Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:28, 13 May 2020

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

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}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332

PackMecEng

Closing with no action. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning PackMecEng

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: PackMecEng (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:ARBAP2

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1 May Makes defamatory claims about Peter Strzok, a living person, which are poorly sourced or entirely unsourced.
1 May ~~Abuses rollback to~~ Reverts my redaction of those statements and a warning that BLP applies to all spaces on the encyclopedia.
1 May Reinserts the unsupported, unsourced defamatory statement with a threat - "Yeah, don't touch my post again."
1 May Once again reinserts unsupported, unsourced defamatory statement after being warned.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

PackMecEng made a talkpage post on Talk:Peter Strzok which made several unsourced or poorly-sourced defamatory claims about the article subject. Their claims included misconduct, lying, or deception - sourced to opinion columns and NewsMax articles, or in some cases entirely unsourced whatsoever. In this edit, I redacted those claims and warned PackMecEng that BLP applies to all spaces in the encyclopedia. In response, PackMecEng abused rollback to undo my redaction and warning. They then repeated the unsourced statement again after I redacted it again. I request that ~~rollback be removed from PackMecEng and that~~ they be warned that BLP applies in all spaces. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, PackMecEng wrote The Hill reporting notes from director of counterintelligence on what Strzok said: What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" However, the cited source nowhere says the word Strzok and thus obviously does not say that Strzok said that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given this user's continuing inability to understand how BLP requires us to use quality sources and not make unsupported defamatory claims about people, I request that PackMecEng be topic-banned. They clearly are not able to edit in this topic space with the due consideration for facts and sensitivity required when dealing with living people.

The issue here is one common to political articles - we have an editor who races to the biography of a living person related to a controversy in order to stuff it full of dubious, unsupported, and outright false claims based upon poor partisan sources and misrepresentation of sources. A two-minute reading of The Hill article would have demonstrated to PackMecEng that the source did not, indeed, say what they claimed it said. However, instead of taking that time to investigate and make sure that what they said about a living person was correct - they simply hit the rollback button, because how dare anyone dispute their personal perception and pre-planned condemnation of Strzok which so preoccupied him as to claim that a source which never mentioned the words Peter Strzok supported a claim that Peter Strzok said something. They apparently aren't capable of taking their blinders off and editing with a fair mind and a sensitive eye in this topicspace, so they shouldn't be allowed to edit it anymore. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: Which Hill piece attributes the quote to Strzok? Not the one linked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: If you're referring to this opinion column in The Hill, it also does not say that Strzok said those words.All this led to a meeting at the highest levels of the FBI which included the director and the FBI’s head of counterintelligence, who took copious notes. It is in these notes that he reflected the discussion that took place about Flynn, writing: “Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute or get him fired.” That, in fact, says that Strzok did not say those words. Strzok was not the FBI's head of counterintelligence. He was a high-ranking official in that division, but he was not the head of CI. That's besides the fact that opinion columns are obviously not acceptable reliable sources for claims of fact about other people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthBySouthBaranof: You're 100% right. Struck accordingly. Strzok was a Chief of Counterespionage and a Deputy Director of Counterintelligence, it seems I conflated the two. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck the statement about rollback - I will take on good faith that it was inadvertent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffs: No one - certainly not me - has suggested that PackMecEng be blocked or banned from the encyclopedia. What I have suggested is that, at the very least, a strong logged warning is in order for misrepresenting sources to negatively portray a living person, and that given their evident disinterest in admitting that they have seriously violated policy in this case, a topic ban on Peter Strzok, broadly construed, may be in order if they can't demonstrate that they a) understand that they seriously violated policy and b) can be trusted to edit in that topic space responsibly in the future. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffs: You're absolutely, 100% wrong that It really isn't NorthBySouthBaranof's place to redact other people's comments. The Biographies of Living Persons policy is straightforward and clear: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. The statements in question were and are false, defamatory, and not supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source, and therefore must not be on Wikipedia in any fashion. The end.

That it was on a talk page is immaterial: This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. I don't have to file an ANI report or find an admin to enforce a policy, and the burden of evidence falls entirely on PackMecEng, not me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffs: Again, I'm not sure how to make it any clearer: You are 100% wrong. The cited source never mentions Peter Strzok. Go ahead, do a word search, I dare you. The source does not say that the notes were about anything Peter Strzok said. The association of that line with Peter Strzok is entirely an invention of the mind of PackMecEng. And that is entirely the problem here - PackMecEng apparently came to Talk:Peter Strzok with the single-minded intent of depicting Strzok as a villain and was so hell-bent on doing it as to make unsupported claims, read nonexistent words in sources which don't support their statements, and then double down three times when challenged, rather than read the source, realize they were wrong, and acknowledge their error. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here

Discussion concerning PackMecEng

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 PackMecEng.

The rollback was actually a miss click, meant to hit undo but you reverted before I could. Also what threat? PackMecEng (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The altering interview notes is from here, specifically Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik reacted strongly on Thursday to the news FBI officials to altered a 302 report and reopened the case when the initial analysis indicated no crime had been committed. PackMecEng (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related to that this was a talk page discussion warning, ironically, that the article might get a bunch of POV pushers and bad sources and to keep an eye out for such things. I noted below that here, it was not a specific proposal for the article. PackMecEng (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per The Hill But then FBI agent Peter Strzok intervened with the idea that the never-used Logan Act could be invoked against Flynn; Strzok was cheered on by FBI attorney Lisa Page. All this led to a meeting at the highest levels of the FBI which included the director and the FBI’s head of counterintelligence, who took copious notes. It is in these notes that he reflected the discussion that took place about Flynn, writing: “Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute or get him fired.” No constructional protections were afforded Flynn, who was even advised by the FBI not to bring a lawyer when he was questioned by agents. PackMecEng (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And another Yahoo Dated January 24, 2017, the same day of the White House interview with Flynn that was conducted by FBI agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka, the handwritten notes apparently reveal that at least one agent believed the purpose of the interview was to entrap Flynn — or he believed that was the goal of his fellow agents and was trying to push back on them in the name of institutional integrity. Though again, this was not purposed content for the article but listing sources and something to watch out if it gets more coverage. I appreciate NorthBySouthBaranof's wanting to protect BLP but I think they jumped the gun a little going straight to a only warning followed closely with AE was overkill. The reverts as I added more sources were not the best either. PackMecEng (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I am not a fan of the extreme bad faith assumptions above by NBSB. Things like this & this are pretty unacceptable and demonstrate an aggressive battleground attitude. PackMecEng (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind the Hill opinion piece I mention here and was the first source I linked on the talk page covered what I was saying, though not in the right place for where I said it. I had the two Hill sources, numbers 1 & 6, which I had backwards in my first post. The source [1] I list at the article and above here I thought covered the disputed text. You mention that because it is an opinion piece it is not a valid source is for a BLP, if I wanted to use it for info in the article it would have to be attributed to Penn and then would probably fail weight. But the post was not about purposed text or something to add to the article, but a cautionary note. Now if I am mistaken about what the source says I do apologize but that is where I was coming from. With the Hill opinion piece would you consider it a BLP violation what I wrote? At the same time I do not think that excuses NBSB's behavior here or at the article, their aggressive behavior and misrepresenting the situation are a problem. One that has been noted by others but largely ignored for a long time. PackMecEng (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valjean I did float it on talk first. PackMecEng (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make a quick note on BLP. NBSN just used a blog to call Jeff Sessions homophobic.[1] The source provided is Slate's XX Factor section here, which if you look at the launch of the page is described as When DoubleX launched in 2009, with the XX Factor blog as its backbone[2]. Luckily it was reverted. PackMecEng (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then Beyond My Ken restored it with no edit summary.[3] PackMecEng (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

This is a developing story still CNN, WaPo. I think that as this is not being forced into an article itself but being discussed on the talkpage a reminder to be cautious will suffice. Remember to approach BLPs with a "do no harm" thought process.--MONGO (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

Well, I was hoping to make this an early night - it is Friday after all - but I've been spending it on research instead. I typically try to steer clear of RECENTISM but when a credible author like Jonathan Turley publishes an article on his website regarding this same topic, it begs to be read, if for no other reason than to learn about what's going on with Strzok according to a legal analyst for NBC & CBS News as well as being a highly credible professor and Chair of Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School. He discussed the release of the new FBI documents and he also mentions Strzok's role but I won't quote his analysis here. I'll just leave this link for the admins reviewing this case to read for themselves, if they haven't already seen it. I also recommend that prior to making any decisions in this case - including a potential boomerang - that those involved in this case become a bit more familiar with the information at the link I just provided, as well as the articles PackMecEng attempted to discuss before being drug over here. We don't have to like the contents, and as far as I know, we are still allowed to discuss it on an article TP with links to the articles we're discussing. If we intend to add controversial material to a BLP, we use in-text attribution, verify the information is published by a RS and cite it accordingly. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, you brought up an incident about something PME said/did over 2 years ago? And now you are using that and a simple TP discussion that the OP should have handled differently as your reason to justify a strong warning? PME has not done anything that reaches such a level of scrutiny much less a logged warning, especially in light of the diffs used against them. I cannot imagine that the arbs who created AE intended for it to be used for content and source questions rather than egregious disruption. What you are suggesting now is clearly disproportionate and comes across as punishment for PME daring to mention breaking news editors may need to prepare for. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valjean - Fox News is a RS. Please stop misrepresenting it, especially at venues like AE that could have negative effects on an editor who may be innocent. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buffs

Point of order here. I see no warning that this would be taken to Arbitration Enforcement nor of discretionary sanctions. As such, this complaint belongs at WP:AN or WP:ANI for BLP violations. Likewise, this user has never once been blocked via normal means. Escalating to this venue seems preposterous. Many other avenues are available. This is the second such recent request of a conservative voice going straight from no blocks to a ban with no prior notice. It seems more than in bad faith to take this route. WP:IAR, maybe, but twice in a week? Without following our standards of warnings, blocks, bans progression?...unseemly, IMHO. Buffs (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please get your facts straight before you comment Keep it WP:CIVIL. My facts are straight. I never stated that there was a requirement to do so. I stated that we have standards of escalating discipline for disruptive behavior. This goes straight from a warning, past any block for disruptive behavior, past any block under discretionary sanctions (which have already been authorized by ArbCom), and brings it here; it's unnecessary. Furthermore, reasonable people can disagree about whether the information is accurate. Accordingly, no, it doesn't belong here. As for the AE notice and sanctions, the AE notification is listed as the history of their talk page; it doesn't specify the edit. The DS notification indeed was in February, but is within the realm of possibility that he didn't realize that this specific page was under DS. My point is that we're jumping straight to a ban when literally NO other actions (other than a single vague warning) have even been attempted. XavierItzm is spot on too. Lastly, you're pretty clearly advocating to Topic Ban him...that's a ban. I never said "ban from wikipedia"; it's a lot easier to win an argument when you intentionally misquote/bring in strawmen arguments... Buffs (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is all about a single disputed comment on a talk page. Whether it's accurate or not, it's certainly within the realm of possibility that it was a simple mistake. It really isn't NorthBySouthBaranof's place to redact other people's comments. I too would have taken offense at someone changing my remarks, especially in that manner. He should have reported it to WP:ANI and let the admins deal with it rather than argue and edit-war with him. WP:BOOMERANG should apply. Buffs (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthBySouthBaranof: The statement was "The Hill reporting notes from director of counterintelligence on what Strzok said...". I don't see this as quoting Strzok but the DCI's comment ON Strzok. Ergo, given the multiple sources, I don't see the issue here. I'm aware of BLP. You should have removed it and then, when re-added, report it to an an appropriate venue. Buffs (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get enforcement on the well-over-the-limit word count for NorthBySouthBaranof? Buffs (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Buffs: As noted above, PME received an AP DS notification in February. There is no requirement that another notification be given before filing an AE report, simply that the editor in question has been informed of the sanctions. Nor is a history of blocks required to file a report here. Please get your facts straight before you comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs: Just a note - You are approaching 500 words. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PME: ""XX Factor" is a WP:NEWSBLOG, not a regular WP:BLOG. All of your objections to the material in Alliance Defending Freedom have been falsely based, and your reverts were unjustified. Fortunately, NbNWB provided additional sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by XavierItzm

I was coming here to ARE to raise a formal complaint about an unrelated editor/incident, having already done my due diligence, collected diffs, etc. Then I see the big bold warning at the top about vexatious litigation, and look at this here complaint that is based on a TP suggestion for material to be considered, unrelated DS warnings from other users from months ago, and a single incident where one user asserts WP:BIO, and I wonder how far this case is distanced from the vexatious warning above; after all, consider the contributions above by MONGO, Atsme and Buffs regarding do no harm, fair progression, other media sources, etc.

Consider this: even Swarm got confused by reading the one of six sources for consideration PackMecEng added to which an objection was raised and at first Swarm thought PackMecEng was justified.

Note that NorthBySouthBaranof's objection was to the lack of the word "Strzok", not to the fact that Strzok was Chief of Counterespionage and a Deputy Director of Counterintelligence and not the FBI's head of counterintelligence (like Swarm misread at first). Is Pack not going to be afforded the same margin as Swarm?

I for one think that if warnings are going to be issued, perhaps both parties might be warned. Or perhaps this here ARE will be clarificatory enough for both. XavierItzm (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

I agree this was handled poorly by the filer. The Hill piece (the first cite in PME's first edit) is written in a confusing way. On my first read, I too thought the statement was being attributed to Strzok. This could have been handled better with a calm explanation on the article talk page rather than over the top accusations about defaming a BLP, redacting, edit warring, and an AE report seeking a TBAN. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valjean

PackMecEng, I suspect that part of the problem is your use of several dubious/unreliable sources to support your proposition, thus laying a treacherous foundation for any discussion/argument that follows. The sources are notorious for extreme spin, with the last four often getting into counterfactual territory as standard practice when it comes to Trump. This diff contains sources that are credibility killers for AmPol2, and that it involved BLP matters made it even more sensitive:

Just be more careful in the future to use much better sources. Otherwise, the idea of first floating the subject at Talk is proper. Better luck next time. That's all. -- Valjean (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what I commended you for. You did "first float the subject at Talk". Good for you. -- Valjean (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ConstantPlancks

This piece in National Review should clear up any issues here. [9]. Nothing sanctionable nor BLP violations. Most of public responses is that FBI processes were normal investigative techniques rather than defamation of anyone. No one has claimed such behavior was wrong or malicious. Indeed, for WP to conclude that it is would be a BLP violation in itself by insinuating what Strzok did was improper. ConstantPlancks (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ernie

The recently linked editing about Jeff Sessions is an absurd double standard by NBSB - saying Strzok could have had a hand in something based on a RS that could have been written better is MUCH less serious than calling Jeff Sessions homophobic in Wiki voice based on a blog. If I wasn't so full of good faith I'd think some bias was at play here. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning PackMecEng

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

On the one hand, PME is literally discussing sources, and it may just be a good faith difference in interpretation of what the sources are saying. On the other hand, I can see where the redactions are coming from, because it's not obvious to me where the sources correspond with PME's statements. ~~I could probably give PME a pass on the quotation, because the Hill piece does attribute the quote to Strzok.~~ Sources either say that the note was written by the Director of Counterintelligence or that the author was unknown. I also don't see where the sources mention Strzok "Altering interview notes and trying to purposly get Flynn fired." Even assuming Strzok wrote the note, which no source claims, it would still not substantiate the claim in the slightest. PackMecEng, can you clarify how you believe that your statements are drawn from reliable sources, and not unsubstantiated accusation? As an aside, I wouldn't even broach the topic of revoking Rollback over a single misuse, intentional or not. As PME says it was unintentional, we can probably let that slide. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A quick googling of the phrase "What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" indicates that the words were probably written by a guy named Bill Priestap example source and that the context is unclear (whether it was personal musings or recording a conversation). I didn't find anything indicating that Peter Strzok said that. But I only clicked on 5 results or so, so maybe I missed something.
For what it's worth, this kind of thing (misrepresenting a source and then doubling down when challenged) is something I explicitly warned PackMecEng against in the past. [10] ~Awilley (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where to go with this. It's been 2 days and PME has not substantiated the claim about Strzok trying to entrap and get Flynn fired. (Nor has she retracted/disavowed it that I can see.) She did provide this source which comes closer than anything I've seen yet to substantiating it, but that's an opinion piece which we all know isn't good enough for BLP issues like this. The Yahoo/National Review source doesn't substantiate it either, nor does the (personal blog?) source that Atsme provided or the CNN and WaPo sources that MONGO provided, though to be fair Mongo was just trying to illustrate that it was a developing story.
XavierItzm made the point above that Swarm initially misread the Hill source. The important difference between Swarm and PME is what Swarm did after this was pointed out. Misrepresenting a source isn't good, but we all make mistakes. The real sin, in my mind, is doubling down on the misrepresentation when it's challenged. In what's supposed to be a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedia I see that kind of behavior as more serious than, say, making too many reverts in a day or telling somebody to go eff themselves. Which is why I made a point of warning PME the last time I saw it happen. Maybe I'm in the minority, so I'd rather not impose my personal preferences. But if it were up to me I would at a minimum issue a logged warning, this time with teeth. Like "Doubling down on misrepresenting sources after a misrepresentation has been pointed out to you will result in a topic ban" type warning. Something to convince PME that this is important enough to police herself on and not force other editors into edit wars to remove clear BLP violations. ~Awilley (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't like to think we're deciding on the basis of whether the content in a developing story turns out to be correct,; we should instead be deciding on the basis of the extent of a good-faith effort to support it. It seems to be that by providing the Hill source PME is making a reasonable effort. I suggest that disagreements of this kind are what the article talk p. is for, not AE. DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A trout all around here. PackMacEng should be very clear that Washington Times and Newsmax are not reliable sources for potentially controversial BLP assertions (as in the first edit), but The Hill could well be. NorthBySouthBaranof should, next time, explain their concern with such references rather than reverting; discussing whether references are appropriate for proposed article content is the purpose of a talk page. I don't think more than that is necessary here, but this should have been a talk page thread, not an AE. I would be good with this being an informal warning to both editors to take it down a couple notches. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This seems reasonable to me --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: You say next time NorthBySouthBaranof should explain their concern. Is that not what they did in this first edit? ~Awilley (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The redacted quotes appeared to be out of the RSes of The Hill and Fox News, not WashTimes and Newsmax. Whether it was necessary to pull the quote to the talk page for the convo , I dunno, but certainly once there per BLPTALK there's zero need to redact it since backed by RSes, which fed into this brief edit war. To add, the specific Hill article is terrible with pronouns and this is a case where BLPTALK may be needed to figure out who exactly the quote came from, but again per BLPTALK, its allowed to be discussed, no redaction was needed, though editors just should be cautioned to avoid quoting if they need to (Better just to point out the sources and discuss). --Masem (t) 14:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has gone unedited for 4 days and there’s not much appetite for sanctions. Closing with no action. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by GizzyCatBella

Appeal declined. Please try to edit in an exemplary manner for an additional two years. We can reassess then. El_C 18:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Appealing user

GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the World War II history of Poland.[11] I was invited to appeal this sanction in six months (quote) - showing evidence of substantial, competent, prejudice-free editing.

Administrator imposing the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[12]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

Dear colleagues.

In light of the recent AE case,[13] I wish to appeal my very old outstanding topic ban; based on evidence of good faith and a substantial period of positive behavior in other topic areas.

I was banned from editing Polish World War Two history articles on June 25th, 2018, almost two years ago.[14] I was originally falsely accused of disruptive editing [15] by now indef banned user Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Icewhiz misrepresented my edits, which involved a dispute about sourcing. If anyone wants more info specifically about that please let me know. (The source I was using was this [16] )

While Icewhiz grossly misrepresented my edits in order to get me sanctioned, I realize now that I made myself open to such an attack by not engaging in discussion more. If I had explained my edits on the talk page and engaged the user in discussion about the text quoted directly from the source (very reliable, as everyone would agree), then perhaps I could have avoided the topic ban all together. From now on, I promise to justify all my edits in the topic area on talk pages, before going forward.

I accepted the ban and proceeded to edit in other topic areas to my best abilities. Since that time, I edited hundreds of different articles including new page creations that received a DYK status. In the two years since the topic ban was imposed, I have learned a lot regarding the proper usage of sources and editing etiquette in general. I didn't run into any problems in other topic areas and I believe my editing there has been quite exemplary.

I would like to have my Topic Ban rescinded since I truly believe it does not serve a purpose anymore. I would like to emphasize that I did not strive to appeal my ban earlier because I was quite satisfied with editing in other topic areas, but I wish to have it lifted now to avoid potential stressful situations such as the one I experienced recently [17] when reverting disruptive editing (to be 100% honest, I also had one block in two years for accidentally violating the ban). According to admins who evaluated this case I unintentionally came very close to violating my topic and some judged that I crossed the line. Since then, I have taken every precaution. I trimmed my watch list to a minimum following suggestion of Awilley, I read twice every article I want to edit, I have also received guidance from RexxS during the case that I learned from and I'm very grateful for that. I’m even asking more experienced editors such as Piotrus [18] or El_C [19] for advice but I'm still worried about making unintentional errors, to the point that I almost stopped editing Wikipedia altogether at one point. I believe the best way to proceed for me as well as the community in general would be to simply have this very old ban lifted. I can promise to be extremely careful and to avoid controversy in any edits I might make in this topic area.

If it would help granting of this appeal I can commit to always discussing any potentially controversial edits on talk first, taking special care with sources, quoting the relevant text and generally making a conscientious effort to avoid controversy.

Thank you for your consideration.GizzyCatBella 🍁 09:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum:

Below are the difs that led to my original Topic Ban listed by the editor filing the complaint, discussed by admins and non-admins. Please note that I was sanctioned as a result of a revert war with the above editor, following a content dispute regarding a single settlement article. I take full responsibility for my actions, but I wish to note that there were mitigating circumstances as well. Source of data: [20]

Firstly, I have the impression that settlement articles in Wikipedia (WP:CITSTRUCT[21]) usually don’t go into ongoing bitter controversies between historians, but if they do, then both sides of the narrative are presented. The settlement in question was a small town of Stawiski in Eastern Poland.

There were many sources in that article already before the edit-war started, but sourcing is a challenge sometimes, and in the end, l definitely learned my lesson.

The official web-page of Stawiski that is archived at: [22] as well as Stawiski Travel Guide [23] inform about the 1941 massacre. The first one, in just one sentence: “W 1941 roku Żydów wymordowali w Stawiskach Niemcy.” (In 1941 the Jews were murdered in Stawiski by the Germans). The second source informed who the German murderers might have been. The source is a paper by Holocaust historian Alexander B. Rossino archived by Wayback Machine. [24]

That source was described by senior editors, who commented at WP:AE, as a “blog copy of a copyright violation” misused and misrepresented. I did not write the text discussed by the senior editors though – someone else wrote that information years earlier. What I did however, was to object against the removal of it, in a subsequent edit war. The paper by Alexander B. Rossino is reprinted by Jewish Virtual Library and can no longer be seen as some dodgy source, so the information about the presence of the Nazi Germans in Stawiski on 23 June 1941 is confirmed reliably. [25] Rossino did not mention "Jewish militia" in that paragraph. But he did say, some paragraphs below, that “in many cases Jewish militia members directly participated in mass arrests and deportation actions” in those settlements according to research by Holocaust historian Bogdan Musiał, and that other leading scholars of the Final Solution have corroborated Musiał's conclusions,[26], including (reportedly) an Israeli historian Yitzhak Arad. This is not WP:SYNTH but the reading of the entire article as opposed to quoting just one sentence from it. However, I take full responsibility for not engaging the other editor in discussion about it. The 5 difs of our edit war were listed by the other editor with the summary that they “violate this sanction or remedy:” Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions.

Here they are:

Revision as of 09:12, 24 June 2018 [27] revert to 27 Aug 2017[28] version.
Revision as of 09:15, 24 June 2018[29] revert challenged as "gross misrepresentation of sources" + talk page Revision as of 09:18, 24 June 2018[30] post explaining the problem of misrepresentation.
Revision as of 09:20, 24 June 2018[31] - re-revert to August 2017 version (+ breaking cutting out infobox of the article - resulting in a - 4 byte diff - but the article body was a simple re-revert.
Revision as of 09:30, 24 June 2018[32] + Revision as of 10:08, 24 June 2018[33] - refused request to self-revert.
User made some additional edits after this - but did not self-revert, and article continues to contain serious misrepresentations which are strongly defamatory.

In my original appeal (above) I did not include the details of the discussion that led to my topic ban because I wanted to be brief and because it happened two years ago so I thought my constructive edits and lack of further sanctions in those two years would speak for themselves. The other editor deleted a lot of material from Stawiski that seemed reliably sourced to me and replaced it with something completely different without a word of explanation. It is hard to separate the good from the bad when there is no discussion, so I restored an older version of the article first and then proceeded to make revisions which included his edits which did not seem controversial.

At the time I thought this was common practice. The other editor requested that I self-revert [34] because the information about the Jewish militia in his opinion was “highly defamatory” but I did not see it that way.

In the WP:AE case against me, the other editor did not reveal the fact that I had made over a dozen more edits to the article. Here was my final version at the time.[35] Almost all the purported POV texts that Icewhiz pretended were mine in his report were actually from the older version. I actually removed these statements myself. But because he didn’t show the later edits he misled admins into thinking I was responsible for the POV text (except User:Vanamonde93 who was the only one to notice).

I have been asked what lesson I learned from that situation. Since I was not the one who added all the problematic text (I removed it) I can’t say anything about that part. But I did learn that I should be really careful in restoring older versions of the article without first scrutinizing them for problems, even if my intention is to remove the problems in later edits.

The only issue that remained was my use of the Jewish Virtual Library as a source. I still think that is a reliable source and I did not misrepresent it. I do realize now, however, that I should have been much more explicit about the parts of the source I was using, and how it matched the text I added.GizzyCatBella 🍁 05:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sandstein:

@Sandstein I attempted to keep my appeal brief and within a certain word limit since I knew you sometimes object and decline reports and appeals which are long and detailed, so I didn't go too much into the circumstances of the original topic ban[36] but I will expand if permitted to use more space.GizzyCatBella 🍁 14:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Levivich and Buffs:

@Levivich and Buffs I brought up Icewhiz because he was the one who filed the original report that led to this ban. He even sought sanctions against me for such things as placing a discretionary sanctions alert on his talk page. [37] for what he was ridiculed by administrator Bishonen who wrote: Icewhiz, are you asking for GizzyCatBella to be sanctioned for giving you a discretionary sanctions alert ....Seriously?[38] So you see, Icewhiz's past is significant to my case. GizzyCatBella🍁 17:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC) PS. I responded to your further concerns in the Addendum.GizzyCatBella 🍁 05:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to K.e.coffman:

@K.e.coffman 1 - So what happened at Lazar Berenzon article was - I translated the entire piece from the Russian Wikipedia including moving the sources that were already there. I originally didn't introduce any sources of my own. (link for verifying [39] I concluded that copying sources from another Wiki are not prohibited, and verification is not required. Just like introducing articles or adding content with no sources at all is not forbidden or blockable. I observed that happening all the time. Now, when I think about it, it's not the best practice thou. Nevertheless, I aimed to translate the article and then improve it according to our standards myself. I started to look for verifications and adding my sources [40] but within two hours I received unexpected help from the Russian speaking editors [41],[42], who used those sources from the Russian Wikipedia [43]. That was all to it.

2- I simply desired to expand category Category:Jewish atheists based on sources but I didn't know how to add a source to the category. I noticed that other articles that already have such a category are neither sourced or have mention of atheism in the person's bio. (links for verification: [44],[45], [46], [47], [48] ...) these are just first few starting with a letter A, but you can check the rest for yourself. There is no mention of their atheism in the bios and the category is solely based on the person's political affiliation which is atheist Communism[49] I was probably one of the first editors who added text about "atheism" to the person's bio and sourced it properly[50] And.. I'm sorry, but your insinuation of me being " preoccupied with Jewish atheism" I find hurtful and offensive and will not address it.

3 - This one [51] I removed because I didn't see it in the source and I still don't see it.[[52]] Where can you see that claim??? Did you mistranslate something or I made a mistake? Can you copy-paste that form the source in Polish --> "to create an emigration destination for Polish Jews.”?

Response to El_C and Guerillero:

@El_C and User:Guerillero I understand your concerns and I would like to present here some diffs of my substantial, competent, prejudice-free editing in other topic areas: I created a number of articles such as Alfonse Pogrom which I was appreciated for [53],[54], Easter Pogrom about a series of assaults against a Jewish population of Warsaw, Jakub Lejkin, Puławianie, Mary Wagner (Canada), Polish sociologist of Jewish descent Witold Jedlicki, Polish military hero of Jewish origin Józef Berkowicz, Soviet military commander Lazar Berenzon and other. I translated articles from Polish Wikipedia wishing to introduce is in our space [55] but due to the topic ban limitations, I can’t. I reached out [56] and opposed sanctioned against what many would consider being "my opponent" for what I got prase from User:Starship.paint [57]. If I notice that (again, some might imply to be my opponent) an editor might have broken their topic ban, I caution them politely instead of reporting them right away. [58] I politely discuss problems if they arise [59]. I cooperate with others on controversial subjects[60] I refused any involvement in subjects that were covered by my topic ban [61]. I didn't create any socks, I didn't cheat in any way, I was working hard to be a helpful and trustworthy contributor to our project. I really wish just to be able to edit Wikipedia without the constant fear of being reported, as the last time, for accidentally breaking the topic ban. Why not giving me a chance after two years of restraint? I've learned a lot since my ban, I didn't run into any similar problems that led to my ban for the last two years, why would I now? The ban was a good lesson for me regardless of the circumstances. If I for some God's known reason repeat my mistake or do something sanctionable, please reinstate my Topic Ban or ban me altogether, have no mercy. I'll not, I trust myself and please give me an opportunity to prove it.GizzyCatBella 🍁 01:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C To prove how I'm being exposed to the danger of violating my topic ban, I'll give you this example.

K.e.coffman provided this diff[62] in his statement section (#3) with a summary: The cited source included: That is why Prosto z mostu [the periodical in question] supported the idea of Jewish emigration from Poland, preferably to the Zionist state in Palestine. Hence the sympathy for 'national, healthy and normal Jewish longings...', via Google translate of the Polish-language source. Contrary to GCB's claim, the removed segment was clearly supported by the source; the removal portrayed the publication in a more favourable, less self-serving light. So obviously K.e.coffman read the article, he read the source also (I hope) to produce an allegation against me... but guess what?... he didn't think I broke my topic ban. Otherwise, he would undoubtedly mention that.

Now imagine me going through such difficulties every day, for the last 2 years, doing my best to respect my ban just to find myself reported for editing a completely unrelated to the WW2 in Poland article about the Latvian Legion [63] as I just was reported here [64]. And now what? I'm being told - "keep editing Gizzy in other topic areas" for how long I'm asking? Another 2 years? And what? 2 years from now when I appeal again, somebody will run here with a diff of the similar mistake I made but neither I or K.e.coffman noticed? Of course, someone will find something somewhere if they really want. If not that mistake so some other mistake. We are all humans, we make mistakes. And what? We will reset the clock for another 2 years and start again? How many assurances I have to give that my problematic behaviour from the past will not occur again? .. and how fair it is to have somebody restricted for so long without giving them a chance to prove themselves in the topic area? I don't know what else can I do to better myself I haven't done so far, really...GizzyCatBella 🍁 01:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Galobtter I didn't lie, (please!) when I look at it now, yes I did translate it from the Polish Wiki, not Russian as I thought initially. I wrote my testimony from my head, from what I remembered that's why... and the sources were taken from the Russian Wiki from what I remembered, and I read them with my limited Russian capabilities too I’m sure, before the Russian colleagues took over the article...maybe I can ask them to translate? Gosh, let me look at what happened... did I copy paste something incorrectly??? I remember having quite a few tabs opened... Why would I "make up" those sources?! What for??? GizzyCatBella🍁 03:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C and User:Galobtter Yes, I think I copy/pasted wrong tabs, it was an honest screw-up... OMG, such an embarrassment...I surrender :( I got confused because it was Cyrillic and copy-pasted wrong tabs when I was searching because I had too many opened, I think so.. yes.... OMG, such an embarrassment... I'm so sorry. In the Russian version, there is this (in Literature): Глущенко А. Г. "Колыма. Лично причастны…" 2013. In my article it became this (in References): Глущенко А. Г. Глущенко И.И., Козырев В.А., Глущенко И.И. Сервисология как научная основа развития сферы сервиса". Тренды и управление. 1 (1): 13–26. 2019. doi:10.7256/2454-0730.2019.1.20595. ISSN 2454-0730. The same last name: Глущенко - but the TITLES OF ARTICLES are different.

But there was no bad intention on my part. What would be the point of me faking refs?? The text itself is not controversial, there’s no POV there. I'll correct that and I will ask the Russian colleagues for help too.GizzyCatBella 🍁 04:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the CORRECT link to Глущенко А. Г. "Колыма." [65] :( I’m so sorry :( :( GizzyCatBella🍁 04:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

@El_C Please allow me some additional time to respond to the evidences presented by K.e.coffman. I spent a lot of time yesterday describing the grounds for my appeal, which was so challenging to me, but today, regrettably, I have other responsibilities to do with my family. I'll answer as soon as I get some time. Probably late tonight, but most likely tomorrow. Thank you so much.GizzyCatBella 🍁 19:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to SlimVirgin:

(the below applies to my original topic ban case from 2018)

SarahSV, here is my honest reply to why I reverted Icewhiz and then proceeded with my edits instead of working from the un-reverted version. First, I was still new here and I didn't realize at that time that I was doing an improper action. Second, I was driven a little by emotions because Icewhiz was very hostile towards me, he was seeking to get me sanctioned on every opportunity, even on bogus pretexts (see my reply to Levivich). Third, I thought he misrepresented the source, I didn't trust him. So the combination of these 3 factors led to my revert and then work from there. An obvious newbie mistake on my part, I already have learned from (acknowledgments to my topic ban). I shouldn't have done it, I should have assumed good faith, don't revert etc. etc. I know all of that now, but back then, I made these mistakes unfortunately and I can't turn back time. All I can do is learn from my mistakes, and I did. GizzyCatBella🍁 16:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Hi SarahSV, I'm back home now. I'll address your concern and answer questions, but first I'll respond to K.e.coffman since they were first, then you, and then Ealdgyth, from what I can see, they were the last person to raise concerns. Please allow me some time to compose everything, I'm not very fast at typing.. and completely drained after yesterday, to be honest.GizzyCatBella 🍁 05:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ealdgyth:

Ealdgyth, I understand your concerns about the use of sloppy sources, but I'm trying my best now and I check sources for its quality to my best abilities. As far as editing in other topic areas - my interests are the history of Poland and because of my family ties, also Polish Jewish history. I don't have that many interests and knowledge in other topic areas that I could share. I was editing Polish topics outside the WW2 range for the last 2 years, but eventually, I accidentally violated my ban [66]. Now (I just noticed) EI_C saw another violation [67] but I swear, I don't see anything about WW2 in Poland in that article. I'm probably too old or too stupid but I don't.. I didn't intend to break my ban. You see, this is exactly why I wish to have it lifted. Not because I strive to edit the WW2 area so much but because I can't manage the constant stress associated with an accidental breach of my ban. Poland's history is so connected with WW2 that some articles that in my opinion aren't related to that area actually are related and vice versa. If I edit a bio of a person who owns a bicycle produced during WW2 in Poland, am I going to violate my ban or not? I'm exaggerating a little but these were the kind of questions are was asking myself every day for the last two years.

But coming back to your concerns, here is what I propose: If my topic ban is lifted, I would confirm, verify and get approval for every source I want to introduce into or remove from WW2 history of Poland topic area with you or Sarah. How does this sound? GizzyCatBella🍁 17:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, I have no problem editing articles on Polish cuisine, animals in Poland, clothing or gardening in Poland but you know what's going to happen? I will one day eventually run into an article about an animal used by the Polish army during WW2 or a favourite dish prepared during the war or a garden in Poland where some bomb fell during the war and never get out of this crazy cycle. I kind of joking, but kind of not. The problem for me remains the same regardless of the articles I edit.GizzyCatBella 🍁 18:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth and El_C another idea! What about relaxing the ban while I edit other topics areas by allowing me to edit talk pages only in WW2 articles? This way I can ask on the talk page if the article is related to WW2 in Poland or not. That will take at least some pressure off my back. Again, I'll not jump into editing WW2 talk pages like mad, I'll just feel more secured not to break my ban.GizzyCatBella 🍁 19:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ealdgyth and SarahSV I'm posting a link to Alexander B. Rossino here maybe you'll find it useful someday:

Alexander B. Rossino: "Polish ‘Neighbours’ and German Invaders: Anti-Jewish Violence in the Białystok District during the Opening Weeks of Operation Barbarossa", Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry, edited by MICHAEL C. STEINLAUF and ANTONY POLONSKY, Volume 16, 2003. PART III: NEW VIEWS. Liverpool University Press, Oxford; Portland, Oregon; pp. 431–452. (DOI: 10.2307/j.ctv1rmk6w.30). https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1rmk6w Thank you for your time guys.GizzyCatBella 🍁 17:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

I leave this decision to admin colleagues as I'm not currently active in AE. However, at first glance, I would decline this appeal. The statement does not accurately characterize or even recognize the misconduct that led to the ban. This suggests that it may well reoccur. Additionally, the statement does not contain the evidence (links or diffs) of the "substantial, competent, prejudice-free editing in other topic areas" that I asked for in the ban. With respect to competence, GizzyCatBella did not correctly use the appeals template when submitting their appeal here, which calls into question their technical competence as an editor, which is important in controversial topic areas. Sandstein 10:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved editor K.e.coffman

I've interacted with GizzyCatBella (GCB for short) on the topic of Jewish-Polish relations, so I'm posting in this section. I've not seen sufficiently positive editing from GCB in adjacent topics. A few examples:

GCB lists a new article about Lazar Berenzon, a senior officer in the NKVD (Soviet secret police), as an example of a positive contribution. When GCB created the page, it listed three sources: version as of 21 February 2020. I searched all three for "Берензон", the subject's Russian last name, and did not see any mentions. In fact, the third source is entitled: "Servisology as the scientific basis for the development of the service sector", which has nothing to do with the NKVD or Berenzon.
There was a series of edits in February 2020, with GCB adding Category:Jewish atheists to numerous articles, irrespective of whether the category was defining (in most cases, no) or whether atheism was even mentioned in the article: Adolf Warski; Boris Berman (chekist); Matvei Berman; Genrikh Yagoda and so on. Another case in point: when created, the above-mentioned Berenzon article also included this category, while atheism was not mentioned in the text: [68]. This may suggest a lack of familiarity with this wiki guideline, or a preoccupation with "Jewish atheism".
In this edit in January 2020, GCB modified the sentence to remove the last part, giving a rationale of "removing unsourced content":

While the publication was heavily antisemitic and opposed to presence of Jews in Poland, at the same time it supported alliance with Zionist movement and creation of Jewish state in Palestine~~, to create an emigration destination for Polish Jews~~.

The cited source included: That is why Prosto z mostu [the periodical in question] supported the idea of Jewish emigration from Poland, preferably to the Zionist state in Palestine. Hence the sympathy for 'national, healthy and normal Jewish longings...', via Google translate of the Polish-language source. Contrary to GCB's claim, the removed segment was clearly supported by the source; the removal portrayed the publication in a more favourable, less self-serving light.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A follow-up to GCB's response [69] to my evidence:

GCB: I noticed that other articles that already have such a category are neither sourced or have mention of atheism in the person's bio. (links for verification: ... The first link I checked is to an article that indeed mentions atheism which is sourced: 2019 version. In any case, the unsourced "Jewish atheist" tagging only stopped after Doug Weller pointed out the issue on GCB's Talk page: You twice added an unsourced category to Adolf Warski, please stop, Feb 2020.

GCB: I still don't see it, in re: the antisemitic periodical. Here's the original Polish [70]: Dlatego „Prosto z Mostu” popierało ideę emigracji Żydów z Polski, najlepiej do tworzonego przez syjonistów państwa w Palestynie. Stąd sympatia dla 'narodowych, zdrowych i normalnych tęsknot żydowskich. Tęsknot za własnym państwem i ewakuacją z państw obcych'.

Translation: Therefore, „Prosto z Mostu” supported the idea of emigration of Jews from Poland, preferably to the Zionist state in Palestine. Hence the sympathy for 'national, healthy and normal Jewish longings. Longing for their own state and evacuation from foreign countries'. The statement in the article is clearly supported: the publication "...supported the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, to create an emigration destination for Polish Jews" (part removed by GCB underlined).

GCB: I translated the entire piece from the Russian Wikipedia including moving the sources that were already there -- Upon further review of the Berenzon article, my conclusion is the page was apparently translated from the Polish wiki: Łazar Bierienzon as of 2017 (latest version). GCB created the page with the Polish spelling of his name (move log); the content also matched the Polish wiki, rather than the Russian one: latest (July 2019) version. Finally, and contrary to GCB's claim, ru.wiki at no point listed the three bogus sources that GCB added as citations diff, and neither did pl.wiki.

My assessment remains unchanged. Most of what I've seen in this appeal is unsubstantiated claims (which take quite a bit of effort to get to the bottom of), excuses, and blaming others for GCB's predicaments, i.e. the 1000+ word relitigation of the AE case that had lead to the topic ban. Add to that the continued newbie mistakes and an apparent assumption (?) that people are unable to check other Wikis for themselves (??), and this appeal is becoming more and more bewildering. At this point, I would echo Ealdgyth's comment that problems may actually be spreading outside the area of the topic ban. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ealdgyth

I'm not seeing that the statements addresses that there were more problems brought forth not just with reverting to an old version, but with sloppy use of sources elsewhere. I'd like to see some actual editing in other areas (not things connected with Poland or Jews) that show that the editor has learned and taken on board all the issues. And that they are trying to distance themselves from the contentious topic area so that there is some sense of balance in their editing. Frankly, the edits K. E. Coffman brought up are concerning that problems may actually be spreading outside the area of the topic ban. And they also need to understand that if the topic ban is removed, that there are now sourcing restrictions in the topic area that would preclude the use of the Jewish Virtual Library anyway (and I'd like to point out that while the RfC at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Jewish Virtual Library hasn't actually been closed, it's heavily leaning towards the JVL not being reliable. While Rossino may be a subject matter expert, the JVL piece referred to isn't on his own blog and thus he had no control over it so we can't be sure it's a good transcription of the original source (and this is an endemic problem in the topic area, using mirrors of sources rather than being content to use offline sources.) --Ealdgyth (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GC - your topic ban is "...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." It's not just WWII, it's things involving Jews in Poland immediately prior to WWII. The efforts of various parties (many of them fringe) in Poland to find a place to send the Polish Jews would definitely be within that scope. Also, it's best if you avoid things that discuss the immediate pre-WWII history in Poland if its discussing anti-semitism. Frankly, if you want to demonstrate that you are capable of editing well, I'd avoid anything to do with the history of Jews in Poland. There is plenty of plain Polish history out there that doesn't involve Jews that would amply demonstrate that you can edit in contentious subjects without issues. Or for that matter, take a leaf from many editors who approach a whole new area that they are not familiar with and use the editing experience to learn about a new subject. Polish cuisine? Animals in Poland? Crafts of Poland? Clothing? Gardening? All those subjects are usually areas where wikipedia coverage is lacking and would be excellent to improve.

As for running sources past us, I can't answer for Sarah, but I do not have the time to supervise other editors in that way. I'm always glad to help someone out in small amounts, but I do have editing *I* want to concentrate on and other time committments that need to be dealt with outside Wikipedia. --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 3)

Statement by Buffs

Concur with El_C's assessment below. Buffs (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SarahSV

GizzyCatBella, I'm trying to understand what happened at Stawiski. The disputed text was added in 2011 by Lewinowicz, apparently one of Poeticbent's accounts. It was sourced to a 2003 paper by Alexander B. Rossino (it's online but as an apparent copyvio, so I won't link: "Polish 'Neighbors' and German Invaders: Contextualizing Anti-Jewish Violence in the Białystok District during the Opening Weeks of Operation Barbarossa"). Lewinowicz's text was too sweeping in its description of what had happened and in that sense seemed to repeat conspiracy theories about Jews:

Upon the Soviet invasion of eastern Poland in 1939, the local administration was abolished by the NKWD and replaced with Jewish communists who declared Soviet allegiance. Ethnic Polish families were being rounded up by newly formed Jewish militia, and deported to Siberia.

Some Jews, particularly younger ones, did join the Soviets, as did others, but the numbers were relatively small, and 20 percent of those deported were Jews. Rossino describes some of this. It is true that he paints a bleak picture of Jewish involvement, I would say bleaker than other sources. But he also writes: "... the outburst of Polish anti-Semitism in reaction to the arrival of German forces was largely based on a stereotype of the 'Jewish-Communist' that was shared by anti-Semites across Europe. ... The evidence clearly demonstrates that like Poles and other native Eastern European peoples with communist sympathies, a certain small number of Jews collaborated with Soviet occupation forces. But when speaking of an unholy union between all Jews and Communists ... one can only conclude that scholars are dealing with a fantasy imagined by resentful Poles ...".

The text remained in the article until an IP address removed it in 2013. Poeticbent restored it. In 2014 an IP tagged it as possibly unreliable. Poeticbent removed the tags. In March 2018, Icewhiz removed the text, stating that it had "misrepresented Rossino". This time Poeticbent did not revert and in May 2018 Poeticbent was topic-banned (not in relation to this article).

In June 2018, in your first edit to Stawiski, you restored Poeticbent's text. Icewhiz removed it again, and you restored it and were reported to AE. It's true that you did continue to modify the text to bring it closer to Rossino. But why would you twice restore an older text from Poeticbent? Even if you weren't familiar with the topic, Icewhiz's edit summaries stated that it misrepresented the source. If you wanted to make an edit, as you continued to do before the topic ban, why not just do that, rather than first restore an older contentious version? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by GizzyCatBella

When will the argumentum ad Icewhiz end? It seems every Polish-related AE report since Icewhiz was indef'd brings up Icewhiz. It's not like Icewhiz's indef means that all opponents of Icewhiz are exonerated. It doesn't mean everything he ever said was wrong. It doesn't mean every new editor that disagrees about something is an Icewhiz sock. In fact, his indef means we can no longer blame him for anything. And while editors are free to continue to argue with Icewhiz on WPO (as they do to this day), at some point, on wiki, it's time to let go of the Ghost of Icewhiz. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. Arguments for/against anything a la Icewhiz should just be ignored. They should stand/fall on their own merits. Buffs (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GCB: Looking at the AE report, I see quotes from multiple admin like any misconduct by Icewhiz does not mitigate that by GizzyCatBella and has no bearing on the sanction we may decide to impose on GizzyCatBella, I would support a topic ban with the scope you have proposed. I am particularly unimpressed by the repeated use of dodgy sources after they have been questioned ... Based on the evidence here, this user is unable to edit neutrally in this area, and needs to be removed ..., and Agree with the above. An indefinite topic ban for sure .... You were not TBANed for giving someone a DS notice, nor were you TBANed based on anyone's misrepresentations. Specific edits were discussed by admin and non-admin alike at great length in that AE case. In this appeal, you really haven't addressed any of that. If anything, you seem to be saying that the TBAN should not have issued in the first place and that the filer did something wrong by filing the report. This is a classic and common mistake in making an appeal on enwiki. Your edits were examined and found to merit a TBAN by multiple uninvolved admins. This is not Icewhiz's fault, it's yours. You've got to come to grips with that. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GCB -- at 4 1/2 years and 5K edits -- is surely past the point where mentoring would be worthwhile. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether having had a brief interaction with GCB in 2018 classifies me as involved or not, so this comment can be moved if necessary. I was struck at the time in an ANI filing concerning another editor [71] that GCB's adversarial tendencies had not changed even after their topic ban. GCB had been banned for misrepresenting sources and there GCB was misrepresenting me on the ANI noticeboard with "thank you for recognizing that similar data could be found in most editors edit history...". GCB is one of several zealous editors with an WP:AXE to grind in this topic area whose past form shows that they have been determined to have a fight. GCB has taken it to another level of misrepresentation. I don't see evidence of change. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by GizzyCatBella

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

I think GizzyCatBella should have waited a few more months before appealing, having just been warned (formally, by myself) about better following the terms of their topic ban. I agree with Sandstein that some (any) documentation is ought to be provided to support the basic assertions of the appeal. And I also agree with them about the problematic absence of an acknowledgment of the violations (themselves) that led to sanctions and how best will these be avoided in the future, specifically. But as for the misformatting of the appeal itself, I disagree with Sandstein that this is indicative of anything or relevant to the appeal. Technical mistakes happen. El_C 14:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would decline this appeal, based on evidence submitted by K.e.coffman. El_C 11:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that both Sarah and GizzyCatBella have asked for this appeal to remain open so that they could each submit additional evidence. Sounds reasonable. El_C 20:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About an emigration destination for Polish Jews — that should not have been removed by the appellant, for any reason, because it was a violation of their topic ban. El_C 13:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella, I think you've confused Guerillero with Galobtter. Anyway, I would still decline the appeal. Too many complainants have raised valid objections. I also note that this appeal has become a bit unwieldy. I'm not saying it's anyone's fault, but it just is. El_C 04:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would decline per Levivich and El_C --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm very uncomfortable with any sort of mentorship requirement --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @GizzyCatBella: At this point, you are over the word limit by 7.3 times, not counting your signature or the collapsed content, please be judicious in you additions to your statement. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd decline the appeal. Per K.e.coffman's evidence the issues regarding use of sourcing continue. And indeed the more I look at his evidence the more concerned I become. The recent addition of "Jewish atheism" categories shows an almost bizarre lack of understanding of WP:V.

But even more concerning is the evidence related to Berenzon. It seems very much like to me that GizzyCatBella added three bogus, totally unrelated sources in [72] and is now lying at AE to cover that up. I indeed cannot find any of the sources she added in the ruwiki article, and they clearly appear to have nothing to do with Berenzon even from reading the title. In one edit she replaces a google snippet which she had added that mentions Berenzon but doesn't give any info on him with a source titled "Negative-aggressive behavior of a crime victim" (per google translate). If indeed as it seems she added false sources, that would support an indefinite block. That the sources she adds are not in English makes it especially hard to see when she misrepresents sources or adds completely unrelated sources so there are quite possibly more instances of this behavior that haven't been noticed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JungerMan Chips Ahoy!

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 JungerMan Chips Ahoy!

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Onceinawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (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: ARBPIA discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

At First Jordan Hydro-Electric Power House

22:14, 17 April 2020 Deletes half of a quote from US diplomat Wells Stabler, with editnotice "dubious material from a primary source"
01:25, 24 April 2020 repeats edit
02:50, 1 May 2020 repeats
17:00, 2 May 2020 adds primary-source-inline tag to the same material, this time without deleting it
23:17, 11 May 2020 Readds tag
16:17, 13 May 2020 Readds tag

At Wadi Qana

14:59, 10 May 2020 tags Geography and population section
14:37, 11 May 2020 adds FV tag in Geography and population section
17:58, 11 May 2020 adds same tag
13:41, 12 May 2020 tags "altered to Nahal Elkana" in lede (immediately undoes it, with edit comment "undo for now, may have inadvertantly violated 1RR")
16:12, 13 May 2020 re-adds same tag

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Slow running edit war, against consensus at First Jordan Hydro-Electric Power House. There has been a long discussion on the talk page, with Shrike in support of JungerMan's arguments. Since Zero0000's comment on 11:51, 17 April 2020 and Selfstudier's comment 12:38, 18 April 2020, there was a 3:2 consensus supporting the inclusion of the material. This moved to 4:2 in support of the quote following Nableezy's comment at 21:25, 12 May 2020. Yet JungerMan has now deleted the content or tagged the content 6 times, of which two occasions have been just after the 24 hour 1RR deadline.

Separately, as has been discussed on the talk page, the nature of the edit appears to be tendentious. This is illustrated by the fact that although JungerMan is arguing that the quote is primary, when he deleted it (first three diffs above) he only removed half of the quote. The rest of the quote is from the same source, and the content is not covered by any other source.

I have not followed the discussion at Wadi Qana in detail, but per the diffs I have put above there seems to be a similar dynamic.

Final note, worth reading Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1036#JungerMan_Chips_Ahoy! from 5 days ago in a different subject area, where two administrators predicted that JungerMan will "eventually end up at AE". Here we are. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [73]

Discussion concerning JungerMan Chips Ahoy!

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 JungerMan Chips Ahoy!

We should flip this around and ask for DS sanctions against Onceinawhile, who is repeatedly introducing contested material into the article w/o consensus, violating WP:ONUS.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

15:48, 13 April 2020 Introduces a very lengthy quote and an exceptional claim from a primary source, in violation of WP:RSPRIMARY
22:15, 17 April 2020 one minute after the previous edit was partially reverted and contested by me, reinserts it into the article, in violation of WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, while noting in edit summary there is no consensus for this!
16:26, 2 May 2020 removes tags next to the primary source despite the discussion still going on, and declares 'a consensus exist" when no such consensus is apparent on the talkpage, nor has he attempted to demonstrate such consensus via WP:DR or RfC
21:49, 11 May 2020 again removes a tag, this time one validly placed next to a source that failed verification.

I have repeatedly explained to this editors (as have others - [74]) that WP:CONSENSUS is not a numerical vote, and that per WP:ONUS, if he wants to introduce material that has been challenged into the article, he must demonstrate consensus for it, but he refuses to do so. Instead, he merely repeats, time and again, that 3 editors (himself included) support the material, while only 2 oppose it, so 60% majority is a consensus. ([75],[76]). (that ratio is currently 4:3)

Note also, that for all his protestations, the contested material is still in the article now, despite having no consensus. Apparently he is not even content with the disputed material being tagged as the primary source that it is.

As far as the Wadi Qana article goes, this article is currently undergoing a major expansion/revision. In the process, many problems are being introduced, such as unbalanced sections (which I tagged - #1), statements that failed verification (which I tagged - #2,3), and dubious statements (which I tagged, #5). How are articles going to get any better if issues are not called out via tagging? (Note also the dishonesty in the filer's list, where #4 an #5 are one edit, made, then immediately reverted by myself, then added, yet he lists them as if they were two edits).

This is a tendentious request by a tendentious editor, sanctions are to be applied to them. If there is any doubt about this , just check out his final comment, referring to an unrelated AE report involving me - a report which was closed with no sanctions, described as a content dispute that should be resolved on the talkpage, and a call forWP:DR or an RfC (something I've been repeatedly asking the filer to do here, which he refuses). And while one of the admins arguing against me in that AE did write what Onceinawhile chose to quote, he was immediately replied to by another admin who said "at least at the linked article, they're making something resembling a good point.". Somehow that didn't make it into the tendentious filing here.

Finally, this editor has previously been sanctioned - blocked for edit warring and topic banned from this subject area for 3 months, for this exact type of conduct - it seems tht after cooling his heels for a while, he's right back at it.

Statement by shrike

There were never any consensus.The WP:ONUS was never satisfied for the inclusion of contested material.Those who restored the material without consensus should be sanctioned as violation of WP:ONUS like the filer[77] --Shrike (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

I agree with Shrike. In this area, you can't include a Primary Source without satisfying the requirement laid out in policy and that wasn't met. Those editors who included it, violated DS and ONUS by reinserting it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning JungerMan Chips Ahoy!

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 420: / Line 420: @@
 #[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_Jordan_Hydro-Electric_Power_House&type=revision&diff=956171207&oldid=954480742 21:49, 11 May 2020] again removes a tag, this time one validly placed next to a source that failed  verification.
-I have repeatedly explained to this editors (as have others - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFirst_Jordan_Hydro-Electric_Power_House&type=revision&diff=951688005&oldid=951676603]) that [[WP:CONSENSUS]] is not a numerical vote, and that per [[WP:ONUS]], if he wants to introduce material that has been challenged into the article, he must demonstrate consensus for it, but he refuses to do so. Instead, he merely repeats, time and again, that 3 editors (himself included) support  the  material, while only 2 oppose it, so 60% majority is a consensus. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFirst_Jordan_Hydro-Electric_Power_House&type=revision&diff=956309597&oldid=956300847],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_Jordan_Hydro-Electric_Power_House&diff=prev&oldid=956299752]).
+I have repeatedly explained to this editors (as have others - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFirst_Jordan_Hydro-Electric_Power_House&type=revision&diff=951688005&oldid=951676603]) that [[WP:CONSENSUS]] is not a numerical vote, and that per [[WP:ONUS]], if he wants to introduce material that has been challenged into the article, he must demonstrate consensus for it, but he refuses to do so. Instead, he merely repeats, time and again, that 3 editors (himself included) support  the  material, while only 2 oppose it, so 60% majority is a consensus. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFirst_Jordan_Hydro-Electric_Power_House&type=revision&diff=956309597&oldid=956300847],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_Jordan_Hydro-Electric_Power_House&diff=prev&oldid=956299752]).  (that ratio is currently 4:3)
 Note also, that for all his protestations, the contested material is still in the article now, despite having no consensus. Apparently he is not even content with the disputed material being tagged as the primary source that it is.
@@ Line 428: / Line 428: @@
 This is a tendentious request by a tendentious editor, sanctions are to be applied to them. If there is any doubt about this , just check out his final comment, referring to an unrelated AE report involving me - a report which was closed with no sanctions, described as a content dispute that should be resolved on the talkpage,  and a call for[[WP:DR]] or an RfC (something I've been repeatedly asking the filer to do here, which he refuses). And while one of the admins  arguing against me in that  AE did write what Onceinawhile chose to quote, he was immediately replied to by another admin  who said "at least at the linked article, they're making something resembling a good point.". Somehow that didn't make it into the tendentious filing here.
-Finally, this editor has pervasively been sanctioned - blocked for edit warring and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Onceinawhile#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction topic banned from this subject area] for  3 months, for this exact type of conduct - it seems tht after cooling his heels for a while, he's right back at it.
+Finally, this editor has previously been sanctioned - blocked for edit warring and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Onceinawhile#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction topic banned from this subject area] for  3 months, for this exact type of conduct - it seems tht after cooling his heels for a while, he's right back at it.
 ====Statement by shrike====

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards