Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:48, 13 April 2020

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

PainMan

PainMan is cautioned not to engage in edit-warring or any other edit that may be framed as disruptive. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning PainMan

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: PainMan (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: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions :

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

03:33, 19 March 2020 Edits John Mitchel, a prominent Irish nationalist activist
03:35, 19 March 2020 Further edit to John Mitchel
03:51, 19 March 2020 Edits Young Irelander Rebellion of 1848, an Irish nationalist uprising against British rule
09:14, 19 March 2020 Edits Land War, which is again about Irish nationalism
03:47, 21 March 2020 Changes "Dáil Éireann" to "Dáil Éireann (Irish parliament)", edits like this got him topic-banned to begin with
03:48, 21 March 2020 Changes "Taoiseach" to "Taoiseach (prime minister)", edits like this got him topic-banned to begin with

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

20:25, 1 March 2020 You are indefinitely topic-banned from making edits relating to The Troubles, broadly construed

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

Already subject to discretionary sanctions, see above section.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions makes it clear it isn't just limited to articles relating to The Troubles, but covering Irish nationalism in general.

@In actu: I guess it depends how you define "broadly construed". As the discretionary sanction in the case says it covers Irish nationalism in general. While The Troubles definitely started in the 1960s they can't really be seen in isolation. In the 20th century alone before the Troubles there was the 1916 Easter Rising, 1919-1921 Irish War of Independence, 1939-1940 S-Plan, 1942-1944 Northern campaign (Irish Republican Army) and 1956-1962 Border campaign (Irish Republican Army), and Irish opposition to British rule didn't start in the 20th century. I wouldn't object to this being closed with a clear message to PainMan as to the extent of the topic ban, if his edits are seen as a good faith mistake. FDW777 (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since this report has been made PainMan has made this edit (changing "Dáil Éireann" to "Dáil Éireann (Irish parliament)" and this edit (changing "Taoiseach" to "Taoiseach (prime minister)". That would appear to me to a continuation of the disruptive behaviour from before, albeit with a slight variation. FDW777 (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: I do not consider this report "erroneous". Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Current areas of conflict and {{ArbCom Troubles restriction}} use the phrase pages relating to The Troubles, Irish Nationalism and British Nationalism in relation to Ireland, and I quite reasonably thought that "edits relating to The Troubles, broadly construed" was the same as that phrase. As I said at 15:29, 19 March 2020 I would have no objection to this being closed with a clear message as to the extent of the topic ban, since the original notification did not include the full definition as listed in multiple other places. FDW777 (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition if they thought Taoiseach (prime minister) was an acceptable solution to objections raised to their previous edit, surely the correct course of action would have been to raise it at the discussion I started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles#Use of Taoiseach (which he was notified about here)? FDW777 (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning PainMan

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 PainMan

(Given the large amount of verbiage here, I hope going past the 500 word limit is acceptable; lot of ground to cover here.)

Apparently I stumbled in to a minefield completely unintentionally. I realize now what I should have done. I shouldn't have removed Taoseach (please forgive spelling errors) or Dail Eiriann. I should have added (Prime Minister of Ireland) and (Parliament of Ireland).

What I did not realize was this: On the other hand, edits such as translating common Irish terminology could be interpreted as pushing an anti-Irish/pro-British pov. It simply never occurred to me. So I guess that's on me. I had no intention of stirring up or participating in any sectarian nonsense.

If you could see my last name, you'd see that it's an ancient Celtic name that can be traced to 5th Century Ireland. My direct paternal ancestors left Dublin in 1845. Genetically I'm Scots-Irish and Catholic Irish. I am literally the biological product of the ancient struggle.

That having been said, I had NO agenda whatsoever other than simplifying reading the article for readers not steeped in Irish history. 99.999% of English readers couldn't tell the Irish name of the Prime Minister if ya held a gun to their heads. The term is obscure outside the island itself and the occasional BBC/British media story.

So I apparently caused a minor sh#tstorm unintentionally.

I object to the Topic Ban because it's utterly unwarranted. I am a VERY long time editor here. I have never vandalized or defaced a page. I've made a strenuous attempts to avoid getting into Revert Wars or other kinds of controversy. I had some negative experiences when I first started on Wikipedia. Encountering the people I call Page Commandos; they sit on the page like Spanish Inquisitors waiting to pounce. That's not what wikipedia is about for me so I rarely involve myself in it.

I don't really want to push it any further than that. To conclude it was never my intention to start a crap storm - let alone about a subject as contentious, tendentious and fractious as The Troubles (or the last 300 years of Irish history in general)

Most harmless, and indeed useful, e.g. adding wikilinks etc.

I've made thousands of edits by now, 95% of them involved no changes in facts, but correcting typos, grammar and rewriting badly written sentences and sections. I gave several articles on Chilean history this treatment; they'd been clearly written by a non-native speaker and it showed. I was even thanked by two people for my efforts.

I love wikipedia and I want to make it as good as it can be.

I have no interest in ridiculous social media wars.

And although not relevant to the scope of the request—but for the record—it's my opinion that PainMan's repeated refusal to comment here is damned rude if nothing else.

Rudeness wasn't my intention; it was ignorance of the process. So I apologize for giving the impression of rudeness.

Since I've never been involved in the complaint/appeal process (whatever the formal name), I honestly didn't know where I was supposed to reply. One place I did so I found my contribution reverted into deletion.

I hope this entry isn't in the wrong place either.

To recap, I regret my part in causing this nonsensical affair. And I hope the heartburn doesn't linger.

Addendum

1.) Ok, waded through every entry. Some of this seems to fall under, to put politely, arcana.

when I changed the phrasing to the The Earle Erne that's because that's his proper title. He's not the Earl of Erne. To refer to him as "Earl Erne" would indicate - in Peerage Protocol - that it is a courtesy title and thus not the substantive title. I changed it and added the link to the 3rd Earl's article. Absent his connection with the land agent in question, the 3rd Earl would most likely be totally obscure. Thus printing his exact identity seemed superfluous. I am frankly baffled why this would be reverted unless it was just a case of being angry with me over the whole silly situation.

Finally - I apologize for causing a big ruckus. Was never my intention. I should have engaged with the editor who did the first reversion. Getting my back up as if it were a Face Book argument was dumb on my part. Getting in a revert was was also stupid. I avoided it for years. Don't know why I decided to do over this. None-the-less, I own my part of the dispute and following, ah, trouble.

2.) I feel that I am a positive asset to Wikipedia and I've added much of value to it. This includes three articles I authored (Ferrant Martinez and the Agri Decumates). I accept the nickname WikiGnome. It seems to fit my modus operandi.

3.) Also, please refer to me as "he/him." The utterly incorrect use of the third person plural for a singular, genderless pronoun triggers my Grammar OCD like nothing else.

4.) I have a lot of trouble with the mobile app despite uninstalling/reinstalling multiple time. I've seen exactly ONE notification from an admin. Also, routinely, despite telling me "EDIT PUBLISHED" it often doesn't not show up despite many reloadings of the page.

PainMan (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from SN54129

Wrt to the nature of the edits. Most harmless, and indeed useful, e.g. adding wikilinks etc. On the other hand, edits such as translating common Irish terminology could be interpreted as pushing an anti-Irish/pro-British pov, which is very much at the core of DS:THE TROUBLES. As we know, PainMan holds strong views on things Troubles-related (and language is very much at the forefront of the ideological struggle, on both sides). So on the one hand, they are clearly capable of making helpful and useful edits, but on the other hand allow themselves to drift close to the TBan. the former is to be encouraged, the latter of course discouraged; can the TBan be tweaked (not necessarilly expanded a great deal) to encourage the fomer and act as a deterence from the latter?

Easier said than done, I know; perhaps just add Irish language to the scope?

And although not relevant to the scope of the request—but for the record—it's my opinion that PainMan's repeated refusal to comment here is damned rude if nothing else. ——SN 54129 14:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a content dispute...PoV pushing—if that's what's going on—always is. ——SN 54129 16:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there's a statement available from PainMan, although it's at User talk:Serial Number 54129#PainMan rather than here. On the assumption you don't a have it watchlisted, pinging @Ivanvector, QEDK, Guerillero, Seraphimblade, Thryduulf, RexxS, Graham87, and Swarm:, with apologies if i've missed anyone. ——SN 54129 14:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich (PainMan)

Swarm is right.

This report was filed on Mar 19 based on four diffs. Diff #1 changed the incorrect plural "were" to the correct singular "was", in an article about a guy who died in 1848, over 100 years before The Troubles began. Diff #2, in the same article, changed the incorrect statement "The grand jury was called on to find against" to "The grand jury was called on to indict" (grand juries "indict", meaning they find there's enough grounds for a trial to proceed; grand juries do not make "findings against" the accused, so this is changing incorrect verbiage to correct verbiage). Diff #3 changed the beginning of a sentence from "1848..." to "The year 1848..." in accordance with MOS:NUMNOTES, in an article about an event in 1848. Diff #4 was piping a redirect in an article about an event that occurred in 1879–1923. These are all constructive edits, outside the TBAN topic, and for this reason, this report should have been closed as "no violation" on the day it was filed.

The "Taoiseach (prime minister)" edit (Diff #6) happened on Mar 21, after this report was filed. This edit is not the same as the edits for which PainMan was TBANed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive262#PainMan. That report was based on edits where PM was piping "[[Taoiseach]]" as "[[Taoiseach|prime minister]]", which, for the reader, changes "Taoiseach" to "prime minister". By contrast, the Mar 21 edit adds "(prime minister)" after "Taoiseach". It does not replace "Taoiseach". Also, PM did not edit war over this. The other Mar 21 edit (Diff #5) also adds an English explanation of an Irish term, but does not replace that term, and there was no edit warring. Neither of the Mar 21 edits were on articles within the scope of the TBAN. So, no violation in the Mar 21 edits, either.

There is no violation in any diffs presented in this report.

Also, there is no rule requiring an editor to participate in an AE report against them, so it wouldn't be kosher to sanction an editor for "ignoring" an AE report, especially if the report is based on diffs of constructive edits outside the TBAN topic.

Finally, does PainMan have an IDHT problem? Does he continue to make the same types of edits, in the same topic area, that led to the TBAN? NO! The editor is making different edits, which are constructive, to articles outside the Troubles. Compliance with a TBAN cannot be a violation of the TBAN!

I understand the filer's explanation that they thought those edits were within the TBAN topic, but they weren't. "The Troubles" is a 20th-century event, and PM isn't TBANed from everything Irish. As such, this report should be closed now as no violation. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: FWIW, I searched for "Taoiseach" and checked three articles each from NYT, WaPo, WSJ, Economist, Hindu Times, Times of India, and CBC.CA, and every time they use it, they all also say "prime minister", usually in the forms "Taoiseach (prime minister)" or "Taoiseach, or prime minister" or "the prime minister, known as the Taoiseach", or something like that. I also looked at UK publications (BBC, Guardian, Independent, Irish Times) and saw that they don't do that, they just say "Taoiseach". This seems to be an inside-UK/outside-UK difference. (I searched Google News for, e.g., site:nytimes.com taoiseach and clicked on the first three results.)

Also wanted to note more generally that while there is local consensus on the MOS:IRELAND talk page, that's just local consensus, not the subject of an RFC or any other advertised discussion. Some editors commenting there didn't seem to believe that the word "Taoiseach" is not well known outside of the UK, but I think the RSes outside the UK substantiate that by explaining that Taoiseach is "prime minister" whenever they use that term. My guess is that if there were a full-blown RFC about whether we should explain in articles that Taoiseach means prime minister (or even use the term "prime minister" instead of the local-language title "Taoiseach", which is what we do for like every other country in the world), there would be support for one or the other.

Final note that I left a message on PainMan's talk page encouraging him to comment here. Because he only edits on mobile, he may not see the message for some time (note there's about a one-week delay in this editor responding to other messages in the past). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: *inside/outside-UK-and-Ireland, my mistake :-) I hear what you're saying about this being a political dogwhistle. Can you clue a clueless American in: if I call the Taoiseach the "Prime Minister" that means (bad faith version) what, exactly? That I think Ireland should not be an independent country? Is there an article about this or something I can read? I'm definitely completely ignorant of the political ramifications of using the term. Also, do the same political ramifications apply to the change in Diff #5 (calling the Dáil Éireann "Irish parliament")? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Thank you for that explanation Girth, that does explain why those edits would raise some eyebrows. I guess it's like calling Myanmar "Burma". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this report is closed with a warning ... a warning from what? "Do not add '(prime minister)' after 'Taoiseach'"? "Do not correct grammar on 19th-century Irish articles"? Obviously not. So... what are we warning him about? May I suggest a WP:NOTBURO and WP:COMMONSENSE approach? PM only got TBANed last time because he didn't participate. If he had posted what he just posted on the last report, no way that would have ended in a TBAN. Editors don't normally get TBANed for first-time edit wars. So I suggest that what happens is that this report gets considered to be the continuation of the last report, and it gets closed as follows: (1) lift the TBAN from The Troubles, since that topic area isn't germane to the problems at hand; and (2) close with a warning for the actual mistakes: (a) don't edit war, engage in discussion and dispute resolution instead, and (b) remember to be civil and collegial in edit summaries and communications with colleagues. That's really how the last report should have ended, and this report should not have been brought, so let's just set everything in its right place and move forward. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

The only question that you have to ask is if the edits are a violation of the TBAN. It's clear that consensus is that the edits aren't. So it seems rather unfair and out of scope to now seek to expand a TBAN for edits that were never in TBAN territory. And that should be the end of this AE action. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK:If someone is TBANNED from India and they edit Pakistan that is not a violation of their TBAN. If one would say that is, then I can argue any article on Wikipedia is a violation of a TBAN because I can guarantee you I can connect any article to any subject broadly construed. "Broadly construed" is not some sort of magic wand we should use to ban people from this encyclopedia. "The Troubles" doesn't mean any article about Ireland and the UK, especially when the edits are not disruptive. Further, I stand by my claim that we should not be using AE to expand TBANs. If anything, this is an editing or content dispute and they can use the talk page or other noticeboards, but not AE. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just point out that RS in the English speaking world does not use the term Taoiseach but uses Prime Minister? I find it hard to sanction someone who is adding (PM) after a term that most people will most likely not be familiar with. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit:there are over 2 billion English speakers in the world, the majority of whom don't live in Ireland or the UK. I just did a quick Google search of several US news sources and sites and the overwhelming majority use "PM" and don't use Taoiseach. In addition, my browser, redlines the word when I type it in, so it is not part of the English language where I am. Adding XXX (PM) after the word should be encouraged, not punished if we are not putting the page at "Prime Minister of Ireland" as we do for every other country. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Girth Summit

Just a note in response to Sir Joseph's assertion that RS in the English speaking world does not use the term Taoiseach but uses Prime Minister. I found that jarring, since my impression from listening to BBC Radio's Today program every morning is that they generally use Taoiseach. Quick bit of Googling - the BBC News website generally use Taoiseach, followed by an explanatory '(Prime Minister)'; the Guardian (left-leaning) and Telegraph (right-leaning) both seem to just use Taoiseach without explanatory parenthesis. It might be different in the US, but I don't think that assertion about the norms in the English speaking world is correct. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph, perhaps I misunderstood you - I read your comment to mean that all RS in the English-speaking world don't use it; if you meant that some RS in the English-speaking world don't use it, then I am happy to accept that. I'm just very aware that the choice of word, in this neck of the woods at least, can be politicised - yes, adding PM could be done innocently by someone in the hopes of making it easier for the reader; I assure you that it is also the sort of thing that a certain sort of person would do to make a political point under the guise of making things easier for the reader. I am not saying that's what is happening here, I don't know enough about the history of the editors involved, but just something that people should be aware of. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich I hear what you're saying, and I want to be clear that I am not arguing for (or against) sanctions here - I'm just trying to provide a bit of context. I am entirely happy to accept that this is an inside-UK-and-Ireland/outside-UK-and-Ireland thing. However, this is a UK and Ireland issue - if someone were to be making political points around this thing, it would obviously be people within the British and Irish political spheres that they would be targeting them at - the sort of language used in that region is at least as relevant, potentially more-so, than that used elsewhere. I wholeheartedly believe that someone who knows nothing about the politics of this could come along, read the word 'taoiseach', and in good faith add an explanatory parenthesis after it. There are also people with a particular view on The Troubles who would do exactly the same thing to further an agenda, or even to troll people on the other side. Those are two extremes, and I'm sure that the majority of people, even in this part of the world, would fall between them. All I'm trying to do here is explain that the choice of which word to use, at least from a British/Irish perspective, is not politically neutral. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich OK, well I don't pretend to be super-clued-up on this myself, so I can't point you to lots of readings or RSs. So, let me put it this way - the UK and Ireland have something of a troubled history, and Ireland has made a decision to use Irish words, rather than the language of the country that ruled them for several centuries, to describe roles in their government such as the head of government, the parliament, etc. The British press have mostly picked up on the sensitivity surrounding this, and use the same language that is used in Irish sources. The British public (I count myself amongst them - I'm Scottish, of largely English descent, and can claim only a very little Irish heritage (like, three generations back)) have largely become used to this language - as evidenced by those British broadsheets using the term without feeling the need to explain it - it all feeds into the ongoing peace process. Now, if an American, or Indian, or Australian editor were to decide to add an explanatory parenthesis after the word taoiseach, I wouldn't think for a moment that there was anything more to it than that. I wouldn't necessarily be uncomfortable with an English, or Irish, or Northern Irish editor doing it - I mean, we write for a global audience, I accept that it's not OK to assume they will all be familiar with British nuance of language. But here's the rub - if a person with a decided POV on The Troubles wanted to find a way to make a point, changing language like this might achieve that end. Make no mistake - I am not looking to cast aspersions about this particular editor, I'm doing my best to explain why edits like this make some people feel uncomfortable - but issues around language are central to people's identity, and we should aim to tread as carefully here as we do around issues of gender identity and the like. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz

This should be treated as a straightforward case with no action against PainMan being appropriate. The Arbitration Committee's ruling treated The Troubles, a late-20th dispute as a subject distinct from more general ones, even though it authorized discretionary sanctions in all three areas. The sanctions placed against PainMan expressly applied only to The Troubles. It would have been extremely simple for the admin placing the sanctions to quote the broader language found in the ArbCom ruling. Painman is entitled to rely on the unambiguous language of the sanction, to believe that the sanctioning admin meant what they said. Imposing a penalty on him for nondisruptive edits which did not violate the clear terms of the sanction placed on him would be unfair. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buffs

Swarm and The Big Bad Wolfowitz summed it up nicely. The idea that "broadly construed" in ArbCom decisions is somehow helpful is absurd. Anyone can claim that MANY articles are "broadly construed". I was once blocked based on an admin saying that anything having to do with America that was contentious in any way was eligible for discretionary sanctions under American Politics. "Broadly construed" so grey that someone should at LEAST receive a warning prior to a block and be allowed to challenge that assessment prior to being blocked.

This is so vague that borders need to be more clearly defined. I'm not seeing any disruptive behavior here (disagreement is NOT necessarily disruption) nor a violation of the TBAN. Buffs (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Username

Result concerning PainMan

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

I realize it may be contentious whether these articles fall under "The Troubles, broadly construed" so I'll leave this for more comments, ~~but in my opinion each of these edits is a clear violation of the topic ban and an AE block of no less than one month is warranted.~~ Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Partially struck. Not linked above AFAIK but the ban discussion is here. The pages presented as evidence of disruptive editing were Operation Flavius, Battle of the Bogside, Ulster Volunteer Force, Ulster Defence Association, Ulster Special Constabulary, and ETA (separatist group). All but the last of these fall within the scope of the ban as worded, and the last would not even if the scope were expanded. The disruptive behaviour was repeatedly changing "Taoiseach" to "Prime Minister of Ireland" (or variations) against consensus, and edit warring, across all of the articles. Since the topic ban PainMan has evidently respected it despite a series of outbursts on 9 March ([1], [2], [3]) and again yesterday ([4], [5], [6]). The pages they've edited since do not fall under that scope per other comments here, and they don't seem to be repeating the same disruptive behaviour, so I don't see the benefit of extending the topic ban and do not support it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC) (edited 19:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]
I think this is purposeful skirting of the ban conditions by editing topics which are contentious and related to the topic area, just not directly, although one can easily say: The Troubles -> irish nationalism, hence construed. I see two options here: 1) extend the ban to the entire remedy area of TT (found in the case) which includes British and Irish nationalism (et al.), and 2) AE block. I say the edits definitely violate the spirit of the TBAN, and maybe also its letter. --qedk (t 心 c) 13:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Joseph No such consensus as the one you stated has been established, it's not difficult to construe a connection to The Troubles, albeit it's a bit far. If an editor is TBANed from editing articles related to India, broadly construed and goes to edit Pakistan, would you classify that as a violation of the topic ban or not? There can be differing perspectives and this is one such case. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Joseph: Hence, the term "broadly construed". Pakistan was a part of the Indian empire, had Indian founders, always had a cultural and social similarity with India as well as consistently opposing views in world politics where their actions depend on the other country. It's still very much intertwined with the topic of India, you would disagree but a lot of editors wouldn't, hence my example. --qedk (t 愛 c) 05:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To me, The Troubles started in the 1960s. So, the edits are not within the bounds of the topic ban. However, they weren't a great idea. I would extend the topic ban to all of Irish nationalism and not block --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This looks to me to be clearly against the spirit of the topic ban, but not the letter of it. Accordingly I think the topic ban should be extended to match the extent of the DS authorisation (The Troubles, Irish nationalism and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed) with a warning to PainMan that any further boundary testing will result in sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to our own article on the subject, The Troubles (Irish: Na Trioblóidí) were an ethno-nationalist[13][14][15][16] conflict in Northern Ireland during the late 20th century (emphasis added). I do not see these edits as violations, though I agree they're skirting rather close. Given that they were not apparently contentious or any type of misconduct, I would not extend the topic ban based upon them, but I would certainly warn PainMan that there will be no hesitation to do so if there's any trouble. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon the last two edits, I would now support expanding the topic ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The text of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles #Standard discretionary sanctions separately names three areas: "all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed." So I concede that the sanction applied on 1 March 2020, "You are indefinitely topic-banned from making edits relating to The Troubles, broadly construed" doesn't strictly cover the other areas, although that may have been the admin's intention, and certain the spirit of the restriction, as Thryduulf so clearly reasons. I agree that an explicit extension of the topic ban to "You are indefinitely topic-banned from making edits relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed" would be a reasonable response to this request. That should then solve the issue one way or another. --RexxS (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I intentionally narrowed it (agreeing with the consensus formed and my own judgement) with the implied expectation that they would cease making contentious edits in the entire topic area. Apart from this, PainMan does not seem to understand that communication is required, the last time they did not participate in the AE request, then went to edit AE archives after their sanction to add a statement (which comes to me as a lack of WP:CIR), and for some reason, went to debate the sanction on Thryduulf's TP even though I was the sanctioning administrator (again, WP:CIR). Their justification last time was that they do not get talk page message notifications on their phone, which even if makes sense, talk page message notifs are also sent to emails and you can still access your talk page if not notified, it's a general expectation to do so. ~~The template {{Userlinks}} also notifies editors on the mobile interface (correct me if I'm wrong).~~ And yet again, PainMan has not participated in this AE request. --qedk (t 心 c) 10:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@QEDK: I've just tested in my sandbox, and the {{userlinks}} template does generate pings if the edit adding it is signed. Notifications on the mobile web interface work as they do on desktop. On the Android app you have to explicitly look to see if you have notifications (which can only be done when viewing the main page I believe), but when you do look you do see notifications of pings and talk page messages (I presume the iOS app works similarly but I don't have any way of testing that). Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, struck. On a technical note, the mobile advanced web interface and the mobile desktop version both show notifications by the way. --qedk (t 心 c) 13:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked at their contributions list, and it seems they only edit using the Android app so we can't be certain they've seen the notifications or talk page messages. They do not have an email set so that option isn't available, and I'm not certain what else we can do? Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt this will go any different from last time. --qedk (t 心 c) 22:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly looking that way. I'll be generous and give them another ~8 hours but if there is no response by then I'll be closing this with the extended topic ban. Thryduulf (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've never commented in one of these things before but I think it's also worth considering these edits to Charles Boycott, another topic related to Irish nationalism, which I just reverted because I saw them as mostly detrimental. I don't want to get any further involved though ... I only have that article on my watchlist because I found his life story fascinating. Feel free to move this comment if it's in the wrong place. Graham87 05:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really see these edits as disruptive? In one instance they changed "Boycott worked as a land agent for Lord Erne (John Crichton, 3rd Earl Erne), a landowner in the Lough Mask area" to "Boycott worked as a land agent for the the Earl Erne, a landowner in the Lough Mask area". The revision has an extra "the" but otherwise removing the awkward parenthetical seems like a reasonable improvement to me. You reverted stating "makes the text more stilted" but I think the reverse is true. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Graham says he saw them as "detrimental", not "disruptive". You have to remember not every English speaker shares the same idiomatic usages, and the phrase "a land agent for the Earl Erne" sounds archaic to me. Graham, who is Australian, might well find that a very odd use of a definite article. You wouldn't write "a land agent for the King George". Taking into account the overlinking, I have to agree with Graham that those edits were not an improvement to the article, and don't improve my confidence that PainMan's contributions outside of the strict range of their current topic ban are likely to be a net positive. --RexxS (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While The Troubles discretionary sanctions are authorized so that they can be expanded beyond The Troubles, the relevant sanction here was not, the edits here do not violate the ban, even "broadly construed", nor do I see them as disruptive enough (or at all) to justify expanding the scope of the ban, even though we can. There is no violation here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm: even though they are repeating nearly the exact sort of edits that initially got them topic banned in the first place (most recent diffs) you really don't see this as at all disruptive? Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, to be honest, I don't see how the edits themselves are inherently disruptive or problematic. If they are, it's not obviously apparent to me. Can you explain what's actually wrong with them? I'm not seeing it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the last two diffs are enough to warrant expanding the topic ban to "The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed". These edits are identical to some which prompted the topic ban being imposed in the first place, only on different pages. There is a widespread consensus that the use of these words is OK (e.g. here) which means that continuing to make these changes without discussion is disruptive. I agree that the other diffs don't reasonably relate to the Troubles, our article describes the Troubles as starting in the 1960s and nineteenth century history doesn't count. Just as a topic ban from the American Civil War wouldn't cover the entire history of race relations in the US. Hut 8.5 08:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We need to do something here, in any case. So unless there are any strong objections, it seems the general (though not unanimous) consensus here is to expand the topic ban accordingly. I'll leave this open for a bit to hear any objections, but otherwise will close with that result. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, woah, woah. We need to do something? Why? I mean I may still be missing something, but I'm honestly not seeing what behavior warrants expanding the sanctions. The diffs were reported as violations of the existing topic ban, and it has subsequently been established that they are not in scope. The secondary consideration is then whether the edits were disruptive on their own merits. Looking at the diffs I literally can't comprehend how anyone could say they are, even in the context of the past disruption. The user was sanctioned for making a contested edit and then engaging in an extreme edit war over it, and then he did not defend himself at AE. I get that. A fairly acute violation, but I get it. But none of the diffs are continuing that behavior. In fact, he's straightforwardly avoiding repeating the edit that got him into trouble. This report literally appears to be erroneous, based on a misunderstanding of the sanctions. None of the diffs are problematic on their own merits in any way. I don't know why you're chomping at the bit to railroad this guy for apparently doing nothing wrong! Like I said, if I am missing something, please explain it to me! But my current reading of the situation is that we'd literally be sanctioning a user for nothing, basically rubber stamping an erroneous report. It doesn't make sense. Yes I get that the last two edits look similar to the edits that got him sanctioned in the first place, but they're not the same edit, nor is there inherently anything wrong with simply providing a translation in good faith. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Because he was informed that Wikipedia refers to the Taoiseach as the Taoiseach, not the Prime Minister of Ireland and continued to add the English translation. I'm most worried about the edits on the 21st. The rest of the edits weren't a great idea, but aren't alarming. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean should he have deleted the literal English word for something because he doesn't think people know what it means and then edit war over it in an ACDS area? No. Is that the same thing as adding a simple explanation after a relatively uncommon word that some people might realistically not know the definition of? No, it's not. It's not the same offense. There's quite simply nothing inherently disruptive in trying to explain what a "Taoiseach" is in good faith. Yes his methods in the past did become disruptive, by way of edit warring and not communicating, and he was correctly sanctioned for that. However he's not in violation of those sanctions, broadly construed, which means he's allowed to make bold, good faith changes to articles. No, he's not allowed to do so disruptively, but I have yet to see anyone actually allege that he did anything disruptive or in bad faith. Without wading into the actual content dispute of whether those edits should be made, they are not inherently disruptive. It's a content disagreement. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 16:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My primary concern is making very similar edits (and yes, as is apparent, calling the Taoiseach the "prime minister" is apparently contentious, as we clearly see here), in an area pretty well adjacent to one in which he's gotten sanctioned for making such edits. If he didn't know that would raise objections and be contentious, I believe he should have—but I suspect he rather did, especially after last time. That's the conduct issue. I don't really have any opinion on what the article ultimately should say, but I think it should have been clear to a reasonable person that those edits weren't a good idea. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the term Taoiseach in favor of a "translation" when "Taoiseach" is the correct English word is understandably contentious from a content perspective, though it was primarily a problem because it was accompanied by edit warring and a failure to communicate, not because it's some inherently "bad" edit or part of some malicious POV-pushing campaign or whatever you're implying. As I said, the previous incident does not, by any stretch of the imagination, translate into some bizarre notion that calling the Taoiseach a "prime minister" in any way in any article is some sort of inherently disruptive edit. The Taoiseach is a prime minister, there's no beating around the bush, and just because "Taoiseach" is the technically correct term to use doesn't mean that it's not a relatively uncommon term and that everyone will magically know what it means and that any good faith efforts to explain that it is the prime minister are some horrible offense. That's not contentious. We don't need to be using AE to railroad some guy for making literally harmless attempts at improving a reader's understanding. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 14:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His statement linked above is basically just saying that he's a WikiGnome who's not trying to cause any trouble nor get bogged down by disputes over his attempts at minor improvements, nor does he even want to remain engaged with the reporting editor in any sort of way. There's no indication that anything he's doing is in bad faith or anything other than trying to make uncontentious improvements to an article. The worst thing he's done is get into an edit war, which apparently was somehow reframed as some sort of malicious intent in the topic area, and it's being further reframed as such now, in spite of the uncontentious nature of his edits. If anything, the filer, and this board, need to be less reactionary and more cognizant of WP:AGF. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 16:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the other side of the coin is that PainMan was only at AE six weeks ago, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive262 #PainMan, for doing exactly the same sort of edits that this complaint reiterates. They seem to have learned nothing and they insist that they are right that non-Gaelic speakers don't understand the word "Taoiseach". They are going to go about their gnoming, regardless of what anyone else says, even if it means edit-warring on 1RR AC/DS pages. Look at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles #Use of Taoiseach and contrast that with PainMan's talk page. I really don't want to see a long-term editor and valuable Wiki-gnome sanctioned, but they can't keep on doing things their way when nobody else agrees. What's the minimum needed to bring them round? --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mean I don't know how much more thoroughly I can argue that there's nothing inherently wrong with trying to explain what a Taoiseach is. His mistake was edit warring over it, and not engaging in discussion, but the edits themselves are not that big of a deal. It's not like anyone is alleging that he's some sort of POV-pusher, or is doing anything malicious or in bad faith. Taoiseach is not actually common word in English that we can necessarily expect the average reader to be familiar with, and the motivation for explaining it as being a "prime minister" is perfectly obvious as a reasonable, good faith attempt at improvement. Now, should we do so? That's a matter for a petty content dispute, nothing more, but the answer is not that we must not. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 17:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can question the malintent of the edits, but to what purpose? PainMan has a 100% WP:IDHT approach in this area, for context see User talk:Johnuniq#PainMan situation. Their response to the initial TBAN and consequently, the entire affair is subpar and shows no understanding of why the initial TBAN was placed and why this AE request was also filed, if they had displayed a modicum of understanding with "I get why my edits were disruptive and I can see why my recent edits were questionable w.r.t the TBAN", I would be more willing to align with your perspective, I dislike sanctioning editors as-is. I'm questioning PainMan's competence given that 1) this already occurred once, 2) multiple editors have engaged with them since (as they also have), 3) they still don't accept or understand why they were (and are) being sanctioned. As such, I'm much less willing to believe that no preventive measures will be the correct way to deal with this. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're still invoking the disruption of a past incident, in which the user edit warred and failed to communicate, an incident which was formally reported, actioned and closed. It is always worthwhile to examine past context when there is current disruption. However, in this current report, there is not any current disruption. There is only uncontentious editing in good faith, none of which is in violation of any policy, sanction, or conduct expectation in a DS area, and as such is quite simply not actionable. No one is alleging that there is any existing problem tied to the subject area. Even the "similar" edits to the past incident, which some people are falsely claiming is some sort of offense, are obviously not contentious on their own merits, they were not even reverted over any major point of contention but merely because they are "not necessary", which the user has stated that they are fine with accepting and moving on without any fuss. There are quite simply no violations to be actioned here. If you feel that there is a larger competence problem, that's fine, I encourage you to pursue that in an appropriate way, but the alleged "violations" we are considering in this particular report are not reflective of any behavioral problem in the subject area in need of sanction. There's simply no violations. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's best that an uninvolved administrator close this, it's been a while and there's no point keeping this open longer than necessary. I doubt PainMan will give us reponses other than via proxy and I don't think that'll change, and there's no point keeping this languishing around for more than two weeks. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon PainMan's statement, I think the message has been gotten. Given that, I'm okay with this being a warning. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems appropriate, although the warning should make it clear that repeating the kinds of edits mentioned in this request would be very inadvisable. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yet again, "the kinds of edits" you're referring to are in themselves harmless and not disruptive. The notion that they are is a complete fabrication based on the fact that they were associated with disruptive conduct in the past. That does not make the edits themselves problematic. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - You have made your objections well known, but that doesn't change the fact that 8 other AE admins find the edits problematic. I would be okay with a warning --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 12:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I do find the edits problematic, in the sense of skirting around the edges of the spirit of the topic ban, but having seen PainMan's reply, I no longer think any further topic ban extension would be necessary or appropriate – quite the opposite, and I would support any future appeal against the current topic ban because it is creating more drama than it prevents. I would certainly agree to a simple warning in order to get this closed, although I think the message has already been driven home. --RexxS (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella

Warning issued. El_C 17:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning GizzyCatBella

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: François Robere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: GizzyCatBella (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: 23:06, 25 June 2018 T-ban from "World War II history of Poland" :

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

02:21, 21 March 2020 Restored a photo of the body of an executed war criminal who governed Eastern Europe (including half of Poland) on behalf of the Nazi regime. The restoration was justified as "reverting vandalism or test edit", but the removal was neither ("Portrait of a dead person").
01:00, 24 February 2020 Changed [[Lviv]] to [[Lwow|Lwów]], [[Second Polish Republic|Poland]]. The time frame and place - 1943 in occupied Poland - fall strictly within the remit of the ban. The substance of the edit - the change of name from the Ukrainian Lviv to the Polish Lwów, and the mention of the then-dissolved Second Polish Republic - concerns the results of the 1939 invasion by Soviet and Nazi forces, so it too is part of the ban.
22:04, 21 March 2020 Commented on Talk:Latvian Legion. The LL was involved in the 1945 Podgaje massacre of Polish forces, so part of "World War II history of Poland". More broadly, the subject of wartime enmities between the various Slavic nations is still charged enough (see eg. here) to merit caution if a T-ban is in place.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

23:06, 25 June 2018 T-ban from "World War II history of Poland".
12:50, 18 May 2019 Block for T-ban violation.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Despite sanctions, editor remains involved in the topic area.[7][8]
In addition, the editor seems focused on Jewish Communists [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] and criminals,[17][18] adding bits of unsourced information[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] to many articles (see admin's comment here). While one's choice of subjects on Wikipedia is not always a problem in its own right, Sandstein's original conclusion[27] that the editor "[edits] articles about the World War II history of Poland with a view to... making them more sympathetic to right-wing Poles, and less sympathetic to Polish Jews or left-wing Poles" raises questions in this case.
The editor also seems focused on removing properly sourced information related to antisemitism[28][29][30][31][32] and prejudice[33][34][35][36][37][38] in Poland (or even just national pride [39][40]), usually stating that it was either "undue" or "not in source". I've checked all of the sources so marked (including one marked "OR" that was mentioned earlier), and all of them pan out.[41][42][43][44][45][46] Deferring to Sandstein again, who invited the editor to show "evidence of substantial, competent, prejudice-free editing in other topic areas".
@Ymblanter, RexxS, Black Kite, and Awilley: I would like to draw your attention to a particular comment made by the editor below: FR claims "I've checked all of the sources so marked... and all of them pan out". This is not true and it’s not clear why we should take his word for it... The truth is that most of this content is indeed undue or not in the source, as has been noted by several editors. In short, she's accusing of me of lying. Now this is a simple factual matter: either the sources say what is claimed, or they don't. In either case one of us has lied not once but twice: once about the sources, and once in accusing the other of lying. To settle this I've reverted the editor and added back the sources with quotes,[47][48][49][50][51][52] so you may judge for yourselves. I know editors are usually given broad leeway at the boards, but dishonesty should never be tolerated. However you choose to conclude this complaint, do take this into account.
@Lepricavark and Awilley: I've avoided replying here until now, but I see my reputation being tarnished and it's important for me to set the record straight. I've no intention of attacking anyone, so I'll try to keep it short and on point:
1. Piotrus claims I haven't been editing in the TA as of late. The fact of the matter is in the last three months I've edited at least 17 articles in this TA, most recently on March 25.[53][54][55] Piotrus knows it, and he even left me a "thank you" for the second one.[56]
2. Piotrus claims that the TA has been quiet and without page protection. The fact is I've had a page protected as recently as January 23 to stop several editors from edit warring.[57] Piotrus knows it, because he was there.
3. Piotrus claims I haven't been interacting with GCB. The fact of the matter is I interacted with her in at least four articles, including once when I warned her against breaking her T-ban.[58][59][60] Piotrus knows this, because he was there.
4. The fourth interaction happened when GCB reverted an edit I made in a different TA, in an article that she had never edited before.[61]
5. Piotrus claims I should've warned GCB to promote good faith - and I did.[62] And on another occasion I didn't even do that - I just noted the violation and let it lapse.[63] Piotrus must know this, because he complained about it shortly after.[64]
6. Piotrus places the blame for the entire thing on Icewhiz, but the fact of the matter is there were problems in the TA before he arrived, and there's still problems after he left. Just last week Holocaust historian Jan Grabowski published a scathing review of the TA in a leading Polish newspaper;[65] I know Piotrus read it, because he published a reply.[66] Icewhiz is everyone's favorite punching bag (with me as a close second, apparently), but you don't draw the attention of people like Grabowski and Havi Dreifuss [67] if there aren't real problems with a TA.
7. And a final note on WP:AGF: I've always tried to AGF with everyone - new or old, friendly or antagonistic. In daily life I tend to follow Hanlon's razor: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". It's a good defence against conspiracies, and means you AGF "by default". However, I find it exceedingly difficult to do so when I see editors leaving comments that I know that they should know are false.

That said, in the spirit of the letter and despite the grief the whole thing had caused me (having had to engage with accusations from five editors in six different threads for the better part of a week), I'll say this: the goal of this AE was never to get GCB sanctioned, it was to stop this dance around the T-ban (the "nibbling around the edges",[68] so to speak). That was the whole point of my conversation with Piotrus and GCB back in February.[69] If they've finally agreed to some arrangement then all the best to them, it's just unfortunate it took this much effort to get to this point.

Everyone watch yourselves now and stay safe. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[70]

Discussion concerning GizzyCatBella

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 GizzyCatBella

~~I’ll respond tonight or tomorrow (busy volunteering in our community - pandemic situation stuff)GizzyCatBella🍁 23:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Okay, enough is enough! This is an extremely ill-intended report - a continuation of block shopping attempts [71], followed by disgusting insinuations of antisemitism and support of a permanently banned user Icewhiz and his possible sock accounts. This bad-faith report should be dismissed and BOOMERANGED. I will additionally inform ARBCOM about this.

Francois Robere has been hounding me and trying to get me blocked ever since the conclusion of the Icewhiz arbitration case (evidence to follow)

Let me address the main accusations first: (none of the three diffs provided violate the topic ban)

1- I reverted IP account edit [72] that I viewed as vandalism. Please note that the same IP editor removed similar photos from 2 other pages and has been also promptly reverted by Antique Rosehere [73] and here [74]. So yes, it was a vandalism in our opinion. The fact that Francois Robere would try to get someone sanctioned over this legitimate revert of vandalism shows how bad faithed this is.
2 - This diff is completely unrelated to WW2 in Poland [75] has nothing to do with WW2 in Poland. A brand new account removed the birthplace of a composer who has not been involved in WW2 so I reverted that. And of top of all that this was clearly a sock puppet [76] of indef banned user Icewhiz [77]
3 - a Talk:Latvian Legion I commented on the talk page in support of K.e.coffman. Latvian Legion is unrelated to WW2 in Poland. It's about Latvia. The Legion might have done something in Poland at some point but this isn't the nature of the edit or the subject of the discussion. The Dutch soldiers of the Kampfgruppe Elster 48 SS took part in the Podgaje massacre I also didn't even discuss the issue of the WW2 murder in my comment. [78] Francois Robere is pretending that it is somehow related through some kind of 7 degrees of separation. Again, the fact that he brings this up and pretends that is a violation underscores the insanely bad faithed nature of this report. Which is worth of a boomerang alone.

Now the additional comments of Francois Robere:

1- I don't remain involved in WW2 Poland related topics since my ban advanced almost 2 years ago (!) This is a totally false and shameful fabrication.This [79] was a misunderstanding shortly after my ban was introduced and promptly explained by the imposing administrator and this [80] refers to Poland before WW2 that started 2 years later.

2 and 3 - are disgusting insinuations of me being an anti-Semite. Francois Robere was previously warned not to cast aspersions against me without convincing evidence. [81], he was warned by Bovlb not to accuse me of being racist, [82]. He was also advised by Black Kite to scale down with his accusations of antisemitism[83] and eventually was blocked [84] by TonyBallioni for insinuating without evidence that I'm an anti-Semite.

In addition in 3 FR claims "I've checked all of the sources so marked (including one marked "OR" that was mentioned earlier), and all of them pan out". This is not true and it’s not clear why we should take his word for it. If the info is in fact in the sources he can make the argument on the talk page rather than come to WP:AE and try to get another editor sanction. The truth is that most of this content is indeed undue or not in the source, as has been noted by several editors.

Francois Robere padded the report with multiple diffs in his “additional comments” section to create a false appearance of some kind of malfeasance. He knows these diffs are not violations else he would include them in his “violation” section. And these are indeed ridiculous. For example, there’s nothing wrong with noting that a Soviet communist was a Soviet communist [85].It’s also worth noting that this is again reverting edits by ~~one of Icewhiz’s~~ likely sock puppets [86]. Likewise this diff [87] ~~concerns another one of Icewhiz’s socks~~ [88],[89].

I realize that this would require a separate report but I wish to note that ever since Icewhiz was indefinitely banned, Francois Robere, who has formerly “co-edited” many articles with Icewhiz and never disagreed on any issue, has been protecting and enabling the multitude of Icewhiz socks. Icewhiz (and his other indef banned friend Yanniv Huron) have created over 80 socks to circumvent their bans. Francois Robere has repeatedly complained that these socks’ edits are reverted. This is part of this WP:MEATPUPPETing pattern. Francois Robere’s claim 3 in this section is especially problematic. Honestly, this as an attempt at provocation intended to make me lose my temper. It is a not so subtle insinuation of antisemitism, which is exactly the kind of false and vile accusation that led to Icewhiz’s topic ban and subsequent indef ban from the topic area. Most of these edits are again removals of the text inserted originally by Icewhiz or his sock puppets. Why is Francois Robere so blatantly and insistently WP:MEATPUPPETing for an indefinitely banned user?

I'm very upset with dishonest, disgusting insinuations of me being an Anti-Semite and continuation of the WP:HOUNDING Francois Robere has engaged in ever since the conclusion of the Icewhiz arbitration case and would like to see it fully stoped NOW.GizzyCatBella 🍁 23:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS Thank you for your review, I appreciate the fact that you took the time to study this case closely. I would like to reassure you that I didn't and don't have the slightest intention of breaching my topic ban and my edits were in good faith. Please note that my TP has been imposed almost 2 years ago with a possibility of appeal in 6 months. Meantime, I completed hundreds if not thousands of edits, including article creations, and if I was purposely trying to by-pass my TP by cheating it would be noticed by people other than Francois Robere. I didn't rush with an appeal because I'm enjoying editing other topic areas but due to these constant attempts of Francois Robere to get me blocked, using the topic ban as an excuse, I'll be appealing my TP soon on this page. Once again thank you for your time.GizzyCatBella 🍁 03:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite - thank you, I'll take your good advice into the heart and thank you for your time examining the case.GizzyCatBella 🍁 11:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter - thank you for your time, I appreciate you inspecting it more thoroughly.GizzyCatBella 🍁 11:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Awilley - Thank you, that's excellent advice. Never thought about it.. I think all people with topic ban limitations should follow that.GizzyCatBella 🍁 23:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@~Swarm~ and Seraphimblade Thank you, for your analyses, not too good for me but thank you nevertheless. I'm taking your critique seriously and will learn from it. I only wish to assure you %100, that I was not intentionally "trying to push my topic ban to edges". I truly believed that I'm doing the right thing.GizzyCatBella 🍁 20:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take some time in reviewing my topic ban appeal that I’ll be posting here shortly. Thanks again for your time and great administrative work which is not easy, really apreciated.GizzyCatBella 🍁 11:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this conversation: [90]
.. also this conversation with another contributor: [91] and editor departure from the project notice [92].

Could somebody please look deeper into this whole thing. Thank you. GizzyCatBella🍁 23:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Background can be found here:[93] GizzyCatBella🍁 23:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll post my plea here also... [94] I'm so exhausted of these tricks that I'm on the edge of crying..GizzyCatBella 🍁 22:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Piotrus

I concur with User:RexxS that the most applicable action is a warning to be more careful and a note that BANREVERT does not overrule a topic ban. Neither of the three topics is obviously related to Poland and WWII history, and I am rather concerned that good faith is nowhere to be found in this report. The one that's according to RexxS "most connected" to Poland, Alfred Rosenberg, doesn't even mention Poland outside a footnote. Yes, he governed some conquered EE territories, including part of Poland, for a while, but it is not common knowledge (I am quite interested in this topic area and I've never heard of him), and if one is reverting some vandalism and doesn't read an article carefully, it is a an easy fact to miss. We should assume good faith. GCG's edits were not concerned with anything connected with Polish WWII history. If the removed picture was related to this topic, yes, there would be a cause for concern. But it wasn't, and neither is this a biography one of a person significant in Polish history. I think a good rule of thumb for such cases is to check the lead of an article. If the lead doesn't seem to mention topics related to an edit ban, we should not expect the editor to read the entire article, to see if an unrelated edit might (such as adding or removing a picture that has no violation to the topic ban) be a borderline topic ban violation because of some minute fact mentioned somewhere deep in the article. The other two diffs are even further removed from this, how many degrees of separation one needs for something to even be borderline? That someone was born in Poland in WWII makes his or her article fall within a topic ban? C'mon. Neither is Latvian Legion related, it was about as involved in Polish WWII history as Greek partisans (which had a few Polish volunteers, you can always find a connection), US or UK armies (which did air drops in Poland and were war time allies), or the issue of Polish-Japanese relations (which to my surprise was actually subject to a study within WWII context: [95]), or the article about the continent of Europe itself. Sure, if you try to find a connection, you always will, for almost any edit ("Give me the man, there'll be a paragraph for him" [96]). Let's focus on the intention of the topic ban, which was to prevent GCB from editing topics related to Poland and WWII: she hasn't. No problems here - outside of the bad faith in the report itself.

I am also concerned with the fact that the user making the report (FR) has not been editing the topic area much in the last few months, nor interacting with the editor reported (GCB). This report comes 'out of the blue', as the topics related to Poland, Polish-Jewish history and World War II have been peaceful for the last few months (no edit warring, protections, AE reports, prolonged content disputes of any kind, all "hotspots" have gone quiet), which can IMHO be easily explained as they become problematic only when the now-indef banned User:Icewhiz (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-10-31/In the media for context) became active in them around 2016/2017. Since his emergency ArbCom ban few months ago (for off wiki harassment and other misdoings) this area has been very quiet, just like for the years prior. So how come FR, not active in related topic areas, is reporting GCB, who seem to be doing a relatively good job not violating her topic ban? It seems rather strange for someone not active in the same topic areas as another editor, nor interacting with him, to nonetheless monitor his activities, log borderline diffs and file an AE. How come he didn't politely ask GCB to self-revert and be more careful, encouraging AGF and mending fences? I explicitly asked him to try to discuss things first with others before going to AE few months ago (User_talk:François_Robere#WP:BRD) and I sad my advice was apparently ignored. I see no desire to 'build the encyclopedia' in this report, only a sad intention to resurrect a smoldering WP:BATTLEGROUND. In fact, I don't even think this fits FR's personality, and I have a suspicion that this is an AE based on diffs and filled on behalf of the indef-banned Icewhiz, who tried socking few months ago (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz); the socks where caught in wide range blocks, but apparently they are still active here, monitoring their "enemies", and reaching out "from the wiki grave" with a desire to revenge. (PS. For what it is worth, I have came to the same MEATPUPPET conclusion before reading GCB's statement; I didn't want to color my analysis by reading the defendant point - yet we arrived at the same conclusion.)

The best thing we can do is try to rebuild our pre-battleground, collegial atmosphere from before Icewhiz poisoned it, not try to resurrect it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lepricavark

This is too much of a 'gotcha' report for my liking. The filer doesn't seem to have presented the full story regarding the first diff and the other two are not unambiguous violations. Before we do anything further, somebody should ask GizzyCatBella to substantiate their accusations regarding Icewhiz and Francois. I'm not saying that Gizzy is right, but in the light of the questionable nature of this report and the well-informed testimony of Piotrus, this bears further investigation before any action is taken. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MyMoloboaccount

In regards to the comments above I can confirm that Icewhiz has been stalking GizzyCatBella's edits on off-wikipedia forum. As the forum is involved in revealing real life personas of users I am hesitant to provide link here but I can send a copy to the Admins(I am not a member, but it can be read by guests). Unfortunately there is possibility here of FR acting here on behalf of perma-banned user. In regards to FR behaviour I concur that the editor has been engaging in questionable behaviour including avoiding discussion with other users and simply going to WP:AE asking for immediate ban instead of following attempts to discuss, acting confrontational towards these who were targeted by Icewhiz in the past;his ongoing snipes at my personal contributed to my decision to withdraw from Wikipedia and led me to even openly ask him to stop posting on my page[97], which was subsequently ignored [98] and requested him to stop harassing me on Wikipedia[99].If it would be confirmed as highly likely that FR edited on behalf of Icewhiz would it fall under proxing rules [100]] ? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that immediately after this comment was made FR has started following me around on articles he never edited before, and which I have edited[101], [102]. I have repeatedly asked FR to stop harassing me, and this has been ignored, which seems to me clear case of WP:Hounding. Could this be commented on or does it deserve a separate disccusion?-MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

@Awilley: Please rephrase And on diff 2, I think the fact they were reverting the sock of a banned user could be seen as a mitigating factor. It is very much not a "fact" that Muddymuck is the sock of a banned user. Muddymuck's account has never been blocked, there is no SPI, and frankly, no evidence or even discussion of whether or not this account is a WP:SOCK. Furthermore, if you look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz/Archive, you'll see that every single report has come back "negative": either unrelated, unlikely, or, at best, inconclusive. Some of the reports linked socks to other masters. Sorry, but the "fact" is that Icewhiz has never been caught socking, and Muddymuck hasn't even been accused of socking, except on this page (of which Muddymuck received no notice, so I'm putting a notice on their talk page). It's one thing that socking aspersions have been cast by multiple editors here and ignored, but I'm disappointed to see an administrator casting aspersions against a new account in this way. It is not "fact", and it is not a mitigating factor; if anything, GCB's repeated unfounded socking accusations (and those of other editors on this page) should, in and of themselves, be actionable. As they say, "SPI is thataway". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection, I'm going to echo Lepricavark and ask GizzyCatBella, Piotrus, and MyMoloboaccount to either substantiate their socking accusations or strike them. The linked-to SPI says that IW wasn't socking, not that he was socking, and those SPIs are totally unrelated to Muddymuck in any event, so something else would need to be provided to substantiate these accusations. Also I'd ask the admin reading this to, you know, do something about this. We can't just go about reverting new users and claiming they're all a sock of Icewhiz as justification. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SarahSV

François Robere mentioned the recent newspaper article about Wikipedia in Gazeta Wyborcza by the Polish-Canadian historian Jan Grabowski. It's behind a paywall, so in case anyone wants to read it, please see the archived copy and Google Translate. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning GizzyCatBella

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

Looks like we need a block here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the responses, I agree with the analysis of RexxS. Possibly we can solve this with a warning.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment this isn't looking clear-cut to me. To save everyone checking here is the text of the topic ban:
Your are topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from the World War II history of Poland. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes any acts of violence by, in or against Poland, or by or against Poles or Polish Jews, during or immediately prior to or after World War II, as well as persons known for their involvement in the World War II history of Poland.
That is pretty comprehensive, but I'm not convinced that all three diffs show blatant breaches of the topic ban.
The first one was to the biography of "head of the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories", and GizzyCatBella ought not to be editing it; reverting what they think is vandalism isn't a defence against breaching a topic ban.
The second was to a BLP of a Polish composer born in 1943. I understand the issues about Lviv (Ukraine) versus Lwów (Poland) but in my humble opinion, considering that particular area of dispute sufficiently related to "the World War II history of Poland" is a bit of a stretch.
The third one about the Latvian Legion really doesn't seem to be directly related to Poland in WWII either. Nevertheless, an editor under a topic ban shouldn't be editing topics anywhere near their topic ban, and if it has to come down to an admin's opinion, rather than being a clear-cut "no violation", then the editor is skating on thin ice.
I note that GizzyCatBella has received two blocks: for 3 days in 2018 for breaching WP:ARBEE 1RR; and for 7 days in 2019 for breach of their topic ban. My initial reaction would be to warn GizzyCatBella against going anywhere near topics that might be considered WWII-Poland, and to never rely on WP:BANREVERT or any other exemption as an excuse for breaching a topic ban. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise if others can see things that I've missed. --RexxS (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; these are a bit of a stretch, especially as the first one (which was the only obvious violation) was reverting disruptive editing. GizzyCatBella would be well advised to seek a second opinion on editing any article that comes anywhere near to the topic ban; and to report vandalism or disruption to an admin or a relevant noticeboard. Black Kite (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:GizzyCatBella, you really shouldn't even have articles covered by the topic ban on your watchlist. Just get rid of the temptation. A warning seems reasonable to me per Piotrus. I do see some POV pushing in the 11 diffs in the OP's point #3, but not enough to convince me that further sanction is our best option. ~Awilley (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like incredibly straightforward violations to me. The notion of WP:BROADLY circumvents any and all debate about how "blatant" a violation is. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Swarm. The first edit reverted an edit which was supported by an edit summary. It was not the type of blatant and absolutely obvious vandalism covered by WP:BANEX. It therefore violated the topic ban. The second was about an area of Poland in 1943 and its naming during that time. That is not even a marginal violation; that clearly relates to the WWII history of Poland. The third is the only one I don't see as a violation—even if the organization in question was involved in the conflict at that time, it would only be a violation to edit about it in that context, and I do not see that GCB's edit did so. However, given that there are two clear violations and a previous block for a ban violation, I do not think a warning is sufficient. The first block (and the topic ban itself) should have served as ample warning. GCB needs to clearly get the point to take all this stuff off their watchlist, and stay far away from the edges, not try to push them. I'm also rather unimpressed with the repeated addition of the "Jewish atheists" category when at least several of the articles have no references to support that assertion, and would issue a warning there that if that continues, there will be a need to broaden the topic ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade: This is going on 12 days now, and I'm getting the impression that it's causing a fair amount of distress for GizzyCatBella. I also think they've taken a lot of the advice on board...for example, removing all related articles from their watchlist, and asking in advance whether something would violate a ban (see: User_talk:Piotrus#Call_for_supervision_and_question). On diff 1, yes, the IP's edit wasn't vandalism, but was the revert a clear violation of the topic ban? I checked Piotrus's assertion that the article in question, Alfred Rosenberg, doesn't mention Poland outside a footnote and found it to be true. And on diff 2, I think the fact they were reverting the sock of a banned user could be seen as a mitigating factor. (Obviously they should be warned that reverting sockpuppets isn't a valid reason to violate a topic ban.) In any case, block or no block, this should probably be closed soon. ~Awilley (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC) Struck on diff 2, since there was no proof of any socking, my mistake. ~Awilley (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awilley, given those factors, I suppose I would be okay with closing this as a warning, provided there's clarity that this is almost certainly the last warning. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade, I considered closing this request with a firm warning, but wasn't sure there was consensus for it. Unless there are objections, I will be doing so in the next 24 hours. El_C 21:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether it's any help in reaching a decision, but I've spent time over the last few days talking to both GizzyCatBella and François Robere. As you can see at François Robere's talk and my talk, each of them have given assurances that they will disengage and avoid each other going forward. That in itself is a positive sign, and might be worth considering. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, RexxS. Yes, that is something worth considering. El_C 23:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to the proposed closure from me. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 16:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO

SPECIFICO is given a logged warning as follows: SPECIFICO is reminded that talk pages are for discussing article content, not contributors, and warned that continuing to make personal comments about other editors on article talk pages may result in sanctions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphimblade (talk • contribs) 06:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning SPECIFICO

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ergo Sum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: SPECIFICO (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:ARBAPDS

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

24 March 2020 Incivility
21 March 2020 Incivility
21 March 2020 Incivility
1 April 2020 Incivility and telling editors to stop editing
28 March 2020 Incivility
30 March 2020 Telling editors to stop editing
23 February 2020 Really creepy behavior that borders on harassment
7 February 2020 Personal attacks

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

22 April 2017 Violation of DS/1RR on 2016 United States election interference by Russia
4 October 2014 Topic ban applied to SPECIFICO expanded

Sanctions requested but declined or warning issued instead:

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict on 14 February 2020
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict on 23 March 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Wherever this editor goes, conflict seems to follow. I do not bring this AE lightly, as I regard my own personal threshold is higher than what may be required by policy. I have only begun to interact with/observe SPECIFICO recently, and was quite astonished at the routine and pervasive bullying he/she engages in. What primarily motivates me are the off-wiki messages I received from editors heretofore unknown to me who thanked me for putting SPECIFICO on notice and described how SPECIFICO's repeated attacks have caused them to stop editing pages they are active on. Only afterwards did I realize that their user talk page archives are littered with civility warnings to which SPECIFICO responded with yet more caustic incivility. If ever there were a quintessential example of a person who is not here to build an encyclopedia and is instead interested in POV railroading and disruptive editing that has long flown under the radar, it is SPECIFICO. I am sad to say he/she is a perpetual bully; plain and simple.

Update: for those who find these diffs innocuous, I invite them to more thoroughly examine SPECIFICO's contributions and talk pages and ask whether their contributions are productive or create a more toxic and intimidating atmosphere on articles that are already plagued by negativity.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning SPECIFICO

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 SPECIFICO

Awilley's comment appears to be more in the vein of an involved editor citing evidence rather than an Admin evaluating this complaint and discussion. At any rate, most of Awilley's diffs are taken out of contexts that would show his concent is rather overstated. I'm not going to reply to these diffs case by case, but I think that taken together with what he advocates, they are rather misleading. That's unfortunate. SPECIFICO talk 01:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, Admins, I object to the idea of a logged warning.
The logged warning in this case would only function as a Scarlet Letter that becomes a "fact" in itself that can be cited in the future -- look SPECIFICO has been warned before -- without reference to the underlying events, the actual facts, that IMO should never have been reported here. In the past month or so, I've been falsely accused of socking, told I had the intelligence of a goldfish, called a talk-page spammer, and many other choice things. I don't disrupt article pages. I cite Policy and Guidelines in talk page discussions. I disengage rather promptly on occasions when my comments are ignored or rejected. I don't follow editors who disparage and make false aspersions about me on BLPN and Admins' pages. I'm here for this complaint because a single editor got upset for whatever reason. I object to a logged warning that can be cited later as evidence of some level of misbehavior that did not occur.
Ergo Sum made an edit against the established logged talk page consensus #32 at Donald Trump. The edit was reverted, he tried to claim a new consensus had been reached one day later. Talk page posts confirmed no such consensus had been reached. He then launched a rather broadly defined RfC to establish a new consensus. We don't know how that will conclude, but it currently appears Ergo Sum has again failed to get consensus. In the course of this, Ergo Sum expressed his annoyance at my talk page and the talk page of @Scjessey: with a mini-dissertation on our alleged incivilities. Each of us replied briefly, without reciprocating his apparent level of agitation. I was quite surprised to see Ergo Sum's behavior from a longtime user and Admin, and even more surprised to see him bring it to this AE page. [[User:SPECIFICO | SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

Essentially all of the claimed diffs are either not remotely uncivil, or are not diffs by SPECIFICO at all.

For example, this March 21 diff, the sum total of which is BS. please try to restate that clearly and specifically if you would like a response. It's unintelligible. Calling someone's statement unintelligible may not be the most pleasant thing on Earth, but it's hardly uncivil.

Another March 21 diff, which states That's a blog-worthy narrative. Unfortunately it is not consistent with near-universal RS reporting. Not really helpful for this talk page. There is literally nothing uncivil about that statement. Direct, sure, but not remotely uncivil.

This April 1 diff - Considering that no article content has been proposed, and that you appear to be uninformed on the longstanding discussion of this issue, I agree that it's just as well you do not comment further. Thanks for your thoughts. Also not uncivil. Telling someone who declined to provide a reason for their position that "it's just as well you do not comment further" - yeah, that's not uncivil.

Another 30 March diff - Gee whillakers. Didn't I just say why? They are aware of it. They are investigating it. It would be big news if credible. We go with their judgment. That's the core of what WP editors do. If you are relying on a media suppression conspiracy theory to justify ignoring Wikipedia policies and guidelines, please take it to NPOVN or RSN or reddit. Nothing uncivil there. Telling someone who rejects reliable sources to take their forum thoughts elsewhere is common practice on Wikipedia talk pages.

The 28 March diff - Ernie, get a grip. She swore an afadavit and presented it to a congressional committee, not a Wikipedia article. Anyway Chmn. Grassley referred her and Avenatti for prosecution. How did that turn out? Telling someone to "get a grip" is also not uncivil. It's a common and non-offensive phrase in the English language and I think it's a wild stretch to presume that it violates anything in Wikipedia policy.

The 24 March diff is actually by the filing party, and includes a whole host of posts by a whole host of editors... I'm guessing the filing party screwed something up?

This is a naked attempt to throw a bunch of nothingburger diffs at the wall and hope that an admin just sees "oh hey lots of diffs, sanction time." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valjean

I second the concerns raised by NorthBySouthBaranof. The diffs often ignore context.

Telling tendentious editors, whose edits and comments are opposed by numerous editors, to find a different topic to edit, where their edits will not be opposed, is perfectly reasonable. (That diff has now been removed.)

This one jumped right out at me because it's directly false:

1 April 2020 Incivility and telling editors to stop editing

"Stop editing"??? No, since the comment by admin Ergo Sum was not constructive, SPECIFICO suggested they "not comment further". Nothing about "stop editing". I'm sure that editing is okay, and comments that are constructive are also welcome. There was also an implied "get better informed before commenting" in the comment, which is good advice.

Similar for this one:

30 March 2020 Telling editors to stop editing.

Nothing about "stop editing" there, but rather some good advice.

This is a dubious filing. An admin should have better things to do than get irritated so easily. Is this worth a trout boomerang? -- Valjean (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

Not a single one these diffs presented by Ergo Sum depict incivility or harassment as commonly understood on Wikipedia. In fact, most of them are evidence of amazing restraint on SPECIFICO's part against an onslaught of incomprehensible comments, fallacious arguments, POV pushing WP:SPAs, sock puppets, gaslighting, rehashing, and conspiracy theorizing by users, many of whom are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia.

Importantly, Arbcom gave examples of actual incivility at WP:ARBAPDS#MONGO. The SPECIFICO diffs bear no resemblance to the nasty comments in these examples.

The only action needed here is the administration of a trout for Ergo Sum and a suggestion that he recalibrate his civility radar to be considerably less sensitive. As an admin, perhaps Ergo Sum can do something about users filling discussions pages with with garbage talk causing annoyance and disruption of actual article improvement. - MrX 🖋 12:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

In a previous effort to rein in some of SPECIFICO's disruptive battlefield behavior, in August 2018 Administrator AWilley imposed several specialized American Politics 2 discretionary sanctions designed to allow SPECIFICO to continue contributing in the topic area but under a more strict set of behavioral standards as discussed here SPECIFICO was not pleased about these sanctions but they were at that time supported by admins Bishonen and Drmies. The sanctions were set to last one year, but perhaps somewhat angered SPECIFICO almost immediately ceased editing for 6 months, not returning until March 2019. Those sanctions were not applied just in the heat of the moment but after a long series of discussions and warnings that went unheeded, some of which can be seen in SPECIFICOs talkpage discussion just by scrolling up from that link I provided. Has there been any improvement since that self imposed 6 month sabbatical? None I can see:

[103] Personalizing dispute, character assassination and bullying.
[104] "Hi Ernie. I hope you are well and safely sheltered in a location that allows you to receive your favorite Fox News." IS a deliberate insult indicating that they think the person they are conversing with is a FoxNews watcher, which is rebuffed by the immediate response by MrErnie who claims the channel is not available where they reside.
[105] "It may well pass WEIGHT but that doesn't mean it won't bog us down in footlong talkpage threads from a few Fox News fans here." Personalizing dispute, character assassination and bullying.
[106] "Awilley, that response of yours reads very self-serving and convenient, without addressing the core issues of community and AE processes. Your words appear either disingenuous or so naive that you need to take an extended leave of absence from these American Politics articles. Similarly, your negotiation with Snoogs above looks too much like you bullied an editor under threat of sanction so that you could walk back your own misstep and avoid scrutiny at AE or ARBCA." That comment was responded to at SPECIFICO's talkpage here.

--MONGO (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt a logged warning over an editor previously sanctioned in same arena will do much more then embolden behavior as already seen in there terse response above.--MONGO (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

I am concerned by the filer’s comment: What primarily motivates me are the off-wiki messages I received from editors heretofore unknown to me who thanked me for putting SPECIFICO on notice and described how SPECIFICO's repeated attacks have caused them to stop editing pages they are active on. Who are these editors making off-wiki comments that may be designed to stir up problems for an editor? As there are multiple such, do they appear coordinated? Is this something anyone else has noticed? Am I overreacting to this? O3000 (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion is not permitted at AE and has been removed. If any editors would like to reinstate what you said in your own section, please feel free to do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

I've been on the receiving end of SPECIFICO's rhetorical skills a few times now, and I usually never look back on those experiences fondly. It seems the sanctions by user:Awilley were effective. It is frustrating that no uninvolved administrators have weighed in yet - you can probably guess which way the involved editors commenting would lean before you read their statements - so it would be good to have neutral 3rd party review. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ernie, I'm never too lazy or sleepy to place a big fat incivility block--but I just don't see anything blockable in those diffs, not even in their aggregate. Take care, Drmies (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lepricavark

Some of the diffs provided by Ergo Sum and MONGO demonstrate that Specifico sometimes engages in battleground behavior. Perhaps a warning will be sufficient, but the contents of Specifico's sole response in this thread do not inspire confidence. When editors express concerns with one's behavior, it is better to take those concerns on board and seek to improve rather than trying to discredit the messenger. It is important that they refrain from personalizing disputes and that they make more of an effort to understand the viewpoints of those they are conversing with. I am specifically thinking of this diff, in which Specifico used the word "unintelligible" to describe a comment that is perfectly understandable if one takes the time to read it carefully. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: I think you actually may be overreacting. While it's certainly true that editors sometimes go off-Wiki to make nefarious behavior more difficult to detect, it is equally true that there are good faith editors who have things to say that they are not comfortable saying publicly for fear of retribution. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: it's essentially impossible for us to know. My aim was to bring out the other side of the coin by making a general statement, but I don't wish to speculate regarding the motives of the unknown persons involved in this specific case. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buffs

I think everybody can agree that atmosphere in the American Politics topic area is toxic. Editors are increasingly (and understandably) exasperated with each other. The point is, I think SPECIFICO is making that problem worse, not better.

To be blunt/direct, I don't see it that way. These are contentious issues with strong feelings on both sides. People on both sides are attempting to wield policy as a sledgehammer to crush those who oppose their viewpoint. Putting a warning here for SPECIFICO only will further encourage such behavior. If a warning goes to SPECIFICO, WP:Boomerang should apply to the submitter as well. Most (if not all) of the evidence is VERY underwhelming and their effects immensely overstated. I concur that this was a "let's throw everything we can against the wall and see if it sticks in order to shut down an opposing viewpoint" attempt...that should not be overlooked. Buffs (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum, the submitter should be TROUTed. Buffs (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

SPECIFICO is guilty of occasional rhetorical exuberance. This is a not unnatural response to some pretty obstructive behaviour by others. Several of those diffs identify the other party's behaviour as clearly problematic, but, to be fair, in the current climate, conservative editors on Wikipedia are likely to feel distinctly embattled, because in current politics pretty much everything the GOP does is met with near-universal condemnation in the mainstream press, and near total support in the right wing media bubble, and the two are increasingly isolated from each other. We are probably going to have to find a way to deal with this soon. Guy (help!) 22:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SPECIFICO

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

I don't really see much incivility here; some of the diffs presented are a bit fiery, but the whole thing is really exaggerated. For instance, the "creepy" behavior here is not very creepy, though it's silly--but it is in response to something equally silly by the other editor (someone not filing the request). (That diff is really weird, by the way--someone goes around putting no break spaces on talk pages?) There is no "personal attack" in this diff. This isn't remotely uncivil. I could go on, but I won't: this is already taking up too much time. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- RexxS I appreciate your comment and diffs. Specifico, that last comment—-when you’re in a hole, stop digging. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think Drmies is correct that there's not anything blockable in the diffs presented. There is, however, a good deal that is unhelpful. For example:
- BS. please try to restate that clearly and specifically if you would like a response. It's unintelligible. [107] (Better to say "I don't understand the point you're trying to make")
- Considering that no article content has been proposed, and that you appear to be uninformed on the longstanding discussion of this issue, I agree that it's just as well you do not comment further. Thanks for your thoughts. [108] (Better to say nothing)
- Ernie, get a grip. [109] (Better to make your point without the personal comments)
- You are either unable or unwilling to understand the basics of editing Wikipedia articles [110] (Again, better to just make your point.)
- It is evident what you do not care about. Frankly, you got off to a bad start cramming a false narrative contrary to RS WEIGHT, into the lead. You were called out. [111] (Better to just focus on content. Personal commentary generally isn't helpful on article talk pages.)
- I can also understand why the OP might have wanted to get more eyes on this when all they got in response to their warning was this.
I think everybody can agree that atmosphere in the American Politics topic area is toxic. Editors are increasingly (and understandably) exasperated with each other. The point is, I think SPECIFICO is making that problem worse, not better. For that reason I would support at minimum a specific logged warning against making personal comments on article talk pages. ~Awilley (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Awilley: Can you propose the wording you would use for a specific logged warning to SPECIFICO? I agree that the comments highlighted in green above are not ideal. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Something along the lines of "SPECIFICO is reminded that talk pages are for discussing article content, not contributors, and warned that continuing to make personal comments about other editors on article talk pages may result in sanctions." ~Awilley (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's good. I looked at some of the OP diffs a couple of days ago and couldn't see much in them but your diffs show there is too much lack of WP:FOC. That may apply to several others in the area but that can be considered another day. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Drmies that a response to this request doesn't need to involve sanctions. Nevertheless the AP topic area is difficult to work in and I'd be happy to see SPECIFICO dial back the comments aimed at other editors. If others agree that a logged warning would help achieve that, I would not dissent. --RexxS (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I find myself losing whatever sympathy I might have had when I now read SPECIFICO's comments here. @SPECIFICO: One "light-bulb moment" that I experienced at my RfA was that if I am sharp, snide, or bitey when addressing an editor I disagree with, it also has a big impact on neutral observers – far greater than I realised – and diluted the message I was trying to make. In short, if you want to be on the side of the angels, you have to behave like an angel. Tell us that you understand the concerns the admins here have, and that you'll genuinely make an effort not to take the bait, not to reply in kind, and not to escalate. It's not easy, but it's worth it. --RexxS (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also support a firm warning to avoid personal comments as a necessary prerequisite to continued editing in this topic area. El_C 15:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920

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 Wikieditor19920

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Zloyvolsheb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Wikieditor19920 (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: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Remedies : Standard discretionary sanctions

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

14:15, 10 April 2020 Accusation of POV/bias against Zloyvolsheb.
20:08, 11 April 2020 Accusation of POV/bias against Zloyvolsheb.
20:12, 11 April 2020 Accusation of POV/bias against Zloyvolsheb.
20:25, 11 April 2020 Accusation of POV/bias against Zloyvolsheb.
20:28, 11 April 2020 Accusation of POV/bias against Zloyvolsheb.
20:42, 11 April 2020 Accusation of POV/bias against Muboshgu.
17:28, 12 April 2020 Accusation of POV/bias against Zloyvolsheb and Muboshgu.
19:15, 12 April 2020 Accusation of POV/bias against Zloyvolsheb.
19:28, 12 April 2020 Zloyvolsheb to Wikieditor19920: "You need to stop personalizing disagreements and focus on the content, not the contributor."
20:33, 12 April 2020 Accusation of POV/bias against Zloyvolsheb.
21:13, 12 April 2020 Zloyvolsheb to Wikieditor19920: "I am going to once again ask you to tone it down. Next time you attack me for 'pushing POV' when the majority of editors here are opposed to what you propose I will report you."
21:42, 12 April 2020 Wikieditor19920: "If you don't want to be accused of POV pushing, don't make the talk page a forum for your personal evaluations.... This is blatantly non-compliant with WP:NPOV."
23:57, 12 April 2020 Yet more accusations of POV/bias against Zloyvolsheb and The Four Deuces – after two warnings at the same page, same day.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[112] Wikieditor19920 blocked for disruptive editing at Talk:Ilhan Omar by Doug Weller on March 18.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [113] Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I haven't been very involved with the Bernie Sanders article: in fact I made just three edits there before April 10. (Now four.) Specifically, I made a minor copy-edit to Bernie Sanders on 27 Feb [114], changed the portrait on 9 March [115], and removed several sentences regarding Sanders' comments on Cuba on 13 March [116]. After the revert I received a thanks notification from one contributor and support at the talk page from another, TFD. I made no more edits over roughly the next month when, on April 10, Wikieditor19920 suddenly came to my talk page to accuse me of "selective POV" because of that ONE revert on March 13: "This strongly resembles POV pushing and attempted whitewashing. I suggest you stop." [117].

Despite three out of five editors so far involved in the discussion at Talk:Bernie Sanders#Cuba disagreeing with him, he has continued to accuse us (mostly myself) of pushing a POV. I asked him to not personalize and focus on the content. He persists. Wikieditor19920 was previously warned by admin Bishonen, who wrote below the DS alert

"If you continue to attack those with different opinions than yourself as dishonest, utterly biased, and sneaky, you may be topic banned from American politics." [118]

Maybe that's the appropriate remedy. I've had much more luck working productively with other people, and have never before dealt with someone whose every talk page reply includes an accusation of "selective POV" or "POV pushing" or "whitewashing" against another editor (diffs show over 10 attacks or accusations in just two days, some are minutes apart). That does not facilitate a content-focused discussion, and indicates a battleground mentality. I previously told him that any concerns about others' conduct belong at an administrator noticeboard, and explicitly encouraged him to seek that review if he found it necessary. [119]

I don't want to eliminate Wikieditor19920 as some kind of content opponent - he has a right to his views. But I would suggest at least some kind of further warning to Wikieditor19920 to avoid making any more personal accusations of POV pushing or similar (as in his latest talk page edit [120]), with the understanding that he will be blocked or topic banned if he continues his attacks. I am not interested in seeing a WP:BATTLEGROUND or personal attacks over disputed content.

Comment in response to Wikieditor19920's statement: Wikieditor19920 paints me as accepting one standard for "critical sources" about Biden and another for Sanders. Nope. I accept reliable sources for any article. The difference I see is the issue of WP:BALASP: in fact I supported excluding another controversy from the Biden article per WP:BALASP, and I already explained that to Wikieditor19920: [121]. Now three other participants at Talk:Bernie Sanders share the same view on Sanders (so 4 out of 6 participants), but even if I were a biased editor with different standards the article talk page would not be the venue to launch barrages like this.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[122]

Discussion concerning Wikieditor19920

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 Wikieditor19920

Zloyvolsheb is a regular at Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, and shows clear indications of applying a double-standard regarding controversies at both pages. At Joe Biden, he argued for inclusion of sexual assault allegations based on coverage in reliable sources. At Bernie Sanders, regarding a controversy over views expressed on Castro and Cuba, covered in national outlets with full-page articles in the NYT, user has repeatedly removed any reference and makes questionable arguments for removal based on subjective evaluations of "importance" or "relevance." As for POV, Zloyvolsheb has made his bias obvious with irrelevant statements like Of course Sanders' opponents seized on those remarks to stir up controversy for political points, even though in substance they were the same as Obama's (education good, authoritarianism bad). Since Sanders is considered radical by the Democratic elite and the Republicans, much of what he says can be labelled controversial. on the talk page there. Policy based arguments have been met from Zloyvolsheb with long-form, off-topic responses similar to the above, which I don't care to repeat here. This is clear WP:STONEWALLING; making political, non-neutral arguments on a page where discussions should be about content and policy is a waste of everyone's time, violates WP:NOTFORUM, and that's what's Zloyvolsheb has been doing at Bernie Sanders consistently. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zloyvolsheb has repeatedly returned to revise and "polish" this AE. He claims that he is not looking to "eliminate an opponent" and that he's only looking for a warning, but this rings disingenuous given that he opened an AE on our first interaction, and when I raised the issue with him about POV editing on his talk page, he demanded I never post there again.[123]. He claims that he is not POV editing. However, this editor shows a pattern of encouraging inclusivity at Biden when it comes to controversies, and makes negative remarks about the subject, and minimization/impossibly high standards for weight at Sanders, where he makes positive remarks about the subject. Here is some evidence of precisely what I'm referring to:

Diff Defends inclusion of Joe Biden sexual assault allegations based on coverage in multiple reliable sources. (Analysis that I agree with, because it is grounded in reliable sources.)
Diff At Sanders article, regarding the controversy over his remarks on Cuba and Castro, he sets a new standard: only if it has an impact on the race, not whether it is covered in reliable sources. He argues it did not have an impact and engages in some irrelevant, hard-to-follow polling analysis (all of this is presented as an argument for exclusion).
Diff At Biden, says that the NYT article was not necessary for inclusion, and that Intercept and Fox (second tier sources) are perfectly sufficient for inclusion of sex. assault allegations Diff.
Diff At Sanders, argues that a full-page article on the controversy in the NYT is insufficient for inclusion, and claims (without reference to a secondary source) that "Obama said the same thing" and provides link to a YouTube video.
Diff Sarcastic comments about "corporate media" as a response to other editor providing reliable sources supporting their point at Biden.
Diff At Biden, appears to properly rely on sourcing policy, unlike at Sanders, where subjective/political points are argued and reliable sources are unaddressed.
Diff Here, suggests that an editor is ignoring multiple RS on sexual assault allegations because it doesn't "align with their perspective." See more below on this.
Here and Here, makes arguments totally inconsistent with those made at Bernie Sanders about coverage in reliable sources being sufficient for inclusion. See Diff.

Additional diffs

Diff Opens a discussion about reinserting controversy on Biden inappropriate touching based on sourcing.
Diff Cites BLP and PUBLICFIGURE as inclusive policies and dictates that we are required to include controversies published in reliable sources -- exactly the argument I have made at both Biden and Sanders, and which Zloyvolsheb only makes at Biden.
Diff Proposes including criticism of Biden for certain legislation based on a single source. Contrast w/ arguments at Sanders dismissing reliable source coverage Diff.
Diff Critical comments on Biden's past controversies, suggesting he is unreliable/dishonest. (Not arguing the merits of this -- noting that there is an implicit expression of disfavor of the subject.) Contrast w/ supportive, sympathetic comments at Sanders defending him as wrongfully labeled controversial by "Democratic elites." Diff.
Diff Argues that just a few reliable sources covering a controversy or incident are sufficient to require inclusion; again, totally opposite point made at Sanders, showing a consistent pattern of arguing for exclusion and downplaying/minimizing controversies at the latter (Sanders) and applying "lower" standards for inclusion of controversies at Biden.

This editor applies an obvious double standard between these two articles when it comes to what can be considered sufficient sourcing and weight. At the Biden article, regarding the sex. assault allegations, we generally apply a higher sourcing threshold per BLP, because such allegations are 1) more damaging to reputation and 2) more difficult to verify (but more the first one). Zloyvolsheb reverses this practice and applies a more lenient standard to such allegations at JB; at BS, he applies a far higher threshold for politically controversial remarks, which are decidedly less damaging or important and likely to require less BLP sensitivity. Other editors have made similar arguments to defend the remarks (not a justification for removing reliably sourced controversies, especially those with significant coverage). I believe these positions are controverted by policy. However, Zloyvolsheb has been the most brazen about applying a double standard, and while, in a vaccum, I might attribute his/her arguments at Sanders to a lack of familiarity with policy, his/her strongly argued points at Biden tell me that they know better. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brief reply Some have suggested that I attacked other editors. That wasn't my intent; I was critical of arguments that I saw as reflecting a POV at that page, and I believe this is borne out by the diffs. A few arguments at that page that have been put forth are 1) the comments were not really that controversial or negatively received (inconsistent with sources) and 2) it's not "biographical" or "relevant" despite reliable source coverage/prominence, or 3) we should dump it into the campaign article, not his main page. I think these are problematic for a few reasons: 1) we should be relying on sources, not personal assessments of content, 2) the sources describe the comments as being criticized, it is not for editors to argue whether that criticism is justified, 3) the campaign article cannot be a dumping ground for controversies to keep the main page "clean" of criticisms. Of course, these are content disagreements, and I won't litigate them here. Zloyvolsheb's pattern of editing specifically does show pov-pushing in my opinion, and I believe that's affirmed by the evidence above. There is no justification for applying completely opposite standards of review for controversies at these two pages, or making arguments based on personal politics, which I believe are pretty openly revealed (accidentally or no) by a number of Zloyvolsheb's comments at both pages. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Short response to follow-up by Zloyvolsheb Editor now claims that they argued to remove a minor controversy at Joe Biden, presumably referencing this discussion. A closer read shows this not to be so straightforward. Zloyvolsheb in fact argued to remove mention of Biden's asserted participation in desegregation protests in high school based on a controversy over the timeline in his participation and reported inconsistencies from The Intercept. Rather than present the claim about his activism alongside the reported inconsistencies by Intercept/NYT, Zloyvolsheb advocated for removing any mention of it entirely. This does nothing to mitigate any of the other issues raised above, particularly his removal of reliably sourced criticisms from the BS page and arguments for inclusion of sexual assault allegations at JB with equivalent coverage. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

Wikieditor19920 has been accusing other editors of POV pushing on multiple pages for some time. They have threatened to report multiple editors to admins -- five or six times for me alone. Their attempts at such have all failed. IMO, a warning might result in a more pleasant atmosphere. O3000 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Wikieditor19920

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

Seems like an easy BOOMERANG, to me --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a sanction here, but neither do I see a boomerang. If you look at Talk:Bernie Sanders, pretty much all of Wikieditor19920's last dozen edits to it (including one from less than two hours ago) have in some way attacked other editors that have opinions he doesn't agree with, mostly accusing them of POV-pushing. Note that this isn't just aimed at the OP here, but to at least three other established editors (Muboshgu, The Four Deuces and Gandydancer). I'd suggest that Wikieditor19920 be reminded to comment on the content, not the contributor. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Varun2048

Varun2048 blocked for 1 month for TBAN violations and warned that any further problematic editing will likely result in an indefinite block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Varun2048

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Varun2048 (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: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

The following are all topic ban violations:

11:45, 5 March 2020 (diff oversighted): Argued regarding inclusion and exclusion of the names of politicians in Talk:2020 Delhi riots/Archive 9 § Multiple violations of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME
10 March 2020: Argued in favor of temporarily pausing changes to article in Talk:Jyotiraditya Scindia
10 March 2020: Removed the text "AltNews et al. document the site to have propagated fake news on multiple occasions." and "Sources supporting OpIndia to have disseminated fake news:" from OpIndia article, marked as a minor edit with no edit summary
12 March 2020: Removed 2,857 characters of text from Manohar Parrikar article, marked as a minor edit with the edit summary "Spelling edits"
13 March 2020: Fixed spelling in Manohar Parrikar article
14 March 2020: Argued in favor of mentioning the arrest of politician Ishrat Jahan in Talk:2020 Delhi riots
21 March 2020: Changed description of climate in Shillong
26 March 2020: Removed sentence "The State Government has allocated 80 hectares of land in Pilani." in Pilani article
27 March 2020: Changed description of climate in Parassala
29 March 2020: Changed number of states in Indian National Congress article
7 April 2020: Changed description of rainfall in Neriamangalam
7 April 2020: Changed verb tense in 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Kerala article
13 April 2020: Removed the words "some of them have been described as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP)" from the lead section's description of defamation suits filed against The Wire

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

2 March 2020: Topic banned from "editing articles related to India (broadly construed) for a period of one year"

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 2 March 2020 by QEDK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The above diffs show 13 topic ban violations. Varun2048 had previously been warned for violating their topic ban on their talk page at Special:Permalink/950666674 § Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction on 13 March, with another comment on 17 March. Varun2048 acknowledged the warning, which contained a suggestion to "stay off all India pages", on 14 March.

I am also concerned about the prevalence of canvassing in the India topic area, which (in my opinion) is not being adequately addressed by discretionary sanctions. Varun2048's 5 March and 14 March comments on Talk:2020 Delhi riots were both solicited by other editors who selectively pinged users to the discussion:

The 5 March comment was solicited by Trojanishere on 07:57, 5 March 2020 (diff oversighted) at Talk:2020 Delhi riots/Archive 9 § Multiple violations of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME.
The 14 March comment was solicited by Souniel Yadav at Special:Diff/945531895.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/950666674

Discussion concerning Varun2048

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 Varun2048

I do not deny the charges against me. I am new to Wikipedia and I feel I was handed a 1 year ban unfairly. However, I have not appealed the ban as I have not understood properly the right method to appeal the ban. I have decided to stay low honoring the ban and 5 edits after explanation of terms of ban were explained to me were harmless minor edits. Some were arguing in talk page(I was/am not aware the ban extends to voicing opinion on talk page). I understand I have not been proper in following the policy of Wikipedia and I leave it to the wisdom of the administrations to take whatever decision they deem right.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Varun2048

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

Given that the user has made only 84 edits on Wikipedia, their talk page is full of warnings, both before and after the topic ban, and given that the edits are unambiguous topic ban violations, I conclude that the user is not net positive, and the community is wasting more time on them than is getting back in terms of creation of encyclopedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they probably aren't a net positive and I'm going to block them for 1 month (which the maximum amount for a first block). I'll also warn them that any further problematic editing will likely result in an indefinite block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 580: / Line 580: @@
 * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden&diff=prev&oldid=947736701&diffmode=source Diff] ''Opens a discussion'' about reinserting controversy on Biden inappropriate touching based on sourcing.
 * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden&diff=prev&oldid=947859139&diffmode=source Diff] Cites BLP and PUBLICFIGURE as inclusive policies and dictates that we are required to include controversies published in reliable sources -- exactly the argument I have made at both Biden and Sanders, and which Zloyvolsheb only makes at Biden.
-* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden&diff=prev&oldid=947897854&diffmode=source Diff] Proposes including criticism of Biden for certain legislation based on a single source. Contrast w/ arguments at Sanders, where reliable source coverage is incorrectly dismissed citing [[WP:NOTNEWS]] (which is limited to original or routine reporting).[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bernie_Sanders&diff=prev&oldid=950550902&diffmode=source Diff].
+* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden&diff=prev&oldid=947897854&diffmode=source Diff] Proposes including criticism of Biden for certain legislation based on a single source. Contrast w/ arguments at Sanders dismissing reliable source coverage [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bernie_Sanders&diff=prev&oldid=950550902&diffmode=source Diff].
 * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden&diff=prev&oldid=948966413&diffmode=source Diff] Critical comments on Biden's past controversies, suggesting he is unreliable/dishonest. (Not arguing the merits of this -- noting that there is an implicit expression of disfavor of the subject.) Contrast w/ supportive, sympathetic comments at Sanders defending him as wrongfully labeled controversial by "Democratic elites." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bernie_Sanders&diff=prev&oldid=950533566&diffmode=source Diff].
 * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden&diff=prev&oldid=948275257&diffmode=source Diff] Argues that just a few reliable sources covering a controversy or incident are sufficient to require inclusion; again, totally opposite point made at Sanders, showing a consistent pattern of arguing for exclusion and downplaying/minimizing controversies at the latter (Sanders) and applying "lower" standards for inclusion of controversies at Biden.

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