Misplaced Pages

User talk:Sandstein

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 08:48, 11 November 2019 (→Deletion review of Groww: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:48, 11 November 2019 by Sandstein (talk | contribs) (→Deletion review of Groww: r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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: ].
  • If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.


Start a new talk topic


Deletion review of Groww

Hi, I am the original author of the Groww page and unfortunately, I could not be part of the deletion discussion earlier in the year. I would like to request your suggestions on how to reopen the discussion, considering the following is true about Groww.in. I am keen to ensure the Indian audience gets non-marketing real facts about such companies, not marketing puff pieces.

  1. As per Alexa, it is top #2310 page in India and top #33K page in the world. Source: https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/groww.in
  2. Has 2.5 million users as per https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/19/groww-series-b/
  3. Has since raised $21.4 million in a Series B financing round, led by U.S.-based VC firm Ribbit Capital. Existing investors include Sequoia India and Y Combinator.
  4. Most of the other firms in similar space have a wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/Kuvera.in, https://en.wikipedia.org/Zerodha, https://en.wikipedia.org/FundsIndia
  5. Product coverage in Times of India, Deccan Chronicle, Morning Star
    1. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/groww-launches-direct-plan-mutual-funds/articleshow/63783197.cms
    2. https://www.morningstar.in/posts/52412/groww-introduces-payments-upi.aspx
    3. https://www.deccanchronicle.com/technology/in-other-news/131019/these-5-apps-will-help-you-get-back-in-gear-after-the-festive-season.html
  6. Investment coverage in TechCrunch, Economic times and more.
    1. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/newsbuzz/groww-raises-6-2-million-from-sequoia-others/articleshow/67667395.cms
    2. https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/19/groww-series-b/

Looking forward to your guidance - Ashok Bhat 08:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you personally involved with Groww? Sandstein 08:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Not directly. I happen to be from Bangalore and I know the CEO from my previous work experience. But I value my Misplaced Pages credentials more than having a page for the people I know, which you can see from 1000+ edits and 20+ new pages. I especially care about creating pages for topics that are not covered, so that others can add to it. Guidance welcome.

Ashok Bhat 08:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

OK. Asking the participants of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Groww: @Jéské Couriano, Piotrus, and The Gnome: would these sources change your mind? Sandstein 08:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway Incident

I find myself questioning your application of the policy once again. WP:NOCONSENSUS In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept. On at least three occasions where you were the decider (including this one), you have ignored the expressed opinions. I am unhappy that you continually choose to ignore the codified guidelines on Misplaced Pages. I am also helpless because you have this power. As a mere editor I must follow the rules here: you do not, and I find that troubling. 8 editors favored endorse and 6 favored overturn or relist. You used a supevote to cancel the vote and go against policy. Lightburst (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The text you quote applies to deletion discussions. At WP:DRV, as you can read there, "if the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate." I have not at any time expressed a view about whether the article should be deleted or kept. Sandstein 16:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I am not mistaken. You count the opinions you agree with and then use your very powerful discretion to make decisions against guidelines. 8 endorsed and 6 favored a re-list. Also another administrator closed the original AfD with a different reading than you. In a previous deletion review I also took note when you used your considerable power to make another closure at deletion review against guidelines and in favor of your own discretion. JK! Studios. You stated No consensus. In this DRV, opinions are about 2:1 in favor of having another administrator re-close the discussion because of concerns that the closer was involved in the AfD discussion. This is a clear majority, but short of the required rough consensus to overturn the closure. In such cases, the DRV closer can, at their discretion, relist the AfD. I decline to do so because the AfD was already relisted twice, which is the normal maximum, and had plenty of input. The closure is therefore maintained by default. So in one case, you uphold a deletion based on what you consider a no consensus (twice as many editors were in favor of a different decision than the one you made.) And now in the case above your re-list is based on a reading of no consensus (8-6 were in favor of a different decision that the one you made. You have considerable power and I ask you to use that power to uphold the guidelines and policies of Misplaced Pages. Lightburst (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. In the case you cite, I did not relist an AfD after a "no consensus" DRV because it had already been relisted twice. In this case, the AfD had not yet been relisted, so I chose to do so after a "no consensus" DRV. Also, it is of no significance that another admin closed the AfD as "keep". Their task was to assess consensus in the AfD. My task was to assess consensus in the DRV that reviewed the AfD. These processes have different purposes and rules. Sandstein 18:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

About Distribuited Liquidity

I disagree about delaction of the page Distributed Liquidity. Why did you made that? I think we should vote before to make this action — Preceding unsigned comment added by NuandaLM (talk • contribs) 09:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Distributed liquidity was deleted because there was a discussion about whether it should be deleted, at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Distributed liquidity, and the discussion concluded with an agreement that the article should be deleted. Sandstein 09:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


Deletion review for Southcott (band)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Southcott band. 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. Joda85 (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Quick block needed

Could use a block for violating WP:1RR. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 16:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done But WP:AN3 is normally the place for such things. Sandstein 16:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban

Sandstein, in your response to my request to lift sanctions you said: "your appeal must show that the sanction was in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption, or that is is no longer necessary because you understand what you are sanctioned for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead"

Upon reflection, I came to a conclusion that all these criteria but one are met, and the sanction prevent me from meeting the last criterion.

  1. "the sanction was in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption" The only damage was that I said that some concrete edits were aimed to whitewash Hitler, although the wording was, according to some admins, inappropriate. This statement was made not during an ordinary conversation, but it was a part of a discussion about prospective sanctions. There is no proof that I ever used such wording anywhere else, and there is no reason to expect such wording will be used in future in ordinary conversations. Moreover, since that user and I are currently involved in a serious content dispute in another area, these sanctions by no mean prevent a possibility for further "disruption", which, nevertheless are not occurring. I have made no comment on that user, and that is not due to the sanctions, that is my standard approach to that user since 2018, so I have no idea what "damage or disruption" these sanctions are currently preventing: normally, such a topic ban is needed to separate users who cannot control themselves, and there is no other possibility to calm passions down. In that situation, a picture is totally opposite: there is a perfect opportunity for interaction (and personal attacks), but there is NO interaction, no comments are being made, and hence the there is a zero possibility of any personal attack. That means sanctions do not serve the declared goal.
  2. "that is is no longer necessary because you understand what you are sanctioned for" Actually, I still don't completely understand that, because my attempts to figure it out gave me mutually contradicting answers from different admins. Some admins says that my statement was unacceptable a priori, whereas other admins (whom I asked) say that it is not possible to say if the statement was a personal attack without analyzing evidences (which you refused to do). That means that, whereas I admit the wording could be not completely correct, I still don't understand what wording would be correct in that situation. I am going to find it out and to initiate a discussion (maybe in a form of RfC), but the sanctions apply some restrictions to that. That means the sanctions are actually an obstacle that do not allow me to clarify the issue.
  3. "you will not do it again" You are perfectly aware that I am not contacting with this user, and I am not commenting at him anywhere except AE or similar fora, and there is no indication that I am going to change that behaviour in future. That means I absolutely don't understand why did you conclude the sanction prevent some future "damage". I will be frank: I am going to report this user, in particular, I am going to report him for vandalism, and because some of his contributions are pushing the fringe theory that, according to some reliable sources, defends Hitler. I am sure this report will be the only case when I will be interacting with or commenting on that user, and I am going to submit it after I figure out correct words to describe that user's activity. Therefore, the very roots of any "damage" my actions may inflict on Misplaced Pages are absent. In contrast, a detrimental effect of these sanctions, which are purely punitive now, is quite obvious, because the disruptive behaviour of MVBW has still not been reported, and prohibiting of reporting him is tantamount of implicit endorsement of that disruption.
  4. "you will make productive contributions instead" The fact that I am productive contributor is obvious to everybody who has bothered to look at my userpage/talkpage.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
The issue is moot. Your appeal to me as well as at WP:AE was declined. I do not have the time to discuss this ad infinitum. I will not respond further in this matter. Sandstein 21:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Parler - Learning Edit System

Hello Sandstein,

I am the creator of Parler the social media platform. I am not requesting Arbitration, I am interested in learning more about how the edit process works. I understand the fundamental theory of Misplaced Pages and how edits function but I am new in practice. I have noticed that some of the cited sources contradict each other and am not sure what to do or how[REDACTED] remedies these situations.

I made two edits to the Parler Wiki page in the talk section. I have followed the suggested formats and instructions as best as I could using examples and documentation. The intension is not to insert my opinion or my statements about what my platform really is, simply to ensure that the page adheres to the sources it is already using but accurately. I noticed you have edited on that page in the past and figured you may be the correct person to reach out to. https://en.wikipedia.org/Parler

Additionally, there are a lot of articles written about us and multiple TV appearances which could be added to the wiki page. Could any of this relevant? I am also curious how to determine which of those news sources are acceptable per Misplaced Pages standards?

Thank you,

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide - (COI) - Founder CEO Jmatze (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jmatze: Hi. As you note, because you have a conflict of interest with respect to Parler, you and your employees should not edit the article. You can, however, propose changes on the talk page.
Generally speaking, TV programs can be reliable sources if they meet the criteria at WP:RS, i.e., they are third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that not all TV channels and programs will meet this standard. Interviews (on TV and in print) will normally not be reliable sources because they are not third-party sources; rather, they reflect what the interviewee themself wants to say. Additionally, not all existing reliable sources need to be mentioned in an article. They are used only if they are needed to reference article content, which must meet criteria such as WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. Sandstein 08:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
User talk:Sandstein Add topic