User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2020/June

Aleksandar Ljubic
I would like to recreate page Aleksandar LjubicAleksandraaleksandarmarkovic (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , good luck with that.  Sandstein   09:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

new section
Hi, Sandstein. I was wondering how we can get more uninvolved users to comment on Articles for deletion/Plav-Gusinje massacres (1912-13) (2nd nomination) without it being considered canvassing. How would that work? If nothing else, maybe we should leave it up for two or three more days before closing it. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't know either. Ideally, this discussion would need input by people who are not associated with one of the various sides in the Balkans conflicts, but I'm not aware of a suitable forum for making such requests for input.  Sandstein   07:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Re-appearance of deleted article Ring (programming language)
Hi Sandstein. I think you were the admin who closed the deletion of. The page was re-created only 4 days after the previous deletion and there have basically been no edits by anyone else except the original author. 

I'm guessing the body of the page is the same-ish as the one that was deleted. In the absence of any compelling new notability, is it worth re-proposing it for deletion? Thanks for your work. peterl (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have deleted and salted this substantially identical article per WP:G4. Thanks for the notice.  Sandstein   07:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Please restore the article, see the (further reading section) for new references for notability. (The new references includes a book published by Apress - over 600 pages) Charmk (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * See the separate thread below.  Sandstein   07:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a new reference provide significant coverage for notability : https://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Ring-Programming-Novice-Professional/dp/1484258320 Charmk (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

1907–08 Williams Ephs men's ice hockey season
Would you mind returning the page. I had fixed the concerns that were originally brought up and the link that User:Hockeyben does reference several games for the 1907-08 season despite what User:Fram said. The article, when I first posted it, was incomplete and many references were hidden until I could finish them. I missed the original question from Fram because they replied to Hockeyben and didn't receive a notification.
 * No. I do not understand what you mean by the above, but the article was deleted for being unsourced, and this statement does not address these concerns.  Sandstein   19:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I missed the further discussion on AfD, my bad. The statement that the article was unsourced is inaccurate. See pages 69, 71 and 72 of this book https://books.google.com/books?id=nKgXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=williams+hockey+1910&source=bl&ots=PkgJrIYLUh&sig=ACfU3U1UDrex14aR02192_CoO2Z--9Q2lQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjug9r_kcfoAhVLMt8KHT2HDTUQ6AEwD3oECAwQKA#v=onepage&q=williams%20hockey%201908&f=false which is an official publication by Williams College for 1908 game results. -- Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 20:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , this source was already discussed at Articles for deletion/1907–08 Williams Ephs men's ice hockey season and didn't convince others. I can't overturn the closure on this basis.  Sandstein   07:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Here's some more sources that can be incorporated into the article: North Adams Transcript 1908-01-20 (summary of Williams-Adams Crescents game), Boston Globe 1908-01-26 (summary of Williams-Springfield game), North Adams Transcript 1908-02-10 (summary of Williams-Union game),https://unbound.williams.edu/williamsarchives/islandora/object/gulielmensian%3A9393#page/281/mode/1up 1909 Williams College Yearbook. This should be plenty. -- Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 07:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I am asking the participants in Articles for deletion/1907–08 Williams Ephs men's ice hockey season for advice whether they think these sources now make the article verifiable and notable: what do you think?   Sandstein   10:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The source that was in the article, and the Williams College yearbook, are both primary sources and do nothing to establish notability. Routine game overage on its own is rarely sufficient to keep an article. Fram (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Verifiability was not in question for me. I considered that deletion was appropriate because the article consisted, for all material purposes, of sports statistics and game results. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac; see WP:IINFO. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Based on this input, these sources would not have changed the outcome of the AfD, and accordingly I decline to restore the article.  Sandstein   20:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Theresa Greenfield
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Theresa Greenfield. 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. Please don't take personally, I just felt the decision to redirect was premature. There wasn't really a consensus. Smith0124 (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Please restore (Ring Programming Language) article
The article was a draft for one year since the last deletion decision During this period the article is improved with new references that establish notability See the (further reading) section in the deleted article Thanks Charmk (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , please provide the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability for this topic that were not already in the deleted article.  Sandstein   07:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * (1) English Book (2020) : https://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Ring-Programming-Novice-Professional/dp/1484258320 - (688 pages)

(2) Arabic Book (2020) : https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/50632082 - (2 pages review - 56-67) Both 1,2 are printed books. (3) Arabic Book : https://www.kutub.info/library/book/22291 (over 100 pages) + over 300 videos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VIHMyrEilw&list=PLHIfW1KZRIfl6KzfLziFl650MmThnQ0jT) Both of them by a verified YouTube channel (over 177K subscribers) These are the new resources + the old resources (in Youm7) + Ring is a free-open source project ---> Looks satisfy the minimum criteria. Charmk (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am asking the participants in Articles for deletion/Ring (programming language) for advice whether they think these sources now establish the topic's notability: what do you think?, please do not comment here again until these other editors have done so.   Sandstein   10:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that re-creation is appropriate. The first book listed is written by "one of the leading contributors to the new Ring programming language", and so I would say it fails the "independent of the subject" portion of WP:GNG. (However, "Apress" does appear to be a legit publisher. So I think the existence of this book provides at least weak evidence of notability.) The other two sources are hard for me to evaluate, as I can't read Arabic. Number 3 appears to be self-published. For the second source, I'm not seeing any mentions of the Ring programming language in the linked description (though this could just be a deficiency in Google translate). Colin M (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Apress is a significant computer book publisher, so that's a plus, but the book is written by someone listed on the Ring team page. But that doesn't show me what I really want to see: who uses Ring? Where is it used? What notable projects have been done in Ring? Even a very small language Squirrel (programming language) lists what I'm after:
 * Quote "It is used extensively by ", "is also used in, and ...and in engine"
 * Without this information, we have a very well documented, probably interesting, programming language, with many tutorials, a couple of books, but no real notability. peterl (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks to for the useful feedback. The Ring team page  list only five members (Fayed, Zsolt, Mariani, Rosado, Esteban). Other names like the Book author belongs to other sections like (Special Thanks for your support and spreading the word!). Ring 1.0 is developed by Fayed alone, Actually most of code commits  are done by the five members in Ring team. When someone writes a book about a new open-source programming language, it's common behavior from book authors to contribute to the new languages during this long period of usage (writing a book over 600 pages usually consumes many months). for example Programming Ruby , Nim in Action books, the authors discovered a new programming language, tested it and decided to write a book about it, during this time they may interact with the original team to report problems and maybe submit code too. Charmk (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Quote "Without this information, we have a very well documented, probably interesting, programming language, with many tutorials, a couple of books, but no real notability". Usage in notable projects is more related to the programming language age and popularity, not the notability of the article topic. Squirrel is 17 years old! Ring is 4 years old!. a lot of new programming language doesn't have notable projects, ex : Ballerina, Reason. Also Ring exist in TIOBE index (top 100) so this means at least the minimum level of popularity (which is not related to notability and this discussion). but the existence of these resources in companies websites is a good indicator Charmk (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * Ballerina was developed by notable company WSO2 and has a strong entry at
 * Reason was developed by Facebook and lists many other users at
 * Yes, Ring is in the Tiobe index, but has slipped from 45 in February 2018 to "50 to 100" in March 2020.
 * The two references you provided for users are GLink Solutions (a non-notable web dev company) and one single non-notable game on Steam.
 * peterl (talk)
 * No inherited notability, so Ballerina being developed by WSO2 or Reason was developed by Facebook doesn't means it's notable (Just an indicator). For notability we care about references and significant coverage.
 * Quote "and has a strong entry at", Yes, and a book is much better as a reference than an article, Ring have a book. Also Ballerina have a new book too (Beginning Ballerina Programming by Apress) that I added to the Ballerina article last month. Ballerina_(programming_language)
 * Quote "but has slipped from 45 in February 2018 to (50 to 100) in March 2020." For notability we care about significant coverage (not popularity)
 * Quote "The two references you provided for users are GLink Solutions". I just added them as indicator about usage (these references are not related to the notability discussion)
 * Charmk (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Ring is free and open-source project and from we notice "The way the app is distributed. It is reasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open-source software, if significance can be shown.". So we have more options too. Charmk (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Noted. But I'm still seeing if significance can be shown. peterl (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * From references what is significant about Ring are
 * Visual Implementation - The language Compiler and VM is developed using Visual Programming - I don't know about any other programming language that it's implementation is visual.
 * Easy Translation - The language support changing keywords/operators many times.
 * Support many programming paradigms but comes with lightweight implementation.
 * New ideas for merging declarative and natural language programming with object-oriented.
 * Charmk (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

, I decline to restore the article because your arguments did not convince the other AfD participants. Please do not continue the discussion about sources here.  Sandstein  07:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Tolu' A Akinyemi
Hi, you deleted this article? Editors voted for it to be relisted? Olatunde Brain (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have no idea what you mean by that.  Sandstein   08:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Can i recreate the article at AFC?--Olatunde Brain (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , only if in doing so you address the problems identified in the AfD.  Sandstein   08:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It was deleted for lacking enough reliable sources and i have provided more at DRV, reason why i was surprised that it was deleted but i read your comment on closing the DRV.--Olatunde Brain (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @, Hello please see WP:PAID & WP:COI & ensure to adhere accordingly before proceeding to create more articles. You may choose to see the WP:COIBOARD also. Furthermore the decision to delete the article was upheld at the deletion review. Remember also that a DRV isn’t an AFD round two. Celestina007 (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Sandstein, I just saw your close at DRV and I must say I disagree. It's left us in a limbo where we have a draft of a notable individual, who clearly passes WP:GNG, has just been declined at AfC here Draft:Tolu' A Akinyemi even though there are several people who believe this article should be kept. I was hoping you'd relist the AfD, considering there was no issue with the close itself, but several people at the discussion noted the DRV discussion was defective and wished to contribute to the consensus of the discussion - would you be at all willing to do so? If not, what do you suggest about getting the article into mainspace, where it belongs? SportingFlyer  T · C  19:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't have an opinion myself, but the consensus of the AfD was that the individual was in fact not notable, and at DRV there was not the required consensus to change this assessment. The only way to restore the article would be to create a new version with sources not already discussed at AfD and seek explicit or implicit consensus for its restoration.  Sandstein   19:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's right, though. Myself, Hobit, S Marshall, Brigade Peron, and Devonian Wombat all suggested relisting. Three users who weren't involved in the AfD discussion endorsed the close, Reyk, Alpha3031, and Robert McClenon. Alpha3031 noted that a relist was possible, Reyk said they would have voted !keep at the AfD, suggesting the individual actually is notable, and Robert McClenon only looked at whether the close was appropriate (and the close was appropriate given the discussion, it's just that the discussion was flawed.) I guess I'll go ahead and add additional sources to the draft, but I shouldn't have to, and this is going to continue to be an issue. Please reconsider. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the problem we've got is that none of the sources appear to have been considered in the AfD. At least none were mentioned though they were in the article. So, I guess we should get a clarification from you.  In your reading of the AfD, what sources were considered for purposes of your response above? Hobit (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * and, it seems that somebody has restored the article with more sources at Tolu' A Akinyemi. So I think this question will have to be be resolved, if ever, in a new AfD.  Sandstein   17:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

EGS: El Goonish Shive
Could I have a copy of EGS: El Goonish Shive moved to my my sandbox for when there are eventually enough references for it to be an article? KMWeiland (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @Sandstein, see also the history at El Goonish Shive and User:Mèþru/El Goonish Shive; the reason this latest incarnation was created at that awkward "EGS: El Goonish Shive" title rather than its actual name is presumably an attempt to do an end-run around the create protection after the page was created and deleted (at the correct title) . &#8209; Iridescent 21:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I do not undelete articles.  Sandstein   21:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I do not undelete articles.  Sandstein   21:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

AfD ban
Your move to effectively ban editors who have a history of editing Balkan articles from participating at a related process is quite insulting. Rather than discarding or ignoring such editors, you could have found other ways to address your concerns. Ways such as weighting arguments based on relevant policies or ignoring "Balkan editors" and counting "non-Balkan !votes" in the second AfD discussion, without opening a 3rd AfD. To avoid any misunderstanding, I do not doubt your good will and desire to find a solution that benefits Wikipedia. I have seen your long history in opposing Balkan nationalist editing, and you helped me in some cases when I reqesuted admin assistance. But that does not change the insult I feel when I see my opinion being discarded and not taken seriously that way. The editors are volunteers, and a volunteer to be able to make positive contribution to a project needs to feel welcome rather than discarded. I will not appeal the decision as I do not have the time and for me it is not important whether the article stays, gets deleted or merged. What made me write this post is the bad feeling that treatment of editors and contributions gives me. Try to find other ways to address Balkan disputes in the future as indeed there are many. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I take your point. But I think that discounting or giving less weight to Balkans users (if there was even anybody else there?) in the second AfD would present the same problems as excluding them from the third one. I've yet to think of a better solution.  Sandstein   16:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The way AfD discussions are supposed to be settled is by weighting how do the given arguments stand against the relevant policies, regardless of the number of !votes or the background of the participants. Another option, by considering the second AfD as some kind of special case, would have been to determine the outcome by comparing the overall opinions with the opinion of the "non-Balkan editors". There actually were 3 participants who can not in any way be described as "Balkan editors", whatever definition one gives to the term. And you did not even need to say in the closing comment that you had given more weight to the specific editors. Nobody would realize that, and nobody would feel discarded by the 3rd AfD. There were many ways to give a resolution to the 2nd AfD. After all, Balkan disputes with such problems take place on a daily basis, and this one did not need to become more complicated and a source of unhappiness. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I am surprised that the idea of banning editors from an AfD because they have identified themselves or their ancestors as coming from a certain region of the world has not received more negative attention. I personally am inclined to take this situation to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, unless you can convince me that this does not constitute discrimination against editors based on nationality/ethnicity or that it is a proper action to take pursuant to established Wikipedia policy. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , the restriction does not discriminate against editors based on their nationality or ethnicity. It excludes editors who have on-wiki associated themselves with the Balkans topic area through their editing, irrespective of their personal circumstances or origins. The reason for the restriction is because I think we should try whether consensus can be found from an outside perspective. The sanction can be appealed as described at WP:AC/DS, but only by editors who are subject to it, which you do not seem to be.  Sandstein   06:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't your intent to discriminate against editors based on nationality or ethnicity, I would recommend modifying the provisions of the AfD which state, "Editors associated with the Balkans may not edit this page. ... For the purposes of this sanction, an editor is deemed to be associated with the Balkans if their username or user page indicates or previously indicated any connection to a place in the Balkans ..." (italics added). By my understanding, if a user displays, say, Template:User Croatian-ancestry or Template:User ancestry Bosnian or Template:User Ethnic Macedonian or User:Saimdusan/Userboxes/Serb  or Template:User citizen Montenegro or Template:User from Kosovo or Template:User in Slovenia on their userpage, or has done so in the past, then they are not supposed to participate in the AfD. I agree with the idea of prohibiting editors who were ever sanctioned for editing about the Balkans from participation, and I can understand why you might want to restrict editors who have made recent substantive edits to any page related to the Balkans, but the "any connection to a place in the Balkans" restrictions does seem targeted nationality/ethnicity (to the extent self-described on one's userpage). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , on consideration, I agree, and will accordingly amend the sanction.  Sandstein   07:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Ktrimi but there are other reasons too -- such a ban on "Balkan topic editors" is poorly constructed. On the one hand, in order to avoid being discriminatory, you can't do it based on people's ethnicities or geographical origins. On the other hand, it will specifically eliminate every last editor who is knowledgeable of the area and invested in the quality of the topic area, regardless of their origins. What are you left with? People who don't know what they are voting on... and people who are in fact Balkan nationalists but don't edit in the topic area usually. It is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, while still leaving half the bathwater in the tub as algae grows in it. --Calthinus (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't disagree that this is a concern, but Wikipedians without Balkans experience are still able to determine whether a topic is at least notable based on reliable sources. They don't need to improve the article, just determine whether it should exist.  Sandstein   17:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For the specific AfD -- a matter I don't know enough about and couldn't decide how to vote for -- I cannot dispute this. But I am concerned about the possibility of this policy being reproduced elsewhere.--Calthinus (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Plav-Gusinje AfD restriction
Hi. I happened to see the above discussion concerning the restrictions you imposed against editors associated with the Balkans editing an AfD discussion you reconvened. I appreciate your interest in keeping order in a contentious discussion on a difficult topic, and sometimes trying a new approach can be a good thing. Nonetheless, it is fairly clear to me that excluding a group of editors from an AfD, precisely on the ground that they are the ones most likely to be knowledgeable about the topic, is not an authorized or acceptable manner of proceeding.

I am prepared to take this issue to AE to determine whether others see your approach as creative and helpful, or as inappropriate and a potentially damaging precedent. I see that three other editors have already approached you on this subject, and considered simply going straight to AE, but first would be interested in considering any other comments you might have before I file the appeal. My current draft of what I would post on AE can be found in my sandbox, if you would care to take a look at it for more details of my concerns. Thank you for your response. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for contacting me. I have withdrawn the AfD (Articles for deletion/Plav-Gusinje massacres (1912-13) (3rd nomination)) because I concluded that it is unlikely to result in a consensus, given people's concerns about my restriction and the lack of substantive opinions so far.
 * But I disagree with your contention that the restriction was inadmissible based on current WP:AC/DS procedures:
 * The point of discretionary sanctions, as the name indicates, is to put it into individual administrators' discretion what to do to resolve editing problems in certain topic areas. "Discretion" means that there is a limit to how much other editors or even arbitrators should second-guess the exercise of such discretion. I do not see any attempt at such restraint in your draft appeal, in which you would simply review the restriction de novo, and in which you would even ignore ArbCom's long-standing rule that only sanctioned editors have standing to appeal a sanction. I am concerned at this lack of respect for ArbCom's own procedures from an arbitrator, and it recalls to me that the same lack of predictability is why I stopped regularly reviewing AE requests.
 * On the merits, no rule of Wikipedia prohibits limiting access to certain pages on the basis of an editor's editing history. In fact, much of our ruleset can be read as a set of exceptions to the principle that this is an encyclopedia that everybody can edit. The mechanisms of blocking, protection and pending changes, as well as ArbCom's various restrictions applying to certain topic areas (discretionary sanctions, topic bans, the "500/30 rule" applying to the Arab-Israeli conflict, etc.) are examples of such exceptions. My restriction at issue here is not substantially different from these accepted restrictions, and much more limited in impact. A much better argument against it would be that it borders on using ArbCom's authority to resolve content disputes, which we do not want to do. That's also a reason why I withdrew the AfD.  Sandstein   07:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The point of discretionary sanctions, as the name indicates, is to put it into individual administrators' discretion what to do to resolve editing problems in certain topic areas. "Discretion" means that there is a limit to how much other editors or even arbitrators should second-guess the exercise of such discretion. I do not see any attempt at such restraint in your draft appeal, in which you would simply review the restriction de novo, and in which you would even ignore ArbCom's long-standing rule that only sanctioned editors have standing to appeal a sanction. I am concerned at this lack of respect for ArbCom's own procedures from an arbitrator, and it recalls to me that the same lack of predictability is why I stopped regularly reviewing AE requests.
 * On the merits, no rule of Wikipedia prohibits limiting access to certain pages on the basis of an editor's editing history. In fact, much of our ruleset can be read as a set of exceptions to the principle that this is an encyclopedia that everybody can edit. The mechanisms of blocking, protection and pending changes, as well as ArbCom's various restrictions applying to certain topic areas (discretionary sanctions, topic bans, the "500/30 rule" applying to the Arab-Israeli conflict, etc.) are examples of such exceptions. My restriction at issue here is not substantially different from these accepted restrictions, and much more limited in impact. A much better argument against it would be that it borders on using ArbCom's authority to resolve content disputes, which we do not want to do. That's also a reason why I withdrew the AfD.  Sandstein   07:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * On the merits, no rule of Wikipedia prohibits limiting access to certain pages on the basis of an editor's editing history. In fact, much of our ruleset can be read as a set of exceptions to the principle that this is an encyclopedia that everybody can edit. The mechanisms of blocking, protection and pending changes, as well as ArbCom's various restrictions applying to certain topic areas (discretionary sanctions, topic bans, the "500/30 rule" applying to the Arab-Israeli conflict, etc.) are examples of such exceptions. My restriction at issue here is not substantially different from these accepted restrictions, and much more limited in impact. A much better argument against it would be that it borders on using ArbCom's authority to resolve content disputes, which we do not want to do. That's also a reason why I withdrew the AfD.  Sandstein   07:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for considering my input. On the issue of lex standi, the reason I thought this appeal should be raisable by anyone was that I was questioning the concept of this type of restriction, rather than merely a specific instance of it. If an administrator topic-bans User:X from a topic, or blocks User:Y as an AE sanction, it's well-established that topic-bans and blocks are a legitimate type of sanction. The only question is whether X's or Y's editing warrants the topic-ban or block, and if he or she accepts it, then there's usually no need to argue about it. (Although, I can still think of instances that could have warranted exceptions.) By contrast, the issue here was whether an admittedly novel type of sanction should be authorized, which raises broader questions of policy that anyone should be able to raise for discussion. Arguably the appropriate forum would have been ARCA rather than AE, but the process is usually to allow the AE admins to address these things before bringing them to the Committee. (Obviously, I was not acting in my arbitrator capacity regarding this matter.)

As for the underlying question of administrator discretion to impose novel types of sanctions, discretionary sanctions authority is broad for a reason, but it is not unlimited, and it's surely legitimate to argue that a type of sanction raises more problems than it solves. In recognition of that discretion, if this had gone to an appeal, you as the sanctioning administrator would have enjoyed a presumption that the sanction was proper; it would have been overturned only if a "clear and substantial consensus" of uninvolved administrators agreed with me rather than you. There's no other type of admin action I can think of in which the first mover enjoys such a strong presumption of correctness. But it's still a rebuttable presumption, not an eternal one.

Nor did I suggest that we can never limit editing of particular pages to particular groups of editors; we do that every time we semiprotect a page, and of course far more strictly in places such as arbitration case proposed decision pages. I did believe, however, that barring "editors associated with the Balkans" from an AfD about Balkan history, and even preemptively from any ensuing DRV, was very, and dispositively, different from these other types of restrictions. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Entertainment industry response to George Floyd protests
Appears to have been recreated as a redirect despite ". Redirect isn't really advocated here, probably because the title isn't an obvious search term. As a result, plain "delete" is probably the most consensual option.".Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , then the redirect can be nominated at WP:RfD.  Sandstein   10:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Which I can never figure out how to do, as it is such a pain in the arse.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , go to Special:Preferences and activate Twinkle, it automates the process.  Sandstein   10:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I just uses the supplied templates and its a mess. Why does copy and past not work?Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , it is indeed very cumbersome, hence the need for automation.  Sandstein   10:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Its no cumbersome, it just is either very baldy explained (as in you follow the instructions and it does not in fact work), or its broken (but as it seems to work that is unlikely). But this is the end of my rant, its not as if its your fault.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Opening and summary for terms with multiple meanings
Re your edit to Rhubarb, like many English words for plant-based foods, "rhubarb" has two meanings: it can refer to the whole plant from which the food is derived, or it can refer only to the part that is eaten. I'm not clear how you can say this accurately without using the word "refer". Peter coxhead (talk) 08:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think the way it is works now - "Rhubarb is a vegetable, and the whole plant is also called rhubarb".  Sandstein   16:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Although rhubarb is only a "vegetable" in the strict botanical sense. It's sold under "fruit" in supermarkets, and treated as a fruit in recipes, e.g. here. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franzen (cyclist)
Hi Sandstein, thank you for closing Articles for deletion/Franzen (cyclist). I think you didn't notice that 9 other articles were also nominated in that discussion. Can you please revisit and delete these 9 as well? Fram (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , done, seems the script didn't recognize them.  Sandstein   10:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 May 29
Hi Sandstein. You closed this FFD as “keep”, but that was only not the only issued being discussed. The file is being used in multiple articles and your close only addressed the NFCC#1 aspect that was being discussed. Does your close apply to any particular non-free use or all possible non-free uses? When a non-free is deleted, it obviously means that all uses will be affected since the file no longer exists; however, when a non-free file is kept, it may be because one of its uses (not all) is considered NFCCP compliant. Would it be possible for you to clarify your close about which uses are deemed NFCCP compliant? — Marchjuly (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think the discussion came to a conclusion as regards the image's use on specific pages. It just concluded that it shouldn't be deleted.  Sandstein   10:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of page for "Atour"
Hi,

I was the original Author for the page for Iranian record producer Atour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atour

The page was deleted by you on June 5th 2020 on grounds of non-notability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Atour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Atour

Unfortunately, I could not participate in the discussions then. Following the general guides around deletion, I decided to contact you and raise my reasons why this deletion was not justified and the page should be re-instated.

I believe the discussions on the deletion were not thorough and the deletion was done without paying attention to this evidence. Atour clearly matches the criteria for notability mentioned here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability proven by significant coverage and in reputable and reliable sources such as Rolling Stone Magazine, Wonderland Magazine and Iraninan.com. You can also see that by the same resources being used for the pages on artists that he has worked with in the past and they seem to be considered notable by the same standards. He is without a doubt notable in terms of what Wikipedia guidelines defines the definition of notability.

Thanks


 * Sorry, you should have made this argument in the deletion discussion. That discussion is over now. Please WP:SIGN your talk page comments next time.  Sandstein   10:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Theresa Greenfield
Hi. Letting you know that with the national significant coverage about this person that has occurred after this AfD, I've re-started this article with the summary "Situation has changed dramatically since AfD closed with 'Unclear with respect to redirect' outcome. Very significant national coverage about Greenfield has occurred after AfD. Some added to article." Oakshade (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Theresa Greenfield
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Theresa Greenfield. 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.

As mentioned in the DRV, I think your close was fine for that moment in time. Given the change in coverage of this person, it was re-created but the nom in the AfD you closed re-directed again and has protected the article, hence the DRV. Oakshade (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Jamaal Bowman
I've nominated Jamaal Bowman for Deletion Review. In recent days, he has received national and international news coverage, and surely meets the notability criteria now. You can find the review here.

Porridge (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

persiana page
Please return the Persiana page so I can complete it. This page was returned by you. I was not on Wikipedia for a while and it was deleted without my vote. Please help me.Somayye95 (talk) 08:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , no. Because nobody owns an article, see WP:OWN, it can be deleted without your participation.  Sandstein   10:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for response. Is it possible that the article will be returned to complete and add new sources?Somayye95 (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes.  Sandstein   07:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

thank you Somayye95 (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The article has not been returned yetSomayye95 (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , indeed it has not.  Sandstein   15:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't understand what you meant. Is it possible to return the article to complete it? Somayye95 (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , it is possible, but I do not undelete articles.  Sandstein   07:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

what's the reason?Somayye95 (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I do not think it is a worthwhile use of my volunteer time.  Sandstein   08:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Satya Narayanan R for non-notability
Dear Sandstein,

You had deleted the article on Satya_Narayanan_R [] on the grounds of non-Notability. I would humbly request that the same be reconsidered. As proof of the same I would like to submit the following:

Interviews of the individual conducted by leading journals / newspapers

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Satya-Narayanan-R

https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/lsquoIf-in-doubt-do-not-hire-the-person/article20254382.ece

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/education/ed-tech-cos-reap-dividend-as-schools-univs-go-online/articleshow/74782879.cms

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/newsbuzz/cl-educate-to-invest-in-campus-based-startups/articleshow/72067506.cms

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/build-a-business-plan-for-yourself-not-for-an-investor-satya-narayanan-r/articleshow/7472021.cms?from=mdr

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/entrepreneurship/How-entrepreneurship-for-private-schools-is-being-stifled-by-the-government/articleshow/51300086.cms

https://collegedunia.com/news/g-22729-interview-mr-satya-narayanan-r-founder-and-chairman-at-career-launcher

https://www.amazon.in/Shayad-Yaheen-se-ho-Satya/dp/9350330121 - Book listed for sale on Amazon

https://www.apnnews.com/satya-narayan-shayad-yehein-se-ho/

https://hub.tie.org/e/reimagining-education - session taking place hosted by The Indus Entrepreneurs this month

Should you require, I can share more content to show his notability. Pls advise.

Arjwad (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am asking the participants in Articles for deletion/Satya Narayanan R for their view: what do you think?   Sandstein   09:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @, After reading the Wiki article on Satya Narayanan R I decided to nominate it for AfD because I found it to be purely promotional. Now when I checked the links provided by Arjwad, I will still stick to my earlier decision. I am closely involved in monitoring/clean-up/AfD discussions of non-notable wiki entries originating from India and South Asia. Articles like this one are nothing less than a pandemic (This is my personal view which can be easily contested by anyone. That's why I chose AfD route to generate necessary consensus). -Hatchens (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

About Global Child Prodigy Awards
Hello Sandstein, Why you have flagged & deleted the page of Global Child Prodigy Awards? What wrong happen with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajit.rox28 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , see Articles for deletion/Global Child Prodigy Awards.  Sandstein   18:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding fake allegation on Global Child Prodigy Awards like funding, criteria, website etc.
Personally i have done a research on the Global Child Prodigy Awards its main aim is to recognize the child prodigies and to create a globalization communication among(Children's) the future of the nations. I have gone through its website, but its clearly shows that it is supported by different dignitaries from all around the world(Refer : Supported. If it is an promotional event how it can be covered by famous media houses from all around the world & supported by government peoples, music directors and many high profile people . The criteria which has been considered is already mentioned the kid should be below 15 & the steps/Hierarchy of selecting kids are already defined. I have also seen the question was raised on the funding source but it is already mentioned on there website it is done by there sponsors and partners Significant coverage has been done by different media sources when i have gone through the google search there is enough reliable content from which it can be removed from the deleted wiki source & make it live. There are some blogs i have seen which can be a mode of inspiration for other kids & parents to not stop their child. --Ajit.rox28 (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

obsolete redirect, and original/historical/ancient/traditional/definitive power fist
'Powerfist' (link to the non-redirected Wikipedia page... the term is redirected) is a poorly-named (ungrammatical, bad grammar) popular culture term redirected to an article no longer even mentioning the term, but even if it wasn't run-together words (unlike in that game's literature, 'Power Fist') there's a historical/ancient term (actually set of terms in a language's dialects) needed to be redirected to first (otherwise disambiguation: ) Changquan.--dchmelik (t|c) 10:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , how does that concern me?  Sandstein   12:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Obvious, right(?:) You protected 'Powerfist' (link to the non-redirected Wikipedia page... the term is redirected) 12 years ago, but let it become obsolete, and so people have to ask you for editing (or permission) a better redirect or a disambiguation.--dchmelik (t|c)


 * The redirection and protection was the consensus outcome of the discussion Articles for deletion/Land Raider (Warhammer 40,000). But I agree that after 12 years the protection is likely no longer needed. I am therefore lifting it.  Sandstein   13:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Do you know if that always was, and still is, a big enough thing in the Warhammer 40,000 game (people were edit-warring I guess) that it still should be a disambiguation, or just use the historical term?  On the topic of it being in popular culture, now in Google I noticed close to 10 or more separate popular culture or story/TV/game different meanings of 'power fist.'  I don't know if those, even the Warhammer one, are 'notable,' as Wikipedia isn't Wikia.com/Fandom.com.  I haven't made a disambiguation page in years, but I'd do it in this case if I get a talk page message (I get emailed for my own page, but have been discouraged about Wikipedia since '00s so might not be able to get back to it otherwise... but a disambiguation on known historical terms still in practice, is one of the easier topics people might get in edit-/flame-wars about, like when the mediation group wouldn't mediate for me with one person then closed...  I also have to sleep now, and am busy with tasks/projects/classes but this is a topic I want to see linked accurately or with disambiguation, whatever you administrators decide.)


 * The historical term is apparently an entire family of Chinese martial arts (Wushu/Gongfu) systems/forms related to Long Fist (Changquan, linked.) I made one of the first Power Fist Kung Fu (Gongfu) pages years ago, with a Chinese transliteration, but it was 'speedily deleted,' yet now we have that transliterated-title one on Long Fist (now mentioning power fist.)  I don't know how large each is or if they should have separate pages, but Power Fist can't be a transliteration like Changquan, as there are several systems/forms with completely different Chinese words (maybe dialects in areas of Northern and Southern Kung Fu)... but I don't know about that.  I can do the disambiguation (initially to Changquan section) but as for separate article, China/Chinese & Kung Fu experts would have to do that... I'm just a hobbyist though would like to see topic more well-covered--dchmelik (t|c) 13:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I have no interest in either Warhammer or Chinese martial arts, and therefore cannot advise you.  Sandstein   15:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Warhammer and maybe 10 or 100+ other popular culture creations. Let them battle it out for the article name then.--dchmelik (t|c)

Your behavior is unacceptable
Do not put messages on my page under false pretenses. I read the discussion. You started it prematurely and have not proven the notability of Anita White. My reversions of your addition of the deletion template are completely justified--BaseFree (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , the notability of Anita White is no longer an issue. This was decided by the community at Articles for deletion/Anita White. As long as we have two articles about topics that are called "Lady A" - currently, Lady Antebellum and Anita White - we need to decide what we put in the page Lady A. The standard Wikipedia way to do this is a disambiguation page, see WP:DAB.
 * At any rate, as long as a "redirects for discussion" tag is on that page, Wikipedia rules forbid you from removing it until the discussion is over.  Sandstein   19:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The RfD passage says otherwise--BaseFree (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , what "passage"?  Sandstein   19:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Its section--BaseFree (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , this makes no sense. At any rate, as long as a deletion discussion is in progress, you must not remove the respective tags.  Sandstein   09:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , this makes no sense. At any rate, as long as a deletion discussion is in progress, you must not remove the respective tags.  Sandstein   09:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Bravo
I came across this statement while looking for an rsn discussion about one of the sources and I could not agree more. In fact, I've been compiling a lengthy list of sources that we really need to deprecate and blacklist here. The Statesmen and Deccan Chronicle might be two of the most widely used but worst offenders of this, along with TOI. They often publish (and republish) guest posts and do not identify them as such, nor do they identify editorial staff. This is a problem I found in this current afd, which I outlined in the source table. Praxidicae (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Concensus regarding draft
Goodday to you sir I was wondering if you could perhaps read through this draft https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ruan_Galdino The photo is awaiting Cc license. The citations, notability and its objectiveness is what I would like to discuss. Please let me what you think and if you could help me with this. Thank you DanceEnthusiast (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I am not interested in the topic and cannot advise you.  Sandstein   11:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you I appreciate the response. I could use your help. On my talk page is a speedy deletion. Is this deletion affecting my draft or redundant links? Sorry to bother. Thank youDanceEnthusiast (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , a page's deletion normally does not affect other pages.  Sandstein   19:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you.DanceEnthusiast (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Diamond Pistols article
Hello Sandstein,

I'm messaging in response to my article on Diamond Pistols which you deleted. I'm relatively new to wikipedia, and I'm just wondering if you can give me a more thorough explanation on why it was deleted. I provided an argument on why I thought he was notable as per the Wikipedia notability guidelines, and in the deletion discussion page, I didn't feel like my concerns were addressed at all. It seems a bit outdated to me that only news articles would qualify as sources that would denote notability, especially for the music industry. I put a lot of work into the article, so it would be helpful to understand what the real criteria are for articles getting deleted or not as other music producers with similar types of sources are still live on wikipedia.

Thanks, --Cluehitch (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , please see Articles for deletion/Diamond Pistols for the reasons for the deletion. While you did make valid arguments, nobody else was convinced of them. You did admit that "Diamond Pistols is lacking significant news coverage", and thereby you provided the deciding argument for deletion. Coverage in reliable sources is the determining factor for inclusion in Wikipedia, whatever the reasons for this coverage (or lack of coverage) may be.  Sandstein   08:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Dineout
Hi Sandstein, I understand that my article about Dineout has been deleted. And, it would be really helpful, if you can explain the reason for deletion. Also, there was more content and reference links that I was going include in article which will be helpful for readers. Hence, i would like to have a clear understanding of reason and if you can guide me on this. If the article can be moved back to drafts, I could edit it further and you could review it. Hoping for a positive response. R.Sawant2020 (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , please see Articles for deletion/Dineout for the reasons for deletion. Essentially, everybody was convinced that your article was advertising. I am not interested in helping you to advertise your company on Wikipedia, which is prohibited.  Sandstein   08:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

East Turkistan Government in Exile
Hi Sandstein, you protected East Turkistan Government in Exile from recreation in 2011. The page has subsequently been recreated recently at East Turkistan Government-in-Exile and the editor who recreated it as requested it be unprotected at WP:RFPP. Can you comment at the RFPP section if you have any thoughts on removing the protection? Looking at the new article it isn't "substantially" the same so can't be speedied but it might need an AFD. Cheers, Woody (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry, but I have no opinion about this matter.  Sandstein   06:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Clutch (Company) Copy
Hi! Is there a way I can see the copy of the Wikipedia page Clutch (Company) that you deleted? Both because even if it didn't get published it's still a lot of work to make it and it's cool to have for my records like other pages I wrote, and I was hoping to leave it in my Sandbox so if it starts to meet more notability requirements I have a rough draft/starting point for rewriting the article

Thanks! Mmillers82 (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't undelete pages, but you can try WP:REFUND.  Sandstein   06:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

James M Honeycutt Deletion
Hi Sandstein.

May I ask your reason for deleting the James M Honeycutt page which was nominated for non-notability? The afd discussion provided incontrovertible evidence that he held a distinguished professor chair at LSU which means he meets NPROF(5). The only other objection was that the page was messy and that is not a reason for deletion.

I want to give you a chance to reconsider before appealing the decision sice it is so clear that NPROF(5) is met.

Thanks,

VirtualSwayy (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , please link to the page or AfD.  Sandstein   20:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , it seems you refer to Articles for deletion/James M. Honeycutt. The reason for my closing his discussion as "delete" was that this was the unanimous view of everybody but you.  Sandstein   21:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Then I will of course appeal tomorrow, if you do not wish to reconsider today, since there is unambiguous evidence NPROF (5) is clearly met, he held a distinguished professorship. Simply tallying votes is inconsistent with the deletion guidelines which state that it's not a democracy and evidence based arguments should carry more weight. No matter how many agree, it is improper to substitute their personal opinion, or your own, over the clear wikipedia guidelinesVirtualSwayy (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * VirtualSwayy, emeritus status and having won some university-wide award do not add up to "distinguished professor". The "academic honorifics" you cite refers to awards given to distinguished professors. That your professor won an award doesn't mean that, therefore, he was a distinguished professor. You can appeal this, but you will be wasting your time. And here is another thing: if I happen to see that appeal, or any other formal discussion, and you insert walls of text and weird coding and formatting, I will simply revert, and you can redo it in plain text. Your Wikipedia experience is, what, one week; Sandstein's experience coupled with mine is old enough to have children, so that's also not a fight I would pick if I were you. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To put a finer point on this: you made your case at Articles for deletion/James M. Honeycutt and nobody agreed with you. You could complain at WP:DRV but no one there is going to agree with you, either. Generally, most people are not notable and never will be. Of those that are notable, there are not suitable sources to pass WP:GNG until after they die. You're trying to make a case about a subject-specific notability guideline which some editors don't think should exist, at all. I promise you that you are wasting your time. Please revisit this in a couple decades after the subject dies and the historians write sources for you. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Your refusal to believe the unambiguous evidence that Honeycutt held a distinguished professorship at LSU, and the method of awarding that is called the distinguished faculty award, is not enough reason for me to waste time relitigating it here. Presumably, the appeals process exists precisely for cases like this where people refuse to believe evidence they don't like. Also, this isn't picking a fight. The evidence is clear, so I'm sure Sandstein just missed it the first time and will now do the right thing. Your admission that people ignore the subject specific guidelines they don't like is excellent grounds for appeal, rather than a reason not to. VirtualSwayy (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * VirtualSwayy, you can't talk about Wikipedia guidelines and claim you're getting it right, while at the same time you are so clearly misunderstanding what Sandstein's role was here. Sandstein closed the discussion, which as Chris Troutman said was clearly leaning toward delete. No one accepted your arguments; even if Sandstein had accepted them, he couldn't have just said "ah well everyone is wrong, except for this one person; we're keeping it". That is not how this works. Chris and I have told you that you will be wasting your time. You can now choose: either you disregard what we say and that request will be shut down very quickly, or you choose the wiser route and simply accept not our judgment but our gift of clairvoyance. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

AfD
Congratulations. You have deleted Free Scotland Party. Now I can read all of these articles which mention it and not have a clue what it's about.

Mid Scotland and Fife (Scottish Parliament electoral region) Motherwell and Wishaw (UK Parliament constituency) Ochil and South Perthshire (UK Parliament constituency) Orkney and Shetland (UK Parliament constituency) 2007 Scottish Parliament election 2007 Inverclyde Council election Jim Fairlie History of the Scottish National Party

List of parties contesting the 2005 United Kingdom general election Emeraude (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)