| Revision as of 20:53, 6 April 2010 editMbz1 (talk | contribs)22,338 edits →Topic Ban Appeal: for the record only← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:06, 15 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,118 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2024/December) (bot | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| {{User talk:Sandstein/Header}} | {{User talk:Sandstein/Header}} | ||
| ==Deletion closure of ]== | |||
| == Clarification requested == | |||
| 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) | |||
| It's not entirely clear to me what your summary is intended to mean. Are you proposing that I recuse myself altogether from returning problematic hooks from the queue to the suggestions page? If so, I very much doubt I can comply with this request. Removing hooks from the queue for further discussion is part of my responsibility as a DYK administrator, ''not'' to return problematic hooks would be tantamount to negligence. I should add that merely returning a hook to the suggestions page in no way gives me an unfair advantage and cannot be considered as an abuse of the tools. It simply means the hook will be subject to closer scrutiny, which surely cannot be construed as in any way harmful to the project. | |||
| ::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. | |||
| If on the other hand you simply meant I should not outright delete hooks from the queue but be sure instead to return them to the discussion page, I am certainly happy to assent to that. Although I felt at the time I was justified in deleting Mbz's hook, I quickly acknowledged it was an error of judgement - which we all inevitably make from time to time - and from the fracas that eventuated I had already resolved never to attempt this shortcut again. ] (]) 07:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *Your evaluation of ''Slayage'' is incorrect; it was never an SPS, as is documented currently in ], but peer-reviewed and was at least at one time indexed in ]. For you to even draw a judgement is questionable, as no one in the discussion contended that ''Slayage'' was an SPS; instead, Piotrus (an academic, if that matters) explicitly expressed they appeared suitable to improve the article. Thus, you shouldn't have even looked at a question not raised in the discussion, and even so, you got the facts wrong. | |||
| *None of the 'Redirect' !voters articulated a problem that is not correctable through regular editing. References to ] do not satisfy ] number 14 as there is no barrier to editing to correct any issues, per ], part of the same policy page. By assigning nonzero weight to any of these non-policy-based !votes, you erred. | |||
| :Further, making a ''de facto'' conclusion that the topic is non-notable despite evidence of such being presented effectively eliminated the impact of ] on precisely a situation within its wheelhouse: information to support notability clearly exists, but it has not been added the article. | |||
| Ultimately, the only person in this discussion who asserts to have looked into sourcing not coming to the conclusion that this article should be kept... is you. ] (]) 14:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:I find the tone of this message objectionable, and will not respond further in this matter than I already have above. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::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 == | |||
| :: Well if you don't mind, I think I am going to have to respectfully decline your recommendation. It is only going to impose an onerous formality upon me that will make it more difficult to effectively do my job, as well as potentially allowing inappropriate hooks to make it to the mainpage. Regards, ] (]) 07:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Is there a reason why ] was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --] (]) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry, but the requirement for administrators not to take action in situations where they are involved in a dispute is policy, see ]. You are of course free to disregard my recommendation, but if you do so in a topic area covered by arbitration sanctions I can readily imagine this resulting in sanctions against you. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:29, 3 April 2010 (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) | |||
| :::: Okay, thankyou for clarifying that. I just wanted to know where I stood. I'd be interested to know just what "advantage" you think I might stand to gain from returning a hook from the queue for further discussion, per the policy, but otherwise, I will have to consider filing a request for amendment over this ruling, as I believe it is quite unjustified by the circumstances and only likely to harm the project rather than help it. ] (]) 07:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Smoothstack == | |||
| :::::I do not think that my recommendation is a "ruling" subject to an amendment, because it does not restrict you, but only reminds you of existing policy. Administrators may have good ''administrative'' reasons to remove a hook from the queue, such as when the hook is in violation of ]. But if administrators merely disagree with the ''content'' of the hook, then removing the hook from the protected queue page amounts to a misuse of administrator tools in order to gain an advantage in the respective content dispute and should be avoided. Removal of a hook undoes the admin action of another admin who had previously added the hook, which is another reason not to do it without very good reason. This is especially so if you are also involved in editing the article or in other content disputes with the same editor. Basically, you need to decide whether you want to get involved into a content discussion (are the sources adequate, is the hook neutrally worded etc.) and refrain from the use of admin tools, or whether you want to act as an administrator and refrain from making content decisions. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:50, 3 April 2010 (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) | |||
| :::::: Except that you have yet to explain how removing a hook from the queue for further discussion constitutes an "advantage" to the administrator making the removal. ] (]) 08:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:In my capacity as AfD closer, I don't have any objections to anything anyone does with the article - my role was limited to closing the AfD. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| == Help please with afc draft in Private Equity project == | |||
| :::::::: No, removal of the hook in no way "decides the content dispute in the administrator's favour". The validity of content concerns is decided by ''consensus'' on the suggestions page or on the DYK talk page, they are not decided by the administrator removing the hook. That's what removal of the hook is ''for'' - to ensure that there is a clear ''consensus'' to promote the hook before it is promoted. ] (]) 08:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| 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: | |||
| :::::::::I agree that the content dispute is to be decided by consensus, but you may not at the same time ''participate'' in the content dispute (by offering an opinion about whether the article is neutrally written) and ''decide'', in a manner that is not easily reverted because it involves administrator tools, whether there is consensus to promote the hook. For the same reasons, administrators may not e.g. first !vote in an AfD and then close the same AfD. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 13:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: Except that removing the hook from the queue "decides" ''nothing''. The decision about whether or not to promote the hook is decided by consensus, not by the admin making the removal. ] (]) 08:24, 3 April 2010 (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) | |||
| ::::::::::: The removal may not decide the matter definitively, but it does give an advantage to the side of the content dispute opposed to promotion in that it prevents, at least for the time being, the hook's promotion, and it does so in a way that non-admin editors cannot undo. This is why such a removal, like any other administrative action, should be performed only by administrators who are not involved in the content dispute. | |||
| ::Ok thank you. ] (]) 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: I do not believe that I can explain it much more clearly than that. As I said, you are free to disagree with me in this regard, but you risk sanctions if you use your administrator tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute in an arbitration-covered topic area. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Unsatisfactory discussion == | |||
| :::::::::::: Fine, but since this is only your interpretation of "advantage", and not one that has ever been recognized in practice by any admin at DYK, then I intend to conform with the prevailing practice and continue removing hooks for further discussion as I deem appropriate. Regards, ] (]) 09:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Hai, hope you're doing good. I share your opinion on one of the AfDs three months back. The AfD was an unsatisfactory discussion, and I think the article needs a new discussion focused on the sources. What would be the appropriate way to start a new discussion to get more opinions? Should I use DRV or AFD? Thanks in advance. ] (]) 11:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The question seems to be whether DYK has the same expectation as ]. Admins closing deletion discussions are charged with determining consensus, but at the same time are expected to separate this administrative role from their editorial role. I don't believe admins could argue one position in a deletion discussion, for instance, and then also close it saying that their decision to close was insignificant because they were simply enacting consensus. If DYK is different then perhaps that is a matter of its history, but in theory, at least, they seem similar. ] (]) 09:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Since the outcome of the AfD was no consensus, you can start a new AfD at any time. DRV is only used if you disagree with the closure of the AfD. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : It's not the same thing at all Mackan, because when an admin closes an AFD, he is making a determination about the outcome of the discussion. But when an admin at DYK removes a hook from the queue to return it to the suggestions page, he is not determining the outcome of the discussion, he is simply ensuring that there is an adequate discussion prior to promotion. A closer analogy to this action would be when someone relists an AFD for further discussion where it failed to attract an adequate discussion the first time. ] (]) 03:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Except it was not returned to the suggestion page. It was simply removed from everywhere without a trace and witout ever notifying me.--] (]) 03:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: My comment was not in relation to your hook. I already accepted that deletion of the hook was not in accordance with established practice at DYK (though not in violation of any actual ''rule'') and conceded that it would be best not to take this approach again. The topic of discussion here is in regards to the established practice of returning hooks to the suggestions page, not about an isolated instance where that convention was ignored. ] (]) 07:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Still sure about your decision to sanction Mbz1 and "advise" Gatoclass, Sandstein? ] (]) 16:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Please do not use my talk page as a battleground. If there continue to be perceived problems with Gatoclass's editing, they can be reported at ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Good point, I'll keep that in mind. ] (]) 16:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement == | |||
| I have proposed ] for deletion, using Twinkle. Unfortunately, the protection of the pages has prevented them being properly tagged. I am requesting you, as an admin, to edit through the protection to properly tag the project page. Thanks. ] (]) 20:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Er, okay, what code should I add? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::The instructions are at ] - it needs <nowiki>{{mfd}}</nowiki> added at the top. ] (]) 20:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Okay, I don't normally do this manually. Done. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks. ] (]) 21:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Israel-Palestine == | |||
| To my shame I cannot keep up with the never-ending sprawl of places where given issues are discussed, so could you please notify this: ] at the appropriate venues for monitoring. {{userlinks|M.S.A.Irvine}} is blocked per username violations, no idea why, I am utterly out of touch with Israel-Palestine stuff. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, ] would be such a venue, so I'll do that... after the current deletion discussion is over, if there is still a project left afterwards and if the BLPN discussion agrees that this is problematic conduct that needs further watching. Regards, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am curious, for the I/P stuff, why not just use ]? it already maintains a list of 'problem articles' and a list of blocks and sanctions imposed on users. ] (]) 07:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::That might also be possible, but see ]. Also we don't seem to have corresponding projects for the other problem areas, and there are benefits to having a joint framework for all these problem areas, as it encourages the development of a reasonably uniform enforcement practice. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Interaction ban violation == | |||
| I'd like to bring to your attention please. The user calls the article Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948), "worthless article" that was not deleted only "due to the prevalence of bloc voting". The user is well aware of the fact that . This is the article that was by the very same user. The most heated interactions between the two of us have occurred on the article's talk and the article's deletion request. I understand the edit restrictions imposed on me by my interaction ban as being restricted to make any comment on anything concerning the other party that could cause negative feelings and the wish to respond by the other party. The statement in question did cause negative feelings and the wish to respond. Thank you for your time.--] (]) 04:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think that is a violation. Expressing an opinion about an article is not an interaction with you, no matter whether or not you created the article. The point of an interaction ban is not to protect you three editors from negative feelings, it is to protect the rest of us from the disruption generated by you three. Since you are topic-banned anyway, I recommend that you unwatch all potentially conflictual pages so as to prevent these negative feelings. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry to bother you, but IMO this situation is very similar to this one: | |||
| ::The user very politely commented on the image ] by Édouard Manet that came from Library of Congress | |||
| :: | |||
| ::and the block which was blocked for the violation of interaction ban. | |||
| :: | |||
| ::Thank you for your time.--] (]) 06:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::That does not change my assessment in this case. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| So a comment like posted by Mbz1 above, which insults and ''is intended to insult'' the author of the article (Mbz1), as well as anyone who does not accept Factomancer's personal judgment (it's a worthless article) and referring to others as a "voting bloc," (insulting) does not appear as a battlefield and a "baiting" post to you? Mbz1 is asked to swallow what is clearly (meant to be) a personal insult at the risk of violating the ban herself? ] (]) 06:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Stellarkid, your comment here has the effect of continuing the dispute, which is not helpful. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, it just doesn't seem ''fair'' to me, is all. I see the "baiting" issue as important, since it appears to me to be done with some regularity, and if it is not acknowledged for what it is, it will just continue. But I will say no more. ] (]) 07:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Topic ban breach? == | |||
| Is a breach of Mbz's topic ban? It is worth noting that this edit is part of an edit war, in which the same text has been inserted and deleted by several editors over the past couple of days. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 10:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Mbz1 Topic Ban Violation === | |||
| {{discussion top|1=Blocked; please take any further discussion among involved editors off my talk page.}} | |||
| Hi there Sandstein, I fear your topic ban on Mbz1 is not being respected ... I am currently in an edit dispute with another editor at article ] and correctly using the talk page to resolve this. I have just ] noticed ] without even bothering to discuss at the talk page and making allegations of POV. After all that's gone on over the last few weeks I fear Mbz1 is not getting the message. Regarding my input to that article, I am avoiding a tit-for tat edit war by using the talk page and will not revert for a day t allow discussion. Thanks ] (]) 12:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Blocked. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I have a question Sandstein: what is the purpose of the 12 hour clause in the interaction ban, and why is it not being enforced? Thanks, ] (]) 16:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :How is it not? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok scratch that. What is the purpose though? ] (]) 16:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't know. You should ask the person who proposed the sanction. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| It is interesting how this process works. A highly partisan editor in the I/P disputes, in this case RolandR, informs on Mbz1 to Sandstein. RolandR has nothing to lose, because if Mbz1 gets blocked, RolandR gets rid of an editing opponent, and if she does not get get blocked RolandR loses nothing and is no worse off than before. Sandstein, and other administrators, in playing along with this revolting process of editing opponents snitching on each other, encourage editors to continue to act like nasty children, and exactly in situations when adult behavior would be so valuable. The entire process is very dysfunctional. - ] (]) 17:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you, anon, for the unwarranted personal attack. I may be mistaken, but to the best of my knowledge I have not been involved in any editing dispute with Mbz. If you think I have been, please point out where, and how this invalidates my comment above. Otherwise, please desist from such an assumption of bad faith. | |||
| ::On the matter at hand, I observed that Mbz appeared to be in breach of her topic ban, and asked an independent admin (and one, by the way, who recently blocked me; I didn't look for one I considered to be "sympathetic") whether this was indeed a breach. My comment was later, independently, reinforced by a second editor. If there are sanctions, it is important to all of us that these are observed, and your description of this as "revolting... snitching" is uncalled for. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 17:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::You are an editor who participates on the P side of the I/P dispute articles. You informed on Mbz1 (who edits on the I side of the I/P disputes) to an administrator, and that was apparently with the intent of having her blocked, because that is why users inform. How often have you informed on P side editors for violations of sanctions? ] (]) 14:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Then you have a proposal, I take it, how this situation could be handled better? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do you think having editors invest time in getting each other blocked and banned is good? Or would it be better if they were trying to find compromise editing agreements to settle their editing disputes? - ] (]) 17:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, but we admins can't do this for them. If they can't manage to work together like adults, we do have to block and ban the most disruptive of the lot. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You think trying to remove an editing opponent, by requesting a block, is something other than disruptive? It would be different if these editors really cared about violations of sanctions. But they don't care. I have never yet seen an editor in a dispute who report someone on their own side for violating sanctions. Somehow it is only the violations of the other side that get reported. So the request and the block are, themselves, disruptive to the flow of editing, and make compromise even less likely. - ] (]) 18:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, it is unfortunate that arbitration enforcement is currently pretty much an ]. But this has at least the benefit that the opposing sides police each other. It is not, as such, disruptive to report an editing opponent for disruption, even if the report is motivated by the desire to remove an opponent from the game, because the net result is still that there is less disruption in the system. I have, however, proposed at ] a framework that could serve to mke enforcement more proactive and less reactive. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You wrote: "the net result is still that there is less disruption in the system". | |||
| ::::::''Au contrair''. The net result is: | |||
| ::::::#the existing editing mess | |||
| ::::::#articles that are not informative, but attempts at propaganda, and | |||
| ::::::#the exit of all truly neutral editors (who are quickly offended by the brutality of the existing situation), while editors on the two sides fight it out in a zero sum game that does nothing but mirror the meanness of the I/P conflict on the ground. | |||
| ::::::] (]) 19:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I agree that it is messy, but this is not really of Sandsteins making. Whatever decision he makes in trying to ensure that people respect the policies and sanctions, someone is bound to get upset, the last week or so his talk page has been full of people either pushing for sanctions or railing against the injustice of it all. In applying the sanctions in the most literal, broad sense possible he has, at least, ensured that editors realize that actions have consequence, even if unintentional. Let me ask though, 173, if Sandstein stumbled over the edit of Mbz1 by himself, do you think he would have acted differently? You yourself are more than welcome to join the discussions that are floating around, like ] or ], if more people did so then perhaps we could move forward in a more cooperative fashion.] (]) 19:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::What I wrote above ''is'' critical of the situation, but I tried to phrase this without placing blame because I understand that everyone involved intends to do good. The result, however, is not good. ] (]) 20:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: is the result not good? I would disagree. Although I agree there is much contention with partisan editors one the actual content of articles the real time wasting and disruptiveness has come from maybe 2 or 3 editors starting up incessant Arbitration Reports in order to try and get bans and blocks on editors that don't edit according to their political agenda. Mbz1 has been one of the worst offenders at this. I was the target of one of her obsessive campaigns and I wasted an enormous amount time defending myself against it. Others were also targets. And I agree with ] that using terms like 'revolting' and 'snitching' is uncalled for. You could also try logging in and revealing yourself. ] (]) 21:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::The apparent attitude of this edit is: ''If they do it to me it is bad, if I do it to them it is good''. Of course, every editor sincerely believes that their views are good and correct. From that it follows that the views in disagreement must be wrong. | |||
| ::::::::::Certainly, I think I am right about the I/P conflict, and opposing views are wrong. But to resolve the issues in disagreement we need the ability to follow that up with these thoughts: | |||
| ::::::::::#"Even thought I ''think'' I am right, this opposing view ''may'' be correct also." | |||
| ::::::::::#"Even though it ''seems'' to me that this opposing view is wrong, what I think is correct may ''also'' be incorrect." | |||
| ::::::::::It seems to me that point no.2 may be even more important than no.1. ] (]) 22:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}I agree with 173's comments, I personally find that the most satisfying aspect of editing[REDACTED] is ''not'' the idea that I can impose my pov on x amount of readers, rather it is the opportunity to learn and discuss the value proposition of presenting the information available in sources. Where all this breaks down however is if people fail to check their assumptions, fail to agf and discuss on the basis of what is actually ''in'' RS. When such a breakdown occurs there is no other recourse than to seek dispute resolution, and when there is compelling evidence that such dispute resolution will not result in meaningful, policy and RS based, debate then such players are, to put it bluntly, best sought removed. Invariably we are fallible, selection bias affects us, but I can tell you that I did notice mbz1 edit before it was mentioned here and I did find it likely to be in violation, but the sad truth is that I thought it best not to mention it lest I condemn myself to be seen to be harassing the user or making frivolous complaints. Have a look at this , it involves 1 , which could have been sought discussed on talk but has now become an editwar. ] (]) 22:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{discussion bottom}} | |||
| == question on deleted page discussion == | |||
| How long does the discussion page on a deleted page remains for all to see?--] (]) 19:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Indefinitely. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Request == | |||
| Sandstein, if it is not too much of an imposition I would like to request that you monitor my edits and comment directly on any problematic behavior on my part, no matter how slight. Best Regards, ] (]) 20:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm sorry, that ''is'' too much of an imposition. I have trouble enough monitoring my own edits, let alone those of others, and so I can't do that. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perhaps what you want is a mentor. Sandstein could probably point you in the right direction to get information on that. ] (]) 20:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::In truth, I am trying to ensure that the narrative which will lead to future accusations of tendentious, disruptive behavior is followed now, rather than have to be pieced together later. I also personally have a distaste for coming running to admins at every perceived slight so having a neutral party watching will save me from some of that. I don't have any objection to having a mentor, but having seen that mentors are often later accused of ''enabling behavior'' I would rather that such a person be one immune to such invalidations of opinion. ] (]) 20:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::: You could always try spending more time on the talk pages. I find that bringing new people into a debate settles it one way or the other pretty quickly if one side is being unreasonable. If you can convince someone else to make the edit you want through force of argument, you won't have to take any blame later. ] (]) 09:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Dog Police == | |||
| Noticed you were the one who deleted the Dog Police article. I have more information on it. According to Youtube account melslifetv the song was later adapted into a television pilot staring Adam Sandler & Jeremy Piven early in their careers back in 3/30/90 also called Dog Police. That plus the original song and band which was well known and infamous, if not successful, on MTV makes me want to say reopen the article with the limited information presented and follow it up with a Stub notice, and hopefully someone with some concrete information out there can fill in the missing information. ] (]) 03:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :{{la|Dog Police}} was deleted per ] for lack of ]. Since you do not propose such sources covering the subject in some depth, the article cannot be recreated at this time. Notably, an anonymous Youtube account is not a reliable source. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ]. | |||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(] • ] • ])''</small></font> 05:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Topic Ban Appeal == | |||
| At first I did not care so much about topic ban (I hardly edit in on this topic anyway), but because it was enforced so vigorously here's my official appeal: | |||
| ;Topic Bans in General | |||
| As it explained "Note that topic bans are meant to be ]. That is to say that users subject to topic bans are not being punished for bad behavior but instead the removal of the user from that topic area where they repeatedly violate policy ..." | |||
| May I please ask you to provide the differences to confirm me '''repeatedly''' violate policy in the <u>topic area</u> of my ban? | |||
| ;My ban in particular | |||
| :I was topic banned by you for that has absolutely nothing to do with the :topic of my ban. | |||
| :As you explained <br> | |||
| :My understanding is that I was topic-banned for "pattern of battleground conduct by me mostly in an ARBPIA context". May I please ask you to be more specific about "battleground conduct" by me. Gatoclass was advised as the result of AE I filed, which means that you have admitted there was at lest some merits behind the request. What other "battleground" are you talking about? This AE was the first ever I have filed. I filed only one AN/I on the editor involved in the topic. This report ended up in the editor indefinitely blocked. | |||
| ;A crime and a punishment | |||
| :Based on the differences I provided I would not have called Gatoclass the Holocaust denier, and I am sorry, if I sounded that way, but I do believe that his opinions on some subjects are biased. | |||
| :If you believe that the differences I provided is a punishable offense, may I please ask you to come up with a different kind of punishment except banning me on the topic, that has absolutely nothing to do with the "crime" itself. Why, for example not to block me, or topic ban on everything concerning the Holocaust? | |||
| :If my appeal is granted, I am mostly not going to edit the topic areas anyway. I hardly did before, except two <u>small historic </u> articles I've started. I've never been the subject of any AE request.--] (]) 15:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::The purpose of the ban is not to punish you but to prevent disruption to the project. My assessment is that continued contributions by you in the I/P area would lead to continued conflict and disruption, as partially reflected in your block log, and as exemplified in your edits mentioned by Yazan in the section below. I believe that you do not edit in bad faith, but you appear to be very strongly emotionally invested in the topic at issue, and you have a tendency to melodramatically cast yourself as the victim (see, e.g., ) instead of reflecting on whether your own conduct is appropriate. This causes you to have great difficulties interacting with others in a manner appropriate to this collaborative project. The ban, therefore, is intended to lower the stress level of both you and everyone else on the project by helping you to contribute in areas where these problems are not manifest, such as through your excellent photography. For these reasons, the appeal is declined. I will not continue any discussion. You have been given the instructions on how to appeal in another venue if you so desire. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, I respect your right to stop continuing the discussion. So my message below is not for you to respond, but rather for the record. Is it only me, who sees something strange that the very same so called "violation" of my topic ban, a single and insignificant edit at the rarely viewed article was reported by three different users so far? The edit was soooo insignificant that at least two of the reporters were not even sure, if there was really a violation, yet they reported it nevertheless, and you acted on it! If it is not wikihounding, what is? The unfair topic ban you imposed on me only plays in their hands. You've done a great job in "lowering the stress level on me". I really do not know how to thank you.--] (]) 20:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Unacceptable language == | |||
| Sandstein, I am contacting you here because you seem to be the most involved in the recent flare-ups in the IP area. I saw edit summary on my watchlist, and I thought it was very inappropriate, until I saw what was . I can see that the user is frustrated, but it is no excuse for this behavior. I take offense as a Wikipedian, and a '''marxist'''. I am not asking for any action but to warn Mbz1, and maybe try to cool her down a bit. I was going to post this on her talkpage, but was her response to another user who did. Best. ] (]) 16:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|1=Bickering collapsed. Get this discussion off my talk page; it does not relate to me. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)}} | |||
| :That's interesting. Why do you propose a block for one but not the other? ] (]) 16:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I did not propose a block for either party. And all the edits were made by Mbz1 (2 edit summaries on her page, and one on Roland's page). ] (]) 16:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Okay. Why do you find her edit summery more offensive than his? ] (]) 17:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Which offensive edit summary of his you are referring to? ] (]) 17:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Why do you suggest Mzb1 be "warned", but not RolandR? RolandR's edit seems to be a PA. It is well known that Mzb1 is easily baited, and RolandR's insulting edit could easily be seen as baiting, even though I am sure that was not his intent. ] (]) 17:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Mbz1 started this whole thing with on Roland's talk page (telling him that she needs to wash her hands everytime she visits his page), Roland, responded with the warning, which she deleted with . Where is the baiting exactly, and where is Roland's PA? ] (]) 17:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It's already on wikialerts and I don't think that another complaint or another block is necessary. Let us all stop with the drama and have at least one day in a long time without admins and boards involved. Regards, --] (]) 17:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::My reading of her edit is that it is not directed at RolandR, but at the cartoon by Carlos Latuff. In fact she as done some editing of Latuff's article. If she had named the man, then she would be accused of BLP. Of course, sometimes it is best to keep one's emotional reactions to oneself, but I don't see it as a PA against RolandR. ] (]) 17:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Mbz1s comments are obvious personal attacks and admin action against this user is needed: These comments are unacceptable. --] (]) 17:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Whatever it's, it's already on the wikialerts. --] (]) 17:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Even if you assumptions about Mzb1 werecorrect, and I think they are not, why do you not find RolandR's comment "unacceptable" also: "''You are a racist troll, and further comments from you are unwelcome. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 20:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)'' | |||
| :What I see always is informers finding fault with opposing editors over edits that do not seem to offend when from supporting editors. Personally, I think RolandR should be given an editing break for that comment. ] (]) 18:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::(ec)That message was to someone else entirely, I can't quite parse what that person is actually saying so I am unable to know the relative merits of it. What ''I'' saw was mbz1 stating that she felt like washing her hands after seeing his user page, I went to his userpage, noted an anti-nazi poster, noted that he was Ashkenazi and that he was against zionism, and it was the latter 2 which I thought sent her off. Regardless, my first action was to ask her to apologize, a proposition she described as garbage. I don't see why other editors have to be accommodating every time she throws a temper tantrum. ] (]) 18:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::(ec) That was not directed at Mbz1, and I only saw it now, because I don't watch RolandR's page, because I never had any contact with him (I saw the whole thing through Mbz1's edit summary). Nevertheless, I agree that it is completely unacceptable as well, and I wouldn't mind seeing him being blocked for it. This is becoming ridiculous. ] (]) 18:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::NB The comment of mine quoted above was not addressed to Mbz, nor to any editor involved with Israel/Palestine editing; and it is misleading to note it in this context. It was responding to an editor whose only edits have been to remove the word "fascist" from biographies of leaders of fascist groups, and to add the word "Jewish" to biographies of revolutionaries (even if they were not Jewish). When challenged on this, his response was "I think it is significant knowledge that the German revolution was lead by a small minority of the country & wiki shouldn't hide that". This is indeed an antisemitic racist editor, and I think my comment was entirely warranted. It has absolutely nothing to do with the issue here. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 18:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| Yazan, please stand by while I evaluate this matter. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Right. I agree that these edits are entirely inappropriate. However, simply because I do not wish to be the single administrator to pile sanctions upon sanctions on Mbz1, I ask you to raise this in another appropriate venue, such as with another admin, the ongoing ] thread (where I will note my disapproval) or, especially if this continues, ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Recent AE Discussion on I/P articles == | |||
| I apologize if I was being a bit brusque. Once again, I understand why you would extend a topic ban to Mbz1 but I do not understand why a topic ban, or even a permanent ban, would not be extended to Vexorg, who is openly disseminating hate speech and promoting wild conspiracy theories, right on that actual AE discussion page. If you have any insight into that, I would appreciate it. ] (]) 18:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :These are very serious accusations. Please be advised that you may be blocked without further warning if you again make such accusations against other people without <u>at the same time</u> providing very convincing diffs to substantiate them. Please do so now. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: 'hate speech' ?? - Now that is an offensive accusation. I don't do hate speech. I think you should apologise Plot Spoiler. I would also call for a block for Plot Spoiler for that. I ma very offended ] (]) 18:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Arbitration warning issued. No further action required at this time. I recommend that you both disengage from each other now. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Wikiquette alerts == | |||
| Hi there Sandstein. Mbz1 has been for two very offensive messages posted at editors talk pages. It looks like a quick admin involvement would prevent those reports from escalating. Thanks ] (]) 18:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Possibly, but I have to get to my gym now, and I will not let my schedule be dictated by this circus. I'll take a look at which, if any, problems remain outstanding when I return. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Topic ban infringement? == | |||
| {{hat|1=Collapsed as redundant to one of the above sections.}} | |||
| Does violate ? I'm not sure it does, as it is not about the I/P conflict as much as it about I/P issues. I leave it to your good judgement. Best ] (]) 19:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeap, Sandstein, go ahead sacrifice me to my hounds yet another time, block me again for the very same topic ban "breach" that you blocked me yesterday. Why not :) I will not be surprised, you know. BTW I consider the above complain as yet another try to harass me by the same hounds of mine that never will stop to howl until you will continue to listen. --] (]) 19:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please stop playing the victim, the sanctions you are under now have been of your own doing. Please stop trying to push peoples buttons, no matter how good you may imagine yourself at it - see ]. You could take some pictures, have a wikibreak or write on something unrelated, then you might find that your topic ban is over before you think. ] (]) 19:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Hi there Nick. ] (]) 19:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :My apologies. Must read more. ] (]) 19:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| ==G-Dett== | |||
| appears to be a clear violation of G-Dett's topic ban (which includes Talk pages of articles related to I-P articles) as a result of he Samaria ArbComm. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :New section created. Please link to the decision imposing the topic ban. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:06, 15 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.
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)
Unsatisfactory discussion
Hai, hope you're doing good. I share your opinion on one of the AfDs you closed three months back. The AfD was an unsatisfactory discussion, and I think the article needs a new discussion focused on the sources. What would be the appropriate way to start a new discussion to get more opinions? Should I use DRV or AFD? Thanks in advance. TheWikiholic (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since the outcome of the AfD was no consensus, you can start a new AfD at any time. DRV is only used if you disagree with the closure of the AfD. Sandstein 12:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)