| Revision as of 22:06, 27 January 2015 editSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,206 editsm →EC violating his ArbCom sanctions← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:01, 25 December 2024 edit undoSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,206 edits →Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Louis Mangione: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| {{User talk:Sandstein/Header}} | {{User talk:Sandstein/Header}} | ||
| == 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.] (]) 14:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Happy New Year!== | |||
| <div style="background:orange; padding: 10px; border-top: 3px solid yellow; border-left: 3px solid yellow; border-right: 3px solid yellow; border-bottom: 3px solid yellow 8px; font-size: 110%; font-family:Tahoma; text-align: center;"> | |||
| ] | |||
| Dear {{BASEPAGENAME}},<br> <span style="color:red">'''HAPPY NEW YEAR'''</span> Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!<br> From a fellow editor,<br> --] (]) | |||
| :Can you please link to that DRV? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <small>This message promotes ]. Originally created by ] (see "invisible note"). <!--To use this template, leave <nowiki>{{subst:User:Nahnah4/Happy New Year}}</nowiki> on someone else's talk page.--></small> | |||
| ::https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_October_23 ] (]) 05:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| ::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) | |||
| == |
== AfD result was redirect, not keep == | ||
| The result at the ] was "Redirect" not "keep" per the ] instructions for an article that was changed in scope. | |||
| I am out of town with no pc access until monday. Which is why this group chose this time to ambush me. I will respond then. But will say this. I never compared any editor to a child rapist. The accusers took that among other things i said out of context and misreported them. Same with the shovel comment its a figure of speech from the military, another reason for their enmity. The discussion was about source material. As in published authors on the subject and the subject was the technical aspect of firearms. Read that entire conversation before passing judgement as well as the other diffs they cherry picked. Sorry to put you folks through this, glad they didnt bring up the time i broke that lamp in 1973, respectfully -- mike searson (no tildes on my phone) | |||
| Could you correct that? ] (]) 19:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I've copied this to ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you, sir, and I do apologize for all the time this has taken up with your Admin team, regardless of the outcome. If I stay here I will definitely choose my words more carefully in the future. All I ask is that what was brought up be taken in context and that the rendered judgement is fair.--] - ] 05:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :No, in my judgment rough consensus in the AfD was to keep the article, albeit with a somewhat different title and scope. A redirect would be something different, namely, suppressing the original article's contents and pointing it to another existing article. That was not what the AfD decided on. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Request permission for outcome of DRV == | |||
| ::The people that voted for it to be moved to a courtcase have really not actually passed the burden of proof that the case is notable, it looks very run-off-the-mill which likely fails ]. I'm fine that it was redirected for now, but I would like to note that that was not a keep by any measure of the word, that was a redirect. | |||
| ::The BLP was not notable and was not kept, so a 'keep' result is disingenious as the new article is entirely not in having kept the BLP, it was redirected to a new title and different scope, which by itself, may not meet the burden of ] and may itself be subject to AfD. ] (]) 19:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, Misplaced Pages is not a legal system, we don't require anyone to meet a particular burden of proof. What matters is rough consensus, and here that consensus was to keep the article with a change in name and scope. The article was renamed, not redirected. You are free to disagree, and to either appeal the closure at ], or to start a new AfD. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not saying the rough consensus wasn't to move, I'm just saying that "keep" is the wrong word used on the closure, it was "moved" or "redirected". ] (]) 19:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The article was moved, yes, but that's noted in the closure, and does not conflict with keeping it. It was not however redirected, see ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks, now that the article has been focused on the legal case, sans puffery that was filled in the previous BLP article, it's pretty clear that it's a run-off-the-mill routine legal case, so I've followed your suggestion and filed an ] for the case article itself as I don't think it actually passes the ] notability criteria. ] (]) 21:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for advice == | |||
| I was a bit curious and didn't quite have time to address this issue, but what was the reason behind ]'s DRV closure as disallow recreation? Upon reviewing the debate, the outcome was 6 - 8 in favor of disallow, however, I can't find a policy based rational for disallowing recreation. I was wondering if you could take a look at this ] and let me know if you see any reason why this does not pass WP:N. If not I was hoping for permission to recreate with immediate nomination for AfD I feel it will pass. ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 21:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I didn't say "disallow", I said "There is no consensus to allow the recreation of the article". Which is what was the case. The "delete" outcome therefore continues to control the fate of the article. As to the draft, that depends on whether it contains substantial new sources not available in previous discussions. If that is the case, I recommend that you ask the previous AfD closer's opinion. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I need permission from you for allow recreation, ] has not been activate as of late. This topic has been controversial, due to disbelief and disregarding of sources, however each source I've listed is secondary and reliable, I have added an additional six sources. I have no intentions of an immediate relist, instead, I would like you to objectively look at the article in question. It does meet the requirement based on WP:N to be listed, then I will request other admins to take a look before relisting to the mainspace. I feel many of the disallows are politically motivated as oppose to policy based and your approval is the first stepping stone. ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 18:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I have very little experience of deletion discussions. I see that according to ] {{tq|An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:….}} I don’t know what ‘uninvolved’ means in this context. | |||
| == Tiny note == | |||
| The guidance later says: {{tq|for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. }}. I’m wondering whether it would be normal/acceptable to notify everyone who participated in the deletion discussion on ] that there has been an immediate proposal to delete the renamed article | |||
| Friendly note for you, Sandstein. The book actually mentions 7 and I confirmed and cited all inline. However, Boston Society of Film Critics did not award Sarandon in 1988, it awarded Melanie Griffith instead. Minor note - White Palace was not a co-win according to Hollywood Reporter. However, the numerous errors and frankly improper Razzies directed at Cage are more concerning. I have not gone through and weeded out all the errors yet. ] (]) 17:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I would be grateful for your advice on these matters. ] (]) 23:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, amended accordingly. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please also see about dubious nature of that particular book source, itself, and questioning whether it actually satisfies ]. — ''']''' (]) 17:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Please may I have a reply to my request for advice. Thank you. ] (]) 12:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Remainig the reference after ... == | |||
| my repply . <br> | |||
| Hi Sandstein, <br> | |||
| I am not going to discuss why, but I'd ask you to add the to Nishidani's reference: "User:Igorp lj protested its lack of NPOV from the start".<br> | |||
| Thanks in advance, --] (]) 00:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:@], sorry for the late reply. "Uninvolved" means somebody who has not yet expressed a view. My understanding is that notifying all participants to the earlier AfD about the second one would be acceptable. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thanks. ] (]) 20:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :: Again: it's not about the Case as a whole. It's only about Nishidani's claim in my address what is remained as a fact after you erased my reply to it. --] (]) 22:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| You closed this ], which is fine, I haven't yet got hold of the book source that may or may not establish notability. (I should have done this before deletion but) Is there any way of you copying the source to ] so I could potentially improve before resurrection? ]] 07:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't understand what you mean. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi, here's the deleted article (will expire in 7 days): https://pastebin.com/c8cind7y <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cwobeel == | |||
| ::Super, copied, thanks. ]] 10:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| FYI, about ], the IMDb section about the awards is NOT user-generated (nor user-updateable, or user-fixable). It is directly managed by the IMDb staff. Just for record. --] 12:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Interesting, but it appears that the text at issue didn't even match what was in IMDb. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Sandstein, | |||
| It was a tricky AfD to close, but after discarding the canvassed and non-P&G votes, I see a consensus to delete. I found two threads on Reddit canvassing for votes, and I'm sure others exist. What you said about NLIST is true, but I believe the Keep !voters did not adequately refute the issues of NLIST and CROSSCAT, which was nicely summarized by {{u|Dclemens1971}} there. I'd be willing to re-close (and likely face the inevitable DRV...), if that's okay with you. ] ] 20:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Question == | |||
| :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) | |||
| I have a question related to three sources Cwobeel had added to an article. The first and two more and . The trivial one-sentence or less mentions, without supporting evidence or analysis was used as evidence of Islamophobia now "fomenting Islamophobia" which does not match either. The claim is defamatory and it is being discussed, but Cwobeel and Coffeepusher asserted that because the source exists - it can be used in the lead and on the biography. Most interesting is the first source, which is essentially "Islamophobes Steven Emerson" and immediately states (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh). The problem with the latter (sourced to Think Progress by the book) is that it is irrelvant, not in context or accurate. Though that's all the entire book states - never returning to Emerson at all. This was the source used to confirm and accuse Emerson of being a bigot. | |||
| ::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 ]== | |||
| {{ping|Atsme}} has taken a bit of too far of stance on legitimate criticism, but made the first push to remove it. I consider it a BLP issue and a clear problem to call anyone or state they have been labeled a bigot in such a fashion. I dislike subjective conjecture or attacks about a person's beliefs as a "matter of fact", especially contentious ones. Pundits and political commentary or labels are the bane of BLPs and Misplaced Pages for this reason. Two POV pushers might balance an article to more or less neutral, but it will be a wall of "crap people said". Though the article has others which exist like : {{tq|In response to these comments, British Prime Minister David Cameron said that he "choked on his porridge" when he heard them and observed that Emerson was "clearly a complete idiot".}} Is the sort of reactionary comments that are not appropriate for a biography, is not the same as accusing of being a bigot. I do not know how best to respond to these sourced, but improper usage of sources for controversy and reception surrounding a person. That being said, the "praise" is equally problematic and I rather be done with the "reception" section as a whole. ] (]) 18:46, 25 January 2015 (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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :Okay ... in which capacity do you think I can help here? As an editor, I'm not familiar with the topic area and unlikely to produce great insights. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:57, 25 January 2015 (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) | |||
| :: Eh - a valid point. I was looking for your interpretation of whether or not the trivial assertion of bigotry from the material was sufficient weight and reliable for inclusion. Sort of how Birther conspiracies on ] are not included or given any attention and inside reside in ]. Anyways, I don't like BLPs because this political bickering is always non-neutral, just was seeing if calling someone a bigot or "fomenting bigotry" (bigot replaced by Islamophobe) is a valid BLP issue. But it is not the end of the world. It is technically "sourced" even if it is not in the claimed trivial source. ] (]) 19:13, 25 January 2015 (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 == | |||
| == Link == | |||
| Is there a reason why ] was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --] (]) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I have indicated that the evidence of the stalking I spoke of is in the page to which I first linked. I regret that you did not review the entirety of the page, which I would have thought would have been expected under the circumstances. Also note how your rush to judgment regarding who a comment was "clearly" directed at is itself very likely wrong, or at least a rush to judgment regarding my motivations which is of course completely different from what I was thinking at the time. Perhaps you might take the time to review the entirety of pages linked to before casting rather poorly founded judgments. ] (]) 18:52, 25 January 2015 (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) | |||
| ==Discussions related to the block of Eric Corbett== | |||
| === Good block === | |||
| I agree with your rationale. --] (] · ] · ]) 18:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Reflecting on the commentary below and elsewhere, I'm persuaded that a clear warning (that referring to GGTF again will trigger a block) would have been preferable. It would have clarified the boundaries for Eric - which is what was needed - with the least amount of disruption. --] (] · ] · ]) 05:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *. Tell me, how long have you been waiting with fingertips poised on that one? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 19:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*What makes you think I would be? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*A knee-jerk block such as yours speaks volumes. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to detect motives. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 19:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I think you should ask Lightbreather to stop posting on Eric's talk page, now that he's blocked. He's removed these so far, and I hope she gets the message not to continue posting there. ] (]) 19:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*I agree that users shouldn't leave talk page messages that are clearly unwelcome. But I'm active in this context in an arbitration enforcement capacity, and would prefer to remain active in this capacity only, to prevent concerns of personal involvement in any of the conflicts that may be behind all this. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*EChastain, when you write "He's removed ''these'' so far..." you make it sound like I've posted at Eric Corbett's talk page multiple times. The fact is, I posted to Eric's talk page ''ONE'' time since notifying him yesterday of the enforcement request. The ''ONE'' comment was within the enforcement request notification discussion, after another editor compared me to a witch, and Eric replied, "The only females who've complained about me are those I've never come across..." | |||
| ::I can't speak for the other women, but I had ''never heard'' of Eric before this exchange at WT:AN in July 2014: | |||
| :::Lightbreather: ''Where and how can I go about making a formal request to make a unique noticeboard area''? | |||
| :::Eric Corbett: ''the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one''. | |||
| ::A reminder of this exchange was what I posted in response to his "The only females" remark. Of course, he deleted that reminder because he prefers the narrative that I swooped down on him from outta nowhere and complained of incivility for no reason. ] (]) 00:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Considering that I tried - twice - to just get his comments removed per ], but had to go to AE to get action, I think a 48-hour block was very kind. Short of ignoring the breach completely, the only kinder block would have been 24 hours. ] (]) 00:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| === Consensus === | |||
| I am pretty sure that arbitration enforcement is not mandatory and the arbcom never meant for us to not be able to consider each situation individually. You action in regards to the complaint against Eric goes directly against the consensus that was forming there. You took it upon yourself to ignore the opinions of others, cast a supervote and act unilaterally and then close the discussion. I think you know how Eric will react to this and I think this action was not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. I am not going to fight this action however I felt like voicing my opinion. ] 22:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for your feedback - I mean this seriously, even if we do not agree in this case. I did consider the individual circumstances of the situation and saw no reason not to enforce the remedy as in any other case of a topic ban violation. Because AE actions are individual admin actions, they are not based on, and do not require, consensus - in this sense, every AE admin has a supervote. Unlike – apparently – others, I do not know Eric Corbett and am not involved in any social circles he may be a part of. How he will react is therefore no concern of mine. Either he complies with the topic ban, in which case the block will have served its purpose, or he does not, in which case he will get blocked for increasing periods of time. What else he may or may not do is his own business. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just because an action does not require consensus to perform does not mean you can still perform it when a consensus not to do it exists. If you had done this on your own when there was no discussion opposing it then I would not be here. It is the disregard for consensus that concerns me. This is a subtle point but a very important one. The whole point of the AE page is to discuss enforcement, clearly consensus is not banished from the room. ] 22:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also I do know Eric and his level of disruption has gone from a 9 out of 10 down to a 2 out of 10 since those sanctions. This coupled with his prodigious article contributions has caused me to go from wanting him banned to wanting him to stay. I also knows he reacts in a self destructive manner when he feels he has been treated unfair. Regardless I think the damage is done. ] 22:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, evidently I ''can'' do it, because I did, and I also ''may'' do it, because the arbitrators who wrote the relevant procedures quite purposefully left out any references to prior discussion or consensus. AE is supposed to be a fast-track enforcement venue, not just another drama board in the vein of AN(I). I'd also argue that the point of AE isn't to discuss, but to request enforcement (it's called requests for enforcement, not discussions about enforcement), and that there wasn't a consensus ''not'' to take action. But that is a somewhat academic issue, because there ''is'' a place for consensus-finding in the AE process. It's just that it isn't at the enforcement stage but rather at the appeals stage. If and when an appeal is made, then the consensus of other editors or admins becomes relevant, but not before. – As to Eric Corbett, I'm of the view that sanctions, and rules generally, should be applied in an equal and predictable manner no matter who they apply to, or what contributions these people have made, or else they are meaningless. If you think that these sanctions have helped to curb disruption by Eric Corbett, then they can only continue to do so if they are actually enforced. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Please see the ] regarding editing on the GGTF project. This ds alert regarding discretionary standards appears to apply only to behavior on the GGTF project pages. Is this right? ] (]) 22:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Discretionary sanctions apply to whole topic areas, in this case, "pages relating to the Gender gap task force" - that is, not only the project pages as such. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::p.s. To me it seems like its not a topic ban, it's a project ban, per the wording of the "alert" I gave a link to above. So you are saying that this means that everywhere on wikipedia, on talk pages of editors and other projects and edit summaries, if GGTF is mentioned by an editor, that mention is subject to discretionary standards? ] (]) 22:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, see generally ] and ] for how the scope of such sanctions is generally described. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{edit conflict}} So at a wikiproject like ], editors are not free to mention anything regarding GGTF without worrying? There is no where that this can be discussed without worry? ] (]) 22:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If you are not engaging in any misconduct such as edit-warring, personal attacks or similar, then there is no reason to worry. But, yes, misconduct related to the GGTF can be addressed through discretionary sanctions on every page of Misplaced Pages. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Just my opinion but this really doesn't and shouldn't need to be another circus, lets all go back to editing the encyclopedia. If people have their concerns there are other places they can take it to - ] (]) 22:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Criticism=== | |||
| {{hat|1=Noted. Please continue any discussions among people who are not me elsewhere. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| You are a disgrace to Misplaced Pages. If there was a way to desysop you, I would wholeheartedly pursue it. A proverbial admin on a power trip that cannot see further from the nose. Not that its founder is much better. ] (]) 22:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. Although stand by, your comments maybe removed like mine were as we only hear of sycophantic backslapping comments here. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 22:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't and think you should stop harassing here. - ] (]) 22:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Fortunatly, I couldn't care what you think. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 23:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Can somebody explain to me what the deal with Eric Corbett is that an ordinary block for an ordinary topic ban violation creates this much excitement? I seem to have inadvertently stumbled into one of Misplaced Pages's complicated social networks to which special rules apply, or whose participants think that this is so. Not that I care about these matters, but it seems really peculiar that this one user attracts that much attention. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*I recommend a block for no such user for throwing out personal attacks here. Sandstein is I were you id archive these discussions and just move on there are other places these people can go. - ] (]) 22:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Well, no, editors should be able to criticize admin actions on an admin's talk page, although I would wish that they'd be a bit more specific about why they object to an action rather than just making very general allegations of bad faith and the like. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Its up to you, Eric has people on his side though, you may not have known it but you opened up something here, otherwise, as I think you said this would be more of a routine block. - ] (]) 22:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And where would that be KnowledgeKid? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 22:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The talk on Eric's talk-page should speak for its-self shouldn't it? With all the things said about Sandstein its becoming a dog pile. - ] (]) 23:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::As Sandstein has said "editors should be able to criticize admin actions on an admin's talk page", which is what I'm doing. And if you don't like it Knowledgekid then you know where you can go don't you? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 23:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Nice ] with that loaded question. - ] (]) 23:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::*{{ec}}So I ''will'' be more specific: I've been around quite a while, as well as you are. You have a worrying tendency to apply bureaucratic, mindless reading of any rule around, and apply it in the harshest manner possible. In fact, I think you chose AE as your favorite field of operation, because there you can hide behind (never explicitly passed to you, AFAIK), authority of ARBCOM, so that your rush decisions cannot be reversed or easily taken into question. In this particular thread, there was a consensus between admins that the infraction was mild and/or provoked, yet you took it upon yourself to block, knowing that (being AE) it's an irreversible action. What you don't know, or realize, or care, is that this block can only further increase the amount of bad blood and drama on this site. The sooner your bullying actions are removed from the equation, or at least you are desysopped or banned from the AE, the sooner this will be a more pleasant place. Now you can block me, I don't give a fuck. ] (]) 23:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :''Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year''. ] Eric Corbett got off pretty light with a 48-hour block. ] (]) 00:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*Well done, {{U|Lightbreather}}! You haven't often gotten what you wanted on Misplaced Pages, but today is your day. Enjoy it--you got one of our best editors blocked on a trivial matter, a technicality. Sandstein, the "social circle" of this Corbett, whom you don't claim to know, is called "Misplaced Pages". Don't pretend this is all just new to you. You know, I got made admin and considered it an honor to be given a kind of power that is my own to wield but is limited, practically and ethically, by the community, in particular a community of admins. Yes, DS allows you to make your own decision, and thus in this case you were indeed free to wipe your ass with what the rest of us had to say. ] (]) 04:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Had it been any other editor you wouldn't even be here but because "one of our best editors" it all of a sudden is a huge deal that requires hours of debate like even the "best editors" never can make a mistake or do any wrongdoing. - ] (]) 05:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::*The block was harsh and ill-thought out. That's why it has generated such a drama. Your right inasmuch that this pantomime has been caused by Eric being blocked; anyone else would have received a reminder of the ArbCom result and the other party also warned. As it stands Eric has been blocked and the other party is dishing out awards like he's some kind of victim. What, and there's no agenda? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 06:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*There is no agenda, people just don't like Light it has been evident here ] and also kindly pointed out again on Eric's talkpage. I am waiting here for another ] as a memorial I mean so far we have a cop for Sandstein and wildflowers for Eric's wife all over a 48 hr block. - ] (]) 12:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*Well I don't even know him/her so I can't be blamed for that. What pisses me off is Sandstein's seamless ability to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut and his/her failure to recognise that it takes two to tango. Rather than be fair and block/warn Lightbreather, he/she is now accepting awards from them which gives the impression that he/she endorses Lightbreather's behaviour, and who is now behaving like a fucking victim; let's not forget, it was her who waived the bait under Eric's nose, thus causing this ridiculous pantomime. Lastly, Knowledgekid, I would remind you to remain civil seeing as you are so quick to finger point at others when they make similar comments like the ones above. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 14:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not "accepting" any awards, but I can't prevent editors leaving them on my talk page, much like I can't prevent you from offering your opinion. I have not examined the conduct of Lightbreather because my activity here is limited to arbitration enforcement, and no claim of misconduct by Lightbreather that falls under any arbitration remedies or discretionary sanctions has been made, and so I have no opinion as to whether her conduct might have been objectionable. If you think that there is such misconduct, you or anybody else can make an enforcement request at ]. If not, Cassianto and Knowledgekid87, I ask that you please conduct any further discussion between you two elsewhere. Thanks, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :You have accepted it by retaining it below. If you were unwilling to accept it because of your "activity" at ArbCom, then you should leave an explanatory note saying "Owing to recent events, and because I am involved at ArbCom, I'm unable to accept this barnstar because....". But you haven't. You claim to be limited not to get get involved when it comes to dishing out warnings fairly, but clearly not involved enough to accept glitterati from involved parties. If you are "uninvolved" then you should not be accepting awards. Lastly, and like I have said before, I will not be making a request at AE because it would not be treated fairly as it's run by a load of Eric hating yes men who don't know their arse from their elbow. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 14:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| @Cassianto. ''Lightbreather's behaviour, and who is now behaving like a fucking victim; let's not forget, it was her who waived the bait under Eric's nose'' LB is a woman. To suggest that she is behaving as if she has been raped is a grotesque PA. You are the one who is baiting. ''yes men who don't know their arse from their elbow'' This is grossly uncivil, and, I believe, the number of admins at AE is small enough for this to be considered a PA. Behave yourself.] (]) 15:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you drunk? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 15:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| ===Barnstars=== | |||
| {{hat|1=Also noted. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|]|]}} | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Integrity''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | People can have faith and confidence only because of guys like you. ] (]) 22:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| Thanks. I appreciate that. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :lol. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 22:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| Disregarding it and warning Lightbreather aside, I disagree with such a use of barnstars. Blocks are not to be celebrated. They may be solemnly endorsed, but to celebrate them is to forget their true nature: they are like the scar left behind when cutting a disruptive branch off a tree, and no one would argue that such scars are anything but ugly and that the tree would not scream if it had a voice. ]] 17:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Just noticed ; apologies for misinterpreting Lightbreather's intentions. Furthermore, I don't disagree with the block -- AFAICT Eric did break his topic ban. ]] 18:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ANI == | |||
| Hi--just realized that I should have told you about , given that the editor's grudge is against you, and it's easy enough to miss the notification that comes with wikilinking a username. ]<sup>]]</sup> 02:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==ANI mention== | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 19:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Note == | |||
| An editor is attempting a block review at ]. I do not know if AN is the proper place, but I posted the evidence and corrected a false claim made by the OP. ] (]) 02:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I have commented there. In my opinion the right way to challenge the block is with an {{tl|Arbitration enforcement appeal}}, which usually is initiated by the person blocked. In the AN post I fixed the spelling of Cwobeel. ] (]) 03:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == A beer for you! == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | One of the truest tests of integrity is its blunt refusal to be compromised. | |||
| ] | |||
| --] ] 12:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == Edit Summary on Cwobeel's page == | |||
| Sandstein, the link you supplied on Cwobeel's webpage to the AE discussion doesn't work. The link you provided ( https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=WP:AE&oldid=643973454#Cwobeel) ) just gives a bad gateway error. I believe the link you're looking for is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Cwobeel. | |||
| <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue">]] </span> 18:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == EC violating his ArbCom sanctions == | |||
| According to ]: "Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors. The restriction comes into immediate effect on the passing of this motion." Yesterday, he made these comments that I think constitute "insulting and/or belittling other editors": and Today, he has . ] (]) 19:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|1=Please do not use this talk page to settle disagreements among other editors. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| *Do you have nothing better to do Rationalobserver? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 19:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * I just cannot help but notice that this seems to be in response to your recent content dispute about Oxford commas. Is this really in the best interests of the encyclopedia? ] 19:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :* They are totally unrelated, but thanks for the bad-faith! ] (]) 20:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :* Maybe you could clarify who is allowed to report to AE, but I assume it would not include anyone who has ever had a disagreement with EC, which would preclude quite a few people, don't you think? I think calling another editor "filth" is an insult that violates EC's sanctions, and I see absolutely no reason why it's inappropriate to report it just because I found a few oxford commas that don't belong in an article that he ''helped'' write. ] (]) 20:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*:They are clearly not "totally unrelated" at all. Why have you posted this complaint on Sandstein's talk page anyway, instead of at the proper venue? Are you hoping to slide it through without any oversight? ] ] 21:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::* Are you really saying that all editors who have ever been in a conflict, or are currently in a content dispute, with you are not allowed to report your violations of sanctions? Really? Also, is it really a content dispute? ] that it's ''not'' okay to have some serial commas here and there but not everywhere. So, if we are in a content dispute together, what exactly do we disagree on? ] (]) 21:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::* You , which is an insult that violates your ArbCom sanctions. ] (]) 21:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::*:Did I? What about answering my question though? Are you hoping that Sandstein will simply block me again? ] ] 21:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* I'm not sure what the proper protocol is, but since he dealt with you yesterday I assumed he might be a good person to show this to today. Now will you answer my question? If we are currently in a content dispute, what exactly do we disagree about? ] (]) 21:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*:Haven't I made it clear enough to you that I have no further interest in articles about female subjects, including Enid Blyton? Do what you will with it, I couldn't care less. ] ] 21:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::* Above you implied that we were in a content dispute: Chillum: "this seems to be in response to your recent content dispute about Oxford commas"; my response: "They are totally unrelated"; your response: "They are clearly not 'totally unrelated' at all". I'm going to disengage from this now, as I see that you don't want to resolve anything. ] (]) 22:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| :Rationalobserver, if you think that there is a case for arbitration enforcement, please make a request at ], where multiple admins will look at it and where there is a bit more of a structured venue in which to process such requests. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:01, 25 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)
AfD result was redirect, not keep
The result at the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allison Bailey was "Redirect" not "keep" per the Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Administrator_instructions#Carrying_out_the_AfD_close instructions for an article that was changed in scope. Could you correct that? Raladic (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, in my judgment rough consensus in the AfD was to keep the article, albeit with a somewhat different title and scope. A redirect would be something different, namely, suppressing the original article's contents and pointing it to another existing article. That was not what the AfD decided on. Sandstein 19:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- The people that voted for it to be moved to a courtcase have really not actually passed the burden of proof that the case is notable, it looks very run-off-the-mill which likely fails WP:EVENTCRIT. I'm fine that it was redirected for now, but I would like to note that that was not a keep by any measure of the word, that was a redirect.
- The BLP was not notable and was not kept, so a 'keep' result is disingenious as the new article is entirely not in having kept the BLP, it was redirected to a new title and different scope, which by itself, may not meet the burden of WP:EVENTCRIT and may itself be subject to AfD. Raladic (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, Misplaced Pages is not a legal system, we don't require anyone to meet a particular burden of proof. What matters is rough consensus, and here that consensus was to keep the article with a change in name and scope. The article was renamed, not redirected. You are free to disagree, and to either appeal the closure at WP:DRV, or to start a new AfD. Sandstein 19:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not saying the rough consensus wasn't to move, I'm just saying that "keep" is the wrong word used on the closure, it was "moved" or "redirected". Raladic (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- The article was moved, yes, but that's noted in the closure, and does not conflict with keeping it. It was not however redirected, see WP:REDIRECT. Sandstein 19:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, now that the article has been focused on the legal case, sans puffery that was filled in the previous BLP article, it's pretty clear that it's a run-off-the-mill routine legal case, so I've followed your suggestion and filed an Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bailey v Stonewall, Garden Court Chambers and Others for the case article itself as I don't think it actually passes the WP:EVENTCRIT notability criteria. Raladic (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not saying the rough consensus wasn't to move, I'm just saying that "keep" is the wrong word used on the closure, it was "moved" or "redirected". Raladic (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, Misplaced Pages is not a legal system, we don't require anyone to meet a particular burden of proof. What matters is rough consensus, and here that consensus was to keep the article with a change in name and scope. The article was renamed, not redirected. You are free to disagree, and to either appeal the closure at WP:DRV, or to start a new AfD. Sandstein 19:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Request for advice
I have very little experience of deletion discussions. I see that according to WP:APPNOTE An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:….
I don’t know what ‘uninvolved’ means in this context.
The guidance later says: for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it.
. I’m wondering whether it would be normal/acceptable to notify everyone who participated in the deletion discussion on Allison Bailey that there has been an immediate proposal to delete the renamed article
I would be grateful for your advice on these matters. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Please may I have a reply to my request for advice. Thank you. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Sweet6970, sorry for the late reply. "Uninvolved" means somebody who has not yet expressed a view. My understanding is that notifying all participants to the earlier AfD about the second one would be acceptable. Sandstein 17:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Harold Fishwick
You closed this AfD, which is fine, I haven't yet got hold of the book source that may or may not establish notability. (I should have done this before deletion but) Is there any way of you copying the source to my user space so I could potentially improve before resurrection? U003F 07:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, here's the deleted article (will expire in 7 days): https://pastebin.com/c8cind7y Sandstein 10:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Super, copied, thanks. U003F 10:07, 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/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)