Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
TrangaBellam (talk | contribs) |
TrangaBellam (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Forgotten_Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=1139502139 1] - Meh. |
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Forgotten_Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=1139502139 1] - Meh. |
||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Forgotten_Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=1139518866 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". |
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Forgotten_Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=1139518866 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 {{U|Callanecc}} feels that such leading questions and passive-aggressive behaviour under the guise of politness are permissible. |
:*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 {{U|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. |
||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Animal_lover_666&diff=prev&oldid=1139524872 3] |
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Animal_lover_666&diff=prev&oldid=1139524872 3] |
||
:*Animalparty made the quote in the Arbcase, and I liked it enough. So, I let it be known. A couple of months ago, '''[[User talk:Levivich/Archive 4#Appreciation for your u/p|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 |
:*Animalparty made the quote in the Arbcase, and I liked it enough. So, I let it be known. A couple of months ago, '''[[User talk:Levivich/Archive 4#Appreciation for your u/p|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? |
||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Forgotten_Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=1140277600 4] |
|||
:*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 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. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 23:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by K.e.coffman==== |
====Statement by K.e.coffman==== |
Revision as of 00:05, 4 March 2023
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Truth&Wisdom365
Closing without further action (except that I've given an alert/first) at this point due to limited number of edits and that they haven't edited for a few days. If similar editing continues a NOTHERE block would be appropriate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Truth&Wisdom365
Discussion concerning Truth&Wisdom365Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Truth&Wisdom365Statement by (username)Result concerning Truth&Wisdom365
|
TrangaBellam
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning TrangaBellam
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Marcelus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- TrangaBellam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBEE or whichever applies
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 12:54, 2 March 2023 Changed the title of the section that was under ongoing discussion
- 13:01, 2 March 2023 Restored the title of the section without engaging in discussion
- 14:30, 2 March 2023 Made a major change to the text that was being discussed at the time, without engaging in the discussion
- 14:47, 2 March 2023 Restored the same edition, ignoring offers to participate in the ongoing discussion on the talk page
- 17:38, 2 March 2023 Not backed by anything accusation: "All I see is you engaging in a fair amount of acrobatics to push a particular ahistorical POV"
- 20:15, 2 March 2023 "I plan to ignore your commentary on the meta-issues"
- 20:35, 2 March 2023 Continued to edit the page ignoring requests to undo the edits and discuss them on the talk page
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 08:26, 15 February 2023
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I need to report TrangaBellam behavior regarding the Naliboki massacre article and its talk page. To keep it brief. There has been a discussion for some time about the content of one of the sections. TrangaBellam not engaging in the discussion did change the section title, I reverted it inviting user to join the discussion. Twice. Then the user made a much larger edition, which I also reverted, invoking the WP:BRD method and inviting to discussion. It started WP:EDITWARRING. Afraid of breaking the WP:3RR rule, I withdrew the last one, asking TrangaBellam to voluntarily withdraw from the changes and join the ongoing discussions. TrangaBellam ignored the ongoing discussions and started new ones, in which he acted as if they were new WP:CONSENSUS. He refused to revert the changes and continue to editing discussed section ingoring my pleas to stop doing so. TrangaBellam accused me of "engaging in a fair amount of acrobatics to push a particular ahistorical POV", without claryfing what he means about that. To me, this is an example of WP:DISRUPTIVE, as expressed on WP:CONSENSUS: Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions
. The way he acts and the way he addresses me leads me to believe that his actions are intended to make me break WP:3RR and receive sanctions as a result. I asked him nicely to start over on his talk page without any bad blood. But TrangaBellam and once he said on Talk:Naliboki massacre: "I plan to ignore your commentary on the meta-issues", I decided to aks admins for help.
Response to Gitz:
- Actually it all started with the removal of an entire section by Adoring nanny (22:03, 21 February 2023), which I reverted (22:05, 21 February 2023) inviting to t/p, which we did, and I was editing other sections (13:17, 26 February 2023).
- 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)
- @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)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning TrangaBellam
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by TrangaBellam
Paging Levivich, Adoring nanny, K.e.coffman, Gitz6666, Horse Eye's Back and GizzyCatBella — the other participants in this discussion, article (today), and the ANI thread. I believe their opinion might be of aid. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Fwiw, I do not plan to partake in this AE thread. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Making an exception for My Very Best Wishes. MVBW, who had reverted my bold edit at the first place for BRD to even come into play? Fwiw, as of now, there is clear consensus in my favor; none barring you — I believe, even VM — propose to restore the deleted section. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
[..] 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)- Callanecc, care to provide four diffs of unretracted
persistent and egregious personal attacks and incivility
displayed by me? I really don't have a major issue with GizzyCatBella's comments
- Wow, did you read this thread? TrangaBellam (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Callanecc, care to provide four diffs of unretracted
- Making an exception for My Very Best Wishes. MVBW, who had reverted my bold edit at the first place for BRD to even come into play? Fwiw, as of now, there is clear consensus in my favor; none barring you — I believe, even VM — propose to restore the deleted section. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Paging Adoring nanny because the previous ping failed due to a typo. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Response to GCB
GCB promised to shorten the list of diffs to ELC but it didn't happen. So, I am bound to respond to all, despite being at an inherent disadvantage:
- 1 - Meh.
- 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 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. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by K.e.coffman
I'm not sure that my voice was ignored, and all of my edits were removed diff is a sufficient reason to open ANI and AE threads. For the preceding ANI, pls see: thread. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that My very best wishes may be misinterpreting the discussion at Talk:Kielce pogrom, in their statement. TrangaBellam's bold edit removed a long-standing dubious theory diff, with the content mixing reliable and unreliable sources to advance a certain POV. I did not see editors suggesting that the section be restored in its entirety. Subsequent discussion also showed that some of the reliable sources were misrepresented: [4], starting with: With regard to the discussion on Anne Applebaum here above, note that she has been selectively quoted if not misunderstood in the article... --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by My very best wishes
I noticed that TrangaBellam also made this large-scale removal of sourced text on another page, during an active discussion on article talk page, but without having any sign of WP:Consensus for such removal [5],[6]. This text was sourced to publications by Jan T. Gross, Ann Applebaum, Tadeusz Piotrowski and Aleksander Wat, among many others. None of these authors belong to fringe Polish nationalists. The views by authors were not misrepresented on the page, as far as I can see. I think such removal was unhelpful for building WP:Consensus on the page. But this does not rise to the level requiring any sanctions, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- @K.e.coffman. No, I believe the view by Applebaum was not misrepresented by not citing everything she said. If the contributor thought the citation was incomplete [7], nothing prevented them from expanding this citation to fix the problem. And what bias? "anti-NKVD"? My very best wishes (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- We just had a conversation that might be relevant: [8]. No, I do not think that comments by GizzyCatBella qualify as sealioning. No judgement about others from me. My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- [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)
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 [12] 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 [13] 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
[14].
This is not only a content dispute. First, it's a blatant case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, with Marcelus ignoring the arguments made by other editors. Secondly, Marcelus violated the 3RR (13:50, 2 March 2023; 13:37, 2 March 2023; 12:03, 2 March 2023; 11:56, 2 March 2023), engaged in disruptive/tendentious editing ([15], reverting my reverts of their text on Nowicki and Boradyn; [16], 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
[17]. Their casting aspersion on article t/p ([18] [19]) was followed by my second thread on their user talk, again to no avail: Spare me the paternalistic tone
[20]. 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
[21], I don't know why you insist on what is an obvious mistake by Rozenbaum, repeated by Prizel
[22]; plus the usual a bit of incivility [23].
I believe WP:BOOMERANG is in order and badly needed in the delicate area of Antisemitism in Poland. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by 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 [24] (see edit summary]
Here is the list of incivility - that is just from the last few days:
- accusation of bad faith
- accusation of bad faith and battleground edit summary
- battleground
- battleground and aspersions
- battleground and taunting
- two personal attacks and aspersions
- Then they repost the same statement as a response rather than addressing concern [25] IDIDNTHEARTHAT
- WP:OWN
- battleground with intentional condescension
- aspersions See edit summary
- aspersions and battleground
- insinuates other user didn’t read sources
- incivility and battleground in response to a request to refactor personal attacks
- personal attack and accusation of “trolling”
- BLP
- canvassing
- battleground
- incivility and condescension
- battleground
- BLP violation
- either a BLP violation or personal attacks against editors (“fringe crackpots”)
- battleground
- battleground, WP:OWN, incivility
- incivility and battleground, discussing editors not content
- aspersions and assuming bad faith
- aspersions, discussing editors not content
- battleground - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- @El C - I’ll trim some diffs by the end of the day (I’m sorry, I'm busy now) - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- You can keep your diffs where they are now that they've been discussed but please bear in mind the limits in future and request an extension (beforehand) if necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
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[26][27][28][29][30]. 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)[31] at Talk:Naliboki massacre[32][33][34][35][36][37] at Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust[38][39] at Talk:The Forgotten Holocaust[40][41] at Talk:Kielce pogrom[42] and at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard[43]. 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)
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_C 11:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- The committee has taken note of this situation --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 13:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- I have granted Marcelus another 100 words for replies to comments about him, and another 100 for replies to admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Some conclusions:
- 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)