User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2019/November

Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway Incident

I find myself questioning your application of the policy once again. WP:NOCONSENSUS In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept. On at least three occasions where you were the decider (including this one), you have ignored the expressed opinions. I am unhappy that you continually choose to ignore the codified guidelines on Wikipedia. I am also helpless because you have this power. As a mere editor I must follow the rules here: you do not, and I find that troubling. 8 editors favored endorse and 6 favored overturn or relist. You used a supevote to cancel the vote and go against policy. Lightburst (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The text you quote applies to deletion discussions. At WP:DRV, as you can read there, "if the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate." I have not at any time expressed a view about whether the article should be deleted or kept. Sandstein 16:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not mistaken. You count the opinions you agree with and then use your very powerful discretion to make decisions against guidelines. 8 endorsed and 6 favored a re-list. Also another administrator closed the original AfD with a different reading than you. In a previous deletion review I also took note when you used your considerable power to make another closure at deletion review against guidelines and in favor of your own discretion. JK! Studios. You stated No consensus. In this DRV, opinions are about 2:1 in favor of having another administrator re-close the discussion because of concerns that the closer was involved in the AfD discussion. This is a clear majority, but short of the required rough consensus to overturn the closure. In such cases, the DRV closer can, at their discretion, relist the AfD. I decline to do so because the AfD was already relisted twice, which is the normal maximum, and had plenty of input. The closure is therefore maintained by default. So in one case, you uphold a deletion based on what you consider a no consensus (twice as many editors were in favor of a different decision than the one you made.) And now in the case above your re-list is based on a reading of no consensus (8-6 were in favor of a different decision that the one you made. You have considerable power and I ask you to use that power to uphold the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. Lightburst (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. In the case you cite, I did not relist an AfD after a "no consensus" DRV because it had already been relisted twice. In this case, the AfD had not yet been relisted, so I chose to do so after a "no consensus" DRV. Also, it is of no significance that another admin closed the AfD as "keep". Their task was to assess consensus in the AfD. My task was to assess consensus in the DRV that reviewed the AfD. These processes have different purposes and rules. Sandstein 18:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

About Distribuited Liquidity

I disagree about delaction of the page Distributed Liquidity. Why did you made that? I think we should vote before to make this action — Preceding unsigned comment added by NuandaLM (talk • contribs) 09:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Distributed liquidity was deleted because there was a discussion about whether it should be deleted, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distributed liquidity, and the discussion concluded with an agreement that the article should be deleted. Sandstein 09:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Southcott (band)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Southcott band. 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. Joda85 (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Quick block needed

• 71.94.221.252 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Deep state in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Special:Diff/925355819
• Special:Diff/925297090
• Special:Diff/925296188

Could use a block for violating WP:1RR. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done But WP:AN3 is normally the place for such things. Sandstein 16:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban

Sandstein, in your response to my request to lift sanctions you said: "your appeal must show that the sanction was in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption, or that is is no longer necessary because you understand what you are sanctioned for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead"

Upon reflection, I came to a conclusion that all these criteria but one are met, and the sanction prevent me from meeting the last criterion.

1. "the sanction was in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption" The only damage was that I said that some concrete edits were aimed to whitewash Hitler, although the wording was, according to some admins, inappropriate. This statement was made not during an ordinary conversation, but it was a part of a discussion about prospective sanctions. There is no proof that I ever used such wording anywhere else, and there is no reason to expect such wording will be used in future in ordinary conversations. Moreover, since that user and I are currently involved in a serious content dispute in another area, these sanctions by no mean prevent a possibility for further "disruption", which, nevertheless are not occurring. I have made no comment on that user, and that is not due to the sanctions, that is my standard approach to that user since 2018, so I have no idea what "damage or disruption" these sanctions are currently preventing: normally, such a topic ban is needed to separate users who cannot control themselves, and there is no other possibility to calm passions down. In that situation, a picture is totally opposite: there is a perfect opportunity for interaction (and personal attacks), but there is NO interaction, no comments are being made, and hence the there is a zero possibility of any personal attack. That means sanctions do not serve the declared goal.
2. "that is is no longer necessary because you understand what you are sanctioned for" Actually, I still don't completely understand that, because my attempts to figure it out gave me mutually contradicting answers from different admins. Some admins says that my statement was unacceptable a priori, whereas other admins (whom I asked) say that it is not possible to say if the statement was a personal attack without analyzing evidences (which you refused to do). That means that, whereas I admit the wording could be not completely correct, I still don't understand what wording would be correct in that situation. I am going to find it out and to initiate a discussion (maybe in a form of RfC), but the sanctions apply some restrictions to that. That means the sanctions are actually an obstacle that do not allow me to clarify the issue.
3. "you will not do it again" You are perfectly aware that I am not contacting with this user, and I am not commenting at him anywhere except AE or similar fora, and there is no indication that I am going to change that behaviour in future. That means I absolutely don't understand why did you conclude the sanction prevent some future "damage". I will be frank: I am going to report this user, in particular, I am going to report him for vandalism, and because some of his contributions are pushing the fringe theory that, according to some reliable sources, defends Hitler. I am sure this report will be the only case when I will be interacting with or commenting on that user, and I am going to submit it after I figure out correct words to describe that user's activity. Therefore, the very roots of any "damage" my actions may inflict on Wikipedia are absent. In contrast, a detrimental effect of these sanctions, which are purely punitive now, is quite obvious, because the disruptive behaviour of MVBW has still not been reported, and prohibiting of reporting him is tantamount of implicit endorsement of that disruption.
4. "you will make productive contributions instead" The fact that I am productive contributor is obvious to everybody who has bothered to look at my userpage/talkpage.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The issue is moot. Your appeal to me as well as at WP:AE was declined. I do not have the time to discuss this ad infinitum. I will not respond further in this matter. Sandstein 21:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Parler - Learning Edit System

Hello Sandstein,

I am the creator of Parler the social media platform. I am not requesting Arbitration, I am interested in learning more about how the edit process works. I understand the fundamental theory of Wikipedia and how edits function but I am new in practice. I have noticed that some of the cited sources contradict each other and am not sure what to do or how wikipedia remedies these situations.

I made two edits to the Parler Wiki page in the talk section. I have followed the suggested formats and instructions as best as I could using examples and documentation. The intension is not to insert my opinion or my statements about what my platform really is, simply to ensure that the page adheres to the sources it is already using but accurately. I noticed you have edited on that page in the past and figured you may be the correct person to reach out to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler

Additionally, there are a lot of articles written about us and multiple TV appearances which could be added to the wiki page. Could any of this relevant? I am also curious how to determine which of those news sources are acceptable per Wikipedia standards?

Thank you,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide - (COI) - Founder CEO Jmatze (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jmatze: Hi. As you note, because you have a conflict of interest with respect to Parler, you and your employees should not edit the article. You can, however, propose changes on the talk page.

Generally speaking, TV programs can be reliable sources if they meet the criteria at WP:RS, i.e., they are third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that not all TV channels and programs will meet this standard. Interviews (on TV and in print) will normally not be reliable sources because they are not third-party sources; rather, they reflect what the interviewee themself wants to say. Additionally, not all existing reliable sources need to be mentioned in an article. They are used only if they are needed to reference article content, which must meet criteria such as WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. Sandstein 08:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Kst (software) draft-or-userspace refund

Sorry to trouble you but as closer at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kst (software) I am requesting a userspace or draftspace refund of Kst (software). I had at one point considered a WP:TNT option and had the beginnings of a draft at Draft:Kst (plotting software) my perference on reflection is to work from the original to try to retain rightful attribution, so previous content but not metadata is available at [1]. I was drawn by some attempts to work on Draft:Kst (plotting software) and would like to remove that as soon as possible to avoid a fork. thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

No objection from me, but I have a practice of not undeleting deleted articles. Please ask at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 06:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou for the quick response and I am happy to follow your suggested pathway.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review of Groww

Hi, I am the original author of the Groww page and unfortunately, I could not be part of the deletion discussion earlier in the year. I would like to request your suggestions on how to reopen the discussion, considering the following is true about Groww.in. I am keen to ensure the Indian audience gets non-marketing real facts about such companies, not marketing puff pieces.

1. As per Alexa, it is top #2310 page in India and top #33K page in the world. Source: https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/groww.in
2. Has 2.5 million users as per https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/19/groww-series-b/
3. Has since raised $21.4 million in a Series B financing round, led by U.S.-based VC firm Ribbit Capital. Existing investors include Sequoia India and Y Combinator.
4. Most of the other firms in similar space have a wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuvera.in, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zerodha, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FundsIndia
5. Product coverage in Times of India, Deccan Chronicle, Morning Star
   1. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/groww-launches-direct-plan-mutual-funds/articleshow/63783197.cms
   2. https://www.morningstar.in/posts/52412/groww-introduces-payments-upi.aspx
   3. https://www.deccanchronicle.com/technology/in-other-news/131019/these-5-apps-will-help-you-get-back-in-gear-after-the-festive-season.html
6. Investment coverage in TechCrunch, Economic times and more.
   1. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/newsbuzz/groww-raises-6-2-million-from-sequoia-others/articleshow/67667395.cms
   2. https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/19/groww-series-b/

Looking forward to your guidance - Ashok Bhat 08:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you personally involved with Groww? Sandstein 08:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Not directly. I happen to be from Bangalore and I know the CEO from my previous work experience. But I value my Wikipedia credentials more than having a page for the people I know, which you can see from 1000+ edits and 20+ new pages. I especially care about creating pages for topics that are not covered, so that others can add to it. Guidance welcome.

Ashok Bhat 08:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

OK. Asking the participants of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groww: @Jéské Couriano, Piotrus, and The Gnome: would these sources change your mind? Sandstein 08:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, no. Page popularity is not an official criteria, but personally rule of thumb is that >1000 is not important enough. Number of users is also a mostly random number (where do we draw the line? Would 2m be enough? 1m? 100,000? etc.). Other sources seem to be business as usual coverage. That said, I have no objections to restoring this in userspace draft, and then it can be submitted to AfC. At which point if it passes if someone (like me) would be concerned about it we could have a new AfD. It's possible others may consider those sources a sufficient improvement, after all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Should I submit a new AfC then? I think it is better to name it Groww.in to keep it consistent with the other site Kuvera.in Ashok Bhat 13:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

You're free to do that. Without agreement by the other AfD participants I'll not restore the article. Sandstein 15:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio on Trapiche emerald article

Hi, I would like to sincerely apologize for the copyvio and my in-expertise in editing the wiki article on Trapiche emerald. I have now learnt the proper process from my supervisor and would not make this mistake again. Thank you for understanding and sorry for the inconvenience. Harsimar21 (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Sandstein - when DS are imposed (post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people), and noted on the TP of the article, where is the link that describes what DS/restrictions have been imposed? IOW - 1RR consensus required, etc.? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

All discretionary sanctions should be logged at WP:AELOG. Sandstein 12:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Something strange in Pullman-land

Hi, I don't quite know why, but the various His Dark Materials pages you AfD'd, all seem to link back to only the one discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Races and creatures in His Dark Materials. Pincrete (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is intentional. This allows all of these articles to be discussed together. Sandstein 12:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Note on ArbCom/Poland sourcing restrictions

The phrase "reputable institutions"[2] was added to cover in-house publications by dedicated research institutions, such as the USHMM and Yad Vashem (and to a lesser extent IPN). See comment by Arb here. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

(I came here to comment about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#MyMoloboaccount, but this is a relevant issue so I'll reply here). First, re your question. That comment does not exclude reliable newspapers. You have used newspapers yourself as a source (ex [3]). In fact, in that diff I see even youtube as a source. Is Youtube a better source than course notes? I thought that course notes are borderline, but if they are out, I don't think YouTube acceptable, neither. And about course lectures: you created this article, which uses [4] - just like the Cienciala's coursenotes that Sandstein ruled as 'bad sources' in Molobo's AE report, this appears to be an article by a reliable scholar but not peer reviewed or otherwise published by a reliable source. I wonder what would Sandstein say about them if they were to be discussed at AE? But I specifically don't want to bring them there, because they show that even experienced editors in this topic area are unsure what is allowed or not, the ArbCom ruling is not very clear (also per your disagreement with Sandstein here re reliable newspapers, which I certainly consider fine). But sources like Cienciala's notes or your [5] are case in point, I'd have considered them reliable - until the current ruling. This should be discussed first, and the ArbCom ruling should not be 'weaponized' to bring editors one disagrees with to AE on the off chance that they will get blocked for an edit that was 'ok' few months ago, or worse, on a borderline source that an admin has interpreted as not good enough anymore. Which is why I find the speedy one week block of Molobo problematic. Per my comment at Talk:Home Army (which ocurred pre-block and pre-AE report, which was I think all reported and resolved in few hours I was asleep at), I concur one of the diffs he restored was problematic, but I disagreed about the course notes. Nonetheless I thought that we can discuss it on talk, over few days, per WP:BRD. Instead, bam, we have an editor banned for a week, with a note that topic bans can be applied. Does that new ruling superceeds BRD? Can an editor be indeed blocked for adding/restoring a single bad source without a prior warning that said source is bad and no evidence that he chose to ignore such warnings before?? This is not a healthy attitude - it will encourage battleground reports, and may end up with almost everyone active topic banned in few weeks, particularly if they don't follow such incidents. I'd therefore suggest de-escalation. Molobo should be unblocked and WARNED, not blocked. We should also create a list of source examples that are problematic, to which we could refer editors from such warning. An editor who adds or restores a bad source should first be warned. Then we can enter into a territory of escalating blocks and eventually topic bans. But I think it would be very, very bad if the warning step is bypassed. Sandstein, please advise if I should bring this to ArbCom for clarification (and please reconsider Molobo's block vs a warning; I'd have no objections to a block or such post warning, but I am pretty sure he doesn't understand why one diff is enough to get wa block...the rule envoked here is new and we must tread with caution or, as I said, everyone involved will get blocked soon on similar technicalities). PS. A technicality, but was Molobo actually notified of that particular ruling? His DS 'reminder' I see on his talk page was from May, so preceding that sanction. Are editors responsible for checking what new areas/topics are added to DS on a daily basis? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

MyMoloboaccount has decided to appeal the block. I will address their concerns in the context of that appeal once it is copied to the appropriate forum. Sandstein 06:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

How can a banned editor copy anything to any 'more appropriate' forum? Anyway, do you have any other thoughts concerning the more general issues here, not concerning this specific bloc? Like other sources mentioned, advise for editors on how they should behave, necessity for the warnings before blocks, etc.? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

A blocked editor can't do the copying, but an admin who reads the unblock request can. As an enforcing admin, it's not really my job to have an opinion about the merits of this remedy. That's ArbCom's job. My role is to apply the remedy as it is written and as I interpret it. Sandstein 08:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Then as a blocking editor, can you comment on whether Molobo was sufficiently warned about the existence of this remedy before a block was applied, and what constitutes a sufficient warning before an editor can be reported for violating it to the ArbCom? Also, as a blocking admin, why did you chose a week, instead of let's say a month, a day or just a warning? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The question you raise is whether I correctly blocked MyMoloboaccount. But only the blocked editor may appeal an arbitration enforcement action. You are not the blocked editor. I will therefore comment on this matter only in response to an appeal. Sandstein 12:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Asking whether a block was correct is not the same as appealing it. I am not appealing his block, I am just asking you to explain the technical rules behind it. First, I repeat my question: "what constitutes a sufficient warning before an editor can be reported for violating it to the ArbCom AE" in the case of the ruling discussed here. Or are you saying that the answer to it is some sort of a secret? Second, why did you chose the length of a week for the first infraction. Or, again, is this some sort of a secret that cannot be divulged and discussed? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: The whole point of the sourcing restrictions was to exclude non-academic, non-peer-reviewed sources, non-scholarly sources from discussions of historical affairs (in particular WWII-related), and that includes newspapers. That's why the Rzeczpospolita piece, which was used to support historical claims, is unusable; while the Haaretz article, which was used to discuss current affairs, is. In fact, the entire article is about events from 1998 onwards, with some 85% of the content from 2018 onwards. Funny thing is Molobo removed that source twice, stating it "[is] not fulfilling required criteria", but now he support using Rzeczpospolita for wartime events, stating it's "generally reliable". François Robere (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: Given the lack of consensus here about this, this may warrants an ArbCom clarification request. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus, the remedy does not require any particular notification or proof of awareness. I read it therefore as applying and therefore enforceable whether or not an editor was aware of it. If an editor credibly argues that they were not in fact aware of the restriction, that they understand what they did wrong and that they will henceforth observe the restriction, I may choose to apply only a warning instead of a block. But no such assertion was made in this case. Sandstein 13:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I think this entire ruling needs a clarification request before AE is swamped with a bunch of reports that require admins to make RSN like rulings. I thought that in general arbitration tried to steer away from content rulings and such, but this seems to be muddying those waters a lot. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Given the length of the unblock log (~4 months waiting for some editors), can you copy Molobo's request to AE yourself before the block expires making his request moot? He noted this himself in his recent comment. I think it is not fair and not in the spirit of how things should be handled to just defer the unblock request to a chance it will or won't be copied to the forum before it expires. The blocked editor asked for a review on that forum, as its within his rights, and we should not ignore it. I would copy it myself but since I am not admin I don't believe I can do so. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Antisemitism in Poland and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Appeal notification

Hey, just wanted to make you aware of this appeal at AE, regarding MyMoloboaccount. SQL^{Query me!} 18:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you please take a look at this article and the disruptive behavior of an editor here

WP:TLDR
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
E-960 (talk) keeps disruptively deleting and changing referenced information, claiming there is no consensus, often because because he alone objects. I am not going to rv now in order to avoid 3RR but he has already made 4 rvs within 24 hours: [6], [7], [8], [9]. More importantly, this is part of a pattern of disruptive removal of information he doesn't like: I added this information from the source Myroslav Shkandrij. (2015) Ukrainian Nationalism: Politics, Ideology, and Literature, 1929-1956. New Haven: Yale University Press pg. 19 : [10]. E-960 removed parts of it (specifically, reference to Jews being victims in the camps, and the words concentration camps) without prior discussion: [11]. I then started a thread on the talk page:[12]. Volunteer Marek did not change the words "concentration camps" despite misgivings but did remove reference to Jews. Another editor, Paul Siebert, didn't have a problem with reference to concentration camps or Jews, but suggested different wording: [13]. No further input from Volunteer Marek. So based on Paul Siebert's feedback, I changed the wording and added the info:[14]. E-960 changed the wording without consensus [15] and removed it again [16], adding a false edit summary that his version was the original statement (clearly, as we see, it was not. I had written the original statement). I then added the text plus the full quote from the original source into the reference to make clear that it was supported by the text: [17]. E-960 removed it again: [18]. I then found another reference and included it: [19]. E-960 removed it: [20] with false edit summary about no consent on the talk page for my edit (he was outnumbered 2:1, for what it is worth). As if there was consent for his version. So one editor has seen no problem with the text I added, E-960 objected to it so he kept reverting. Even after I changed it to match the other's opinion, even after I added an extra reference, etc. he keeps reverting. Seeking more opinions, I opened an RFC on this topic: [21]. The contributor concluded here: [22]: "First, the source was quoted not verbatim, so quotation marks are misleading. It uses "supported" in a context of not only military, but "university professors, priests, lawyers and doctors". With respect to interned Jews and other nationalities it says "sympathetic". Second, this source does support this statement, and Jews are mentioned explicitly, partially because their testimonies "described murders and abuse." However, I don't know if this source provides a mainstream viewpoint, or it represents just a minority view. Taking into account that the publisher is very reputable, and that the book was cited in 25 articles, it is likely that it is not a minority view, but further analysis is necessary to confirm that." On the rfc, E-960 accused me of forum-shopping:[23] and flooded the rfc with off-topic complaints about me. Then he, the same editor that kept removing information sourced to a book published by Yale University Press, added information (diff:[24]) from a Polish nationalist website: [25]! This strongly suggests that he is biased. After another editor questioned the words used: [26] E-960 then blanked the entire section without waiting for further discussion: [27]. I added additional information. He reverted it: [28]. I restored the blanked paragraph. He then blanked the entire paragraph again: [29] with false edit summary that there was some sort of consensus not to have the paragraph included. At this point I won't restore the blanked section, in order to avoid 3RR. But he has already violated it. More importantly, however, is his disruptive behavior of removing anything and everything he doesn't like and adding stuff from a Polish nationalist website, which probably reveals where he is coming from.

Faustian (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

This is too long. I'm not reading it. See WP:TLDR. Generally, Eastern European topics are subject to discretionary sanctions (WP:AC/DS). If there is severe misconduct by editors in this topic area, you can make an enforcement request at WP:AE. But this is only for misconduct, not content disputes. Sandstein 14:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Faustian, you inserted new material into the article, it is controversial to say the least and was disputed, and several editors had their reservations such as users Volunteer Marek, KIENGIR or Piotrus. If the new text is disputed it can be reverted and disscussed — Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Pls, utilize that approach, and argue the merits of your proposed changes instead, and pls allow a disscussion to run it's course instead of initiating RfC a day after you first added the new text. --E-960 (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of Redwall characters

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Redwall characters. 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. FOARP (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Shawn Moody closing

Hi, could you explain why you decided to delete the history of Shawn Moody rather than simply restore the redirect to the latest gubernatorial election? Not one participant in the discussion sought to delete the history.--TM 14:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

To prevent easy recreation of the article, as happened previously. But the content can be undeleted if somebody needs it. Sandstein 17:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Helpful Admin's Barnstar
	For closing discussions with a detailed rationale and summary of the conversation. WilyD 06:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)