User talk:Sandstein: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:06, 5 December 2017 editBishonen (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,300 edits →The Atsme AE: I've decided against starting a new AE thread← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 07:37, 3 January 2025 edit undoSandstein (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,505 edits →Smoothstack: ReplyTag: Reply
Line 5:		Line 5:
	{{User talk:Sandstein/Header}}		{{User talk:Sandstein/Header}}

			== closing the DRV on the TEJ GIRI topic (October 23) ==
	== Clarification, please? ==

			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)
	I came across User:Mishae and saw I read the various noticeboard & TP discussions and so many of the responses by our admins make me appreciate them that much more. My question to you stems from my desire to expand my knowledge about how socks operate, and the "signs" that customarily indicate such activity. I noticed in Mishae's contributions that there have been TP welcomes created, most of which are for users who have no edits, no user page, and the few that do are minimal. I'm not sure what to think of it, and was hoping you could fill me in. Thanks in advance. <sup>]]]</sup> 16:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
	:I don't know what to make of these edits either. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
	::Do we just leave them there taking up space, or is that not an issue? Could someone who knows the login and password use those IDs as socks to avoid a block? Is there someone else I should ask? <sup>]]]</sup> 19:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
	:::Space is not an issue, but you could ask at ] if an admin wants to ] them all. I don't see this as a real problem though. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:18, 28 November 2017 (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)
	== ] article ==
			::https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_October_23 ] (]) 05:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
	Hello,
			::I am waiting for your response. ] (]) 04:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
			::Hello, I haven't received any response yet. I kindly request you to restore it as a draft, highlighting the issues that caused the result to be marked as "delete." ] (]) 11:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@], sorry for the late reply. I have no particular advice to give, since my role as DRV closer is limited to assessing consensus in the DRV, and therefore I have not formed an opinion of my own about the article at issue. You should address your restoration request to the deleting admin <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Thank you for your response. I have no idea on "restoration request." Could you please let me know where I can find it? ] (]) 16:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Just ask the deleting admin on their talk page. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] ==
	I see that you recently deleted the Marie Plourde article following an afd.

			Hi Sandstein,
	I agree with the afd participants that the previous version of the article – which I did not write – did not adequately assert the subject's notability. I have drafted a new version of the article (currently posted on ]) that, I believe, does this.

			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)
	My understanding of Misplaced Pages's current afd policy is that I have the right to post the new/improved version of the article without going through a formal deletion review or request for undeletion. In the interest of transparency, however, I wanted to check in with you to ensure that we are on the same page on this point. (Incidentally, my understanding of Misplaced Pages's current afd policy is based on a conversation that I had a short time ago with ], the user who nominated the previous version of this particular article for deletion.)

			: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)
	Can you please advise me if you would object to the new version of the article being posted? Thanks, ] (]) 08:45, 28 November 2017 (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. ] (]) 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 ]==
	:Thanks for asking. I do not currently have the time to follow up on this, so I won't express an opinion either way. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:32, 28 November 2017 (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)
	== Your signature ==
			::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.
	Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <code><nowiki><font></nowiki></code> tags, which are causing ] lint errors.
			*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)
	You are encouraged to change
			::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.
	: <code><nowiki><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small></nowiki></code> → <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small>
			::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 ==
	to
	: <code><nowiki><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small></nowiki></code> → <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small>

			Is there a reason why ] was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --] (]) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	Respectfully, Anomalocaris 21:50, 28 November 2017 (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)
	== Taylor Henry page deleted ==

			== Smoothstack ==
	Dear Sandstein,

			I didn't have a chance to weigh in on ], which you closed a couple days ago. Would you object to redirecting this to ]? It already mentions Smoothstack and says pretty much what the article already says, so the ] stub seems redundant. If more information can be fleshed out, then the article can be split off as standalone again. ~] <small>(])</small> 23:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	I understand that the page "Taylor Henry" was deleted per discussion over its "lack of notability."

			:In my capacity as AfD closer, I don't have any objections to anything anyone does with the article - my role was limited to closing the AfD. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	However, Misplaced Pages's criteria for "notability" of a journalist include the receipt of a major award and references in multiple publications. As the deleted article noted, I received the Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Award, one of the top two national awards in American television journalism. In addition, my work as an overseas correspondent for CNN and other news channels has been the subject of numerous articles in a variety of publications.

	I did not write the originally posted article, and I understand that I am free to resubmit an documented article without prior review. Can you please verify this, and advise as to how I might go about submitting the new page?

	Thank you for your reply.

	Taylor Henry] (]) 18:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

	:Mr. Taylor: Thanks for your inquiry. The article ] was deleted as a result of unanimous consensus in the community discussion ]. For it to be recreated, there would need to be the sort of coverage of you and your work that is described in our notability guideline ]. If, as you say, your work "has been the subject of numerous articles in a variety of publications" then these requirements might be met.
	:However, our conflict of interest guideline, ], strongly discourages writing articles about oneself. In light of this, it would be inappropriate for me to assist you in recreating an article about yourself.
	:Regards, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

	What about the duPont Award? Next to the Peabody, it is one of the top two national awards in American television? Under Misplaced Pages specs, receipt of a major national award in the industry is grounds for "notability." How was this overlooked in the discussion? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:You'd have to ask the people contributing to the discussion. But generally, while we do treat things like awards as indicators of notability, in almost all cases of challenged notability the availability of sources as described at ] is the determining factor. That's because we can't write a good article without such sources. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

	Thank you for your reply. But the sources regarding the duPont were meticulously documented in the originally posted article. Curious to know: how did the discussion over the article arise, and how was a decision made with only four comments? It all seems a little hasty to me. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:Anybody can nominate an article for deletion, and then the discussion lasts at least seven days, so there's nothing hasty going on. See ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

	Sandstein, the more I look into this, the stranger it gets. Apparently, the person who nominated the article for deletion back on Nov. 10 was a "Shawn in Montreal." Shawn's page now says that Shawn is "Retired," and "This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages." I would like to request an internal review on the part of Misplaced Pages. This doesn't look right. How would I go about formally requesting a review?

	:At ], per the instructions there, but the people reviewing will be other volunteers, and they will very likely also not help you write an article about yourself. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

	Fair enough. The only reason that I suggested my own submission is that I suspect sooner or later someone will resubmit an article, and I would rather submit my own than he or she submit theirs. The article that was deleted was very poorly written, and I would never have approved it had I the opportunity. Anyway, it is what it is. Thank you for your attention and so long for now.

	== Magic the Gathering is an online video game ==

	I saw you reverted my edits at ]. I tried to preempt your blind revert by showing people that the game is also an online video game (I even linked it in my edit summary), but you kind of steamrolled right past that. So I've reverted your edit. ] (]) 21:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
	:The article ] says "Magic: The Gathering is a trading card game created by Richard Garfield." <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
	::Yes, and a square is also a rectangle. Magic the Gathering is clearly a trading card game, but it's also a ], but it is not ''just'' a card game. Personally speaking, I'd guess that 33% of all games are played on their online server. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I will update that article. ] (]) 23:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

	== ArbCom 2017 election voter message ==

	{{Ivmbox\|Hello, Sandstein. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

	The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

	If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
	\|Scale of justice 2.svg\|imagesize=40px}}
	<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/08&oldid=813407029 -->

	== Why are you suppressing my ability to voice my complaints about another user's misconduct? I modified my edit in accordance with your claim that it was a "screed" ==

	<s>What's the deal? I take exception to your deletion of my talk page comment based purely on the claim that it was a "screed" even after I modified it to remove anything "screed"-like about it. I kindly request that you re-instate my comment. I should be allowed to voice my complaints about the user's bad conduct. ] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 09:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--></s> Sockpuppet - Kingshowman. --] (]) 16:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

	<s>Seems to me that you are ], and just misused your tools to suppress evidence. Shame!] (]) 09:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)</s> This one too. --] (]) 16:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

	:You do not have a right to free speech on Misplaced Pages. Administrators determine what is or is not useful to them to help reach them a decision at ]. Your contribution was not helpful, and I removed it. If you continue to disrupt the arbitration process, you may be made subject to blocks or other sanctions. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

	== Logged vs. closed ==

	It was my understanding that a sanction that is in place is based on how the sanction was logged, NOT in the wording used in the closing of the WP:AE request. This has been the practice in the past. Additionally, aside from the logging, the nature of the sanction is specified in the relevant notification to the user, and, again, not in the wording used in the closing.

	Can you please clarify which one is it. What the admin says in the closing. What the admin logs. What the admin says in the notification left on a user's page. What the admin says subsequently. Or is it some kind of "average" of these three? Basically, I'm wondering what the hey are you guys doing? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

	:My opinion is that the three should be identical. If by chance they are not, clarification should be sought with the sanctioning admin or, failing that, at ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
	::Ok, first, if the three were identical this wouldn't be an issue and no need for me to ask this question.
	::Second, I disagree, since the log is the "official record" and in the past you've refused to sanction an editor based solely based on the fact that their original sanction was improperly logged, rather than the evidence of their violation (it would take me awhile to find the specific case since there's so many, but obviously I'm familiar with the history of AE).
	::Third, and most improperly, putting the above aside, in this case you've closed the AE request DESPITE and in CONTRADICTION to the clarification made (multiple times actually) by the sanctioning admin, so that doesn't seem like the practice you're following either.
	::So I'm still at a complete loss as to what is the actual practice you follow, since your own actions contradict your words.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

	:::It's not clear to me which actions of me you refer to. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

	::::Your action: ''" Volunteer Marek is warned that Roy Moore is within the scope of their Donald Trump topic ban"''
	::::Your words: ''"clarification should be sought with the sanctioning admin"''
	::::The clarification from the sanctioning admin: ''"I would tend to agree with VM that non-Trump-related edits to Roy Moore and related articles are '''not''' a violation (...) if you're going to construe a topic ban that widely then it seems to me it's effectively a ban from all current American politics (and any historical American politics Trump happens to have commented on). '''If I'd meant to do that, I'd have done it and I didn't'''."'' (GoldenRing) (my emphasis)
	::::(note that GoldenRing had said more or less the same thing, in even clearer terms prior to the AE report - which is why I thought it obvious the topic ban did not apply to Roy Moore).
	::::<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
	:::{{tps}} Of course it's unfortunate if they're different, but if they are, and if push comes to shove, it's my opinion that what ''really'' counts is the notification to the user, on the user's talkpage. ] \| ] 14:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC).
	::::Volunteer Marek, it's still not clear to me where you see the difference in my actions. I closed the AE thread with no action, and accordingly I logged none. As to what other admins might have said or done, I cannot respond for them. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
	:::::By saying in the closing ''"''" Volunteer Marek is warned that Roy Moore is within the scope of their Donald Trump topic ban"''"'' you effectively extended the topic ban from just Donald Trump to all current American Politics (per GoldenRing), or, at the very least issued a statement which directly contradicted the clarification issued by the sanctioning admin. Before I was free to edit the Roy Moore article as long as the edits didn't involve Donald Trump. Now I can't. If you want to change the wording of the close, or somehow formally note that I am NOT in fact banned from Roy Moore (as long as it doesn't have to do with Trump), given that you only closed the report a few minutes ago, please do so.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
	::::::The closure reflects my understanding of the topic ban. Another admin, or indeed the imposing admin, may see it differently. If you wish to have this clarified, I can't do that because I can speak only for myself. But you can ask the sanctioning admin, who unlike myself can modify the wording of the topic ban, to clarify in all appropriate places (your talk page, the sanctions log) that Roy Moore is excluded from the ban if they are of that view. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
	:::::::Ok, so when you said ''"clarification should be sought with the sanctioning admin"'' you actually meant ''"closure reflects my understanding of the topic ban"'' (and has nothing to do with the clarification issued by the sanctioning admin). Why didn't you say so in the first place?
	:::::::Holy Freaking Platypus. Can you AE guys please get your shit together? You're logging sanctions incorrectly. You're contradicting each other. You're contradicting yourselves. You have no idea what you're doing. And then you blame us editors for it. You've been active at AE for years so why is it amateur hour over there? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
	::::::::The problem is that everyone at AE is acting on their own, not necessarily in concert with others. That's by design, I suppose. Don't expect AE admins to act any more coherently than any other group of random editors. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
	:::::::::That might be <u>a</u> problem, but <u>the</u> problem here is that you, specifically you, say one thing then do another.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
	:::::::(ec) So that would seem to say yes: Marek is effectively banned from all modern politics articles unless Golden Ring specifically rewords the sanction to exclude every other potential topic he might edit (despite GR specifically saying that was not his intention)? <s> Is it really hard for you to understand where the confusion is coming from here? I have been watching all of this with a mix of bewilderment and horror... Similarly, I suppose, to what people who used to pay to watch train wrecks must have felt. </s> By the by, as an Alabamian, I can assure you Moore was controversial LONG before Trump, and possibly in a way that fostered a political environment where Trump could thrive (that is to say Moore predates Trump, by a lot... The idea that Moore is popular BECAUSE of Trump is laughable, even if their politics seem similar today... What's that old adage? Correlation is not causation.) ] (]) 15:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
	*Since this has been raised on my talk page by DHeyward seeking it as justification for lifting his topic ban, I don't see how Roy Moore could possibly fall within Marek's ban. He's an individual politician, and most of the coverage focuses on him individually. By this standard, ] would be within Marek's ban because he is a frequent target of Trump tweeting. I stayed out of the case because of the Atsme angle, but I honestly have no opinion on Marek one way or the other, and I think it'd be best to amend the AE closure in this case, and if the question comes up in future AE threads, to address it then.] (]) 16:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
	:::Also from ], ] and ]. Holy shit, am I topic banned from tacos? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
	::Also, {{ping\|GoldenRing}}, it might be worth you clarifying the sanction per the IPs (somewhat sarcastic), point above, if this is getting confusing to other administrators, making the logs clearer would be important. As a user from the US, I'm honestly baffled that non-American editors consider Moore Trump-related rather than an something on his own. ] (]) 16:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
	:::{{re\|TonyBallioni\|Sandstein\|Volunteer Marek}} I will do so. However, topic bans are broadly construed "unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise" (see the wording at ]) so I don't see this having any practical effect. While I agree with TB and VM to Roy Moore is not necessarily covered by the ban, the attempt to wikilawyer the TBAN and tell us to get our shit together is not very impressive; a TBAN is a TBAN and is broadly construed unless specified otherwise, as someone of Marek's experience o isl know - because that's what the policy says. ] (]) 16:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
	::::{{replyto\|GoldenRing}}, I suppose my point is that if people are taking ''broadly construed'' to mean things that the average person in the United States would consider to not be related to Trump, it might be best to make it clear that it is ''not'' broadly construed. If your intent was to TBAN Marek from Trump, Trump-orbit, and Trump scandals, perhaps something like {{tq\|Volunteer Marek is topic banned from Donald Trump, associated political events and scandals, and closely related people, narrowly construed.}} That seems to be getting more at what you were trying to do. ] (]) 16:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

	:::::You're confusing the articles - ] is not "political" - it's about sexual abuse allegations but editors have made it political because the man is running for the Senate and by doing that, they brought Trump into the article - ''President Donald Trump, however, endorsed Moore, and accepted his denials. Alabama Republicans have largely defended Moore from the allegations. The Republican National Committee initially cut ties with Moore after the accusations were made publicly, but later restored funding to Moore's campaign.'' - and that is what I was attempting to do when VM reverted my edits before I completed adding the material. I don't see how anyone can deny that the two are connected - Trump endorsed Moore despite the sexual abuse allegations. <sup>]]]</sup> 17:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
	::::::The ] article offers a detailed look at Moore's political career. He didn't get to where he is today because of Trump. The points above need to be addressed, and VM's ban needs to be clarified. I'm not impressed by GR's insinuation that asking for clarification of the ban is "wikilawyering"... Clearly leaving the edges blurry has opened the door for either genuine confusion, or partisan gaming if one doesn't assume good faith. ] (]) 17:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
	:::::::The AE was not about ] - it's about ] which is a completely different topic. It's a BLP and Trump supports him, endorses him and the two are inseparable. Your argument is not convincing. The correlation between the two also involves the implied sexual abuse allegations against Trump. <sup>]]]</sup> 17:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

	==The Atsme AE==
	Hi, Sandstein. While you were closing the Atsme AE (and closing it properly — I don't mean to criticize you), I was writing up a proposal for it, namely to topic ban Atsme from American politics for her battleground attitude — not for the "consensus required" thing — which IMO makes her a net negative in the area (though a good editor in other parts of the encyclopedia). I'd really like to make this proposal. Do you think it would be proper for me to re-open the thread, or would you rather I started a new one, which is only about my proposal (but where of course I would refer to things said in the previous discussion)? What do you think — which is better? ] \| ] 14:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC).
	:Well, you could of course impose the sanction yourself in your individual capacity as an admin; there is no discussion needed for this. If you think discussion would be beneficial, I recommend that you open a new discussion to avoid confusion. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
	::OK. Yes, I know I can do it on my own discretion, and usually do, but in this case I'd like input from others. Thanks. ] \| ] 14:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC).
	:::Talking as a non-admin here, I do want to say that I really hate the idea of complaining about an AE being closed too quickly after seeing many languish for days, but it was open less than 24 hours before it was closed. That's not really enough time for admins imposing previous sanctions to chime in. Including that Bishonen had already warned Atsme of an impending topic ban in August as I mentioned at the AE case and that the case was about Atsme's behavior in politics topics, it would seem valid for admins continue the conversation there. Understandable too how reopening it now would result in more confusion considering the following AE case that was just opened in response to it, so the conversation should probably at least happen somehwere. ] (]) 17:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
	Hi, Sandstein! Thanks for closing the Atsme report at AE. A question, though: You closed it with warnings to VM and Atsme, but you did not place warnings on their talk pages. Would you consider giving them individual warnings in addition to the close of the AE report? I think it is helpful to have such warnings as part of their talk page history - for reference in future incidents or discussions. Thanks. --] (]) 16:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
	:::Sandstein - I came here to {{self-whale}}, but saw Bishonen's comment, and considering I don't normally edit political articles and that my presence at AE has been minimal if even 3 times over the 6 years I've been actively editing, what is being asked of you is beyond the pale for my single revert of a user violating his topic ban and who has frequented AE many times. Bishonen has shown me nothing but ill-will from when I first became an editor and it has not changed. I brought the conduct up at an ArbCom case I filed against COIN abuse. The case was denied but my statement is still available for you to review, and may very well deserve review now considering how I was treated at AN/I when she, as an involved admin, overruled a trout close by another admin there as well (back in 2015) - here she is again doing the same thing again. MelanieN is also an involved admin as an editor at the few political articles I have edited and the partisan edits may well deserve review as well. I have not been disruptive, have accepted consensus without issue but have made note of why I felt the closes were inappropriate. <s>What I'm seeing here by these two admins is railroading at its finest, and</s><sup>I retract my statement and extend my sincerest apologies to {{u\|MelanieN}} but I'm feeling as though I've been backed into a corner when all I did was revert a single edit by a highly disruptive editor I thought was TB.18:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)</sup> I am saddened beyond words. <sup>]]]</sup> 16:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
	:::::Can you '''at the very least''' stop making personal attacks or insulting me when you make these comments? Every. Single. Time. You bring me up you just HAVE TO throw in some false accusations, aspersions and name calling. I'm quite sick and tired of it. Seriously, your attitude alone here is enough for a separate sanction, as ] said.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
	::::::What PAs and false accusations, VM? I will gladly strike them if you'll provide the diffs. For example, contradicts your allegations. I have tried my best to get along with you and I don't understand why you have taken such an aggressive posture toward me. Please try to control your anger. <sup>]]]</sup> 19:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
	::::Atsme, MelanieN is one our finest editors on the project and it would be prudential to avoid such accusations and sort-of-attempts at painting every opponent with the same brush.Also,IMHO, after your reply to me over ], comment at an AfD and a general review of your collaborative spirit at APOL t/ps, it would be probably good if you take a temporary voluntary break from APOL and concentrate in other areas of the encycloepadia.Afterall, you do seem to be an extremely efficient allrounder:) Anyways, feel free to ignore.Regards:)]<sup>]</sup> 17:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
	:::::I was talking about my edits, WBoG - and while I won't disagree with you regarding MelanieN's editing ability, I do feel that I am under attack. I tried to steer clear of including all the diffs showing how I've been treated, but I can certainly do that if necessary. I'm the one being accused and admonished for 1 revert by an editor I thought was topic banned. That was my only so-called offense and now you're here piling on? Read VM's responses - the focus here is clearly on the wrong editor. <sup>]]]</sup> 17:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
	::::::I am not intending to pile on and am not calling for any forced sanction either.I only asked for a voluntary disengagement because APOL is an area that seems to sap out editor-spirits and foster misunderstandings etc. quite easily.I will solely advise you to be more prone to assuming AGF, even if they assume none and genuinely avoid throwing random misplaced accusations of CIR, IDHT for they are sure-fire ways to enflame already-volatile situations.]<sup>]</sup> 17:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

	{{od}} I've decided against starting a new AE thread, because it's simply taking more time than I can spare at this point, with the goddam AE ''template'' etc. Sorry to have worried you needlessly, ], and sorry to have woken your so often voiced concern about my "railroading" and "ill-will". Since you mention my 2015 block, I'll say a few words about it: I placed it not from myself but as a summary of a very long and well-attended ANI: the context can be seen and . Do you recollect how you ranted on your page about the ill will of my supposedly "retaliatory" block for a week, and then got the block lifted by ''apologizing'' to me and others, taking it all back, and stating you had learned a valuable lesson? And yet here we are again, with me again an involved admin (god knows where that ever came from — not from a reading of ], that's for sure) who has always shown you ill will etc etc. The valuable lesson of 2015 doesn't seem to have stuck for very long, to put it as politely and good-faith-assumingly as possible. Another way of putting it would be that you simply used the words that would get you unblocked. ] \| ] 19:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC).

Latest revision as of 07:37, 3 January 2025

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

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.

Start a new talk topic

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

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

Can you please link to that DRV? Sandstein 06:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_October_23 Endrabcwizart (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I am waiting for your response. Endrabcwizart (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I haven't received any response yet. I kindly request you to restore it as a draft, highlighting the issues that caused the result to be marked as "delete." Endrabcwizart (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Endrabcwizart, sorry for the late reply. I have no particular advice to give, since my role as DRV closer is limited to assessing consensus in the DRV, and therefore I have not formed an opinion of my own about the article at issue. You should address your restoration request to the deleting admin Sandstein 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have no idea on "restoration request." Could you please let me know where I can find it? Endrabcwizart (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Just ask the deleting admin on their talk page. Sandstein 19:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Hi Sandstein,

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

I'm not seeing a sufficiently clear consensus to delete. There was likely canvassing going on, but canvassed opinions are typically those by IPs or new accounts, and I saw few if any of those here. So I wouldn't know who to discount. Also, while I agree that Dclemens1971 made good arguments, they were made rather late and so were unable to sway the discussion much. I think a renomination after the article stabilizes might have a better chance at a clearer consensus one way or the other. Sandstein 21:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Any reason not to have done a relist? Obviously a lot of participation had already happened, but it had only been open for a week, and contentious discussions seem to be relisted at least once before a N/C close. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, the discussion was quite long already, and given the general disagreement on how to deal with lists at AfD, I didn't expect that a relist would bring much more clarity. But if you think otherwise I'm fine with a relist. Sandstein 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Two editors with 48 edits to their name, and one with 39 edits, among others with almost no AfD history, all show up suddenly after this and this were posted on Reddit. Note that until the canvassing began, there was a clear consensus to delete, with only one opposing view (from a non-XC editor). I don't think leaving this to stabilize is the right approach here. It's hard to dismiss the views on that AfD that this list, created four days after a highly publicized murder, is not here for encyclopedic reasons. As a minimum, relisting to get a few more non-canvassed views from experienced AfD participants would make sense. Owen× ☎ 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Obviously as a !voter I have a take, but setting that aside I think that a relist might bring more attention from AfD regulars and lead to a P&G-based consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, I've relisted the AfD. Sandstein 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Owen× ☎ 06:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Deletion closure of Principal Snyder

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

Thanks for asking. In the AfD, you did not describe these sources as articles from an academic journal. You merely referred to them as "Buffy, the Scooby Gang, and Monstrous Authority: BtVS and the Subversion of Authority" and ""You're on My Campus, Buddy!" Sovereign and Disciplinary Power at Sunnydale High". Therefore, prima facie, we have two amateurishly formatted PDFs that do not have citations (to anything other than Buffy episodes), or any other feature to be expected from an academic article (author descriptions, abstracts, affiliations, page numbers, citation suggestions, etc.) and which are hosted at two different URLs, "dashboard.ir.una.edu/downloads" and "offline.buffy.de". For these reasons, it did not cross my mind that such writings could be considered serious academic research, and even after reading your above message, for the previously mentioned reasons, I do not think that these can be credibly considered independent reliable sources. Moreover, only one of these works deals with the article subject, Principal Snyder, in more than a passing manner, which would still leave us short of the two sources required by GNG. For these reasons, I decline to reconsider my closure. Sandstein 15:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! The links were just the first hits Google Scholar gave on those, strangely enough. I did not think that would make any difference, but good to know. (For the sake of completeness the links from the journal's page would be here and here. The affilitions can be found on the issue overview pages here and here.) It would be really interesting if there has been already any collection of opinions on Slayage before, but I guess we both don't have insight there, or would you? But as we also disagree and on the evalution of the content, I don't have to worry if a deletion review would make sense except if I happen upon additional sources. Which does not have priority, especially these days. Have a very merry Christmas! Daranios (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm not aware of any previous discussion. The same to you! Sandstein 17:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Principal Snyder

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

Your evaluation of Slayage is incorrect; it was never an SPS, as is documented currently in Buffy studies, but peer-reviewed and was at least at one time indexed in DOAJ. For you to even draw a judgement is questionable, as no one in the discussion contended that Slayage was an SPS; instead, Piotrus (an academic, if that matters) explicitly expressed they appeared suitable to improve the article. Thus, you shouldn't have even looked at a question not raised in the discussion, and even so, you got the facts wrong.
None of the 'Redirect' !voters articulated a problem that is not correctable through regular editing. References to WP:NOT#PLOT do not satisfy WP:DEL#REASON number 14 as there is no barrier to editing to correct any issues, per WP:ATD, part of the same policy page. By assigning nonzero weight to any of these non-policy-based !votes, you erred.

Further, making a de facto conclusion that the topic is non-notable despite evidence of such being presented effectively eliminated the impact of WP:NEXIST on precisely a situation within its wheelhouse: information to support notability clearly exists, but it has not been added the article.

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

I find the tone of this message objectionable, and will not respond further in this matter than I already have above. Sandstein 14:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

My apologies for not noticing the previous discussion. I'm moving and indenting this as a subheading under that one. I had used the 'start a new talk topic' button.

I am sorry you find the tone objectionable. It is not intended to be; rather, it is an outline of three separate deficiencies in your close; Daranios appears to have addressed the one--Slayage was(?) a peer-reviewed, indexed journal--but not you assessing an objection not raised in the discussion or circumventing NEXIST. It's designed to be very clear for DRV participants what precisely my objections are. How would you have reworded any parts of my posting to be as clear but improving the tone, now that we've established I missed Daranios' previous posting? Jclemens (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Now at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 27. (And c'mon, Jclemens, you know better than this; a ping isn't sufficient, and neither is the stated intention to bring it there when you haven't yet.) —Cryptic 00:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Surprisingly, I initiate relatively few DRVs. I had come back to this page to place the appropriate notification, not expecting Sandstein to be missing it as I believe him to be in Europe. You didn't ping me, else I wouldn't have necessarily noticed this. Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Louis Mangione

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

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

Smoothstack

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

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