User talk:Sandstein

The AFD resulted in a delete. And although I felt that the topic might have been salvable, it seems someone recreated that article without going through DRV. Just thought you should know. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied, thanks.  Sandstein  21:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration clarification request(Pseudoscience), either involving you, or in which you participated has been archived. The request resulted in a motion.

The original discussion can be found here For the arbitration Committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, do you think that Ayurveda falls under the Arbcom sanctions of Pseudoscience? Bladesmulti (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I'm not familiar with the topic. That would depend how it is described in relevant reliable sources.  Sandstein  11:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were the closer of the AFD referenced in the following boilerplate RFC, you might feel that action on this is inappro, but if not then..... please opine in the poll!
In the most recent AFD of a particular article, you made a comment that referenced "original research" or "WP:OR". I am sending this same message to every non-IP editor who metioned either character string in that AFD. Please consider participating in a poll discussion about adding secondary RSs to the listing criteria at that talk page. Thanks for your attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss there; hopefully I can convince you that an image, when good, can be very very good, and while bad, is still better than nothing. As they say. Ahem. :-) --GRuban (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Polandball. 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. (t) Josve05a (c) 03:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, I am shocked to see you delete Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland? despite the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland?. It looks like you've got a personal issue with User:Russavia that is causing you to use your tools in a way that is well below expectations of admins. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remember Russavia only as an editor with whom I interacted in an admin capacity because of misconduct in the Eastern Europe topic area before they were apparently site-banned. I think I issued blocks or other sanctions against them a few years ago. I noticed in the Polandball DRV that the article was mentioned as having been created by a sock of that banned user. Deletion per WP:CSD#G5 was, to me, the obvious consequence. I read the earlier AfD, but the ban evasion issue did not appear to have been noticed in that discussion, so it was no bar to deletion. It's not evident to me how my admin actions could be considered to reflect any personal bias, but if so, I'd appreciate it if you could explain how.  Sandstein  12:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it is ok to call other people racists (diff)? Does this strike you to be battleground behaviour? The exact sort of behaviour for which there is discretationary sanctions available. (t) Josve05a (c) 00:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this characterization is unhelpful and inaccurate, this is a topic characterized by nationalist prejudice and not racism. It's not ok. But battleground conduct is normally a pattern of behavior, not isolated insults, not that this makes those acceptable.  Sandstein  06:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]