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
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
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;
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.
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
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;
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.
Closing without further action (except that I've given an alert/first) at this point due to limited number of edits and that they haven't edited for a few days. If similar editing continues a NOTHERE block would be appropriate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[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 Truth&Wisdom365
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
[1] 25 February 2023 — blatant violation of WP:PSCI. I believe they violated WP:CITELEAD, since the pseudoscientific and racist character of Anthroposophy is rendered below the lead section, supported by multiple WP:RS. Below the lead section, removing the claims made by RS while keeping the same RS is extremely gauche, and it could be seen as vandalism. Apparently, they are a supporter of Anthroposophy performing WP:CENSORing of the article, since they do not like how Anthroposophy is seen by mainstream scientists, mainstream academics and debunkers of pseudoscience. They are a WP:SPA and till now they have only performed POV edits (100% of their four edits are POV). I know they're a newbie, but it would be foolish to WP:AGF. I don't have much trust in people who at their first edit state something like WARNING: The following input contains highly editorialized input by a clear critic. Which often means "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts". Speaking of myself: I had pretty weird ideas when I began editing Wikipedia, but I wasn't blocked and banned because I wasn't obnoxious.
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 Truth&Wisdom365
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Truth&Wisdom365
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I agree with Callanecc that a NOTHERE block would be more appropriate given that this is a new user who hasn't made any other edits. Hut 8.508:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that there have only been four edits (all of them appearing to be an issue), and none since the start of this AE. While an indef per WP:NOTHERE would be perfectly reasonable within policy, my first choice would be to wait and see if the disruption continues or if the editor starts engaging with the community. If the pattern resumes, I think an indef would be a pretty simple matter without any need for discussion. The WordsmithTalk to me21:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 TrangaBellam
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 08:26, 15 February 2023
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I need to report TrangaBellam behavior regarding the Naliboki massacre article and its talk page. To keep it brief. There has been a discussion for some time about the content of one of the sections. TrangaBellam not engaging in the discussion did change the section title, I reverted it inviting user to join the discussion. Twice. Then the user made a much larger edition, which I also reverted, invoking the WP:BRD method and inviting to discussion. It started WP:EDITWARRING. Afraid of breaking the WP:3RR rule, I withdrew the last one, asking TrangaBellam to voluntarily withdraw from the changes and join the ongoing discussions. TrangaBellam ignored the ongoing discussions and started new ones, in which he acted as if they were new WP:CONSENSUS. He refused to revert the changes and continue to editing discussed section ingoring my pleas to stop doing so. TrangaBellam accused me of "engaging in a fair amount of acrobatics to push a particular ahistorical POV", without claryfing what he means about that. To me, this is an example of WP:DISRUPTIVE, as expressed on WP:CONSENSUS: Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. The way he acts and the way he addresses me leads me to believe that his actions are intended to make me break WP:3RR and receive sanctions as a result. I asked him nicely to start over on his talk page without any bad blood. But TrangaBellam and once he said on Talk:Naliboki massacre: "I plan to ignore your commentary on the meta-issues", I decided to aks admins for help.
When I did a major edit (13:45, 28 February 2023). Gitz reverted it, I restored it inviting to t/p. The response was to refer to the WP:BRD method. Reluctantly, but I agreed to this and did not undo edits, and we moved to t/p. The same was with my next major edit (Nowicki's memoirs: 11:27, 1 March 2022).
Gitz accuses me of promoting fringe theory by mentioning Nowicki and Boradyna, ignoring the fact that after TrangaBellam's changes the mention of Nowicki remained and Gitz didn't voice any concerns (earlier Gitz demanded that it need to be hidden in a footnote). It seems that only if I make the change then I am promoting fringe theory and my changes must be reverted. Gitz reacts to TrangaBellam's persistent changes in a completely different way, accepting them without any major objections. My requests to use the WP:BRD method also towards changes made by TrangaBellam have been ignored by both users. I sense the intention to cause me frustration and make me to break WP:3RR.
My point is that the allegations of Bielski partisans involvement appeared in 1993 and were accepted as correct until the IPN investigation. I added (15:15, 2 March 2023) info that Nasz Dziennik used Naliboki allegations to counter the Jedwabne Pogrom.
As for History of the Jews in Poland pls read t/p. In short, using a number of high-quality sources, I proved that the original source of the information in the article made a mistake. (This discussion is a good example of bludgeoing and WP:NOTGETTINGIT on Gitz part btw).
I was responding to all comments and trying to compromise. I changed the attitued after my requests to apply WP:BRD to TrangBellam's edits were ignored. I refused to participate in the new discussions TrangBellam was starting, ignoring the ongoing discussions.Marcelus (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell and others: I understand that I reacted too impulsively, however, please consider that my reverts were caused by TrangaBellam ignoring the ongoing discussion, I was convinced that Gitz would support me because of the WP:BRD they brought up before in reference to my edits, at the time I did not mean to editwarring, but to keep WP:STABLE, continue the discussion and make changes once a consensus was reached.Marcelus (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell @Callanecc You are right, I should be smarter and more restrained and not engage in edit warring. I would like to apologize for this, perhaps I actually need a moment of rest. I promise to refrain from doing so in the future. I would also like to ask that the ban be as limited as possible, I feel that I have done more good than bad in both fields, and I would not want the ban to be a summary of my contribution to building Wikipedia in both fields.
@TrangaBellam: Thank you for this comment. I hope we will have the opportunity to work together on articles in future (but in a better style and in an atmosphere of mutual understanding, I think that's a lesson of this WP:AE)
@Bishonen: As I mentioned, I can see from reading the comments that I didn't manage it and myself all very well. But note that I reverted the title change by TB with the information that it's currently under discussion. In the second revert I invoked the source and WP:BRD. Only then did TB start a "Section title" discussion, but in order to challenge my source, not to discuss the phrasing of the section title. My main objections were raised by the second major edition of TB, in which she completely ignored earlier discussions where certain agreements had been reached, and my invitation to join the ongoing discussion. Also, I think TB plays an important role in this field, pointing out deficiencies and problematic bits in articles. My reservations are with the way TB does this and communicates with people who have a different opinion.Marcelus (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen, @HJ Mitchell and @Callanecc: What exactly does 0RR mean? As I understand it, I can not make any deletions of text or restoration of deleted text? The definition of revert on WP:0RR is very broad. Because of course I can refrain from using the "undo" button I will certainly avoid edit warring. But consider, for example, the article Józef Mackiewicz, where the vast majority of the text was deleted, I believe that some of it can be restored, but by doing so I would be breaking the 0RR rule.Marcelus (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: Breaking the rules to reply inline and speaking for myself, I would say it means you can't use the undo button and you can't do anything that's functionally the same, like restoring an old version or removing text that some else added recently. You should be able to add or remove text that wasn't in dispute, but if your edit is reverted, you would have to leave it alone. If or when it comes to pass, I'm happy to talk you about wording and scope on your talk page or mine but I don't want to get bogged down in it in this thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?17:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Making an exception for My Very Best Wishes. MVBW, who had reverted my bold edit at the first place for BRD to even come into play? Fwiw, as of now, there is clear consensus in my favor; none barring you — I believe, even VM — propose to restore the deleted section. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[..] and knowing it's likely to be controversial, is as good as inviting an edit war and is arguably disruptive in itself. - Sorry, HJM, I do not have a crystall ball. I mostly edit controversial topics on S. Asian history and am well aware of what is disruption and what is not; those who admin the topic area (Bish, V93, et al) can probably attest to the quality of my edits. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Callanecc, care to provide four diffs of unretracted persistent and egregious personal attacks and incivility displayed by me?
2 - GCB has a habit of asking "Have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife" questions to "lengthen the discussion" and take it to tangents "without progressing it towards a resolution".
Example at Talk:Mariusz Bechta. GCB insinuates that I have not written the BLP conservatively but does not really shed any light. Similarly, I fail to see the point of GCB knowing how I might be accessing a paywalled Polish source; it clearly insinuates that someone (read: Icewhiz, et al.) is providing me the sources. I want to know why Callanecc feels that such leading questions and passive-aggressive behaviour under the guise of politness are permissible. Do note that I had answered the pointed questions quite proffessionally.
Animalparty made the quote in the Arbcase, and I liked it enough. So, I let it be known. A couple of months ago, I did the same for a quote on Levivich's u/p. Another few months ago, I did the same, for a comment on a random ANI thread. So, what proves?
Yes, using the review of a PhD student on "healthcare consumerism, judgment and decision-making, and behavioral economics" for a book on Holocaust is grotesquely poor. Right now, at a t/p, VM and few others [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1142690229?diffmode=source said that I was violating BLP] (it was me who added the line which was challenged in the section); does that mean they are "throwing aspersions"? Aspersions, if supported by reasonable evidence, are no longer aspersions and my evidence was right in the same comment. The same applies for VM, et al. (i.e. neither are their comments aspersions of any kind.)
What GCB skips is that I had retracted the accusations and settled our dispute amicably. There will be some friction in contested areas; I can make much of how and why Piotrus slapped a NPOV tag but I won't. In the end of the discussion Piotrus conceded that he came to understand why Glaukopis is a horrible source - see, that's a win?
ALso note that after participating in the discussion, GCB does not reply whether she consents to the removal of the NPOV tag and leaves us hanging. As HJM said, her entire motive is to derail the resolution of any discussion by going off on tangents.
I did retract it on Piotrus' request and both of us settled our dispute amicably. There will be some friction in contested areas even if, on restrospection, I should not have made that edit; in the end, we remained on friendly terms and Piotrus came to understand that Glaukopis is a horrible source, even thanking me for it.
That is a win for everybody except, perhaps, GCB. Do note the net effect of GCB's participation in the t/p — she did not make a single comment on content except one generic remark (you created an article grossly unbalanced. (verification in edit history). Critisism only.) and when finally enquired by Piotrus about the removal of the NPOV tag, left us hanging! As HJM said, her entire motive is to derail the resolution of any discussion by going off on tangents. Their sole content-based remark is so generic that you can copy-paste it into any random article!
Diff 2 - 20 feb
At this point of time, I have been subject to a set of "Have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife" questions at Talk:Mariusz Bechta where I responded with utmost proffessionalism. GCB insinuated that I had not followed our BLP policy but did not shed any light on the specifics. Similarly, I fail to see the point of GCB's need to how I might be accessing a paywalled Polish source; it clearly insinuated that someone (read: Icewhiz, et al.) is providing me the sources.
Still, GCB did not give up pursuit, leading to my revert. Please also note Levicich's and Horse Eye's Back's response in the thread. It is blindingly obvious that GCB tries to bait people by a variety of passive-aggressive behaviour, waiting for the recipient to snap back. And, do note the sheer chutzpah of GCB in making an editor uncomfortable with clear sexual innuendos, and then accusing me and Levivich of being disgusting (in boldface) for supporting the victim. If this is not trolling, well ....
Diff 3 - 19 Feb
This is same as Diff 1.
Diff 4 - 19 Feb
I feel that GCB's edits have been broadly restricted to coming to the support of Piotrus by reinstalling tags, restoring prefered versions etc. That is not an evidence of any wrongdoing unless seen together with their refusal to engage with the content at the t/p in any meaningful sense. I request that you read HJM's characterization of GCB's edits, once again, and I cannot overemphasize how significant this is.
For interesting evidence, see GCB's participation at Talk:Tadeusz Piotrowski (sociologist): all on meta issues except a couple of comments on content - I disagree, it’s a no policy based rationale. and I don’t agree with you K.e.coffman. Sociologist is very much qualified to review a book by another sociologist. - which are of a very poor quality and again generic!
Aspersions, when substantiated by reasonable evidence, do not remain aspersions. Do note that I did not accuse VM or others of tag-teaming. Even if they have opposed me, they have clearly made some kind of arguments (irrespective of whether I found them making much sense or not). Unlike GCB.
Diff 5 - 19 Feb
This IS stonewalling; you try to side-step the content issues and go on about the procedure. As I wrote above, GCB did not make a single concrete comment on content etc. and unlike Piotrus did not even concede that the NPOV tag was largely in error.
That said, all of these diffs (barring #2) concern a single article on a single day about a fortnight ago; I even made amends with the recipient of the only PA a whole week ago. So, ...
@Callanecc:, to quote: on restrospection, I should not have made that edit. So, no, I am not *defending* anything. Going forward, I plan to be less brusque and keep the tag-teaming accusations etc. for the Arbcom case. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh, I have no idea about why Marcelus is proposed to be TBanned. Imposing a 1RR/2RR sanction is usually the way to deal with proclivity to edit-warring! Not tbans unless there are other issues. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc Also, I am not a fan of making "commitments" when under consideration for sanctions; everyone can claim to see the light at ANI or AE. I have opposed providing them much weight in case of sanctioning others and will apply the same standards for myself. Still, to reiterate, I will reserve the accusations of POV-pushing, tag-teaming etc. for the upcoming ArbCase than any article t/p. Now, you must assess my sincerity in light of my three years at the wiki etc. This is my last comment. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Gitz666 and Levivich. I agree that staying calm and civil with uncooperative editors is difficult but then, NPA is sacrosanct. Mvbw, should not you have mentioned of your COI with the G&K paper; I have no strong feelings but felt like best practices... TrangaBellam (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harry: it's that TB made an edit they could have easily foreseen being disputed is inaccurate. The section, even before I had jumped in, made it clear that the Jews were not involved; so, I did not have any rational reason to doubt that somebody will object to making facts similarly clear in the header itself! In cases where I have genuine reason to doubt that there might be opposition, I always post my issues at the t/p before proceeding to enact them in a few days (1, 2, 3, etc.)
At the conclusion of the discussion, what I see is that there are five well-respected editors — Gitz666, Coffman, Adoring nanny, Horse Eye's Back, and Ppt91 — supporting me, explicitly on the inclusion of the upfront declaration in the header. The sole support to M came from Mvbw, who claimed that my writing is antisemitic (!); truth be told, even if I had staked in a million minutes into thinking the ramifications of my edit, I could have come across the possibility of such a rebut. Nonetheless, pace NOTVOTE, the consensus is 5-2 in my favor.
For those of us who have a fair idea of Polish/Jewish relations, my edits to the page were as disputable as claiming that Trump did not win the election. That said, my sole takeaway is that, I should not have hit the revert button at 12:01; esp. since I was already drafting the t/p comment. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the way of framing the controversy in the current version of this section sounds antisemitic to me. Err, and it was me who framed the section? Note that I did not say that you had accused me of being an antisemite or whatever; I said that you accused the edit — which, of course, involves the framing of the issue and presentation — to be antisemitic. Further, I did neither claim that you made a PA etc. So, much ado about nothing.
@Callanecc, Bishonen, and RegentsPark: - HJM's evidence does not stand the barest of scrutiny. VM's remarks were based on a misunderstanding about the article I was talking about. See this t/p thread; VM thought that I was talking about The Forgotten Holocaust when I was talking about Tadeusz Piotrowski (sociologist). Though I should have provided the diff. It is surreal - I cast no allegation against VM (whatsoever) and we come to our own understanding about the issue, but HJM pops out to suggest that I be Topic banned!The mvbw issue is semantics. Editor Alpha frames an issue in X manner; in response, Editor Beta says that structurally, X is anti-semitic. Beta is within his rights to say so and frankly shall be encouraged to launch such critiques. Obviously, it is not a giant leap of reasoning to construe that Editor Alpha's particular edit was antisemitic; what's the big deal? Did I engage in any drama over why Mvbw said so; did I accuse Mvbw of breaching any policy? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by K.e.coffman
I'm not sure that my voice was ignored, and all of my edits were removeddiff is a sufficient reason to open ANI and AE threads. For the preceding ANI, pls see: thread. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that My very best wishes may be misinterpreting the discussion at Talk:Kielce pogrom, in their statement. TrangaBellam's bold edit removed a long-standing dubious theory diff, with the content mixing reliable and unreliable sources to advance a certain POV. I did not see editors suggesting that the section be restored in its entirety. Subsequent discussion also showed that some of the reliable sources were misrepresented: [4], starting with: With regard to the discussion on Anne Applebaum here above, note that she has been selectively quoted if not misunderstood in the article... --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by My very best wishes
I noticed that TrangaBellam also made this large-scale removal of sourced text on another page, during an active discussion on article talk page, but without having any sign of WP:Consensus for such removal [5],[6]. This text was sourced to publications by Jan T. Gross, Ann Applebaum, Tadeusz Piotrowski and Aleksander Wat, among many others. None of these authors belong to fringe Polish nationalists. The views by authors were not misrepresented on the page, as far as I can see. I think such removal was unhelpful for building WP:Consensus on the page. But this does not rise to the level requiring any sanctions, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman. No, I believe the view by Applebaum was not misrepresented by not citing everything she said. If the contributor thought the citation was incomplete [7], nothing prevented them from expanding this citation to fix the problem. And what bias? "anti-NKVD"? My very best wishes (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[9] - here TrangaBellam re-includes claim by G&K that Piotrowski "blamed Polish antisemitism upon the Jews" despite valid BLP objections on article talk page [10]. In edit summary TrangaBellam incorrectly said that a consensus is needed for removing this claim (TrangaBellam included this a couple of days ago [11]). TrangaBellam does it during the standing AE request about them. Now I believe that some action may be needed. My very best wishes (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I should respond to the latest false accusation made by TrangaBellam right on this noticeboard: [12]. I have never accused any contributor, including TrangaBellam of making antisemitic edits on this site. That was my comment [13]. I only said (addressing to another contributor) that, in my opinion, the entire section about non-existent "Jewish perpetrators" should be removed because the way of framing the controversy in the current version of this section sounds antisemitic to me. Basically, why should we include at all a section about "Jewish perpetrators" to this page if such "perpetrators" never existed? I realize that other contributors may see this differently and that I may be wrong about removing the section (I never edited this page and did not check its editing history and who did what), but I did not accuse anyone of making any antisemitic edits. This is perfect illustration of TrangaBellam misinterpreting comments by other contributors and creating conflicts. My very best wishes (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In their response TrangaBellam continue to insist on their misinterpretation of my comment [14]: 'Err, and it was me who framed the section?... I said that you accused the edit.... No, I had no idea (and did not care) who made any edits, and no, I did NOT accuse any specific edit, and I did NOT refer to any specific edit. I would not respond here, but the false repeated accusation/misinterpretation by TrangaBellam, right on this noticeboard, is a serious issue. It does show TrangaBellam is not capable of interacting with contributors who disagree with them about something. Same can be concluded from some other diffs discussed during this request. My very best wishes (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[15] - User Levivich repeats the groundless claim by TrangaBellam. Once again, no, I did not refer to TB or any edits by TB or by anyone else. Why? Because I did not check any editing history on the page, and did not even check the discussion on talk page. I only quickly looked at the page itself. Why? Because looking for guilty parties (per G&K) makes me sick and because I follow WP:AGF. My very best wishes (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[16]. @Levivich - thank you, but no, I wrote in my edit "@Adoring nanny" (not @TB), and my edit does not imply any guilt by her. However, I striked through this my comment now, with an explanation [17]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC) (K&G said in their article "Wikipedia’s coverage of the Naliboki massacre should not even mention Jews" - this is something I happened to agree with. My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Statement by Gitz
Marcelus complains that [TrangaBellam] refused to revert the changes and continue to editing discussed section ingoring my pleas to stop doing so, but everyone who commented on the talk page agreed that TrangaBellam's edits were an improvement (Adoring nanny, K.e.coffman and myself) and no one (apart from Marcelus) reverted them. They complain that TrangaBellam ignored the ongoing discussions and started new ones, but TrangaBellam engaged in extensive discussions with Marcelus and repeatedly asked them to explain their objections: no less than six times (!) from 13:50, 2 March 2023 to 17:55, 2 March 2023. Marcelus didn't want TrangaBellam to remove this text of theirs [18] mentioning Nowicki and Boradyn and lending some credibility to the fringe theory that the Jews perpetrated the Naliboki massacre. Most of Marcelus's editing is aimed at substantiating that theory. See e.g. this edit [19] reverting my revert of their bold edit on Jewish partisans active in the Naliboki area; see their comment on t/p about that fringe theory being an accepted course of events in historical literature rather than some figment of the imagination of a few crazy nationalists from the Canadian Polish Congress[20].
This is not only a content dispute. First, it's a blatant case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, with Marcelus ignoring the arguments made by other editors. Secondly, Marcelus violated the 3RR (13:50, 2 March 2023; 13:37, 2 March 2023; 12:03, 2 March 2023; 11:56, 2 March 2023), engaged in disruptive/tendentious editing ([21], reverting my reverts of their text on Nowicki and Boradyn; [22], unexplained removal, not accounted for in the edit summary, of right-wing organisation ... wrongly claimed that), bludgeoned the talk page and was uncivil to me and others. My request to self-revert on their user talk page triggered an extensive discussion to no avail: Undoing your baseless revert is not edit warring (where do you see WP:UNDUE?). I find threatening me with a noticeboard report rather petty[23]. Their casting aspersion on article t/p ([24][25]) was followed by my second thread on their user talk, again to no avail: Spare me the paternalistic tone[26]. Finally, the same behaviour is displayed at History of the Jews in Poland, where Marcelus builds walls of text to demonstrate that two high quality sources (academically focused books) are mistaken: I think I've convincingly shown the source to be wrong on this matter[27], I don't know why you insist on what is an obvious mistake by Rozenbaum, repeated by Prizel[28]; plus the usual a bit of incivility [29].
I will spend the luxary of my last 80 available words to advise you not to T-ban TrangaBellam. Albeit perhaps not "intentional", there's indeed a serious distortion in the topic area. Unfortunately there are not many experienced reliable editors actively engaged in remedying this deplorable situation. Harassed by IPs [30][31], they must remain professional in long discussions with uncooperative users such as Marcelus and GCB. Staying calm and civil is not easy. A warning from AE could help, a T-ban most defintely not. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by GizzyCatBella
Without remarking on the already carried forward disturbing factors of TrangaBellam's behaviour, I would like to draw the attention of the reviewing administrators to the serious incivility issues..
personal attacks + aspersions - Piotrus, if you find that there are reliable historians — though I doubt that you understand the term — who admire Glaukopis, feel free to add them. But otherwise, I take a dim view of your shenanigans
and refusal to refactor that personal attack with straight
No
When asked about the same, my appeal was reverted with the accusations of trolling [32] (see edit summary]
Here is the list of incivility - that is just from the last few days:
Just a quick response meantime. I value your conclusions concerning issues with my latest comments. I believe I was taken aback by TB's approach and I was just trying to be polite. I promise to focus on concrete issues and avoid general comments going forwad. - GizzyCatBella🍁03:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to touch on the diff's delivered by Levivich and HEB. The crucial difference between my evidence and theirs is that all my diffs on TB they’re making remarks about editors, not content. In almost all diffs from them, that supposed to show my disruption, I'm discussing content rather than editors. Levivich and HEB are simply reading bad faith into my comments and glossing over the actual personal attacks in TB’s. For example, I asked TB if they had a subscription to GW because I wanted a quote about context, but TB immediately accused me of implying that he was a sock puppet of Icewhiz. But I never did such a thing. (I have to leave the house now for my appointment, but I'll remark more with diff's by the end of the day, please don't close it yet) - GizzyCatBella🍁14:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Horse Eye's Back
I was originally going to abstain from participating here as I feel that the move from ANI to here was inorganic and bludgeoned[34][35][36][37][38]. That was until I looked through the diffs which GizzyCatBella provided, going through them I was struck by two things: first the vast majority of the diffs don't actually contain the sanctionable behavior described in the link ("battleground and aspersions" etc), the second thing I noticed in the diffs is that GizzyCatBella appears to be sealioning the conversation (some would call it stonewalling, but I think more specifically its sealioning). They have a habit of popping into conversations and asking very direct questions which are tangential to the issue under discussion which most often effectively derail that conversation (GizzyCatBella often abandons the discussion after throwing the wrench). Taken on their own each appears to be civil and the result of GizzyCatBella's curiosity. Taken as a pattern of behavior its extremely disruptive. At Talk:Tadeusz Piotrowski (sociologist)[39] at Talk:Naliboki massacre[40][41][42][43][44][45] at Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust[46][47] at Talk:The Forgotten Holocaust[48][49] at Talk:Kielce pogrom[50] and at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard[51]. On the topic of Marcelus they appear to have reverted three other editors and then pretended to be the victim. Thank you for your consideration. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Levivich
I was pinged and am involved so take it with a grain of salt, but I think there's a big difference between TB and GCB. TB has never been warned or otherwise sanctioned in this topic area before AFAIK and shouldn't be TBANed as a first sanction, at most warned. GCB on the other hand has been sanctioned previously and disruptive lately: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, plus the ones that were add/removed: +1/-1, +2/-2, +3/-3. Levivich (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few things to consider:
Multiple editors here (inc. me) do not speak English as their first language. Misunderstandings are inevitable, it's best not to read too much into specific language used by anyone. Sometimes, "that terrible thing they said" is actually just something inartfully phrased or lost in translation.
TB said "at a t/p" not "at the t/p"; she was pointing to a comment made at a different t/p as an example of an accusation that was not an aspersion; she was not suggesting VM edited The Forgotten Holocaust t/p.
TB wrote in her statement here: The sole support to M came from Mvbw, who claimed that my writing is antisemitic (!). MVBW's Mar 2 19:03 comment has edit summary that does look antisemitic to me and said: Sorry to partly disagree, but I think that current version of this section on the page is atrocious. I think this should never be framed as a dispute about "Jews" because that is antisemitic., which is in reference to edits made by TB to that section in the prior hours, seen here. While there's nothing wrong with raising concerns that language written by TB is (unintentionally, obviously) antisemitic, that is indeed what MVBW did. See also first bullet point above.
Of the three editors, the diffs presented here show two have been trying to improve content, while the third has been focused on non-content matters. The first two shouldn't be treated harsher than the third. Levivich (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MVBW, I want to clarify that I understand that you didn't know/look/care who wrote "current version" and thus you didn't accuse any specific person(s) of anything, that it was about the text, irrespective of the author(s). Levivich (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favour of final warnings rather than topic bans at this point. The editors concerned are doing productive work to remedy some of the failings highlighted by the Grabowski/Klein essay (and as problematic as some of the attributions of guilt in that essay are, it also pointed out some real problems with sourcing in this topic area). Let us please not throw out the baby with the bathwater. --AndreasJN46612:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Volunteer Marek
I was going to stay away from this but above TB says Right now, at a t/p, VM and few others said that I was violating BLP; does that mean they are "throwing aspersions"? Aspersions, if supported by reasonable evidence, are no longer aspersions and my evidence was right in the same comment. The same applies for VM, et al. and they provide this link to the "t/p" of The Forgotten Holocaust.
Here's the thing... I have not made ANY edits to either the talk page of that article or the article itself. Here, check for yourselves. Search for "Marek". So why is TB accusing me of saying something on a talk page when I literally didn't make ANY edits to that talk page?
This seems to be similar to the situation described above by MyVeryBestWishes where TB accuses MVBW of accusing them of "anti-semitism" even though MVBW did no such thing. Ironically, TB is invoking WP:ASPERSIONS here. This kind of approach makes constructive collaboration extremely difficult in what is already a highly charged environment.
(No opinion on whether saying "The POV-pushing in this area beggars belief" constitutes casting aspersions (I guess in general?) or battleground language)
"Yes, using the review of a PhD student on "healthcare consumerism, judgment and decision-making, and behavioral economics" for a book on Holocaust is grotesquely poor."
This is the ONLY sentence where she discusses that diff. In the next sentence, she conveys a totally different idea: she is trying to explain our policy to GCB. She writes:
"Right now, at a t/p, VM and few others [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1142690229?diffmode=source said that I was violating BLP] (it was me who added the line which was challenged in the section); does that mean they are "throwing aspersions"? Aspersions, if supported by reasonable evidence, are no longer aspersions and my evidence was right in the same comment. The same applies for VM, et al. (i.e. neither are their comments aspersions of any kind.}}"
I cannot believe VM was acting in a bad faith, he just misread the TP's statement, who wrote nothing bad about him in that her post. Quite an opposite: she mentioned him as an example of a correct behaviour. I think VP should retract his post and apologise for his good faith mistake.
With regard to HJ Mitchell, I think, it is hard to expect that admins are impeccable. They also are just humans, and they also can make mistakes.
Finally, I think VM's and HJ Mitchell's mistake is quite understandable, because TB should have conveyed her thought in a more clear way.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to "antisemitism", I think Levivich's description seems correct.
However, as soon as MVBW was mentioned, I would like to point admin's attention at this MVBW's statement: The views by authors were not misrepresented on the page, as far as I can see. By writing that, MVBW objected to deletion of this text, thereby endorsing what it says. However, my brief analysis demonstrated that almost all good quality sources cited in this piece of text were grossly misinterpreted. Thus, the original text was added by Anders.Warga to support the claim about the lack of evidence that Soviets staged the Kielce pogrom. Later, a totally unsourced statement was added to this paragraph that created a false impression that Applebaum said that the evidences were destroyed by the Soviets (which Applebaum never said). This was made by means of these two "minor edits". I started to dig into other sources, and it seems some of them were severely misinterpreted too, which means that complete deletion of the section (followed, probably, by a complete rewrite) was the most correct step.
Why am I discussing it here? That issue is less relevant to the TB's case, but is totally relevant to the bigger "Holocaust in Poland" case. It shows one of the mechanism of introduction of distortion: the statements like "I believe the views of the authors were not misinterpreted" is something that have never been punished by admins, because it is neither a personal attack, nor an edit/revert in the article space. However, in reality, by supporting false claims, and by falsely claiming that "views by authors were not misrepresented", the users commit the worst violation of Wikipedia's policy: they help keeping misinformation in the article space.
Until we make the statements of that kind severely punishable, we never resolve the problem with misinformation in the Holocaust in Poland (and related) areas. Indeed, the attitude towards a user "A" who falsely writes in the article that, e.g. "an author X says that Jews were responsible for Y", and a user "B" who says (on a talk page) that the text added by a user "A" contains no misinterpretation should be the same: both "A" and "B" are doing a nasty job that leads to a gross distortion of what sources say, and they both should be sanctioned equally.
If I exceeded the 500 word limit, I can remove this my post from this page, but I would like to add it as an evidence to the Holocaust in Poland case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Elinruby
The following concerns GizzyCatBella at Collaboration with the Axis Powers, although I had previously encountered her preconceptions ([52]) at other articles.
She seems to strangely misunderstand policy. At an RSN post about a statement that Blue Police in Poland were recruited "on pain of death", she seemed offended that I would ask. I could not find the Polish-language book sourcing the statement online, and had asked if anyone could verify it. GCB posted saying:
@Elinruby - translated Polish--> najsurowsze kary = English --> the severest punishments. What were the severest punishments back in 1939? - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
When I was unconvinced by this primary source:
What you are seeing is an official document...Do you still have doubts what that source says?
Later that night I moved the first sentence in the Poland section to the talk page because I couldn't verify any of its six sources:[53]
GCB was again affronted. Piotrus correctly reminded me that "verifiable" is not "readable online," but proposed other sources. At 8:09, pinging GCB, I agreed to use one of these, after I got coffee, since I was apparently tired enough to make mistakes. GCB refused to take yes for an answer at 8:11, 8:36 and 8:53. The entire thread is worth the click imho. Elinruby (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Request to admins:Marcelus just made a proposal at Talk:Collaboration with the Axis powers (BRD fail section), and I invited him to develop it further. Since it looks like he's headed for a sanction, can you please tailor it to allow him to do that? Make that page an exception or whatever? I promise not to get into a knife-fight with him, am familiar with his work, and would welcome his input on the history. It would be hard to discuss rewrites if he had a 0RR restriction or topic ban. Thank you for any thought you give this. Elinruby (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Result concerning TrangaBellam
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
The rules above read (in bold): Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs. I count +1,500 words by Marcelus and and 40+ diffs by GizzyCatBella. Both need to be trimmed accordingly. Also adding to the confusion, Marcelus has split sections for some reason. These need to be merged (at the top). Note: I'm unlikely to follow up on this, so no need to ping me. El_C11:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marcelus, "trim" does not mean add more (!). Also, comment in your own section only; no threaded replies in the section of other participants, please. El_C12:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wrt to my note directly above: the addition [54] came before the removal.[55] Again, one can only comment in their own section, no exceptions. El_C12:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through. No conclusions yet but I'm deeply unimpressed with the level of conversation on that and related talk pages. I would expect all editors here to know to conduct themselves better in a contentious topic. Unfortunately, the only tools admins have at our disposal are blunt ones and I doubt that topic-banning everyone would last longer than it took to appeal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?18:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some conclusions:
Marcelus has edit warred, including four reverts in just over an hour (though he self-reverted his final one). Marcelus has two previous blocks for edit warring, including a one-month page block which is still active at the time of writing.
TrangaBellam (TB) involved herself in the same edit war but as far as I can see only made two reverts. However, wading into a controversial topic area with an edit like, while it is under discussion on the talk page and knowing it's likely to be controversial, is as good as inviting an edit war and is arguably disruptive in itself.
Most diffs presented by GizzyCatBella to demonstrate TB's incivility are responses to unhelpful remarks or pointed questions. While that doesn't excuse a combative discussion style, it takes two to tango.
GizzyCatBella's (GCB) tendency in the discussion on the talk page is not to comment on the content in dispute. While no one comment gives cause for concern, at best her contributions on the talk page lengthen the discussion without progressing it towards a resolution. This appears to be a pattern with GCB's edits to talk pages. I also find it concerning that GCB repeatedly agitated at ANI for this complaint to be brought here, again without making any substantive comment on the issue.
There seems to be a rough consensus in favour of TB's edit, though this wasn't quite the case during the edit war.
If there are to be any sanctions here, I'm inclined to sanction all three, though Marcelus's edit warring while pblocked for edit warring would seem to single them out for a more severe sanction. Does anyone want to yell at me and tell me I've missed something right under my nose or completely mis-read something? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Edited HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?19:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc, RegentsPark, and Bishonen: I'm happy with a 0RR for Marcelus or anything else that deals with his edit warring; I don't think his conduct on talk pages is problematic so I think the edit warring is the only thing we need to address. I can live with a logged warning for GCB, especially given their self-reflection above. I think some stronger action is needed for TB, given VM's statement in particular. As VM says, TB mentions him (twice) in their replies here in connection with a dispute at The Forgotten Holocaust, an article (and talk page) which VM has never edited. That and the comment claimed that my writing is antisemitic, referring to MVBW, when the closest MVBW came was I think this should never be framed as a dispute about "Jews" because that is antisemitic and the Icewhiz comment (among others) suggest a preoccupation with perceived "enemies" that causes them to read more into comments than is actually there, including during this AE thread. I feel a short-term topic ban (I propose a month) is more appropriate than a warning.HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?15:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the clarification regarding TB's mention of Volunteer Marek, I can live with a logged warning for TB, in addition to that for GCB and a 0RR (or similar) for Marcelus. I don't plan on closing this before midday UTC Monday to give time for any further admin comments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?22:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with your summary HJ Mitchell but I take a more severe look on TrangaBellam's personal attacks and incivility and anyone else engaging in the same conduct. In a controversial and heated topic area, editors are expected to engage with each other with civility, if they can't do that they need to removed from the topic area. Regarding sanctions I'm in favour of topic bans for Marcelus due to the persistent edit warring and TrangaBellam due to the persistent and egregious personal attacks and incivility. I really don't have a major issue with GizzyCatBella's comments given that they are still contributing to the discussion although perhaps a reminder to focus more on the top two levels. With regard to pushing for this to come here rather than stay at ANI, to me that makes sense, an editor can review the situation (or already be familiar with it) and recognise that AE is better equiped to handle a situation that ANI (which I suspect would be most of the time) and then present evidence at AE. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam: I'm responding here so others can see, I'm happy to give you an extra 500 words to respond to GCB's diffs. Remember that the purpose in doing so is to refute what GCB says they are not to do anything else. If your response is meh or something similar, you likely don't need to include it. Refute what GCB says it shows and focus on the 5 I pulled above as the ones I found specifically problematic. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GizzyCatBella: Following TrangaBellam's additions re GCB I agree with HJ Mitchell that there is a pattern in GCB's contributions to talk page discussions generally being meta comments about procedure rather than good faith contributing to the root of the discussion and that these comments prolonging what could otherwise be resolved more quickly, such as at Talk:Glaukopis, and that some comments, like at Talk:Mariusz Bechta, just don't constructively resolve issues. While in isolation an informal reminder (as I mentioned above) would be appropriate, now that I've looked in more detail at GCB's history in this topic area (the TBAN from the World War II history of Poland from 2018-2020) I don't believe that an informal reminder would be appropriate and instead am in favour of a logged warning at a minimum but am leaning more towards reinstating the topic ban on GCB and extending it to the history of the Jews in Poland.
TrangaBellam: I appreciate TrangaBellam's responses above and they certainly help to explain their thinking behind the comments but the responses seem to be focused on either justifying the incivility or suggesting that GCB's behaviour is the same or worse. However I can't see that they have presented adequate mitigation (that is provacation so severe that it explains and excuses them) nor a reflection that they were not acceptable and a committment not to repeat similar behaviour. Therefore I am still in favour of a TBAN likely from World War II history of Poland and the history of the Jews in Poland.
Marcelus: Thinking about a scope for the TBAN possibly anything to do with World War II history of Poland as well as the history of Lithuania and/or Lithuanian nationalism. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RegentsPark I agree that most of the diffs from GCB aren't anything that would be beyond what would be expected in heated discussion. The four diffs (one is duplicated) I linked above are really the only ones I had an issue with. I think what they show (per a couple comments from editors above) show that TB has difficulty responding calmly when others disagree with them and especially when TB assigns comments from others to suspected motives (the Icewhiz comment for example) rather than responding in good faith. I also don't accept their reasoning behind the 'wading in' that HJ identifies.
If others don't believe that topic bans are appropriate at this stage, while also considering that there's about to be an arbitration case as well, I'm okay with logged warnings for GCB and TB (instead of short TBANs) and a 3-6 month 0RR restiction for Marcelus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to comment on this later today or tomorrow, so I hope it's not closed any time soon. A lot to read! Bishonen | tålk11:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC). Done, below.[reply]
Marcelus' request appears to concern the editing of Naliboki massacre and its talkpage. I've also read Callanecc's diffs (actually there are four, not five, as one is double-dipped), from which I was led to the history of Glaukopis plus its current talkpage. For Glaukopis, this post by TB was very rude. Really rude. The bad part has been struck out now, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. However, even so, and particularly from viewing the whole section Talk:Glaukopis#Polish version, I don't believe it would be a good idea to limit Tranga Bellam's work in the area. She started a discussion when Piotrus added an {{npov}} tag to the article - something P should have done himself, as his tag edit summary, "just compare this to the pl wiki version of this article" is quite unhelpful. (Yes, P, I understand an ec prevented you. Being ready with a talkpage post when adding a tag will help against that.) Polish Wiki is Polish Wiki, and English Wiki is English wiki — we have little reason to follow them like sheep, and the English article is well-sourced. I don't read Polish, but per Google translate, TB's analysis here sounds convincing, in view of the sources of the English article, none of which are used in the Polish article. Piotrus had better have discussed sourcing right from the start, rather than offer his personal impression that the Polish article "is more neutral, and what we have here reads less neutrally. An article that is overwhelmingly negative is generally not something that WP:NPOV encourages." No, but it doesn't encourage whitewashing either. I'm glad to see, in that talkpage section, that Piotrus appears willing, in the face of evidence, to come round from his preference for the Polish article. But TB certainly did the heavy lifting here, and it's hardly surprising that she got testy in the process. (GitzyCatBella's commentary about the importance of restoring the tag would have made me testy, too. I agree with others above about GCB's unhelpful focus on procedure, and would not object to a sanction, in particular per Horse Eye's Back's statement.) On the showing of the discussion in the section "Polish version", removing TB from any part of this area would be a notable loss IMO. Callanec, I just don't agree that TB has made any "egregious" PAs, excepting only Special:Diff/1140318424.
As for Naliboki massacre, I don't see it as disruptive of TB to "wade in" (quoting Harry). We all wade in all over the place, don't we? Wikipedia:Be bold could equally well be called Wikipedia:Please wade in. Also, it was TB that opened the "Section title" section on talk, 13 minutes after she edited the article's section title from "Allegations of Jewish involvement in the massacre" to "False Allegations of Jewish perpetrators". This seems to contradict Marcelus' impression that TB simply edited the article and ignored talk. In sum, I believe TB did good, high-level work at both Naliboki massacre and Glaukopis. I'll join with Harry in asking, have I completely missed or mis-read something, since my conclusion concerning TB is so different from several above? I might be somewhat under the influence of the recent ANI discussions here and here, concerning constructive editors losing it over disruption. Those ANI cases were more extreme, admittedly, both concerning the disruption and particularly in the ways AndyTheGrump and Primefac (two Wikipedia stalwarts) exploded. Bishonen | tålk14:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]
It's not so much the wading in that concerns me, it's that TB made an edit they could have easily foreseen being disputed, then reinstated it after it was reverted, which is what sparked the edit war.I also appreciate GCB's self-reflection and Andreas's comment. I don't think these are three editors so blinded by an agenda that they can't edit the topic area constructively. I do think some sort of action is necessary though, as all three have behaved in ways that are not conducive to building consensus. I would support short time-limited topic bans (maybe a fortnight or a month or a couple of hundred edits) for all three to allow them to regain perspective and for cooler heads to prevail (hopefully!). I would also be happy with an additional, longer ban for Marcelus but limited only to the mainspace, or a 1RR or even 0RR restriction, and an additional restriction or logged warning for GCB regarding talk page conduct. A brief topic ban should be sufficient warning to an editor that something needs to change, and failing to heed that warning would be grounds for potentially much more severe sanctions—but the best case scenario is everyone accepts their slap on the wrist and takes the opportunity to do better in future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?14:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, noting that Marcelus's timeline appears to be correct. TB made the first edit at 11:54 (UTC), Marcelus reverted at 11:56, TB reverted the revert at 12:01, Marcelus revered again at 12:03, then TB opened the talk page discussion at 12:07. The next edit to the article was by Gitz at 12:20 with a compromise, then a large removal of text by TB which sparked more back and forth reverting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?15:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The articles in question are not under a 1RR restriction so a revert here or a revert there is not a big issue. I looked through some of the long list of incivility examples provided by GizzyCatBella (not all, I do have a life!) and, except perhaps for this one don't see anything that exceeds the bounds of normal heated discourse (for example, one would really have to stretch one's imagination to associate "attracting fringe crackpots" with BLP violations). The only real violation here is that Marcelus has apparently edit warred. Not having got their way be edit warring, they've resorted to ANI and then AE. It is perhaps too late to block Marcelus for edit warring but I think what we need here is a warning to not use ANI/AE as a mechanism of first resort when the edits are not going the way you want them to go (whatever happened to WP:DR?). HJMitchell has actually posted a reasonable summary above but, on the basis of that summary, I don't see how they've concluded that a topic ban on TB is necessary. All I see is an action against Marcelus (edit warring) and, though I haven't looked into the history that HJMitchell mentions, an action against GCB (perhaps barring them from AE).--RegentsPark (comment) 22:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TheTranarchist
It is debatable whether a) any of the diffs presented violate TheTranarchist's topic ban, and b) whether that would be a matter for AE if they did. Given how new the topic ban is, and that it is still under discussion elsewhere, TheTranarchist gets the benefit of the doubt but is strongly advised to find something uncontroversial to edit. Note that "dispute resolution concerning the ban itself" (eg clarifying the scope with the imposing administrator) is permitted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?22:45, 5 March 2023 (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 TheTranarchist
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
10:16, 4 March 2023 Specifically alleging misconduct against another editor for involvement in GENSEX, in violation of her topic ban.
18:05, 4 March 2023 Referring to another editor as hypocrital at best for their involvement in the GENSEX topic area, in violation of her TBAN.
17:38, 5 March 2023 Accusing another editor of conflict-of-interest and other misconduct in their editing related to WP:GENSEX, again in violation of her topic ban.
The user has been told to not try to push the limits of her topic ban (23:21, 4 March 2023), but despite that, the user has continued to do so. Rather than abiding by the topic ban that the community has already imposed, the user has decided to make GENSEX-related edits, going onto the talk page of an administrator and openly calling for sanctions against Jweiss11 for GENSEX editing that the user objected to, publicly alleging a COI without providing any sort of on-wiki evidence. This was not related to any sort of appeal of their sanction, nor was it reverting obvious vandalism, nor was this portion of the comment addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. For these reasons, I plainly ask that the editor be formally reminded to not violate her topic ban, with a note that future attempts to stretch the limits will not be looked favorably upon by the community. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)20:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will separately note this edit, which is clearly related to GENSEX and is not a reversion of vandalism nor an appeal of one's block, but still was added to her userpage. I'm not listing it above because it doesn't attack anyone specifically, but it does appear to be a pretty clear TBAN violation as it makes claims related to gender and sexuality (i.e. the current political climate around trans people is getting steadily more genocidal). — Red-tailed hawk(nest)21:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Silver seren: The bigger issue is that this pushes the boundaries of the TBAN. There's a clear bright-line TBAN violation in the statement I quoted above (yes, that clearly is about gender and sexuality), but I suspect that if Philip Cross were to have started popping off about editors editing biographies with a pro-Labour POV after he was banned from BLPs relating British politics, he would have been simply blocked. People do not get one free polemic after they've been topic banned, and my point in coming here is to ask for a logged reminder of that. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)21:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheTranarchist: No, I do not think that making statements about one's own identity (i.e. I am a trans woman) is plausibly a violation of this nor what the community intended. That sort of stuff is very different than making statements about the general political climate in a polemic on one's own user page. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)22:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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 TheTranarchist
1) In a discussion of my case, I noted that one of the editors calling for a full GENSEX ban had some messed up GENSEX behavior themselves. The entire close review counts as a GENSEX discussion, and I have already stepped completely away from it.
2) Refers to the same editor, in the same discussion, who has an undisclosed COI in the area. The "hypocritical" was in relation to them literally having defended race science and gone on a long rant about how we should get to misgender a trans teen who was just murdered and then calling me a POV-pusher
3) That was me accepting the topic ban, asking some questions about moving forward, and asking ANI to review a COI, not GENSEX, case I filed weeks ago. @GeneralNotability:, can you confirm that I filed that weeks ago, provided pretty clear evidence, and on-wiki mentioned it to you weeks ago on your talk page asking you to review it?
4) Is literally me saying goodbye to GENSEX on my user page. How the hell is that a GENSEX violation? Am I just not allowed to ever mention the case since it's a GENSEX case? Should I remove all mentions of the words "I'm trans" or "I'm a lesbian" on my userpage too? If I list Tri-Ess on my articles worked on since I haven't had a chance to put it there yet, will I be dragged back here again?
Finally, I think it should be noted for the record, again, that AmandaNP's warning was specifically in regards to improperly reporting a COI, not for my GENSEX conduct.
I already stepped away from GENSEX. Those examples are all meta-discussions of my case. The final one is literally me saying goodbye to GENSEX on my own userpage. I get it, I'm already staying far far far away from GENSEX, I've been chased off and from now on I won't even mention the case either since that's GENSEX editing apparently. This just feels like rubbing salt in the wound.TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist[reply]
I also just want to say, in the whole fucking month of dealing with this entire shit-show, I've tried to be strong. I've struggled, but kept a stiff upper lip and moved on. As soon as I was TBANed from GENSEX I stopped editing every single GENSEX article and talk page I was involved in. As much as it hurt, being completely blocked from anything even vaguely LGBT related when the only evidence of problems was just anti-trans BLPs/ORGs, I accepted it. Tried to discuss it a little, but didn't evade it. After CaptainEek's response to my on their talk page, I gave up. When someone else tried to fight for me, I was so ecstatic and participated in the discussion then recused myself after asking how I can demonstrate good behavior and leaving it up to the community. And in the month of hell this has been for me, I have kept myself from crying - as much as I wanted to I felt too fucking numb to actually do so. But this latest fucking petty bullshit? Congratulations, you succeeded where everybody else had failed, I've been crying my eyes out for the last 5 minutes and can't stop. I was already chased off from all LGBT related articles, I've been staying away from them as much as it hurts - just please for the love of god leave me alone. I already lost, it hurts so fucking much already, stop fucking re-opening the goddamn wound. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Silver seren
None of this even has anything to do with editing in the GENSEX topic area. Apparently responding to an ongoing AN discussion about them counts as a violation? That's ridiculous. I don't know why you're still trying to go after this editor, Red-tailed hawk, but I think it says more about your own biases than anything else. As for Jweiss11, if you wants diffs that they are just blatantly a WP:NOTHERE editor, this one is pretty explanatory. Unless you think commentary of this kind is appropriate;
This rests on the canard that CRT isn't in the schools because elementary school kids aren't assigned to read Delgado and Crenshaw. Of course we have teacher, adminss, and outside consultants who were trained in CRT in grad school infusing the culture and pedagogy of schools with notions from CRT.
I'm not sure why pointing out a known POV-pushing editing problem, in a manner that is far beyond any specific GENSEX issue, as TheTranarchist noted in the very diff you gave, is a violation. SilverserenC21:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Ppt91
Does the editor have no right to respond while the close review is still ongoing? These are all related to that review. I am genuinely curious as to whether this is an actual violation, because if not, then this feels excessive and unnecessarily stifling. And while I would encourage TheTranarchist to disengage as much as possible, I am also wary of going overboard with endless accusations of misconduct. Ppt91talk22:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (kcmastrpc)
There are two areas that concern me, the primary one is making comments about the political climate / genocide on the users own talk page post-ban (which was briefly mentioned by the filer) and to a lesser degree, the comments made on the talk page of CaptainEek by TTA (specifically, making comments about another editors actions in GENSEX). I support a very succinct warning, and my hope is that this matter can be put behind us and discussions continue around how to make this community healthier and more inclusive to editors. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning TheTranarchist
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
@TheTranarchist: I don't think any of those diffs are actionable, and even if they were I'm not sure they're within AE's jurisdiction (not that that would prevent an uninvolved admin acting unilaterally) but I would advise you to find a nice, quiet corner of the encyclopaedia to edit for a little while. Let people get used to not seeing your name all over noticeboards. Then people might look sympathetically at narrowing the scope of your topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?21:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
