Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Galassi (talk | contribs) at 15:20, 11 May 2016 (→Clarification needed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Attilan

Could you take a look at this AfD you closed a while back and see if the current state of the article falls within bounds to redirect it again per that AfD or if it should instead be relisted? And this one if you feel like it: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tel'aran'rhiod. It was a non-admin closure, so asking the closer seems pointless. Both articles are in the same state as when the AfDs took place, so their precedent should still be valid.

And how would you recommend dealing with a user possessing a weirdly pointed vendetta? Regardless of the merit of the AfD, he keeps commenting with stuff like this. And it looks like he'll automatically revert any article I redirect regardless of validity, such as the two above that should be redirects as per the AfDs. TTN (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I concur that the AfD consensus still applies in both cases and have re-redirected the pages. As to the behavior issue, I can't give any more specific advice than to proceed per WP:DR, sorry. If any editing is in areas subject to WP:ACDS, those procedures may also apply.  Sandstein  20:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

If possible, could you look at this one as well: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Slag (Transformers)/Slag (Transformers). It's a bit older than the others, but still pretty much in the same state as from the AfD. The closer is very infrequently active, so asking for his opinion probably would take a while. TTN (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Saudi role in September 11 attacks

Hey, thanks for your intervention here, but there's still a question. Can you please say where the mentioned consensus is built and how you found the keep votes and their explaining inapplicable here? --Mhhossein (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I refer to the consensus in that discussion, and I didn't say anything about "keep" opinions being inapplicable.  Sandstein  11:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm also questioning to see what 'consensus' you are referring! Moreover, The keep opinions had to be considered when closing the discussion and I think I provided enough sources directly regarding the subject of the article in that discussion and other users also expressed logical arguments against deletion. Mhhossein (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Your disagreement is noted, but what you say doesn't make me reevaluate my closure.  Sandstein  10:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, anyway I'd still like to see what 'consensus' you are referring! --Mhhossein (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Galassi TBAN filing

Hey, I checked WP:RESTRICT before posting this to verify that Galassi wasn't already under 1RR, but his/her name doesn't appear anywhere on RESTRICT. Apparently, though, he/she is subject to a TBAN. I know this was literally years ago, but do you have any recollection of why this wasn't logged on RESTRICT? Sorry for an odd question. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

No. But logging restrictions there is not required by any policy.  Sandstein  10:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Shit, really!? What's the point of even having a page to list off editor restrictions if it's not comprehensive? I'd be happy to help hunt down uncatalogued restrictions and list them up, but I don't think a non-admin, even an uninvolved one, should be crafting the wording of restrictions after the fact (I don't even really trust most admins to do that)... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

There's also WP:AC/DS/Log, which is more comprehensive. But generally, it's an indication of our amateurish approach to disciplinary issues.  Sandstein  12:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Sandstein. Do you have some ideas for being less amateurish? Re the above, WP:RESTRICT is supposed to be used but people may forget. For tracking 1RRs, I suppose we could have something like the block log, but for sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I'm no longer active with enforcement tasks because I think there is insufficient community support for an efficient, rules-based disciplinary system. I used to think that at least AE works, but I quit that because I decided that it wasn't worth the effort: one editor, I don't remember who, threw something like a month-long temper tantrum in all possible fora because I enforced a sanction against them, and because they had many friends, the show went on and on. Until the issue of "vested contributors" being much more difficult to sanction than others is addressed, fiddling around with details such as logs is, in my view, not really worth the time.  Sandstein  14:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Modern Gaulish

I really think that ignoring discussion, whether you think it was TLDR or not, means that you should have ignored the AfD, not summarily ruled on it. I think that was an abuse of your admin powers. Moreover, you've offended the newbie and put him off the Misplaced Pages entirely. That was not well done. I may protest your action; the right thing to do was to reduce the thing to a stub and let things develop. -- Evertype·✆ 11:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Sandstein, I wouldn't go as far as calling it "abuse", nor do I even dispute the outcome of the AfD itself, and I understand your point about "walls of text" as well (being a moderator on WP.NL myself, I know very well what this means). But for the rest, I have to concur. I very much disapprove of using the WP:COI argument for completely discarding somebody's arguments. In my book, this is nothing short of an ad hominem argument. I know perfectly well that writing/editing articles about yourself, your group or your work is often frowned upon, but it is surely not forbidden, and there is most certainly no policy stating that arguments used by a person involved in a subject should be ignored. An argument is an argument, no matter who uses it. I'd even say arguments of a person who actually knows a lot about the subject should be taken more seriously than "votes" of those who merely toss abbreviations into such discussions.

I had a similar situation myself lately in this closure by RoySmith. I was the only person in that discussion who actually knew what he was talking about, but my arguments were completely ignored for the very reason that I happened to be a member of its board of directors, so obviously I had a conflict of interest. As if that would invalidate any of my arguments (which, I should add, were completely policy-based). I can assure you that this is really disheartening! Best, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 12:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

These things drive both newbies and experts away from the English-language Misplaced Pages. Too many "rules" (and they are only guidelines), too many people who don't have anything better to do than putting templates everywhere and nominating other people's work for deletion. It's disheartening indeed. -- Evertype·✆ 12:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, but I maintain the view expressed in the closure.  Sandstein  12:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Saudi role in September 11 attacks

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Saudi role in September 11 attacks. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mhhossein (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Hello, would you clarify for me if Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry is within the scope of the Ukraine topic ban you gave me some years ago?--Galassi (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sandstein. You probably remember that it was me who brought the WP:.AE complaint about Galassi which resulted in his topic ban. Since then I occasionally interacted with him. Even though his editing is still far from ideal, my suggestion would be to actually lift or relax his ban at this point (may be to replace it by 1RR restriction on Ukrainian subjects), since I think he is actually highly knowlegable and capable of productively contributing in this area. Maybe that's because I am feeling guilty of bringing that complaint. I would not do it now. Thank you, My very best wishes (talk) 03:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Please link to the ban at issue.  Sandstein  05:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Here. My very best wishes (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Galassi, at first glance I don't see a link between Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry and Ukraine, and therefore conclude that the article is not covered by the topic ban. However, should any substantial links between the topics be pointed out later, I or another admin may come to a different conclusion. My very best wishes, I do not address your appeal of the topic ban, because the restricted user themselves may appeal it.  Sandstein  14:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for a sober assessment.--Galassi (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, it was pointed out that (a) all major books on Ukrainian history deal with the Khazars and (b) the automatic revert pattern that had Galassi banned from Ukrainian related articles was being repeated on the Khazar articles.Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Virtually everything is related to Ukraine in one way or another(including the American tripartite government system!), so that is not a good argument. And Khazar/Ashkenazy debacle atypically has no relation to Ukraine. Just for the record, user Nishidani is simply trying to have one less vote against his POV.--Galassi (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)