Misplaced Pages

User talk:Sandstein: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:27, 8 August 2010 editVolunteer Marek (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers94,084 edits →I'm sure you're sick of hearing about this← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:09, 27 December 2024 edit undoJclemens (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,434 edits →Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Principal Snyder: r 
Line 5: Line 5:
{{User talk:Sandstein/Header}} {{User talk:Sandstein/Header}}


== closing the DRV on the TEJ GIRI topic (October 23) ==
== Query re Creekolp56 ==


Thank you for closing the DRV on the TEJ GIRI topic (October 23) with a result of "delete." Draftify might indeed have been a better choice since there were many sources, but limited discussion on AFD compared to DRV. If you have any suggestions on how I could improve my contributions or avoid similar outcomes in the future, I’d really appreciate it. Specifically, I’m curious (AFD selection and DELETE result on DRV) about any weaknesses in the AFD process that may have influenced this result. Thanks again, and please feel free to skip this if it’s not necessary.] (]) 14:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello Sandstein, I hope you are doing well. :) I was wondering if you could please leave a notification for {{user|Creekolp56}} at the user's talk page, regarding ] and the possible remedies therein? I have left several notices at the user's talk page, to no avail. The user continues to violate ], by adding sources that blatantly fail ], to a BLP page within the topic of ]. Thank you for your time, -- ''']''' (]) 06:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


:Thanks. I'm not sure that's immediately problematic. The weblink, while a blog, is a blog run by the reputed magazine ''Nature'', and the actual source is not the blog but the television programme, ''Channel Seven's Today Tonight program in Australia'', which is probably a reliable source. Maybe he just needs help presenting and formatting his sources. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC) :Can you please link to that DRV? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::Okay, will leave a note about that. Thank you. -- ''']''' (]) 21:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC) ::https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_October_23 ] (]) 05:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::I am waiting for your response. ] (]) 04:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::Hello, I haven't received any response yet. I kindly request you to restore it as a draft, highlighting the issues that caused the result to be marked as "delete." ] (]) 11:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@], sorry for the late reply. I have no particular advice to give, since my role as DRV closer is limited to assessing consensus in the DRV, and therefore I have not formed an opinion of my own about the article at issue. You should address your restoration request to the deleting admin <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Thank you for your response. I have no idea on "restoration request." Could you please let me know where I can find it? ] (]) 16:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Just ask the deleting admin on their talk page. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
== Appeal of action taken concerning edtior Brews_ohare ==


Editor Sandstein: Hi Sandstein,


It was a tricky AfD to close, but after discarding the canvassed and non-P&G votes, I see a consensus to delete. I found two threads on Reddit canvassing for votes, and I'm sure others exist. What you said about NLIST is true, but I believe the Keep !voters did not adequately refute the issues of NLIST and CROSSCAT, which was nicely summarized by {{u|Dclemens1971}} there. I'd be willing to re-close (and likely face the inevitable DRV...), if that's okay with you. ] ] 20:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I have filed an appeal of banning me indefinitely from contributing to the pages ] and ]. ] (]) 14:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


:I'm not seeing a sufficiently clear consensus to delete. There was likely canvassing going on, but canvassed opinions are typically those by IPs or new accounts, and I saw few if any of those here. So I wouldn't know who to discount. Also, while I agree that Dclemens1971 made good arguments, they were made rather late and so were unable to sway the discussion much. I think a renomination after the article stabilizes might have a better chance at a clearer consensus one way or the other. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
== Request for Mediation Due to Harassment ==
::Any reason not to have done a relist? Obviously a lot of participation had already happened, but it had only been open for a week, and contentious discussions seem to be relisted at least once before a N/C close. ] (]) 21:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Well, the discussion was quite long already, and given the general disagreement on how to deal with lists at AfD, I didn't expect that a relist would bring much more clarity. But if you think otherwise I'm fine with a relist. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::Two editors with 48 edits to their name, and one with 39 edits, among others with almost no AfD history, all show up suddenly after and were posted on Reddit. Note that until the canvassing began, there was a clear consensus to delete, with only one opposing view (from a non-XC editor). I don't think leaving this to stabilize is the right approach here. It's hard to dismiss the views on that AfD that this list, created four days after a highly publicized murder, is not here for encyclopedic reasons. As a minimum, relisting to get a few more non-canvassed views from experienced AfD participants would make sense. ] ] 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree. Obviously as a !voter I have a take, but setting that aside I think that a relist might bring more attention from AfD regulars and lead to a P&G-based consensus. ] (]) 22:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::OK, I've relisted the AfD. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Thank you! ] ] 06:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


==Deletion closure of ]==
] previously blocked me for one week on a spurious pretext, which you recognized in reversing the block. He is now harassing me once more on my talk page. This would not bother me, except that I fear he is trying to build another spurious case in order to block me again. I'd like to prevent another spurious block from occurring, and request your intervention to end his harassment against me. He's claiming I'm being "uncivil", and cites examples. To give just one example of the kind of harassment I'm receiving from him, here are his charges of being "uncivil" against me:
Hello {{u|Sandstein}}! In your closure of ] as redirect you have dismissed the two exemplary articles from the magazine '']'' on the topic, to which the other keep !voters have also referred to, as self-published. However, my understanding was that this is a serious, if specialized academic journal, and the claims: "''Slayage'' (ISSN 1546-9212) is an open-access, blind peer-reviewed, MLA-indexed publication and a member of the Directory of Open Access Journals. ''All content is available at no cost, in downloadable, full-text PDFs. There is no submission or publication fee for authors.''" Do you have any additional info why this should not be correct, and that the articles in question should be self-published? Thanks for giving more info! ] (]) 13:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


:Thanks for asking. In the AfD, you did not describe these sources as articles from an academic journal. You merely referred to them as "" and "". Therefore, ''prima facie'', we have two amateurishly formatted PDFs that do not have citations (to anything other than ''Buffy'' episodes), or any other feature to be expected from an academic article (author descriptions, abstracts, affiliations, page numbers, citation suggestions, etc.) and which are hosted at two different URLs, "dashboard.ir.una.edu/downloads" and "offline.buffy.de". For these reasons, it did not cross my mind that such writings could be considered serious academic research, and even after reading your above message, for the previously mentioned reasons, I do not think that these can be credibly considered independent reliable sources. Moreover, only one of these works deals with the article subject, Principal Snyder, in more than a passing manner, which would still leave us short of the two sources required by GNG. For these reasons, I decline to reconsider my closure. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
: WGFinley: "I just gave you three undiffs from today where you have been uncivil. 1) Making a false accusation of Ling calling you a liar when he simply asked for sources, 2) all caps how he's flat out wrong, you had some other harsher comments you posted and then changed from the talk page 3) ignored calls to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYN by either reacting combatively to your sources being challenged or inventing attacks on you."
::Thanks for the info! The links were just the first hits Google Scholar gave on those, strangely enough. I did not think that would make any difference, but good to know. (For the sake of completeness the links from the journal's page would be and . The affilitions can be found on the issue overview pages and .) It would be really interesting if there has been already any collection of opinions on ''Slayage'' before, but I guess we both don't have insight there, or would you? But as we also disagree and on the evalution of the ''content'', I don't have to worry if a deletion review would make sense except if I happen upon additional sources. Which does not have priority, especially these days. Have a very merry Christmas! ] (]) 16:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks, I'm not aware of any previous discussion. The same to you! <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
=== ] ===


A courtesy notice that this is going to DRV unless you choose to revise your close to keep.
An examination of each is instructive as to the nature of his continued personal vendetta against me:
*Your evaluation of ''Slayage'' is incorrect; it was never an SPS, as is documented currently in ], but peer-reviewed and was at least at one time indexed in ]. For you to even draw a judgement is questionable, as no one in the discussion contended that ''Slayage'' was an SPS; instead, Piotrus (an academic, if that matters) explicitly expressed they appeared suitable to improve the article. Thus, you shouldn't have even looked at a question not raised in the discussion, and even so, you got the facts wrong.
*None of the 'Redirect' !voters articulated a problem that is not correctable through regular editing. References to ] do not satisfy ] number 14 as there is no barrier to editing to correct any issues, per ], part of the same policy page. By assigning nonzero weight to any of these non-policy-based !votes, you erred.
:Further, making a ''de facto'' conclusion that the topic is non-notable despite evidence of such being presented effectively eliminated the impact of ] on precisely a situation within its wheelhouse: information to support notability clearly exists, but it has not been added the article.
Ultimately, the only person in this discussion who asserts to have looked into sourcing not coming to the conclusion that this article should be kept... is you. ] (]) 14:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


:I find the tone of this message objectionable, and will not respond further in this matter than I already have above. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
1) The only false accusation here is Finley's. I did not "accuse" ] of calling me a liar. Here is the exact communication I shared with Ling:
::My apologies for not noticing the previous discussion. I'm moving and indenting this as a subheading under that one. I had used the 'start a new talk topic' button.
::I am sorry you find the tone objectionable. It is not intended to be; rather, it is an outline of three separate deficiencies in your close; Daranios appears to have addressed the one--''Slayage'' was(?) a peer-reviewed, indexed journal--but not you assessing an objection not raised in the discussion or circumventing NEXIST. It's designed to be very clear for DRV participants what precisely my objections are. How would you have reworded any parts of my posting to be as clear but improving the tone, now that we've established I missed Daranios' previous posting? ] (]) 00:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Now at ]. (And c'mon, Jclemens, you know better than this; a ping isn't sufficient, and neither is the stated intention to bring it there when you haven't yet.) —] 00:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Surprisingly, I initiate relatively few DRVs. I had come back to this page to place the appropriate notification, not expecting Sandstein to be missing it as I believe him to be in Europe. You didn't ping me, else I wouldn't have necessarily noticed this. ] (]) 01:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Louis Mangione ==
: Ling.Nut: "You told me that the sources say that, but very apologetically I must say that I need to see those sources."
: JRHammond: "I've given you sources. Are you suggesting I'm fabricating information or lying about what the sources say?"


Is there a reason why ] was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --] (]) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
2) Again, the exact communication, in context:


:It was deleted because that was the consensus in the AfD discussion. There was no consensus for a redirect. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
: Ling.Nut: "You're flat wrong...."
: JRHammond: "No, YOU are flat wrong...."

3) As for my having "ignored calls to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYN", here is my exact reply:

: JRHammond: "1) I am not proposing we draw a conclusion or imply a conclusion, only that we state a proven and uncontroversial fact. Readers will draw their own conclusions, and in order to not mislead them, a fuller accounting of the facts is necessary. Insofar as WP:SYNTH applies, therefore, it demands the fact be noted. 2) This is not original research. Published sources lend significance to this uncontroversial fact, as already noted. WP:OR therefore is not an issue, as I've already pointed out."

As you can see, there was nothing "combative" about my reply to Ling on WP:OR and WP:SYN (or my replies to him on any other issue, for that matter). Nor did my response consist of "inventing attacks" against me.

This is harassment, and the person harassing me has already abused his authority to block me on spurious charges once, as you will recall. Please intervene and assist so such abuse does not occur again. Thank you very much. ] (]) 06:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

:I did not undo your block, Fences and windows did. Sorry, administrators have no special authority to resolve disputes between editors; for how to do this, please see ]. After a quick look, both you and WGFinley seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill here. The diffs claimed to be incivil by WGFinley at do not appear incivil to me. But your getting all excited about WGFinley's criticism, talking about "vendetta" and "harrassment", is unhelpful and ''is'' incivil. My advice to both of you is to take some ] and drop the matter. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

:: Apologies for the mistake. I thought you were the one who reversed the block previously. Ignoring the problem is not good enough, because WGFinley is an administrator who has blocked me previously on a spurious pretext, and I wish to prevent him from doing so a second time on similar spurious charges.

::"Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target." That fits to a tee WGFinley's continued spurious attacks on my character, so how is my pointing this out itself "incivil"? I am in no way, shape, or form being uncivil by observing the spurious nature of WGFinley's personal attacks on my character. If you could find any merit in his charges, it might be another story, but, as you just acknowledged, the instances of "uncivility" on my part claimed by him "do not appear incivil to me". That is an accurate observation. Given that you agree I was not uncivil in the instances he charged I was, obviously, logically, it is he, not I, who is being uncivil. Suggesting otherwise is most illogical. ] (]) 10:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

::Also, WGFinley personally identified me on my Talk page. I in no way try to hide my identity, as my username demonstrates. Nor have I ever identified myself, though, and it's come to my attention that this violates policy WP:OUTING, and constitutes further harassment. From the policy: "Posting another person's personal information is harassment..." ] (]) 06:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

:Please provide a diff for the edit in which you think WGFinley outed you. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

:: I was just doing some basic Google searching regarding the topic in debate as I knew very little on the topic. It didn't take me long before I found an article on a website called Foreign Policy Journal and The Progressive Mind by one Jeremy R. Hammond. Interesting I thought since I knew a Misplaced Pages user with those same initials.

:: I would suggest you take a close look at the original research policy, especially the synthesis policy because this is clearly an area you are researching and I think you should have divulged to the editors there you have written and published on this topic. In fact it all makes perfect sense. You made all of four edits before July 4th, you publish your article, someone makes a comment and refers to the Misplaced Pages article and it appears you begin in earnest to "correct" the Misplaced Pages article. It is clear by the site and your comments to the article you have a POV you are wishing to highlight, it needs to cease on that article.

:: I think, in good faith, you should divulge to the editors there your writings on this topic outside of Misplaced Pages so they're familiar with your research and can determine if that research is becoming a part of the argument on the article. --WGFinley (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

:: ] (]) 10:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

:::Providing your full first name is not outing as long as you already edit under what you yourself say is your real name. I see nothing actionable here. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

:::: Nonsense:

:::: "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages. Personal information includes legal name ... job title and work organisation.... Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy..."

:::: WGFinly posted personal information of mine that I did not voluntarily disclose including my full "legal name" and my "work organisation". That's an indisputable fact. It's also an disputable fact that this constitutes "harassment" under WP:OUTING policy. So are you going to enforce policy or not? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::::I am asking WGFinley to comment. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this pretty much speaks for itself. I've been trying to help keep things civil on ] (see its ]). I didn't know much on the subject and so I did a Google search on it. There I found an article written by someone using the same name on Misplaced Pages. Since JRH has had other editors questioning his original research and synthesis techniques and as you can see by the article's talk page and his own talk page he's not at all receptive to that criticism. .

I thought the article was germane since it mentioned original research he was doing as well as a definite POV. I brought it to him on his talk page. As I commented on his talk page page in instances where we have found researchers, scientists or journalists heavily editing a WP article they have done research on that person has disclosed it and in most instances been asked not to edit the article, he has not. He's reacted in the fashion he does with any admin that is critical of his behavior -- subjected me to a torrent of accusations and refuses to acknowledge any poor behavior in any of his diffs. ] is just his latest card as it's not outing -- he uses his name as his account. I provided no information other than an article he wrote which happens to be the subject of the article he's been involved in an edit war in. --] (]) 15:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

: "I provided no information other than an article he wrote which happens to be the subject of the article he's been involved in an edit war in." Well, now, Finley, that's not exactly true, is it (much like the rest of what you just said). You're right about one thing -- this pretty much speaks for itself. ] (]) 17:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

::While providing the information about the website you edit is probably in violation of ], I don't see this as such a serious case that it would require the only unilateral action that I could possibly take, i.e., a block. You have the option to pursue ] or request oversight of the content at issue. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

::: Not only the website, also my full name/identity. There is no "probably". This is a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:OUTING.

::: "''Posting another person's personal information is harassment'', unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages. ''Personal information includes legal name ... job title and work organisation''.... Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy..."

::: A violation of WP:OUTING is a violation of WP:OUTING. There is no content at issue, so I don't see what good WP:DR does me. This is harassment, by WP's own policy definition. So the question is, are you going to enforce the policy or are you not going to enforce the policy? ] (]) 23:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

::::The only appropriate enforcement action I can think of here is ], but I do not have that permission, so you would need to contact an oversighter directly. As you have not done so already, and instead copied the offending content yourself to my talk page (above), it is likely that an oversighter would decline the request to remove it from public view. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

:::: "...the only unilateral action that I could possibly take, i.e., a block"
:::: "The only appropriate enforcement action I can think of here is ]"
:::: Which is it? Is a block not appropriate? Finley violated policy. Are there to be no consequences for his doing so? ] (]) 01:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

== AE enforcement request ==

I request arbitration enforcement against Loosmark for breaking our interaction ban. In I discuss "Nazi-era German sources about nationalities". One post and a couple of hours later Loosmark posts about Germanisation efforts regarding Dzierzon and Nazis (). I further request enforcement for Loosmark breaking the terms the ban "The other party is not to be informed of, '''and may not reply to''', that request": by Loosmark is clearly in reply to
by me. Asking if he can reply to a request doesn't mean he isn't replying to it. ] (]) 15:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

:The first edit is not actionable, as I can't see a strong enough link between the two comments. The second edit, on the other hand, constitutes a prohibited interaction and I have accordingly blocked Loosmark. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

:: Just a heads-up that Loosmark apparently wishes to appeal. I just pointed him towards the AE procedure. Personally, I have to say, at first sight, this block does seem a little bit nitpicky to me – the conditions you imposed for that process of complaint and counter-complaint were rather intricate, and I personally wouldn't have held it against a user if he just couldn't remember that detail about what he was supposed or not supposed to do in this situation, and did nothing but ''ask'' what he could do. No objections against the mutual article topic ban, of course. ] ] 19:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

:::Yes, it's nitpicky, but in implementing the interaction ban were express in that the two are not allowed to reply to enforcement requests by the other unless asked to, so Loosmark should have known better. No interaction means no interaction, and if I had not enforced the ban in this instance, I am sure that Varsovian would have complained just as hard as Loosmark is complaining now. Sometimes you just can't win. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
:::: I see where you're coming from. Anyway, I've pasted his request over to ] now, with my comment, so let's just see what other folks say. ] ] 20:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

== Misplaced comment on AE ==

Thanks, Sandstein, for your review of Will's post regarding me at Arbitration Enforcement. I see that Will has added a comment in the Results area, which is reserved for uninvolved Admins. Perhaps his comment should be moved. (Note also that Stifle's comment came before I posted my statement.) Thanks. ] (]) 10:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

== I'm sure you're sick of hearing about this ==

but if I go to the *^&#$%^ trouble of extensively discussing something with someone (regardless of how much in bad faith I think they're acting), ask for a third opinion, the person who gives his third opinion gives his/her own time to review the situation and provide it, and then both my discussion and the provided third opinion are completely ignored by, guess who, Varsovian, who inserts, again, his own OR, with POV completely opposite to every source included in the article... well, being sick of it is about the right state of mind.

Here is the third opinion "I think the text that Chumchum added (and I just cleaned up a bit) suffices and fulfills WP:LEAD.". Here is the third opinon's provider's edit . Here is Varsovian shamelessly POVing the lead in total disregard of the third opinion (the parade is notable for the LACK of (initial, if he's gonna wikilawyer it) invitation). And this right after getting off a 55 hour block and making disrputive POINT-y edits to the talk page .

Yes. I realize this is a "content dispute" (which is starting to look more and more like an excuse to pass the buck around various admin board (AE, AN/I, WQ alerts all have claimed this) rather confronting this problem). It's a "content dispute" in which one party, Varsovian, has violated every single content related guideline Misplaced Pages has. It's a "content dispute" in which one party, Varsovian, has consistently engaged in tendentious OR with aim to push a particular POV, despite being warned about it by several uninvolved admins (not to mention editors). It's a "content dispute" in which one party, Varsovian, has edit warred with over a dozen different editors over a period of almost one year. It's a "content dispute" in which one party, Varsovian, has completely disregarded consensus and outside opinion and persisted in disruptive action, for almost a year. Finally, it is a "content dispute" in which one party, Varsovian, has wasted a TREMENDOUS amount of time of a large number of editors and administrators, both on the article and through auxiliary drama (like his filing spurious AE reports against Chumchum).

This simply needs to end. This is a content dispute but I don't see anything in which precludes applying discretionary sanctions for repeated and tendentious violation of CONTENT policies. It says "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, '''despite being warned''', that editor '''repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.'''

Varsovian has been warned (about half dozen times). Varsovian has repeatedly failed to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages by POV pushing and engaging in OR, failed to adhere to expected standards of behavior by ignoring consensus and third opinion (I haven't even gotten around to the persistent incivility). Varsovian has failed to respect the normal editorial process by continually edit warring on the article for the past nine months or so. There's no reason why discretionary sanctions cannot be used here. A topic ban from the article IS THE LEAST that can be done. A full Poland-related topic ban is in fact in order as whenever he leaves the article alone to "hide" from admin scrutiny for awhile he just goes to other Poland related articles and does the same thing with the same negative and disruptive results. And just look at his contributions. 99% of them are Poland related. 99% of that 99% are NEGATIVE (which doesn't mean necessarily revert worthy). He's a SPA with an obvious POV agenda. I can throw in some of his own statements as well which show he has problems with Poland and Poles.

If you need all this in form of a AE report let me know. At this point I have trouble seeing why even that would be necessary.] (]) 18:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:09, 27 December 2024

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


closing the DRV on the TEJ GIRI topic (October 23)

Thank you for closing the DRV on the TEJ GIRI topic (October 23) with a result of "delete." Draftify might indeed have been a better choice since there were many sources, but limited discussion on AFD compared to DRV. If you have any suggestions on how I could improve my contributions or avoid similar outcomes in the future, I’d really appreciate it. Specifically, I’m curious (AFD selection and DELETE result on DRV) about any weaknesses in the AFD process that may have influenced this result. Thanks again, and please feel free to skip this if it’s not necessary.Endrabcwizart (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you please link to that DRV? Sandstein 06:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_October_23 Endrabcwizart (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
I am waiting for your response. Endrabcwizart (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I haven't received any response yet. I kindly request you to restore it as a draft, highlighting the issues that caused the result to be marked as "delete." Endrabcwizart (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
@Endrabcwizart, sorry for the late reply. I have no particular advice to give, since my role as DRV closer is limited to assessing consensus in the DRV, and therefore I have not formed an opinion of my own about the article at issue. You should address your restoration request to the deleting admin Sandstein 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I have no idea on "restoration request." Could you please let me know where I can find it? Endrabcwizart (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Just ask the deleting admin on their talk page. Sandstein 19:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/List of health insurance executives in the United States

Hi Sandstein,

It was a tricky AfD to close, but after discarding the canvassed and non-P&G votes, I see a consensus to delete. I found two threads on Reddit canvassing for votes, and I'm sure others exist. What you said about NLIST is true, but I believe the Keep !voters did not adequately refute the issues of NLIST and CROSSCAT, which was nicely summarized by Dclemens1971 there. I'd be willing to re-close (and likely face the inevitable DRV...), if that's okay with you. Owen× ☎ 20:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a sufficiently clear consensus to delete. There was likely canvassing going on, but canvassed opinions are typically those by IPs or new accounts, and I saw few if any of those here. So I wouldn't know who to discount. Also, while I agree that Dclemens1971 made good arguments, they were made rather late and so were unable to sway the discussion much. I think a renomination after the article stabilizes might have a better chance at a clearer consensus one way or the other. Sandstein 21:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Any reason not to have done a relist? Obviously a lot of participation had already happened, but it had only been open for a week, and contentious discussions seem to be relisted at least once before a N/C close. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, the discussion was quite long already, and given the general disagreement on how to deal with lists at AfD, I didn't expect that a relist would bring much more clarity. But if you think otherwise I'm fine with a relist. Sandstein 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Two editors with 48 edits to their name, and one with 39 edits, among others with almost no AfD history, all show up suddenly after this and this were posted on Reddit. Note that until the canvassing began, there was a clear consensus to delete, with only one opposing view (from a non-XC editor). I don't think leaving this to stabilize is the right approach here. It's hard to dismiss the views on that AfD that this list, created four days after a highly publicized murder, is not here for encyclopedic reasons. As a minimum, relisting to get a few more non-canvassed views from experienced AfD participants would make sense. Owen× ☎ 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Obviously as a !voter I have a take, but setting that aside I think that a relist might bring more attention from AfD regulars and lead to a P&G-based consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
OK, I've relisted the AfD. Sandstein 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Owen× ☎ 06:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Deletion closure of Principal Snyder

Hello Sandstein! In your closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Principal Snyder as redirect you have dismissed the two exemplary articles from the magazine Slayage on the topic, to which the other keep !voters have also referred to, as self-published. However, my understanding was that this is a serious, if specialized academic journal, and the its homepage claims: "Slayage (ISSN 1546-9212) is an open-access, blind peer-reviewed, MLA-indexed publication and a member of the Directory of Open Access Journals. All content is available at no cost, in downloadable, full-text PDFs. There is no submission or publication fee for authors." Do you have any additional info why this should not be correct, and that the articles in question should be self-published? Thanks for giving more info! Daranios (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. In the AfD, you did not describe these sources as articles from an academic journal. You merely referred to them as "Buffy, the Scooby Gang, and Monstrous Authority: BtVS and the Subversion of Authority" and ""You're on My Campus, Buddy!" Sovereign and Disciplinary Power at Sunnydale High". Therefore, prima facie, we have two amateurishly formatted PDFs that do not have citations (to anything other than Buffy episodes), or any other feature to be expected from an academic article (author descriptions, abstracts, affiliations, page numbers, citation suggestions, etc.) and which are hosted at two different URLs, "dashboard.ir.una.edu/downloads" and "offline.buffy.de". For these reasons, it did not cross my mind that such writings could be considered serious academic research, and even after reading your above message, for the previously mentioned reasons, I do not think that these can be credibly considered independent reliable sources. Moreover, only one of these works deals with the article subject, Principal Snyder, in more than a passing manner, which would still leave us short of the two sources required by GNG. For these reasons, I decline to reconsider my closure. Sandstein 15:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! The links were just the first hits Google Scholar gave on those, strangely enough. I did not think that would make any difference, but good to know. (For the sake of completeness the links from the journal's page would be here and here. The affilitions can be found on the issue overview pages here and here.) It would be really interesting if there has been already any collection of opinions on Slayage before, but I guess we both don't have insight there, or would you? But as we also disagree and on the evalution of the content, I don't have to worry if a deletion review would make sense except if I happen upon additional sources. Which does not have priority, especially these days. Have a very merry Christmas! Daranios (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm not aware of any previous discussion. The same to you! Sandstein 17:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Principal Snyder

A courtesy notice that this is going to DRV unless you choose to revise your close to keep.

  • Your evaluation of Slayage is incorrect; it was never an SPS, as is documented currently in Buffy studies, but peer-reviewed and was at least at one time indexed in DOAJ. For you to even draw a judgement is questionable, as no one in the discussion contended that Slayage was an SPS; instead, Piotrus (an academic, if that matters) explicitly expressed they appeared suitable to improve the article. Thus, you shouldn't have even looked at a question not raised in the discussion, and even so, you got the facts wrong.
  • None of the 'Redirect' !voters articulated a problem that is not correctable through regular editing. References to WP:NOT#PLOT do not satisfy WP:DEL#REASON number 14 as there is no barrier to editing to correct any issues, per WP:ATD, part of the same policy page. By assigning nonzero weight to any of these non-policy-based !votes, you erred.
Further, making a de facto conclusion that the topic is non-notable despite evidence of such being presented effectively eliminated the impact of WP:NEXIST on precisely a situation within its wheelhouse: information to support notability clearly exists, but it has not been added the article.

Ultimately, the only person in this discussion who asserts to have looked into sourcing not coming to the conclusion that this article should be kept... is you. Jclemens (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I find the tone of this message objectionable, and will not respond further in this matter than I already have above. Sandstein 14:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
My apologies for not noticing the previous discussion. I'm moving and indenting this as a subheading under that one. I had used the 'start a new talk topic' button.
I am sorry you find the tone objectionable. It is not intended to be; rather, it is an outline of three separate deficiencies in your close; Daranios appears to have addressed the one--Slayage was(?) a peer-reviewed, indexed journal--but not you assessing an objection not raised in the discussion or circumventing NEXIST. It's designed to be very clear for DRV participants what precisely my objections are. How would you have reworded any parts of my posting to be as clear but improving the tone, now that we've established I missed Daranios' previous posting? Jclemens (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Now at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 27. (And c'mon, Jclemens, you know better than this; a ping isn't sufficient, and neither is the stated intention to bring it there when you haven't yet.) —Cryptic 00:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Surprisingly, I initiate relatively few DRVs. I had come back to this page to place the appropriate notification, not expecting Sandstein to be missing it as I believe him to be in Europe. You didn't ping me, else I wouldn't have necessarily noticed this. Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Louis Mangione

Is there a reason why Louis Mangione was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

It was deleted because that was the consensus in the AfD discussion. There was no consensus for a redirect. Sandstein 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)