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 20:19, 24 February 2011 editSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,255 edits →Mass killings sanction: so decided← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:02, 26 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,659 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2024/December) (bot 
Line 5: Line 5:
{{User talk:Sandstein/Header}} {{User talk:Sandstein/Header}}


== closing the DRV on the TEJ GIRI topic (October 23) ==
== Proposed result concerning Tentontunic ==


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)
How does make sense? The Four Deuces and Tentontunic edit war over a POV tag, and you guys craft a remedy banning others not currently editing the article from contributing, because they were sanctioned some time in the past, regardless of whether they may have since reformed. Check the edit history, no one previously sanctioned under WP:Digwuren or WP:EEML has been editing the article for a significant period of time, yet you guys want to ban them for contributing in the future. I fail to see how that is rational or fair. --] (]) 04:44, 20 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)
...AND they propose that both Four Deuces and Tentontunic, who were the ones edit warring over a POV tag, are let off without sanctions, and left free to edit the article in the future, unsanctioned! Hilarious.] (]) 04:59, 20 February 2011 (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)


== ] ==
I do not think I was edit warring, I reverted once. The tag has been there since 2009 I honestly did not think removing it would count as edit warring, since I have now looked more closely at the article history I have seen the same editors who wish to delete the Communist terrorism article have much the same stranglehold on this one. That The Four Deuces has a battleground mentality is obvious in his most recent edits, even going so far as to propose for deletion an article I created. I shall go on a voluntary 0RR on the mass killings article, it is unfair that others be punished for my transgression. I am cross posting this here from the enforcement page in case you do not see it. ] (]) 13:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


Hi Sandstein,
:The article-level sanctions are imposed because the administrators examining the request have found that the problems with conduct on this article are not limited to the editing of The Four Deuces and Tentontunic. The sanction is rational and fair, in my opinion, because it prevents most of the previous edit-warriors from continuing to disrupt the editing of the article, while imposing only a very mild restriction on previously uninvolved EE-sanctioned editors (a restriction from editing one of 3 million articles). <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


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)
Re this when I clicked "edit", wrote my comment and clicked "save" the section was NOT closed. Also I did not get a message that there was an edit conflict. However, it showed up as being in a closed section.


: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)
Anyway, let me repeat the question:
::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)
"Sandstein: ''the history of this article shows that it has been the subject of so much contention and conflict by so many previously sanctioned editors that the best way to stop the conflict is to remove most previous players from the game'' - Ummm, seriously Sandstein, can you specifically point/list these supposed previously sanctioned editors, who were part of the three ArbCom cases you include in your sanction, who did something wrong on the article at any point in the past year or so (aside from TFD)? Or hell, can you even specifically point/list such editors who EDITED THE ARTICLE AT ALL??? If not, then why are you sanctioning them? And what do you think this will accomplish?"
:::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 ]==
Additionally, above you state: ''because it prevents most of the previous edit-warriors from continuing to disrupt the editing of the article''.
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)
Who are these "edit-warriors"? Name them by name if you can! Aside from TFD, there's like '''not a single other editor''' (maybe, maybe Petri) who has edited that article in the past six months! Or even a year. So what is the point of this sanction? Whether the sanction is "mild" or not is beside the point. The point is that it is horribly ill thought out and unfair.] (]) 22:47, 20 February 2011 (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)
:Let's look at it the other way around: In a year, is the article still the subject of edit wars and other conflicts? If the answer turns out to be yes, I agree that the sanction is inadequate and needs to be reviewed. Until then, let's wait and see. After all, this approach worked with ] and with ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:53, 20 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)


== Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Louis Mangione ==
::Can I slap an arbitrary sanction on you, because for example, there is some shenanigans going on Northern Italy related topics, and then say, oh well, we can just wait a year and then if it looks like it didn't work I might, just might admit that this sanction was misplaced? Until then...
::And what ended the trouble at London Victory Parade was not your sanction but ONE particular editor's topic ban.
::Above all, I note that you have completely ignored my question - perhaps because answering it may be a bit embarrassing. So let me repeat it: can you specifically point/list these supposed previously sanctioned editors, who were part of the three ArbCom cases you include in your sanction, who did something wrong on the article at any point in the past year or so (aside from TFD)? Or hell, can you even specifically point/list such editors who EDITED THE ARTICLE AT ALL???] (]) 23:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Yes. {{user|Igny}}, {{user|Petri Krohn}}, {{user|Marknutley}}, and that's only on the first few history pages and only usernames that I personally recognize as previously sanctioned. It is true that the group of previous edit warriors on this article and the group of previously sanctioned editors overlap only partially, but if (as you say) many of the latter have not so far edited the article, then banning them from it will not restrict them very much. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:18, 20 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)
::::None of these guys except for Petri were part of these cases. I'm assuming then that you're including anyone who's ever been "put on notice". Even so, Mark Nutley is currently banned anyway, I think Igny has only made one or two edits (and I wasn't aware he was "put on notice") and even Petri hasn't edited the article in awhile. Even allowing that, that still leaves a couple dozen editors who have nothing to do with the article. Is this like "it's better to punish a hundred innocent men than let one guilty one get away"? Oh wait, Tentontunic is not subject to any sanction so some of the guilty get away too. And as I already said the fact that these editors "have not so far edited the article, then banning them from it will not restrict them very much." is beside the point. There's a principle here, there's a notion of fairness and there is also implications for the general atmosphere in which Misplaced Pages takes place - the decision says it's okay to sanction editors for no reason at all. That's the kind of project we want here?] (]) 23:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


: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)
:::If there is an issue with Mark Nutley, Igny and Petri Krohn, place the restriction on them. I haven't edited this article for a very long time and I certainly object to having this restriction placed on me, for no other reason than my past which was unrelated to this article in any case. I'm sure the others will too. Do you really want several dozen people complaining to ArbCom over this? The current problems are caused by a largely unrelated group of people. It seems there is a reluctance to sanction these editors and instead take the easy option of scapegoating this other group of people for no reason what so ever other than for something they may have done elsewhere in the past. This mis-aimed action will simply have no effect on this article since these people you have banned have just not been involved, while those who are actually involved have escaped any sanction at all. They must be laughing their arses off. --] (]) 23:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::There's no issue with Mark Nutley, Igny or Petri either. These are spurious examples with no meaning.] (]) 23:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::Agreed. --] (]) 23:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
::::Actually no, I am not laughing at all. I feel terribly guilty that my actions lead to this. It is I believe unfair. ] (]) 23:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::You are a newbie and we don't bite newbies, and you reverted your last edit in any case, so it is fair that you were not sanctioned. But the other party to the case TFD was angling for sanctioning a wider group of univolved editors , so it was a win for him.


== ] ==
Considering The Four Deuces history of the same behavior on Venezuela articles, this is rather incredulous; I stopped watching/participating at ] long ago, since TFD and Jrtyloriv just operate together to remove well-justified POV tags no matter how many reliable sources are given and how many agree on article talk. ] (]) 01:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC) ] (]) 01:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


A courtesy notice that this is going to DRV unless you choose to revise your close to keep.
:Ahh, but SandyGeorgia, you have edited the Hugo Chavez article in the past. Hence, if any two random users get in an edit war over it at any point in the future, you will be banned from the Hugo Chavez article. Actually, it's not even that - since most editors being banned from the article under discussion have never edited it or have not edited it in the past year - it's worse. So let's see... if two random users get into an edit war on some Bolivia related article, THEN you will be banned from the Hugo Chavez article, because, you know, Bolivia's close enough to Venezuela for Arbitration/Enforcement "discretionary sanctions" purposes. They take their "discretionary" in the "discretionary sanctions" quite seriously.] (]) 02:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
*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.
:: No difference. Might as well be banned from Chavez anyway, since it's OWNed and no one can or will do anything about it ... so someone go edit ] so I can be officially banished to Honduras per discretionary sanctions. It's quite amazing how TFD handles POV tags clearly justified on talk. ] (]) 02:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
*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)
The decision hardly looks wise for at least two reasons. <u>Firstly</u>, most old editors who got sanctions for their behaviour in the past already elaborated more or less reasonable editorial pattern that allows them to avoid major edit wars and to maintain a fragile balance. You probably noticed that this case was a result of the intervention of the ''newbie''. I anticipate that removal of old editors will lead just to an escalation of edit wars in close future, so the result will be the ''opposite''. For example, I noticed that some very controversial edit ''has already been made'' in the lede, and, in my opinion, it is a direct consequence of the new restrictions (and just only a beginning).<br><u>Secondly</u>, the decision will not improve the article quality. By contrast, it creates a situation when controversial edits will stay ''longer'' in the article. The decision about 1 edit per week must be complemented by another decision, namely, that every controversial edit that has not been previously discussed on the talk page and has not been supported there can and should be reverted in any moment, and that that reverts should be ''excluded'' from the normal 1RR restriction. This scheme works fine for such a controversial and important article as the WWII article, and I have no idea why the same scheme cannot be applied to the Mass killings under Communist regimes article.<br>And finally, this decision needs in some clarification. Is the list of the users who are banned from editing is limited with those who have been listed on the WP:DIGWUREN, WP:EEML or WP:ARBRB pages, or it applies to all users who were sanctioned per these cases, but who are not listed there? And is it possible that these lists will be expanded ''post factum'' for the sanctions applied in the past?--] (]) 20:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I am bemused by the fact I am barred from editing the London Parade which I have ''absolutely nothing to do with at all''. The stretching of Digwaren has become absure, alas. ] (]) 21:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

:What seems to matter is not WHO is barred, but rather the NUMBER of people barred - that way you get the most bang for your banning bucks. The rationale seems to be "if these editors didn't edit the article then banning them is ok because they don't edit it anyway". Head, meet wall.] (]) 21:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

== Mass killings sanction ==

The above discussion has convinced me that my ] may not be well suited to the purpose of preventing edit-warring and other disruption with respect to {{la|Mass killings under Communist regimes‎‎}}. I am therefore considering to vacate the sanction and to replace it with the following:
*No editor may make edits to the article unless such edits are either
:*minor edits as described at ] and marked as minor,
:*reverts of obvious vandalism or an obvious ] violation,
:*or have consensus as described below, and the edit summary contains a link to the talk page discussion establishing that consensus.
{{collapse top|1=Procedural details}}
#The rules at ] apply to reverts of vandalism or BLP violations. (For clarity's sake, the removal or addition of cleanup tags, for any reason, are neither minor edits nor vandalism.)
#For the purpose of this sanction, an edit may only be deemed to have ] if the following ''minimum'' procedural requirements are met:
#:*It has been proposed on the talk page, in a dedicated section or subsection, for at least 72 hours.
#:*In that section, the proposal has been either unopposed or at least four registered editors (including the proposer) have commented about the proposal.
#:*The proposal does not substantially duplicate a previous proposal that failed to achieve consensus, or seek to undo a previous change that did achieve consensus, if that previous proposal or change was made less than a month before the new proposal.
#The editor who makes an edit is responsible that the edit has consensus as outlined above. To prevent the risk of being sanctioned in the event that an administrator finds that the edit did not have consensus, any editor may ask on a community forum for an uninvolved administrator to determine whether or not consensus exists for the proposal. Such determinations are binding for the purpose of this sanction, but do not prevent ] by way of a new proposal. Administrators may ask for continued discussion if they believe that this would help consensus-finding, and they may weigh the arguments advanced in the light of applicable Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in order to determine consensus or the lack thereof.
{{collapse bottom}}
*Editors who violate this editing restriction may be sanctioned with escalating blocks or other discretionary sanctions per ].

I invite comment by all interested editors about this proposal. It is linked to from the article talk page and ]. To prevent editors from hastily changing the article while the proposal is still being discussed, I have full-protected the article for 72 hours. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, I am heartened by your attempts to find a solution. Your proposal may be a bit unwieldy to administer, why not simply replace item 2 of the current sanction template with the provision that anyone violating item one will be summarily banned from the article (rather than the usual 24hour block). If they can't discipline themselves to abide by a simple 1RR rule, then they have no place contributing to the article any way. This would have a similar effect to what I presume you intended with the original sanction. --] (]) 22:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This is much better. It is pretty good in fact. Thanks.] (]) 23:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, this your proposal is close to what is needed. At least, similar unwritten rules work for the WWII article, and lead to its considerable improvement. Although, in my opinion, the proposed rules are too detailed. I think, the essential things are:
# The major edits (not typos or copyedits) that have been done without discussion on the talk page can be reverted by anyone, and are not subject to 1RR limitations;
# The proposed changes should be supported by consensus; however, you "''the proposal has been either unopposed or at least four registered editors (including the proposer) have commented about the proposal''" is redundantly detailed, and resembles a poll, which contradicts to ]. Just "support" means nothing, if no fresh arguments are provided. Therefore, I see no reason to re-define what does "consensus" mean. <br>
In connection to that, I propose:
# To protect the article fully for the period of several weeks;
# To discuss, on the article talk page, the most efficient way of future collaboration, using the WWII as an example (frankly speaking, I tried to propose that before, but people didn't listen);
# When the rules are elaborated and approved by all involved editors, to unprotect the article, leaving it semiprotected;
# If no common rules are elaborated in one month, unlock the article, but topic ban ''all'' users who was previously involved in the work on this article;
# (in the case of #4, relax, and wait for future edit wars with new participants :-))).
:In my opinion, the users must realise that it is their ''last chance'', otherwise, it will not work.--] (]) 23:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

*Yes, this sanction is definitely much better. <s>But it can easily happen that someone makes changes that do not cause anyone's objections. Then such consensus-building process would not be required. However, if anyone objects to the change at article talk page, then such change should be reverted back by default, and the consensus-building process starts, as outlined above. This could make editing of the article much more efficient. </s> ] (]) 00:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

:I would suggest seeing first whether the original proposal works. I do not understand the argument against it - that it merely blocks editors who do not edit the article anyway. The amount of discussion from various editors in an AE request concerning a 1RR violation shows that there is still considerable interest in this article. ] (]) 00:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

*Am I the only one who doesn't see a need for any of this? A few new editors recently showed up who were not familiar with the article's prior discussions and stepped on some toes when they ] edited the article. I don't see this as an actual problem, and I certainly don't think we can "fix" this by banning editors who have not been misbehaving (and I see nothing at ] which allows an administrator to do that, even if those editors had been banned in the past). I do think that there has been too much talk page bickering and not enough constructive article editing, but I don't know what could be realistically done to change that beyond the 1RR rule. Maybe extending the 1RR for a longer period would help. Maybe blocking edits to the lede for some period and requiring that every edit made to the body of the article has a citation would improve things. But maybe not. I'm pretty sure, however, that requiring talk page consensus for any edit to the article is a recipe for article paralysis and talk page bloat, which is an exaggeration of the current problem. ] (]) 00:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' - Anyone already banned from the page probably should be subject to 0RR, as there is a presumption of difficulty in editing collaboratively. ] (]) 12:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

*It appears to me that Sandstein is trying to progress beyond the type of restriction used at ]. The edit warring there was successfully halted, but that kind of restriction was criticized. People said it was unfair to ban people from an article who had not edited at all there. Sandstein now gives up enumerating the set of people who can't edit, and tries to impose a consensus requirement. This seems hard to do. If we go in this direction, why not just place the article under full protection for a period of time, like three months, and have all changes approved using {{tl|editprotect}}? I am also influenced by ], who argues that it's not that big of a problem. Before switching to Sandstein's new restriction, why not either (a) do nothing for a period of time, or (b) try an interim step like a 1RR/week editing restriction? ] (]) 16:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
::I think the proposal by Sandstein makes a lot of sense as a general measure that could be used in many battleground articles. But it must first be tested, for example on "Mass killings".] (]) 17:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
:::EdJohnston, thanks for the feedback. Full protection would be more restrictive than my proposal, because it would also prevent uncontroversial edits. Based on our "anyone can edit" credo, we do not normally indefinitely full-protect articles. 1R/week would not prevent slow-motion group edit-warring about POV tags, etc. For these reasons I do not think that these options would be preferable to my proposal. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

:{{ec}}In my opinion, your "a" and "b" is just a palliative, an attempt to postpone the resolution of the problem, not to resolve the issue. As I already wrote, we have a good example of a highly politicised article (WWII) where the users ''by themselves'' elaborated a productive way to collaborate without edit warring. The only thing we need is to ''force'' current players to elaborate mutually accepted rules. Since they will be elaborated by the users themselves, the probability that they will be observed will be higher. The key rule should be that ''any'' non-discussed addition/change can be reverted by anyone (and an attempt to re-insert reverted changes should be reported), therefore, the only possible way to introduce new edits is put present the new text to the talk page, discuss it, and, if no ''reasonable'' criticism follows, to add to the article. (It is important that the criticism must be ''reasonable'', because bare '''oppose''' cannot be taken into account per ]).--] (]) 17:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
::@ Hodja. I am among the most active editors working on the WWII article, and I already know that this scheme works. There is no need to test it, we just need to force the current users working on the Mass killing... article to accept similar rules ''mutatis mutandi''. It is really important that they elaborate and accept these rules by themselves. In addition, that will make all other sanctions and limitations redundant.--] (]) 17:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Many people did not accept anything, as clear from AE discussion. Therefore, some sanctions are needed. This sanction is good because it does not prevent people from participation, it is fair, it is consistent with policies, and it prevents edit-warring. ] (]) 18:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
::::Straw man argument. I do not question the need of additional sanctions, however, the more complicated the sanctions will be the more probable that they will be gamed. A restriction should be clear: you can edit, however, if the text you added has not been approved during the talk page discussion (no ''reasonable'' opposition during a reasonable time) it can be reverted by anyone, and anyone can report you if you try to do that again. The simpler rules are, the more likely that they will work. And, according to my experience, the rules the peoples developed by themselves are more likely to be observed.--] (]) 19:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

* I balk at a proposal, like this one, that undermines the informal nature of the collaborative Wiki model. But it does, it seems, to regrettably have been made necessary by the defective and dysfunctional approach to editing this article that is being adopted by some editors. Where a sanction that imposes a rigid procedure for "measuring" consensus has become necessary, the one above that Sandstein wrote would, in my view, do the job. Moreover, it's well-written and a lot of consideration has obviously been put into it; for this, I commend him. As disappointed as I am that we have found ourselves having to impose this kind of sanction, I support its implementation. ]<small> <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 20:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

*There is an alternative model suggested at ] which I believe to be superior in a number of ways. ] (]) 00:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

::The problem with discussing this model on the article talk page is that a whole group of people cannot participate because of the current restriction. The model addresses the issue of ensuring consensus when adding content but doesn't appear that consensus is required when deleting content. Deletion of sourced content has been a persistent problem (the article has be subjected to a gazillion AfDs after all) and many of the edit wars have revolved around the restoration of particular deleted sourced content. It seems to me that the proposed model has a bias towards deleting content. --] (]) 02:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

:::Damn, that's no good for process, and an obvious hole in the proposal made on the talk page. I will raise this concern with the editor who proposed it an on the article talk page, suggesting the discussion of that proposal be moved here for process reasons. Many thanks for spotting those issues Martintg. ] (]) 02:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

*Sandstein, given that you have edit protected the article for 72 hours pending resolution of this, might not you also suspend this current restriction too so others can participate in this discussion Fifelfoo refers too? (In fact, EdJohnston's suggestion of fully protecting the article for three months and have all changes approved using {{tl|editprotect}} is a good one, why not just extend the protection). --] (]) 02:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
:If a talk page discussion could resolve the problems with this article, it would already have done so. At this time I am only interested in determining what level of administrative restrictions needs to apply to the article. Because Paul Siebert's proposal has not gathered much support so far, there's no reason to believe that this will change if the current talk page ban is lifted, and I'm therefore not lifting it until I have decided what new discretionary sanctions, if any, are required. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

*The proposal given in the collapsed box "Procedural details" is still the best one on the table at the moment. A close runner up is AmateurEditor's "do nothing, except for the extending the 1RR restriction" proposal.] (]) 17:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

*Just noting that Libertarianism and in particular Talk:Libertarianism got demucked by a 6 month page lock and a talk page collapse policy for off topic discussion. The problem there was primarily off topic discussion. A number of editors also appeared to self mediate by working on sourcing issues, which improved editorial collegiality. ] (]) 00:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to thank all concerned for expressing their opinion. No arguments have been advanced that convince me that the proposed sanction is inappropriate, unjust or unworkable. Several editors have expressed their support for the sanction, while some consider it unnecessary, for reasons that I find unpersuasive. Accordingly, I am enacting the proposed sanction, which replaces my previous sanction. Because I may not unilaterally overrule the previous AE sanction that provided for 1R/day, that sanction remains in force also, although it is probably redundant. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

===Alternative proposals===
{{collapse top|1=Alternative proposal}}
Following the ]'s advice, I repost my proposal made on the MKUCR talk page to allow all users to discuss it. It is essentially similar to what I already proposed here, so if Sandstein will decide that I am simply spamming his talk page he is free to remove it. :-)

___________
:I propose that all editors who work on this talk page need to elaborate common rules, according to which we will edit the article in future. It would be better if we do that by themselves, because in that case the rules are more likely to be genuinely observed. I propose the following simple rules:
::"''You can make any edit, however, if the text you added has not been approved during the talk page discussion (that means that there were no ''reasonable'', or substantiated opposition during a reasonable time, e.g. few days), it can be reverted by anyone, and anyone can report you if you try to re-insert the text again. Polls are not allowed. Your '''support''' or '''oppose''' has zero weight unless you presented a fresh argument, desirably supported by a reliable source. If you have been repeatedly reverted for ''systematic'' re-addition of non-supported text, you will be topic banned permanently.''"

:This rule will allow all users, including previously banned ones, to work on this article, because it leaves no space for classical edit warring. Accordingly, 1RR or 1RR per week should be abolished, because anyone should be able to revert any amount of undiscussed and unsupported edits.<br>In my opinion, it is ''very'' important that we elaborate and accept these rule by ourselves. We already have an good example of efficient usage of these rules, the WWII article. <br>What do you think about that?--] (]) 19:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

____________
:Cheers, --] (]) 05:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

In a response to Martin's comments, let me point out that any sourced content can and should be removed if it violates neutrality or NOR policy. These three parts of the policy (], ], ]) should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, so just to provide a reference is not sufficient. Of course, if some material has been removed and then restored per consensus, it would not be correct to try to remove it again. However, the talk page history is always available, and it is easy to demonstrate that one or another piece of text has been supported by consensus. --] (]) 05:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

::The problem is that in may cases there is no consensus that a particular piece of sourced content violates ], ], ] policy, hence there is no consensus for removal. If there is no consensus for removal, then it should not be removed. --] (]) 07:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

:I believe that this proposal is too difficult to enforce and diverges more strongly from Misplaced Pages's normal consensus-based editing model than mine does. I'm therefore not contemplating it as a discretionary sanction. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

{{collapse top|1=Alternative proposal 2}}
;Problem with the article, Problem with the solution:
The problem with the article is that a group of editors has tried to delete the entire article multiple times (8 I believe). Having failed in that effort, they simply remove reliably sourced information on the slightest pretext, edit warring until they get their way. Given that the editors are split about 50-50, the proposed solution will just lock up the article.

I believe that the only solution is to ban editors from the article if they remove reliably sourced information more than once. Administrators will have to spend the time to actually read what's going on, and given that the removals are almost all on one side, the administrators will have to be prepared to get their hands dirty, and prepare to face accusations of bias. But if you don't want an article where relevant reliably sourced information is locked out, then these are the steps you have to take. ] (]) 04:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

:There are valid reasons to remove reliably sourced text - it may fail verfication, be irrelevant, be used as part of a synthesis, or give undue weight to one opinion. Neutrality of course has been the major issue throughout. ] (]) 04:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
::{{ec}}There is also another problem with this article (which, in my opinion, is more serious): some editors tend to add the sourced material in such a manner that that comes to a contradiction with the two others major policies, neutrality and NOR. I by contrast to Smallbones, I do not think they should be banned, however, I believe these two policies should be carefully explained to them.--] (]) 05:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
:::RE: "it may fail verification" - check it out at ] in that case - I'm afraid what you really mean is "If I don't like it, I can remove it" That is the problem stated about.
:::RE: "give undue weight" - all you need to do is provide reliable sources that give the other side - something that you consistently refuse to do.
:::RE: "neutrality and NOR" - a plain statement of what a reliable source says is by definition neutral and not original research, yet you consistently remove them anyway
:::RE: "irrelevant" - well you are just trying to pull the wool over people's eyes on this one.
:::In short, you feel that you have the right to remove whatever plain statements taken from reliable sources that you want to on the slightest pretext; and I feel that editors who do that should be banned from the article. ] (]) 05:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
::::Reliably sourced material I've removed or suggested removing has been: coatracking; the original research insertion of cases not given in reliable sources covering the topic but from the same state; the synthetic original research insertion of cases and states not given in reliable sources discussing the topic; the coatracking of material not covered by sources describing the topic into the article; the insertion of reliably sourced fringe opinion as if fact; the overstatement of reliably source opinion as if fact; the deliberate misstatement of material taken from reliable sources and used without context or definitions available in the reliable source so as to make simple quotes say other things; the recontextualisation of simple quotes to say things that they don't; the overstretching of one Valentino source (the book from his thesis) by forcing an example of a social sciences term or category to act as if a category; the explanation of factually occurring events as if a set of social science categories are accepted by academia; the use of an article which is about a set of contested social science theories to discuss a number of historical events at depth which have their own main articles; the inappropriate use of non-comparative single society case studies to produce an original research general claim that a social science category is supported by sociologists or historians; and, the phrasing of the article as if academically disputed categories are well accepted theoretical explanations for agreed facts. They're pretty egregious violations of basic policy. They were also noted in the last AFD as outstanding issues. ] (]) 05:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::It is true there are policy based reasons for the deletion of content. The problem is that in most cases there is no consensus that the content at issue in fact violates those policies. The last AFD resulted in keep, as I recall. --] (]) 07:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, there can be policy-based reasons to remove sourced information. I won't therefore contemplate any discretionary sanction that forbids such removals. The content or non-content of articles needs to be determined by consensus. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

== Alpha Beta Gaga ==

It would appear that your recent "slap on the wrists" for Alpha Beta Gaga did not garner the expected result.

User:Alpha Beta Gaga removed the references on the article Sari Gelin, but even before doing that he/she posts on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Turkey about how I am working for ASALA or PKK..

Another accusation made by User:Alpha Beta Gaga;"''500.000 turkish civilians killed by armenian terrorists and the users like Kansas bear are making laugh after this tragedy.''". --] (]) 13:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

:A similar statement made by anon IP:94.54.228.174 on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Turkey, would indicate User:Alpha Beta Gaga is most likely a sockpuppet of a blocked user. --] (]) 13:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

::Here's another sockpuppet. --] (]) 18:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

::I am asking Alpha Beta Gaga to respond to this. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

user Kansas Bear has some problems. He sent a private message to me. He said he will block my wikipedia account just because im Turkish and he said he doesnt want to see any Turkish people in wikipedia. he is against Turkish existence in wikipedia. i have no words. Just look his/her contributions. He always makes contributions agaist Republic of Turkey or Turkish people. how can i protest him in here wikipedia? any opinion?--] (]) 15:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

his contributions must be categorized as "racism" or internet hate crime. i really want to know if wikipedia has any policy about this situation?--] (]) 15:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

he blocked many people who defend Turkish folk, instruments and culture.--] (]) 15:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I could testify that Kanas Bear is one of the best users in Misplaced Pages who constantly undoes various ip vandalisms which usually trace to a couple of countries. The charges made by Alpha Beta Gaga is definitely bogus. The history of Kansas Bear shows exactly the type of Misplaced Pages users that are needed for Misplaced Pages. He constantly confronts vandalism emanating from ultra-nationalists type edits. The fact is certain countries and their education system emphasize racism, bogus history and ultra-nationalism (rather than normal patriotic feelings). Slowly this sort of mentality exposes itself as time passes. So wikipedia will always have a problem with such users. I would rather not get into details, but it is clear which countries those are by checking the ips. Kansas Bear should be praised for confronting the vandalism of such users. Actually he should be an admin for his good work. However, I really wish admins stop showing '''leniency''' towards such users as Alpha Beta Gaga or users who try to cry wolf when they do not have sufficient arguments. Instead of bringing arguments, such users simply cry "racism" (which is baseless accusation) in order to push their unscientific theories. Thank you. --] (]) 18:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

PKK and ASALA are recognised as a terrorist organisataions by UN, US and EU. but, look his edits in here.]

Another useful link about his anti-Turkish identity.>
He love to change city names. >

He continue to show his real face.>
I really want to meet him.>

But this is my favourite.--] (]) 19:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

All those edits by Kansas Bear are correct. They are either undoing vandalism of users or following the manual of style per ]. Now the accusation of "Anti-X bigotery" is crying wolf and I hope it is dealt with. In other words, constant accusation of "anti-X" is an emotional ploy (when a person has run out of arguments) in order to give execuse to vandalism and original research. I hope admins really stop the users who commits vandalism with serious actions. Specially worst are the types who commit vandalism and when they are caught, they have nothing but accusing others with hallow emotional slogans. --] (]) 20:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


im going on!!!

Sari Gelin, a Turkish song, lyrics are Turkish. but it changed into Armenian by Kansas bear

Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, Turkish politician, he converted into Kurdish by Kansas Bear.

He is going to Zoology!!

Huns are converted to the nation called Eurasian!

Naturally, he has some problems with Turkish army. but compare the news and his comment.

And yes, finally he changed regional names.

He is still living in medival times. Kansas Bear you are not a Crusader.

He continue to glorify ASALA terrorists.

Kara means black in Turkish. Kara-Khanid is Turkish word. But Kansas Bear thinks different.]

According to Kansas Bear Atatürk was not a Turk]--] (]) 20:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Kansas Bear has problem with all Turkish people. This is real. He hates a nation, a country. He thinks Turkish people are monsters, evils. But as a bloodthirsty Turk, i never insulted any nation in my lifetime. I never suported any kind of terrorist organiastions. I never changed real things into fake ones. But Kansas Bear does. This is your job, if you shut your eyes to him, you would be the next one.--] (]) 20:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

:OK, I have heard enough. Alpha Beta Gaga, your inflammatory conduct with respect to Kansas Bear must stop. It is not acceptable, per ], to accuse other editors of belonging to terrorist organizations, or of hating a whole people, or of committing hate crimes, and so forth. In addition, your contributions show that your contributions are essentially limited to advancing your particular nationalist point of view. Editing in this manner is not compatible with ]. Consequently, as an arbitration enforcement action, per ], you are topic-banned (see ]) from everything to do with ] and ] for the duration of six months. In addition, as a normal administrator action, you are indefinitely blocked for your incredibly severe personal attacks. Any administrator may unblock you, in response to an unblock request (see ]), if they are convinced that you understand what you did wrong and that you will not do it again. This sanction should not be construed as an endorsement of misconduct, if any, by Kansas Bear; but your diffs do not on their face demonstrate anything more than content disagreements. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

::So would this editor be considered a sockpuppet? --] (]) 01:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Or a meatpuppet. Blocked. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

== ] ==

I have to ask did you read any of the additional comment made by people besides T. Cannen's comment in the Admin discussion section? ] (]) 01:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
:Yes. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
::Sorry, I just had to ask since I felt like you didnt take any of it into consideration ] (]) 16:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Lack of any noticeable reaction does not motivate people to dig into these difficult problems. - ] (]) 00:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
::::I had to ask since an editor I respect was indefinitely topic banned. I assumed Sandstein did but had to make sure as every one can make mistake and miss things. ] (]) 17:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi there Sandstein. I wanted to let you know that I've tagged ] for deletion under CSD F5 (it's currently an unused non-free file). The reason I did so is that we now have ], which is a mugshot produced by the US Marshals Service and therefore a free image. As you know, I don't think we should have any mugshot before Loughner is convicted, but the removal in this case is strictly on the grounds of the non-free mugshot being replaceable. There's a bit more discussion at ], where some other editors agreed that the file should be removed at this point. Thanks for reading. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— ] (])</span> 09:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

== AE Fifelfoo ==
{{collapse top|1=Bickering collapsed}}
In fairness, you might consider issueing a warning to Tentontunic as well, who has this month made the following comments on the talk page.
*I thanked you on your talk page, in retrospect I wish I had not. 23:33, 15 February 2011
*You argue on communist terrorism to no end, you appear to be tendentious in your approach to articles which may be critical of communism in fact. Did you not just get warned for just this behavior? 23:14, 16 February 2011
*the article owners will remove content as they see fit, and quite happily ignore those they disagree with on the talk page 19:59, 22 February 2011

*So instead of responding and asking for clarification you choose to ignore it? Thus proving my point. 20:19, 22 February 2011

] (]) 16:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, i noticed that editors are continuing to comment on the AE discussion thread even after it has been closed. ] (]) 17:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

:Sorry, claims of misconduct without diffs are a waste of your and my time. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

::Now added. ] (]) 19:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
:::You lodged an AE request against Tentontunic just recently, but you never mentioned it then. --] (]) 20:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
::::I filed the report for 1RR and did not think of mentioning them at the time. Two of the edits occured after the AE report was closed. ] (]) 21:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

@Sandstein, you may want to log Fifelfoo's formal warning here . --] (]) 20:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

* While the two editors above have important points. I have continuing concerns regarding Tentontunic's IDHT behaviour, an aggressive and tendentious refusal to adhere to NOR
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#Editor explains the article stems from Valentino's definition at 21:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*#
*#
*The only source supporting a generalised claim about Communism as the basis for these mass killings (as opposed to "democides" which covers non-communist states, etc) is Valentino. It is at the core of the article's structure. IDHT behaviour is an aggressive form of tendentious editing. ] (]) 22:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
{{hab}}

People, my talk page is not a dispute resolution forum. Please ] elsewhere with respect to your content and personal disagreements, which administrators are not empowered to resolve, except perhaps by way of a mutual topic or interaction ban, which both of you are headed for if you continue in this vein. Neither of the groups of diffs either of you provides requires administrator intervention, at least not based on the obscure and confusing explanations given by Fifelfoo ("foot tapping"?). But if you want my advice, it would be to disengage from each other and the "mass killings" article for a while. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
*Seeing the same arguments presented, refuted, and repeated by people not adhering to basic policy over multiple years is intensely frustrating. Dispute resolution systems fail to resolve tendentious editing and IDHT behaviour. ARB has recently observed the civility implications of tendentious behaviour and IDHT on controversial articles at SAQ. ] (]) 00:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

== The above sanction modification thread ==

Might it be sensible to move that thread to ]? Discretionary sanctions are the purview of individual administrators so there is of course no obligation to do so. But that forum would allow third-party input (few uninvolved people, save those you notified, will see this thread) and so avoid the perception of there being a selectiveness about the audience here. My worries are more based on principle, but I think it's important anyway. Unrelatedly, and for whatever it's worth, I'm impressed at how deep your reconsideration of your sanctions have been. Regards, ]<small> <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 10:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

:Hm, yes, I did not start this whole discussion at AE because that board is really not for community discussion, but for requesting enforcement. We could give it a proper talk page, though, and hold such discussions there. In this case, I believe that by linking to the thread from AN and the article talk page I have given the process sufficient openness. Thanks, by, the way, for your input. Regards, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
::I agree with Sandstein that this thread has been publicized to the appropriate degree. It concerns only a single article-level sanction on the Mass killings article. If a new type of sanction was going to be applied to multiple articles, then one could follow the example used by PhilKnight, who opened up ] last November. ] (]) 18:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
:::I anticipate that sooner or later the same sanctions will be imposed on other Communism related articles which have been a battleground during last few years. Therefore, to save our time it would be better to keep that in mind during this discussion. I believe we need to open a separate page (similar to the page mentioned by EdJohnston) and inform all users who edit or are likely to edit these articles to make sure that they all got an opportunity to express their opinion about proposed restrictions. Personally, I think they should not be ''sanctions'', but ''editing restrictions'' assumed by the users semi-voluntarily. I see no big problem with that, because that seems almost inevitable when we deal with so sensitive topics.
:::Although I generally support Sanstein's proposal, it has one major flaw, in my opinion. It is designed by an administrator, it reflects the administrator's viewpoint, and it is supposed to be implemented by an administrator. As a result, it is redundantly formal. However, since the page is being edited by two opposing camps these camps can perfectly monitor each other by themselves provided that two simple rules are implemented:
::::# If you add a new undiscussed edit you will likely (although not obligatory) be reverted; if you try to re-revert you will be reported and inevitably blocked (two diffs on the ANI is enough for any administrator to do so);
::::# If your proposed change has been discussed on the talk page and has been supported, you may implement your changes into the article, and an attempt to remove this text will be considered as a disruptive editing.
:::I am almost 100% sure that after some transitional period that scheme will start to work quite efficiently, an almost no administrator's interference will be needed in future. The only thing which is needed is the participation of the users themselves in elaboration and approval of these rules.--] (]) 19:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:02, 26 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/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)

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)