User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2019/October

Deletion review for Filtrator

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Filtrator. 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. --VictorPorton (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case commencing

In August 2019, the Arbitration Committee resolved to open the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case as a suspended case due to workload considerations. The Committee is now un-suspending and commencing the case.

• The primary scope of the case is: Evaluating the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. More information can be found here.
• Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Evidence. The evidence phase will be open until 18 October 2019 (subject to change).
• You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Workshop. The workshop phase will be open until 25 October 2019 (subject to change).
• For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
• If you do not wish to receive case updates, please remove your name from the notification list.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Question

Sandstein, quick question. Would voicing my opinion in this discussion [1], violate my Topic Ban [2]? No "Poland WW2" discussed, but the Holocaust denial is, which could be interpreted as related to Poland. I'm not sure, so please advice. Thank you. GizzyCatBella (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, when in doubt, don't comment. I'm not at a glance seeing a reference to Poland in there, but there might well be one in there somewhere, and I'm not going through all of this to look for it. Sandstein 05:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

That’s ok then, I’ll pass on commenting. Thanks. GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

TPA Revocation

Howdy hello! Could you remove Talk Page Access from WikipediansSweep [3] for the duration of their block please? I know you don't want AE actions reported here, but as far as I know removing TPA is not an AE action. If this isn't the right venue, let me know. Seeing as you levied the block, and that WikipediansSweep is still just using their talk page to carry on their nonsense, it seems warranted. A nasty business all-in-all. Thanks for your help throughout this. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Nah, not as long as they make unblock requests (or attempt to). That's a matter for the admin(s) reviewing these unblock requests. Sandstein 10:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, that's fair. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Clarification

Sandstein, could you clarify please if the subject of Gas vans is covered by the recent topic ban you issued to Paul Siebert? According to your notice, this includes "the Germany vs. USSR aspect of WWII, ... the reasons for the war, atrocities, etc.". The gas vans were used by Nazi at the occupied territory of the Soviet Union. Same question with regard to Holocaust in Poland, e.g. [4] (Page tells: "The Holocaust in Poland was part of the European-wide Holocaust and took place within the September 1, 1939, boundaries of Poland, which ceased to exist as a territorial entity after the German and Soviet invasions of Poland"). Thank you, My very best wishes (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The question is not correctly stated. The Gas van article covers two distinct topics (Soviet gas vans, 1937, and Nazi gas van, 1941 - 45). Since the Nazi gas van definitely belongs to Eastern front, the question should be: "does Soviet gas van (1937) belong to the Eastern front topic? The same refers to the Holocaust. Are the Holocaust events in Poland part of Eastern front, or the Eastern front refers to Soviet-German hostilities only?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that gas vans are instruments of murder that were used on the WWII eastern front but also elsewhere. Consequently, the topic of gas vans as such is not necessarily subject to the topic ban, but any edits relating to their use in the context of the WWII eastern front are. When in doubt, topic-banned editors should avoid edits that could be subject to the topic ban. Sandstein 07:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! The question under discussion on talk and NPOVNB is the following: "Did Nazi and Soviet NKVD use the same gas vans, meaning they had essentially the same construction?" Paul believes they were different (his comment here, just above). To prove this point Paul was repeatedly removing direct quotation from an academic book [5] which directly say they were the same. That was before topic ban. Right now Paul continue arguing that his removal of references to the academic books and other RS was correct and the text should be as in this version of the page - the diff [6]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

And I am completely uninterested in this content dispute. Sandstein 15:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

So you think that the subject/discussion if the Nazi and Soviet NKVD used the same gas vans is outside of the topic ban. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Reads Promotional

My edits were taken down from the Hollywood.com wikipedia page for reading promotional. Can you please provide context as to what lines read promotional so I can edit appropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.12.177.146 (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

"The site is rumored to have plans to enter the online movie ticketing space" - we don't deal in rumors. "who emerged as pioneers at the intersection of media and technology" - blatant advertising-speak. "Silvers is philanthropically involved with several organizations" - who cares, it's an article about a movie website, not her biography. Writing things like that gives the impression that you are involved with Hollywood.com. You must not edit that article because of your conflict of interest, see WP:COI. Sandstein 17:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

My absentee voting page edits

Hi, I just edited both the absentee voting page and the postal voting page to provide additional educational materials and update some out of date things. It ap[pears to me that you may have rejected those edits (note: I am a neophyte editor on Wikipedia). However, I did edit the Postal voting page some time ago, and that input appeared to be acceptable. I think it is in the public interest to have the data current. Anything I can do to change your mind on this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absentee_ballot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_voting

Memphremagog (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Memphremagog: I assume you work for https://www.voteathome.org, yes? Sandstein 06:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Topic Ban

Sandstein, in your post on my talk page, you write "You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. " Is it just a standard polite formula (I am not familiar if that phrase is a part of a template), or you are really willing to discuss that with me? I am asking because I would prefer to resolve the issue here, on your talk page, and because I really want to understand admin's logic to avoid problems in future. If you really want to discuss this issue, do you prefer to do that in a formal way (using the same style as on the AE page), or I can explain that in a free form, and write what I really think?

Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

You can appeal your topic ban here in whatever form you like. Sandstein 06:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Good. I need some time to make sure my understanding of AGF NPA is correct, and I'll come back.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Sandstein, actually, I will be busy in next couple of weeks, so I suggest you to postpone this conversation. I will not have time to think about that, but that pause will give me a chance to look at that story at different angle. I know that if people do not appeal your actions, you interpret that as they concede you were right. I am sure you were not, at least, partially, and I am going to demonstrate that in a couple of weeks.

Frankly, this story demonstrates that when people get older they do not necessarily get wiser. I definitely made a mistake by allowing myself to become drawn in a polemics that I originally was not going to be involved in, and for being more emotional than I usually am. ::::--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's up to you to decide when and where to make an appeal. Sandstein 17:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

My informal appeal is as follows.

First of all, I agree that the statement that I made on your talk page (the one that was a pretext for this AE) could have been made using a somewhat softer wording (although I have no idea how could it have been done without using the words "Hitler" and "defending/whitewashing/advocating", for these words are used by RS found by me). I agree that this wording looks like a personal attack, although it is not (as I am demonstrating below). I realize that admins are not expected to have special knowledge in WWII history, and, therefore, they may not see a difference between the accusations I made and a real personal attacks, such as accusations of "being a Nazi supporter". My action was not wise, and the time I already have wasted in connection to that silly story is a good lesson for me per se, and that is a guaranty that I will never repeat this my mistake again.

By having said that, I disagree with your interpretation of that story. I provide a very brief summary of my counter-arguments, then I present more extended description, and finally I provide all my evidences in full.

• Very briefly: 1. Whitewashing German WWII military history is not tantamount to whitewashing Nazism: accusations of whitewashing German WWII history do not necessarily imply accusations of Nazi supporting; 2. Comment on a contribution is not a comment on a contributor: it does not follow from my statement that MVBW is a conscious Hitler defender; 3. It was NOT a content dispute; 4. Numerous sources confirm Suvorov's book does whitewash Hitler, and/or is used by Hitler's supporters to whitewash him.
• The same, but in more details:

WP:TLDR. Sandstein 05:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
First, you equated accusation of whitewashing some aspects of German WWII history with accusation of defending Nazism. These two things are not the same. Thus, in Germany, where anything related to Nazism is illegal, it is impossible to see a discussion of whether Nazi were as bad as we think. However the recent attempts to whitewash Germany's WWII military past are not sees as a crime, and this issue is being discussed even in such respectable mass-media as Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung In my claim, I was talking about whitewashing of some strategic military aspects of Hitler's actions, and I never used the word "Nazi" (or anything of that kind) in relation to MVBW. Your interpretation of my words was too stretchy. Partially, I explain that by the fact that I hadn't presented the analysis of MVBW's misconduct (following your advise). That means I selected a wrong defense strategy, and I am fixing this omission here. It would be fair if you carefully read my explanations in full. Again, I fully realize that we could have easily avoided that, had I been more cautious in a word choice. I know that was a mistake. Second, you equated commenting on a contributor with commenting on a contribution. Yes, comments on a contribution always tell something about a contributor. However, our policy strictly discriminates these two types of comments, and to tell "a user X is Hitler's defender" and "user X's edits defend Hitler" is not the same: the later statement is much more soft and less offensive, because it does not discuss personality and intentions of a user X. Third, you incorrectly characterized the conflict as a content dispute. This your mistake was quite understandable, because the whole discussion was a total mess, and an exchange between Icewhiz and ZScarpia created a misleading impression we are talking about interpretation of some single source. In reality, we are talking about my description of some concrete MVBW's actions, i.e that was a dispute about a misconduct. Fourth, I had quite legitimate reasons to describe these concrete edits as "Hitler defending/whitewashing": below, I am providing a nearly comprehensive analysis of sources that demonstrates that this discredited Suvorov's book defends Hitler and/or is used as a support by Hitler's defenders. Based on all said above, I conclude that the sanctions were not commensurate with my violation, which consisted just in usage of redundantly emotional, although factually correct wording. I never thrown any accusation against MVBW that imply he was a Nazi supporter, and I think you should reconsider your decision and lift the ban, for the time I've already wasted due to that AE case is sufficient to learn a due lesson from that story. In addition, it seems this your decision had another negative consequence: it seems it inspired MVBW to misuse the AE page by filing totally frivolous AE requests against his opponents (as a recent AE request against Francois Rober demonstrates). Full evidences: First. "X is a Nazi defender" ≠ "X's edits whitewash Hitler". If I really believed MVBW were a Nazi defender, I would have immediately reported him at AE without hesitations. The very fact that I asked you first is an indication that I didn't see his violation as something that per se deserves really severe sanctions. Indeed, the question who started WWII, and why Hitler attacked USSR is discussed in historical papers not in a context of Nazism. Thus, when Jonathan Haslam discussed that Suvorov's claim, he said nothing about Nazism or its whitewashing, but he mentioned those Germans who hope to put Hitler into the pantheon of heroes of the German nation. This and other claims of that kind demonstrate that scholars clearly separate defending Nazism (or Holocaust denial) and whitewashing Hitler, for these two things coincide only partially. Indeed, there is a big difference between denying the Holocaust (what, for example, Irving is doing) and claiming the attack of the USSR was just an act of self-defense. The latter statement (a main Suvorov's idea) is a subset of Irving's ideas, however, Suvorov does not share other Irving's view, and Suvorov himself is not a Nazi defender. That means when I was describing MVBW's actions, I was talking about a much less severe violation than defending Nazism. Therefore, although I do not deny that I wrote that some concrete MVBW's edit whitewash Hitler, I neither claimed nor implied MVBW was a Nazi supporter, and you had no serious ground to assert I did that. In your concluding remark you ascribed me the statement that I never made, and it would be fair if you fixed this error. Second. He is Hitler's defender ≠ His edits defend Hitler. I know MVBW since 2008, and, although my opinion about him is very low, I KNOW he is not Nazi apologist. Actually, he just believes Stalin was much greater villain. The idea he is trying to convey at Wikipedia is "Stalin was worse than Hitler". He sincerely believes his activity is not whitewashing Hitler, however his edits ascribe some Hitler's misdeeds to Stalin. That is a zero sum game, so the actual (unintentional) result of his activity is that Hitler looks better than he deserves. Moreover, the same arguments are used by real Holocaust deniers, who try to shift a focus from Nazism to Communism, and who say: "Communism was worse than Nazism, so Nazism was not as terrible as people think!" That is why, although MVBW's intentions are, subjectively, good, the results of his activity are, objectively, very negative. One way or the another, by saying "MVBW's edit whitewash Hitler" I didn't say his intentions were to do that, in other words, I didn't say he IS Hitler's defender. Again, although such a conclusion could be made from my words, that is just one interpretation out of two. You selected a wrong interpretation of my words. Third. That was not a dispute about some source. The core problem was in MVBW's misconduct, namely, PROFRINGE POV pushing that defends one important Hitler's action, and an attempt to mislead other users by deceptive edit summaries. I am describing the full story from the very beginning: 1. In 2016, an IP 97.115.131.125 removed 70% of the Icebreaker article, including all sources that criticize this book (no sources praise it, so all references were removed). That IP had deeply antisemitic and pro-Hitler views, which follows from its second edit which removed the information about mass killing of Jews and replaced it with the statement that Hitler attacked USSR to defend himself from USSR and USA. To any reasonable admin, it should be obvious that the IP 97.115.131.125 is a vandal who denies Holocaust and whitewashes Hitler (see a second paragraph of WP:Vandalism). 2. Later, an IP 174.61.151.138 restored that material and properly explained the revert in an edit summary. 3. MVBW repeats the revert made by the vandal IP 97.115.131.125. Actually, this step was really problematic: MVBW is very experienced, and it is unlikely he hadn't bothered to look at the article's history. In addition, MVBW made a misleading edit summary: he wrote he reverted the text added by an IP, although it was clear from the IP's edit summary that that was not the case. Although this MVBW's double wrongdoing (a repeat of the Holocaust denier's action and an attempt to conceal his misdeed under a deceptive edit summary) is very questionable, I can agree it would be premature to make any conclusion at that point. 4. However, after TTAAC restored the article's content and explained to MVBW his wrongdoing in the edit summary, MVBW consciously made this revert again. I can admit the first revert could be a good faith mistake, however, a second one was definitely not. 5. After MVBW was reverted by TTAAC, he reported TTAAC. Although this step was formally correct (TTAAC's edit summaries were redundantly aggressive), it, together with previous MVBW's actions form a very worrying pattern. By reporting TTAAC, who fixed his wrongdoing, MVBW demonstrated he saw nothing wrong in what he had done, and, therefore in the action performed by the IP vandal. We can infer many problematic conclusions about MVBW's real intentions from that. However, I, nevertheless, hadn't made such conclusions, my statement was just a neutral description of what I observed: MVBW repeated, twice, the action performed by a pro-Hitler vandal, thereby acting as its proxy. I believe after this explanations it is quite impossible to see any content dispute in this story. However, that is not the end of story. A full summary of MVBW's actions is as follows: PROFRINGE vandalizing of the article under a misleading edit summary repeated vandalism MVBW reports TTAAC and then me. In his AE report, MVBW claims that "18:30, 19 September 2019 - I quickly fixed the edit by the IP to create this version." However, that is a false claim: the version he allegedly created was just a cosmetic modification of the version restored by TTAAC after MVBW vandalized the article for the second time. In other words, MVBW words are a lie: he "created" nothing, instead, he was just removing the additions made by others. He continued to remove the text piecemeal even after that here and here. Four reverts separated by 46 hours. Formally, not an edit war, but the article is under DS, so the criteria must be more strict here. And this was still not the end: MVBW continued removing a content after that: this, this, and this were removal of text, and each of them are separated by edits made by other users. In summary, MVBW's actions included: (i) repeated attempts to restore changes made by a pro-Hitler vandal (see a second paragraph of WP:Vandalism); (ii) multiple attempts to conceal own actions under deceptive edit summaries; (iii) reporting a user who fixed his wrongdoing (taking separately, not a formal violation, but...); (iv) at attempt to mislead admins by saying he "created" a new version of the article, although he didn't; (v) sluggish edit warring in the area covered by DS. What "content dispute" are you talking about, Sandstein??!!!! Fourth. The last thing I am going to demonstrate is that, based on ta nearly comprehensive analysis of sources available at jstor.org, I had a ground to say Suvorov's book whitewashes (defends) Hitler, and, accordingly, MVBW's edits, which push the same idea, are doing the same. First of all, let me reiterate, this Suvorov's book was convincingly debunked by Gabriel Gorodetsky in "Grand Delusion: Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia", and it is considered generally discredited,, Suvorov's "canard" is unsubstantiated, and based on virtually no evidences.Second, Western scholarly sources say that Suvorov picked the Irving's idea that Hitler's attack of the USSR was an act of self-defence (I think, there is no need to explain who is Irving), other sources say that that Suvorov re-iterates the "canard", "which was Hitler's rationale for invading the USSR" Third, other authors note that Suvorov's idea that Barbarossa was just a pre-emtive strike was godsend to Germans (...), who hoped to place Hitler back into the pantheon of patriotic history, and that connects the book with the attempt or German conservators to rehabilitate a Nazi past (Note: This source was among the sources removed by MVBW). Fourth, the thesis that Suvorov is defending Hitler seems obvious to other authors, who agree that he describes Stalin as a main culprit, and Hitler as a victim of Stalin's policy. Another author argues that Suvorov just reiterates the idea of ...Hither himself, and that his books were enthusiastically accepted by far-rights in Germany to provide justification for Nazi war efforts for whitewashing German's past. I think that is enough to demonstrate that my statements were not a personal attack, but an adequate description of a really worrying situation with MVBW's behaviour, although the wording could have been somewhat softer, and I, again, admit a correct word choice would have saved a lot of my and your time. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC) Two additional notes Whereas it is almost universally accepted that it is not correct to equate Communism and Nazism (and the Holocaust with communist repressions), many scholars, for example, T. Snyder draw parallelism between Hitler and Stalin. I also agree that, besides WWII, Stalin was the most terrible thing that happened in Russia/USSR. However, I doubt admins will consider the statement "this edit whitewashes Stalin" as a serious personal attack that deserves any sanctions. In connection to that, why a symmetrical claim "This edit whitewashes Hitler" is considered a PA? We have to resolve this issue not only in a context of this particular case: as one user (not I) commented on that situation, he feels he could very well be in the same situation as I, just because the rules are unclear. Regarding this diff, I sincerely don't understand: do you seriously believe there are some other words to comment on a contribution that consists in PROFRINGE POV pushing that defends Hitler in a more neutral way? I am serious: if I see that a user X is pushing a fringe POV that whitewashes Hitler, what wording should I use for reporting that behaviour? --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your appeal. I have considered it to the extent I have not collapsed it; the rest is, in my view, way too long to expect to be read by a volunteer administrator.

I decline the appeal. To succeed, 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 (cf. WP:GAB).

• As regards the first possibility, you do not persuade me. Your argument is essentially that you were factually right to call these other editors defenders of Nazism, etc. As I have explained previously, this is immaterial. Even if you are right, and you may well be (I express no view about that), you must not speculate about the motives of others, but you must address only the content they write in terms of its compliance with content policy (verifiable, neutral, etc.). In fact, "comparing editors to Nazis" is expressly prohibited by policy. See WP:NPA.
• As regards the second possibility, I find it encouraging that you write that "My action was not wise, and the time I already have wasted in connection to that silly story is a good lesson for me per se, and that is a guaranty that I will never repeat this my mistake again." But you also maintain that your statements were not personal attacks, even though, in my view, they were, as explained above. And you go to extraordinary lengths to argue this point. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the topic ban remains necessary to prevent similar statements by you and therefore further conflict in this topic area. Accordingly, I decline to lift the topic ban.

You remain free to appeal the topic ban in the other fora indicated at WP:AC/DS#Appeals by sanctioned editors. Sandstein 05:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Sandstein, I want to understand what I was sanctioned for, but it seems you refuse to explain me that. I asked a very simple question: "If I want to report some misconduct which consists in fringe POV pushing that whitewashes Hitler, which wording should I use for that?" I got no answer. If no rule exists, how can people observe them? If the rules do exist, why admins keep them in secret?

Second, if you read the text in full you would see that I never said "I was factually right to call these other editors defenders of Nazism", for I never called MVBW a defender of Nazism. I demonstrated (with sources) that the defence of some aspect of Hitler startegic decision in not the same as defending Nazism (the former is a part of historica discourse in Germany, but the latter is a crime). You repeatedly ascribe to me the words that I never said.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• I re-checked the diff and all my statements were a description of MVBW's actions. Before you closed my case, I asked this question on a NPA talk page, and the answer was literally "No universal answer exists", and each of those statements are allowed in an appropriate context. Moreover, the whole context includes the following: Not only I described questionable actions of some user in a way that is allowed by our NPA policy, I clearly explained that I am going to present evidences that justify that description. In reality, that my post was just an abstract of my prospective AE request. However, you expressed no interest to see the evidences, i.e. to analyze this statement in a proper context, and decided that the whole conflict was just a content dispute without seeing real evidences. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you believe that the wording "Edits made by a user X defends Hitler" is a personal attack independent on a context. If that is the case, I cannot understand how can we report users who make the edits that whitewash Hitler.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I've made my view clear above and will not comment further here. You remain free to appeal if you disagree. Sandstein 16:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I hope that there's some value in the following and that it's not just an unwanted, time-wasting intrusion. I've talked about the case with Paul. I don't think that his case is so much that he was "right", but that he was "justified". WP:NPA says that personal attacks include: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." If I've understood correctly, Paul's defence is along the lines that he was raising a conduct issue, "POV pushing that whitewashes Hitler", for which claim he has or can provide adequate justifying evidence. Perhaps it's a bit of a stretch to match making the accusation "POV pushing that defends Hitler" with "comparing editors to Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons"? Sandstein, I very much appreciate the work you do in Arbitration (I can't imagine it's much fun) and hope this comment hasn't wasted your time.     ←   ZScarpia   13:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Appealed [7].--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Sandstein, it seems in your response you ignored my main point: as I persuasively demonstrated, you accused me of a much more severe violation than I committed in reality, and by doing that you violated your own rule ("do not speculate about motives of others"). In my opinion, normal civility rules requires that you apologized for your mistake (which is quite understandable, taking into account that you don't have to know details of WWII history).

Please, keep in mind that this my post is not an attempt to affect the results of my appeal. Moreover, independently on the results, I will voluntarily observe the provisions of the topic ban until January. The main reason why I filed the appeal was to clarify that your statement was wrong, and I am not a person that can throw accusation of Nazi supporting without really serious reasons. I think it would be correct if you modified your response to my appeal and explicitly write that you were not right when accused me of comparing editors to Nazi, and my violation was much less severe, although, in your opinion, still deserves a topic pan. I even do not request a formal apology, just concede your statements about "comparing editors with Nazi, etc" were not correct.

Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban review and waiver

Sandstein, I would like to make a request to have my topic ban[8] waved. Please suggest what would be the best way to accomplish that. Any guidance will be appreciated. Thanks GizzyCatBella🍁 03:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "waved", but if you want the topic ban lifted, it's up to you to convince me that it is no longer needed. See WP:GAB by way of analogy. Sandstein 06:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I meant "lifted." Ok, I'll read through WP:GAB and will post an appeal soon. GizzyCatBella🍁 11:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:GAB - "Guide to appealing blocks” that's regarding "blocks," not "topic bans”.. thats ok, I’ll do my researchGizzyCatBella🍁 11:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I must strongly object. Just in the past four months the editor had:

• Removed quote that gives context of anti-semitic phrase [9]
• Defended nationalist Polish PM tying immigrants with the spread of disease [10] (see sources here)
• Removed information on nationalist ruling party positions on immigrants and LGBTs [11]
• Removed information on Polish anti-LGBT measure [12] (see discussion here)
• Removed material tying Islamophobia with antisemitism [13] (in possible violation of her T-ban [14])

You had invited the editor to present evidence of substantial, competent, prejudice-free editing in other topic areas. This isn't it. François Robere (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Note that in addition to her May 2019 violation (and a couple of others you only warned her for),[15] the editor had also violated her T-ban on her sandbox, continuously adding material on the WWII history of Poland from shortly after her ban went into effect,[16] up to two days ago.[17] François Robere (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Please use WP:AE to request any enforcement of arbitral sanctions. Sandstein 14:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Concern

Hi there. I noticed you blocked this editor twice, and User:SarekOfVulcan has also blocked that editor. That editor also has a topic ban. I'm wondering why that editor is still a Wikipedian in residence, Wikipedia fellow, and visiting scholar? I'm just wondering if this is an editor who should be representing the project. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not up to me. Sandstein 18:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the United States by name

Today, I finished the List of Presidents of the United States by name article because I saw that the previous one has been deleted. So, explain why you do that and approve what I wrote.

User:Emotioness Expression 17 October 2019 1:21 pm (UTC)

Resolved: already re-deleted by somebody else. Sandstein 16:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Good job

Good thinking! Really good idea. Thanks. What am I talking about? See here and here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: Tantive IV AfD closing

I noticed that you closed the AfD as no consensus rather than merge. Stating "Whether this content should be merged is perhaps better further explored on the article talk page than in an IVth nomination." Is there actually an argument for keeping here? Pretty much all that was come up with in terms of sources were articles on toys based on the craft, not the ship itself.

I wanted to see if you actually came to the conclusion that those sources demonstrated the article passed GNG. I personally don't believe that it is "better explored on the talk page" because it will just result in an edit war._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the merits. I just assess if there is consensus for any particular solution. And at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tantive IV (3rd nomination) there was not. The assessment of sources is a matter of editorial judgment and not something which I am going to second-guess as closer. Sandstein 16:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. How do we get from there to "as long as someone says there's a source, it's fine". Theoretically, I could then short-circuit literally every AfD discussion by citing some random source that mentions the topic in passing. I could then continue to prevent the page from being deleted ad infinitum by continuing to argue that said source is sufficient._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if enough people agree with you. Source assessment is subjective. I'm not going to invent a consensus based on my own approach to it. Sandstein 20:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with the close of this discussion. There was a clear absence of consensus. bd2412 T 20:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Captured! by Robots

Werum hesch die Site glöscht? Bisch ä Kampfchrischt oder was? Wieder ufschaute, los! Süsch mäudi di eis höcher!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C1A:4670:B4B8:3DE4:E035:9FAA (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The article Captured! by Robots was deleted per unanimous consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captured! by Robots. Accordingly, I will not restore it. Sandstein 12:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop extended

The workshop phase of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case will be extended to November 1, 2019. All interested editors are invited to submit comments and workshop proposals regarding and arising from the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. To unsubscribe from future case updates, please remove your name from the notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Romar Morris

In September 2016, the Romar Morris page was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romar Morris as Morris did not pass NGRIDIRON or GNG. You deleted the page. Now that Morris has played in the CFL, he passes NGRIDIRON. Can you restore the page ?

No. I know nothing about sports. Try WP:REFUND and say I sent you there. Sandstein 08:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Paul Siebert

The topic ban you placed on Paul Siebert (talk · contribs) had the following scope: "You are topic-banned from everything related to the Eastern Front (World War II) (i.e. the Germany vs. USSR aspect of WWII) for three months. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes the reasons for the war, atrocities, etc., and also any continuation of your WWII-related conflict with the user My very best wishes in any forum, such as AE."

Three users, including me, have raised concerns on Paul's talkpage about possible topic ban violations because of participation at talk: gas van (Soviets used them before WWII, Germany during WWII on the Eastern Front) and this RS/N thread about Holocaust denial. And My very best wishes (talk · contribs), who is also a part of this WWII-related topic ban, is involved in both of these post-ban areas.

A quick comment whether you think this falls on the topic ban scope or not would be appreciated. --Pudeo (talk) 09:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

If you think enforcement is required, please report it at WP:AE. Sandstein 11:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Line chart

Template:Line chart has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 124.169.123.253 (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Murièle_Bolay Page Deletion

Hello Sandstein

Murièle Bolay is the famous personality she is book author and director you can check reference link https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8012833/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsonmash (talk • contribs) 14:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Murièle Bolay was deleted per this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murièle Bolay. What you write does not address the concerns discussed there. Sandstein 14:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Luma Health AFD

Hi! Thank you for closing the AFD but I was wondering why you decided no consensus because there were 8 keep !votes compared to only 5 delete !votes? --KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

AfDs are not decided by counting votes, but by consensus. See WP:CON. It wasn't there. Sandstein 18:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I appreciate it. --KartikeyaS343 (talk) 06:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)