User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2019/September

Relisted Pages
Thanks for relisting the Bike or Die! page. pinchies (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI
This is what you get for AGFing with User:J.Gowers. Continues to use a signature that links to you, plus forges a response as if it came from you (copying it from previous time they did so). Agricolae (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's an indef block.  Sandstein   06:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Articles for deletion/ProJared
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Articles for deletion/ProJared. 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. Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

You deleted a page by mistake
Hi. The log says you've closed the Articles for deletion/DataObjects.NET (3rd nomination) but instead of its subject, you've deleted another article by mistake. There was on discussion or agreement about deleting this page. Could you please revert the deletion? flowing dreams (talk page) 07:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Sorry, some kind of script issue probably.  Sandstein   07:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Journal of Electronic Defense for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Journal of Electronic Defense 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/Journal of Electronic Defense until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Question about blanking
Hi, Sandstein - I can't explain why I haven't noticed (my) underlined portion of following in the AfD template prior to now: Feel free to improve the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. Shame on me if it's been there a long time. Is removing some of the unsourced, poorly sourced and material that is cited to an irrelevant source considered blanking if the crux of the article remains? I saw it as an improvement but will revert if what I did at Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog is considered blanking. Atsme Talk 📧 23:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Blanking, in my view, is removing (substantially) all content. Reducing an article in size such that it remains a coherent article is, in my view, not blanking.  Sandstein   07:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Nanotech portal at DRV
Hi, Unless I'm miscounting (and I did it quickly so I might have) it was 10 to 6 to relist including the nom. That's about 2/3rds. Given that the original discussion only had 3 folks and there were errors in that discussion I'm not seeing a reason to not relist and have a discussion. To pull out an overused word, this felt like a supervote. Given you've come out for the removal of portals as a whole, and the close against numeric consensus, I feel you should consider undoing the close and letting someone else jump in. But I recognize I'm a bit more of a stickler for "things seem fair" mattering as much as "things are fair" than most. Hobit (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I don't want to give the impression of casting supervotes at DRV, so I'm undoing my closure.  Sandstein   16:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It may end up closed the same way (or perhaps already has, I've not checked) but thank you for taking my feedback seriously. Hobit (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Ban - Unsure of the Proper Handling of The Situation
Hello,

I was banned on editing the article of Walter Russell, I could compose an argument defending myself, but at this point it seems like a long drawn out process compared to something more enjoyable, like finding dozens upon dozens of sources. I do believe I am the one putting the most elbow grease in the actual attempt to uncover the facts here, in a trustworthy fashion. I will most likely compose some sort of argument or refute or appeal so I can actually add the additional sources content to the article, which so many people have yet to see. The idea that this man is a kook or quack seems a bit out of line, and it essentially is offensive on quite a bit of levels. Even though I posted adequate refutes, I have received little response, like trying to articulate the mans scientific education, being an architect, ice skater, etc. I actually have the citation that can be verified by anyone on a modern leonardo claim, nonetheless that edit hasn't changed... You need to have access the Herald Archives for the original claim, even though no article I've looked up for more verification was ever shown false on the page. I'm unsure of a man deemed the "modern leonardo" being a master in architecture, design, painting, sculpting, poetry, writing, speaking, and ice skating, having being credited with it's inception in the USA, along with his own cosmogony needs to be whittled down into something because, well, people find it hard to accept, even though I have produced evidence and sources galore, including a polymath citing. I think there's multiple things that can be edited, but i think a handful, rather than be done immediately should be discussed properly rather than thrown out because it doesn't "feel right" to them. I have hardly added a lick to the page in months either, only attempting to minimize edits and keep things that well, tell the story of this individual factually. I probably need to have a computer to avoid frustration because the depth, precision, etc of a computer is, well, far superior to two thumbs. so I have fashioned these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Walter_Russell#%22Modern_Leonardo%22

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Walter_Russell#More_Sources_to_Take_Into_Consideration

Seems like the organization is hardly lying in regards to this individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediansSweep (talk • contribs) 22:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am sure that Sandstein will also comment, but at this time you are no longer allowed to discuss or write anything about Walter Russell, anywhere on Wikipedia. Period. End of story. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Cullen328 is correct. WP:BANEX has exceptions for necessary dispute resolution, such as appeals or appropriate questions about the ban. But the above is neither, just incoherent rambling. In addition, your edits to Talk:Walter Russell also violate your topic ban. For this, I am blocking you for three days. Recurring violations will result in longer blocks.  Sandstein   22:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sir Joseph and accusations of Holocaust denial and revisionism. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging
Hi, Sandstein. Regarding your recent AE closure, I have no objection about the block per se, for the topic ban violation had occurred (although to file a report about a US topic ban per ARBEE looks ridiculous). However, I totally disagree with this your remark:
 * "TheTimesAreAChanging does not address ... the personal attacks in their response"

They didn't have to, because I addressed this. I wrote:
 * "In connection to that, it would be correct to suspend this case, and to wait for arbitrators' opinion on the evidences I am going to present. If the conclusion will be that I am right, then the TTAAC's edit summary was just a statement of fact, although redundantly emotional one. If the decision will be in MVBW's favour, than TTAAC's words are a personal attack. "

Let me reiterate: to call someone "Hitler's supporter" is not a necessarily a personal attack. It is just an exceptional claim, and it needs exceptional evidences. I am going to present the evidences that MVBW is a POV-pusher who uses dishonest tricks to discredit other users. I would be grateful if you reconsidered your comments regarding TTAAC failing to address the accusation of personal attack. I do not request you to reconsider your decision about 2 month block, because the topic ban violation was obvious.

In addition, I would be grateful if you explained me how exactly should I present my evidences against MVBW. Taking into account a long history of our interaction, should I address directly to ArbCom, or some other actions are needed before that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi. As an editor who is not party to the complaint, you should focus on briefly adding diffs that are relevant to the outcome of the request, not opinions or announcements of forthcoming evidence. Im am interested in the opinion of the editor being complained about because it is material to my assessment of whether any misconduct is likely to reoccur. The opinion of others is not helpful in this respect. Please be aware that AE is not a discussion venue, but a forum to help admins decide whether action is needed. All third-party submissions should be useful in this respect, and brief. Yours was not. Evidence should be offered, not announced. What's more, any evidence about the conduct of others cannot mitigate or obviate misconduct by the user at issue. Evidence about the underlying conduct dispute, irrelevant at AE in any case, cannot make a personal attack not be one. If you want to make a complaint against another editor, you should make a separate AE request and it will be properly examined.  Sandstein   16:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. However, it looks like TTAAC believed that, since I have already addressed the personal attack issue, there was no need to focus on that any more. Note, my comment was made before TTAAC responded, and they directly referred to my post. In my post, I explained that, since MVBW was acting as de facto a proxy of some pro-Nazi IP, the TTAAC's statement is hardly a personal attack, and it seems TTAAC decided there is no need to add anything to that. In connection to that, my post should be considered as a part of TTAAC's responce (per TTAAC themselves).--
 * By the way, did I understand that my report on MVBW should go to AE, not arbitration? What is the difference? Can MVBW be considered properly warned (he was named as a party in an original case)? Paul Siebert (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are free to request arbitration, but such requests are usually not accepted unless you can show that they concern a difficult, serious problem that the community (or AE, if applicable) has been unable to solve. You can make an AE request if you want an Arbitration Committee decision enforced, or if you believe that the requirements for discretionary sanctions are met. See WP:AC/DS for these requirements.  Sandstein   17:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thank you.
 * Upon reflection, I came to a conclusion that the evidences about TTAAC's alleged personal attack should be reexamined. As I already pointed out, that should not affect his block (the topic ban violation was obvious), but "personal attack" as a reason for a block should be removed. To save our time, I can present these evidences here: briefly, MVBW removed a well sourced material that presents the opinion of mainstream Western scholars that Hitler was more responsible for the outbreak of war than Stalin. Obviously, to remove this content under a false edit summary means to whitewash Hitler. By doing that revert MVBW was acting as a proxy of an obviously anti-Semitic IP, and this revert gives an undue weight to the views of Irving and Suvorov (the first one is a known Holocaust denier). A reliable peer-reviewed sources (e.g. Matthew E. Lenoe. In Defense of Timasheff's Great Retreat. Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, Volume 5, Number 4, Fall 2004, pp. 721-730 Published by Slavica Publishers DOI:.) support this statement. If you want diffs, I can provide them.
 * Obviously, by doing that MVBW was definitely acting as Hitler's defender. I also have evidences confirming that MVBW is acting as a troll, and this story goes back to EEML times. Therefore, the TTAAC's words are not a personal attack, and it would be correct if your decision referred to topic ban violation as a sole reason for this totally justified block. I think that would be the most preferable scenario.
 * However, if you prefer other admins to re-review this case, could you please advise me how can I do that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Only sanctioned editors may appeal discretionary sanctions. See WP:AC/DS. I will therefore not discuss these sanctions here.  Sandstein   19:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Paul Siebert said a lot of bad things about me here, and without a shred of evidence. a "Hitler's defender", "a troll", "was acting as a proxy of an obviously anti-Semitic IP", "Irving". None of that is true. Should not that be a reason for blocking Paul Siebert for making personal attacks? My very best wishes (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are free to make a WP:AE request with proper diffs as evidence of you want this looked at - together with your own conduct, of course.  Sandstein   05:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will think about it. My very best wishes (talk) 06:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, are you going to be the admin who will review the AE case filed by MVBW? If yes, are you granting me a time to collect evidences against MVBW, and are you giving me a word extension? I also would like to know if the quotes (small quotes) from the emails EEML members were discussing possible actions against me can be presented.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Any admin may act on an AE request. But collecting evidence against others is, in my view, not a sufficient reason for a delay or word limit extension. That's because misconduct by others (if any) will normally not excuse or mitigate misconduct by you (if any). In the thread concerning you, you should focus on discussing your own conduct. If you believe that there is actionable misconduct by others, consider making a separate request about it.  Sandstein   20:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if you think that will work better, let's split it in two. Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Paul, you surprised me. I thought you are going to strike through all your accusations and apologize. There is no any recent evidence of my alleged "misconduct". My very best wishes (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, I have a technical question. TTAAC placed his appeal on his talk page. Do I understand correct it should be copied to the AE page? I am not familiarr with the procedure, and I don't know who is supposed to do that. Can it be any user, or only admins can do that? --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

AE appeal
Per TheTimesAreAChanging's request, I copied their appeal from their talk page to AE.Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

T-ban violation?
Hey Sandstein,

I've written this little piece for The Signpost, dealing with racism in the context of the WWII and Holocaust history topic areas. promptly replied with much outrage on my TP, despite no names or uniquely identifying information being mentioned. I believe it was a violation of her T-ban. What do you think? François Robere (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a connection to Poland in this post by GizzyCatBella. If you want this looked at more closely, please make a request at WP:AE.  Sandstein   12:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I wrote about an editor active in the topic area of WWII history, and she messaged me asking who they were. Isn't that a T-ban violation? François Robere (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Sandstein, I was hoping that the deletion  of an attack page (now deleted) produced by the François Robere would put an end to this chapter, but the persistence to get me sanctioned now incited this message.

After Primefac deleted the mentioned page, they were warned by Bovlb. They were however already warned also by you then concequently blocked by TonyBallioni  for this

Shouldn't François Robere be sanctioned for WP:NPA and WP:BATTLEGROUND in light of prior warnings and the fact that the area is under discretionary sanctions Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe? I'm contemplating about e-mailing ArbCom about, but maybe you, as a veteran administrator, could find an answer. I just want this chapter to be over, and I wish to forget about that nasty attack (as an administrator you have and access to the original page produced by François Robere). Regards.GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Both of you, I'm not processing AE requests here. If you think that there is a problem with the conduct of the other editor, go to WP:AE and file a request with proper evidence, and it will be looked at.  Sandstein   06:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. François Robere (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:FORUMSHOPPING, Bella. You already went with this to ANI and got rightfully rejected. François Robere (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

AE word limit
I had assumed that the 500 word limit applied to each response in each user's section of an AE request. As, here, you deleted most of what I'd written, I assume that it actually applies to the whole section. What are my choices if I want to respond to remarks made about my comments and my comments are already up against the 500 word limit? Am I screwed? Can I ask for permission to write more? Can I remove what I wrote earlier to make space?    ←   ZScarpia  20:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Normally yes, but not any more, because comments are now closed, we need to get on with this. You're not a party, so anything you write will most likely have a negliglible impact anyway - sorry to be blunt, but I speak of long experience at AE.  Sandstein   20:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The main reason for asking is so that I can bring the way I contribute on Arbritration pages in to line with rules and expectations. That's the first time I've had a statement guillotined, so it came as a bit of a surprise. It's been a while since I wrote anything at AE so I wondered if things had been tightened up. Apologies for adding to your workload.       ←   ZScarpia  20:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Page Deletion of Huzoor Muhaddith e kabeer Hazrat Allama Zia Ul Mustafa Qaadri Amjadi.
Hello, I had a request on the Deletion of the page mentioned above. I read the Debate Archive and find it un reliable for you to delete it. Pls allow to create the Page again and i will make sure to put the correct information.

The other questions if u have i can answer them.

Kind Regardss

15:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.250.226.84 (talk)
 * If you're referring to Articles for deletion/Huzoor Muhad’dith e Kabeer Hazrat Allama Zia ul Mustafa Qaadiri Amjadi, "I read the Debate Archive and find it un reliable for you to delete it" isn't a valid argument and is hardly a coherent sentence. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, according to what i see from the debate archive i would also request you undo the thread. Zubedamadeena (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Aren't you the same IP from Tanzania, above? I find it unlikely that you registered an account simply to agree with what someone else said. Please read WP:FIRSTARTICLE as well as WP:SOCK. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * IP and Zubedamadeena, nothing of what you write makes any sense, so I won't do anything.  Sandstein   16:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Pro-forma DRV notification for Roc Ordman
On today's page. You know the drill. —Cryptic 19:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

A German WP question
I've been working on an English version of the dewiki article on the kidnapping and death of Ursula Herrmann in my userspace. I see in the German article (and all dewiki articles involving criminal complaints that I can see) that the accused and even the convicted are referred to by a first name and an initial. Is that a German legal requirement, or is it a customary practice in dewiki? I don't see such redaction in the German press coverage, in which the convicted perpetrator (who was convicted on disputed evidence) is fully named.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's more of a German wikipedia policy or custom, I think. German law and media practice tend to be much more protective of privacy than in the US, and this has influenced German Wikipedia community practice. It's not uniform, though.  Sandstein   06:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I thought it was a bit odd, and perhaps related to something in EU internet policy. It sounds like it's like an expanded version of a German BLPCRIME guideline.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I wish we would swing that way too. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

MVBW AE
Thank you for freezing the page. Actually, as I've already announced on the AE page I am currently finalizing my response on this version of MVBW's report, and I have no opportunity to address any newer accusations. If that is ok, I am going to post my final response in next few hour.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I will address the last version: it will not take long to make adjustments. Since MVBW is not capable of modifying this page any more, that's ok. A technical question: how do I edit a closed discussion? How can I add my response there? Should I add it under the discussion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You just overwrite your placeholder text with your response. It's up to you which version of the complaint you address. Admins will likely base their decision on the most recent version.   Sandstein   14:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you again for having stopped that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, I am finalizing my response, and the word count is around 600 (I use MS Word, so I don't know the actual word count). The last paragraph is my response on the evidence #7, where MVBW cherry-picked the fact from a conversation between me and one my wiki-friend, where I inadvertently made public some important facts from my family history. Before I will make this post, I want to be sure that it will not be cut arbitrarily, because all of that is a sensitive matter. Please, let me know if you are going to cut it exactly at 500 (according to your counter), or additional ~100 words are ok. Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 600 is ok with me, but I can't speak for other admins.  Sandstein   21:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I posted the statement, but, due to some glitch the last line (the word count) appeared in the admin section. Can you please remove it? Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Apparently, I was able to fix it myself.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Sandstein, I have a technical question. MVBW continues to draw other's attention to the old discussion with one my wiki-friend (on his talk page) where I presented some facts about the life and death of my very close relatives during WWII. I admit it was not wise to post it there (I didn't realize anybody else would read it), and I understand that formally MVBW has a right to do that. Since that information is not related to any misconduct from my side, is it technically possible to remove it from archives and from the talk page history? Sincerely, --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I stricked through this diff because you asked. My very best wishes (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think freezing the page was completely appropriate. By the same token, if Paul is going to submit an AE request about me (as he promised), I would like to ask Paul to keep main part of his request (Diffs #1, #2, etc.) intact, so I would be able to reply point-by-point (Diffs #1, #2, etc.). I still hope though that Paul will change his mind because there is nothing to report on AE about me. My very best wishes (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Sandstein, MVBW made a good point: it is incorrect and ridiculous when the user who filed an AE report continues to edit it after the answer has been posted. I think it would be fair to prohibit further modifications of accusations after the response had been posted. Otherwise, it is quite possible that an accused user will be physically unable to update the response every time when new evidences are being posted (or old ones are removed).
 * One possibility is to allow the accused user to submit a permalink of the AE page that corresponds to the moment the response was made, and to request admins to analyze only those evidences that are presented in that version of the page.
 * Again, that would be fair, and that puts both parties in equal conditions.
 * As an act of a good faith, I voluntarily take an obligation to post my evidences only once (I reserve a right to make a couple of cosmetic changes), and after that I am not going to change the text.
 * In addition, I have a technical question. I realized that do demonstrate a civil POV-pushing pattern as well as similar examples of system gaming, it is quite necessary to present evidences of systematic, not sporadic violations, which means 20 diff may be not sufficient. That also requires a detailed analysis of a content (and its context), for we are dealing not with a simple edit-warrior of uncivil user, where the diffs are self-evident. That is why I need at least 1000 words and 40 diffs. I asked GorillaWarfare, and the answer was that I have to make a request first, and then the admins decide if the word limit extension is granted. In connection to that, I am wondering if, in the case if a word extension is not granted, am I allowed to retract my accusations and to request to open the arbitration case instead?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I can almost guarantee you that no admin at AE will read and analyze 1000 words and 40 diffs. At least I won't. So, no. If your case is that complex, you can request arbitration to begin with. But the case will not be accepted without prior serious dispute resolution efforts at the community level.  Sandstein   06:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What is, in your opinion, a reasonable words extension, and are references/footnotes included in a word limit?
 * With regard to a resolution at a community level, do I understand correct that all subjects related to areas covered by DS should be discussed here, not at ANI? If yes, any discussion at ANI will be redirected to AE. What other dispute resolution efforts can be taken (it seems it is too late for mediation or RfC)?
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Paul, we do not have any active content disagreements or disputes with you anywhere, including page Icebreaker (Suvorov). What mediation? What RfC? What ANI? I still strongly disagree with your version of Gas van, but I stopped editing it a year ago, precisely to avoid disputes with you. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not a mediator. See WP:DR for additional possible venues.  Sandstein   16:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, it seems MVBW's has withdrawn his #7 accusation. Can you please strikethrough my response #7? I think that would be fair. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, I also would like to ask you to allow me to make one minor edit in my part. I made it now just to make clear what it was. My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, both of you stop fiddling with the AE please. I'll take a look at it tomorrow if I have time so that we can move on.  Sandstein   18:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. If you or/and other admins could make some judgements on the current AE requests, that would be most helpful. My very best wishes (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Kyla Carter
Hi Sandstein, I'm wondering if you could please take another look at Articles for deletion/Kyla Carter. Nearly all the keep voters have now been blocked as sockpuppets, and the remaining keep votes really aren't very convincing. One of the keep voters claims Kyla is an "award winner" (although the award itself is not notable), and another one refers to IMDB to provide evidence for her body of work. I never got a chance to vote in the AfD, but I just went through the sources in detail and recorded my conclusions on the talk page, and I can't find any significant coverage of this subject anywhere. This falls far short of what we'd expect for a BLP of a 13-year old kid, but I'm not sure what should be done about it. I'm curious to hear your thoughts. – bradv  🍁  15:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've relisted the AfD.  Sandstein   16:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Explain yourself.
Why have you marked List of Borderlands franchise characters for deletion? Googinber1234 (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For the reasons given at Articles for deletion/List of Borderlands franchise characters.  Sandstein   06:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

There are no real reasons given there; the bulk of the information on the list page could not reasonably be added to the series page, and there is definitely more than enough information for its own page. Also, we don't delete any valid character lists. Googinber1234 (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You can make these arguments in the deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/List of Borderlands franchise characters. Nobody else will read them here.  Sandstein   06:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

You still didn't answer my question or address my point that we indeed don't delete main character lists. I came here with these messages to personally, correctively and educationally confront you about your destructive proposition which I can only imagine you have done similar offenses before. Googinber1234 (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree. We do regularly delete content that fails our policies such as WP:V and WP:N (no reliable third-party sources), or MOS:REALWORLD (articles covering fiction only from the fiction's perspective, not the real world's).  Sandstein   06:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

We do not delete main character lists for series. If any policy suggests that doing so is acceptable, then that policy is wrong and needs to be abolished. Googinber1234 (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

More specifically, what parts of the article do you feel are incorrect or incorrectly written? I can help improve them as identified. Googinber1234 (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of wrong, it's a matter of indiscriminate information. Please read MOS:REALWORLD and WP:IINFO.  Sandstein   19:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

If it's not a matter of being wrong, and the information is not disputed, then there is no issue.

I unequivocally REJECT these policies you're referring to with absolute contempt for them. No human authority on Earth will ever make me abide by these WRONG policies which it is explicitly my point to ABOLISH.Googinber1234 (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, good luck with that.  Sandstein   16:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)