User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2018/January

Articles_for_deletion/Nonce_(slang)
You closed it as delete but it did not get deleted. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The Indelicates
Hi there. Not sure how two editors with a combined 13 edits managed to get this article deleted but I think I can attribute that to the Xmas season and low participation. Judging that it took me literally five seconds to find this, I don't think you will mind when I restore this article to work on it, do you? Regards  So Why  14:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, if you can rewrite the article such that the reason for deletion no longer applies, the AfD is superseded.  Sandstein   14:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think you called this AfD correctly. There were two !votes that paraphrased WP:JNN and a week's relisting with nothing. That's a "no consensus" in my book. While it's good for the project to expand the article (possibly using the many news sources available), it's not mandatory to do so and I would support quietly putting it back into mainspace (unless you really want to take this to DRV?) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It was an uncontested 2-week AfD with people making, on their face, valid policy-based deletion rationales. The "delete" arguments were more than "just not notable", but addressed the quality of the article's sources at a level of detail that is quite common at AfD. So, procedurally, this is a clear delete. But as indicated above, I've no problem with SoWhy restoring the article with additional sources that clearly establish notability.  Sandstein   15:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Carl Bergmanson
Were there policies other than WP:DEL8 and WP:ATD that you considered in this closing? If not, how is it that you didn't conclude that ATD prevails over DEL8 in this case? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What I considered was that consensus was that coverage of this person in reliable sources was insufficient for notability.  Sandstein   14:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to work with that, as a failure of WP:N notability doesn't explain why an ATD merge doesn't prevail over a DEL8 delete. Unscintillating (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Although, if your response literally means that that is what you considered, it means that you haven't considered whether or not ATD prevails over DEL8. To that end please review WP:IGNORINGATD, which is no longer an essay but "an explanatory supplement to Wikipedia:Deletion policy":
 * {| style="background:#DDFFFF"

The fact that a topic is not notable is not, in and of itself, valid grounds for deleting a page, its content, or its history. If merger and/or redirection is feasible in a given case, either is preferable to deletion. To validly argue for deletion, editors need to additionally advance separate arguments against both merger and redirection, on relevant grounds. (Since "merger" includes a history merge without redirection, an argument against redirection is not an argument against merger). Since any verifiable topic/content can in principle be redirected/merged to an article on a broader topic, this should be exceptionally difficult. Valid arguments against merger might be based on WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT or WP:BLP, in particular. ...Valid arguments against redirection must be based on the criteria specified in WP:R...See further WP:ATD. Citations


 * }
 * and Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion:
 * {| style="background:#DDFFFF"

...valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements...When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be...redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending..."Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why. Citations


 * }


 * Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Your argument seems to be that non-notability should not be a reason for deletion. Constant practice at AfD is to the contrary. The pages you cite are not policies or guidelines (very explicitly so in the case of WP:ATA) and are therefore not relevant for closing discussions. They contain advice to those who participate in discussions, and it is therefore them you need to convince, and not me, by making arguments in favor of this view in the individual AfDs. Because your idiosyncratic views are frequently in a minority of one in AfD discussions, however, I don't think that continuing this discussion is worth the while.  Sandstein   18:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

How to make sure I stay within policy guidelines
I am glad from special:diff/818249345 to learn I didn't step out of bounds. I want to make sure I do not end up doing so in the future. If I understand things right, I am able to make 1 revert every 25 hours?

I'm trying to figure out if "contentious" further modifies this. From what I can tell from contentious:
 * Marked by heated arguments or controversy.
 * Given to struggling with others out of jealousy or discord.

So if I understand right, even if I have reliably sourced information, if people struggle to censor that information and argue heatedly against including it for whatever reason, that prevents this information from being added? ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * My comment reflected only that I think that your conduct as reported does not quite meet the requirements for arbitration enforcement sanctions. Other admins may see this differently. My comment is not to be construed as agreeing with your editing or as affirming that your editing meets all expectations as regards user conduct. Ultimately, it is only consensus that determines what is included in articles and what not. I strongly recommend that you listen to other editors and do not repeatedly attempt to include content that, even if sourced, consensus considers inappropriate for inclusion; see in that regard WP:GETOVERIT.  Sandstein   20:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Obvious sock
Hello Sandstein, I believe User:Dank Chicken is a sock for the following reasons: He registered on 17 November, his very first edits shows that he is a veteran editor who has probably spent years at Wikipedia:, he registered his account at Commons only 4 days after and immediately started creating several advanced maps:

He has spent his time at Wikipedia/Commons almost exclusively editing Arab-Israel conflict articles, including pushing a strong pov that occupied territories "are part of Israel":

I asked him at his talkpage and he admitted that he has had a previous account, he has then refused to give me a real answer to what his previous account name was:, anyone with half a brain can easily see that he has spent several years at wikipedia/commons, how is it possible he doesn't remember his old account? does that make any sense?

Considering the large amount of editors who where sanctioned/blocked/banned several years ago (2009-2012) its basically impossible to locate the sock master, so a SPI wouldn't help here. I think you should just block him per being someones obvious sock. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Firstly, what's a "sock"? Just because you don't agree with me, doesn't mean you have to accuse me of things. I did NOT spend SEVERAL YEARS at Wikipedia before, I probably spent a few months.
 * Secondly, I never claimed that the occupied West Bank is part of Israel. You are under the false belief that the annexed east Jerusalem and Golan are occupied. If you scroll though the Israel talk page, you'll find that almost everyone agrees with me, and I'm always listing reliable sources and Wikipedia precedents to back up my proposals.
 * Thirdly, I'm not editing Arab-Israeli conflict images on Wikimedia commons, I'm creating one map. And I've never included it in a Wikipedia article yet because all the shit last month made me pretty aware to not edit such articles yet... Dank Chicken (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Without an indication of who Dank Chicken might be a sock of I have no grounds for action. If you think you have more substantial evidence, please submit it to WP:SPI where the experts on such issues are.  Sandstein   10:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Confirmed sock:, my gut feeling is never wrong. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yet VolunteerMarek yet again calling a comment by DHeyward a "lie" is not a personal attack
My comment on the AE board regarding DHeyward was not meant to be a personal attack, but was a frustrated and angry retort to what I see as an obvious effort by certain editors to use whatever meager means they can muster to eliminate any opposition to their POV they can. I see this as insidious and wrong and to the great detriment to this website overall. That it was said with less eloquence than usual should be no surprise...we see VolunteerMarek and MrX and others at AE almost every week complaining about someone. It has gotten to the point of ridiculous. That is all I havet o say on the matter, here or elsewhere, Sandstein.--MONGO 19:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want your statement to be taken into consideration in the context of the current WP:AE request, please make it at WP:AE, not here.  Sandstein   19:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * He did and someone removed it. It is clear that you guys are looking to ban him for a tban violation that doesn't exist. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, claiming I have a long block log I'd a bit unfair and is in itself an aspersion...as I have not been blocked for nearly 10 years. I stated this is well at AE but I am frankly surprised you would even suggest I be topic banned from article space I am not active on. You want to ban me from AE fine...I already have now done that to myself anyway.--MONGO 20:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Page Deletion: Bluetech
I believe the page for Bluetech/Evan Marc/Evan Bartholomew/Evan Marc Bartholomew was unjustly deleted.

User:Theredproject provided evidence for the deletion using only one search under a moniker that he does not use regularly. More results will show under his other aliases, including several from The Untz(no Wiki page, but 400k Facebook likes): a popular entity within his subgenre. He has also released albums with Steve Hillage, a Prog legend, and with other already cited individuals.

I understand there are many pages you all probably review, as there must be lots of garbage on this site. However, I believe this is not one of them, and I find your process a bit unthorough. Such a process affects everyone: including yourselves, Wikipedia, and the relevant page entities. This sort of deletion inherently directs users away from Wikipedia, which is good for the site as a whole. However, I ask that you be a bit more thorough going forward.

Thank you, John Finigan J04 (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi. The page was deleted because a community discussion at Articles for deletion/Bluetech unanimously determined that it should be. With respect to musicians and most other topics, we generally care only about coverage in reliable sources per Notability (music), not such aspects as who they collaborated with or how many social media followers they have. The required coverage was found to be lacking in this case.  Sandstein   14:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

New section
Hi, why was the page First world map Mahabharta deleted. It had proper references. Some other technical issues arose due to lack of proper understanding of wikipedia tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seekingdivine (talk • contribs) 17:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is why: Articles for deletion/Early world map Mahabharata. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

MONGO's AE case
Reading your close, you either, despite your assertion, did not read the comments made in the case or blatantly misrepresented the alternate proposal at hand. Poor form, either way. --Neil N  talk to me 14:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your disagreement is noted, but I did read what was written at AE.   Sandstein   14:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So you blatantly misrepresented the alternate proposal? --Neil N  talk to me 14:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think I did.  Sandstein   14:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The alternate proposal does reflect that Wikipedia editing does not occur in segregated namespaces. --Neil N  talk to me 15:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But it poses the same problems: you can't, in my view, prohibit a person from discussing certain topics but not from making content edits. Content editing requires the ability to discuss one's edits.  Sandstein   15:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You posted the above and still claim to read the case comments? The proposal allowed MONGO to use talk pages, just not cast aspersions or talk about systematic biases. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See, in that respect, my comment of 15:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC) below.  Sandstein   15:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm cross-posting (copy and pasting) this from NeilN's talk because I see the discussion is ongoing here.


 * I just wanted to say that I followed this case, and while I agree that a TBan seems excessive, I also sympathize with Sandstein's position that there really didn't seem to be anything else to be done. I don't think Sandstein made a bad call, per se.
 * But I don't agree with Sandstein's position that there was nothing else to do. The Rambling Man has a customized editing restriction imposed upon him; the admins there might have used something very similar. I know TRM's sanction was an Arbcom case, but I'm not aware of any compelling reason why AE couldn't impose a similar editing restriction, considering that it's at least deliberated using customized editing restrictions in that very discussion. So possibly changing the sanction from a regular topic ban to a prohibition on casting aspersions or making borderline or clear personal attacks (I would emphasize that to establish a clear boundary: if there's doubt, it's a PA and MONGO should not have said it) against any individual editor or group of editors.
 * What do you think? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Please also note my disagreement with your sanction. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A "prohibition on casting aspersions or making borderline or clear personal attacks" would be pointless. All editors are already under such a restriction, as documented at WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, etc. The sanction imposed here was precisely because the editor at issue did not heed those conduct standards.  Sandstein   15:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it wouldn't be pointless. Generally speaking, casting aspersions and making personal attacks are things that happen constantly at the various drama forums and on controversial talk pages. Lots of editors call out "disgusting" bias in others, accuse others of "blatantly" violating NPOV, of "egregiously" pushing a agenda, etc. Most of the time, this is done without diffs and in a confrontational tone. As things currently stand, we have an appropriate tolerance for such behavior because we seem to (at least implicitly) understand that cracking down on such violations with an iron fist would be more disruptive than letting them happen.
 * But one could impose an "iron fist" sanction on specific editors to avoid further escalations. Let their behavior be judged by a very strict reading of policy, while we continue to let editors who haven't put themselves into a similar situation have the same leeway they've always enjoyed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * All editing in topic areas subject to discretionary sanctions is already subject to heightened conduct expectations. See WP:AC/DS. It would therefore, in my view, be erroneous to respond to misconduct in such areas with additional conduct restrictions. The misconduct that we need to respond to already shows that the editor at issue is not able or willing to conform to either the normal or the higher DS conduct expectations. It therefore normally needs to be addressed with blocks or bans.  Sandstein   15:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * MPants is right. The general low-level incivility is ignored. The proposed sanction makes it clear it wouldn't be in MONGO's case. And you know that your above statement is advertising that you're now going to be the "civility policeman", right? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We will have to disagree on this issue. I'm also not volunteering as policeman, but I do believe that our civility standards are binding and should be enforced.  Sandstein   15:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, yes that is the policy, but in practice it is rarely enforced. Discussions of DS topics rarely get more scrutiny from the admins than other topics, in my experience (and I edit in a few non-DS areas, but also in politics, fringe theories and BLP areas, so I think I have a good representative experience). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would also like to note that I am an avowed liberal who tentatively disagrees with claims of systemic political bias on WP, who thinks MONGO's comments were outrageous. If there is any bias I bring to this discussion, it is one in the opposite of the direction I am pushing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, civility is often spottily enforced, but that is not a reason not to enforce it, especially in egregious cases as here. If you think that spotty enforcement is a problem, as I do, then you should help enforcing it rather than complain about the instances in which enforcement occurs.  Sandstein   16:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think that spotty enforcement is a problem, as I do Generally speaking, I don't. I'm of the opinion that except for blatant BLP vios and legal threats, enforcement should be lax, to encourage discussion. For example, I don't know how many times I've seen an exchange start with battlegroudn rhetoric and end in a solid consensus. It happens a lot. Now, I'm not entirely certain that the current level of laxity is ideal, but I'm not convinced it's not, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * All editing in topic areas subject to discretionary sanctions is already subject to heightened conduct expectations. See WP:AC/DS. - Sandstein has it exactly right. Far more efficient and effective to have editors self-regulate on the DS articles than to overburden the AE noticeboard or individual admin patrollers with enforcement interventions. The fact is we have failed to regulate these articles, the AE board is scarcely better than ANI recently and then there are the inevitable appeals and mustering of POV alliances. Sure swift simple sanctions are the best enforcement. Trying to thread the needle with bespoke sanctions is just an accommodation to editors who need to stay within the expectation Arbcom has prescribed for these articles.  <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * If you are genuinely serious about violations of civility, I suggest you remove or strikeout your comments about MONGO's block log. Regardless of the merit of your decision, using blocks that happened a decade ago as justification for a topic ban only makes you look bad and seems incredibly uncharitable and uncivil. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 16:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Although the blocks are old, which I noted, they are relevant insofar as they indicate that this is not the first instance of misconduct by MONGO. And that is a fact that is relevant, for me, in determining the sanction to be imposed. Indicating this is not incivil.  Sandstein   16:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If the conduct was inherent to his presence here, then there would be more recent blocks or logs. The fact that you go back a decade is indeed trying to muddy the water. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm with Sir Joseph. People can, and often do change. Especially the type of people who constructively edit WP for years. If one has to look back 10 years to find an example of someone being sanctioned for incivility, then it's false to claim they have a propensity towards incivility. They had such a propensity, ten years ago. But they don't anymore. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not like MONGO's leaving, though I understand it--but in this difficult situation I cannot find fault with Sandstein. MONGO can appeal, of course, and there are other things that can be done. Quibbling over one of the details is not likely to be fruitful; if it hadn't been for the recent edits we wouldn't have gotten to AE. I hope that MONGO will, I don't know, retract those statements, or some of them, and I send him best wishes, thanking him for all the good work he has done. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see my proposal above as quibbling over a detail, but a means to entice MONGO back to editing, while simultaneously addressing the problematic edits. To be completely fair, were the case handed to me to decide alone, I'd have told MONGO to remove the comments, promise never to do it again, and closed the whole thing. I very strongly disagree with what he said in the edits in question and elsewhere, but they were a single instance of disruption. Quashing it and moving on is the best course, IMHO. If and when MONGO kept making further such attacks, I'd have imposed a restriction like I suggested above.
 * With all that being said, I don't think Sandstein did anything wrong. I think Sandstein just doesn't see things quite the way I do, and made the best call they could have in light of that and their knowledge of the situation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "detail"--I was talking about mentioning the block log, that's all. The problem with your suggestion ("were the case handed to me") is that we can't tell people to do this or that. I mean, we can, but typically they don't do what we want them to do since *gasp* they are, or at least claim to be, autonomous human beings. And I don't think this ban would have happened if it was just one remark--there were a few, and the "pattern" (exemplified, I suppose, by reference to the block log), played a part in that. Of course editors (and MONGO) will disagree on whether there was a pattern, and how significant it was, etc. Please note that I didn't propose anything to solve anything, and that I agree that your "solution" would have my preference also--but Sandstein knows, I believe, that he is not some deity who can make those things happen. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sandstein knows, I believe, that he is not some deity who can make those things happen. Wait, what?! He's not?! Awww man....
 * Actually, I agree with your points about making people do things. I should have said I'd ask MONGO to remove and promise not to do it again, and if they didn't, then I'd consider taking further steps, such as my proposal, or (more likely in the face of stubborn refusal to back down) the topic ban that was actually implemented. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * (sticking my oar in where it may be unwelcome) MONGO's allegations about systemic bias are fallacious, at best, and the specific comments that led to this were unacceptable. Nevertheless, I'm uncomfortable with decade-old blocks being a factor leading to such a dismal outcome. If the ultimate objective is to improve the encyclopedia, then this is clearly a fail. (For what it's worth, I see that more as a failure of policy than a failure of you, Sandstein. Either block logs should be expungeable or policy should be amended to categorically negate their relevance after a reasonably long interval.) <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  23:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why people think block logs shouldn't be a (admittedly small) factor in determining if someone has exhibited a pattern of behavior? It's moot anyway because there's a recent and abundant history of damaging personal attacks, threats, and aspersions. No one said MONGO should leave the project. By his own admission, he rarely edits articles in the American politics topic area, so the sanction is exceptionally mild in my view.


 * There are too many people here advocating on behalf other people who unambiguously violate our policies, yet I rarely see outrage when multiple editors are accused of liberal POV pushing, and accused of damaging the project without any evidence whatsoever. The failure here is the mental acrobatics performed in defense of the indefensible!- MrX 23:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This is almost certainly an English issue. NeilN proposed a topic ban from "talking about the perceived biases of other editors or their edits in this area". He meant it as biases of either the editors or their edits. That is appropriate English. Sandstein appears to have read it as talking about the perceived biases of other editors or talking about their edits in the area. That would also be appropriate English. The grammatical construction is ambiguous. Let's not go overboard in assuming bad faith where there likely is none. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 23:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that MONGO's departure is unfortunate, and I hope he takes some time to cool off and reconsider his participation in the project. Not particularly long ago I was ArbCom topic-banned from a fairly broad area for an indefinite period of time, not just three months. I was certainly angry and frustrated by that sanction and considered hanging it up too, so I sympathize with MONGO's feelings entirely. But it's possible to use these events to step back, take a breath, find other ways to contribute and move on with one's editing, and eventually even move past it entirely. One thing I think we should all get past is the idea that a topic-ban sanction (as opposed to one for, say, sockpuppetry) is a permanent scarlet letter. Sometimes it just means you got in too deep and needed a nudge to step back. I rather consider my experience a badge of honor now - "I Survived The GamerGate ArbCom." So MONGO, if you're reading this, please take some time to go through the thought process I had to ponder a few years ago. I think you'll come up with the same answer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sandstein has just threatened me with (I'm not sure what)—"may be sanctioned for disruption"—because I twice posted a question under his majestic AE close. I add my voice to those who object to the topic ban and to Sandstein's behaviour in general at AE. There is no point in having these AE discussions if one admin repeatedly arrives to ignore the consensus. Yes, it is true that sanctions can be imposed by individual admins without discussion, but that does NOT mean that, once discussion has taken place, the admin can act as if it has not taken place. SarahSV (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is now becoming endemic, that admins like Sandstein threaten sanction, or plonk blocks on individuals, instead of actively discuss issues with them to resolve problems. I think 2018 will be know as the year of admin recall.   What's great is the community is now actively working against such behaviour from admins and arbs, and community consensus will ultimately triumph, regardless of how many long-term editors are driven off the project.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

A request
Sandstein, the MONGO decision has led to such concern (and a considerable expenditure of volunteer time) that it seems clear there is no consensus for it. Would you please reverse the topic ban and re-open the AE discussion? That way, discussion can continue, in one place and with a minimum of fuss, until a consensus is reached. SarahSV (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I decline. Procedure is clear that consensus is not required for AE actions (indeed, admins are explicitly allowed to overrule emerging consensus of other admins, albeit only with caution), and that AE actions can only be reviewed in the course of an appeal by the sanctioned editor, which you are not. Any expenditure of volunteer time is because of you. I'd like to note, though, that contrary to what you wrote in the AE talk thread, I did not "ignore" the existing discussion or consensus (of which there was none), but I took the views of other admins into account, and reduced the topic ban from indefinite to three months because of the concerns others raised.  Sandstein   22:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The alternative is going to be prolonged discussion in multiple places, then probably AN or ArbCom with the loss of time and energy that entails. When I came online today, I wanted to work on content, not this, and I'm probably not alone in that. And no, the discussion is not because of me. It's because of your contentious decision. No matter how right admins think they are, when there is this much concern, including from uninvolved admins, it does not speak well of an admin if he or she ignores it. Please reconsider. SarahSV (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is nothing less than shameless WP:BADGERING from someone who refuses to respect, or even acknowledge, the process outlined by Arbcom. Beware of boomerangs.- MrX 23:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A boomerang for someone asking open and honest questions? X marks the spot, you're the man!  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good one . Keep 'em coming.- MrX 23:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Shhhh. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Sandstein, are you open to recall? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What did I say about empty threats and New Year's Day whiskey bottles? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd leave it Sandstein to answer the question Marek, your intrusion is, once again, completely unwelcome and unnecessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * TRM, I'd guess your thinly-veiled question about recall is also "completely unwelcome and unnecessary". You had your mop taken away from you, so I think you would be better suited to improving content than picking fights. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Troutman? Apt.  Please allow Sandstein to answer the question, your intrusion is completely unnecessary, and actually, let's compare notes, how much improvement to content have you made this year?  The last month?  Oh..........    The Rambling Man (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not open to recall.  Sandstein   23:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. See you soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I doubt the back and forth here helps anything guys... maybe push off and let things be. Threats don't help anyone. I realize my own comment is slightly obnoxious so will push off.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC))

Amendment request
Please see. SarahSV (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

request for clarification involving you
Here. --DHeyward (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of nicknames used by Donald Trump
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of nicknames used by Donald Trump. 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. Carrite (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisting
Articles for deletion/Rajeev Agarwal is a clear case for deletion.Can you clarify about the reasons behind your relisting?Regards:) Winged Blades Godric 13:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at the discussion again, I agree and have re-closed as "delete". I wanted to relist because of all the struck socks, but actually the picture is quite clear without them.  Sandstein   14:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No qualms:) Winged Blades Godric 14:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Untamed Sports TV
I was leaning more towards delete as I couldn't find much sourcing outside what was already existing, so I do agree with your close/delete; it was a weak keep declining towards a delete towards the end for me.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Joint Marine Modelling Programme
Ref: Articles_for_deletion/Joint_Marine_Modelling_Programme

I unwisely did not have the supporting links in place while developing it and was unavailable while the deletion review was live. The supporting links are now ready and I would like to recreate the page (e.g. jmmp). I guess this note is a curtesy to alert you to the fact that I will try again but also to thank you for tireless work in keeping wikipedia standards high.

PvOcean (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Bluetech deletion
Hello

You have deleted the wiki article for the electronic musician Bluetech, but he does meet Wiki's criteria for notable musicians listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles The criteria that his work matches is: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)"

He's released 18+ albums on labels that include Interchill Records (formed 1994) and Waveform Records (also around since '94)

You can see other notable artists on those records on their respective wiki pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interchill_Records https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveform_Records

He tours extensively and has been mentioned at least once in the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/arts/music/global-beats-with-a-sanskrit-prayer-or-a-british-flair.html, gave an interview for Total Music Magazine http://www.totalmusicmagazine.com/interviews/Bluetech.htm and Igloo Magazine http://igloomag.com/reviews/bluetech-elementary-particles-prima-materia-aleph-zero-2cd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.13.65 (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi. Please see Articles for deletion/Bluetech. It concluded that the subject was not notable because there were not sufficient sources to establish notability. You have now provided such sources., as AfD participants, what is your view on these sources?  Sandstein   14:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request declined
Hi Sandstein. The American politics 2 arbitration amendment request has been closed at the direction of the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 00:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Tom Ogle
Why did you delete the Tom Ogle wikipedia page? The public have a right to know what he did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:875F:FC97:692C:327:4CA:F983 (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Because a community discussion decided that the article Tom Ogle should be deleted, see Articles for deletion/Tom Ogle.  Sandstein   13:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Why did you remove this man's wiki page for no reason? I read the above link but there was no discussion by the community anywhere, it was just assertions by a couple of people. If a couple people is all it takes to remove a wikipedia article then you're opening yourselves to massive corruption/fake news/misinformation.
 * Not quite. See WP:DP for an explanation of our process.  Sandstein   20:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Request to restore page K-3D
Can you please restore the K-3D page we were in the process of resolving the COI claims and collecting notes in the talk section for the rewrite of the page. Bart was not making edits and only provided facts re K-3D's noteworthiness. K-3D is a full 3D graphics application found on every major Linux distribution, including all versions derived from Debian. The number of Microsoft windows users is currently growing at a rate of 24 thousand per year and it is also available on Apple computers. K-3D is a FOSS application, not a trivial utility or commercial application. It was open sourced before Blender 3D and while not as dominant it should be considered it's peer. I can provide you with more detail and specific details should you need anything in particular clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmatthews (talk • contribs) 02:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, consensus at Articles for deletion/K-3D was that the topic is not notable. You'd need to provide links to coverage that meets the requirements of WP:GNG and wasn't already subject of the AfD to restore the article.  Sandstein   21:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Links and information were provided, are you saying that Bart's COI means that you are ethically permitted to ignore the facts that he listed? Why is it ethical to hit the page with a COI claim, then before that is resolved fully, delete the page? This sort of catch-22 is unethical and employing it brings Wikipedia into disrepute. There were no reasons stated for why the two claims needed to be run concurrently, and common sense (not to mention decency) shows why they should not. I consider what happened to be an "abuse of process", this is not a claim made "after the fact" either therefore I am not surprised that it happened, rather I am very disappointed about the ethics involved. Can you please tell me the exact procedure to have this perceived "ethics and process abuse" matter arbitrated? Dsmatthews (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:DRV.  Sandstein   22:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request archived
The recent Editing of Biographies of Living Persons arbitration amendment request has been closed and archived at the direction of the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 06:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for K-3D
An editor has asked for a deletion review of K-3D. 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. Dsmatthews (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Relist for Kenny Biddle
Hello. Just saw that you did a relist for the Kenny Biddle AfD, and I do not understand what you wrote as the reason. (All "keep" opinions are by editors with few editors.) Please elaborate or fix typo. If you meant "...with few edits" then that simply is incorrect. Unless you count my 4000+ as few. And, in any case, where is the number of edits given in the rules as a criteria for giving valid opinions on an AfD? Thanks. RobP (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, if you refer to an AfD, please link to it.  Sandstein   21:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Kenny Biddle
 * Hi, I see that you've posted your view there, and the closing admin will certainly take it into account.  Sandstein   16:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Renew a Nataliia Pogozheva page
ОШ (talk) 08:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC) Dear user, I saw that the page Nataliia Pogozheva was deleted after the discussion on not speedy deletion of the page. Still, I improved the page and wrote the reasons why that page should not be deleted. However, I didnt receive any feedback from users. There is a Ukrainian version of that page as well and I kindly ask you to give me advises what to do to renew the Nataliia Pogozheva page.ОШ (talk) 08:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, per Articles for deletion/Natalia Pogozheva the person was considered to be not notable. You can recreate the article if the new form establishes through references to relisble sources that she passes WP:GNG.

Crop breeding
Thanks for taking a stab at Articles_for_deletion/New_Breeding_Techniques. In terms of your request for an expert, I also was commenting as an expert. Crop genetics is something we get trained in for entomology degrees dealing with crop protection, and often work alongside crop breeders as part of our research programs after grad school too. Not sure if that puts my comments in a slightly different context, but I'm also not too keen on altering the close based on that since I try to keep my Wikipedia editor and science expertise hats somewhat separate. I'll probably tackle cleaning up / redirecting the article in the near future though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Request to restore
In regards to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SafeLogic, I have engaged in dialogue with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TonyBallioni, who originally nominated for deletion. He suggested that I reach out to you.

The allegation of COI is unfounded and the deletion of the page is doing harm to the category of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Layer_Security by not including a significant vendor in the space. Without actual industry knowledge, editors voted to delete a page that was created due to real life significance. The page was never flagged for revision or expansion of references, only directly to deletion. Meanwhile, other vendors in the same category have pages that remain despite being created and edited by company employees. These are not alleged COI violations, they are blatant and transparent. Their usernames are not even anonymized!

My personal belief is that all of the industry vendors belong here, and I have significant questions about why SafeLogic alone would be removed. If the same standards are applied to all the vendors, they should all be removed, which would then be a glaring hole in the knowledge base of Wikipedia.

Long story short - I appeal to you to consult with folks (editors or not) in this industry before deleting this page outright. And if it is kosher for vendor employees to participate to revise pages, I would be happy to contribute myself to increase the references.

2600:1700:9980:A780:B8FF:B237:CEF6:AB78 (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Here you wrote "Hello, I actually work at SafeLogic" and continued to express yourself as a representative of the company ("We'd be happy to submit additional information/references/etc for sourcing"). This means that you have a conflict of interest between promoting your company and Wikipedia's mission as a neutral reference work. I will therefore not assist you with restoring the article.  Sandstein   20:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I've been transparent about my advocacy and that shouldn't be punished with a closed door. I haven't touched the page itself. My points above would be the same whether or not I had disclosed my relationship with the company. I'm following the recommended channels and asking for reconsideration and inclusion of subject matter experts, just as I have seen you do on other disputed pages. I have not hidden behind an anonymous IP address and pretended to be anything else or have any other agenda than asking for equal treatment. Wikipedia's mission for neutral reference work is damaged when pages are cherrypicked and removed without attention to the topic itself. Without the inclusion of SafeLogic, which was already considered notable enough to create the page and contain several edits by a variety of editors, Wikipedia has a significant hole in the knowledge base and is showing a bias in favor of the vendor pages that are still included despite obvious violations of protocol. Review my points based on merit, not on source, and I think you will agree. 2600:1700:9980:A780:B8FF:B237:CEF6:AB78 (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Request to Restore
I believe there was an error in deleting Nomiki Konst's page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nomiki_Konst

She was on the DNC's Unity Reform Commission this past year and has been a constant guest on Megyn Kelly's shows and other networks. She was also on the DNC's platform committee as a Sanders representative. She is currently the most well known investigate reporter for the YouTube Network, The Young Turks. Sure the last page had issues, but they can be fixed. Capriaf (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * That's as may be, but there was near unanimous consensus to delete the article in the community discussion at Articles for deletion/Nomiki Konst, so I have no choice but to delete the article.  Sandstein   16:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi
Regarding the issue raised at User_talk:Huldra, is it Icewhiz, or myself who is correct with regard to the 1RR issue? If I broke the 1RR on Shuafat, I will of course immediately self revert, but to my best understanding, I didn't. Am I correct here? Huldra (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

AfD closure
Hello there. Hope you will be doing fine. It was little surprising that closed Articles for deletion/Six Sigma Entertainment as no consensus when there were two explicit policy based arguments. WP don't work on head count but policy-based arguments. Companies need significant coverage to have an encyclopedic entry. I think this needs admin closure and I connected you because you were involved with Articles for deletion/Azad Film Company so it will be better if you close it per WP:CORPDEPTH or relist it. Störm  (talk)  16:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The AfD is already re-opened by Samee so sorry for inconvenience. Störm   (talk)  19:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems you're active...
Can you look into this IP? . Lots of vandalism and WP:NOTHERE. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, it's been handled. But the page needs semi-protection for sure. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Palaye Royale
Hi Sandstein. You deleted Palaye Royale back in July 2016 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palaye Royale. An article using the same name has just be directly added to the mainspace. Can you tell if this is something which should be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:G4 or if it's an improvement of the deleted version?


 * Not sure if it's an improvement, but it is different in terms of content and sources. Not a G4 case in my view.  Sandstein   11:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Finally, just a general question about re-created articles. Do they need to have a WP:HISTMERGE? It seems like a lot of the edit history would be lost if they are just recreated in the mainspace. Old AfD multi templates are added by bots to the talk pages of AfD-deleted articles qhich are are recreated, but there's nothing in the article history which ordinary editors can use for comparion purposes. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The history of deleted articles is not ordinarily restored if they are recreated.  Sandstein   11:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

AE Appeal by Anythingyouwant
There was no consensus of uninvolved admins to extend topic ban. I think it would be more conducive to a collaorative editing environment if you would modify the decline with what the other admins said which was simply "Decline." It will end the drama and prevent a full ARCA kerfuffle about what consensus is and means regarding AE appeals. --DHeyward (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sandstein and NeilN were the only ones who urged or commented about extending the topic-ban. So, Sandstein, if you re-open the section to allow more votes in there, please let me know so I can fix my typo that Coffee insisted on preserving.  Thanks.  And if you re-open it, I also recommend leaving it open for more than the 25 minutes you allowed from your suggestion of an extension to your closure.  Alternatively, please leave it closed, and just reassess whether you and NeilN are enough for a consensus, seeing as how Neil didn’t even affirmatively support an extension.  Thanks again.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Edited.02:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not objecting is not the same as advocating. Regardless, Sandstein can modify it without opening it. It's more problematic that it was impossible to explain your edits within a system that only allows a Hobson's choice without compromise. It's like the discussions regarding material in the lead with Group A wanting it entirely removed, Group B wants it in the body, but not in the lead and Group C wants it in the lead and body. Page restrictions force everyone to Group A or C. Even if consensus is split into thirds, a Group A editor that removes it from the lead (2/3 agree to remove A&B) but then acknowledges that there is consensus for retaining it in the body (2/3 agree B&C), AE just announced that not following either the A choice or the C choice is gaming the system which forces extremes and punishes compromise. That's a structural problem with the sanction and nobody seemed to consider that you would have been fine with complete removal and readding it was not nefarious but a nod to consensus that the material itself belong. The lesson is to just delete. --DHeyward (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, in retrospect it would have been better for me to simply delete the material which would have more clearly triggered the DS consensus-required provision, instead of me trying to please opposing editors. Alas, I don’t think Sandstein is interested in such niceties. Not in the least, and never has been. And not interested in how many of his colleagues affirmatively supported extending the sanction, I expect. Which was zero uninvolved editors out of three.  Are those numbers correct, Sandstein?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Edited.02:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

"There was no consensus of uninvolved admins to extend topic ban", ''"Sandstein and NeilN were the only ones who urged or commented about extending the topic-ban"'

Lol. I guess that's technically correct. But actually the other admin, T.Canens, said: "We have indeffed people for shenanigans like this." Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m quite sure they have indeffed in cases like this.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Anythingyouwant, I will not reopen the AE thread. AE sanctions are not a matter of either votes or consensus.  Sandstein   07:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Sandstein, was there any feedback from the last ARCA about one of your administrative decisions that you accepted? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I always take feedback I receive into consideration.  Sandstein   20:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved" administrators is required to undue an AE sanction. Your extension was not an original sanction, it was a change to an existing sanction.  That requires consensus.  It should be pretty clear from the sanctions log that you were changing a sanction, not originating it.  It was clearly an appeal.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I forgot to take Sandstein's talk page off my watchlist after the last discussion here. Anythingyouwant; you are on my "one of the good ones" list, and you are a valuable editor whose contributions here I appreciate. But frankly, if any of the other admins have a problem with extending the topic ban, they are free to express that themselves. They don't need you to do it for them.
 * Continuing to argue about it now, after having it reduced once and then re-increased after continuing to appeal isn't going to accomplish anything. So please, make a note that you think this was a miscarriage of justice, collect some diffs for the day when we all get together to try to overhaul some of the policies here (I think you'd be surprised at how many editors would join you in that, me included) and wait this one out. I'd hate to see this situation turn into one hairy enough that people start speculating about your value to the project, and I'm sure you have seen that sort of thing happen before. I just saw an editor get blocked for refusing to stop complaining about a topic ban two or three days ago.
 * I don't want to see this escalate any further, because in a month, I want to see Anythingyouwant right there on the next politics article offering his views and helping to improve the content. So please, just ride it out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

America, where are you now...
Greetings! I took the liberty to ask for the import (de:WP) for "America". Translation - America (Plastik) - should be finished in 2 days. Cheers!  GEEZER nil nisi bene 14:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Pseudo Slang deletion
Hi Sandstein,

I hope this finds you well. At 09:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC), you deleted hip-hop group Pseudo Slang's page per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pseudo_Slang. I write you on behalf of the artists, and believe the deletion is in error per criterion #1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. I base this not only on the "news" and "HighBeam" results in the "Find Sources" parenthetical within the article deletion page, but can also provide further examples, including:

http://vocalo.org/post/159683773156/jill-hopkins-spoke-with-mc-sick-and-dj-form-aka (notable NPR interview)

http://www.okayplayer.com/reviews/pseudo-slang-200908198688.html (extremely respected and reputable source for hip hop journalism)

https://youtube/znAAyisLHy8

https://youtube/H_kTzAu1dsQ

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1636336.html

http://hiphophourra.blogspot.com/2016/03/pseudo-slang-well-keep-looking-2009.html

https://www.britishhiphop.co.uk/features/interviews/pseudo_slang.html (UK interview)

http://artvoice.com/issues/v5n16/this_is_buffalo_hip_hop.html (Buffalo NY's main art publication, digital version of a print article)

http://www.ihiphop.com/blog/album-review-pseudo-slang-well-keep-looking/

Unless I'm mistaken, the above links and aforementioned search results include "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." Perhaps the fact that some of these works are in languages other than English has led to some confusion, but I do believe these links and search results together well meet criterion #1.

While meeting only one of the criteria is enough to be notable, Pseudo Slang also meets criterion #5, releasing albums on the following labels (and many more):

Fat Beats Records (prolific record label with a huge discography). Album: "We'll Keep Looking"

Sub-Bombin Records (record label which has released albums by many notable artists). Album: "Cyclical"

ThinkLoud Records

Freshchest Records

Sandstein, I do realize that two community members (Mattg82 and Sandals1) made comments contrary to the above about Pseudo Slang's notability, but I could find nothing further about the existence of User:Sandals1 beyond that specific comment.

There is much more, however, than I have referenced here - both online and in print, and even beyond - about Pseudo Slang out there in the world; works existing independently that support Pseudo Slang's notability.

In light of the foregoing, I hope that you will re-consider the deletion of Pseudo Slang's page. Thank you for your time and attention in this matter, and all the best to you, Sandstein.

Sincerely,

Rod Phasouk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.161.56 (talk • contribs)


 * Can you advise as to whether these sources change your view, expressed at Articles for deletion/Pseudo Slang, that the band is not notable?  Sandstein   15:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * A couple of decent sources amongst those links. Send to WP:DRV. Mattg82 (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, it's a lot of blog pages but it may be worth re-examining - I'm a little uncomfortable that we are being used for promotion here, but at least they are being honest about the coi and backing up their opinion with notability criteria and sources. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the promo and making an attempt to work with WP policies. Just checked the sources again, the okayplayer is probably the only source of note, needs more sources before I change my vote, but I'm not against a procedural DRV. Mattg82 (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Close
Hi, Sandstein...would you please reconsider your no-consensus close and reopen the Trump-Russia dossier allegations. I'm asking because there are some rather serious policy violations that have been challenged, and the article is also subject to DS and BLP policy. A clear determination needs to be made. Thank you in advance <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 12:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How did you consider the Keerge (which was a merge = 8) and the Draftify (which is basically delete from mainspace= 8 deletes) 16:8:8 plus the weight should be in consideration of the policy violations? It would be much easier to simply extend the AfD to reach a definite consensus then to let this drag on and on, especially considering the article was changed to a list 2 days after the AfD began. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 13:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think this could have been closed any other way. Arguments were very split, with valid and invalid reasoning on both sides of the debate. I really doubt that this would be overturned in a DRV. You may want to start a merge discussion to see if there is consensus for merging the material into the main article or a subpage of the main article.- MrX 🖋 13:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * MrX, perhaps...if you're counting iVotes, but I think the fact that (whatever it is, list or article) has been challenged as WP:ATTACKPAGE - "that exists primarily to disparage", it should have resulted in a speedy and snow for the fact the majority of the page is nothing but unsubstantiated, hand picked allegations against a BLP compiled in a highly controversial dossier (for which we already have an article) that was paid for by the subject's opponent to disparage him - it was opposition research. Well...I think with all considered, it deserves closer scrutiny or at least more time - perhaps with a notice of the AfD at VP? I simply don't see how it can possibly be determined to be anything else but an attack page. Let's not forget that most in MSM refused to publish the dossier in its entirety (BuzzFeed did and is now facing litigation over it). With all considered, I don't see how it's encyclopedic, much less of any benefit to our readers since the majority of the allegations are basically unfounded rumors and conspiracy theories. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 14:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, citing WP:ATTACKPAGE would be an example of a poor argument. You know as well as anyone that if it were an attack page all you would have to do is WP:CSD and Bob's your uncle. - MrX 🖋 15:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is what it is, MrX. Some see it to be the ATTACKPAGE it is, others don't. I am not convinced that it is anything but what it is - a page to harm a BLP. I've not seen an argument that convinces me otherwise. The mere fact that the dossier was compiled purposely to harm Trump, and even though the vast majority of the claims remain unsubstantiated, WP published it in one of the most unconventional, noncompliant ways that I've ever seen. While the page may not be a biography, our BLP policy still applies and yes, it should have been speedy deleted when I first attempted it. The admin who turned it down didn't think it warranted a speedy and now this admin decided the ivotes were split and that there was no consensus. As for the contention of "poor argument", you can dial it down a notch - the arguments to merge/delete were excellent arguments that were subject to a numbers game with rules based on core content policies that are filled with ambiguities; when disputes arise, the results are different interpretations of the policy. I also believe that where APO2 is involved, the political beliefs of the majority prevail, and I've seen that happen despite policy. If the RNC and Trump had pursued the same kind of unsubstantiated opposition research against their opponent, I seriously doubt we'd be seeing anything about it published on WP beyond a few sentences in an obscure paragraph at the bottom of their respective campaign pages. Just review some of the campaign pages and see how many "unsubstantiated allegations" are included. Funny how that works in our world of anonymity, equality and NPOV. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 14:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, what should, in your view, have been the consensus outcome of the AfD? I really can't find a consensus for any particular outcome.  Sandstein  15:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a complex situation, but I think the meat & potatoes of the merge-delete arguments tell us that merging only the RS primary allegations back to Trump-Russia dossier is appropriate to avoid ATTACK and it is also what most of local editors thought was going to happen when the article creator first proposed it when he said: "My aim is to strictly document the main allegations which have been commented on by multiple secondary RS. Some allegations have been completely ignored, so I have also ignored them." I can't find the diff in that long mess of edit history, but I can provide the section: Trump-Russia dossier. That isn't what happened. Again, the primary concern is that as a standalone, it is subject to BLP vio as attackpage but when included in the actual dossier article (which is not notable without the allegations as the allegations ARE the dossier) is acceptable when presented from a NPOV. In short - MERGE. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 15:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a valid position to take, but it is not the consensus emerging from the discussion. Whether such concerns as BLP violations and attack page apply to the current content is a question about which editors can in good faith disagree. In principle, almost any article in Wikipedia can become a BLP violation or an attack page if it is edited to make it so, which means that the concern that this article could be so edited is not in and of itself a compelling argument that would allow me to overlook the many "keep" opinions. I therefore to decline to undo my closure.  Sandstein   15:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you for considering it. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 15:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * (infrequent stalker) For what it's worth, it looks like an attack page to me, as well. We don't need a page for the dossier, then another page for the dossier's contents, unless we're aiming for a page where we can put up all the allegations without any discussion of the major (and numerous) problems with the dossier. Had I been aware of that RfD, I'd have !voted to merge it back in. I also think that it's pretty obviously an attack page, and that this fact means there is a policy-based reason to delete or merge, regardless of the popularity of the page. Bear in mind this is coming from a guy who personally thinks Trump was colluding with the Russians, that Trump is racist, deeply unintelligent, vastly under-educated and supremely narcissistic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)