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 18:00, 9 July 2013 editDronkle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers12,793 edits →Outing allegation: new section← 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) ==
== 500 word limit at AE ==


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 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)
⚫ :AE isn't really supposed to be a forum for discussion. It's for requesting admin action. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 04:27, 2 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)
⚫ :::Certainly. They just need to do it concisely. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 04:19, 3 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) :Can you please link to that DRV? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_October_23 ] (]) 05:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
⚫ :Not that I'm aware of. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 04:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
::I am waiting for your response. ] (]) 04:49, 24 November 2024 (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)
::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)
:::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) :::@], 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)
:::::].&mdash;](]) 23:06, 3 July 2013 (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)
::::::Then why not spell out the rules of engagement a bit more tightly so that everyone—or most people—engage as admins do there? And keep the word limit (or make it shorter). ] ] 11:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
⚫ :::::::No objection to that, though the red box with instructions is already quite long. Maybe someone has a good idea how to communicate these expectations, but I'm not sure if they would be heeded much. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
@AQfK - Yeah, that's what I thought too though I can't exactly remember right now. There was a request to limit comments to 500 words but I can't quite remember how it went and whether or not it was supported by either the Arbs or the community. I'm also too busy to actually find a diff to the request and as you say, it's a whole big mess over there. Sandstein, did you comment on that request/motion? <span style="color:Blue">]</span><span style="color:Orange">]</span> 04:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
⚫ :Yes, as far as I recall I proposed some sort of word limit after we had several cases case where an editor posted 5,000+ word screeds, and eventually there was consensus to impose the same word limit that is in effect at ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
::As an observer from the peanut gallery, my opinion is that 500-word limits imposed on subjects of AE requests are likely to be unfair to the editors accused. Wouldn't a third of the word count previously posted by other accounts be a more reasonable limit on responses (as long as the tightest limit was 500 words in any case)? ] (]) 14:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
⚫ :::Editors can in any event ask administrators for permission to exceed the limit, which I would be ready to grant whenever the situation would otherwise be unfair. Perhaps less ready if the user has already used 1000 words to complain about the perfidy of his opponents who are trying to impede the progress of truth. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
::::Thank you for replying. I think it might be helpful to formalize the process by which communication limits are extended. First, I think that an editor's answer to a direct question from an administrator should not count against other communication limits on the page. Those answers are expected and are not just being offered up. An administrator could give a word allowance for the response, and it could be 500 words if the allowance is unstated. Then, there could be a section of the page for discussion proposals by the subject(s) of the AE request. I see this as a section where parties request questions from administrators. A proposal should usually fit within 75 words. Such a process solicits a lot more communication from the AE request subject(s), while it should get them organized about what they want to say, resulting in fewer terribly long screeds. ] (]) 03:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
⚫ :::::Well, I'm not a big fan of instruction creep. In the rare cases where more space is needed, I expect that the users involved will be able to work something out. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


== ] ==
== Hello ==


Hi Sandstein,
{{archive top|1=Concerns discussed. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)}}
I wanted to say a couple of things:
*You closed the AE request after it was open only 2 days over the weekend. You didn't give another admin a chance to weigh in. I don't think that's proper with such a serious complaint even if you personally think it's "vexatious" (which let me assure you it wasn't).
*I've been editing in the topic area for years and have a completely clean record. Not so much as a short block for edit warring. I've submitted successful AE complaints in the past. I haven't so much as made a single comment there for almost a year. I am not a serial AE abuser and again, even if you think my complaint was "vexatious" (it wasn't), your sanction is unproportionally harsh. ] (]) 05:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
:Hi. Two days are plenty of time for any interested admin to comment; in addition AE actions do not in principle require discussion at all. As to the appropriateness of the sanction, it is too light if anything. I considered imposing additional sanctions for your confrontative and provocative approach to discussions, but that would need a separate request and a more thorough examination, including of the conduct of the editors with whom you disagree. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
::In principle you are right. In practice AEs are seldom (if ever?) closed by one admin after two days.
::You don't really need to impose any more sanctions since, as I said, I don't think I can in good conscious volunteer my time at a place where Jew-baiting is allowed, and now I see that complaints are closed without serious discussion by uninvolved people (you know that except Iselilja everyone who commented is involved up to their eyeballs, and shows up to support Nishidani every time he's at AE, which happens quite regularly). Not only that, the complainer is smacked with a disproportionate sanction pour encourager les auteres. No wonder the only Jews left working in this topic area are the anti-Zionist ones. Misplaced Pages is sure living up to its reputation, unfortunately. ] (]) 07:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
::And one last thing: If someone told you that as your kids dress up as a fairy, or batman, or a princess or whatever and cheerfully go outside to celebrate Purim, what they're actually celebrating is the deliberate killing of a large group of people from a specific ethnic group, you might also become "confrontative and provocative". ] (]) 08:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
:::Nice Guy is right, we can't use modern terminologies when speaking about mythical events. Please read ] on how it sounds like. ] (]) 11:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
::::However Nice Guy's us-them approach isn't the best approach to take while editing Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 11:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
::::Apparently speaking about Jews in the same terms the Nazis did is not as big a problem as complaining about that kind of behavior is. ] (]) 12:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::Nice Guy, this us-them approach doesn't work, it leads to sanctions: blocks and bans! ] (]) 12:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::Also don't forget ]. ] (]) 13:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


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)
== A barnstar for you! ==


: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)
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
::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)
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
⚫ :::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)
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
::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)
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For your sound understanding of the right atmosphere necessary for building a great encyclopaedia as manifest from your comments and actions around the Drg-Saedon matters. ] (]) 06:39, 7 July 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 ]==
== Violation ==
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)
A user who has been ] under ] has violated the ban and and has created an article about the conflict (See: ]) Even though the user appealed for an ] and has been permitted to edit only Azerbaijani sports articles, he/she continues to violate his/her ban. ] (]) 07:41, 8 July 2013 (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)
:Hi, please use ] for such requests. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:26, 8 July 2013 (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.
::Sandstein, there's no need to an AE request, he is already topic banned and is violating it. ] (]) 17:22, 8 July 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.
:::And your request for me to do something about it is a request for arbitration enforcement, which is what ] is for. Which means you need to spend a few minutes to actually write up a proper submission with links and dated diffs as evidence, and a place for the other user to respond, which is the point. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
*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.
::::I wrote article about book not political consent, which is not related to my ban as it doesn't intervene with Azerbaijan-Armenian topic. Furthermore, Proudbolshoyeye accusing me on false allegations, I hope he gets punished for this.--] (]) 17:58, 8 July 2013 (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.
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)
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
::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 ==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].


Is there a reason why ] was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --] (]) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.


Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ]] 17:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC) :It was deleted because that was the consensus in the AfD discussion. There was no consensus for a redirect. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] == == Smoothstack ==


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)
Please see ], since I notice that ] ] about the same issue. I'd be inclined to issue a one-month block. Since the violation is obvious, going to AE doesn't seem necessary. If NovaSkola had made a credible promise to refrain from further violations, I'd have considered it. Do you have any commment on the idea of a one-month block? Thanks, ] (]) 18:17, 8 July 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)
== Outing allegation ==


== Help please with afc draft in Private Equity project ==
Please see ] particularly the closing box where it is stated that there is a consensus or near consensus that ] published acknowledged his surname on Misplaced Pages and that therefore it is not outing to mention it in the context of any new userids he has connected with his previous one.


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:
If your blocking of ] and your warning of ] is for nothing more than referring to this then I shall have you take you to AN for using your admin powers in a manner that does not accord with the consensus or near consensus of the community. Since you regard that as an undesirable possibility, then I advise you to undo your actions against TDA and to clarify whether Drg has genuinely outed Chris or has only done so according to an interpretation that is rejected by the majority of participants in the previous ANI thread.--] (]) 18:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 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. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Ok thank you. ] (]) 14:25, 8 January 2025 (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)