Misplaced Pages

User talk:Sandstein: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:03, 22 February 2011 editSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,544 edits →Alpha Beta Gaga: response← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:25, 8 January 2025 edit undoYachtahead (talk | contribs)268 edits →Help please with afc draft in Private Equity project: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 5: Line 5:
{{User talk:Sandstein/Header}} {{User talk:Sandstein/Header}}


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


Thank you for closing the DRV on the TEJ GIRI topic (October 23) with a result of "delete." Draftify might indeed have been a better choice since there were many sources, but limited discussion on AFD compared to DRV. If you have any suggestions on how I could improve my contributions or avoid similar outcomes in the future, I’d really appreciate it. Specifically, I’m curious (AFD selection and DELETE result on DRV) about any weaknesses in the AFD process that may have influenced this result. Thanks again, and please feel free to skip this if it’s not necessary.] (]) 14:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
How does make sense? The Four Deuces and Tentontunic edit war over a POV tag, and you guys craft a remedy banning others not currently editing the article from contributing, because they were sanctioned some time in the past, regardless of whether they may have since reformed. Check the edit history, no one previously sanctioned under WP:Digwuren or WP:EEML has been editing the article for a significant period of time, yet you guys want to ban them for contributing in the future. I fail to see how that is rational or fair. --] (]) 04:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


:Can you please link to that DRV? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
...AND they propose that both Four Deuces and Tentontunic, who were the ones edit warring over a POV tag, are let off without sanctions, and left free to edit the article in the future, unsanctioned! Hilarious.] (]) 04:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
::https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_October_23 ] (]) 05:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::I am waiting for your response. ] (]) 04:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::Hello, I haven't received any response yet. I kindly request you to restore it as a draft, highlighting the issues that caused the result to be marked as "delete." ] (]) 11:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@], sorry for the late reply. I have no particular advice to give, since my role as DRV closer is limited to assessing consensus in the DRV, and therefore I have not formed an opinion of my own about the article at issue. You should address your restoration request to the deleting admin <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Thank you for your response. I have no idea on "restoration request." Could you please let me know where I can find it? ] (]) 16:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Just ask the deleting admin on their talk page. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


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


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


It was a tricky AfD to close, but after discarding the canvassed and non-P&G votes, I see a consensus to delete. I found two threads on Reddit canvassing for votes, and I'm sure others exist. What you said about NLIST is true, but I believe the Keep !voters did not adequately refute the issues of NLIST and CROSSCAT, which was nicely summarized by {{u|Dclemens1971}} there. I'd be willing to re-close (and likely face the inevitable DRV...), if that's okay with you. ] ] 20:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Re this when I clicked "edit", wrote my comment and clicked "save" the section was NOT closed. Also I did not get a message that there was an edit conflict. However, it showed up as being in a closed section.


:I'm not seeing a sufficiently clear consensus to delete. There was likely canvassing going on, but canvassed opinions are typically those by IPs or new accounts, and I saw few if any of those here. So I wouldn't know who to discount. Also, while I agree that Dclemens1971 made good arguments, they were made rather late and so were unable to sway the discussion much. I think a renomination after the article stabilizes might have a better chance at a clearer consensus one way or the other. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Anyway, let me repeat the question:
::Any reason not to have done a relist? Obviously a lot of participation had already happened, but it had only been open for a week, and contentious discussions seem to be relisted at least once before a N/C close. ] (]) 21:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
"Sandstein: ''the history of this article shows that it has been the subject of so much contention and conflict by so many previously sanctioned editors that the best way to stop the conflict is to remove most previous players from the game'' - Ummm, seriously Sandstein, can you specifically point/list these supposed previously sanctioned editors, who were part of the three ArbCom cases you include in your sanction, who did something wrong on the article at any point in the past year or so (aside from TFD)? Or hell, can you even specifically point/list such editors who EDITED THE ARTICLE AT ALL??? If not, then why are you sanctioning them? And what do you think this will accomplish?"
:::Well, the discussion was quite long already, and given the general disagreement on how to deal with lists at AfD, I didn't expect that a relist would bring much more clarity. But if you think otherwise I'm fine with a relist. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::Two editors with 48 edits to their name, and one with 39 edits, among others with almost no AfD history, all show up suddenly after and were posted on Reddit. Note that until the canvassing began, there was a clear consensus to delete, with only one opposing view (from a non-XC editor). I don't think leaving this to stabilize is the right approach here. It's hard to dismiss the views on that AfD that this list, created four days after a highly publicized murder, is not here for encyclopedic reasons. As a minimum, relisting to get a few more non-canvassed views from experienced AfD participants would make sense. ] ] 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree. Obviously as a !voter I have a take, but setting that aside I think that a relist might bring more attention from AfD regulars and lead to a P&G-based consensus. ] (]) 22:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::OK, I've relisted the AfD. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Thank you! ] ] 06:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


==Deletion closure of ]==
Additionally, above you state: ''because it prevents most of the previous edit-warriors from continuing to disrupt the editing of the article''.
Hello {{u|Sandstein}}! In your closure of ] as redirect you have dismissed the two exemplary articles from the magazine '']'' on the topic, to which the other keep !voters have also referred to, as self-published. However, my understanding was that this is a serious, if specialized academic journal, and the claims: "''Slayage'' (ISSN 1546-9212) is an open-access, blind peer-reviewed, MLA-indexed publication and a member of the Directory of Open Access Journals. ''All content is available at no cost, in downloadable, full-text PDFs. There is no submission or publication fee for authors.''" Do you have any additional info why this should not be correct, and that the articles in question should be self-published? Thanks for giving more info! ] (]) 13:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Who are these "edit-warriors"? Name them by name if you can! Aside from TFD, there's like '''not a single other editor''' (maybe, maybe Petri) who has edited that article in the past six months! Or even a year. So what is the point of this sanction? Whether the sanction is "mild" or not is beside the point. The point is that it is horribly ill thought out and unfair.] (]) 22:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


:Thanks for asking. In the AfD, you did not describe these sources as articles from an academic journal. You merely referred to them as "" and "". Therefore, ''prima facie'', we have two amateurishly formatted PDFs that do not have citations (to anything other than ''Buffy'' episodes), or any other feature to be expected from an academic article (author descriptions, abstracts, affiliations, page numbers, citation suggestions, etc.) and which are hosted at two different URLs, "dashboard.ir.una.edu/downloads" and "offline.buffy.de". For these reasons, it did not cross my mind that such writings could be considered serious academic research, and even after reading your above message, for the previously mentioned reasons, I do not think that these can be credibly considered independent reliable sources. Moreover, only one of these works deals with the article subject, Principal Snyder, in more than a passing manner, which would still leave us short of the two sources required by GNG. For these reasons, I decline to reconsider my closure. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Let's look at it the other way around: In a year, is the article still the subject of edit wars and other conflicts? If the answer turns out to be yes, I agree that the sanction is inadequate and needs to be reviewed. Until then, let's wait and see. After all, this approach worked with ] and with ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks for the info! The links were just the first hits Google Scholar gave on those, strangely enough. I did not think that would make any difference, but good to know. (For the sake of completeness the links from the journal's page would be and . The affilitions can be found on the issue overview pages and .) It would be really interesting if there has been already any collection of opinions on ''Slayage'' before, but I guess we both don't have insight there, or would you? But as we also disagree and on the evalution of the ''content'', I don't have to worry if a deletion review would make sense except if I happen upon additional sources. Which does not have priority, especially these days. Have a very merry Christmas! ] (]) 16:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks, I'm not aware of any previous discussion. The same to you! <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
=== ] ===


A courtesy notice that this is going to DRV unless you choose to revise your close to keep.
::Can I slap an arbitrary sanction on you, because for example, there is some shenanigans going on Northern Italy related topics, and then say, oh well, we can just wait a year and then if it looks like it didn't work I might, just might admit that this sanction was misplaced? Until then...
*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.
::And what ended the trouble at London Victory Parade was not your sanction but ONE particular editor's topic ban.
*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.
::Above all, I note that you have completely ignored my question - perhaps because answering it may be a bit embarrassing. So let me repeat it: can you specifically point/list these supposed previously sanctioned editors, who were part of the three ArbCom cases you include in your sanction, who did something wrong on the article at any point in the past year or so (aside from TFD)? Or hell, can you even specifically point/list such editors who EDITED THE ARTICLE AT ALL???] (]) 23:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
: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.
:::Yes. {{user|Igny}}, {{user|Petri Krohn}}, {{user|Marknutley}}, and that's only on the first few history pages and only usernames that I personally recognize as previously sanctioned. It is true that the group of previous edit warriors on this article and the group of previously sanctioned editors overlap only partially, but if (as you say) many of the latter have not so far edited the article, then banning them from it will not restrict them very much. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
::::None of these guys except for Petri were part of these cases. I'm assuming then that you're including anyone who's ever been "put on notice". Even so, Mark Nutley is currently banned anyway, I think Igny has only made one or two edits (and I wasn't aware he was "put on notice") and even Petri hasn't edited the article in awhile. Even allowing that, that still leaves a couple dozen editors who have nothing to do with the article. Is this like "it's better to punish a hundred innocent men than let one guilty one get away"? Oh wait, Tentontunic is not subject to any sanction so some of the guilty get away too. And as I already said the fact that these editors "have not so far edited the article, then banning them from it will not restrict them very much." is beside the point. There's a principle here, there's a notion of fairness and there is also implications for the general atmosphere in which Misplaced Pages takes place - the decision says it's okay to sanction editors for no reason at all. That's the kind of project we want here?] (]) 23:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
::My apologies for not noticing the previous discussion. I'm moving and indenting this as a subheading under that one. I had used the 'start a new talk topic' button.
::I am sorry you find the tone objectionable. It is not intended to be; rather, it is an outline of three separate deficiencies in your close; Daranios appears to have addressed the one--''Slayage'' was(?) a peer-reviewed, indexed journal--but not you assessing an objection not raised in the discussion or circumventing NEXIST. It's designed to be very clear for DRV participants what precisely my objections are. How would you have reworded any parts of my posting to be as clear but improving the tone, now that we've established I missed Daranios' previous posting? ] (]) 00:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Now at ]. (And c'mon, Jclemens, you know better than this; a ping isn't sufficient, and neither is the stated intention to bring it there when you haven't yet.) —] 00:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Surprisingly, I initiate relatively few DRVs. I had come back to this page to place the appropriate notification, not expecting Sandstein to be missing it as I believe him to be in Europe. You didn't ping me, else I wouldn't have necessarily noticed this. ] (]) 01:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


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


Is there a reason why ] was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --] (]) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Considering The Four Deuces history of the same behavior on Venezuela articles, this is rather incredulous; I stopped watching/participating at ] long ago, since TFD and Jrtyloriv just operate together to remove well-justified POV tags no matter how many reliable sources are given and how many agree on article talk. ] (]) 01:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC) ] (]) 01:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


: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)
:Ahh, but SandyGeorgia, you have edited the Hugo Chavez article in the past. Hence, if any two random users get in an edit war over it at any point in the future, you will be banned from the Hugo Chavez article. Actually, it's not even that - since most editors being banned from the article under discussion have never edited it or have not edited it in the past year - it's worse. So let's see... if two random users get into an edit war on some Bolivia related article, THEN you will be banned from the Hugo Chavez article, because, you know, Bolivia's close enough to Venezuela for Arbitration/Enforcement "discretionary sanctions" purposes. They take their "discretionary" in the "discretionary sanctions" quite seriously.] (]) 02:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
:: No difference. Might as well be banned from Chavez anyway, since it's OWNed and no one can or will do anything about it ... so someone go edit ] so I can be officially banished to Honduras per discretionary sanctions. It's quite amazing how TFD handles POV tags clearly justified on talk. ] (]) 02:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


== Smoothstack ==
The decision hardly looks wise for at least two reasons. <u>Firstly</u>, most old editors who got sanctions for their behaviour in the past already elaborated more or less reasonable editorial pattern that allows them to avoid major edit wars and to maintain a fragile balance. You probably noticed that this case was a result of the intervention of the ''newbie''. I anticipate that removal of old editors will lead just to an escalation of edit wars in close future, so the result will be the ''opposite''. For example, I noticed that some very controversial edit ''has already been made'' in the lede, and, in my opinion, it is a direct consequence of the new restrictions (and just only a beginning).<br><u>Secondly</u>, the decision will not improve the article quality. By contrast, it creates a situation when controversial edits will stay ''longer'' in the article. The decision about 1 edit per week must be complemented by another decision, namely, that every controversial edit that has not been previously discussed on the talk page and has not been supported there can and should be reverted in any moment, and that that reverts should be ''excluded'' from the normal 1RR restriction. This scheme works fine for such a controversial and important article as the WWII article, and I have no idea why the same scheme cannot be applied to the Mass killings under Communist regimes article.<br>And finally, this decision needs in some clarification. Is the list of the users who are banned from editing is limited with those who have been listed on the WP:DIGWUREN, WP:EEML or WP:ARBRB pages, or it applies to all users who were sanctioned per these cases, but who are not listed there? And is it possible that these lists will be expanded ''post factum'' for the sanctions applied in the past?--] (]) 20:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


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


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


== Help please with afc draft in Private Equity project ==
== Mass killings sanction ==


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


<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 13:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I invite comment by all interested editors about this proposal. It is linked to from the article talk page and ]. To prevent editors from hastily changing the article while the proposal is still being discussed, I have full-protected the article for 72 hours. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


:Sorry, I'm not active in AFC and have no knowledge of or interest in the topic, so I'll have to decline. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein, I am heartened by your attempts to find a solution. Your proposal may be a bit unwieldy to administer, why not simply replace item 2 of the current sanction template with the provision that anyone violating item one will be summarily banned from the article (rather than the usual 24hour block). If they can't discipline themselves to abide by a simple 1RR rule, then they have no place contributing to the article any way. This would have a similar effect to what I presume you intended with the original sanction. --] (]) 22:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
::Ok thank you. ] (]) 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

*It appears to me that Sandstein is trying to progress beyond the type of restriction used at ]. The edit warring there was successfully halted, but that kind of restriction was criticized. People said it was unfair to ban people from an article who had not edited at all there. Sandstein now gives up enumerating the set of people who can't edit, and tries to impose a consensus requirement. This seems hard to do. If we go in this direction, why not just place the article under full protection for a period of time, like three months, and have all changes approved using {{tl|editprotect}}? I am also influenced by ], who argues that it's not that big of a problem. Before switching to Sandstein's new restriction, why not either (a) do nothing for a period of time, or (b) try an interim step like a 1RR/week editing restriction? ] (]) 16:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
::I think the proposal by Sandstein makes a lot of sense as a general measure that could be used in many battleground articles. But it must first be tested, for example on "Mass killings".] (]) 17:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

== Pic ==

Hi, regarding this pic placement and fair use rationale. ] - I requested closure via ] but there seems little interest. If you are interested, would you assess the discussion, if as I suspect there is not support for the pics usage in the infobox then I would like to correct the fair use rational, you might read the discussion differently and I would appreciate your comment, it seems to make discussion and RFCs a waste of time if discussion stopped over three weeks ago and no one can be bothered to close it. thanks. ] (]) 12:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
:I'd say that there is no consensus from this RFC. Some say remove the image altogether, some say put it in the infobox and some say put it in the arrest section, but none of these opinions represents a clear consensus. At any rate, the current FUR also supports the current placement, so I see no pressing need for a change. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
::Do you assert that there is support for your fair use rationale? I personally don't and as such I want to correct it, also the fact that the picture is not in current usage in the info box disputes your rationale, as such to reflect current usage and no consensus for your rationale I want to correct it, do you object to my doing that? ] (]) 23:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I am just going to boldly revert your unsupported fair use claim, if you feel that there is support for your infobox rationale then feel free to revert. ] (]) 23:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

== Change of name? ==

I'm rather surprised that someone thinks I should change my username after already spending a year and a half here at Misplaced Pages (July 2009) without any problem. Nicknames are just nicknames, Sandstein, they don't have to mean what they state. If Wiki users don't change their names into "''Administrator 1''", "''Administrator 2''", "''Administrator 3''" etc. after they become Administrators, then I think the same shouldn't be applied on me.--] (]) 18:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

== Alpha Beta Gaga ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


im going on!!!

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

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

He is going to Zoology!!

Huns are converted to the nation called Eurasian!

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

And yes, finally he changed regional names.

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

He continue to glorify ASALA terrorists.

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

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

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

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

Latest revision as of 14:25, 8 January 2025

Welcome to my talk page!

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

  • Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.
  • If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: ].
  • If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.


Start a new talk topic


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

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

Can you please link to that DRV? Sandstein 06:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_October_23 Endrabcwizart (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
I am waiting for your response. Endrabcwizart (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I haven't received any response yet. I kindly request you to restore it as a draft, highlighting the issues that caused the result to be marked as "delete." Endrabcwizart (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
@Endrabcwizart, sorry for the late reply. I have no particular advice to give, since my role as DRV closer is limited to assessing consensus in the DRV, and therefore I have not formed an opinion of my own about the article at issue. You should address your restoration request to the deleting admin Sandstein 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I have no idea on "restoration request." Could you please let me know where I can find it? Endrabcwizart (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Just ask the deleting admin on their talk page. Sandstein 19:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Hi Sandstein,

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

I'm not seeing a sufficiently clear consensus to delete. There was likely canvassing going on, but canvassed opinions are typically those by IPs or new accounts, and I saw few if any of those here. So I wouldn't know who to discount. Also, while I agree that Dclemens1971 made good arguments, they were made rather late and so were unable to sway the discussion much. I think a renomination after the article stabilizes might have a better chance at a clearer consensus one way or the other. Sandstein 21:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Any reason not to have done a relist? Obviously a lot of participation had already happened, but it had only been open for a week, and contentious discussions seem to be relisted at least once before a N/C close. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, the discussion was quite long already, and given the general disagreement on how to deal with lists at AfD, I didn't expect that a relist would bring much more clarity. But if you think otherwise I'm fine with a relist. Sandstein 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Two editors with 48 edits to their name, and one with 39 edits, among others with almost no AfD history, all show up suddenly after this and this were posted on Reddit. Note that until the canvassing began, there was a clear consensus to delete, with only one opposing view (from a non-XC editor). I don't think leaving this to stabilize is the right approach here. It's hard to dismiss the views on that AfD that this list, created four days after a highly publicized murder, is not here for encyclopedic reasons. As a minimum, relisting to get a few more non-canvassed views from experienced AfD participants would make sense. Owen× ☎ 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Obviously as a !voter I have a take, but setting that aside I think that a relist might bring more attention from AfD regulars and lead to a P&G-based consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
OK, I've relisted the AfD. Sandstein 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Owen× ☎ 06:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Deletion closure of Principal Snyder

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

Thanks for asking. In the AfD, you did not describe these sources as articles from an academic journal. You merely referred to them as "Buffy, the Scooby Gang, and Monstrous Authority: BtVS and the Subversion of Authority" and ""You're on My Campus, Buddy!" Sovereign and Disciplinary Power at Sunnydale High". Therefore, prima facie, we have two amateurishly formatted PDFs that do not have citations (to anything other than Buffy episodes), or any other feature to be expected from an academic article (author descriptions, abstracts, affiliations, page numbers, citation suggestions, etc.) and which are hosted at two different URLs, "dashboard.ir.una.edu/downloads" and "offline.buffy.de". For these reasons, it did not cross my mind that such writings could be considered serious academic research, and even after reading your above message, for the previously mentioned reasons, I do not think that these can be credibly considered independent reliable sources. Moreover, only one of these works deals with the article subject, Principal Snyder, in more than a passing manner, which would still leave us short of the two sources required by GNG. For these reasons, I decline to reconsider my closure. Sandstein 15:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! The links were just the first hits Google Scholar gave on those, strangely enough. I did not think that would make any difference, but good to know. (For the sake of completeness the links from the journal's page would be here and here. The affilitions can be found on the issue overview pages here and here.) It would be really interesting if there has been already any collection of opinions on Slayage before, but I guess we both don't have insight there, or would you? But as we also disagree and on the evalution of the content, I don't have to worry if a deletion review would make sense except if I happen upon additional sources. Which does not have priority, especially these days. Have a very merry Christmas! Daranios (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm not aware of any previous discussion. The same to you! Sandstein 17:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Principal Snyder

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

  • Your evaluation of Slayage is incorrect; it was never an SPS, as is documented currently in Buffy studies, but peer-reviewed and was at least at one time indexed in DOAJ. For you to even draw a judgement is questionable, as no one in the discussion contended that Slayage was an SPS; instead, Piotrus (an academic, if that matters) explicitly expressed they appeared suitable to improve the article. Thus, you shouldn't have even looked at a question not raised in the discussion, and even so, you got the facts wrong.
  • None of the 'Redirect' !voters articulated a problem that is not correctable through regular editing. References to WP:NOT#PLOT do not satisfy WP:DEL#REASON number 14 as there is no barrier to editing to correct any issues, per WP:ATD, part of the same policy page. By assigning nonzero weight to any of these non-policy-based !votes, you erred.
Further, making a de facto conclusion that the topic is non-notable despite evidence of such being presented effectively eliminated the impact of WP:NEXIST on precisely a situation within its wheelhouse: information to support notability clearly exists, but it has not been added the article.

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

I find the tone of this message objectionable, and will not respond further in this matter than I already have above. Sandstein 14:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
My apologies for not noticing the previous discussion. I'm moving and indenting this as a subheading under that one. I had used the 'start a new talk topic' button.
I am sorry you find the tone objectionable. It is not intended to be; rather, it is an outline of three separate deficiencies in your close; Daranios appears to have addressed the one--Slayage was(?) a peer-reviewed, indexed journal--but not you assessing an objection not raised in the discussion or circumventing NEXIST. It's designed to be very clear for DRV participants what precisely my objections are. How would you have reworded any parts of my posting to be as clear but improving the tone, now that we've established I missed Daranios' previous posting? Jclemens (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Now at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 27. (And c'mon, Jclemens, you know better than this; a ping isn't sufficient, and neither is the stated intention to bring it there when you haven't yet.) —Cryptic 00:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Surprisingly, I initiate relatively few DRVs. I had come back to this page to place the appropriate notification, not expecting Sandstein to be missing it as I believe him to be in Europe. You didn't ping me, else I wouldn't have necessarily noticed this. Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Louis Mangione

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

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

Smoothstack

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

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

Help please with afc draft in Private Equity project

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

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

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