I came across User:Mishae and saw this notice. I read the various noticeboard & TP discussions and so many of the responses by our admins make me appreciate them that much more. My question to you stems from my desire to expand my knowledge about how socks operate, and the "signs" that customarily indicate such activity. I noticed in Mishae's contributions that there have been multiple TP welcomes created, most of which are for users who have no edits, no user page, and the few that do are minimal. I'm not sure what to think of it, and was hoping you could fill me in. Thanks in advance. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to make of these edits either.  Sandstein  17:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we just leave them there taking up space, or is that not an issue? Could someone who knows the login and password use those IDs as socks to avoid a block? Is there someone else I should ask? ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Space is not an issue, but you could ask at WP:ANI if an admin wants to WP:NUKE them all. I don't see this as a real problem though.  Sandstein  10:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I see that you recently deleted the Marie Plourde article following an afd.

I agree with the afd participants that the previous version of the article – which I did not write – did not adequately assert the subject's notability. I have drafted a new version of the article (currently posted on my sandbox page) that, I believe, does this.

My understanding of Wikipedia's current afd policy is that I have the right to post the new/improved version of the article without going through a formal deletion review or request for undeletion. In the interest of transparency, however, I wanted to check in with you to ensure that we are on the same page on this point. (Incidentally, my understanding of Wikipedia's current afd policy is based on a conversation that I had a short time ago with User:Bearcat, the user who nominated the previous version of this particular article for deletion.)

Can you please advise me if you would object to the new version of the article being posted? Thanks, CJCurrie (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. I do not currently have the time to follow up on this, so I won't express an opinion either way.  Sandstein  12:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> →  Sandstein 

to

<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> →  Sandstein 

Respectfully, Anomalocaris 21:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Sandstein,

I understand that the page "Taylor Henry" was deleted per discussion over its "lack of notability."

However, Wikipedia's criteria for "notability" of a journalist include the receipt of a major award and references in multiple publications. As the deleted article noted, I received the Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Award, one of the top two national awards in American television journalism. In addition, my work as an overseas correspondent for CNN and other news channels has been the subject of numerous articles in a variety of publications.

I did not write the originally posted article, and I understand that I am free to resubmit an documented article without prior review. Can you please verify this, and advise as to how I might go about submitting the new page?

Thank you for your reply.

Taylor HenryTaylor Henry (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Taylor: Thanks for your inquiry. The article Taylor Henry was deleted as a result of unanimous consensus in the community discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Henry. For it to be recreated, there would need to be the sort of coverage of you and your work that is described in our notability guideline WP:GNG. If, as you say, your work "has been the subject of numerous articles in a variety of publications" then these requirements might be met.

However, our conflict of interest guideline, WP:COI, strongly discourages writing articles about oneself. In light of this, it would be inappropriate for me to assist you in recreating an article about yourself.

Regards, Sandstein 18:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about the duPont Award? Next to the Peabody, it is one of the top two national awards in American television? Under Wikipedia specs, receipt of a major national award in the industry is grounds for "notability." How was this overlooked in the discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.17.208.141 (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to ask the people contributing to the discussion. But generally, while we do treat things like awards as indicators of notability, in almost all cases of challenged notability the availability of sources as described at WP:GNG is the determining factor. That's because we can't write a good article without such sources. Sandstein 20:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. But the sources regarding the duPont were meticulously documented in the originally posted article. Curious to know: how did the discussion over the article arise, and how was a decision made with only four comments? It all seems a little hasty to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.17.208.141 (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can nominate an article for deletion, and then the discussion lasts at least seven days, so there's nothing hasty going on. See WP:AFD. Sandstein 20:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, the more I look into this, the stranger it gets. Apparently, the person who nominated the article for deletion back on Nov. 10 was a "Shawn in Montreal." Shawn's page now says that Shawn is "Retired," and "This user is no longer active on Wikipedia." I would like to request an internal review on the part of Wikipedia. This doesn't look right. How would I go about formally requesting a review?

At WP:DRV, per the instructions there, but the people reviewing will be other volunteers, and they will very likely also not help you write an article about yourself. Sandstein 22:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The only reason that I suggested my own submission is that I suspect sooner or later someone will resubmit an article, and I would rather submit my own than he or she submit theirs. The article that was deleted was very poorly written, and I would never have approved it had I the opportunity. Anyway, it is what it is. Thank you for your attention and so long for now.

I saw you reverted my edits at Sexism in video gaming. I tried to preempt your blind revert by showing people that the game is also an online video game (I even linked it in my edit summary), but you kind of steamrolled right past that. So I've reverted your edit. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Magic: the Gathering says "Magic: The Gathering is a trading card game created by Richard Garfield." Sandstein 23:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and a square is also a rectangle. Magic the Gathering is clearly a trading card game, but it's also a digital collectible card game, but it is not just a card game. Personally speaking, I'd guess that 33% of all games are played on their online server. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I will update that article. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sandstein. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the deal? I take exception to your deletion of my talk page comment based purely on the claim that it was a "screed" even after I modified it to remove anything "screed"-like about it. I kindly request that you re-instate my comment. I should be allowed to voice my complaints about the user's bad conduct. 2600:1017:B417:846E:F12D:1D47:5942:26F7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC) Sockpuppet - Kingshowman. --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that you are WP:INVOLVED, and just misused your tools to suppress evidence. Shame!70.199.68.135 (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have a right to free speech on Wikipedia. Administrators determine what is or is not useful to them to help reach them a decision at WP:AE. Your contribution was not helpful, and I removed it. If you continue to disrupt the arbitration process, you may be made subject to blocks or other sanctions. Sandstein 10:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that a sanction that is in place is based on how the sanction was logged, NOT in the wording used in the closing of the WP:AE request. This has been the practice in the past. Additionally, aside from the logging, the nature of the sanction is specified in the relevant notification to the user, and, again, not in the wording used in the closing.

Can you please clarify which one is it. What the admin says in the closing. What the admin logs. What the admin says in the notification left on a user's page. What the admin says subsequently. Or is it some kind of "average" of these three? Basically, I'm wondering what the hey are you guys doing?  Volunteer Marek  14:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that the three should be identical. If by chance they are not, clarification should be sought with the sanctioning admin or, failing that, at WP:ARCA. Sandstein 14:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, first, if the three were identical this wouldn't be an issue and no need for me to ask this question.

Second, I disagree, since the log is the "official record" and in the past you've refused to sanction an editor based solely based on the fact that their original sanction was improperly logged, rather than the evidence of their violation (it would take me awhile to find the specific case since there's so many, but obviously I'm familiar with the history of AE).

Third, and most improperly, putting the above aside, in this case you've closed the AE request DESPITE and in CONTRADICTION to the clarification made (multiple times actually) by the sanctioning admin, so that doesn't seem like the practice you're following either.

So I'm still at a complete loss as to what is the actual practice you follow, since your own actions contradict your words. Volunteer Marek  14:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me which actions of me you refer to. Sandstein 14:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your action: " Volunteer Marek is warned that Roy Moore is within the scope of their Donald Trump topic ban"

Your words: "clarification should be sought with the sanctioning admin"

The clarification from the sanctioning admin: "I would tend to agree with VM that non-Trump-related edits to Roy Moore and related articles are not a violation (...) if you're going to construe a topic ban that widely then it seems to me it's effectively a ban from all current American politics (and any historical American politics Trump happens to have commented on). If I'd meant to do that, I'd have done it and I didn't." (GoldenRing) (my emphasis)

(note that GoldenRing had said more or less the same thing, in even clearer terms prior to the AE report - which is why I thought it obvious the topic ban did not apply to Roy Moore).

 Volunteer Marek  14:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Of course it's unfortunate if they're different, but if they are, and if push comes to shove, it's my opinion that what really counts is the notification to the user, on the user's talkpage. Bishonen | talk 14:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Volunteer Marek, it's still not clear to me where you see the difference in my actions. I closed the AE thread with no action, and accordingly I logged none. As to what other admins might have said or done, I cannot respond for them. Sandstein 14:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By saying in the closing "" Volunteer Marek is warned that Roy Moore is within the scope of their Donald Trump topic ban"" you effectively extended the topic ban from just Donald Trump to all current American Politics (per GoldenRing), or, at the very least issued a statement which directly contradicted the clarification issued by the sanctioning admin. Before I was free to edit the Roy Moore article as long as the edits didn't involve Donald Trump. Now I can't. If you want to change the wording of the close, or somehow formally note that I am NOT in fact banned from Roy Moore (as long as it doesn't have to do with Trump), given that you only closed the report a few minutes ago, please do so. Volunteer Marek  15:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The closure reflects my understanding of the topic ban. Another admin, or indeed the imposing admin, may see it differently. If you wish to have this clarified, I can't do that because I can speak only for myself. But you can ask the sanctioning admin, who unlike myself can modify the wording of the topic ban, to clarify in all appropriate places (your talk page, the sanctions log) that Roy Moore is excluded from the ban if they are of that view. Sandstein 15:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so when you said "clarification should be sought with the sanctioning admin" you actually meant "closure reflects my understanding of the topic ban" (and has nothing to do with the clarification issued by the sanctioning admin). Why didn't you say so in the first place?

Holy Freaking Platypus. Can you AE guys please get your shit together? You're logging sanctions incorrectly. You're contradicting each other. You're contradicting yourselves. You have no idea what you're doing. And then you blame us editors for it. You've been active at AE for years so why is it amateur hour over there?  Volunteer Marek  15:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that everyone at AE is acting on their own, not necessarily in concert with others. That's by design, I suppose. Don't expect AE admins to act any more coherently than any other group of random editors. Sandstein 15:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a problem, but the problem here is that you, specifically you, say one thing then do another. Volunteer Marek  15:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) So that would seem to say yes: Marek is effectively banned from all modern politics articles unless Golden Ring specifically rewords the sanction to exclude every other potential topic he might edit (despite GR specifically saying that was not his intention)? Is it really hard for you to understand where the confusion is coming from here? I have been watching all of this with a mix of bewilderment and horror... Similarly, I suppose, to what people who used to pay to watch train wrecks must have felt. By the by, as an Alabamian, I can assure you Moore was controversial LONG before Trump, and possibly in a way that fostered a political environment where Trump could thrive (that is to say Moore predates Trump, by a lot... The idea that Moore is popular BECAUSE of Trump is laughable, even if their politics seem similar today... What's that old adage? Correlation is not causation.) 207.222.59.50 (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Since this has been raised on my talk page by DHeyward seeking it as justification for lifting his topic ban, I don't see how Roy Moore could possibly fall within Marek's ban. He's an individual politician, and most of the coverage focuses on him individually. By this standard, Kim Jong-un would be within Marek's ban because he is a frequent target of Trump tweeting. I stayed out of the case because of the Atsme angle, but I honestly have no opinion on Marek one way or the other, and I think it'd be best to amend the AE closure in this case, and if the question comes up in future AE threads, to address it then.TonyBallioni (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also from Cinco De Mayo, Mexicans and Tacos. Holy shit, am I topic banned from tacos?  Volunteer Marek  16:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @GoldenRing:, it might be worth you clarifying the sanction per the IPs (somewhat sarcastic), point above, if this is getting confusing to other administrators, making the logs clearer would be important. As a user from the US, I'm honestly baffled that non-American editors consider Moore Trump-related rather than an something on his own. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sandstein. While you were closing the Atsme AE (and closing it properly — I don't mean to criticize you), I was writing up a proposal for it, namely to topic ban Atsme from American politics for her battleground attitude — not for the "consensus required" thing — which IMO makes her a net negative in the area (though a good editor in other parts of the encyclopedia). I'd really like to make this proposal. Do you think it would be proper for me to re-open the thread, or would you rather I started a new one, which is only about my proposal (but where of course I would refer to things said in the previous discussion)? What do you think — which is better? Bishonen | talk 14:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Well, you could of course impose the sanction yourself in your individual capacity as an admin; there is no discussion needed for this. If you think discussion would be beneficial, I recommend that you open a new discussion to avoid confusion. Sandstein 14:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Yes, I know I can do it on my own discretion, and usually do, but in this case I'd like input from others. Thanks. Bishonen | talk 14:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]