Welcome to my talk page!
Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:
- Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.
- If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].
- If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.
Start a new talk topic
Can a page Alan Sabrosky be brought to AfD while it is protected from editing? Two tenacious editors who doggedly fought a recent, lengthy, AfD to no consensus, are now attempting to "improve" the article using FRINGE sources, and to block or minimize the use of WP:RS in proposed rewrites. After intense scrutiny of of claims being made to see multiple reasons why his career does not pass notability (such as a problematic assertion at the last AfD that a research appointment at at the Army War College carried him past WP:PROF because it was supported by a named endowment, although he has been an academic nomad, never tenured or given a full professorship; the fact that while he has written articles and monographs, the books cited are collections of essays he edited; and the fact that he is not widely cited,) I would like to bring it back to AfD. Is it permitted?E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- It is, though I express no opinion about whether renominating so soon is a good idea. I recommend asking the admin who protected the page. Sandstein 11:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- That administrator has no objections. My problem now is, How do I start an AfD on an article that is page protected from editing?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ask that admin to unprotect the page or post the AfD for you. Sandstein 17:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
AfD of Kilwins
Hi, you closed the AfD of Kilwins as no consensus which I can only understand if the AfD was simply looked at as a !vote counting exercise. Just about every Keep !vote reasoned that the article should remain because it is a big company. That isn't a reason as per our policies and guidelines. Not one Keep !vote provided a single link to any reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability - yet every article on a company/organization should have at least two. Can you please take another look at this? HighKing++ 19:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- There was quite thorough discussion of sources, and editors disagreed about what kind or quality of sources are sufficient for notability. That's a matter of editorial judgment, not something I can override by fiat. Sandstein 20:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hang on. Before we get to "editorial judgement" the closing admin has to weigh the strength of the arguments. This is the bit I don't get. Looking at what you wrote above ... there was zero discussion of specific sources since none of the Keep !voters could provide any specific sources! They were asked countless times to produce sources. None did. So all of their comments were generic and without detail. There was therefore no "quite thorough discussion" of sources that I can see. Also, editors did not "disagree" on what kind or quality of sources were sufficient for notability since there was very little engagement and no engagement at all on the "quality". Most of the "debate" consisted of my explanations to Teemu08 on the NCORP guidelines. Its probably true to say that the only editor to really attempt to "engage" over time was Teemu08 and he was new to AfD with no knowledge of WP:NCORP. Of the Keep !voters that mention sources, one says they've updated the article with more secondary sources (which is the easiest part of find sources to meet the criteria for establishing notability - the most difficult is passing ORGIND), one says the franchise gets a mention in the local press and that there are sources with general coverage of the company, and when it is pointed out that the sources don't meet NCORP, he admits that its a borderline case and the argument shifts to OTHERSTUFF and Steak Escape. The next says "I see enough coverage" but doesn't provide a single link, doesn't debate or put forward any other argument, and doesn't engage. And the last says that the "sources given in the article are of sufficient notability per WP:CORPDEPTH which does not make sense as an argument since sources are not required to be of "sufficient notability". As an aside, it could also be argued that most of the Keep !votes are also specifically included in arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I have no idea how you weighted the strength of arguments for each side as part of closing. In my summary I would have said "Keep says there's load of sources and it is a big company but "big company" has no weight in policy/guideline and none of the Keep !voters could produce even one single source that meets the criteria despite being asked. The Delete argument on the other hand constantly refers to policy/guidelines and points out the weakness in various references such as the ones from Miami New Times and richmond.com. None of the Delete arguments were shown to be incorrect or were successfully overturned." Can you please take another look at this? HighKing++ 21:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- There was discussion of sources, you just don't agree that they are adequate. Teemu08 wrote: "I have updated the article with more secondary sources". Timtempleton wrote: "There are also sources with general coverage of the company, a few of which I just added." power~enwiki wrote: "I see enough coverage." And so forth. I don't see a basis for a "delete" consensus here. Sandstein 21:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Not even on the basis of weighing the strength of arguments? Otherwise, you might as well be counting !votes. HighKing++ 21:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Or put another way. What else could I have done at the AfD to make the argument for Delete clearer/better? HighKing++ 21:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Just checking back. I'd appreciate a ping when you respond, thank you. HighKing++ 09:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- @HighKing: As noted above, I don't think that differing opinions about what makes a source good or not is something I can weigh in terms of strength of argument. Wikipedians can in good faith disagree about this. I don't know what you could have argued differently; it's just a fact that you didn't convince enough other people. Sandstein 09:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- I appreciate the response. I believe I understand your position. To paraphrase, you note that opinions are still divided and therefore there's no consensus? But (and perhaps this is the wrong place to ask) I want to really understand how much you've considered the "strength of arguments" and "underlying policy" as part of determining a "rough consensus" as per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. I've pointed out above that the Keep !voters didn't argue with respect to any policies or guidelines and didn't rebut any of my responses and most didn't engage. Of the ones that did engage, neither provided a strong counter argument. In those circumstances, I do not understand how can you weigh the Keep arguments as having the same weight of argument as the Delete arguments. Please explain. HighKing++ 10:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. As mentioned, I think that there are aspects of the application of our policies that don't have a clear-cut answer and depend on the judgment of editors individually or collectively, including the question of what number and quality of sources are needed for notability. Except in rare cases, I think that this is not a question in which I as closer should weigh in with a "supervote" because people may in good faith hold different opinions about such matters. Sandstein 11:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, I appreciate it. I'm still struggling with understanding how, in those circumstances, a closing admin can consider/weigh "strength of arguments" with regard to "underlying policy" without, essentially, having a "supervote". The onus is on a closing admin to evaluate the AfD and form an opinion and this means looking at the arguments presented and looking at the policies they are trying to apply. I assume (maybe incorrectly and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth) that your evaluation is that neither the Keep and Delete arguments were stronger/better in relation to policy? In weighing arguments, it doesn't matter if people "in good faith hold different opinions about such matters" since the there is long-standing consensus (as collected in our WP:N and WP:NCORP guidelines) which clarifies both the number (multiple preferred but at least two from different publishers) and type of references required and provides examples to assist in the application of policies. In the absence of the closing admin applying this procedure it can appear that any vague assertions by either side have equal weight of argument when the AfD is being closed and this is clearly not in the spirit of the process. It would have been a different matter if, after a reference was produced, both sides argued over interpretation, but this did not occur. Whenever a specific reference was discussed and it was pointed out why it failed the criteria, it was not disputed and in some cases, was openly accepted. The Delete arguments were precise and comprehensive and fully engaged with all arguments rebutted and/or commented on. With all that said, I'm aware this AfD was hanging out there for a long time and a decision needed to be made, so thank you for stepping up. HighKing++ 12:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Deletion Of Mic Diggy
How the fuck do you delete a page without asking ? There is a new reliable source which the active participants in the AFD agree's with  Learn to be fucking patient and fucking ask before fucking making a rush decision! It's always seemed to me that WP:MUSICBIO criteria 11
Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. is the strongest claim to notability.  does seem to provide some sourcing for such a claim (and also MUSICBIO criteria 2, though there's no currently accepted chart for Zambia)Vicmullar (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Too many fucks here for me to give any. Sandstein 18:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
My point exactly. The Right thing to do was ask, that's all you needed to do. Ask. Vicmullar (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- He's being sarcastic - he does not need your permission to delete the article. Asking for "more time" or "patience" in this situation is ridiculous anyways, discussions have been going on for weeks at AFD and DRV, and not a single person has sided with you, outside of a random passerby IP that gave an invalid reason. Its time to drop the stick. Sergecross73 msg me 19:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein, You were the closing admin for this AfD that I raised. I just wanted to understand the closure as keep (as opposed to e.g. redirect or letting it run longer). I maintain that the article is defective with all sources strongly aligned to the original press-releases by the developer. I believe that notability is only established once there is "proper" editorial outside of such PR (which is always somewhat promotional) and there is sufficient independent secondary coverage. Besides, the announcement of the new development is very much "business as usual" in NCORP.
The editors who voted to keep essentially argue that it will be notable at some point. I think this is an extremely weak argument and one that is made frequently for companies and other commercial interests.
However, I think we should be better than that especially when we are dealing with commercial interests. I agree that it MAY be notable at some point (many major HK malls are), however the fact that it is part of a larger development (Victoria Dockside) MAY also mean that on the other hand that individual notability is never established as it may be regarded as part of the wider development by future (unbiased) editorial. I think that keeping this article at this point is bending notability quite far - especially when comparing to common consensus at AfD/CSD outcomes. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 06:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Dear Sandstein, I noticed that you closed a page on 11 August 2018 that I had started regarding "Odilon Ozare". That person has been gaining public interest and publicity and I tried to make this entry a starting point to build up further. Perhaps I have not met the standards that you expect, but I have read the appropriate pages about the creation/deletion of new articles and I don't understand where I went wrong - what feedback could you share, or what could I do to have this page restored to your standards? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Odilon Ozare was deleted for the reasons discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odilon Ozare. Sandstein 20:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Off-wiki, put public, personal attacks - actionable?
I'd like to keep this as a hypothetical as I'm not sure if enforcement against the Wiki side here is worthwhile (as the editor professes to be retired) and I'm concerned the particulars would be OUTING (though they identified their on-wiki ID publicly off-wiki). What would be the correct course of action regarding a user who, via their twitter account, casts aspersions and engages in personal attacks? They also seem to be treating Wikipedia editing as an experiment. They identified their on-wiki identity by a public tweet containing the user name from the same twitter account that made the personal attacks.Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think that in egregious cases off-wiki misconduct can be grounds for on-wiki action. Sandstein 07:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- And how would one file such a report? Part of it is I/P related (the attacks are), part of it is UK politics related. Would posting a link to the tweets (including the one in which they identify their Wiki identity - which is a rather clear ID - includes a screenshot of their user page) be OUTING? And if so - how would one report this (ARBCOM?)?Icewhiz (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- ArbCom is the only Wikipedia body set up to handle private evidence, but there's no guarantee that they will act on it. They can be contacted by e-mail. Sandstein 07:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)