| Revision as of 04:04, 15 March 2013 editGatoclass (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators104,050 edits →Article notability notification: new section requests for clarification← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:09, 27 December 2024 edit undoJclemens (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,438 edits →Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Principal Snyder: r | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| {{User talk:Sandstein/Header}} | {{User talk:Sandstein/Header}} | ||
| == closing the DRV on the TEJ GIRI topic (October 23) == | |||
| == WP:INVOLVED == | |||
| 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) | |||
| Sandstein, it occurs to me that you should not be reviewing the appeal of Brandmeister's sanction as an uninvolved editor. As you were one of the admins who supported the sanction in the initial AE case you would be involved with regards to an appeal of said sanction.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 21:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :That's a valid argument, but I'm not sure whether you're right. I understand how one might think so. But technically? ] describes the concept of involvement as "current or past conflicts ... and disputes on topics", which does not apply to me in relation to Brandmeister. Additionally, I reviewed the original request against Brandmeister in my administrative capacity. Per ], "ne important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary." So according to the wording of the policy I'm uninvolved in the sense of that policy. <p>Now, as a practical matter, should administrators who have expressed a view on a sanction (rather than imposed it themselves) recuse themselves from later discussion about that sanction? In theory, to prevent the appearance of bias, the answer should probably be yes. But the number of admins participating at AE is normally so low that, if they all recused themselves from commenting on appeals where they previously expressed an opinion about the sanction, the result may well be that there will not be enough uninvolved contributors in order for the qualified consensus needed to overturn a sanction to emerge from the discussion, and as a result most appeals to AE will be doomed to failure. If they don't recuse, they may well form a new opinion about the original sanction, as I did in the case you refer to, or they may conclude that the reason for the original sanction no longer applies, e.g. because the appellant has credibly promised not to repeat whatever misconduct he was sanctioned for. In addition, it is probably preferable for sanctions to be supported by a rough agreement of admins active at AE, because this will make it more likely that the sanction is not completely out of bounds. We should therefore not encourage admins not to comment on sanctions proposed by their colleagues just in case they may need to review an appeal later. <p>For these reasons, on balance, I consider that it's probably preferable for me to comment on appeals of sanctions I've previously commented about as an administrator, while however making it clear that I did so, so that whoever closes the appeal thread may still take this into consideration and, if they consider it appropriate, not take my view into account when assessing consensus. However, the question remains a valid one. I'm asking {{user|AGK}}, the arbitrator who I understand is working on proposals to clarify AE appeals procedure, to take the question into consideration and perhaps offer a solution in his proposals. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are involved with regards to questions about your administrative actions, period. It is why unblock requests have to be reviewed by a new admin. Lord Roem understands this as he commented as an involved party. The idea is for people who weren't involved in the initial sanction to review the action. Obviously, someone who imposed the sanction is more likely to try and preserve it.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 22:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree that whoever imposes a sanction is involved in any appeal. But in this case I did not impose the sanction that is now being appealed. I merely commented on whether I thought it was appropriate - which is not a use of administrative powers. Following your argument, I would have had to recuse no matter whether I commented positively or negatively. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, yes, because that would be a good idea either way. One suggests that you might be biased in favor of an appeal, the other suggests you might be biased in opposition of an appeal.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | ::::: |
||
| ::::::Why is it you cannot see when you are involved here, either? How are you blind to this pattern? Commenting as an "uninvolved admin", not as a regular user in a "Statement by" section, is in fact "a use of administrative powers", and one that you actually show a clear pattern of engaging in when it's inappropriate. You're behaving like a cop who wears his uniform to a party; you don't seem able to tell when your "duty" role is and is not appropriate, and quite a a bit of difficulty in putting it down when it seriously isn't in the context. I know how much you like to see patterns; try applying such analysis to your own actions for a change. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 00:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | ::: |
||
| ::::::::Different topics, albeit connected. My concerns about your involvement in Brandmeister's appeal and the pattern it's forming are related to but not identical to those relating to your ban against me, which are more personal. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 13:33, 14 March 2013 (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) | ||
| == Seriously? == | |||
| ::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) | ||
| == ] == | |||
| Did you actually just topic ban an editor for filing an AE request after he had withdrawn it and apologised? ] (]) 19:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I banned SMcCandlish at for, as explained there, making a frivolous arbitration enforcement request – but not for that alone, but rather as the last point in a pattern of battleground conduct. The withdrawal did not contain an apology, but a very much qualified possibility of one, predicated on the future conduct of his opponent ("Maybe I even really am flat-out wrong about your posts, too, as you say; if time shows this to be the case, I will owe you an apology"). That is entirely unconvincing. More importantly, it did not reflect an understanding by SMcCandlish that (and why) his conduct was problematic. Also, the request was only withdrawn after several administrators agreed that the request was sanctionable. In view of that, the withdrawal would need to have been accompanied by a much less ambiguous statement to convince me that it reflected not merely a tactical maneuver to avoid being sanctioned, but rather a genuine understanding by SMcCandlish that the request (as well as his prior battleground conduct) was disruptive, and that such conduct would not reoccur. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: Hmm. I'm no defender of SMcCandlish - indeed I think his antics regarding ] were completely disruptive - but that topic ban does really strike me as a bit punitive. ] (]) 07:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| ::::How can you say that with a straight face? You proposed topic-banning me for {{em|an entire year}} (after previously, in the AE request brought by someone else, proposing to block not topic ban me for a year), when Mr. Stradivarius proposed a one-week block (which I would also appeal as punitive nonsense, but that's not the point). I filed an AE request that quickly failed because the evidence was decided by you and some other admins to be too old to be relevant; the merits of that evidence were never discussed, and so there is no case to be made that it was poor, thus no case to be made this was part of some disruptive "pattern" with regard to MOS/AT. That request should have been closed immediately with no sanctions for anyone, on that technicality, but you decided to turn into in a very lengthy SMcCandlish witchhunt. The fact that MOS/AT even had anything to do with it at all was incidental and inevitable – ARBATC only applies to MOS/AT discussions, so I could not have brought any other sort of request to AE for enforcement under ARBATC in the first place. Your implacable zeal to see my virtual mouth taped shut and to be the one to do the taping has blinded you to basic logic in more than one way when it comes to any dispute involving me.<p>The fact that my evidence was thrown out on a technicality and not shown to be faulty on the merits is why I did not issue Fyunck(click) an apology; the evidence is actually quite damning, and the user has a long history of serious disruption with numerous blocks. I rescinded the AE request because it was clearly being rejected by multiple admins on the evidence-age technicality, and thus was a waste of time for everyone involved. Your theory that I did it to cover my own butt is yet another blatant ] on your part toward me, one of several. Besides, there is no principle at AE that apology leads to no sanctions, so I would have had no basis to assume making one would have any effect on what happened with regard to me, which I am near-certain would have been a warning until you just couldn't resist unrecusing yourself to dump an excessive, ]y punishment on me. Has any admin ever {{em|un}}recused themself before? That's so weird and unwise, it might be a unique occurrence. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 23:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)</p> | |||
| ⚫ | :::: |
||
| :::::Just giving you an opportunity to resolve this yourself, as plenty of others have suggested you do, instead of involving yet more process. I'll take this as you declining. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 13:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Sandstein, | |||
| == User:SMcCandlish and a topic ban == | |||
| 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) | |||
| Your topic ban of SMcCandlish states that in you have instated the topic ban in your capacity as an uninvolved admin. I am here to inform you that you are, in absolutely no way, uninvolved. Your ongoing conflict with this editor and in this topic area is the very essence of involved, and your conflict of interest is palpable to outside editors, like me. You are doing a disservice to yourself and to the entire admin community by imposing sanctions that would be far more appropriate from literally any other administrator. ]]<sub><small>] ]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-7.0ex">]</sup> 22:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :As far as I can tell, that "conflict" consists of SMcCandlish disagreeing very intensively with my assessment of his conduct which I have made in my capacity as an administrator enforcing an Arbitration Committee decision. Such disagreements are to be expected in the course of administrative action, which is why ] provides that interactions in an administrative role, at length if necessary, do not constitute involvement. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::And that's the problem. Your entire involvement in this area has been marked by a persistent unwillingness to reexamine your own perceptions and actions. You see your actions as simply carrying out normal functions, but from the outside, your threats and punitive sanctions against this, and other editors, has the marked appearance of hopeless conflict of interest, and your continued refusal to examine the history of these issues and instead relying on your initial perceptions and the reaction thereto, has made you hopelessly ] when it comes to many of the editors involved in this dispute. Your initial questionable judgement has been combined with an unfortunate intransigence which has made your involvement incredibly unseemly, and your continued persistence in meting out punitive sanctions undermines your moral authority to exercise sysop tools. Please; leave this conflict area immediately. Your continued presence harms both yourself and the project. ]]<sub><small>] ]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-7.0ex">]</sup> 04:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::You and the user on whose behalf you write are certainly at liberty to disagree with my administrative actions at AE, but the proper way to contest them would be filing an appeal against those actions, rather than demanding my recusal. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am not writing on anyone's behalf, least of all SMcCandlish, whom I originally watchlisted to keep an eye on. I am not contesting anything, as I am not a party to any conflict. I am not demanding anything, as I do not actually care whether a particular editor is topic banned or not. I am telling you that your actions are harmful to this project. You can act with an introspection that you have not shown before, but make no mistake, I am talking for myself and only for myself: your actions and attitude are destroying your credibility as an admin, and your continued insistence that you are acting without bias is self-delusional. ]]<sub><small>] ]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-7.0ex">]</sup> 07:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*The hull has suffered irreparable damage, and the ship is sinking fast. The greatest irony, I think, is that the torpedo was . --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small><sup>]</sup> 08:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not seeing a sufficiently clear consensus to delete. There was likely canvassing going on, but canvassed opinions are typically those by IPs or new accounts, and I saw few if any of those here. So I wouldn't know who to discount. Also, while I agree that Dclemens1971 made good arguments, they were made rather late and so were unable to sway the discussion much. I think a renomination after the article stabilizes might have a better chance at a clearer consensus one way or the other. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ]'s block log == | |||
| ::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 ]== | |||
| I can't figure out the deal with this -- the user's shows only two blocks, both this year, but its clear from looking over some old talk pages that he was blocked before that. Am I doing doing something wrong in the query, or what? ] (]) 04:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :I don't know. Maybe they were blocked as a previous user account? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think so, but it's not important, although I hope the block logs generally are showing correctly. I took a quick look because I was surprised to see such an accomplished editor being shown the door. But I don't know if anything else could have been done. Interesting and sad case of a good career going off the rails, I guess. ] (]) 06:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's kind of a sad story. The original account was {{user|Kumioko (renamed)}}. About a year ago, he got into a dispute with {{user|Markvs88}} when Kumioko added WikiProject US tags to the talk page of a few Connecticut articles and Mark removed them. That led to further controversy over his rather broad notions of the WikiProject US scope (many articles with "American" in the name seemed to be getting tagged on that basis alone), Kumioko didn't get the support he'd hoped for on the Village Pump, and ultimately got blocked for edit-warring. That set off a full-scale "Dramageddon" (as he later put it), including POINTy opposes at RfA, an attempt to MfD ] after someone applied it to him, and a prolonged quitting process which ended with him scrambling the password to that account. About two days later, he reappeared as {{user|ShmuckatellieJoe}}, pretending to be a new user and trolling Markvs88. He ultimately got caught because he was editing with both that account and an IP address and signed a ShmuckatellieJoe post as "formerly Kumioko" {{ diff | Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) | prev | 477035382}} (plus the obvious stylistic similarities), although he insisted on denying it to the end. About a month later, he got tired of editing by IP, and got a new account and retook the Kumioko name; ]. | |||
| :::He continued doing some useful tagging work for a while, but then he decided he really, really needed admin rights to do some of the template work he wanted to do, with ]. Since then, he's been oscillated between announcements that he's disillusioned, quitting, etc., and emotional outpourings about the unfairness of RfA, ArbCom, admins, how certain editors are bullies, etc. After an embarrassing attempt to score a point on {{user|Fram}}, a perennial nemesis (attempted to have some of Fram's articles with attributed PD text deleted as copyvio, refused to listen to people telling him he didn't understand what he was doing), he tried using the Wikibreak Enforcer to quit, but then came back as IPs and then with a new account to keep venting about ArbCom and so on. That led to the current block on the main account. | |||
| :::This long tale of DRAMAZ notwithstanding, I have to say, I have a soft spot for him—he's a good-hearted guy who just can't seem to keep his cool and think through his decisions when he gets worked up. If he'd commit to use one account (no alternates, no IPs) and a topic ban from RfA/ArbCom, where his editing has probably convinced no one and done him a great deal of harm, I'd be inclined to unblock. I think either six months of complete absence from Misplaced Pages or six months of just tagging and article editing would do a great deal to make him feel better about the place, but he doesn't seem to be able to stick with either. Sad, but what can you do? ] (]) 04:19, 14 March 2013 (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) | |||
| == archives == | |||
| ::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. | |||
| Hi, just a friendly reminder here that you might want to update your for 2013. I found the March one by using common sense to change the url, but others may not be so lucky. '']'' <sup>(])</sup> 06:30, 13 March 2013 (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. | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| *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) | ||
| == Request at ARE == | |||
| ::My apologies for not noticing the previous discussion. I'm moving and indenting this as a subheading under that one. I had used the 'start a new talk topic' button. | |||
| ::I am sorry you find the tone objectionable. It is not intended to be; rather, it is an outline of three separate deficiencies in your close; Daranios appears to have addressed the one--''Slayage'' was(?) a peer-reviewed, indexed journal--but not you assessing an objection not raised in the discussion or circumventing NEXIST. It's designed to be very clear for DRV participants what precisely my objections are. How would you have reworded any parts of my posting to be as clear but improving the tone, now that we've established I missed Daranios' previous posting? ] (]) 00:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Now at ]. (And c'mon, Jclemens, you know better than this; a ping isn't sufficient, and neither is the stated intention to bring it there when you haven't yet.) —] 00:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Surprisingly, I initiate relatively few DRVs. I had come back to this page to place the appropriate notification, not expecting Sandstein to be missing it as I believe him to be in Europe. You didn't ping me, else I wouldn't have necessarily noticed this. ] (]) 01:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Louis Mangione == | |||
| Hi, I've made a request at ] as an interested party, to prevent any bureaucratic hurdles to a future enforcement request. I'd assumed Hgilbert would have been already been warned about pseudoscience/fringe science discretionary sanctions sometime in his past 10 years of editing the topic, but it appears not to be the case. Perhaps, as an aside to whatever is decided (I haven't been involved specifics of the case since I have been on a wiki break, but I have been around for some of the long term behaviour which seems to be out of scope for ARE) an official discretionary sanctions warning can be given? ] (]) 15:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed - I've now issued warnings that meet the requirements of the discretionary sanctions procedures. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Is there a reason why ] was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --] (]) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Article Feedback deployment== | |||
| Hey Sandstein; I'm dropping you this note because you've used ] in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, ] (]) 23:30, 13 March 2013 (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) | ||
| == A barnstar for you! == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Barnstar of Good Humor''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Your closing at was quite droll. ] (]) 18:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| == Article notability notification == | |||
| ] Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently, ], has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Misplaced Pages's ]. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be ], ], or ]. Please consider adding ] to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: {{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACEE}}|{{ns:0}}|<br><font size="+2" color=red>Please do not use the findsources template in articles.</font><br><br> | |||
| | <span class="plainlinks"> – {{int:dot-separator}}{{int:dot-separator}}{{int:dot-separator}}{{int:dot-separator}}</span>}}. Thank you for editing Misplaced Pages! <!-- NOVOXEL:{{{1}}} --> ] 23:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for clarification == | |||
| Hi Sandstein, given that a few procedural issues have recently arisen at AE, I thought I would start a clarification request in order to (hopefully) resolve them all quickly and with a minimum of fuss. Since you are involved, you may want to comment. Regards, ] (]) 04:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:09, 27 December 2024
Welcome to my talk page!
Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:
- Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.
- Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.
- 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.
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)
- 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)
- @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)
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)
- OK, I've relisted the AfD. Sandstein 06:14, 17 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)