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
Civility in infobox discussions: request for clarification archived
A recent request for clarification that you were involved in has been archived. The committee have clarified that the topic ban you imposed is within the scope of discretionary sanctions. GoldenRing (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Following a reopening, this request has been closed with the same conclusion. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Deletion review for Buildabazaar
An editor has asked for a Deletion review of Buildabazaar. We checked from ourside as there is no activity done still the page was removed. The Buildabazaar is a brand of Infibeam. Please review and share your feedback on the same. Send us what was the issue to delete the page from Wikipedia Jigargondalia (talk) 05:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC) --> Jigargondalia (talk)
We want this page to be live. Sandstein Can you please explain so that we can do the needful on priority or you can make the changes. We request you to look into the matter and solve the same.
- I've already told you that I will not help you to promote your company on Wikipedia. Sandstein 10:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
If there are necessary changes required share with us. We can take it on priority and as per your suggestions we will put the things. Please Sandstein guide us on the same. Jigargondalia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Jigargondalia: I've already told you that I will not help you to promote your company on Wikipedia. Further requests about this will be ignored. Sandstein 07:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Intellectual Dark Web
May I ask that you re-open Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectual Dark Web for another few days to see what happens? I think your close was premature. There were
4 5 !votes all in the same direction on Thursday-Friday. It is quite possible that we'll see a consensus emerge in the next few days. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, there's been plenty of discussion, and I see no particular reason (such as new sources) to believe that consensus will become clearer with more discussion. Sandstein 21:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Please don't take offense but I'm considering taking this to DRV then. The tide turned on Thursday when Jytdog raised the new argument that the subject hadn't received sustained coverage. That changed my !vote and led to three more !deletes along nearly identical lines. No !keep voter has weighed in on this line of argument at all; it would be interesting to hear what they had to say about it. This seems like a perfect AfD to keep open for a short while longer. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- OK, we can try whether that works out; I've relisted the discussion. Sandstein 21:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, I appreciate it. I'll promote it to see if we can get more participants. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Was there really a necessity in this heavy-handed response? Six months for pointing out bias and declining to comment on what was said eight days ago? What was the point in making it an issue eight days later? Drmies, another admin, saw it as did several other editors but they did not decide to blow up the issue. And several editors, including me, pointed out the hypocrisy; why was MShabazz singled out and where are our t-bans? When someone advocates for deleting/merging articles like this or this (instances of Israeli violence), yet support/create articles like this or this (instances of Palestinian violence with similar coverage) it is easy to be frustrated when it becomes a long-term problem like it has. A simple warning (the lost art of deescalating) for an editor with countless contributions to actual content seems more beneficial than making a point.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Editors are sanctioned (or not) without regard to their positions in content disputes, but only based on their conduct. Which articles should be deleted or merged, or not, is a content issue, and has no bearing on sanctions. But if somebody personally attacks fellow editors, they may be sanctioned for it, no matter what their point of view is. Sandstein 16:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sadly, but expectedly, your response fails to explain why your sanction was necessary eight days after the fact, nor does it touch on why MSbazz was singled out when other editors made similar comments on the hypocrisy. You also failed to address why it was necessary after Drmies, an admin, and others did not feel it necessary to escalate the situation. When you lose touch with the groups of editors who contribute to actual content, it is easy to also lose understanding and sympathy. Editors are human; humans make mistakes. Unfortunately, losing touch with the editors you are supposed to be helping leads to decisions that needlessly escalate a situation that was over with eight days ago.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I did ask Malik Shabazz to comment about my concerns about his conduct. His decidedly unconstructive response convinced me that sanctions were still needed to prevent recurrent problems. In my view, such sanctions are helping the majority of editors that behave collegially rather than battleground-like. Sandstein 16:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- There is a big difference between commenting on the post and commenting on the poster. What others were doing in that thread was pointing out their perceived opinion of hypocrisy. What MS did was personalize the dispute and insult editors. That is not allowed and that is what got the sanction. It has nothing to do with a content dispute or any topic, MS is overly aggressive and this time an admin put his foot down. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Whatever you have to tell yourself, I suppose. Obviously, Shabazz didn't want to respond to something that came and gone eight days ago. The fact that "convinced" you that sanctions were necessary just tells me you were looking for an excuse to sanction specifically him. Thank you for the unsatisfactory response.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- At ANI now. Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Now moved to WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein, I noticed you closed the List of rulers of the Mossi state of Gwiriko AFD  but didn't remove the AFD template from the article. Just letting you know. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)