| Revision as of 20:59, 3 July 2013 editSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,544 edits →500 word limit at AE: r← 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) == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| 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 have removed this statement, "''It seems that Turks claim themselves as the authors of everything except what they are actually responsible for, such as the ].]''. I felt it was inappropriate, insulting, anachronistic, and had absolutely nothing to do with ] or the ]. I did not know if this was enough for Admin intervention/warning, but felt I should make you aware of this. Thanks. --] (]) 22:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :Can you please link to that DRV? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
| == Racial epithets! == | |||
| ::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) | ||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi, Sandstein. Following your close of ] as "merge", there's been a slow edit war on the merge target's page as editors wishing to implement the consensus clash with editors who insist on a source for every entry. Please could you review the talk page of the list, my talk page, and the edit history and provide us with a third opinion when you've done so? Thanks very much and all the best—] <small>]/]</small> 21:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | Hi Sandstein, | ||
| == Concern == | |||
| 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) | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| :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) | |||
| A ] under WP:ARBAA2 has . He has broken his ban a few times already...see his/her ] please. Thank you. ] (]) 22:50, 28 June 2013 (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) | ||
| ::"Armenian–Azerbaijani conflicts" relates to anything Armenian-Turkish as well. Just ask ]. --] (]) 23:25, 28 June 2013 (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 have far better things to be doing at the moment, but I think this merits a response. From ]: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, <u>or related ethnic conflicts</u>, broadly interpreted." One doesn't need to be a member of Mensa to know that Armenian-Turkish conflicts are related ethnic disputes. If you don't like this interpretation, your time would be better spent making a request for clarification at ] rather than taking swipes at me on other admin's talk page - I will respect whatever ruling the committee makes on the issue. ]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> ]</small> 22:20, 29 June 2013 (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 ]== | |||
| TheShadowCrow, after looking at the case page, I note that you are subject to an "from all articles and discussions covered under ARBAA2". above violates that ban, in addition to being ], as does , and I am blocking you in enforcement of the ban. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Hello {{u|Sandstein}}! In your closure of ] as redirect you have dismissed the two exemplary articles from the magazine '']'' on the topic, to which the other keep !voters have also referred to, as self-published. However, my understanding was that this is a serious, if specialized academic journal, and the claims: "''Slayage'' (ISSN 1546-9212) is an open-access, blind peer-reviewed, MLA-indexed publication and a member of the Directory of Open Access Journals. ''All content is available at no cost, in downloadable, full-text PDFs. There is no submission or publication fee for authors.''" Do you have any additional info why this should not be correct, and that the articles in question should be self-published? Thanks for giving more info! ] (]) 13:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| == Another concern == | |||
| ::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. | |||
| I also wanted to inform you of another person topic banned from AA. NovaSkola has been editing ] continuously. Though you permitted normal non-controversial Azeri football editing, this one in particular is about a club that is named after and from the Nagorno-Karabakh region, and anything about that area is considered an AA topic. He has direcly edited parts about the clubs namesake and history, as can be seen and . --] (]) 23:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Your evaluation of ''Slayage'' is incorrect; it was never an SPS, as is documented currently in ], but peer-reviewed and was at least at one time indexed in ]. For you to even draw a judgement is questionable, as no one in the discussion contended that ''Slayage'' was an SPS; instead, Piotrus (an academic, if that matters) explicitly expressed they appeared suitable to improve the article. Thus, you shouldn't have even looked at a question not raised in the discussion, and even so, you got the facts wrong. | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| *None of the 'Redirect' !voters articulated a problem that is not correctable through regular editing. References to ] do not satisfy ] number 14 as there is no barrier to editing to correct any issues, per ], part of the same policy page. By assigning nonzero weight to any of these non-policy-based !votes, you erred. | |||
| :Further, making a ''de facto'' conclusion that the topic is non-notable despite evidence of such being presented effectively eliminated the impact of ] on precisely a situation within its wheelhouse: information to support notability clearly exists, but it has not been added the article. | |||
| Ultimately, the only person in this discussion who asserts to have looked into sourcing not coming to the conclusion that this article should be kept... is you. ] (]) 14:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I find the tone of this message objectionable, and will not respond further in this matter than I already have above. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == request for assistance == | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| To editor Sandstein, I am contacting you as your views seemed to prevail in recent Arbitration Clarification and Amendment Request (). Within that discussion, there were one or two or more parties who noted problems with Dudemanfellabra's behavior, and it was discussed that Dudemanfellabra perhaps should be warned about incivility. Yesterday and today, there is continuing incident going on, involving Orlady, Dudemanfellabra, Nyttend and myself. I would like to request that Dudemanfellabra be formally warned or sanctioned in some way, about . The wp:CIVIL page specifically prohibits calls to others to "grow up", as obviously insulting; the douche mention is obviously vulgar and it does offend me. I have to go look it up to understand, that it means thoroughly contemptible, and that is what I am being called. However, although I have browsed the civility guidelines and the past arbitrations, I am not clear what I am allowed and not allowed to do at this point. I am exhorted not to comment on other editors, but the distinctions between commenting on editors' behavior vs. editors themselves seem rather unclear in the guidelines and policies and arbitration statements. I consider it possible that others could call for me to be blocked from Misplaced Pages for asking, here, about whether I am allowed to respond to their behavior, because obviously i must be referring to editors or their behavior. Taken to an extreme, this catch-22-ness is impossible to deal with. I need some help, and I believe I should not be blocked for seeking to deal with troublesome behavior that is perhaps taking advantage of past arbitration, etc. So: | |||
| Is there a reason why ] was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --] (]) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 1. Hypothetically, if and when parties collude in a tag-team way and repeatedly follow and express contempt and disrespect, what recourse do I have? In particular, am I allowed to open ANI incident reports or RFC/U's or not, which by their nature are to comment on other editors behavior. | |||
| :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) | |||
| 2. Could you take a look at ] right now (), and perhaps comment or take some action in a stabilizing way. | |||
| == Smoothstack == | |||
| sincerely, --]]] 15:27, 29 June 2013 (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) | |||
| :Subsequently editor Nyttend to give me a "final warning" notice at my Talk page, calling a "personal attack", and he has restored my initial comment in the NRHP discussion thread but not my later comment. I don't see mine as a personal attack, but had already removed it anyhow (towards trying to let the discussion there die), and decided to ask for advice here, which I did before receiving Nyttend's warning. Again, if you could comment or take some stabilizing action, I would appreciate it. I note that Nyttend, an administrator taking notice of my offense at the "douchiest" insult, chooses not to warn anyone about that, but rather to find fault with my complaint. I find this profoundly unfair and unpleasant. --]]] 15:56, 29 June 2013 (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) | ||
| == Help please with afc draft in Private Equity project == | |||
| :::I hoped you would accept a brief statement and direction to wt:NRHP without extensive diffs. Okay, I have revised above to include a link to the recent Arbitration Clarification and Amendment Request] (let me refer to this as "ACAR"), and I expand somewhat here (more than I hoped to have to do). Within that ACAR, the one or two or more parties who find some degree of issue with Dudemanfellabra's behavior include you, The Devil's Advocate, and Kumioko. , you evaluated words of Dudemanfellabra (which you quoted) with statement: "While I agree that such comments are uncollegial and confrontative and ought to be avoided, they do focus on a reasonably specific perceived content problem, rather than on Doncram as a person, which is why I would argue they fall short of being sanctionable, at least under our current (regrettably loose, in my view) civility standards." That seems to be setting forth a certain standard on what is acceptable, that limitedness of scope, that specificity, somehow matters. I would tend to agree with the principle you suggest in general, but what if the objectionable behavior is one incident in a series of arguably unnecessary complaints/comments, and if that series continues? I didn't come here for the purpose of arguing at all with you, but consider the same editor, who read your comments, going on soon after to pick out and describe my behavior in ; is that acceptable? I hope not. Also within the closed ACAR, in , Dudemanfellabra states "... if he just put a little more time and effort into everything he does to make it more presentable and less quick-fix-y, the number of complaints/attacks about/on him would drop off drastically". That seemed to me to be an assertion that complaints/attacks are okay to pursue, while I believe there must be some limits, and I was and am concerned that idea of continuing to attack/complain was not repudiated. Editor The Devils Advocate comments "@Sandstein, did you see the comment Dudeman made? While one could argue that uncivil remarks such as "your trademark quick-fix, let-someone-else-clean-up-my-mess style" are better off ignored, it is quite obscene to suggest that objecting to such remarks is worthy of sanction. I would think the purpose of the probation is to keep Doncram from over-reacting or attacking without prior provocation, not to give anyone he might be in a dispute with a chance to get their licks in with impunity". I won't quote from Kumioko's comments. This should support adequately my assertion that "there were one or two or more parties who noted problems", okay? | |||
| 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: | |||
| :::Also I note that you stated "Doncram is warned not to approach discussions confrontatively, not to exhibit signs of ownership, not to comment on contributors rather than content, and not to assume bad faith. '''The editors who are in disputes with Doncram are reminded that these expectations apply to them also.''' Sandstein 07:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC) (emphasis added), in of an Administrative Enforcement action. | |||
| <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 13:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Although I am obviously selective in what I quoted above, I don't dispute the result of the ACAR (which was technically to deny the request by Nyttend), nor do I dismiss the comments and concerns of others such as yourself and AGK and Mathsci and EdJohnston and Thryduulf and NuclearWarfare within the ACAR. Rather, I am seeking advice. | |||
| :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) | |||
| :::To clarify perhaps, by my original statement above that I "would like to request that Dudemanfellabra be formally warned or sanctioned in some way", I mean mostly that I would like to ask for advice on what forum and how I can request that. E.g., is it your view that I am prohibited from asking that, in every forum? | |||
| ::Ok thank you. ] (]) 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am not now notifying all these parties mentioned here, as would clearly be necessary for an ANI or other more formal proceeding, because my point of coming here was to ask you personally for some comment or action. Your views seemed to prevail, were most cited, in the ACAR. I seek your advice about whether, or under what circumstances, and how you feel that I am allowed to comment on the behavior of others, if and when they might engage with incivility against me, for example, contrary to your own advice to them (in the emphasized text above). Please note, I was/am not seeking out confrontation, I am seeking to avoid it, but I don't want to be driven from the project in order to avoid it. And in general, although I disagree with some specifics within , I accept its outcome and I am striving to abide by it. I am, however, beset with some questions of how to deal with cases of following- and negative-type behaviors. I would appreciate a discussion of cases, perhaps phrased as hypothetical cases, and guidance. For example, what if an editor terms an edit of mine as a "personal attack", when I do not agree, where/how am I allowed to dispute that, and perhaps to call the accusation a personal attack itself. I hate this. But anyhow, if you are willing to discuss, online or offline, or you have a suggestion on how I could get guidance from others, please do advise me of that. --]]] 18:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::All right... Without having read all of the above due to its length, it appears that you find the conduct of others with which you are in disputes objectionable. You may or may not be right about this, but because the ] contains only remedies concerning you (and another editor not at issue here), but not concerning the editors you are now in a dispute with, I don't see how this dispute can be addressed in the context of ], other than to discuss any misconduct by you. You will therefore need to use the standard process, ], and the fora described therein, to resolve this dispute. I hope this helps, but I don't think that I can give more specific advice. Because the specifics of the dispute do not interest me, I ask that you and the people you disagree with do not use my talk page to discuss this further, but rather use each other's talk pages for that purpose. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks, sort of. No offense, but your replies together seem a bit unhelpful. You first demand that I provide "all relevant links" before you will respond, then you won't read "due to its length". I am left wondering whether I can rely upon your guidance. You have taken it upon yourself to judge me, taking the lead in two proceedings involving me, which happen to matter to me. You have some responsibility to read and reply thoughtfully, IMHO. I guess i will sort of rely upon your advice, and invoke this discussion, with qualification that I am uncertain of your considered opinion because you seem to refuse to provide proper consideration in giving it. This seems less than ideal. Sincerely, --]]] 19:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == 500 word limit at AE == | |||
| I believe that the 500 word limit was intended to apply to the initial request and statements, and not include subsequent replies. ] (]) 19:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| ::Sure, but there needs to be discussion on whether the request is actionable and if so, what the appropriate action is to handle it. As you know, I agree with the action that was taken in this particular case, but I really do think the alleged violator should be given an opportunity to defend themselves against their accusers. ] (]) 21:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | ::: |
||
| ::::Sure, each individual response should be concise, but that doesn't mean that ''collectively'' all comments by a single editor in an AE discussion are subject to the 500 word limit. ] (]) 07:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::AE is not a place for discussion, in my view. It is a place to request action. Any discussion about whether the request is actionable and what action to take needs to take place between the administrators who consider taking action, and not between anyone else. If the defendant feels the need to respond to any statements by others that are actually relevant to the outcome of the request (which is seldom the case), they can do so within 500 words, or ask an administrator to be allowed more space. In my experience, some 90% of what is said by non-administrators at AE has no relevance to the question of whether an ArbCom remedy was violated by the diffs at issue, and could easily have been omitted. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::While you might think that AE is not the place for discussion, that's clearly not correct. The template that we use to file RfEs creates a section specifically for ''discussion''. Why are we inviting editors at AE to engage in discussion if AE isn't the place for discussion? Obviously, that doesn't make any sense. | |||
| ::::::And, since ''you'' brought it up (''not me''), I strongly disagree that AE discussion is only between administrators and not between anyone else. Admins are simply editors with an extra bit. Any uninvolved editors have as much right to participate in the discussions as anyone else. It is the role of admins to carry out the consensus of these discussions. Nothing more, nothing less. ] (]) 09:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::What I meant was that AE is not a place for back-and-forth discussion among the general editorship. It is for those affected by a request to make their statements, and possibly for administrators to discuss what to do about the request. Contrary to other processes of Misplaced Pages, AE is not based on consensus, and editors other than administrators and the parties to a request have no particular "right" to participate in it. That is because arbitral decisions task individual administrators with enforcing the decisions. Any form of discussion or consensus-building is not envisioned (let alone required) as part of that enforcement process, and neither is the participation of non-administrators. The AE board is just a convenient place to centralize requests, and any discussions among administrators are a matter of convenience, not a procedural requirement. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I have to admit that I am taken aback by your comment. I'm not aware of any policy/guideline/ArbCom ruling/etc which states that RfE requests are only for admins to decide and that non-admin's opinions don't count. I'm perfectly willing to consider removing AE from my watchlist if my contributions are neither appreciated or accepted, but I would like to see which policy/guideline/ArbCom ruling/etc. specifically states that the opinions of non-admins don't matter. Can you please point me to the policy/guideline/ArbCom ruling/etc which says this? ] (]) 19:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Well, I'm not aware of any policy concerning conduct at AE, but that's probably because none is needed. As I said, the individual arbitration decisions address individual administrators ("Any uninvolved administrator may ..."), not any group of people, so no rules for group decisionmaking are needed. However, non-administrators can of course (and are welcome to, as far as I'm concerned) usefully contribute to AE by pointing out relevant diffs as evidence, or relevant points of procedure. It's just that they don't have any authority to take an enforcement decision themselves. But because enforcement decisions are individual decisions, neither can one administrator overrule another, so the difference between admins and others is perhaps not all that important. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Wasn't there an ArbCom ruling or motion on the 500 length limit at WP:AE? If so, what was the wording? <span style="color:Blue">]</span><span style="color:Orange">]</span> 21:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| ::{{replyto|Volunteer Marek}} If I recall correctly, I was the editor who originally suggested the 500 word limit for AE. Unfortunately, the talk page for AE is shared with the talk page for Misplaced Pages Arbitration/Requests and there seems to be 4 sets of talk page archives making it virtually impossible to find the diff where I first made the suggestion, but I can assure you that it was not my intention that 500 word limit should apply to collectively to all posts made by an editor in a single AE discussion. ] (]) 07:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sandstein, so you don't look as though you're operating according to an upper-class–lower-class framework, what proportion of what is said at AE by admins is tosh? 75%? Incidentally, I fully support a tight word limit. ] ] 09:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, on average, 90% of what ''all people'' say is not very helpful. I believe there is a term for that phenomenon. But in my experience, at AE, discussions in the administrator section tend to be reasonably focused on how the request should be processed. By comparison, a high proportion of other contributions are dedicated to rehashing or continuing to fight the underlying conflict or to making sweeping allegations without evidence. That is not helpful and often counterproductive. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:17, 3 July 2013 (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.
- Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.
- If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: ].
- If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.
closing the DRV on the TEJ GIRI topic (October 23)
Thank you for closing the DRV on the TEJ GIRI topic (October 23) with a result of "delete." Draftify might indeed have been a better choice since there were many sources, but limited discussion on AFD compared to DRV. If you have any suggestions on how I could improve my contributions or avoid similar outcomes in the future, I’d really appreciate it. Specifically, I’m curious (AFD selection and DELETE result on DRV) about any weaknesses in the AFD process that may have influenced this result. Thanks again, and please feel free to skip this if it’s not necessary.Endrabcwizart (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Can you please link to that DRV? Sandstein 06:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_October_23 Endrabcwizart (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am waiting for your response. Endrabcwizart (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, I haven't received any response yet. I kindly request you to restore it as a draft, highlighting the issues that caused the result to be marked as "delete." Endrabcwizart (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Endrabcwizart, sorry for the late reply. I have no particular advice to give, since my role as DRV closer is limited to assessing consensus in the DRV, and therefore I have not formed an opinion of my own about the article at issue. You should address your restoration request to the deleting admin Sandstein 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. I have no idea on "restoration request." Could you please let me know where I can find it? Endrabcwizart (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just ask the deleting admin on their talk page. Sandstein 19:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. I have no idea on "restoration request." Could you please let me know where I can find it? Endrabcwizart (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Endrabcwizart, sorry for the late reply. I have no particular advice to give, since my role as DRV closer is limited to assessing consensus in the DRV, and therefore I have not formed an opinion of my own about the article at issue. You should address your restoration request to the deleting admin Sandstein 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
WP:Articles for deletion/List of health insurance executives in the United States
Hi Sandstein,
It was a tricky AfD to close, but after discarding the canvassed and non-P&G votes, I see a consensus to delete. I found two threads on Reddit canvassing for votes, and I'm sure others exist. What you said about NLIST is true, but I believe the Keep !voters did not adequately refute the issues of NLIST and CROSSCAT, which was nicely summarized by Dclemens1971 there. I'd be willing to re-close (and likely face the inevitable DRV...), if that's okay with you. Owen× ☎ 20:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing a sufficiently clear consensus to delete. There was likely canvassing going on, but canvassed opinions are typically those by IPs or new accounts, and I saw few if any of those here. So I wouldn't know who to discount. Also, while I agree that Dclemens1971 made good arguments, they were made rather late and so were unable to sway the discussion much. I think a renomination after the article stabilizes might have a better chance at a clearer consensus one way or the other. Sandstein 21:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Any reason not to have done a relist? Obviously a lot of participation had already happened, but it had only been open for a week, and contentious discussions seem to be relisted at least once before a N/C close. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, the discussion was quite long already, and given the general disagreement on how to deal with lists at AfD, I didn't expect that a relist would bring much more clarity. But if you think otherwise I'm fine with a relist. Sandstein 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Two editors with 48 edits to their name, and one with 39 edits, among others with almost no AfD history, all show up suddenly after this and this were posted on Reddit. Note that until the canvassing began, there was a clear consensus to delete, with only one opposing view (from a non-XC editor). I don't think leaving this to stabilize is the right approach here. It's hard to dismiss the views on that AfD that this list, created four days after a highly publicized murder, is not here for encyclopedic reasons. As a minimum, relisting to get a few more non-canvassed views from experienced AfD participants would make sense. Owen× ☎ 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. Obviously as a !voter I have a take, but setting that aside I think that a relist might bring more attention from AfD regulars and lead to a P&G-based consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I've relisted the AfD. Sandstein 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! Owen× ☎ 06:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I've relisted the AfD. Sandstein 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. Obviously as a !voter I have a take, but setting that aside I think that a relist might bring more attention from AfD regulars and lead to a P&G-based consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Any reason not to have done a relist? Obviously a lot of participation had already happened, but it had only been open for a week, and contentious discussions seem to be relisted at least once before a N/C close. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Deletion closure of Principal Snyder
Hello Sandstein! In your closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Principal Snyder as redirect you have dismissed the two exemplary articles from the magazine Slayage on the topic, to which the other keep !voters have also referred to, as self-published. However, my understanding was that this is a serious, if specialized academic journal, and the its homepage claims: "Slayage (ISSN 1546-9212) is an open-access, blind peer-reviewed, MLA-indexed publication and a member of the Directory of Open Access Journals. All content is available at no cost, in downloadable, full-text PDFs. There is no submission or publication fee for authors." Do you have any additional info why this should not be correct, and that the articles in question should be self-published? Thanks for giving more info! Daranios (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking. In the AfD, you did not describe these sources as articles from an academic journal. You merely referred to them as "Buffy, the Scooby Gang, and Monstrous Authority: BtVS and the Subversion of Authority" and ""You're on My Campus, Buddy!" Sovereign and Disciplinary Power at Sunnydale High". Therefore, prima facie, we have two amateurishly formatted PDFs that do not have citations (to anything other than Buffy episodes), or any other feature to be expected from an academic article (author descriptions, abstracts, affiliations, page numbers, citation suggestions, etc.) and which are hosted at two different URLs, "dashboard.ir.una.edu/downloads" and "offline.buffy.de". For these reasons, it did not cross my mind that such writings could be considered serious academic research, and even after reading your above message, for the previously mentioned reasons, I do not think that these can be credibly considered independent reliable sources. Moreover, only one of these works deals with the article subject, Principal Snyder, in more than a passing manner, which would still leave us short of the two sources required by GNG. For these reasons, I decline to reconsider my closure. Sandstein 15:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info! The links were just the first hits Google Scholar gave on those, strangely enough. I did not think that would make any difference, but good to know. (For the sake of completeness the links from the journal's page would be here and here. The affilitions can be found on the issue overview pages here and here.) It would be really interesting if there has been already any collection of opinions on Slayage before, but I guess we both don't have insight there, or would you? But as we also disagree and on the evalution of the content, I don't have to worry if a deletion review would make sense except if I happen upon additional sources. Which does not have priority, especially these days. Have a very merry Christmas! Daranios (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm not aware of any previous discussion. The same to you! Sandstein 17:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info! The links were just the first hits Google Scholar gave on those, strangely enough. I did not think that would make any difference, but good to know. (For the sake of completeness the links from the journal's page would be here and here. The affilitions can be found on the issue overview pages here and here.) It would be really interesting if there has been already any collection of opinions on Slayage before, but I guess we both don't have insight there, or would you? But as we also disagree and on the evalution of the content, I don't have to worry if a deletion review would make sense except if I happen upon additional sources. Which does not have priority, especially these days. Have a very merry Christmas! Daranios (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Principal Snyder
A courtesy notice that this is going to DRV unless you choose to revise your close to keep.
- Your evaluation of Slayage is incorrect; it was never an SPS, as is documented currently in Buffy studies, but peer-reviewed and was at least at one time indexed in DOAJ. For you to even draw a judgement is questionable, as no one in the discussion contended that Slayage was an SPS; instead, Piotrus (an academic, if that matters) explicitly expressed they appeared suitable to improve the article. Thus, you shouldn't have even looked at a question not raised in the discussion, and even so, you got the facts wrong.
- None of the 'Redirect' !voters articulated a problem that is not correctable through regular editing. References to WP:NOT#PLOT do not satisfy WP:DEL#REASON number 14 as there is no barrier to editing to correct any issues, per WP:ATD, part of the same policy page. By assigning nonzero weight to any of these non-policy-based !votes, you erred.
- Further, making a de facto conclusion that the topic is non-notable despite evidence of such being presented effectively eliminated the impact of WP:NEXIST on precisely a situation within its wheelhouse: information to support notability clearly exists, but it has not been added the article.
Ultimately, the only person in this discussion who asserts to have looked into sourcing not coming to the conclusion that this article should be kept... is you. Jclemens (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I find the tone of this message objectionable, and will not respond further in this matter than I already have above. Sandstein 14:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies for not noticing the previous discussion. I'm moving and indenting this as a subheading under that one. I had used the 'start a new talk topic' button.
- I am sorry you find the tone objectionable. It is not intended to be; rather, it is an outline of three separate deficiencies in your close; Daranios appears to have addressed the one--Slayage was(?) a peer-reviewed, indexed journal--but not you assessing an objection not raised in the discussion or circumventing NEXIST. It's designed to be very clear for DRV participants what precisely my objections are. How would you have reworded any parts of my posting to be as clear but improving the tone, now that we've established I missed Daranios' previous posting? Jclemens (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Now at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 27. (And c'mon, Jclemens, you know better than this; a ping isn't sufficient, and neither is the stated intention to bring it there when you haven't yet.) —Cryptic 00:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Surprisingly, I initiate relatively few DRVs. I had come back to this page to place the appropriate notification, not expecting Sandstein to be missing it as I believe him to be in Europe. You didn't ping me, else I wouldn't have necessarily noticed this. Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Now at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 27. (And c'mon, Jclemens, you know better than this; a ping isn't sufficient, and neither is the stated intention to bring it there when you haven't yet.) —Cryptic 00:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Louis Mangione
Is there a reason why Louis Mangione was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- It was deleted because that was the consensus in the AfD discussion. There was no consensus for a redirect. Sandstein 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
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)