User talk:Sandstein

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: [[example article]].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Start a new talk topic

Regarding Ban - Unsure of the Proper Handling of The Situation

Hello,

I was banned on editing the article of Walter Russell, I could compose an argument defending myself, but at this point it seems like a long drawn out process compared to something more enjoyable, like finding dozens upon dozens of sources. I do believe I am the one putting the most elbow grease in the actual attempt to uncover the facts here, in a trustworthy fashion. I will most likely compose some sort of argument or refute or appeal so I can actually add the additional sources content to the article, which so many people have yet to see. The idea that this man is a kook or quack seems a bit out of line, and it essentially is offensive on quite a bit of levels. Even though I posted adequate refutes, I have received little response, like trying to articulate the mans scientific education, being an architect, ice skater, etc. I actually have the citation that can be verified by anyone on a modern leonardo claim, nonetheless that edit hasn't changed... You need to have access the Herald Archives for the original claim, even though no article I've looked up for more verification was ever shown false on the page. I'm unsure of a man deemed the "modern leonardo" being a master in architecture, design, painting, sculpting, poetry, writing, speaking, and ice skating, having being credited with it's inception in the USA, along with his own cosmogony needs to be whittled down into something because, well, people find it hard to accept, even though I have produced evidence and sources galore, including a polymath citing. I think there's multiple things that can be edited, but i think a handful, rather than be done immediately should be discussed properly rather than thrown out because it doesn't "feel right" to them. I have hardly added a lick to the page in months either, only attempting to minimize edits and keep things that well, tell the story of this individual factually. I probably need to have a computer to avoid frustration because the depth, precision, etc of a computer is, well, far superior to two thumbs. so I have fashioned these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Walter_Russell#%22Modern_Leonardo%22

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Walter_Russell#More_Sources_to_Take_Into_Consideration

Seems like the organization is hardly lying in regards to this individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediansSweep (talk • contribs) 22:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

WikipediansSweep, I am sure that Sandstein will also comment, but at this time you are no longer allowed to discuss or write anything about Walter Russell, anywhere on Wikipedia. Period. End of story. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

WikipediansSweep, Cullen328 is correct. WP:BANEX has exceptions for necessary dispute resolution, such as appeals or appropriate questions about the ban. But the above is neither, just incoherent rambling. In addition, your edits to Talk:Walter Russell also violate your topic ban. For this, I am blocking you for three days. Recurring violations will result in longer blocks. Sandstein 22:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging

Hi, Sandstein. Regarding your recent AE closure, I have no objection about the block per se, for the topic ban violation had occurred (although to file a report about a US topic ban per ARBEE looks ridiculous). However, I totally disagree with this your remark:

"TheTimesAreAChanging does not address ... the personal attacks in their response"

They didn't have to, because I addressed this. I wrote:

"In connection to that, it would be correct to suspend this case, and to wait for arbitrators' opinion on the evidences I am going to present. If the conclusion will be that I am right, then the TTAAC's edit summary was just a statement of fact, although redundantly emotional one. If the decision will be in MVBW's favour, than TTAAC's words are a personal attack. "

Let me reiterate: to call someone "Hitler's supporter" is not a necessarily a personal attack. It is just an exceptional claim, and it needs exceptional evidences. I am going to present the evidences that MVBW is a POV-pusher who uses dishonest tricks to discredit other users. I would be grateful if you reconsidered your comments regarding TTAAC failing to address the accusation of personal attack. I do not request you to reconsider your decision about 2 month block, because the topic ban violation was obvious.

In addition, I would be grateful if you explained me how exactly should I present my evidences against MVBW. Taking into account a long history of our interaction, should I address directly to ArbCom, or some other actions are needed before that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi. As an editor who is not party to the complaint, you should focus on briefly adding diffs that are relevant to the outcome of the request, not opinions or announcements of forthcoming evidence. Im am interested in the opinion of the editor being complained about because it is material to my assessment of whether any misconduct is likely to reoccur. The opinion of others is not helpful in this respect. Please be aware that AE is not a discussion venue, but a forum to help admins decide whether action is needed. All third-party submissions should be useful in this respect, and brief. Yours was not. Evidence should be offered, not announced. What's more, any evidence about the conduct of others cannot mitigate or obviate misconduct by the user at issue. Evidence about the underlying conduct dispute, irrelevant at AE in any case, cannot make a personal attack not be one. If you want to make a complaint against another editor, you should make a separate AE request and it will be properly examined. Sandstein 16:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok. However, it looks like TTAAC believed that, since I have already addressed the personal attack issue, there was no need to focus on that any more. Note, my comment was made before TTAAC responded, and they directly referred to my post. In my post, I explained that, since MVBW was acting as de facto a proxy of some pro-Nazi IP, the TTAAC's statement is hardly a personal attack, and it seems TTAAC decided there is no need to add anything to that. In connection to that, my post should be considered as a part of TTAAC's responce (per TTAAC themselves).--

By the way, did I understand that my report on MVBW should go to AE, not arbitration? What is the difference? Can MVBW be considered properly warned (he was named as a party in an original case)? Paul Siebert (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

You are free to request arbitration, but such requests are usually not accepted unless you can show that they concern a difficult, serious problem that the community (or AE, if applicable) has been unable to solve. You can make an AE request if you want an Arbitration Committee decision enforced, or if you believe that the requirements for discretionary sanctions are met. See WP:AC/DS for these requirements. Sandstein 17:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you.

Upon reflection, I came to a conclusion that the evidences about TTAAC's alleged personal attack should be reexamined. As I already pointed out, that should not affect his block (the topic ban violation was obvious), but "personal attack" as a reason for a block should be removed. To save our time, I can present these evidences here: briefly, MVBW removed a well sourced material that presents the opinion of mainstream Western scholars that Hitler was more responsible for the outbreak of war than Stalin. Obviously, to remove this content under a false edit summary means to whitewash Hitler. By doing that revert MVBW was acting as a proxy of an obviously anti-Semitic IP, and this revert gives an undue weight to the views of Irving and Suvorov (the first one is a known Holocaust denier). A reliable peer-reviewed sources (e.g. Matthew E. Lenoe. In Defense of Timasheff's Great Retreat. Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, Volume 5, Number 4, Fall 2004, pp. 721-730 Published by Slavica Publishers DOI:[1].) support this statement. If you want diffs, I can provide them.

Obviously, by doing that MVBW was definitely acting as Hitler's defender. I also have evidences confirming that MVBW is acting as a troll, and this story goes back to EEML times. Therefore, the TTAAC's words are not a personal attack, and it would be correct if your decision referred to topic ban violation as a sole reason for this totally justified block. I think that would be the most preferable scenario.

However, if you prefer other admins to re-review this case, could you please advise me how can I do that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Only sanctioned editors may appeal discretionary sanctions. See WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications. I will therefore not discuss these sanctions here. Sandstein 19:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Paul Siebert said a lot of bad things about me here, and without a shred of evidence. a "Hitler's defender", "a troll", "was acting as a proxy of an obviously anti-Semitic IP", "Irving". None of that is true. Should not that be a reason for blocking Paul Siebert for making personal attacks? My very best wishes (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

You are free to make a WP:AE request with proper diffs as evidence of you want this looked at - together with your own conduct, of course. Sandstein 05:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I will think about it. My very best wishes (talk) 06:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, are you going to be the admin who will review the AE case filed by MVBW? If yes, are you granting me a time to collect evidences against MVBW, and are you giving me a word extension? I also would like to know if the quotes (small quotes) from the emails EEML members were discussing possible actions against me can be presented.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Any admin may act on an AE request. But collecting evidence against others is, in my view, not a sufficient reason for a delay or word limit extension. That's because misconduct by others (if any) will normally not excuse or mitigate misconduct by you (if any). In the thread concerning you, you should focus on discussing your own conduct. If you believe that there is actionable misconduct by others, consider making a separate request about it. Sandstein 20:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you think that will work better, let's split it in two. Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Paul, you surprised me. I thought you are going to strike through all your accusations and apologize. There is no any recent evidence of my alleged "misconduct". My very best wishes (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, I have a technical question. TTAAC placed his appeal on his talk page. Do I understand correct it should be copied to the AE page? I am not familiarr with the procedure, and I don't know who is supposed to do that. Can it be any user, or only admins can do that? --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sir Joseph and accusations of Holocaust denial and revisionism. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

AE appeal

Per TheTimesAreAChanging's request, I copied their appeal from their talk page to AE.Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

T-ban violation?

Hey Sandstein,

I've written this little piece for The Signpost, dealing with racism in the context of the WWII and Holocaust history topic areas. GizzyCatBella promptly replied with much outrage on my TP,[2] despite no names or uniquely identifying information being mentioned. I believe it was a violation of her T-ban.[3] What do you think? François Robere (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a connection to Poland in this post by GizzyCatBella. If you want this looked at more closely, please make a request at WP:AE. Sandstein 12:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I wrote about an editor active in the topic area of WWII history, and she messaged me asking who they were. Isn't that a T-ban violation? François Robere (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Sandstein, I was hoping [4] that the deletion [5] of an attack page (now deleted) produced by the François Robere would put an end to this chapter, but the persistence to get me sanctioned now incited this message.

After Primefac deleted the mentioned page, they were warned [6] by Bovlb. They were however already warned also by you [7] then concequently blocked by TonyBallioni [8] for this [9]

Shouldn't François Robere be sanctioned for WP:NPA and WP:BATTLEGROUND in light of prior warnings and the fact that the area is under discretionary sanctions Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision? I'm contemplating about e-mailing ArbCom about, but maybe you, as a veteran administrator, could find an answer. I just want this chapter to be over, and I wish to forget about that nasty attack (as an administrator you have and access to the original page produced by François Robere). Regards.GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Both of you, I'm not processing AE requests here. If you think that there is a problem with the conduct of the other editor, go to WP:AE and file a request with proper evidence, and it will be looked at. Sandstein 06:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay. François Robere (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOPPING, Bella. You already went with this to ANI and got rightfully rejected. François Robere (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

MVBW AE

Thank you for freezing the page. Actually, as I've already announced on the AE page I am currently finalizing my response on this version of MVBW's report, and I have no opportunity to address any newer accusations. If that is ok, I am going to post my final response in next few hour.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, I will address the last version: it will not take long to make adjustments. Since MVBW is not capable of modifying this page any more, that's ok. A technical question: how do I edit a closed discussion? How can I add my response there? Should I add it under the discussion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

You just overwrite your placeholder text with your response. It's up to you which version of the complaint you address. Admins will likely base their decision on the most recent version. Sandstein 14:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thank you again for having stopped that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

AE word limit

I had assumed that the 500 word limit applied to each response in each user's section of an AE request. As, here, you deleted most of what I'd written, I assume that it actually applies to the whole section. What are my choices if I want to respond to remarks made about my comments and my comments are already up against the 500 word limit? Am I screwed? Can I ask for permission to write more? Can I remove what I wrote earlier to make space?     ←   ZScarpia   20:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Normally yes, but not any more, because comments are now closed, we need to get on with this. You're not a party, so anything you write will most likely have a negliglible impact anyway - sorry to be blunt, but I speak of long experience at AE. Sandstein 20:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)