| Revision as of 02:08, 27 January 2014 editBishonen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,339 edits →Block Evasion Report: not block evasion← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:25, 8 January 2025 edit undoYachtahead (talk | contribs)272 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) == | |||
| == John Michael Greer Deletion == | |||
| 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) | |||
| Hello, I am not an editor, just a thankful Misplaced Pages user. I would like access to a page on ] that you deleted. I am not the creator of the page, but I need to review this page for research purposes. And no, I am not John Michael Greer, nor am I a member of the large 100-year old religious order that he heads. I am not even acquainted with Mr. Greer other than through his works and the frequent citation of his works. | |||
| :Can you please link to that DRV? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| As I understand the page was deleted because editors were unaware of his "notability." Before I attempt to quantify Mr. Greer's "notability," in short, if you were to ask 10 people who were familiar with Peak Oil who the "most notable" current peak oil theorist was, Greer, along with James Kunstler (who has a wiki page) would be one of the most common responses. But if you were to ask people familiar with occultism who the "most notable" living occultist was, they would all name Mr. Greer. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Within the Peak Oil community his "notability" has made him one of the most sought-after keynote speakers, including keynote addresses at: 5th Peak Oil and Community Solutions Conference, Great Lakes Bioneers Conference, Chicago Bioneers, Greensong, etc. | |||
| Hi Sandstein, | |||
| As you are aware, the purpose of a "Keynote" address is to "establish a key underlying theme for an event" Mr. Greer's ideas have certainly helped "establish the key underlying themes" within peak oil and certain environmental circles (especially those associated with "deep ecology" opposed to the new "bright green" environmentalism. This can be demonstrated by his inclusion as the "keynote" piece in the first Dark Mountain Project http://dark-mountain.net/mountaineers/john-michael-greer/ | |||
| 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) | |||
| This "Dark Mountain Project" was the primary contribution of the certainly less notable Paul Kingsnorth, who has a wikipedia page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Paul_Kingsnorth | |||
| :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) | |||
| This search will verify a long list of environmental and peak oil groups where he has recently been the keynote speaker: https://www.google.com/search?q=John+Michael+Greer+keynote&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a | |||
| ::Any reason not to have done a relist? Obviously a lot of participation had already happened, but it had only been open for a week, and contentious discussions seem to be relisted at least once before a N/C close. ] (]) 21:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, the discussion was quite long already, and given the general disagreement on how to deal with lists at AfD, I didn't expect that a relist would bring much more clarity. But if you think otherwise I'm fine with a relist. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Two editors with 48 edits to their name, and one with 39 edits, among others with almost no AfD history, all show up suddenly after and were posted on Reddit. Note that until the canvassing began, there was a clear consensus to delete, with only one opposing view (from a non-XC editor). I don't think leaving this to stabilize is the right approach here. It's hard to dismiss the views on that AfD that this list, created four days after a highly publicized murder, is not here for encyclopedic reasons. As a minimum, relisting to get a few more non-canvassed views from experienced AfD participants would make sense. ] ] 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree. Obviously as a !voter I have a take, but setting that aside I think that a relist might bring more attention from AfD regulars and lead to a P&G-based consensus. ] (]) 22:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OK, I've relisted the AfD. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you! ] ] 06:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Deletion closure of ]== | |||
| Clearly, quite a broad audience of people consider him noteworthy enough to set the agenda for their conferences and festivals, and his celebrity within these communities is considered good publicity! | |||
| 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) | |||
| The reason for this notability is that he is the originator and foremost proponent of a "long decline" theory in opposition to the "crash" scenarios proposed by Kunstler. Mr. Greer's contribution has been so profound that the "long decline" scenario has become the most common view and even Kunstler has changed his predictions considerably to follow Greer's. This theory has become one of the most sited underlying tenants of "deep ecology" influenced environmentalism as well. | |||
| ::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. | |||
| *(added later) Mr. Greer has been a frequent guest in many Peak Oil blogs, books, etc, including James Kunstler's Webcast. Indeed, Mr. Kunster wrote a book called "Too Much Magic" (a reference to Mr. Greer's position as Arch Druid) which was instigated by Mr. Greer's theories. http://kunstlercast.com/tag/john-michael-greer | |||
| *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) | |||
| It seems quite impossible to assert that Mr. Greer is not "noteworthy" within this field when he is a perennial keynote speaker and even has books written about him by some of the other most noteworthy people in the field. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| In addition, he is an extremely prolific author of more than 30 published books, some of which are best-sellers within their genres: http://www.amazon.com/John-Michael-Greer/e/B001IOFELW | |||
| Is there a reason why ] was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --] (]) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| In terms of his contribution to occultism, he has authored some of the best selling and most influential recent books on the topic, including the New Encyclopedia of the Occult. In addition, he is the appointed head of a large initiate religious order with a history that goes back a century. http://aoda.org/AODA_History.html | |||
| :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) | |||
| This is not, as was suggested, a self-appointed, "meaningless," or "made up" role. | |||
| == Smoothstack == | |||
| Thank you for your consideration. I hope you will promptly return this page. ] (]) 15:27, 23 January 2014 (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) | |||
| <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| : |
: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 == | |||
| Thanks. I could pretty easily find many more citations and references, but would this be a start? (Note, I tried to avoid the citations such as by library associations, which were included in the discussion) | |||
| 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: | |||
| John Michael Greer is an American author, blogger and speaker, most notably on the topics of Peak Oil, Resource Depletion, and Occult spiritual practice. Mr. Greer has been a contributing author throughout the Peak Oil Community, including ] (http://www.theoildrum.com/tag/john_michael_greer) ] (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-11/guest-post-john-michael-greer-if-four-horsemen-arrive-offer-beer) and resilience.org. | |||
| <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 13:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Mr. Greer's works are frequently cited, recommended and discussed by peak oil experts, organizations, and publications, such as the ] (http://transitionvoice.com/2011/11/transition-plans-meetings-a-waste-of-time-says-greer/) and ] (http://kunstlercast.com/tag/john-michael-greer) | |||
| :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) | |||
| He has become influential lecturer, delivering keynote addresses for organizations including the ] (http://bioneerschicago.org/category/2013-saturday/) and the Greensong Festival. (http://www.greensongfestival.org/keynote.html) | |||
| ::Ok thank you. ] (]) 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| His recent books include the wealth of nature | |||
| reviews: | |||
| 1. http://transitionvoice.com/2011/09/adam-smith-got-it-way-way-wrong/ | |||
| 2. http://www.earthtimes.org/going-green/wealth-nature-new-book-john-michael-greer/1085/ | |||
| 3. http://www.resilience.org/stories/2011-12-07/review-wealth-nature-john-michael-greer | |||
| 4. http://www.alternativesjournal.ca/community/reviews/wealth-nature | |||
| and the Blood of the Earth | |||
| reviews: | |||
| 1. http://www.bookslut.com/blog/archives/2014_01.php#020489 | |||
| 2. http://dgrnewsservice.org/2012/05/04/book-review-the-blood-of-the-earth/ | |||
| 3. http://www.rootsimple.com/2012/10/book-review-the-blood-of-the-earth-an-essay-on-magic-and-peak-oil/ | |||
| In 2003, Mr. Greer was elected the 7th head of the ], the AODA http://aoda.org/AODA_History.html He has published many books on the occult. ] (]) 20:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :At a glance, many or most of these sources don't qualify under our rules because they are not substantial coverage ''of'' (rather than ''by'') Greer, or are ] without professional editorial oversight, such as blogs. Are there any among these sources that meet the criteria mentioned in ]? You really do need to read these rules I link to, especially ], because most of the editors interested in deletion discussions, including me to be honest, only care about that. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, I believe all or most of these citations are appropriate for the claims they support. I have read and used the guidelines in providing you sources. | |||
| I would assume that Greer would fall under the category of "creative professionals," and that references showing that he is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers" would suffice. Greer meets the criteria in a ROBUST way. I can and have provided many references, including those with editorial oversight. I specifically selected sources that would meet the criteria, including "significant" sources with wikipedia pages themselves. An example given of an appropriate source is that of Slashdot. In no way is Slashdot substantively different as a source than ] Greer is frequently mentioned in print media and in books that have Misplaced Pages pages, but I thought it easier to provide easily verifiable online sources. In addition, Greer meets the criteria as the author of books which are widely discussed. I provided references for that, but I could provide HUNDREDS more. | |||
| Truly, I'm a professional in this field. Greer is discussed by 3rd parties ALL THE TIME. It would be very unusual to hear a discussion of Post Industrial Future within this community and NOT hear Greer referenced or quoted. Really, omitting Greer in such a discussion would be cause to question credibility. ] (]) 21:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Out of context, would you like some 3rd party references to Greer? There are several above, but I could provide more. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Thought I'd add another discussion of Greer's work from the publication of the ] http://dev.energybulletin.net/50751 Again, not a personal blog, has an editorial board, is a "notable" organization. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| And here by Skyscript, founded by ] http://www.skyscript.co.uk/rev_geomancy.html] (]) 21:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| And another 3rd party discussion of his work in ] http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wildhunt/2012/07/guest-post-the-blood-of-the-earth.html <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| And more, frequently these citations actually point out how famous and influential Greer is in Peak Oil circles. "Famous for his Archdruid Report, John Michael Greer is one of the most clear-sighted of authors who are grappling with the multiple crises..." http://www.earthtimes.org/going-green/wealth-nature-new-book-john-michael-greer/1085/ Again, Earthtimes is not a personal blog, but an online magazine. And here Transition Voice, another online magazine assumes that its readers would be familiar with Greer. http://transitionvoice.com/2010/11/greer-finds-power-in-nature-spirituality/ | |||
| And here at Transition US: http://transitionvoice.com/2010/11/greer-finds-power-in-nature-spirituality/ | |||
| ] (]) 21:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| (note, corrected some links including the Skyscript link.) ] (]) 22:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Reviewed in Plenty: http://www.plentymag.com/magazine/reviews_green_media.php?page=2 | |||
| Popular Anthropology Magazine: http://popanthro.org/ojs/index.php/popanthro/article/view/32 | |||
| And here a response to Greer's ideas by Oil Drum founder Sharon Astyk: http://www.resilience.org/stories/2010-02-11/pick-your-hat-response-john-michael-greer | |||
| ] (]) 22:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :These sources are difficult to evaluate for me; there is a whiff of fringeness or unreliability to many of them. What we normally look for are clearly reliable sources like major mainstream media outlets or peer-reviewed journals or textbooks from respected publishers. That's not to say that your sources are necessarily inadequate, but they are not compelling enough for me to overturn the deletion discussion. You'd need to find a consensus of editors to determine that this coverage is sufficient as the basis of an article. You can attempt to do so by asking for a review of the deletion at ] and submitting the most compelling of your new-found sources to the discussion. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Much appreciated. I think I will leave it to your judgement (or to someone with more time to devote to Misplaced Pages.) I actually don't disagree that the sources are "fringy." However, the sources I chose ARE the leading sources, organizations, and experts on ] as cited in Misplaced Pages's Peak Oil article, and as I have demonstrated, Greer is a constant topic of discussion among those leading sources, organizations, and experts. This is not exactly an "academic" field of study with peer-reviewed journals. Nor are the subtleties of Peak Oil theory the topic of mainstream media attention. And when Greer is mentioned in mainstream media outlets, it is by less-than-reliable sources, like Glen Beck: http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/11/12/glenn-live-like-people-determined-to-be-free/ It could even be that the whole topic of Peak Oil is too fringy to merit a Misplaced Pages page, but Greer's contributions have fundamentally changed the discussions within that community. As the links above show, it is increasingly becoming the case that one can no longer have an in-depth discussion of Peak Oil--both as an environmental topic and as a social phenomenon--without mentioning Greer. | |||
| Anyway, this has given me insight into how much work goes into maintaining Misplaced Pages. Sincerely, thanks for doing it. ] (]) 14:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == My comments about you == | |||
| Greetings Sandstein, I'm sure you don't care about what I have to say and I am sure you think I hate you. I don't and I wanted to clarify that. I do think you are too heavy fisted when it comes to AE and sanctions. In a lot of the cases you are, IMO, much to fast to jump to exteremes and particularly lengthy blocks or bans. Misplaced Pages admins need to be fair and unfortunately I don't think you, with your block them and foget them mentality is healthy for the project. So although I have mentioned your name several times in discussions I wanted you to know that I don't think you are a bad person, I just think you are too extreme in your use of the block button and that sort of behavior isn't beneficial to the project or to the reputations of the admin group as a whole. ] (]) 17:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Your opinion is noted, although in general broad claims are taken much less seriously than complaints about specific actions backed up with evidence. If anybody disagrees with administrative actions I've taken, there are well-established venues for independent review and appeal of them. If I may ask, what is it that you are actually here for? You don't seem to have contributed to any articles since September. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Its not any particular action you have taken (although I could name several I disagreed with) but the general notion you seem to have that you are never wrong and that you favor extreme action for even minor infractions of policy. Your "broad discretion" is frequently far too reaching than should be considered reasonable. I am also disappointed that no one seems to care, seemingly because you generally stay close to Arbcom and AE where people generally don't care about and have the attitude of guilt. Since you asked why I keep editing, I really don't know, in general I am fed up with Misplaced Pages and the hypocrisy. I may edit again someday but there are too many problem and too few people willing to find solutions too them. There are even less who are willing to accept there is a problem. The disgraceful release of Visual Editor is a factor and the WMF's lack of respect for the community insisting we clean up their mess; I'm tired of being told I can't be trusted; I'm tired of the us and them mentality between admins and editors; I'm tired of the general lack of trust of editors and I find it shameful how IP's and new users are treated; we have too many useless templates and too much policy and rules; I'm tired of being told by admins who abusively use the block button that I can't be trusted with the block button knowing that I will almost never use it, because I think blocks should only be used in rare situations and even then only for limited duration; I'm tired of certain Wikiprojects and editors/admins being allowed article ownership over their articles of interest. The list goes on. These are just some of the reasons I don't edit much anymore. I don't even bother to revert vandalism anymore. There are 2 pages on my watchlist that have had vandalism since July and August respectively that haven't been fixed. I want to see how long it takes for someone else to catch it since my efforts aren't trusted or appreciated. It took months for someone to fix the RFA stats link that was still going to the toolserver and there are still a lot of other things linking there that haven't been fixed yet. To be honest, I expect for someone to block me at some point or for someone to send me to Arbcom. That would have been a massive insult in the past but now, with this environment, I expect it. This community doesn't want to change things, they want yes men and women who will go along and get along...which, much to my shame I did for a long time. I partially blame myself for allowing Misplaced Pages to devolve into the sorry state in which it now can be found. I should have spoken up sooner. ] (]) 18:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I can't really say that I've understood all of this, but in cases of "wiki-burnout" such as the one you seem to describe, my advice is to stop caring about the social aspects of Misplaced Pages for a while and focus on improving articles that interest you. That's what we are all here for, after all. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Actually its not Wiki burnout per sey and I am not going to edit articles until some of those social aspects change. Its no fun to edit an article just to have some admin revert your change because they "own" the article. Just try making a change to ] and see how long it lasts. Try adding an infobox to an article under WP Novels or editing an article "owned" by US Roads. This project is losing editors faster than we can gain them because the social aspects make it not enjoyable, we don't have enough qualified people with the admin tools to do the job and we keep losing more. Some of those that are still here shouldn't be. ] (]) 18:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sandstein, your advice to Kumioko is good ... for wikipedia of 2009. But there have been a few sea-changes in the past year or so, wherein the social aspects have begun to sap the ] from the editing aspects, unless one concentrates on '''extremely''' out-of-the-way content ({{u|MONGO}} recommends articles about specific named glaciers in nature preserves as particularly soothing). If you want specific examples, see the greenbox here, which summarizes an editor who lasted 12 edits and 10 hours after first contact, ], or see the December 26/27/28th portions of an editor who lasted 9 edits and 46 hours after first contact. | |||
| ::::: ''You'' weren't involved in either of these (and unlike Kumioko I've never seen you goof &mdash woo!), plus I only came into these two situations after the fact. But the wikipedia social-system has qualitatively changed, recently, in the effects if not the intent; I believe that is part of Kumioko's complaint, albeit not all of it (they are also concerned about RfA and such). The intersection of increasing readership spawning increasing COI-pressures, along with the decreasing editor-count spawning busy-busy ]-revert-by-default wikiCulture, have methinks collided. Nobody is doing anything *wrong* in these two concrete examples, although a couple mistakes were made, they were correctable, and well within the wikiCulture norms. But in my book, neither of these things should have happened (the way they did), if we ever want to stop bleeding personnel... but similar things happen every day, all the time. Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia. ] (]) 09:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well, that may be true, but it is a fact of life that the complexity of social systems tends to grow with time, including Misplaced Pages. All we can and should expect from individual editors is (a) work to improve articles, (b) observe the community's policies and guidelines, and (c) work collegially with others. If a high enough proportion of editors do so, a relatively productive working environment should (re-)emerge. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Appeal of enforcement action (January 2014) == | |||
| The appeal of your enforcement action has been . The comments made by the arbitrators may be useful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee, ''']]]''' 20:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration enforcement == | |||
| You have been mentioned at ] ] (]) 21:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Because the message by Lecen your complaint is about seems, in part, to be a complaint about me, I'm not taking any action in this case. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I understand. Still, as I have mentioned you in the enforcement case, I thought that you should have known about it anyway. ] (]) 21:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Jaqeli == | |||
| I was wondering if he was still under a ban from everything related to Armenia and Georgia, because he has been articles on Georgia. --] ] 00:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The ban concerns only material that is related to both Armenia and Georgia. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Meaning related to both Armenia and Georgia ''at the same time''? --] ] 00:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Block Evasion Report == | |||
| You blocked ] for edits in violation of her topic ban on the ]. (I haven't reviewed the details of what she edited, but the Groatsworth is only significant in modern times because of its reference to Shakespeare.) An IP address has posted to ] complaining about the block. I have filed a ]. Although editing logged out is often simply a mistake, editing logged out when blocked is more typically a form of block evasion. I don't know if you are interested or would prefer to let other admins look into the issue. ] (]) 01:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Also, she has been discussing her issues with the complexity and unfairness of ], but she wasn't topic-banned by ] under the discretionary sanctions, but in the original decision by the ArbCom. ] (]) 01:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :As far as I can see, ], those ip edits were made before Nina was blocked, and also without any pretense of being another person. She often forgets to log in. I'd post on the SPI, but I'm on a handheld device and it's killing me. ] | ] 02:08, 27 January 2014 (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)