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

Please strike your accusation

Sandstein, I have a lot of respect for you, even when we disagree and even if it doesn't always seem like it, but you really need to strike the part of your comment at WP:AE [1] where you accuse an editor of anti-semitism. The editor restored a previous version of an article. And while one can quibble over which version is better, as I pointed out, it's just absolutely not true that the text is not supported by sources. You just didn't read the source carefully enough. You missed it and jumped to a very extreme conclusion, then you made a very strong accusation against an editor on the basis of your misunderstanding. That is a very serious matter and you really need to undo this (strike the comment and apologize to the involved editor).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

And to add, at the AE, Icewhiz only shows you the edit in which Gizzy restored a version from August 2017 [2], not even "her" version. What he doesn't show you is that Gizzy made something like 30 additional edits, some of which, like this one [3] where she cleans up the old version! And look at that edit summary, Gizzy is making exactly the same objection to the text in August 2017 version that you did! She is cleaning up this version and removing anti-semitic material from it! In fact, if you compare Icewhiz's preferred version from March 2018 to the current version by Gizzy (who was in middle of cleaning this up and indicated they'd resume work tomorrow), it's almost the same as Icewhiz's version!

Why is he bringing this up to WP:AE then? Because WP:BATTLEGROUND. The whole presentation of the case against WP:AE is shockingly dishonest - showing only the initial edit which restores an older version, but not the multiple subsequent edits which clean it up. But hey, it worked because you and User:The Blade of the Northern Lights were too lazy to actually 1) read the source carefully and 2) look at the actual editing history of the article. You just jumped right to accusing an editor of anti-semitism.

I'm gonna ping @Ealdgyth: because I think they're a very reasonable and level headed editor here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, none of this is your concern. I'm waiting to see what GizzyCatBella has to say about this and will review the issue again then. I do not need input by you or other editors to do that. Sandstein 20:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

No, this is my concern, as I am involved in the topic area and have been dealing with Icewhiz's WP:BATTLEGROUND for awhile now. Also, you're the one who always chastises people for casting WP:ASPERSIONS and demand diffs and proof before any accusations are made, yet here you quickly jump to an unwarranted conclusion and accuse another editor of "spreading anti-semitic propaganda", which is completely false! I'm trying to be polite about this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry this got tp your TP. I will note that my complaint clearly noted that GCB continued editing (concurrent to the filing) - and that these edits retained at least 5 serious misrepresentation that I clearly specified in the original complaint (there was also sloppy use of citations) - the version I linked in the AE was close to the state GCB left the article in. The trigger to my filing was the refusal to self revert the hoax version - but I clearly updated the filing to reflect also misrepresentations present at the time I finished writing the report (and had there been none - I probably would have kept this in draft - but there were at least 5, some serious).Icewhiz (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

"I will note that my complaint clearly noted that GCB continued editing" - what you wrote was "User made some additional edits after this". What you failed to disclose is that those "additional edits" she made actually removed the text you were objecting to! In other words, she self-reverted most of her initial restoration of the older version and gave you almost everything you wanted (the only difference really is some additional info about the Jewish community in the town and a sentence about the Soviet occupation). The current - Gizzy's - version - is very close to your version. Yet, you ran to WP:AE ANYWAY. Because your purpose was not to improve the article but to get an editor sanctioned. That's called WP:BATTLEGROUND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The original edits (repeated after being challenged) were grossly defamatory. The subsequent edits were not a self revert, and left several problems and mosrepresentations.Icewhiz (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense, on both counts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

You STILL need to strike your false accusation per WP:ASPERSIONS. You've had more than 24 hours to do it and you've been active on Wikipedia since you've been notified of the problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I need to do nothing of the sort. Casting aspersions means making accusations without evidence. There is plenty of evidence of misconduct in this case, at least in the judgment of all admins who have commented on it. Assessing evidence and describing misconduct as grounds for sanctions is part of my job as an admin. Sandstein 19:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Whether there is "evidence of misconduct" is not the issue. Whether or not there is grounds for sanctions is not the issue. The only issue is whether or not you've presented evidence to support the notion that the user in question "is using Wikipedia to for anti-semitic propaganda by misrepresenting sources". You have NOT presented any evidence to that effect and this is a very serious charge (indeed, your attack appears to be based on your own failure to actually read a source and the edit history of the article). WP:ASPERSIONS says clearly:

"An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums."

You have not presented any evidence The accusations is severe. Your continued refusal to strike the comment can be taken as you repeating the false accusation. You have not raised this on the user's talk page. You have not raised this in an appropriate forum (you are free to file your own WP:AE report - Icewhiz did not make this accusation, or go to WP:ANI).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I have taken note of your view, but maintain that AE is the appropriate forum for me, in my capacity as an administrator, to assess and evaluate editor conduct based on the evidence submitted there by others. I will not comment on this further. Sandstein 19:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

It is an appropriate forum for you to asses and evaluate editor conduct. It is NOT an appropriate venue for you to make extreme allegations against other users. It's simple, if you do indeed believe that the user "is using Wikipedia for anti-semitic propaganda" (and I assume you stand by that statement) then present the evidence in form of diffs. You can do that right here and now. Else, you really need to strike the accusation. If that kind of an accusation was made on an article or user talk page it would be sufficient grounds for a WP:AE report and would probably lead to sanction. If I or Icewhiz or somebody else accused another user of spreading "anti-semitic propaganda" you'd probably block them yourself. Here is the thing: you're not exempt from the rules you've self-selected to enforce.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Move proposal for Swiss referendums to initiatives

Please have a look at the proposed moves under Talk:Swiss_minaret_referendum,_2009. As fellow Swiss you know, that the proposed moves make sense. User:Number 57, an admin, wants to delete this entry because he claims, that a sockpuppet has proposed it. He goes on to associate me: quite clear crossover with the sockpuppeteer in question. He has filed an SPI report against 83.228.178.55.--BBCLCD (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you mean, and this does not look like it interests me. Sandstein 20:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Recreation of page Joseph Kevin Bracken

Hello, I see that this page was deleted by you after a deletion review based on lack of established notability. I can see that recreation of the article is allowed. I have re-written the article with much more substantial sourcing here: User:Lonehexagon/Joseph_Kevin_Bracken Since you were the person who deleted the article, I wanted to check with you before I submitted the draft for review. I was also wondering if there's a way to merge the history of the two pages so the original history is not lost. I appreciate any thoughts or suggestions. Have a great day :) Lonehexagon (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lonehexagon: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 June 5 endorsed deletion but allowed recreation, so you can go ahead. I'm not the original deleter, that would be Xymmax, just the DRV closer. So I don't have a particular opinion about this article. Sandstein 19:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it! Lonehexagon (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Reporting being topic banned.

Can I report Icewhiz being sanctioned from editing the World War II history of Poland? Keep in mind that I'll have to use related articles as a prove.GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

No, since you are topic-banned, and requesting sanctions against others isn't within the exception of WP:BANEX. If there is problematic editing by Icewhiz, others may and likely will report them, but you must now stay out of the topic area. Sandstein 21:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

At my appeal process, are you going to be involved or that will be entirely up to others with administrative privileges? GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

You can appeal either to me (in 6 months) if you want me lift the ban on the basis of your editing record, or you can appeal at any time to WP:AE or WP:AN if you think the ban was wrongly imposed, in which case I'll not be part of the decision about the appeal. Sandstein 08:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

One more thing, at my appeal motion, I will be exercising as proof articles related to my current topic ban area. Is that accepted? What is the general rule on that? I’m unable to locate directions to that concern? GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:BANEX allows you to mention material that you are topic-banned from in an appeal if doing so is relevant to the appeal. Sandstein 08:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: Comparison of web browser engines (typography support)

I'm looking to get the article Comparison of web browser engines (typography support) undeleted.

I was not present for this happening, but the assertions of both participants are inaccurate:

"…half of the info already covered in the large CSS comparison article…"

How about the other half? The information I have referred to this page for across many years certainly is not present in another article. I looked.

"…haven't had a meaningful update in over 7 years."

Web typography has not changed significantly in many years, so why would information referring to it need to.

"…this one is also redundant…"

Again, the information in the article is not present in any other, and is therefore not redundant.

Thanks for reading. =)

Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, the discussion is over now, and I‘m not interested enough in the topic to pursue this further. Sandstein 04:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)