User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2019/February

ARE

Thanks for closing that. I think it's a violation, but I don't know what good a block would do, nor do I want to see TRM blocked. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

draft guidelines -might be of interest to you

Hi Sandstein,

Currently there is a draft on conduct regarding nationalist editing see Wikipedia:Nationalist editing. Due to your experience with handling or interacting with editors over many years your advice and input would be much appreciated. Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Ali Nejati

I have to note that you closed an AFD that receive votes by Canvassing in social media. The tweet is {{tq|Persian: دوستان، همون رفیق نامه علی به مالک اشتر داره سعی میکنه صفحه انگلیسی علی نجاتی را هم دیلیت کنه. لطفا اگر فکر میکنید علی نجاتی با بیش از ۱۰ سال سابقه فعالیت سندیکایی معیار سرشناسی ویکی‌پدیا را دارد در این صفحه رای به keep بدهید. Ali Nejati(@s), which Google translates to: Friends,The user who work on Ali's letter to Malek Ashtar, is also trying to eliminate Ali Nejati's English page. Please vote to keep, if you think Ali Najati, with more than 10 years of experience in the Syndicate, has a well-known mark on Wikipedia. According to this twit, the tweeter account belongs to user:Fredrick eagles.Saff V. (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Which AfD? Sandstein 13:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

this one!Saff V. (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, but even if one discounts possibly canvassed opinions, there isn't consensu to delete among experienced editors. Sandstein 15:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Sandstein Can you please take a look at this AfD too? It's pretty clear that there is near consensus on keep. Fredrick eagles (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

An admin will close it in time. Sandstein 23:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Roger; will wait. Fredrick eagles (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of This Morning presenters and reporters

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of This Morning presenters and reporters. 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. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Imaginary Jack

Hello, I am the fiancee (and, along with his family, keeper of copyright) of the late singer/songwriter Joseph Daniel Hines, lead singer, songwriter and guitar player for the band Imaginary Jack.

Though they were never signed, and their reach considerably less than it ought to have been, there is a very large and culturally significant body of work belonging to this band, and, in particular, to Joe Hines. As Joseph died six weeks prior to our wedding, I have left now to take up the cause of celebrating and sharing his considerable catalog of well-produced (albeit independently) music and artwork.

I am writing and directing a documentary film about his life and his music, which I contend is quite important and belongs in the pantheon of great musical artists, though it may seem insignificant or unknown now. It is being modeled along the lines of the films "The Devil and Daniel Johnston" and "Montage of Heck." I have the backing of many reputed artists and musicians, both in and beyond Minnesota, to support that this is a worthy undertaking, and to that end, it would be extremely helpful to keep the page for the band Imaginary Jack active.

Please reinstate the Imaginary Jack band Wikipedia page for the time being, as it is/was a legitimate band, many of the links within the Wikipedia page are still viable and important to the documentary project, and the music Joe Hines created is culturally significant and should be documented.

I can provide a list of references of those, including former bandmates, local and national artists and business persons, who support preserving and promoting this musical artist's legacy. I am also the keeper of the catalog of his myriad albums and nearly 150 songs which demonstrate his importance in our American musical history.

What I'm saying is this band isn't bunk, though they may not yet be well-known, and is poised to become significant in the way that things can sometimes only become posthumously.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter, Melissa Jelatis (Hines)

73.164.76.3 (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello. The article Imaginary Jack was deleted because this was the consensus outcome of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imaginary Jack (2nd nomination). This is not a judgment about the merits (artistic or otherwise) of your band, but a technical determination that the band does not meet our inclusion requirements - which boil down to being covered in some depth in reliable published sources with editorial oversight, such as newspaper articles. This is described in some detail at WP:GNG. Do you know of any sources that could make the band pass these requirements? Sandstein 09:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

AfD: Sam Distefano

Hello, you have had a little involvement in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Distefano. Could you please take a look at the edit behavior of user 174.72.248.8 in the AfD's edit history? See also [1]. This behavior could possibly make the AfD debate, or some votes within, non-viable but I do not know the relevant procedures. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Such matters should be considered by the admin closing the AfD; you can leave any pbservations in this regard in the AfD or its talk page. Sandstein 15:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

RfAWB

Hello Sandstein, I submitted a request for AWB usage permission. Can you please review it? Cheers! GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 19:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sufficiently familiar with this process. Sandstein 20:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Query regarding recent ruling

Recently, as I understand it, in your capacity as a Wikipedia Administrator, you ruled that a Wikipedia editor who has been prohibited by the Arbitration Committee from "posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence" is not bound by this restriction when either the comments are directed at the Committee itself, or the postings can be construed as "criticism of Wiki institutions or editors in official roles for their actions in those roles".

I am part of a team of researchers who study the ways and means Wikipedia chooses to self-regulate and the effectiveness of such, and I would be interested to know if you have considered the full implications of this ruling, which, as I understand it, is now considered a (non-binding) precedent for this user's conduct management arrangements, and indeed any other user subjected to a similar restriction (although our research has failed to reveal any othe individuals who have been subjected to such a precisely worded prohibition of this nature).

Would you agree, for example, that the restriction as worded specifically does not bar the user from posting criticism of anybody, much less Wikipedia officialdom, it only bars them from the subset of that which falls into the realm of speculation on motives or reflecting on competence. To be specific, it seems obvious it would not bar them from stating an official has not updated a complainant with the results of an investigation, and this appears contrary to their stated role and function, while it would bar them from speculating this was because they do not, infect, exist. That they are unicorns, perhaps, was I think the implication of the comment.

Similarly, it would bar them from alleging the lack of communication is part of a cover-up, for example. Which, unlike a suggestion of mythical status, would have serious legal implications given the myriad of different contractual and ethical relationships that exist between the legal owners of Wikipedia, and the assorted individuals who regulate many aspects of it, such as the important functions of prevention of harassment and disclosure of private information.

Matt Baker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattBaker78Wiki (talk • contribs) 11:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

You mean this? That was a statement of opinion in my capacity as an individual administrator; it is not a "ruling" and is not binding on anybody else. I'm not inclined to engage in speculation about the extent of a restriction that applies only to one editor and their specific circumstances. Sandstein 11:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Deleting a AE request

Hi,

I am sorry, but I am confused. You seemed to have no problem with this request, which did not follow the template either.

I asked repeatedly for guidance, yet none was given... I would have thought the sensible thing to do is to review it, not delete it out of hand. Cealicuca (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Your submission did not follow the format prescribed for AE requests, which ensures an orderly process and that all required information is present. Also, among ither things, the request lacked the required evidence of prior awareness of discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 16:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the quick reply. Thank you for pointing out the problems.

Nevertheless, you haven't answered my question. I used that request that I linked precisely to make sure that this does not happen. Since you were OK with the format of that request, how come my request is not OK? I have seen that templates on Wikipedia are not up to date a lot of times, so the thinking was that it's more sensible to use an already existing request rather than use a template which is both confusing (asks to add the notification because without it the request is not taken into consideration, but on the other hand one must first post in order to properly link the section in the notification...) and maybe out of date. Moreover, I have repeatedly asked for help (see the project talk page) because the review process is not explained (does it happen after posting the request? do I have to notify the users BEFORE or AFTER the review?).

Oh, I forgot. The template asks for a USERNAME. Considering that the request deals with a group of users, how am I supposed to put in several usernames? Cealicuca (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Use the template. Use it with one username, then add others. Sandstein 22:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

FkpCascais

Hello Sandstein, sorry to bother you, but I want to ask you a question. Am I allowed, or, in case I am not, would you allow me to edit just two lists regarding football: List of foreign football players in Serbia and List of foreign footballers in top leagues of former Yugoslavia? I created those two lists and I am the main contributor on them. They were the reason why I had asked you to allow me to edit football-related pages in my Balkans-related ban. When I created those two lists a decade ago, they were the first with that data to exist in the internet, and a lot of sports journalists, staticians, analists and enthusiasts use them because they ofer valueble data. For instance, since I´ve made them, there was a major increase in local sports media listing and analising the different nationalities and their performance. Unlike the impression the editors which complained against me wanted intentionally to leave, I am a major advocate against nationalism in the region. The reason I got blocked is that being a Serbian editor opposing nationalism, doesn´t mean I cope with anti-Serbian nationalism coming from other places. Does it make sense? For instance, I have no relation whatsoever with football in my life besides enjoying the sport per se. I grew up by living in several different countries and studying in international schools because I come from a family of diplomats. I love multiculturalism and always advocate for openess and multicultural dualogue, and severely oppose isolationism, nationalism and racism. My beliefs are strongly based on my personal experience which made me see all of us are equal regardless of where do we come from, and any nation or nationality has its good and bad people. My initial involvement in Wikipedia from the start was to highlight the importance of foreign players in Serbia and in the region, and debunk the nationalists idea that the countries should isolate and hate foreigners. My editing in the football area is based in the notion that foreigners playing in the clubs of the countries in that region contribute to peace and multiculturalism. My point is that the exchange of sportsman from other countries should be embraced as something extremely positive cause, besides the many positive cases, even the ones that failed to addapt, it is always a contribution to cultural exchange. Well, I could go on and on writing about this, but I don´t want to bother you. The point is that I believe my contributions overall are very positive and I will really want to ask you to allow me at least to keep updated this two lists, just them, 2 articles only, because they do no harm to anyone, they contribute to something positive which is multiculturalism, and waiting 6 months and then updating all, it will be a major task, cause it will imply 2 transfer windows and hundreds of players needing to be included. I don´t ask you for nothing more, just this two lists so I can update them, please. FkpCascais (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking at your editing history, you are continuously breaching your topic ban by editing Serbia-related articles. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: The matter of the scope of your topic ban has been addressed in two unsuccessful appeals by you. I am not willing to discuss this further. You have recently violated your topic ban by making edits to content related to the Balkans, among many other examples, at User talk:FkpCascais#Nova tržišta, by editing List of foreign football players in Serbia and by editing Miodrag Belodedici (even assuming the topic is outside the scope of the Balkans, your edit summary certainly was in the scope). Accordingly, in enforcement of your topic ban, I am blocking you for two weeks. Sandstein 16:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Please amend your closure

Please amend your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenwald Rabbinical family. The consensus was not "delete", rather "merge and delete". All three commenting editors mention the merge part. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

"Merge and delete" is not possible because of our attribution rules. Sandstein 17:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Please explain. I have seen many merge and delete cases. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Sandstein 23:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

My guess is that only one editor made any serious contribution to that article, so Wikipedia:Merge_and_delete#Record_authorship_and_delete_history would be easily achievable. Debresser (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, all content was by תנא קמא. If you want to merge this content, I've pasted it at https://pastebin.com/W9jSFSUR, where it will expire in one week. Sandstein 11:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll look at it tomorrow. Shabbat shalom. Debresser (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thank you again. Debresser (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

A request

Hello! Would you mind giving a shot to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Claver and give it a one relist at least. I feel the discussion that was ongoing there is very important Wikipedia wise, and maybe we could get a clearer consensus thanks to it? If it ends up in a "no consensus" situation again, I will have no complaints of course. Regards,Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

No. Relists occur if there has been too little discussion to assess consensus. Here we had a lot of discussion, even though it was inconclusive. Sandstein 15:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

That was a succinct and good close:-) ∯WBG^converse 15:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

LumaNatic

Hey Sandstein, last month you closed a discussion topic banning LumaNatic from "anything to do with race, racism, racial history and politics, slavery, or white supremacy, all very broadly construed." They've since made edits in violation of this topic ban [2] [3]. (Notably, they also haven't made any edits to articles they aren't topic banned from.) Please do the needful. Natureium (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@LumaNatic: Please respond promptly to the above. Sandstein 16:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@LumaNatic: Because you have not responded or otherwise edited since, I am blocking you for a week in enforcement of your topic ban. Sandstein 10:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Aprimo DRV

At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 6 you indicated you did not not understand what the DRV was about. The DRV was about whether CSD G6 was properly applied and executed in the 05:01 01 February 2019 UTC deletion of the Aprimo incarnation of per guidelines and policies. The objective of DRV is for that decision to be endorsed or overturned, and if overturned to indicate what action is required … is none. If you do not fully understand which you indicated you did not the appropriate option is to relist for clarification or leave for another person to close. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Then you should have been clearer about what, exactly, you want to happen in your DRV request. I do not have anything to add to my closure. Sandstein 10:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I apologise for my failure to totally analyze the problem in my initial submission. A concise issue of the exact problem only became clear to me during the discussion with help from others. Thankyou for replying.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

פֿינצטערניש TBAN

You TBANed @פֿינצטערניש: from ARBPIA. It would seem to me that - 17:37, 29 January 2019 and 13:58, 14 February 2019 would fall within the scope of the TBAN. Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Neither of those edits mention the Arab-Israeli conflict, nor does the topic have anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry; I thought the two edits you were referring to were both on Category talk:Anti-Zionism. You are right that my edit to the Khazars page mentioned the Arab-Israeli conflict. I should not have mentioned it, but I made a mistake in my original attempt to discuss the Khazar conflict and overreached. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

פֿינצטערניש, these are indeed topic ban violations. I will not take action here in view of your statement above, but please take care not to violate your topic ban again. Sandstein 14:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Do you know I get along with most of the users on Wikipedia including the Hungarian nationalistics? And it's very difficult to work with them, they are much more like warriors, they kinda always want to have the last word. And the Hungarian history is against the Trianon and the international regulations. Nevertheless, I reached consensuses with Borsoka and more. And one Danish user on the handball section Cotillards always wants to have the last word. And I even let him to have the last word, although he removed some of my work which was objective, not subjective like she said. And very similar to the articles of Real Madrid, Barcelona, Man United etc.

Normally I don't even deserve a minimum TBAN. Some hours for my behaviour maybe, but you can't say I am really bannable. Because after, it will open other boxes of possible exclusions. Even the absolute exclusion.

When I arrived on Wikipedia, the Romanian page was full of mockeries. Now what do you think? Do you think there are some businessmen who would read it on Wikipedia or not, when they type Romania? A small armada of users even mocked us by creating pages with the Romanian towns by Roma populations (which was of course eventually deleted). We want to get along with everyone, but understand we are more than you in an area of opression. And you are really understimating the Romanians, and me. I don't like the situation, but it's the result of the stupid nationalism in Hungary, Ukraine or Russia. In Germany, Romania, we talk about patriotism. Christina (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Please make any relevant comments at WP:AE. Sandstein 23:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Requests for undeletion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shark2six Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Thank you.

No, because chances are you are trying to continue to promote this non-notable person. Sandstein 10:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Person-to-Person

If you'll indulge me for a moment, I'd like to leave a quick message regarding my being short with you earlier. As an admin, you have authority. As an editor, I'm a paean that needs to keep their nose clean and cause as little disturbance as possible. Experienced editors get some leeway, by nothing resembling that which admins have, or are perceived to have. As an aside, I think admins have that leeway at great detriment to the health of the Wikipedia community. Just consider the vicious nature of RfA. That's a response to the authority gap between admin (ruler) and editor (ruled). Not to mention the lack of an accountability process that can be initiated by a disaffected community. Thus, expectations are raised to absurdity to cut-off access to the tools to all but living saints of impeccable, untarnished, and infallible records. I'm being slightly rhetorical, but you get the point.

So, when you responded to me with I do not discuss sanctions with people other than the sanctioned users themselves, you might as well have said You're a paean, so f*** off. All I can leverage in this situation is policy (ADMINACCT for example) and scrutiny (AN for example). I'm certain you didn't appreciate my you wanna go, mate? I'll fight you at AN. Come at me bro. response, but there's little action I can seek, besides that.

Most TBAN sanctions I see come attached with the "broadly construed" disclaimer, and I was unaware that where not specified that "broadly construed" was inherently integrated. I should have been, but wasn't. Thanks for clarifying that. If it's always been that way, then I'm entirely unsure why so many admins (and even arbitrators) make that clarification when imposing those kinds of sanctions. Maybe redundancy? I don't know.

I hope that clarifies my complete lack of patience. If it was unjustified, or disproportionate, feel free to let me know. Otherwise: Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I came across as arrogant on my part. I don't see myself as a "ruler", but as a functionary. To give you some perspective: On previous occasions, when I imposed sanctions on users with many friends, many of them showed up on my talk page to yell at me and to contest the sanctions. This quickly becomes exhausting and redundant, hence my practice to discuss the merits of sanctions only in the structured format of an appeal by the sanctioned user. As to the "broadly construed" issue: I do not know what "broadly construed" is supposed to mean. It is a confusing term, and I do not use it. The scope of a normal topic ban is, in my view, adequately (and already fairly broadly) described at WP:TBAN. I don't know what "broadly construed" would additionally cover. Sandstein 14:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC) — On the other hand, I now see that somebody wrote Wikipedia:Broadly construed, so it seems to make sense to others. Sandstein 14:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

We're good. I suspect most admins don't consider themselves, or act like, rulers. It's just an unfortunate result of privileges and how much easier it is to lose editing privileges than admin privileges. I understand that in imposing sanctions, you run the risk of being uh... what's that thing called where you're placed in a cage and have an angry mob throw tomatoes and whatever else at you. I thought it was pillocked, but I'm confusing pillock meaning "stupid person" for something else. Pilloried perhaps? I've seen it happen, and it's often unwarranted.
Yeah, the central problem with "broadly construed" is how broad is broad? There's WP:Broadly construed but it's hazy on meaning too Nvm, you mentioned it before I posted this. Coincidentally, this fuzziness was the impetus for my second question, but that's not important anymore. Have a good day, Mr rnddude (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

TBAN appeal

Hello, Sandstein,

I am blocked from editing Romania and Romanians. By the way, I never edited Romanians, Dacia and Dacians, only Romania was problematic. Some admins even suggested that a 6-month TBAN would be harsh, and proposed 3 months or none. Can I get at least the chance to appeal it? Keep in mind please I had 0 reports and my behaviour in my opinion comes from the lack of experience on Wikipedia. I am just 1 year old though with about 150 created articles. If we don't work, we don't make mistakes! Right? I accept this TBAN but it hurts to see I am being punished because of Tgeorgescu, who proposed this to the administrators. 6 months is a very, very long period to everybody. Put yourself in my place! Christina (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You can appeal the topic ban through the venues referred to in the link on your talk page. I'm open to lifting the topic ban earlier if I am convinced that you understand the reason for it and show that you can contribute competently and conflict-free in other topic areas. Sandstein 13:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Question: can I still edit the Romanian towns? I am getting bored without doing anything than handball, handball news these days come out very rarely. For instance on Arad and Oradea I completed with the Antiquity section on History. My only problem was with Romania, and I never edited even Romanians not just Dacia or Dacians. I will not touch Romania and Romanians, but I hope I can still touch the other Romanian articles. Because otherwise why I am on Wikipedia? I am Romanian user, I contribute to what I know. Christina (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

No, Romanian towns are part of the broader topic of Romania. Sandstein 13:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I was so shocked to see that the Roman and even Dacian sometimes history of Romania is vanished. Romania comes from the people of Rome and we speak of course a language of Romance related to the Vulgar Latin. Some Hungarian nationalists would disagree, in order to say the Romanians are Cumans and there was nobody in Transylvania, all Roman cohorts that mixed with the Dacians were dead. And this theory IS GENERALLY AGREED BY BRITANNICA and international historians, it's universal. That we are the descendants of Dacia and Rome. DO YOU SEE A ROMANIAN CARING SO MUCH ABOUT THE HUNGARIAN TOPICS? No, but an army of Hungary is very interested about Romania (when they need to really edit big our history, they come out with proxies). The admins, most of them Americans, don't care. They ignore us, our oppression. Why do you think all the Antiquity section of History at all the Transylvanian towns was erased in time? And they only started with the official attestation of the city. Which was of course in the Middle Ages, all the official documents in history were rarely younger. Tgeorgescu is a very difficult person it seems, not just a reporter, but also a Christian interested in Masturbation, pornography and is supporting some of the sins of the Decalogue. Basically a freak, but that's just my opinion. He will get ignorance from me, because of his lack of respect. He came from nowhere to report me, when we had no business together, we never edited the same articles. I wish I will live the day when a Wikipedia administrator would make justice. Basically Tgeorgescu is supporting the others, and not me. Christina (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Really, you shouldn't have agreed with him and you could have banned me for 1 month. Others got 1 week from everything for very bad actions. I would have preferred a one week block, if you really think I deserve this, instead of the 6 month TBAN. It's huge period of time! At least ban me specifically only on Romania and Romanians 3 months. Let me be able to edit about others of Romania. You can supervise me, that I am not making conflicts anymore. Christina (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Cristina neagu: you were topic-banned for what looked like nationalist ranting. Therefore, it is not helpful to continue with nationalist ranting in the course of an appeal. Instead, it confirms my view that the topic ban is necessary. Any further comments by you regarding the historical origins of the Romanians, etc., are in and of themselves a violation of the topic ban and may result in blocks. Your appeal to me is declined. Sandstein 13:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Cristina neagu: So I can edit any article I want but just not to talk about the origin of the Romanians? Christina (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Cristina neagu: Because in talk was the origin of the Romanians (Romania, Romanians). As long I don't talk about this, can I edit please everything? I also bring sources. I will not get involved in this subject and matter anymore. Christina (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:TBAN about what is covered by the topic ban. Sandstein 14:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Sandstein: Drawing your attention to this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Aprimo

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Aprimo. 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. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Moxy

Hello,

I just want to inform you that I had to restore the Antiquity section of history (at Arad, Romania), written correctly by me previously, because the user Moxy who first removed the gallery on Romania he came to Arad, Romania (after days) to say he's "restoring" but in fact he just had to change back some words. I let his changes, but I put back my work. I just hope he is not doing this in a provocative way. Christina (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Moxy could be the sock of Tgeorgescu. But you are not going to catch him since he is using probably proxies. He immediately went to the talk page of Arad, Romania pinging Moxy saying I am banned. Christina (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal

I've opened an appeal of your recent AE action here. –dlthewave ☎ 17:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal

I've opened an appeal of your recent AE action here. Another exercise in futility. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

AFD Help

BTW, I reverted you there, but I'm open to discussion on it. It's not the most helpful of links, but I don't believe it has zero value either, especially for this section in particular: Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process#Deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Userfy

I am not sure how poor the article was, but can you give me Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coldhart in my userspace? Subject meets WP: GNG, I am sure the article was in bad condition though. If it's just a few lines and no infobox don't bother, I will just start from scratch. StaticVapor message me! 19:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't undelete content, but you can ask at WP:REFUND. To me, the content is mostly gibberish, apart from a discography. Sandstein 22:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella

You placed @GizzyCatBella: under the following restriction - diff " topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from the World War II history of Poland. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes any acts of violence by, in or against Poland, or by or against Poles or Polish Jews, during or immediately prior to or after World War II, as well as persons known for their involvement in the World War II history of Poland." (bold my own). The following edits would seem to be in possible violation:

1. 22:01, 13 February 2019 Stefan Michnik adding "communist" which he was by war/post-war invovlement in Union of Polish Patriots and communist party. Primary known (besides his brother) for being the presiding judge of Polish nationalist militants (active in WWII and post-war - tried for 1939-1951 activities, including for "anti-communist crimes" in the service of the AK which was dissolved in Jan 1945).
2. 01:30, 23 February 2019 adding Aleksander Zawadzki - to a large extent known for his service as a major general, in wartime, in the soviet organized Polish People's Army.
3. 01:29, 23 February 2019 - adding Leon Kasman known as Soviet partisan commander in Poland.[4]. 21:54, 23 February 2019
4. editing Leon Kasman directly, including formatting "Janowski" - Kasman's alias in 1943 - which was also the name of his 1943 partisan unit.[5][6]. (I believe the other codenames are war/post-war related - however this requires delving into the Polish sources with a few variant spellings (e.g. Bolek/Lolek).

Icewhiz (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: Please promptly comment on the above. Sandstein 08:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I will soon, thanks.GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Sandstain, as you can see, I accepted and I followed the rules of the Topic Ban imposed for over 8 months now, despite the fact that I'm able to appeal it presently. I'm not yet interested however in editing the topic area mostly due to the tension and stress associated with dealing with editors such as Icewhitz. If I conclude that I'm ready to appeal, you will be the first to know. To answer all the points presented:

1- yes, I agree, I made a slip here. I did it unintentionally. I can't recollect how it occurred, I probably didn't examine the article completely and I made one quick edit before moving on to something else. 2,3 and 4 I added links (names) to the articles I created before and edited Leon Kasman article I also previously built but there was no mention of any WW2 activities of that person. I wasn't even aware of him being a partisan in WW2. I'm sure Icewhitz checked each and every edit I have made to look for something actionable. I'm shaking my head how one can be so determined to get editors banned. To sum, I respect and I strictly obey the ban. I made an unintentional slip and I will be extra careful not to repeat it. GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

In regards to Leon Kasman - beyond Janowski being his partisan unit in 1943, the short stub (4.5 lines on my screen) contains: "Head of the propaganda and agitation department of the Central Committee of the Polish Workers' Party" - this refers to activities from the end of 1944, through 1945 and the subsequent fighting and consolidation of power in Poland. See - source for spring 1945, source for Oct 1944 - Feb 1945. This did not require much checking - the names stood out given GizzyCatBella's editorial focus on notable Jewish communists from the post-war and early PRL period (most of whom were active in WWII and its aftermath).Icewhiz (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I was focused, and I was editing both - Puławianie (Jewish communists) and Natolin faction (Polish communist) fractions within Polish communist party way after WW2 Icewhitz, and there is nothing about WW2 in the article. I'm not going to answer to your persistent distortions of data anymore (unless Sandstain asks me). GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: I will not take action at this time, trusting that you will take care to observe the topic ban henceforth. Sandstein 10:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Sandstein - GCB has called me multiple times "Icewhitz" above. This has a history - [7] - "Editors directed to WP:RSN to discuss Chodakiewicz. GizzyCatBella directed to write Icewhiz's name properly and reminded that communications on the English-language Wikipedia need to be in English. --NeilN talk to me 13:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)". Icewhiz (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@NeilN: Do you want to take a look at this, because this relates to a direction by you at AE? As with the "Sandstain" above and below, I'm not sure about whether this is incompetence or malice. Sandstein 10:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sandstain - Thanks, you can trust me, I didn't have the slightest intention to violate the ban and I never will. GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• I’m sorry Sandstein and Icewhiz for misspelling your names, I’m tired and was writing in a hurry, I did’t do it intentionally, just my old head refuses to cooperate sometimes. My apologies again. GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Pokémon Prism listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pokémon Prism. Since you had some involvement with the Pokémon Prism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –eggofreason^talk 20:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

What do you think of talk page bans / civility restrictions?

I noticed you seem to prefer content-area topic bans instead. But if someone makes a WP:NPA, wouldn't it make more sense to use a talk page(s) ban, interaction ban, of some sort of NPA 3RR like 'if you make another NPA again in the next half a year, you'll be blocked for a day, two, four, in escalating number for each violation, and the civility restriction will be reset'? If an editor has a problem with attitude but not content, shouldn't we address it instead? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe that sort of escalating blocks would need to meted out by arbcom because if not and it wasn't an AE sanction any uninvolved admin could reverse it so the blocking admin trying to make those rules would be about as useful as the US Senate and Congress which is to say a lot of words but not much use...Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see how those kind of blocks or bans would be easier to revert than topic bans? Wheel warring is wheel warring. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I could be wrong but an administrator setting escalating blocks like that would seem to not be the appropriate avenue for that level of sanctions. It's hardly wheel warring for an admin to disregard an arbitrary block length set by another. It only becomes wheel warring when one admin reverses the block. I'm not an admin but that is my experience after being here several years, again could be wrong but it seems wrong to allow that much power to one admin. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I don't use this kind of restriction because it rarely works and involves too much micro-management. Sandstein 22:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Citation bot

This is such a useful tool. When can we expect it to be up and running again? Thanks and appreciate your efforts. --Akrasia25 (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

No idea, sorry. It's not my bot. Sandstein 22:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that the question was asked since the code on the Wikipedia server has been updated to no longer remove publisher/location. Therefore the block you put into effect can be removed. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

That's up to the bot operator. As soon as they confirm the bot is fixed, they can unblock it themselves. Sandstein 14:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Goats of Anarchy

Hello Sandstein. I'm finding quite a bit of coverage since this AfD closed as delete. Could you please move the deleted article to draftspace so I cam work on it? Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't undelete content, but you are free to ask at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 14:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:REFUND is for uncontroversially deleted subjects ie. not Afds. If you aren't willing to move deleted articles to draftspace.for editors who want to work on subjects maybe you shouldn't close deletion doscussions? Editors are asked to request undeletion from the closer if they wamt to work on a subject. Do I have to go to DRV or is there another option? Seems like a waste of time and effort for what should be a non-controversial polite and routine request. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

There is another option: you can go to WP:REFUND and ask for an admin to restore it to draftspace with my permission. Sandstein 14:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Will do. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mizrahi_Hebrew

Greetings, Sandstein, I apologize for bothering you. However, in that AfD I counted 3 supporters for deletion/merge, one for keep/merge and only two for unquestionable keep. Another editor commented that the article needs better sourcing for it is not supported by the ones cited. Even more importantly, the keep party presented absolutely no sources but only made claims without references. Consensus, to the best of my understanding, cannot outweigh sheer facts. Considering all this, shouldn't the article be deleted or at least merged? AddMore-III (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)