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 19:07, 19 February 2011 editSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,564 edits →Tiananmen page: r← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:25, 8 January 2025 edit undoYachtahead (talk | contribs)274 edits →Help please with afc draft in Private Equity project: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 5: Line 5:
{{User talk:Sandstein/Header}} {{User talk:Sandstein/Header}}


== closing the DRV on the TEJ GIRI topic (October 23) ==
== Barnstar for you ==


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)
{| style="border: 1px solid #999999; background-color: #FFFFFF}; width:100%;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; color:#9D741A; font-family:Comic Sans MS, Arial, Helvetica;" | '''The Socratic Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | You've been doing very good work for a long time, and I wanted to offer you this barnstar. ] (]) 07:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
|}


Thank you! <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:37, 17 February 2011 (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)
::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)


== ] ==
== Topic ban ==


Hi Sandstein,
You topic-banned me almost two weeks ago (for two weeks), and I won't get to appeal it this week, so two questions:


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)
1. Can I appeal the topic ban after it expires?


: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)
2. Can I appeal an earlier 3RR block at the same time as appealing the topic ban?
::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 ]==
3. If successful, will they be both removed from my record?
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)
Cheers ] (]) 10:25, 17 February 2011 (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 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.
:1. Nothing prevents you from doing so, but the appeal is likely to be declined as ].
*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.
:2. Likewise.
*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.
:3. No. Block logs cannot be edited, and the ban will continue to be logged together with the outcome of any appeal. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
: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)
::There would be something wrong with that wouldn't you say? Just because the ban happens to have expired does not mean its consequences are moot towards my reputation, since you confirm that its results are also recorded in the block logs. Surely then it should be declined based on evidence rather than on relevance to enforcement?
::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'm fairly sure based on evidence my appeal would be upheld.
::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)
::By the way, I hold no personal feelings towards your decision. Based on your activity logs you could not have given my case the time it deserved, and lacking procedural regulations, the outcome was in hind sight predictable.] (]) 21:31, 17 February 2011 (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 ==
:::No, the ban (and any appeal thereof) is not recorded in the block log, only on the arbitration case page. Apart from that, well, you're entitled to your opinion. I see no point in discussing this further. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


Is there a reason why ] was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --] (]) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
== Hi from Peter ==


: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)
Hi Sandstein. I made this edit] to ], an article I substantially created a few years ago. Also various edits to the talk page of ]. As I am editing from an IP, is that OK? I don't approve of socking, i.e. editing without making my identity clear. I hope that's OK, please don't revert important contributions to the project, as you have before. Regards ].
:You are banned and may not edit Misplaced Pages for any reason. Accordingly, all your edits are reverted. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


== Smoothstack ==
::I undid your edit on ] with the argument that Peter's revision clearly improves the article and so I appealed to ] (though I forgot to insert the proper link - I am still learning). Concerning his edits to ], I haven't made up my mind whether they actually help the discussion. Concerning your argument for reverting, I suggest that there is here a parallel with ] in the sense that nobody 'owns' Misplaced Pages.
::Just to be clear, I read WP:BAN and I am not proxy-editing. ] (]) 00:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
:::And I have reverted it to way Sandstein had it. I fail to see how it was an improvement, not even close. --] (]) 16:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


I didn't have a chance to weigh in on ], which you closed a couple days ago. Would you object to redirecting this to ]? It already mentions Smoothstack and says pretty much what the article already says, so the ] stub seems redundant. If more information can be fleshed out, then the article can be split off as standalone again. ~] <small>(])</small> 23:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
== Close an RfC? ==


:In my capacity as AfD closer, I don't have any objections to anything anyone does with the article - my role was limited to closing the AfD. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Hey Sandstein,


== Help please with afc draft in Private Equity project ==
I'm looking for an uninvolved admin to review an RfC we've had on ]. I'm mulling over bringing this topic to informal mediation, and wanted to get a third opinion before doing so. If you have a moment to look over, comment, and close the RfC, I'd be most grateful.


Hi @]. Hoped you might be able to assist in feedback and/or approval for my first draft submission? ] It's been two months waiting in review, I've tagged multiple groups. Saw you were recently active in the Private Equity group and thought you could help. I'm relatively new, hope this is a good path. Thank you in advance:
I'm running this request by you ], and ].


Thanks, ] (]) 15:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC) <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 13:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:Sorry, I'm not active in AFC and have no knowledge of or interest in the topic, so I'll have to decline. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Slim took care of it. ] (]) 19:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
::Ok thank you. ] (]) 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

== Tuscumbia ==

Hi Sandstein. Is Tuscumbia supposed to edit South Caucasus-related subjects? The primary restriction of AA2 included the region, which was the main reason Meowy was first primarily sanctioned for (the case was primarily launched after a conflict between an Iranian user and Atabek). Note also that Tuscumbia is editing very controversial subjects. For example, Temur Iakobashvili is a controversial figure implicated in the Ossetian and Abkhazian issues. He is also the co-founder of the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies, the largest think thank organization of the South Caucasus. The organization is very implicated in Armenia and Azerbaijan issues. - ] (]) 18:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
:Links, please. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small>
::See . Also another example is , she currently runs which Tuscumbia has created. Note that those three articles are directly related to the conflict in the South Caucasus, as the figures implicated with the Ossetian and Abkhazian conflicts are also directly implicated with the South Caucasus issue, particularly Karabakh. If he can edit those, he can edit Turkey-related articles which involve Armenians or Iran-related articles. Thanks. - ] (]) 02:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Why do you think Tuscumbia should not make these edits? Are they subject to a topic ban, and if so, could you please link to it? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

== Nothing new ==

Just to say that I and Mike Rosoft have reverted vandalism on your talk page. It has stopped now, and the vandal has been blocked. Anyway, happy editing! ]]<font color="#0645AD"></font> (]) 18:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
:Thank you! <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

== I should probably know this ==

Since when has blocking a sock involved removing all the comments they've ever made? I'm speaking of Peter Damian, so you know. I don't remember seeing this rule on ] and I thought I should know it for the future, so I can follow through with it. Clearly, there's a lot of comments that have yet to be removed from Misplaced Pages that need to be, per policy. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 19:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
:Blocking a sock does not involve removing all the comments they've ever made. But blocking a sock of a banned user may involve reverting all edits made in violation of the ban. See ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

==Vandalism to this page==
FYI - I caught it while doing RecentChange patrolling, and fixed it up best as I could so's you wouldn't have a mess to come back to. Hope you don't mind my boldness. --<font face="Old English Text MT">]</font><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 02:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
:Not at all, thanks! <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

== Tiananmen page ==

Hi Sandstein. I appreciate your digging into the conflict on the Tiananmen page. I have one question and one remark. The question is: is this going to be part of the decision? That is, should I arrange more evidence? In fact, I think the evidence is all there, but I believe there is a problem in the way you have interpreted it. I believe it is mistaken to suggest that the remark I made was misleading, and that my edits were against consensus. A new consensus was forming on the . It was indeed being discussed and hammered out. I was engaged in that discussion, as were a number of others. If I had been saying something misleading, someone would have said so. Instead, the interpretation I had of mine and PCPP's actions was the same as that shared by three other editors in that dispute. SilkTork came along later and suggested that he was pleased with the discussion and editing. Did you read that? Doesn't that--a remark by a respectable editor late in the game--indicate that there was not a major problem with my conduct? Shouldn't it be the case that my conduct in that dispute should be mostly evaluated by the other people involved in it? I mean: what did other people make of the dispute, the ones that were involved in the discussion? You can find that out by reading the talk page. I am wondering whether you are making your own interpretation of that dispute in a way that is quite different from what others appeared to be thinking at the time (as evident from the reversions other editors made to PCPP, the comments they made, SilkTork's remarks, etc.) I reverted PCPP several times, yes: but two or three other editors reverted him multiple times, each of whom, I think, he edit warred with. I know it is not easy to dig through these things. It is time consuming and tricky, and difficult. But I urge you to consult the talk page, which contains an extensive discussion involving multiple parties. Also, if you look at the history carefully, you will see who was reverting who, as I point out above. My edits were entirely in line with the consensus that was being formed.

The issue you point out, about the prominence of it being regarded as a hoax by the government, is one of the areas of dispute, but there were a number of others. In that context, if you look at the evidence carefully, you will see that it is PCPP who was being disruptive and editing against consensus, not participating in proper discussion. I need to know whether I am expected to prepare a timeline of that editing, because I believe you have misunderstood. Or maybe one of the other people involved will clarify the situation. I'm not sure. So my question is: will your interpretation of that dispute be considered in handing out sanctions in this case? Secondly, should I prepare a timeline of the events which properly show (in my opinion, and I am confident in the opinions of the various others involved) what really happened in the discussion and reverting on that page?

By the way, you should know that from now on I will never revert PCPP more than once per day, and never on two consecutive days. Secondly, I will never again call him a troll etc. I suggest you look closely at the number of people PCPP has edit warred with on these pages and his paltry contributions to the discussions. The most problematic thing is that he has created battleground environments that drive good contributors away. I have not done that. I've worked with people, compromised, changed my mind, etc. etc. I believe all this is evident in the talk page discussions--my regrettable remarks about PCPP notwithstanding. By the way: did you read the timeline I assembled of the events on the anthropogenic disasters page? It again differs from your analysis. I would like to be sure that you have read it, and that the deliberations are being made with a clear picture of what actually happened at the forefront. --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 18:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

:(This relates to ].) In reply to your question, you can write whatever you want, but as a practical matter the more you write, the less it is it likely to be read in depth.
:In reply to your remark, at the time you first reverted PCPP's removal of your changes, the talk page discussion consisted of you and one other editor. A two day discussion between two editors is not enough by far to form consensus for wide-ranging changes to a featured article in a highly contentious topic area.
:I have read your timeline, but since it omits your own reverts, I do not find it useful and have preferred to write my own analysis. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
::That is simply untrue. I am reproducing it here with my reverts bolded. This was there for all to see. This is the timeline that happened. I am astonished that you say you did not notice that it included my own reverts. This tells me that you are already convinced that I'm someone who need not be listened to and can simply be banned.

# I add Falun Gong to list of genocides and alleged genocides
# PCPP removes the entire row of information with a terse explanation asking for reliable sources
# Homunculus puts it back with “Reuters as a reliable source, both for low estimate of death toll and for reference to genocide.” (Reuters piece cites, but does not itself endorse, the low-end death toll estimate).
# PCPP reverts wholesale again, removing all information. He leaves another terse edit summary saying “Reuters simply quoted FLG Info Center,” and thus is not a RS
# Homunculus leaves a note on PCPP’s talk page to discuss why he removed the information twice, and suggesting that if he takes issue with the quality of one reference, the solution is not to delete an entire row of content. Threatens to revert back again.
# Homunculus reneges on threat to revert, and instead notified PCPP that he will attempt to find solutions through a discussion on the talk page
# Homunculus starts talk page discussion, seeking feedback on the questions of whether Falun Gong should be included in list at all, and if so, how to solve the RS issue.
# PCPP says to Homunculus on his talk page: “Oh great, appearing merely 4 hours after my edits and begin reverting, you're obviously up to something...The material is added simply to prove a POINT.” He then goes on to expand on his comments, saying to Homunculus: “I don't know whether you're here to edit an encyclopedia or help spread FLG propaganda.”
# Homunculus seeks input from {user|SilkTork}, who has been a mostly neutral and careful administrator, to weigh in and attempt to quickly arrive at a solution before matters escalate.
# SilkTork writes on the talk page: "Use one of , and if anyone reverts you again, let me know and I'll talk to them.”
#14:37 Seeing that there is a consensus that Falun Gong should be included in the list of alleged genocides (i.e., Homunculus, SilkTork--PCPP had said nothing on the talk page and had only attacked Homunculus so far.) '''Asdfg12345 reverts PCPP for the first time (the notorious ‘go away’ remark. DOH.)'''
#14:42 PCPP reverts, again removing entire row of content on Falun Gong against consensus.
#15:05 '''Asdfg reverts again, with some handwringing.'''

::I stand corrected with respect to your not including your reverts. But nonetheless I do not see how this timeline brings anything new to my evaluation of the problem. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
:::It clearly shows the context within which the reverting was done. You said "There has been belated talk page discussion." -- but this shows that talk page discussion and consensus seeking was involved from the beginning. It shows that my first revert was made ''after three editors had already agreed to including the material''. That is crucial. It also shows that PCPP did not engage in proper discussion until after he had been reverted twice by two people. Aren't both these facts extremely telling? I would suggest that my behaviour here was not all that bad, because PCPP, as a longtime disruptive editor, was editing against consensus--I reverted him twice. I wish it was just once. But he had already warred with Homunculus, who is pretty new to the whole Falun Gong editing thing. This is a baptism of fire, I'd say. I need to know whether that explanation exculpates me from guilt in this case. If it does not then I will just give up the ghost. If it does, then I will present a better analysis of the Tiananmen incident, which I believe you have misread. So please tell me. And, you should know that I am genuinely sorry to use your time on this; on the other hand you stepped into it so you have a conscience responsibility to see it through, and see it done properly. I just now need to know whether you consider me guilty here, in light of this evidence. If so, then goodbye. If not, then I can further show, through diffs, that I am not as guilty as you think in the Tiananmen incident as well. And in both cases it is PCPP who is more guilty. Far more. --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 18:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
:::You make the mistaken assumption that misconduct by PCPP excuses or mitigates misconduct by you. That is not so. Everybody is judged, so to speak, only on their own merits. If two people each disrupt Misplaced Pages, both are sanctioned, rather than neither of them. Your explanation therefore does not make me reconsider my assessment. (I am not speaking in terms of guilt because criminal justice terminology is inappropriate for dispute resolution on a website.) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
::::But I was not being disruptive. That's my whole point. I was asserting the consensus that had been formed on the page. I do not know why you have chosen to ignore this fact. --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 19:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

*My scolding of PCPP was obviously a joke. Things that happened three months ago are not stale. I think you should look through the whole history of his editing I assembled in an RfC. This is a dispute with a very, very long background. I am saying that the recent edits can only be understood in the context of longterm disruptive editing behaviour from this person. You cannot just discount a whole range of evidence which has led to this point. It is of course inappropriate to leave stupid edit summaries scolding people. I can only throw my arms up in the air and say something like: please look further back and see how conciliatory I have been for so long, and that, only after all this time have I finally lost patience and simply want to stop the charade that he is here for any productive purpose. It is evident that other editors have already reached this point with him, after only a few months. Your analysis should be properly focused on this question: is PCPP a disruptive editor? Are his edits contributive or disruptive? Are his talk page remarks contributive or disruptive? Do other editors find him contributive or disruptive? I believe you should ask those questions. If you want to carry out a separate analysis of my behaviour and speech, please do so. That's another matter. --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 18:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
:*I am widely known for not having a sense of humor, and tend to take the things people write at face value. In the context of the longterm conflict between you two, in particular, I am not inclined to view your scolding of PCPP as a joke. Jokes are made between friends and colleagues, whereas your mutual conduct is uncollegial. With respect to PCPP's alleged longterm history of disruption, it is your responsibility to make that case via diffs. Allegations without evidence in the form of diffs are worse than worthless, they are disruptive in and of themselves. My AE review is normally limited to the diffs you submit as evidence, and to your own editing in the context of these diffs. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

::* FYI, final note. I have no idea how this thing works, it seems admins do it in a black box, but I left to BorisG in an attempt to open up the discussion. I'm quite concerned with the hastiness and lack of thoroughness with which the evidence has been discussed. Perhaps it is the case that, at this point, no one has an interest in real justice and that, like a father dealing with fighting children, punishments are simply handed out indiscriminately, just because you raised a ruckus. The father does not go and patiently find out what happened: he lashes out. If that is what's happening, then that's a shame. If not, and there is an aspiration to arrive at a fair decision and one based on the all the evidence (I've been saying that word a lot) and testimony from others, then I suggest you stay the decision and wait until there has been wider input and a more thorough and impartial dissection of, for example, the dispute on the Tiananmen page. And to see whether others would just as quickly as you rule out the last several years of problematic editing. Anyway. I'm sure you're doing your best. I don't mean anything against you. UPDATE: OK, so what do you want diffs for, and how long do I have to prepare them? --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 18:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
:*Misplaced Pages is run by volunteers who have limited time. Enforcement discussions are therefore normally brief and to the point. I have already given the case you brought some four hours of my time, which is more than enough. Merely because you disagree with my assessment does not mean that it is not thorough and impartial. In reply to your question, if you believe that PCPP has engaged in longterm disruption, you need to <u>prove</u> this via diffs, not merely <u>allege</u> it. The choice of diffs is up to you, but the evidence should be well-structured and well-described. You have time until your topic ban I am proposing at ] takes effect, which could be anytime from hours to days depending on the feedback of other admins. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
::*Thanks. I am genuinely sorry that I wasted four hours of your time. Evidence of longterm disruption is in the RfC below. My only violations are against PCPP. PCPP's violations are against many other editors and against core wikipedia principles. Regarding diffs, I will provide some for the Tiananmen dispute which I believe exculpates me. But I can't help thinking you have already made up your mind. --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 18:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
::::Yes, I have made up my mind to the extent that I have proposed certain sanctions for you and PCPP at ] based on the evidence presented there. You can still convince me otherwise, but you would need to be very convincing indeed. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
:::For diffs on his longterm conduct see ]. Skip the discussion, just go straight to the diffs and spend 10 minutes looking through them. This has gone on for years. --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 18:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
::::Interesting, but I note that this RFC did not result in substantial support for your position, but rather ]. It is therefore not a sufficient basis for sanctions against PCPP. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::What? No. That is not the case at all... the people who responded in favor of him were all longterm anti-Falun Gong editors. That may sound laughable as a serious response, but did you read Jayenn's note? Did you notice that they were all mutually reinforcing each other? Please read Jayen's thing here:

:::::We should approach this RFCU with an open mind. The diffs provided here need to be looked at and analysed; some of them do appear to raise valid concerns. by PCPP removes adequately sourced content with an edit summary of "copyedit". I also at first glance see no obvious reason why none of the sourced material removed in should have been suitable.

:::::Many of those who have commented above are already involved in the POV disputes. This needs wider community input and thorough analysis. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 13:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::Sigh. I think I am just going to forget this. We've both got better things to do. I have one request: make it a six-month ban for me, please. After that I will just stick to my simple two rules and never get into trouble again. Yes, I have an opinion, and yes, I assert it, but the crucial point of compromise and how I interact with other editors has been entirely neglected in your analysis. You've only looked at how I interact with PCPP. But according to others, PCPP himself is a highly problematic character who brings nothing but endless disruption. That is an extremely important point to grasp. I'm guilty of nothing but thwarting someone who himself wrecks the Wikepedia experience for several non-SPA editors. --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 19:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

::::::I will take this under consideration, together with the input from other admins I am awaiting. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:25, 8 January 2025

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)

Smoothstack

I didn't have a chance to weigh in on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Smoothstack, which you closed a couple days ago. Would you object to redirecting this to Employment bond#Training Repayment Agreement Provisions? It already mentions Smoothstack and says pretty much what the article already says, so the Smoothstack stub seems redundant. If more information can be fleshed out, then the article can be split off as standalone again. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

In my capacity as AfD closer, I don't have any objections to anything anyone does with the article - my role was limited to closing the AfD. Sandstein 07:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Help please with afc draft in Private Equity project

Hi @Sandstein. Hoped you might be able to assist in feedback and/or approval for my first draft submission? Draft:Gerry Cardinale It's been two months waiting in review, I've tagged multiple groups. Saw you were recently active in the Private Equity group and thought you could help. I'm relatively new, hope this is a good path. Thank you in advance:

~~~~ Yachtahead (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not active in AFC and have no knowledge of or interest in the topic, so I'll have to decline. Sandstein 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Ok thank you. Yachtahead (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)