Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
→Statement by Marcelus: grammar and small corrections |
|||
Line 131: | Line 131: | ||
===Statement by GizzyCatBella=== |
===Statement by GizzyCatBella=== |
||
Without remarking on the already carried forward disturbing factors of TrangaBellam's behaviour, I would like to draw the attention of the reviewing administrators to the '''serious''' incivility issues.. |
|||
⚫ | |||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGlaukopis&diff=prev&oldid=1140318424&diffmode=source personal attacks + aspersions] - {{tq|''Piotrus, if you find that there are reliable historians — '''though I doubt that you understand the term''' — who admire Glaukopis, feel free to add them. But otherwise, I take a dim view of '''your shenanigans'''''}} |
|||
and refusal to refactor that personal attack with straight |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATrangaBellam&diff=prev&oldid=1140561723&diffmode=source '''No'''] |
|||
When asked about the same, my appeal was reverted with the accusations of trolling [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATrangaBellam&oldid=prev&diff=1140564354&diffmode=source] (see edit summary] |
|||
Here is the list of incivility - <u>that is just from the last few days</u>: |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Forgotten_Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=1139502139 accusation of bad faith] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Forgotten_Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=1139518866 accusation of bad faith and battleground edit summary] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Animal_lover_666&diff=prev&oldid=1139524872 battleground] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Forgotten_Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=1140277600 battleground and aspersions] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Forgotten_Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=1140277759 battleground and taunting] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glaukopis&diff=prev&oldid=1140318424 two personal attacks and aspersions] |
|||
**Then they repost the same statement as a response rather than addressing concern [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glaukopis&diff=prev&oldid=1140320551] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glaukopis&diff=prev&oldid=1140320680 IDIDNTHEARTHAT] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glaukopis&diff=prev&oldid=1140319617 WP:OWN] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glaukopis&diff=prev&oldid=1140320138 battleground with intentional condescension] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glaukopis&diff=prev&oldid=1140320923 aspersions] See edit summary |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glaukopis&diff=prev&oldid=1140321569 aspersions and battleground] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glaukopis&diff=prev&oldid=1140325869 insinuates other user didn’t read sources] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TrangaBellam&diff=prev&oldid=1140561723 incivility and battleground in response to a request to refactor personal attacks] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TrangaBellam&diff=prev&oldid=1140564354 personal attack and accusation of “trolling”] |
|||
**[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TrangaBellam&diff=prev&oldid=1140567177 warned by an administrator] |
|||
**[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TrangaBellam&diff=prev&oldid=1140572660 more personal attacks] |
|||
**[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TrangaBellam&diff=next&oldid=1140573287 more personal attacks and aspersions even after being warned] |
|||
**[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TrangaBellam&diff=prev&oldid=1140574574 battleground] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tadeusz_Piotrowski_(sociologist)&diff=prev&oldid=1141869264 BLP] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tadeusz_Piotrowski_(sociologist)&diff=prev&oldid=1142161321 canvassing] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tadeusz_Piotrowski_(sociologist)&diff=prev&oldid=1142173323 battleground] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tadeusz_Piotrowski_(sociologist)&diff=prev&oldid=1142212163 incivility and condescension] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tadeusz_Piotrowski_(sociologist)&diff=prev&oldid=1142227440 battleground] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1142307857 BLP violation] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kielce_pogrom&diff=prev&oldid=1142314481 either a BLP violation or personal attacks against editors (“fringe crackpots”)] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kielce_pogrom&diff=prev&oldid=1142332199 battleground] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kielce_pogrom&diff=prev&oldid=1142411342 battleground, WP:OWN, incivility] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kielce_pogrom&diff=prev&oldid=1142424968 incivility and battleground, discussing editors not content] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Naliboki_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1142482740 aspersions and assuming bad faith] |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kielce_pogrom&diff=prev&oldid=1142484025 aspersions, discussing editors not content] |
|||
⚫ | *[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kielce_pogrom&diff=prev&oldid=1142493722 battleground] - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:#40">'''GizzyCatBella'''</span>]][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]]</span></small> 09:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC) |
||
===Result concerning TrangaBellam=== |
===Result concerning TrangaBellam=== |
Revision as of 09:46, 3 March 2023
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
![]() | Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Truth&Wisdom365
Closing without further action (except that I've given an alert/first) at this point due to limited number of edits and that they haven't edited for a few days. If similar editing continues a NOTHERE block would be appropriate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Truth&Wisdom365
Discussion concerning Truth&Wisdom365Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Truth&Wisdom365Statement by (username)Result concerning Truth&Wisdom365
|
TrangaBellam
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning TrangaBellam
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Marcelus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- TrangaBellam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBEE or whichever applies
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 12:54, 2 March 2023 Changed the title of the section that was under ongoing discussion
- 13:01, 2 March 2023 Restored the title of the section without engaging in discussion
- 14:30, 2 March 2023 Made a major change to the text that was being discussed at the time, without engaging in the discussion
- 14:47, 2 March 2023 Restored the same edition, ignoring offers to participate in the ongoing discussion on the talk page
- 17:38, 2 March 2023 Not backed by anything accusation: "All I see is you engaging in a fair amount of acrobatics to push a particular ahistorical POV"
- 20:15, 2 March 2023 "I plan to ignore your commentary on the meta-issues"
- 20:35, 2 March 2023 Continued to edit the page ignoring requests to undo the edits and discuss them on the talk page
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 08:26, 15 February 2023
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I need to report TrangaBellam behavior regarding the Naliboki massacre article and its talk page. To keep it brief. There has been a discussion for some time about the content of one of the sections. TrangaBellam not engaging in the discussion did change the section title, I reverted it inviting user to join the discussion. Twice. Then the user made a much larger edition, which I also reverted, invoking the WP:BRD method and inviting to discussion. It started WP:EDITWARRING. Afraid of breaking the WP:3RR rule, I withdrew the last one, asking TrangaBellam to voluntarily withdraw from the changes and join the ongoing discussions. TrangaBellam ignored the ongoing discussions and started new ones, in which he acted as if they were new WP:CONSENSUS. He refused to revert the changes and continue to editing discussed section ingoring my pleas to stop doing so. TrangaBellam accused me of "engaging in a fair amount of acrobatics to push a particular ahistorical POV", without claryfing what he means about that. To me, this is an example of WP:DISRUPTIVE, as expressed on WP:CONSENSUS: Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions
. The way he acts and the way he addresses me leads me to believe that his actions are intended to make me break WP:3RR and receive sanctions as a result. I asked him nicely to start over on his talk page without any bad blood. But TrangaBellam and once he said on Talk:Naliboki massacre: "I plan to ignore your commentary on the meta-issues", I decided to aks admins for help.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning TrangaBellam
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by TrangaBellam
Paging Levivich, Adoring nanny, K.e.coffman, Gitz6666, Horse Eye's Back and GizzyCatBella — the other participants in this discussion, article (today), and the ANI thread. I believe their opinion might be of aid. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Fwiw, I do not plan to partake in this AE thread. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Making an exception for My Very Best Wishes. MVBW, who had reverted my bold edit at the first place for BRD to even come into play? Fwiw, as of now, there is clear consensus in my favor; none barring you — I believe, even VM — propose to restore the deleted section. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Paging Adoring nanny because the previous ping failed due to a typo. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by K.e.coffman
I'm not sure that my voice was ignored, and all of my edits were removed diff is a sufficient reason to open ANI and AE threads. For the preceding ANI, pls see: thread. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that My very best wishes may be misinterpreting the discussion at Talk:Kielce pogrom, in their statement. TrangaBellam's bold edit removed a long-standing dubious theory diff, with the content mixing reliable and unreliable sources to advance a certain POV. I did not see editors suggesting that the section be restored in its entirety. Subsequent discussion also showed that some of the reliable sources were misrepresented: [4], starting with: With regard to the discussion on Anne Applebaum here above, note that she has been selectively quoted if not misunderstood in the article... --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by My very best wishes
I noticed that TrangaBellam also made this large-scale removal of sourced text on another page, during an active discussion on article talk page, but without having any sign of WP:Consensus for such removal [5],[6]. This text was sourced to publications by Jan T. Gross, Ann Applebaum, Tadeusz Piotrowski and Aleksander Wat, among many others. None of these authors belong to fringe Polish nationalists. The views by authors were not misrepresented on the page, as far as I can see. I think such removal was unhelpful for building WP:Consensus on the page. But this does not rise to the level requiring any sanctions, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- @K.e.coffman. No, I believe the view by Applebaum was not misrepresented by not citing everything she said. If the contributor thought the citation was incomplete [7], nothing prevented them from expanding this citation to fix the problem. And what bias? "anti-NKVD"? My very best wishes (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Gitz
Marcelus complains that [TrangaBellam] refused to revert the changes and continue to editing discussed section ingoring my pleas to stop doing so
, but everyone who commented on the talk page agreed that TrangaBellam's edits were an improvement (Adoring nanny [8][9], K.e.coffman [10] and myself) and no one (apart from Marcelus) reverted them. They complain that TrangaBellam ignored the ongoing discussions and started new ones
, but TrangaBellam engaged in extensive discussions with Marcelus and repeatedly asked them to explain their objections: no less than six times (!) from 13:50, 2 March 2023 to 17:55, 2 March 2023. Marcelus didn't want TrangaBellam to remove this text of theirs [11] mentioning Nowicki and Boradyn and lending some credibility to the fringe theory that the Jews perpetrated the Naliboki massacre. Most of Marcelus's editing is aimed at substantiating that theory. See e.g. this edit [12] reverting my revert [13] of his bold edit on Jewish partisans active in the Naliboki area; see their comment on t/p about that fringe theory being an accepted course of events in historical literature
rather than some figment of the imagination of a few crazy nationalists from the Canadian Polish Congress
[14].
This is not only a content dispute. First, it's a blatant case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, with Marcelus ignoring the arguments made by other editors. Secondly, Marcelus violated the 3RR (13:50, 2 March 2023; 13:37, 2 March 2023; 12:03, 2 March 2023; 11:56, 2 March 2023), engaged in disruptive/tendentious editing ([15], reverting my revert [16][17] of this text on Nowicki and Boradyn; [18], unexplained removal, not accounted for in the edit summary, of right-wing organisation ... wrongly claimed that
), bludgeoned the talk page and was uncivil to me and others. My request to self-revert on their user talk page triggered an extensive discussion to no avail: Undoing your baseless revert is not edit warring (where do you see WP:UNDUE?). I find threatening me with a noticeboard report rather petty
[19]. Their casting aspersion on article t/p ([20] [21]) was followed by my second thread on their user talk, again to no avail: Spare me the paternalistic tone
[22]. Finally, the same behaviour is displayed at History of the Jews in Poland, where Marcelus builds walls of text to demonstrate that two high quality sources (academically focused books) are mistaken: I think I've convincingly shown the source to be wrong on this matter
[23], I don't know why you insist on what is an obvious mistake by Rozenbaum, repeated by Prizel
[24]; plus the usuala bit of incivility [25].
I believe WP:BOOMERANG is in order and badly needed in the delicate area of Antisemitism in Poland. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Marcelus
I am responding to the accusations made by Gitz. Gitz presents the situation in an extremely dishonest way. It all started with the removal of an entire section by Adoring nanny (22:03, 21 February 2023), which I reverted with comment (22:05, 21 February 2023): Such massive removal of content need to be discussed on a talk page. And at this point the discussion began. Meanwhile I was trying to complete the factography of the event itself by finding and citing sources (13:17, 26 February 2023).
At one point I did a major edit in which, based on sources, I described the fate of two Jewish partisan units that were based near Naliboki, to give context as to why the allegations in the case of one of them (Bielski) are unbelievable, and in the case of the other (Zorin) highly unlikely (13:45, 28 February 2023). Gitz started undoing my changes, I restored them with the encouragement to take up the discussion on the talk page. The response was to refer to the WP:BRD method on my talk page. Reluctantly, but I agreed to their terms and did not undo their edits, instead we started a discussion on the article's talk page. The situation basically repeated itself with my next major edit, in which following the sources provided information on when the allegations of Bielski partisans involvement in the massacre came about (11:27, 1 March 2022) - reference to Nowicki's memoirs.
Gitz now says that: Marcelus didn't want TrangaBellam to remove this text of theirs mentioning Nowicki and Boradyn and lending some credibility to the fringe theory that the Jews perpetrated the Naliboki massacre. Most of Marcelus's editing is aimed at substantiating that theory. See e.g. this edit reverting my revert of their bold edit on Jewish partisans active in the Naliboki area; see their comment on t/p about that fringe theory being an accepted course of events in historical literature rather than some figment of the imagination of a few crazy nationalists from the Canadian Polish Congress
.
But they are ignoring the fact that after TrangaBellam's changes the mention of Nowicki remained (in conversation with me Gitz consistently demanded that it be hidden in a footnote) they didn't voice any concerns towards TrangaBellam. The implication is that if I make the change then I am promoting fringe theory and my changes must be reverted, but when TrangaBellam does it this is not happening. You can see a certain pattern of action here, that Gitz reacts allergically to my changes, demands their removal, which obviously causes me frustration. And Gitz reacts to TrangaBellam's changes, which are much more intrusive (TrangaBellam interfere with the text being discussed) in a completely different way, accepting them in principle without any major objections. My requests to use the WP:BRD method towards changes made by TrangaBellam (which was applied to my changes) have been consistently ignored by both users. In both users behaviour I see an intention to cause me frustration as a result of which I will break the WP:3RR rule and be punished for it (Gitz now counts all my reverts, ignoring the situation in which they occurred).
As for the accusation of promoting fringe theory, it is as unfounded as hurtful to me personally, because I put a lot of effort into finding sources and adding the best possible content to Wikipedia. Gitz's comment see their comment on t/p about that fringe theory being an accepted course of events in historical literature rather than some figment of the imagination of a few crazy nationalists from the Canadian Polish Congress
is a manipulation of my statement. My point was that the allegations of Bielski partisans involvement appeared in 1993 and were basically accepted as correct until the IPN investigation in the 2000s that showed that this was in fact not even so much a fringe theory as simply untrue. The Polish Canadian Congress only picked it up and made huge deal out of it. I even added (15:15, 2 March 2023) information about how the Catholic-right-wing Nasz Dziennik used Naliboki in its narrative to counter the narrative about Jedwabne Pogrom. Why would I do this if my intention was to promote this fringe theory?
Gitz is also saying Finally, the same behaviour is displayed at History of the Jews in Poland, where Marcelus builds walls of text to demonstrate that two high quality sources (academically focused books) are mistaken
; It's not true. I encourage you to read this long discussion. In short, using a number of high-quality sources, I proved that the original source of the information in the article made a mistake. (This discussion is a good example of bludgeoing and WP:NOTGETTINGIT on Gitz part btw). I have spent too much time on this and checked too many sources to allow myself to be maligned in this way.
At this point, Gitz accuses me of "ignoring the arguments made by other", but anyone who reads the discussion will see that before the changes made by TrangBellam, I was responding to all comments and trying to compromise. It was only after ignoring my requests to undo the invasive changes to the text that was being discussed (WP:BRD) made by TrangBellam and acting as their changes where the new arbitrary established WP:CONSENSUS I changed my attitude. And refused to participate in the new discussion TrangBellam was starting, ignoring the ongoing discussions. I wasn't perfect, but I acted in good faith all the time, I was open to the comments of other editors, I did everything to make the article as good as possible, based on the best sources.Marcelus (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by GizzyCatBella
Without remarking on the already carried forward disturbing factors of TrangaBellam's behaviour, I would like to draw the attention of the reviewing administrators to the serious incivility issues..
- personal attacks + aspersions -
Piotrus, if you find that there are reliable historians — though I doubt that you understand the term — who admire Glaukopis, feel free to add them. But otherwise, I take a dim view of your shenanigans
and refusal to refactor that personal attack with straight No When asked about the same, my appeal was reverted with the accusations of trolling [26] (see edit summary]
Here is the list of incivility - that is just from the last few days:
- accusation of bad faith
- accusation of bad faith and battleground edit summary
- battleground
- battleground and aspersions
- battleground and taunting
- two personal attacks and aspersions
- Then they repost the same statement as a response rather than addressing concern [27] IDIDNTHEARTHAT
- WP:OWN
- battleground with intentional condescension
- aspersions See edit summary
- aspersions and battleground
- insinuates other user didn’t read sources
- incivility and battleground in response to a request to refactor personal attacks
- personal attack and accusation of “trolling”
- BLP
- canvassing
- battleground
- incivility and condescension
- battleground
- BLP violation
- either a BLP violation or personal attacks against editors (“fringe crackpots”)
- battleground
- battleground, WP:OWN, incivility
- incivility and battleground, discussing editors not content
- aspersions and assuming bad faith
- aspersions, discussing editors not content
- battleground - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Result concerning TrangaBellam
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.