Question about blanking
Hi, Sandstein - I can't explain why I haven't noticed (my) underlined portion of following in the AfD template prior to now: Feel free to improve the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. Shame on me if it's been there a long time. Is removing some of the unsourced, poorly sourced and material that is cited to an irrelevant source considered blanking if the crux of the article remains? I saw it as an improvement but will revert if what I did at Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog is considered blanking. Atsme Talk 📧 23:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Blanking, in my view, is removing (substantially) all content. Reducing an article in size such that it remains a coherent article is, in my view, not blanking. 07:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Nanotech portal at DRV
Hi, Unless I'm miscounting (and I did it quickly so I might have) it was 10 to 6 to relist including the nom. That's about 2/3rds. Given that the original discussion only had 3 folks and there were errors in that discussion I'm not seeing a reason to not relist and have a discussion. To pull out an overused word, this felt like a supervote. Given you've come out for the removal of portals as a whole , and the close against numeric consensus, I feel you should consider undoing the close and letting someone else jump in. But I recognize I'm a bit more of a stickler for "things seem fair" mattering as much as "things are fair" than most. Hobit (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- OK, I don't want to give the impression of casting supervotes at DRV, so I'm undoing my closure. 16:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Regarding Ban - Unsure of the Proper Handling of The Situation
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:
- 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. 22:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
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.
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. 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:.) 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. 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)
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.
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)
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)
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)