MelanieN is one our finest editors on the project and it would be prudential to avoid such accusations and sort-of-attempts at painting every opponent with the same brush.Also,IMHO, after your reply to me over here, this comment at an AfD and a general review of your collaborative spirit at APOL t/ps, it would be probably good if you take a temporary voluntary break from APOL and concentrate in other areas of the encycloepadia.Afterall, you do seem to be an extremely efficient allrounder:) Anyways, feel free to ignore.Regards:) Winged Blades Godric 17:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was talking about my edits, WBoG - and while I won't disagree with you regarding MelanieN's editing ability, I do feel that I am under attack. I tried to steer clear of including all the diffs showing how I've been treated, but I can certainly do that if necessary. I'm the one being accused and admonished for 1 revert by an editor I thought was topic banned. That was my only so-called offense and now you're here piling on? Read VM's responses - the focus here is clearly on the wrong editor. Atsme 📞📧 17:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not intending to pile on and am not calling for any forced sanction either.I only asked for a voluntary disengagement because APOL is an area that seems to sap out editor-spirits and foster misunderstandings etc. quite easily.I will solely advise you to be more prone to assuming AGF, even if they assume none and genuinely avoid throwing random misplaced accusations of CIR, IDHT for they are sure-fire ways to enflame already-volatile situations. Winged Blades Godric 17:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I've decided against starting a new AE thread, because it's simply taking more time than I can spare at this point, with the goddam AE template etc. Sorry to have worried you needlessly, Atsme, and sorry to have woken your so often voiced concern about my "railroading" and "ill-will". Since you mention my 2015 block, I'll say a few words about it: I placed it not from myself but as a summary of a very long and well-attended ANI: the context can be seen here and here. Do you recollect how you ranted on your page about the ill will of my supposedly "retaliatory" block for a week, and then got the block lifted by apologizing to me and others, taking it all back, and stating you had learned a valuable lesson? And yet here we are again, with me again an involved admin (god knows where that ever came from — not from a reading of WP:INVOLVED, that's for sure) who has always shown you ill will etc etc. The "valuable lesson" of 2015 doesn't seem to have stuck for very long, to put it as politely and good-faith-assumingly as possible. Another way of putting it would be that you simply used the words that would get you unblocked. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC).

A goat for you!
I just happen to like goats, so I chose this one to thank you for your BLP cleanup.

SPECIFICO talk  21:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC) 

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * →  Sandstein 

to
 * →  Sandstein 

Respectfully, Anomalocaris 21:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Notification
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=814205379&oldid=814154270 --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Luděk Sosnovec
You deleted User talk:Luděk Sosnovec? While his article was under discussion at AfD he took a copy & pasted it into his sandbox. He's now pasted it back as a new article. He's due some kind of warning but I can't tell at what level because the talk page has gone? Help! Cabayi (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This was probably a script issue. I've undone the deletion. Thanks.  Sandstein   08:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In the meantime I'd tracked down the AfD (which you'd handled, Articles for deletion/Applied mathematics in industry) & G4'd the article... which meant Twinkle recreated his talk page. So, on a general idea of where he was at I gave him a level 4 for creating inappropriate pages. Then saw the restored page - so I've added back the previous entries and now see he's already had a level 4, and a level 3 after... Should I take him to AIV or would you like to deal with his whole mess? Thanks again, Cabayi (talk) 08:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that there is anything to do here. Feel free to take it to AIV though if you think there is.  Sandstein   08:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm not going admin-shopping - and given his persistence this far it doesn't seem like this will be his last attempt. Thanks for taking the time. Cabayi (talk) 09:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you
For this closure. I can tell you took into consideration the serious off-wiki canvassing rather than hastily doing a head-count. Obviously, I am slightly disappointed by the outcome because I felt arguments leaned towards deletion before the canvassing but your closure allows for a more legitimate AFD in the future.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Editing closed discussion
Apologies for these edits. When I looked at the discussion it was not closed and I did not notice your close when I made my edit. Pincrete (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Question
Ok, verification please? Per NEWBLPBAN, my impression is that per Decorum, an AfD that results in MERGE and there is no merge because a small group of editors decide to ignore consensus and maintain the status quo, another editor can make a request for additional sanctions, or does it mean that sanctions can be enforced against the editors who are not honoring the results of the AfD consensus? Ohhh, my head hurts. I'm at a fork in the road and I've decided to take it. Atsme 📞📧 23:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In general terms, "ignoring consensus" isn't the type of conduct sanctions are usually imposed for, but if this results in, for example, edit-warring, then sanctions may be called for.  Sandstein   23:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Stefan-Pierre signed
A very good morning to you, my name is Stefan-Pierre I’m a super model and most known as Mr Tinder, I was very disappointed when I was contacted last week by a fan notifying me that my wiki has been deleted, I have done a fair amount of research myself and my manager can’t get our head round it, please could you kindly let us know why this was made and is there anyway we could restore it please?

I look forward to your response and a very good day to you

Kindest regards Stefan-Pierre

88.98.200.177 (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi. We have never had an article called Mr Tinder, so I can't help you.  Sandstein   08:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi the article was named after Mr

Stefan-Pierre Tomlin please find the link below

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Pierre_Tomlin

Thank you

88.98.200.177 (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The article was deleted as a result of the community discussion Articles for deletion/Stefan-Pierre Tomlin, in which there was unanimous consensus that you don't meet our inclusion criteria, WP:GNG. Therefore I can't restore the article, sorry.  Sandstein   10:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Did not mean to vandal revert you
Sorry about that; wrong click. Anyways, I did want to revert your deletion of the Paltrow mention. It's relevant because, as the cite discusses, Weinstein often mentioned Paltrow—one of the most successful and famous actresses of her generation—as someone who, he implied, became such because she let him sleep with her. Ylee (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

AfD
Per your close at Articles for deletion/Free Shipping Day, I feel that the discussion would benefit from further discussion via relisting. So, requesting restoration of the article and an AfD relist. Let me know what you think about this notion. Also, your closure as per WP:WAX seems a bit dismissive, and it's an essay page. North America1000 13:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's appreciated, and happy holidays. North America1000 13:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

John Hoffmire
Dear Sandstein.

I have uploaded for review another biography of Dr. John Hoffmire which you deleted few weeks ago. This new version is now updated and in contrast with the other, this one uses verifiable third party sources, hope you like it!

Thank you and best wishes. Mario5554 (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * John Hoffmire is still a red link.  Sandstein   11:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Harvey Weinstein
Hi there, you're right, removing a reference to his activism from the lede is better overall. It just said "activist" which I thought was too imprecise. If I'd checked, I would have seen that that description itself was a recent and untested edit. Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

== About your reversion of my edit on Code Name Verity ==

I may be wrong, but I think that having a list of characters is very much relevant to the book and its article. I have seen a characters section on Wikipedia pages for other books, plays, and shows and cannot see why it should not be included for this article.2601:2C1:C280:3EE0:8073:A8FF:655F:7B4A (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi. These sections are contrary to our policy. Please read WP:WAF, which summarizes "Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself." This means that we have a problem when plot content (plot summaries or character lists) are longer than the rest of the article.  Sandstein   09:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

AfD
You closed the AfD for Realist Left, but didn't delete the article. Natureium (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Request to review deletion of the article at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_boxing
Hello, Please review deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_boxing.

The topic was called a hoax and claimed to include insufficient or sub-par references. The topic is real and describes an actual discipline that is practiced by many individuals, including myself. As far as references, I'm not sure what is expected from an article about a kung fu style. I did include references to 2 books, 1 of them published by University of Hawaii Press. It is also noteworthy that many other articles of this sort exist for other kung fu styles, and I believe this article to be of higher quality than many of its counterparts.

Thank you for your times and please advise.

Tomehr Ben Johanan


 * Hi. sorry, but these arguments should have been made in the deletion discussion, Articles for deletion/Zui quan. That discussion concluded with consensus that the sources are not sufficient for us to have an article about this topic.  Sandstein   10:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I was not around for that discussion. The recent article includes a secondary academic source, and details the primary manuscript that book quotes. How can you judge the recent article according to a discussion about an older one? Does this article not deserve to be judged by its own merits?


 * What "recent article"? Zui quan was deleted based on the state it was in at the time of the deletion discussion in September 2017.  Sandstein   21:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_boxing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomehr (talk • contribs) 04:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't get it. Zui quan and Drunken boxing are different articles. Drunken boxing is now subject to an AfD; please make your arguments there.  Sandstein   07:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomehr (talk • contribs) 08:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram accounts
Hello, per WP:DELREV I would like to try to resolve this issue with you. You did not give an explanation on your closing of this articles for deletion page. The arguments for keep were much stronger. Some of the deletes were even saying the page should be shortened, if not deleted. thank you Subuey (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In numerical terms the outcome is clear: 12 delete vs. 4 keep. The "keep" arguments were clearly not stronger than the "delete" arguments. Only one "keep" opinion argued with sources, the others were "per X", "it has many views" and "the information is appropriate", all very weak arguments. I decline to change the outcome of the discussion.  Sandstein   07:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of most-followed Instagram accounts
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of most-followed Instagram accounts. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subuey (talk • contribs)


 * Also Protectorate of Westarctic again, though I'm sure you've seen it already. —Cryptic 18:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Lee Busby for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lee Busby is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Lee Busby& until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mélencron (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri88 / John Carter
Hi - I'm a bit confused about that ANI close. The Hijiri/John Carter IBAN doesn't appear to relate at all to what is currently at ARCA - I was about to block John Carter for a flagrant breach of his IBAN. If I was about to do something obviously wrong, let me know ... Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Me too. Acknowledging my memory of the ban's specifics are rudimentary at best, I thought discussion of the appeal was generally in the safe range. If I'm wrong of course and that clearly happens feel free to block away. John Carter (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My thinking was that the complaint concerned an edit to WP:ARCA, and therefore conduct in an arbitration forum. I believe that it is established that only ArbCom themselves should take disciplinary actions regarding conduct in their own fora. However, if you are of a different view, I have no particular objections to you taking whatever actions you consider appropriate.  Sandstein   23:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's fine - if interactions at ARCA and other ARBCOM venues are "outside" normal editing then there's no problem, I just wasn't aware that was the case (until now). Black Kite (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I noted this at ARCA. If arbitrators are fine with this being examined separately, you can go ahead with your block, or Hijiri88 can bring this to AE.  Sandstein   00:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly doubt the Committee will deal with enforcing the community-enacted IBAN. I would view that as outside of our jurisdiction, since we usually try to avoid butting our heads into community restrictions. Enforcement here can be handled by an uninvolved admin such as if they believe a clear violation has occurred. If it's less clear and a discussion is needed, I would consider the appropriate venue to be WP:ANI. On the other hand, please leave it to the clerk team to deal with whether the section should be removed. ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. However, my understanding is that the ban at issue was a discretionary sanction, not a community sanction. I'm not sure whether that makes a difference.  Sandstein   00:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's actually a community sanction. See Special:Diff/761985265. ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, just as a procedural note, this appears to be a community sanction based on my reading of the discussion. I have no opinion on the matter at hand, just noting it for you. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose someone can ping Beeblebrox if they want clarification. John Carter (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Please can you review this close
The discussion was tainted by 3 socks - see this shocking SPI Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 08:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅  Sandstein   14:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Save Sibelius merge
As agreed (or at least not opposed by anyone, and supported by one other editor) in the closure discussion, the intention is to Merge Sibelius Software and Sibelius (software) first, rename the merged page as 'Sibelius (scorewriter)' and then incorporate 'Save Sibelius' campaign into the newly merged page. Merge notices have been placed in both the pages. Assuming the consensus continues to build for the Merge of Sibelius Software to Sibelius (software), the Merge of 'Save Sibelius' campaign will be executed once the Merge of the two pages is complete as per Merging policy. Please advise if there are any problems with this approach. Chrisdevelop (talk)
 * Sorry, I'm not interested in the topic and can't advise you.  Sandstein   19:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the deadline for completion? Chrisdevelop (talk)
 * There isn't any. Whoever is interested in doing the merger will do it in their own time. If it is not done, the article may eventually be renominated for deletion.   Sandstein   00:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Review
Hi, Sandstein

Please can you review your closure of Articles for deletion/Naila Nayem (4th nomination)? Thanks –Ammarpad (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC) –Ammarpad (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I reviewed it.  Sandstein   10:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But please how do we arrive at no consensus.? –Ammarpad (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Because opinions were divided about whether the article should be kept or deleted. Our deletion policy requires a consensus in favor for deletion in order for an article to be deleted.  Sandstein   10:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * On every AfD, even those Kept or Deleted opinions do vary. That's not what's important. The substance of the argument is. Let me dissect the !votes here
 * 1-Delete per nom. (JNN, empty, No policy-based reason)
 * 2-Delete the last vote in the last discussion was from a Bangledeshi editor who knew what was up and should have been headed. As he pointed out, Nayem did not act in a film, she had a role as a dancer in one song in a film. At present her career just does not pass the notability requrements for (Wikipedia is based on verifiability, WP:NOTTRUTH, what Bangladeshi editor knows is "up", is immaterial, empty. This argument is actually belittling of Wikipedia policy of WP:V)
 * 3. Strong Delete. (I don't need to copy all his comment here but he already summarized it "...although she does not hold the highest fan base in facebook from Bangladesh, for that she does not pass the notability for entertainers criteria. (That's clear cut misinterpretation of guideline, this is obvious. Add to that, I already shown how he tried (albeit unsuccessfully) to delete the article 4 times across 2 wikis, and on multiples talkpages. I believe the Keep !votes and weakness of delete !votes are clear evidence of Keep close, I hope you'll now re-evaluate and close it as such or at least leave for others to close. You've been doing excellent work, and I know such closures are not as easy as they seems, but I am hoping this to be resolved here. Thanks. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, notability is frequently a matter of opinion, and different editors weigh sources differently. Similar critiques could be made of some "keep" opinions. I don't have enough of a policy basis here to dismiss enough "delete" opinions to arrive at a "keep" consensus. Besides, the outcome is the same: the article is not deleted.  Sandstein   12:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks you admit some keep opinions are not policy/guideline-based; that shows some are. But all the delete ones are not and have been dissected here. In fact, 2/4 of the !dvotes denigrated core standards by advancing personal knowledge (Neighbor of the subject?) to reign supreme above WP:V and WP:N. However no point to continue arguing this since you already answered me why the oddness; "Besides, the outcome is the same: the article is not deleted". Thanks. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Request your comment
Because of your recent close of an RFC in the page, I would ask for your comments here: Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier Casprings (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)