User talk:Sandstein

162.156.187.26 is boring. Polygnotus (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with me? Sandstein 14:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you an administrator? Polygnotus (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what do you want me to do? Sandstein 14:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Block them. I used the word "boring" but I could also say transphobic and NOTHERE and islamophobic and all that. Very boring stuff. Polygnotus (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs. Sandstein 14:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/162.156.187.26 They have made 7 edits, all problematic. Polygnotus (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you ok? This feels like a very weird conversation. Polygnotus (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one to talk about weird with your "IP is boring" message. Anyway, blocked. Sandstein 14:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, if you want admin action, it helps to tell us exactly what the problem is, what you want done, and to provide diffs, rather than issue gnomic musings. Sandstein 14:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a wikignome, gnomic musings are my raison d'être. If people show up at an administrators talkpage complaining about some IPs actions it is safe to assume they want the administrator to look at that IPs edits and then block them, and if they don't even bother to provide diffs the administrator probably won't have to dig deep to find a blockable offense (and generally speaking IPs don't make many edits). Anyway, it all worked out in the end, and I hope that you agree that their edits are very boring. Polygnotus (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Polygnotus - just a random passers-by comment; it's perfectly reasonable for Sandstein to expect more detailed information. If a similar message had been left on my page, I would not only be investigating the IP but I would also be investigating the editor delivering the message. Or I might not be doing anything at all, since there's nothing in Wikipedia policy or guidelines against "boring" edits. So I'd be using twice as much time, to deal with a problem, or no time at all and thus not dealing with a problem. Would it have been so hard to write "162.156.187.26 is NOTHERE, making transphohic and Islamophobic edits"? Everyone's a volunteer here, if we can make it easier for each other, things work better. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn Sometimes when I read a conversation I decide I have nothing of value to add to it and then I just move on. Polygnotus (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Boriswave. 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. Elshad (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC) Elshad (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand your decision given the scope of the debate, I came across it while doing some closes and ended up participating. Would you be willing to restore a copy of this to my userspace? I'd be happy to work on it with the editors who wished to keep it and conform it with NLIST, there's a lot of genuine good faith work there and the subject is unquestionably notable. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn, no objections on my part, but I generally don't undelete content - please see WP:REFUND or ask another admin. Sandstein 13:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jmabel has asked for a deletion review of Jason King (journalist). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 14:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is about the RfC you closed in 2017 (Talk:Turkey/Archive_27#RfC_Genocides).

There was a newer RfC that just concluded (Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead). It was previously closed as rough consensus by Voorts [1], reopened [2], and closed again by FOARP [3]. The newer RfC has multiple sources, including WP:Tertiary sources to assess WP:DUE.

The RfC you closed in 2017 was very problematic and I have several concerns:

• There were no sources whatsoever in the RfC
• The RfC was not worded neutrally. There was no "None" option
• It includes multiple blocked editors, including long-term abuse ones

Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE: Closures will often be changed by the closing editor without a closure review: ... if significant additional information or context was left out of the discussion and the closer was not aware of it.

The reason I'm bringing this up is that I'm concerned about the WP:GAME implications of such a problematic RfC establishing consensus, while the newer RfC with reliable sources and lengthy debate based on sources was closed with no consensus. Per WP:ONUS, consensus is required for inclusion of new content.

I think the 2017 RfC not having any sources was a "significant additional information or context ... left out of the discussion". Can you please revise your 2017 RfC closure? Or can you advise in terms of WP:ONUS? Does the newer RfC invalidate the consensus of previous RfC? Bogazicili (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have no recollection whatsoever of that 2017 RFC that I closed, nor am I familiar with the newer RFC or for that matter with the topic itself or its developments. But at any rate, a review of the 2017 RFC is in my view pointless when we have a newer RFC that establishes current consensus (or, as the case may be, lack thereof) about the question at issue. I therefore decline to review my 2017 closure or to provide further advice. Sandstein 15:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks I followed up in WP:AN Bogazicili (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Bogazicili (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]