Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

TrangaBellam

TrangaBellam and GizzyCatBella have received logged warnings; Marcelus is subject to a 0RR. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning TrangaBellam

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Marcelus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: TrangaBellam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBEE or whichever applies

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

12:54, 2 March 2023 Changed the title of the section that was under ongoing discussion
13:01, 2 March 2023 Restored the title of the section without engaging in discussion
14:30, 2 March 2023 Made a major change to the text that was being discussed at the time, without engaging in the discussion
14:47, 2 March 2023 Restored the same edition, ignoring offers to participate in the ongoing discussion on the talk page
17:38, 2 March 2023 Not backed by anything accusation: "All I see is you engaging in a fair amount of acrobatics to push a particular ahistorical POV"
20:15, 2 March 2023 "I plan to ignore your commentary on the meta-issues"
20:35, 2 March 2023 Continued to edit the page ignoring requests to undo the edits and discuss them on the talk page

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 08:26, 15 February 2023

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I need to report TrangaBellam behavior regarding the Naliboki massacre article and its talk page. To keep it brief. There has been a discussion for some time about the content of one of the sections. TrangaBellam not engaging in the discussion did change the section title, I reverted it inviting user to join the discussion. Twice. Then the user made a much larger edition, which I also reverted, invoking the WP:BRD method and inviting to discussion. It started WP:EDITWARRING. Afraid of breaking the WP:3RR rule, I withdrew the last one, asking TrangaBellam to voluntarily withdraw from the changes and join the ongoing discussions. TrangaBellam ignored the ongoing discussions and started new ones, in which he acted as if they were new WP:CONSENSUS. He refused to revert the changes and continue to editing discussed section ingoring my pleas to stop doing so. TrangaBellam accused me of "engaging in a fair amount of acrobatics to push a particular ahistorical POV", without claryfing what he means about that. To me, this is an example of WP:DISRUPTIVE, as expressed on WP:CONSENSUS: Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. The way he acts and the way he addresses me leads me to believe that his actions are intended to make me break WP:3RR and receive sanctions as a result. I asked him nicely to start over on his talk page without any bad blood. But TrangaBellam and once he said on Talk:Naliboki massacre: "I plan to ignore your commentary on the meta-issues", I decided to aks admins for help.

Response to Gitz:

Actually it all started with the removal of an entire section by Adoring nanny (22:03, 21 February 2023), which I reverted (22:05, 21 February 2023) inviting to t/p, which we did, and I was editing other sections (13:17, 26 February 2023).

When I did a major edit (13:45, 28 February 2023). Gitz reverted it, I restored it inviting to t/p. The response was to refer to the WP:BRD method. Reluctantly, but I agreed to this and did not undo edits, and we moved to t/p. The same was with my next major edit (Nowicki's memoirs: 11:27, 1 March 2022).

Gitz accuses me of promoting fringe theory by mentioning Nowicki and Boradyna, ignoring the fact that after TrangaBellam's changes the mention of Nowicki remained and Gitz didn't voice any concerns (earlier Gitz demanded that it need to be hidden in a footnote). It seems that only if I make the change then I am promoting fringe theory and my changes must be reverted. Gitz reacts to TrangaBellam's persistent changes in a completely different way, accepting them without any major objections. My requests to use the WP:BRD method also towards changes made by TrangaBellam have been ignored by both users. I sense the intention to cause me frustration and make me to break WP:3RR.

My point is that the allegations of Bielski partisans involvement appeared in 1993 and were accepted as correct until the IPN investigation. I added (15:15, 2 March 2023) info that Nasz Dziennik used Naliboki allegations to counter the Jedwabne Pogrom.

As for History of the Jews in Poland pls read t/p. In short, using a number of high-quality sources, I proved that the original source of the information in the article made a mistake. (This discussion is a good example of bludgeoing and WP:NOTGETTINGIT on Gitz part btw).

I was responding to all comments and trying to compromise. I changed the attitued after my requests to apply WP:BRD to TrangBellam's edits were ignored. I refused to participate in the new discussions TrangBellam was starting, ignoring the ongoing discussions.Marcelus (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell and others: I understand that I reacted too impulsively, however, please consider that my reverts were caused by TrangaBellam ignoring the ongoing discussion, I was convinced that Gitz would support me because of the WP:BRD they brought up before in reference to my edits, at the time I did not mean to editwarring, but to keep WP:STABLE, continue the discussion and make changes once a consensus was reached.Marcelus (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell @Callanecc You are right, I should be smarter and more restrained and not engage in edit warring. I would like to apologize for this, perhaps I actually need a moment of rest. I promise to refrain from doing so in the future. I would also like to ask that the ban be as limited as possible, I feel that I have done more good than bad in both fields, and I would not want the ban to be a summary of my contribution to building Wikipedia in both fields.

@TrangaBellam: Thank you for this comment. I hope we will have the opportunity to work together on articles in future (but in a better style and in an atmosphere of mutual understanding, I think that's a lesson of this WP:AE)

@Bishonen: As I mentioned, I can see from reading the comments that I didn't manage it and myself all very well. But note that I reverted the title change by TB with the information that it's currently under discussion. In the second revert I invoked the source and WP:BRD. Only then did TB start a "Section title" discussion, but in order to challenge my source, not to discuss the phrasing of the section title. My main objections were raised by the second major edition of TB, in which she completely ignored earlier discussions where certain agreements had been reached, and my invitation to join the ongoing discussion. Also, I think TB plays an important role in this field, pointing out deficiencies and problematic bits in articles. My reservations are with the way TB does this and communicates with people who have a different opinion.Marcelus (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen, @HJ Mitchell and @Callanecc: What exactly does 0RR mean? As I understand it, I can not make any deletions of text or restoration of deleted text? The definition of revert on WP:0RR is very broad. Because of course I can refrain from using the "undo" button I will certainly avoid edit warring. But consider, for example, the article Józef Mackiewicz, where the vast majority of the text was deleted, I believe that some of it can be restored, but by doing so I would be breaking the 0RR rule.Marcelus (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus: Breaking the rules to reply inline and speaking for myself, I would say it means you can't use the undo button and you can't do anything that's functionally the same, like restoring an old version or removing text that some else added recently. You should be able to add or remove text that wasn't in dispute, but if your edit is reverted, you would have to leave it alone. If or when it comes to pass, I'm happy to talk you about wording and scope on your talk page or mine but I don't want to get bogged down in it in this thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell Ok, thank you for clarification.Marcelus (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I protest against this accusation by Gitz: uncooperative users such as Marcelus Marcelus (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

21:55, 2 March 2023

Discussion concerning TrangaBellam

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by TrangaBellam

Paging Levivich, Adoring nanny, K.e.coffman, Gitz6666, Horse Eye's Back and GizzyCatBella — the other participants in this discussion, article (today), and the ANI thread. I believe their opinion might be of aid. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, I do not plan to partake in this AE thread. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Making an exception for My Very Best Wishes. MVBW, who had reverted my bold edit at the first place for BRD to even come into play? Fwiw, as of now, there is clear consensus in my favor; none barring you — I believe, even VM — propose to restore the deleted section. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[..] and knowing it's likely to be controversial, is as good as inviting an edit war and is arguably disruptive in itself. - Sorry, HJM, I do not have a crystall ball. I mostly edit controversial topics on S. Asian history and am well aware of what is disruption and what is not; those who admin the topic area (Bish, V93, et al) can probably attest to the quality of my edits. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc, care to provide four diffs of unretracted persistent and egregious personal attacks and incivility displayed by me?

I really don't have a major issue with GizzyCatBella's comments - Wow, did you read this thread? TrangaBellam (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paging Adoring nanny because the previous ping failed due to a typo. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response to GCB

GCB promised to shorten the list of diffs to ELC but it didn't happen. So, I am bound to respond to all, despite being at an inherent disadvantage:

1 - Meh.
2 - GCB has a habit of asking "Have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife" questions to "lengthen the discussion" and take it to tangents "without progressing it towards a resolution".

Example at Talk:Mariusz Bechta. GCB insinuates that I have not written the BLP conservatively but does not really shed any light. Similarly, I fail to see the point of GCB knowing how I might be accessing a paywalled Polish source; it clearly insinuates that someone (read: Icewhiz, et al.) is providing me the sources. I want to know why Callanecc feels that such leading questions and passive-aggressive behaviour under the guise of politness are permissible. Do note that I had answered the pointed questions quite proffessionally.

3

Animalparty made the quote in the Arbcase, and I liked it enough. So, I let it be known. A couple of months ago, I did the same for a quote on Levivich's u/p. Another few months ago, I did the same, for a comment on a random ANI thread. So, what proves?

4

Yes, using the review of a PhD student on "healthcare consumerism, judgment and decision-making, and behavioral economics" for a book on Holocaust is grotesquely poor. Right now, at a t/p, VM and few others [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1142690229?diffmode=source said that I was violating BLP] (it was me who added the line which was challenged in the section); does that mean they are "throwing aspersions"? Aspersions, if supported by reasonable evidence, are no longer aspersions and my evidence was right in the same comment. The same applies for VM, et al. (i.e. neither are their comments aspersions of any kind.)

5

Huh?

6 - multiple diffs

What GCB skips is that I had retracted the accusations and settled our dispute amicably. There will be some friction in contested areas; I can make much of how and why Piotrus slapped a NPOV tag but I won't. In the end of the discussion Piotrus conceded that he came to understand why Glaukopis is a horrible source - see, that's a win?
I am also argued to be exhibiting a IDHT attitude. If that is the case, maybe, GCB can explain why Piotrus conceded that there indeed was no positive review of the publication and my article was NPOV? Maybe, Calanecc can ask them, why she skips the incovenient part of the narratives?
ALso note that after participating in the discussion, GCB does not reply whether she consents to the removal of the NPOV tag and leaves us hanging. As HJM said, her entire motive is to derail the resolution of any discussion by going off on tangents.

7

Yes, I can remove a tag if there is no discussion at the t/p. That is what the template says. Ownership?

8

I keep enquiring for the t/p discussion and he points me to the edit-summary! By policy, edit-summaries are not venues to discuss anything.

[9]

Once again, aspersions, if supported by reasonable evidence, are no longer aspersions. Rational man standard etc.

TrangaBellam (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Calanecc

Diff 1 - 19 Feb

I did retract it on Piotrus' request and both of us settled our dispute amicably. There will be some friction in contested areas even if, on restrospection, I should not have made that edit; in the end, we remained on friendly terms and Piotrus came to understand that Glaukopis is a horrible source, even thanking me for it.
That is a win for everybody except, perhaps, GCB. Do note the net effect of GCB's participation in the t/p — she did not make a single comment on content except one generic remark (you created an article grossly unbalanced. (verification in edit history). Critisism only.) and when finally enquired by Piotrus about the removal of the NPOV tag, left us hanging! As HJM said, her entire motive is to derail the resolution of any discussion by going off on tangents. Their sole content-based remark is so generic that you can copy-paste it into any random article!

Diff 2 - 20 feb

At this point of time, I have been subject to a set of "Have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife" questions at Talk:Mariusz Bechta where I responded with utmost proffessionalism. GCB insinuated that I had not followed our BLP policy but did not shed any light on the specifics. Similarly, I fail to see the point of GCB's need to how I might be accessing a paywalled Polish source; it clearly insinuated that someone (read: Icewhiz, et al.) is providing me the sources.
Still, GCB did not give up pursuit, leading to my revert. Please also note Levicich's and Horse Eye's Back's response in the thread. It is blindingly obvious that GCB tries to bait people by a variety of passive-aggressive behaviour, waiting for the recipient to snap back. And, do note the sheer chutzpah of GCB in making an editor uncomfortable with clear sexual innuendos, and then accusing me and Levivich of being disgusting (in boldface) for supporting the victim. If this is not trolling, well ....

Diff 3 - 19 Feb

This is same as Diff 1.

Diff 4 - 19 Feb

I feel that GCB's edits have been broadly restricted to coming to the support of Piotrus by reinstalling tags, restoring prefered versions etc. That is not an evidence of any wrongdoing unless seen together with their refusal to engage with the content at the t/p in any meaningful sense. I request that you read HJM's characterization of GCB's edits, once again, and I cannot overemphasize how significant this is.

For interesting evidence, see GCB's participation at Talk:Tadeusz Piotrowski (sociologist): all on meta issues except a couple of comments on content - I disagree, it’s a no policy based rationale. and I don’t agree with you K.e.coffman. Sociologist is very much qualified to review a book by another sociologist. - which are of a very poor quality and again generic!

Aspersions, when substantiated by reasonable evidence, do not remain aspersions. Do note that I did not accuse VM or others of tag-teaming. Even if they have opposed me, they have clearly made some kind of arguments (irrespective of whether I found them making much sense or not). Unlike GCB.

Diff 5 - 19 Feb

This IS stonewalling; you try to side-step the content issues and go on about the procedure. As I wrote above, GCB did not make a single concrete comment on content etc. and unlike Piotrus did not even concede that the NPOV tag was largely in error.

That said, all of these diffs (barring #2) concern a single article on a single day about a fortnight ago; I even made amends with the recipient of the only PA a whole week ago. So, ...

@Callanecc:, to quote: on restrospection, I should not have made that edit. So, no, I am not *defending* anything. Going forward, I plan to be less brusque and keep the tag-teaming accusations etc. for the Arbcom case. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh, I have no idea about why Marcelus is proposed to be TBanned. Imposing a 1RR/2RR sanction is usually the way to deal with proclivity to edit-warring! Not tbans unless there are other issues. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc Also, I am not a fan of making "commitments" when under consideration for sanctions; everyone can claim to see the light at ANI or AE. I have opposed providing them much weight in case of sanctioning others and will apply the same standards for myself. Still, to reiterate, I will reserve the accusations of POV-pushing, tag-teaming etc. for the upcoming ArbCase than any article t/p. Now, you must assess my sincerity in light of my three years at the wiki etc. This is my last comment. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Gitz666 and Levivich. I agree that staying calm and civil with uncooperative editors is difficult but then, NPA is sacrosanct. Mvbw, should not you have mentioned of your COI with the G&K paper; I have no strong feelings but felt like best practices... TrangaBellam (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harry: it's that TB made an edit they could have easily foreseen being disputed is inaccurate. The section, even before I had jumped in, made it clear that the Jews were not involved; so, I did not have any rational reason to doubt that somebody will object to making facts similarly clear in the header itself! In cases where I have genuine reason to doubt that there might be opposition, I always post my issues at the t/p before proceeding to enact them in a few days (1, 2, 3, etc.)

At the conclusion of the discussion, what I see is that there are five well-respected editors — Gitz666, Coffman, Adoring nanny, Horse Eye's Back, and Ppt91 — supporting me, explicitly on the inclusion of the upfront declaration in the header. The sole support to M came from Mvbw, who claimed that my writing is antisemitic (!); truth be told, even if I had staked in a million minutes into thinking the ramifications of my edit, I could have come across the possibility of such a rebut. Nonetheless, pace NOTVOTE, the consensus is 5-2 in my favor.

For those of us who have a fair idea of Polish/Jewish relations, my edits to the page were as disputable as claiming that Trump did not win the election. That said, my sole takeaway is that, I should not have hit the revert button at 12:01; esp. since I was already drafting the t/p comment. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the way of framing the controversy in the current version of this section sounds antisemitic to me. Err, and it was me who framed the section? Note that I did not say that you had accused me of being an antisemite or whatever; I said that you accused the edit — which, of course, involves the framing of the issue and presentation — to be antisemitic. Further, I did neither claim that you made a PA etc. So, much ado about nothing.

This will be my last comment in the AE and K won't reply to any rebut or new evidencs or whatever. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc, Bishonen, and RegentsPark: - HJM's evidence does not stand the barest of scrutiny. VM's remarks were based on a misunderstanding about the article I was talking about. See this t/p thread; VM thought that I was talking about The Forgotten Holocaust when I was talking about Tadeusz Piotrowski (sociologist). Though I should have provided the diff. It is surreal - I cast no allegation against VM (whatsoever) and we come to our own understanding about the issue, but HJM pops out to suggest that I be Topic banned!
The mvbw issue is semantics. Editor Alpha frames an issue in X manner; in response, Editor Beta says that structurally, X is anti-semitic. Beta is within his rights to say so and frankly shall be encouraged to launch such critiques. Obviously, it is not a giant leap of reasoning to construe that Editor Alpha's particular edit was antisemitic; what's the big deal? Did I engage in any drama over why Mvbw said so; did I accuse Mvbw of breaching any policy? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by K.e.coffman

I'm not sure that my voice was ignored, and all of my edits were removed diff is a sufficient reason to open ANI and AE threads. For the preceding ANI, pls see: thread. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that My very best wishes may be misinterpreting the discussion at Talk:Kielce pogrom, in their statement. TrangaBellam's bold edit removed a long-standing dubious theory diff, with the content mixing reliable and unreliable sources to advance a certain POV. I did not see editors suggesting that the section be restored in its entirety. Subsequent discussion also showed that some of the reliable sources were misrepresented: [1], starting with: With regard to the discussion on Anne Applebaum here above, note that she has been selectively quoted if not misunderstood in the article... --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

I noticed that TrangaBellam also made this large-scale removal of sourced text on another page, during an active discussion on article talk page, but without having any sign of WP:Consensus for such removal [2],[3]. This text was sourced to publications by Jan T. Gross, Ann Applebaum, Tadeusz Piotrowski and Aleksander Wat, among many others. None of these authors belong to fringe Polish nationalists. The views by authors were not misrepresented on the page, as far as I can see. I think such removal was unhelpful for building WP:Consensus on the page. But this does not rise to the level requiring any sanctions, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman. No, I believe the view by Applebaum was not misrepresented by not citing everything she said. If the contributor thought the citation was incomplete [4], nothing prevented them from expanding this citation to fix the problem. And what bias? "anti-NKVD"? My very best wishes (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We just had a conversation that might be relevant: [5]. No, I do not think that comments by GizzyCatBella qualify as sealioning. No judgement about others from me. My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[6] - here TrangaBellam re-includes claim by G&K that Piotrowski "blamed Polish antisemitism upon the Jews" despite valid BLP objections on article talk page [7]. In edit summary TrangaBellam incorrectly said that a consensus is needed for removing this claim (TrangaBellam included this a couple of days ago [8]). TrangaBellam does it during the standing AE request about them. Now I believe that some action may be needed. My very best wishes (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should respond to the latest false accusation made by TrangaBellam right on this noticeboard: [9]. I have never accused any contributor, including TrangaBellam of making antisemitic edits on this site. That was my comment [10]. I only said (addressing to another contributor) that, in my opinion, the entire section about non-existent "Jewish perpetrators" should be removed because the way of framing the controversy in the current version of this section sounds antisemitic to me. Basically, why should we include at all a section about "Jewish perpetrators" to this page if such "perpetrators" never existed? I realize that other contributors may see this differently and that I may be wrong about removing the section (I never edited this page and did not check its editing history and who did what), but I did not accuse anyone of making any antisemitic edits. This is perfect illustration of TrangaBellam misinterpreting comments by other contributors and creating conflicts. My very best wishes (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In their response TrangaBellam continue to insist on their misinterpretation of my comment [11]: 'Err, and it was me who framed the section?... I said that you accused the edit.... No, I had no idea (and did not care) who made any edits, and no, I did NOT accuse any specific edit, and I did NOT refer to any specific edit. I would not respond here, but the false repeated accusation/misinterpretation by TrangaBellam, right on this noticeboard, is a serious issue. It does show TrangaBellam is not capable of interacting with contributors who disagree with them about something. Same can be concluded from some other diffs discussed during this request. My very best wishes (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[12] - User Levivich repeats the groundless claim by TrangaBellam. Once again, no, I did not refer to TB or any edits by TB or by anyone else. Why? Because I did not check any editing history on the page, and did not even check the discussion on talk page. I only quickly looked at the page itself. Why? Because looking for guilty parties (per G&K) makes me sick and because I follow WP:AGF. My very best wishes (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[13]. @Levivich - thank you, but no, I wrote in my edit "@Adoring nanny" (not @TB), and my edit does not imply any guilt by her. However, I striked through this my comment now, with an explanation [14]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC) (K&G said in their article "Wikipedia’s coverage of the Naliboki massacre should not even mention Jews" - this is something I happened to agree with. My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Gitz

Marcelus complains that [TrangaBellam] refused to revert the changes and continue to editing discussed section ingoring my pleas to stop doing so, but everyone who commented on the talk page agreed that TrangaBellam's edits were an improvement (Adoring nanny, K.e.coffman and myself) and no one (apart from Marcelus) reverted them. They complain that TrangaBellam ignored the ongoing discussions and started new ones, but TrangaBellam engaged in extensive discussions with Marcelus and repeatedly asked them to explain their objections: no less than six times (!) from 13:50, 2 March 2023 to 17:55, 2 March 2023. Marcelus didn't want TrangaBellam to remove this text of theirs [15] mentioning Nowicki and Boradyn and lending some credibility to the fringe theory that the Jews perpetrated the Naliboki massacre. Most of Marcelus's editing is aimed at substantiating that theory. See e.g. this edit [16] reverting my revert of their bold edit on Jewish partisans active in the Naliboki area; see their comment on t/p about that fringe theory being an accepted course of events in historical literature rather than some figment of the imagination of a few crazy nationalists from the Canadian Polish Congress [17].

This is not only a content dispute. First, it's a blatant case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, with Marcelus ignoring the arguments made by other editors. Secondly, Marcelus violated the 3RR (13:50, 2 March 2023; 13:37, 2 March 2023; 12:03, 2 March 2023; 11:56, 2 March 2023‎), engaged in disruptive/tendentious editing ([18], reverting my reverts of their text on Nowicki and Boradyn; [19], unexplained removal, not accounted for in the edit summary, of right-wing organisation ... wrongly claimed that), bludgeoned the talk page and was uncivil to me and others. My request to self-revert on their user talk page triggered an extensive discussion to no avail: Undoing your baseless revert is not edit warring (where do you see WP:UNDUE?). I find threatening me with a noticeboard report rather petty [20]. Their casting aspersion on article t/p ([21] [22]) was followed by my second thread on their user talk, again to no avail: Spare me the paternalistic tone [23]. Finally, the same behaviour is displayed at History of the Jews in Poland, where Marcelus builds walls of text to demonstrate that two high quality sources (academically focused books) are mistaken: I think I've convincingly shown the source to be wrong on this matter [24], I don't know why you insist on what is an obvious mistake by Rozenbaum, repeated by Prizel [25]; plus ~~the usual~~ a bit of incivility [26].

I believe WP:BOOMERANG is in order and badly needed in the delicate area of Antisemitism in Poland. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will spend the luxary of my last 80 available words to advise you not to T-ban TrangaBellam. Albeit perhaps not "intentional", there's indeed a serious distortion in the topic area. Unfortunately there are not many experienced reliable editors actively engaged in remedying this deplorable situation. Harassed by IPs [27][28], they must remain professional in long discussions with uncooperative users such as Marcelus and GCB. Staying calm and civil is not easy. A warning from AE could help, a T-ban most defintely not. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

Without remarking on the already carried forward disturbing factors of TrangaBellam's behaviour, I would like to draw the attention of the reviewing administrators to the serious incivility issues..

personal attacks + aspersions - Piotrus, if you find that there are reliable historians — though I doubt that you understand the term — who admire Glaukopis, feel free to add them. But otherwise, I take a dim view of your shenanigans

and refusal to refactor that personal attack with straight No When asked about the same, my appeal was reverted with the accusations of trolling [29] (see edit summary]

Here is the list of incivility - that is just from the last few days:

accusation of bad faith
accusation of bad faith and battleground edit summary
battleground
battleground and aspersions
battleground and taunting
two personal attacks and aspersions
- Then they repost the same statement as a response rather than addressing concern [30] IDIDNTHEARTHAT
WP:OWN
battleground with intentional condescension
aspersions See edit summary
aspersions and battleground
insinuates other user didn’t read sources
incivility and battleground in response to a request to refactor personal attacks
personal attack and accusation of “trolling”
- warned by an administrator
- more personal attacks
- more personal attacks and aspersions even after being warned
- battleground
BLP
canvassing
battleground
incivility and condescension
battleground
BLP violation
either a BLP violation or personal attacks against editors (“fringe crackpots”)
battleground
battleground, WP:OWN, incivility
incivility and battleground, discussing editors not content
aspersions and assuming bad faith
aspersions, discussing editors not content
battleground - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@El C - I’ll trim some diffs by the end of the day (I’m sorry, I'm busy now) - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep your diffs where they are now that they've been discussed but please bear in mind the limits in future and request an extension (beforehand) if necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, I’m still busy in real life. I’ll try to address the issues asap. @HJ Mitchell and @Callanecc am I allowed extra words? - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell and @Callanecc -

Just a quick response meantime. I value your conclusions concerning issues with my latest comments. I believe I was taken aback by TB's approach and I was just trying to be polite. I promise to focus on concrete issues and avoid general comments going forwad. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell@Callanecc@Bishonen

I would like to touch on the diff's delivered by Levivich and HEB. The crucial difference between my evidence and theirs is that all my diffs on TB they’re making remarks about editors, not content. In almost all diffs from them, that supposed to show my disruption, I'm discussing content rather than editors. Levivich and HEB are simply reading bad faith into my comments and glossing over the actual personal attacks in TB’s. For example, I asked TB if they had a subscription to GW because I wanted a quote about context, but TB immediately accused me of implying that he was a sock puppet of Icewhiz. But I never did such a thing. (I have to leave the house now for my appointment, but I'll remark more with diff's by the end of the day, please don't close it yet) - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Horse Eye's Back

I was originally going to abstain from participating here as I feel that the move from ANI to here was inorganic and bludgeoned[31][32][33][34][35]. That was until I looked through the diffs which GizzyCatBella provided, going through them I was struck by two things: first the vast majority of the diffs don't actually contain the sanctionable behavior described in the link ("battleground and aspersions" etc), the second thing I noticed in the diffs is that GizzyCatBella appears to be sealioning the conversation (some would call it stonewalling, but I think more specifically its sealioning). They have a habit of popping into conversations and asking very direct questions which are tangential to the issue under discussion which most often effectively derail that conversation (GizzyCatBella often abandons the discussion after throwing the wrench). Taken on their own each appears to be civil and the result of GizzyCatBella's curiosity. Taken as a pattern of behavior its extremely disruptive. At Talk:Tadeusz Piotrowski (sociologist)[36] at Talk:Naliboki massacre[37][38][39][40][41][42] at Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust[43][44] at Talk:The Forgotten Holocaust[45][46] at Talk:Kielce pogrom[47] and at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard[48]. On the topic of Marcelus they appear to have reverted three other editors and then pretended to be the victim. Thank you for your consideration. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

I was pinged and am involved so take it with a grain of salt, but I think there's a big difference between TB and GCB. TB has never been warned or otherwise sanctioned in this topic area before AFAIK and shouldn't be TBANed as a first sanction, at most warned. GCB on the other hand has been sanctioned previously and disruptive lately: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, plus the ones that were add/removed: +1/-1, +2/-2, +3/-3. Levivich (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few things to consider:

Multiple editors here (inc. me) do not speak English as their first language. Misunderstandings are inevitable, it's best not to read too much into specific language used by anyone. Sometimes, "that terrible thing they said" is actually just something inartfully phrased or lost in translation.
TB said "at a t/p" not "at the t/p"; she was pointing to a comment made at a different t/p as an example of an accusation that was not an aspersion; she was not suggesting VM edited The Forgotten Holocaust t/p.
TB wrote in her statement here: The sole support to M came from Mvbw, who claimed that my writing is antisemitic (!). MVBW's Mar 2 19:03 comment has edit summary that does look antisemitic to me and said: Sorry to partly disagree, but I think that current version of this section on the page is atrocious. I think this should never be framed as a dispute about "Jews" because that is antisemitic., which is in reference to edits made by TB to that section in the prior hours, seen here. While there's nothing wrong with raising concerns that language written by TB is (unintentionally, obviously) antisemitic, that is indeed what MVBW did. See also first bullet point above.
Of the three editors, the diffs presented here show two have been trying to improve content, while the third has been focused on non-content matters. The first two shouldn't be treated harsher than the third. Levivich (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MVBW, I want to clarify that I understand that you didn't know/look/care who wrote "current version" and thus you didn't accuse any specific person(s) of anything, that it was about the text, irrespective of the author(s). Levivich (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Siebert: wow, the "two minor edits" were made by Special:Contribs/DanZamoyski, a now-dormant SPA, but for six years, every single edit that account made looks like Polish nationalist POV pushing. Levivich (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andreas

I would be in favour of final warnings rather than topic bans at this point. The editors concerned are doing productive work to remedy some of the failings highlighted by the Grabowski/Klein essay (and as problematic as some of the attributions of guilt in that essay are, it also pointed out some real problems with sourcing in this topic area). Let us please not throw out the baby with the bathwater. --Andreas JN 466 12:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

I was going to stay away from this but above TB says Right now, at a t/p, VM and few others said that I was violating BLP; does that mean they are "throwing aspersions"? Aspersions, if supported by reasonable evidence, are no longer aspersions and my evidence was right in the same comment. The same applies for VM, et al. and they provide this link to the "t/p" of The Forgotten Holocaust.

Here's the thing... I have not made ANY edits to either the talk page of that article or the article itself. Here, check for yourselves. Search for "Marek". So why is TB accusing me of saying something on a talk page when I literally didn't make ANY edits to that talk page?

This seems to be similar to the situation described above by MyVeryBestWishes where TB accuses MVBW of accusing them of "anti-semitism" even though MVBW did no such thing. ~~Ironically, TB is invoking WP:ASPERSIONS here.~~ This kind of approach makes constructive collaboration extremely difficult in what is already a highly charged environment.

(No opinion on whether saying "The POV-pushing in this area beggars belief" constitutes casting aspersions (I guess in general?) or battleground language)

Volunteer Marek 06:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul Siebert

~~@HJ Mitchell:~~ @Volunteer Marek: I think you ~~both~~ should re-read the TB's statement. She writes (responding to this diff provided by GCB):

"Yes, using the review of a PhD student on "healthcare consumerism, judgment and decision-making, and behavioral economics" for a book on Holocaust is grotesquely poor."

This is the ONLY sentence where she discusses that diff. In the next sentence, she conveys a totally different idea: she is trying to explain our policy to GCB. She writes:

"Right now, at a t/p, VM and few others [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1142690229?diffmode=source said that I was violating BLP] (it was me who added the line which was challenged in the section); does that mean they are "throwing aspersions"? Aspersions, if supported by reasonable evidence, are no longer aspersions and my evidence was right in the same comment. The same applies for VM, et al. (i.e. neither are their comments aspersions of any kind.}}"

In other words, TB takes the words of her opponent as an example of what is NOT a personal attack (which is an asccusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.). I think TB's words are commendable, not punishable.

I cannot believe VM was acting in a bad faith, he just misread the TP's statement, who wrote nothing bad about him in that her post. Quite an opposite: she mentioned him as an example of a correct behaviour. I think VP should retract his post and apologise for his good faith mistake. ~~With regard to HJ Mitchell, I think, it is hard to expect that admins are impeccable. They also are just humans, and they also can make mistakes.~~ Finally, I think VM's and HJ Mitchell's mistake is quite understandable, because TB should have conveyed her thought in a more clear way. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

______________________________________________________________________________________

With regard to "antisemitism", I think Levivich's description seems correct.

However, as soon as MVBW was mentioned, I would like to point admin's attention at this MVBW's statement: The views by authors were not misrepresented on the page, as far as I can see. By writing that, MVBW objected to deletion of this text, thereby endorsing what it says. However, my brief analysis demonstrated that almost all good quality sources cited in this piece of text were grossly misinterpreted. Thus, the original text was added by Anders.Warga to support the claim about the lack of evidence that Soviets staged the Kielce pogrom. Later, a totally unsourced statement was added to this paragraph that created a false impression that Applebaum said that the evidences were destroyed by the Soviets (which Applebaum never said). This was made by means of these two "minor edits". I started to dig into other sources, and it seems some of them were severely misinterpreted too, which means that complete deletion of the section (followed, probably, by a complete rewrite) was the most correct step.

Why am I discussing it here? That issue is less relevant to the TB's case, but is totally relevant to the bigger "Holocaust in Poland" case. It shows one of the mechanism of introduction of distortion: the statements like "I believe the views of the authors were not misinterpreted" is something that have never been punished by admins, because it is neither a personal attack, nor an edit/revert in the article space. However, in reality, by supporting false claims, and by falsely claiming that "views by authors were not misrepresented", the users commit the worst violation of Wikipedia's policy: they help keeping misinformation in the article space.

Until we make the statements of that kind severely punishable, we never resolve the problem with misinformation in the Holocaust in Poland (and related) areas. Indeed, the attitude towards a user "A" who falsely writes in the article that, e.g. "an author X says that Jews were responsible for Y", and a user "B" who says (on a talk page) that the text added by a user "A" contains no misinterpretation should be the same: both "A" and "B" are doing a nasty job that leads to a gross distortion of what sources say, and they both should be sanctioned equally.

If I exceeded the 500 word limit, I can remove this my post from this page, but I would like to add it as an evidence to the Holocaust in Poland case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elinruby

The following concerns GizzyCatBella at Collaboration with the Axis Powers, although I had previously encountered her preconceptions ([49]) at other articles.

She seems to strangely misunderstand policy. At an RSN post about a statement that Blue Police in Poland were recruited "on pain of death", she seemed offended that I would ask. I could not find the Polish-language book sourcing the statement online, and had asked if anyone could verify it. GCB posted

saying:

@Elinruby - translated Polish--> najsurowsze kary = English --> the severest punishments. What were the severest punishments back in 1939? - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

When I was unconvinced by this primary source:

What you are seeing is an official document...Do you still have doubts what that source says?

Horse Eye's Back and Rotary Engine disagreed with her translation, btw.

Later that night I moved the first sentence in the Poland section to the talk page because I couldn't verify any of its six sources:[50]

GCB was again affronted. Piotrus correctly reminded me that "verifiable" is not "readable online," but proposed other sources. At 8:09, pinging GCB, I agreed to use one of these, after I got coffee, since I was apparently tired enough to make mistakes. GCB refused to take yes for an answer at 8:11, 8:36 and 8:53. The entire thread is worth the click imho. Elinruby (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request to admins: Marcelus just made a proposal at Talk:Collaboration with the Axis powers (BRD fail section), and I invited him to develop it further. Since it looks like he's headed for a sanction, can you please tailor it to allow him to do that? Make that page an exception or whatever? I promise not to get into a knife-fight with him, am familiar with his work, and would welcome his input on the history. It would be hard to discuss rewrites if he had a 0RR restriction or topic ban. Thank you for any thought you give this. Elinruby (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning TrangaBellam

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

The rules above read (in bold): Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs. I count +1,500 words by Marcelus and and 40+ diffs by GizzyCatBella. Both need to be trimmed accordingly. Also adding to the confusion, Marcelus has split sections for some reason. These need to be merged (at the top). Note: I'm unlikely to follow up on this, so no need to ping me. El_C 11:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelus, "trim" does not mean add more (!). Also, comment in your own section only; no threaded replies in the section of other participants, please. El_C 12:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrt to my note directly above: the addition [51] came before the removal.[52] Again, one can only comment in their own section, no exceptions. El_C 12:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The committee has taken note of this situation --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 13:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't mean AE can't or shouldn't handle this. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a party! (I like to party) El_C 13:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through. No conclusions yet but I'm deeply unimpressed with the level of conversation on that and related talk pages. I would expect all editors here to know to conduct themselves better in a contentious topic. Unfortunately, the only tools admins have at our disposal are blunt ones and I doubt that topic-banning everyone would last longer than it took to appeal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Some conclusions:
  - Marcelus has edit warred, including four reverts in just over an hour (though he self-reverted his final one). Marcelus has two previous blocks for edit warring, including a one-month page block which is still active at the time of writing.
  - TrangaBellam (TB) involved herself in the same edit war but as far as I can see only made two reverts. However, wading into a controversial topic area with an edit like, while it is under discussion on the talk page and knowing it's likely to be controversial, is as good as inviting an edit war and is arguably disruptive in itself.
  - Most diffs presented by GizzyCatBella to demonstrate TB's incivility are responses to unhelpful remarks or pointed questions. While that doesn't excuse a combative discussion style, it takes two to tango.
  - GizzyCatBella's (GCB) tendency in the discussion on the talk page is not to comment on the content in dispute. While no one comment gives cause for concern, at best her contributions on the talk page lengthen the discussion without progressing it towards a resolution. This appears to be a pattern with GCB's edits to talk pages. I also find it concerning that GCB repeatedly agitated at ANI for this complaint to be brought here, again without making any substantive comment on the issue.
  - There seems to be a rough consensus in favour of TB's edit, though this wasn't quite the case during the edit war.
- If there are to be any sanctions here, I'm inclined to sanction all three, though Marcelus's edit warring while pblocked for edit warring would seem to single them out for a more severe sanction. Does anyone want to yell at me and tell me I've missed something right under my nose or completely mis-read something? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Edited HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I have granted Marcelus another 100 words for replies to comments about him, and another 100 for replies to admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Callanecc, RegentsPark, and Bishonen: I'm happy with a 0RR for Marcelus or anything else that deals with his edit warring; I don't think his conduct on talk pages is problematic so I think the edit warring is the only thing we need to address. I can live with a logged warning for GCB, especially given their self-reflection above. I think some stronger action is needed for TB, given VM's statement in particular. As VM says, TB mentions him (twice) in their replies here in connection with a dispute at The Forgotten Holocaust, an article (and talk page) which VM has never edited. That and the comment claimed that my writing is antisemitic, referring to MVBW, when the closest MVBW came was I think this should never be framed as a dispute about "Jews" because that is antisemitic and the Icewhiz comment (among others) suggest a preoccupation with perceived "enemies" that causes them to read more into comments than is actually there, including during this AE thread. I feel a short-term topic ban (I propose a month) is more appropriate than a warning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've struck my comment wrt TB following a discussion at my talk page regarding the VM comment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      With the clarification regarding TB's mention of Volunteer Marek, I can live with a logged warning for TB, in addition to that for GCB and a 0RR (or similar) for Marcelus. I don't plan on closing this before midday UTC Monday to give time for any further admin comments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with your summary HJ Mitchell but I take a more severe look on TrangaBellam's personal attacks and incivility and anyone else engaging in the same conduct. In a controversial and heated topic area, editors are expected to engage with each other with civility, if they can't do that they need to removed from the topic area. Regarding sanctions I'm in favour of topic bans for Marcelus due to the persistent edit warring and TrangaBellam due to the persistent and egregious personal attacks and incivility. I really don't have a major issue with GizzyCatBella's comments given that they are still contributing to the discussion although perhaps a reminder to focus more on the top two levels. With regard to pushing for this to come here rather than stay at ANI, to me that makes sense, an editor can review the situation (or already be familiar with it) and recognise that AE is better equiped to handle a situation that ANI (which I suspect would be most of the time) and then present evidence at AE. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam: Re diffs of personal attacks: #Statement by GizzyCatBella, here are some specifics: [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam: I'm responding here so others can see, I'm happy to give you an extra 500 words to respond to GCB's diffs. Remember that the purpose in doing so is to refute what GCB says they are not to do anything else. If your response is meh or something similar, you likely don't need to include it. Refute what GCB says it shows and focus on the 5 I pulled above as the ones I found specifically problematic. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella: Following TrangaBellam's additions re GCB I agree with HJ Mitchell that there is a pattern in GCB's contributions to talk page discussions generally being meta comments about procedure rather than good faith contributing to the root of the discussion and that these comments prolonging what could otherwise be resolved more quickly, such as at Talk:Glaukopis, and that some comments, like at Talk:Mariusz Bechta, just don't constructively resolve issues. While in isolation an informal reminder (as I mentioned above) would be appropriate, now that I've looked in more detail at GCB's history in this topic area (the TBAN from the World War II history of Poland from 2018-2020) I don't believe that an informal reminder would be appropriate and instead am in favour of a logged warning at a minimum but am leaning more towards reinstating the topic ban on GCB and extending it to the history of the Jews in Poland.

TrangaBellam: I appreciate TrangaBellam's responses above and they certainly help to explain their thinking behind the comments but the responses seem to be focused on either justifying the incivility or suggesting that GCB's behaviour is the same or worse. However I can't see that they have presented adequate mitigation (that is provacation so severe that it explains and excuses them) nor a reflection that they were not acceptable and a committment not to repeat similar behaviour. Therefore I am still in favour of a TBAN likely from World War II history of Poland and the history of the Jews in Poland.

Marcelus: Thinking about a scope for the TBAN possibly anything to do with World War II history of Poland as well as the history of Lithuania and/or Lithuanian nationalism. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark I agree that most of the diffs from GCB aren't anything that would be beyond what would be expected in heated discussion. The four diffs (one is duplicated) I linked above are really the only ones I had an issue with. I think what they show (per a couple comments from editors above) show that TB has difficulty responding calmly when others disagree with them and especially when TB assigns comments from others to suspected motives (the Icewhiz comment for example) rather than responding in good faith. I also don't accept their reasoning behind the 'wading in' that HJ identifies.

If others don't believe that topic bans are appropriate at this stage, while also considering that there's about to be an arbitration case as well, I'm okay with logged warnings for GCB and TB (instead of short TBANs) and a 3-6 month 0RR restiction for Marcelus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'd like to comment on this later today or tomorrow, so I hope it's not closed any time soon. A lot to read! Bishonen | tålk 11:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC).~~ Done, below.[reply]
Marcelus' request appears to concern the editing of Naliboki massacre and its talkpage. I've also read Callanecc's diffs (actually there are four, not five, as one is double-dipped), from which I was led to the history of Glaukopis plus its current talkpage. For Glaukopis, this post by TB was very rude. Really rude. The bad part has been struck out now, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. However, even so, and particularly from viewing the whole section Talk:Glaukopis#Polish version, I don't believe it would be a good idea to limit Tranga Bellam's work in the area. She started a discussion when Piotrus added an {{npov}} tag to the article - something P should have done himself, as his tag edit summary, "just compare this to the pl wiki version of this article" is quite unhelpful. (Yes, P, I understand an ec prevented you. Being ready with a talkpage post when adding a tag will help against that.) Polish Wiki is Polish Wiki, and English Wiki is English wiki — we have little reason to follow them like sheep, and the English article is well-sourced. I don't read Polish, but per Google translate, TB's analysis here sounds convincing, in view of the sources of the English article, none of which are used in the Polish article. Piotrus had better have discussed sourcing right from the start, rather than offer his personal impression that the Polish article "is more neutral, and what we have here reads less neutrally. An article that is overwhelmingly negative is generally not something that WP:NPOV encourages." No, but it doesn't encourage whitewashing either. I'm glad to see, in that talkpage section, that Piotrus appears willing, in the face of evidence, to come round from his preference for the Polish article. But TB certainly did the heavy lifting here, and it's hardly surprising that she got testy in the process. (GitzyCatBella's commentary about the importance of restoring the tag would have made me testy, too. I agree with others above about GCB's unhelpful focus on procedure, and would not object to a sanction, in particular per Horse Eye's Back's statement.) On the showing of the discussion in the section "Polish version", removing TB from any part of this area would be a notable loss IMO. Callanec, I just don't agree that TB has made any "egregious" PAs, excepting only Special:Diff/1140318424.

As for Naliboki massacre, I don't see it as disruptive of TB to "wade in" (quoting Harry). We all wade in all over the place, don't we? Wikipedia:Be bold could equally well be called Wikipedia:Please wade in. Also, it was TB that opened the "Section title" section on talk, 13 minutes after she edited the article's section title from "Allegations of Jewish involvement in the massacre" to "False Allegations of Jewish perpetrators". This seems to contradict Marcelus' impression that TB simply edited the article and ignored talk. In sum, I believe TB did good, high-level work at both Naliboki massacre and Glaukopis. I'll join with Harry in asking, have I completely missed or mis-read something, since my conclusion concerning TB is so different from several above? I might be somewhat under the influence of the recent ANI discussions here and here, concerning constructive editors losing it over disruption. Those ANI cases were more extreme, admittedly, both concerning the disruption and particularly in the ways AndyTheGrump and Primefac (two Wikipedia stalwarts) exploded. Bishonen | tålk 14:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

It's not so much the wading in that concerns me, it's that TB made an edit they could have easily foreseen being disputed, then reinstated it after it was reverted, which is what sparked the edit war.

I also appreciate GCB's self-reflection and Andreas's comment. I don't think these are three editors so blinded by an agenda that they can't edit the topic area constructively. I do think some sort of action is necessary though, as all three have behaved in ways that are not conducive to building consensus. I would support short time-limited topic bans (maybe a fortnight or a month or a couple of hundred edits) for all three to allow them to regain perspective and for cooler heads to prevail (hopefully!). I would also be happy with an additional, longer ban for Marcelus but limited only to the mainspace, or a 1RR or even 0RR restriction, and an additional restriction or logged warning for GCB regarding talk page conduct. A brief topic ban should be sufficient warning to an editor that something needs to change, and failing to heed that warning would be grounds for potentially much more severe sanctions—but the best case scenario is everyone accepts their slap on the wrist and takes the opportunity to do better in future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, noting that Marcelus's timeline appears to be correct. TB made the first edit at 11:54 (UTC), Marcelus reverted at 11:56, TB reverted the revert at 12:01, Marcelus revered again at 12:03, then TB opened the talk page discussion at 12:07. The next edit to the article was by Gitz at 12:20 with a compromise, then a large removal of text by TB which sparked more back and forth reverting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The articles in question are not under a 1RR restriction so a revert here or a revert there is not a big issue. I looked through some of the long list of incivility examples provided by GizzyCatBella (not all, I do have a life!) and, except perhaps for this one don't see anything that exceeds the bounds of normal heated discourse (for example, one would really have to stretch one's imagination to associate "attracting fringe crackpots" with BLP violations). The only real violation here is that Marcelus has apparently edit warred. Not having got their way be edit warring, they've resorted to ANI and then AE. It is perhaps too late to block Marcelus for edit warring but I think what we need here is a warning to not use ANI/AE as a mechanism of first resort when the edits are not going the way you want them to go (whatever happened to WP:DR?). HJMitchell has actually posted a reasonable summary above but, on the basis of that summary, I don't see how they've concluded that a topic ban on TB is necessary. All I see is an action against Marcelus (edit warring) and, though I haven't looked into the history that HJMitchell mentions, an action against GCB (perhaps barring them from AE).--RegentsPark (comment) 22:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flibirigit

Article in question is not subject to AE, and the concern itself is a simple misunderstanding. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Flibirigit

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Dweisz94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Flibirigit (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/CASENAME#SECTION

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_first_ice_hockey_internationals_per_country:_1909%E2%80%931999&oldid=1143789340 User Flibirigit committed defamation either by malice or negligence by posting an AfD notice on a different article than the one that is AfD and on my removal of the link of the wrong article, the user posted on the AfD discussion that I removed the AfD notice, an understood scenario of my debating this would be sending the second article for AfD.

March 9, 2023 The comment that unfairly implies I took an acceptable AfD link down
March 9, 2023 The first article the one that is AfD
March 9, 2023 The second article that isn’t an AfD

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: User:Flibirigit

Discussion concerning Flibirigit

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 Flibirigit

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Flibirigit

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

The correct venue for this concern is WP:ANI but it seems based on a misunderstanding so I suspect there's little point in getting you to re-report it there. Both articles are up for AfD, on the same AfD page. You removed the AfD template from one of the articles and it was politely restored. This was an appropriate action, and there's nothing in what is presented that requires administrative involvement. However please feel free to comment further at the AfD page if you believe these articles should be retained. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Springee

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 Springee

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FormalDude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Springee (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:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons

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

19:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Springee removes a contradictory and significant portion of a sentence, misrepresenting what the source says in a flagrant NPOV violation.
02:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Immediately challenges my revert of their edit on the talk page by claiming that "police found no damage to the door" does not mean the same thing as "police did not observe any visible damage to the front door".
05:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Continues to make objections with no substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines, or conventions.
06:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Tries WP:STONEWALLING by using the dispute they created as a reason to support their version.
06:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Finally comes up with a policy based justification: half a sentence is apparently undue weight.
11:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC) "We cherrypick all the time."
12:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC) To back up their undue weight claim, they make a list of sources that don't mention the portion of the sentence they want removed because they only listed sources that were published before the relevant information was made public.
12:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Continues to imply that their list of sources from the first initial days when the story broke, before the disputed content was made public, is a reason to not include said content. Also casts doubt on a greenlit RS with no reasoning.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I realize some may see this as primarily a content dispute, but the diffs I provide show Springee's editing is textbook disruptive POV pushing. I can't see how it is possible for an editor as experienced as Springee to make these edits in good faith.

I propose Springee be, at a minimum, indefinitely blocked from editing Tucker Carlson and its talk page. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To those saying it was too early for me to start this request, I would have waited in most other scenarios, but this is a hotbed article with a longtime experienced editor who should clearly know better than to make the arguments they did. I wanted to draw attention to what the experience is like when one tries to make a simple, policy-based edit supported by 1 2 3 4 reliable sources at Tucker Carlson. This is not the only time Springee has used less than impartial tactics, as Dlthewave pointed out below. Springee has over 500 combined edits to Tucker Carlson and its talk page over the past 3 years–nobody else involved in the discussion has anywhere near that amount in the same timespan. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With their statement below, Springee is still arguing that the first page of reliable sources that appear in a Google search result is sufficient for establishing due weight. Not only should any editor who has spent as much time here as Springee know that there are various reasons why using the first results from a Google search is misleading, but they still refuse to acknowledge that the sources they provided from that search are all irrelevant because they were published before the content under dispute (police announcement of finding no damage to Carlson's door and a journalist corroboration of that) had even taken place. Does Springee think we are naive enough to believe he doesn't understand that there will not be news coverage about something that hasn't yet occurred?

They also implied Ad Fontes is more important than Wikipedia's own long established RS consensus forming process at WP:RSP.

Attempting to water down language, arguing that reliable sources are biased while their own preferred sources are neutral, prolonging frivolous arguments that aren't backed by any policy–these are all behaviors explicitly spelled out at WP:Civil POV pushing#Behaviors. I don't see any explanation of how these actions are compatible with editing in this topic area. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I'm not sure how any of those comments of mine that you listed can be considered impolite, aside from maybe my sarcastic "Crazy how that works". Statements are not automatically impolite simply because they discuss negative information. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

14:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Springee

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 Springee

FormalDude, this is a content dispute that should have been handled via BLPN, NPOVN etc rather than here. There are no claims of edit warring and the diffs just show that we don't agree. I was planning on taking the question to BLPN when I had access to a computer but this was launched first.

As a general note about the Carlson page, I, along with others [58] feels it suffers from being excessively long with too many details and not enough summary hence why I'm frequently concerned about how content is added. Much of the content in the article is outrange of the week content rather than an IMPARTIAL/encyclopedic tone summaries. Talk page suggestions to trim frequently get pushback with a view that much as been written about Carlson thus we are obligated to include it. Uninvolved editors at BLPN noted the same issues. Sometimes a group of good intentioned but like minded editors can fail to see the forest for the trees. That doesn't mean the person who disagrees is disruptive. Having different, civil perspectives (without edit warring) is a good thing for the overall quality of articles.

As a note, I think IMPARTIAL and encyclopedic tone are important and I will argue the same way when the shoe is on the other foot [59], [60], [61], [62].

FormalDude's argument boils down to I'm ignoring due content. In making that claim they present 4 sources. To establish if the content is due I did a broad search for the topic and presented the first page of results. The idea being if this content is due I would expect reasonable coverage in that first page of RSs. When this search result didn't support inclusion FormalDude argued it was some sort of deliberate misrepresentation on my part to not filter for only later articles (they didn't indicate they did that filtering when posting their own sources). FormalDude certainly is welcome to argue my list isn't representative but it seems quite a stretch to claim my posting of sources (NBC, CBS, The Hill, Business Insider, CNN, Politico, AP News) was somehow disruptive.

Dlthewave and Aquillion are both are trying to turn old content disputes into evidence of a problem. While CONSENSUS clearly is policy, I was unaware that we were not allowed to CIVILLY disagree on talk pages. Both argue the proposal to use Reason at various times is evidence of a problem. They cite RSP as proof Reason shouldn't be used. That ignores that RSP is only a guide, and per RS sources are reliable on a case by case basis. While not a Wikipedia RS, Adfonts media bias chart[63] shows that Reason's bias and reliability scores (7.81, 36.73) are on average less biased than sources like the Washington Post (-8.96, 38.16), The Atlantic (-9.42, 38.42), MSNBC (-14.15, 35.14), Vanity (-14.45, 32.35) and DB (-12.70, 35.65). But more to the point, in the cited cases Reason is doing a deeper dive into the claims about the BLP subject in question and comparing those to the facts available. These sort of detail dive articles are often very good sources to use when evaluating claims against a BLP. Note the Reason article was not sympathetic to Carlson. The arguments against use are not based on the merits/content of the Reason articles. Rather they are based on an appeal to authority to dismiss the source outright. Dlthewave argued Reason a poor source yet they added it ("Add RS") to the section in question[64].

"POV pushing" is often a way to say, "I don't agree so they must be wrong". This is trying to solve content disputes via ARE rather than the proper dispute resolution forums. Springee (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle Belato, I would suggest diving into the details before assuming the selective edits highlighted why Dlthewave and Aquillion are examples of trying to replace sources with a highly biased source. I'm not proposing we replace one set of sources with another. Instead, I'm suggesting we add a source that, in those particular cases, looked at the specific claims and evidence at hand and offered an assessment. In particular I think this is important when dealing with BLP articles where assessments in the media are often subjective. Consider these recent BLPN comments related to splitting vs reducing the Carlson article (not my comments) [65], [66]. I think they get to some of my concerns that ultimately boil down to trying to stick to IMPARTIAL even when covering controversial people. Springee (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Springee (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dlthewave is misrepresenting my comments. For example, the 19:48 11 March 2023 edit describes the bias/not IMPARTIAL in the wiki article, not the cited sources. Springee (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (slatersteven)

I could argue (and will do so) that both parties can be argued to be at fault. "did not observe" doesn't quite mean the same as "did not find", as one can be seen as a classic plausible deniability as it implies there might have been some, just not seen. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Bookku)

Uninvolved opinion. (Sorry for totally unaware of topic area)
Brief check of difs and talk page seem to indicate above complaint largely seems to be content dispute brought here before completing protocol mentioned @ WP:DDE
IMO content disputes are best resolved through regular WP:DR IMO people need to have more patience and WP:Goodfaith about fruitfulness of WP:DR. Always think over giving best chance to WP:DDE andWP:DR before coming to ARE.

Bookku (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peter Gulutzan

I noticed an earlier case where FormalDude reverted Springee in order to re-insert contentious material in the Tucker Carlson BLP article, on 23:54 5 March 2023, despite two other editors having indicated on the talk page that they were not in favour of the contentious material (later it was removed). FormalDude joined the talk page discussion 3 minutes after the edit, and I had previously -- in an unrelated matter -- asked FormalDude to look at WP:BLPUNDEL so there shouldn't be doubt here about awareness. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thebiguglyalien

Involved. I believe that Springee and FormalDude have both been engaging inappropriately in this discussion. I'm sure that they both believe their position would improve the article, but neither seems willing to engage in dispute resolution or to assume good faith (evidenced in one case by the fact that we escalated straight to AE), and the end result is that they're both disrupting any meaningful collaboration on this article. They're not the only ones to do so in recent days, but they're the ones we're talking about here. We haven't reached the point where I'd recommend restrictions against one or both editors, but I wouldn't object to it either. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm challenging some of Dlthewave's statement. Dlthewave has been engaging tendentiously by attempting to enforce a negative POV on the article:

They insisted that it was required by policy to call Carlson racist in wikivoice and implied I had ulterior motives for disagreeing (diff), saying that we had to use the exact word choice of a source even after WP:LABEL and WP:CLOP were explained to them (diff).
They deleted a talk page discussion (diff) against the poster's wishes (diff).
They twice restored WP:SYNTH content that had been removed (diff and diff) and refused to meaningfully address concerns about the sourcing when asked (diff)

There are more before this, these are the ones since I became involved a few days ago. Dlthewave's statement, particularly points 3 and 4, is trying to litigate talk page arguments where they were out of step with policy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dlthewave

Involved. Like most disputes, this does involve content, however I would encourage folks to look at the bigger picture as this is part of a larger ongoing pattern of tendentious editing by Springee at the Tucker Carlson article. This editor continually invokes made-up rules and unusual interpretations of policy and I think that editors are getting tired of humoring these fallacious arguments. Here are a few recent ones:

17:12 20 Feb 2023 - Arguing that content shouldn't be added because the article is already too long and editors don't trim material when making additions (why on earth would they be expected to do that?): " “The whole article is already too long and editors typically don't remove or consolidate old content when adding new material.”
20:32 7 March 2023 - Proposing that we predict the subject's significance in "50 or 100 years" (this is absurb, we usually use the 5-year test) and invoking a bizarre standard that compares the subject's significance and article length to a random historical figure: "Perhaps a better way to look at it is how significant will Carlson be in 50 or 100 years. Let's apply the Hooke test. Take someone like Robert Hooke. Are we going to claim Carlson is more significant than Hooke? If no then chances are this bio is too long."
02:46 11 March 2023 - Referring to "racist" and "anti-Islamic" as "subjective claims" and violations of IMPARTIAL, despite being used verbatim by multiple reliable sources: "We also don't treat subjective claims as fact in wiki-voice, hence why LABEL exists. The long standing versions of the text in question was careful to attribute the claims to their sources. You have chosen to instead put them in wiki-voice in violation of LABEL and IMPARTIAL."
06:19 11 March 2023 - Same argument as above, but with the assertion that even the Washington Post (!) isn't sufficient to support these words in Wiki voice: "The diff I linked to has the long standing text. Even with the consolidation, that is the text we should follow. Also, even if the Washington Post says it, these are still LABELs."
19:48 11 March 2023 - Proposing that Reason (a biased source whose opinions must be attributed) be used to provide a more "balanced" and "impartial" POV than the existing MSNBC source. "Willbb234, I think this content is clearly due. However, I think the current presentation is unbalanced. The Reason source could be used as a more balanced source as well as more IMPARTIAL tone."
20:06 11 March 2023 - Same thread as above, again saying that reliable sources go "too far" and the biased source (Reason) should be used as a middle ground between Carlson's version of the events and what RS reported.

Although Springee's arguments apppear superficially polite and policy-based, they all too often misrepresent sources, P&G and common practices. Editors shouldn't be expected to "resolve disputes" with an experienced editor who behaves this way. –dlthewave ☎ 17:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need to address a few of the points made by Thebiguglyalien. I'm open to feedback about my editing, however some of this seems like an attempt to discredit me in order to obviate my concerns about Springee:

- I did not "delete" a talk page discussion against anyone's wishes, I moved it to the relevant user's talk page. I pinged the two participants with a "I hope this is okay" note; this is the first objection that anyone's raised. Please either provide a diff demonstrating that this was against the poster's wishes or strike the accusation.
- The editor who challenged the content refused to elaborate when I asked them to explain the SYNTH concern. The best answers I got were "I suggest using your eyes" [67] and the nonensical "adding additional sources to support specific parts of the content violates WP:SYNTH" [68]. I gave my rationale for inclusion (after I once again asked for clarification [69] and editors insisted that I first make a case for inclusion [70]. Please either provide diffs where a viable SYNTH concern was expressed (I generally disregard content challenges that do not have a valid explanation) or strike the accusation. I do apologise for not seeing the SYNTH issue when I looked with my eyes, I will now go flagellate myself with the CIR stick. –dlthewave ☎ 20:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoodDay

Content disputes should be worked out at the talkpage of where the dispute is occuring. If a stalemate of sorts occurs, then one should begin an RFC there or go to the Dispute Resolution board. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Spy-cicle

I have not been involved in this specific discussion on the talk page, but I have previously edited the Carlson talk page 6 times over a year ago. After reading this discussion, I do not see this as "textbook POV pushing" to me it just appears to be a content dispute in already contentious topic area. WP:BLPRESTORE is worth considering as well. If so clear consensus can be found it can be resolved via an RfC or DR. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 18:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

I will state upfront that I do not watch Tucker Carlson because I find his laugh extremely irritating, but that's my opinion. Our job is to include the facts and far less opinion. We are obligated to dredge objectively through the material so that we are publishing all relative points of view in a neutral dispassionate tone. What I'm seeing here now is another episode of "let's get Springee" which crops up every now and then because Springee dares to maintain an objective and neutral POV. Neutrality is quickly becoming a thing of the past because of mainstream media's bias – on all sides...globally, not to mention the omission of important events. The Columbia Journalism Review brought some serious issues to our attention in their 4 part report, which included a quote by Matt Taibbi about how the more neutral approach to reporting has gone completely out the window. We are seeing it here now because we are nothing more than a mirror of mainstream media. Springee simply removed suggestive language that leaves readers with the wrong impression because information that belongs in the article was omitted. He's a good editor doing his job as a good editor. So the OP brings us all these innocuous diffs under the pretense Springee is being disruptive. The only disruption I'm seeing is the OP wasting our time here now. Another issue that we're seeing in recent years is omissions which have become the norm in mainstream media. Is it a new style of writing that our editors have picked up on? Some journalists are actually demanding that their personal truths be published and to hell with NPOV. The mere fact that Springee's appropriate responses and edits have raised such a stir speaks volumes to the OP's approach, not to Springee's, especially after you examine the innocuous diffs used as evidence. Smells alot like a WP:POV railroad to me. For as long as I can remember, Springee has been the most composed, polite, neutral and objective editor we have in this highly volatile topic area. We need more like him, not fewer, and we also need to put an end to these vexatious filings. Atsme 💬 📧 19:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objectiive3000

Just a few side comments:

I don’t think WP:DR is an effective solution for highly contentious articles. I’ve not seen it work. Most of the editors involved are experienced, the issues are complex, the number of involved editors is generally larger, the contentious topics procedure is helpful on the TP, and the less formal TP discussion format is far quicker.

I believe FormalDude did abide by the relevant parts of WP:DDE and don’t think the need for a time consuming RfC was reached. Having said that, it was likely premature to come here.

I do believe some of Springee’s discussion was tendentious. When FormalDude presented four sources, Springee responded “If we have to stoop to Vanity or Daily Beast perhaps it's not due.“ Three of the four sources are green-lit at WP:RS/PS. Yet, Springee continued to point to the sources they presented, all of which were dated before the claim under debate, and therefore completely irrelevant. Sorry, for not including diffs, but the thread must be read in toto to understand – and I’m not suggesting sanctions anyhow.

Atsme stepped in again to make yet another general complaint about mainstream media (and editors), and then ironically states: “The Columbia Journalism Review brought some serious issues to our attention in their 4 part report, which included a quote by Matt Taibbi about how the more neutral approach to reporting has gone completely out the window.“ Ironically because that CJR article was widely panned as being heavily biased and Mike Taibbi, IMO, has defenestrated all manner of objectivity. In any case, none of this is relevant to this filing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, supporters keep saying that Springee is polite. FormalDude provided four diffs.[71] Springee responded: If we have to stoop to Vanity or Daily Beast perhaps it's not due leaving out two greenlit RS.[72] When I responded that this was cherry picking, Springee's response started with BS.[73] I don't know about other folk, but "bullshit" is not considered a polite response in my household. This is not in itself a reason for sanctions. Just tired of the repetition. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: thank you for saying no one is covered in glory in the discussion. My point was only that there have been repeated statements here that Springee is polite, as if he is an exception. Besides, his blanket dismissal of greenlit RS and insistence on using RS to show no mention of the doubt about damage to Tucker's door when those sources predate the claim that the door was damaged (the subject of the thread) is less polite than language use. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Adoring nanny

(Not involved in the dispute, but involved in the underlying politics). In Springee's explanation[74] of his edit, Springee mentions that the CNN source[75] says "It's still possible the door was cracked." This hedging by CNN was missing from the version of the article prior to Springee's edit. To me, this looks like Springee made a good explanation of his edit. Springee has further shown restraint by not re-reverting. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Currently, of the roughly 200 comments on Talk:Tucker Carlson, nearly a third of them (about 60) are by Springee. This is not a new problem; it goes back months, if not further. This is clearly suggestive of WP:OWN / WP:BLUDGEON behavior.

And while Atsme is correct to call these comments composed and polite, I don't think they can be called neutral or objective; Springee's comments and edits overwhelmingly take positions functionally supportive or defensive of Carlson. Obviously, he's hardly unique in that regard - most editors in the AP2 topic area have strong priors that inevitably affect their interpretation and weighting of the sources - but Springee's perspectives are unusually stark. For instance, he has been repeatedly skeptical of green-quality WP:RSes whose opinions he disagrees with (such as Mother Jones[76] and MSNBC[77]) been perhaps one of the most consistent and vocal advocates for using Reason (magazine) as a source on Wikipedia, describing its coverage as eg. balanced and impartial.[78][79] and generally advocating for framing that straightforwardly reflects Reason's coverage. See also this discussion and the one below it on Andy Ngo, where Springee argues for using Reason as a central source (also here where he hammers that one piece repeatedly as something that should define our entire coverage) while arguing, in the section below, that Bellingcat should be excluded based on his own disagreement with its conclusions. While it is true that Reason is (like most of the listed sources Springee objected to) a green-quality source on WP:RSP, it is also a source whose entire stated purpose is advocacy for a particular perspective; Springee's insistence on hewing to it and trying to push it as a neutral source that we should use to inform vital facts, while aggressively pushing to minimize and exclude sources from comparably high-quality sources with potential biases that he disagrees with, shows, at best, inability to separate his biases from his interpretation of sources, and WP:TENDENTIOUS / WP:CIVILPOV behavior at worst.

These two issues individually might not cause such severe problems; it's not uncommon for editors to have strong feelings about the topics they edit. But the combination of a consistently tendentious interpretation of the reliability of sources coupled with WP:OWN / WP:BLUDGEON tendencies towards this article shows WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior; editors with strong views about these things should recognize their biases and know when to back down, rather than hammering an article this thoroughly. --Aquillion (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by North8000

I've watched Springee edit and discuss and IMO they are one of the most polite, reasoning, cautious, policy-compliant editors that is involved in contentious articles. This is the kind of editor that we need more of on those types of articles. I've not taken the deep dive on this particular one, but in the past multiple times I've seen folks improperly using / weaponizing Wikipedia mechanisms to try to get rid of or deprecate Springee, including spinning up issues. I consider that to be harmful to Wikipedia.

As an aside, if an article is non-neutral in a certain direction, then neutral-oriented behavior in that particular article will tend to be in one (the other) direction. A few folks here are saying that such is per se a problem; that is not correct. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to one post, the pretty rare and mild "BS" was referring to an accusation just made against the editor. And milder than converting to the spelled out version as the post did. Just like the term "SNAFU" is. :-) North8000 (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Loki's statement about what I posted at that article is flatly wrong and a careful read at the link will bear that out. It was nothing about the existence of the the strategy, denying it's existence would be absurd. It was about claiming that PragerU denied its existence. PragerU did not deny it's existence, and so the statement that said that it did was wrong and not reliably sourced. What PragerU did dissect and dispute was that it was the cause for the shift in voters that occurred. I'm only mentioning it here because something flatly wrong was said about me here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich (Springee)

100% agree with N8k's comment above. As I read Talk:Tucker Carlson#Broken door?, I see FD being hostile throughout, from the very first post ("Are you trolling me?"). Note also that in that discussion, FD is bringing forward four sources: The Atlantic, The Daily Beast, Vanity Fair, and Snopes. Two of those are pretty poor choices. Springee, on the other hand, brings NBC, CBS, The Hill, Business Insider, CNN, Politico, AP, and USA Today. Springee's bringing good sources, albeit I think they might all have been stale for the content at issue. Either way, it's a content dispute.

FD appears to have started this case because Springee is disagreeing. Disagreeing is not sanctionable. Also, it bears emphasizing again what N8k said in his last line: when an article is POV-pushed to one direction, bringing it back to NPOV inevitably means moving it in the other direction. That is not, in and of itself, a problem.

You can't sanction somebody for politely arguing content with quality sources. Levivich (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eruditess

Springee's editing appears polite and reasonable to me. Sourcing is good. I think his interpretation of some of the other sources is right on to be honest. I have to agree with North8000's point, this kind of action seems harmful to Wikipedia. Eruditess (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Loki

I'm not involved in the current dispute about Tucker Carlson specifically, but after interacting with him several times on multiple articles I've concluded strongly that Springee is a civil POV pusher in the area of American politics. The discussion I would point to is not the ones Aquillion linked to but instead this one where Springee edit wars against content sourced to Bellingcat, a green RSP source, over the objections of everyone on the page, all while arguing at length on the talk page over months, using exclusively WP:OR arguments like the Bellingcat article is misrepresenting some of Ngo's earlier tweets. (Edit: Springee even took this to RSP, where consensus was strongly against him. Loki (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC))[reply]

You can see something similar, though admittedly less extreme, in this dispute on Prager U's page. (There's several similar ones, I picked this one because it was the first one I could find.) In it, Springee (and North8000) argue strenuously that we shouldn't say Prager U was wrong to state that the Southern Strategy happened, despite sourcing that directly says that and the wealth of sourcing over at our Southern Strategy page that it did indeed happen, based on again entirely WP:OR-based arguments.

I agree with people who say that Springee is polite. They're one of the editors I've met who's least likely to resort to personal attacks, in fact. However, WP:NPA is not the only policy on Wikipedia, and being "polite" is in fact one of the defining qualities of a civil POV pusher. Springee is not good about WP:V, WP:OR or WP:NPOV when it doesn't suit their personal preferences and those are all arguably more important policies than WP:NPA. Loki (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sideswipe9th

I disagree completely that this is a content dispute. Loki, Aquillion, and FormalDude have all correctly identified that it's a WP:CPUSH problem. My current interactions with Springee are on a different article, Chloe Cole where I'm also seeing examples of this same problem. For brevity's sake, I'm going to focus on two discussions.

Dawn Ennis' September 2022 LA Blade article

[80] Advocates for removal of a reliable source, based on a banner in an archived copy of the Twitter profile of the source author (Ennis), taken 5 days after publication
[81] Interprets the archived banner as Ennis "suggesting violence against Cole"
[82] I clarify that the banner in question is Ennis quoting from Cole, from where Cole misspoke in an interview with Ennis
[83] Casts doubt on Ennis' statement that she was quoting Cole. And that we should retroactively treat Ennis' article with "great suspicion"
For more context on the timeline of the article and Twitter banner, see this reply by me to Slywriter.

Discussion on sourcing

[84] Makes that sources instead of engaging in Cole's arguments, reliable sources are often attack her via ad hominem, guilt by association etc
[85] TheTranarchist asks for examples of sources that have done this, adding that it's Cole's actions and not arguments that are causing hurt hurt to trans people
[86] Instead of listing any sources, Springee tries to dismiss TT's request and point as a motte-and-bailey argument
[87] I reiterate the question, asking Springee to prove his assertion that sources are not engaging with Cole's points and are attacking her
[88] Springee answers with a non-answer saying we have a range of sources. He does provide one, the LA Times column on Cole's lawsuit we were discussing.
[89] I again ask Springee to clarify which specific sources he is objecting to, by giving a link to the source and why he was objecting to it
[90] Springee again answers with a non-answer, focusing on the LA Times column about Cole's lawsuit.
At this point, I decided not to continue that discussion as it felt unproductive and that Springee was unlikely to support his assertion that sources often attacked Cole

What I can't tell, from my interactions with Springee, and from the other diffs provided above is if the problems at Cole's BLP are because of a CPUSH involving GENSEX, or CPUSH involving AP2, or CPUSH involving both, because Cole is at an intersection between GENSEX and AP2. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Springee

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

Just noting that at least this admin has seen this request. No substantive comment as yet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll write more later, but so far, after reading the report and the relevant discussion at the talk page, I have to agree with Thebiguglyalien's take, in that neither users come out looking good from that dispute. @Dlthewave: I think you meant to link to WP:RSP in your diff #5. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the diffs provided by Dlthewave and Aquillion (some of which overlap) it seems to me that Springee has a clear point of view they want to push into the articles. That, by itself, is not entirely wrong, as sometimes an article might not be adhering to our WP:NPOV policies and be in need of differing views that are reported by reliable sources (cf. WP:YESPOV). The problems arise when an editor continuously pushes for a highly biased source in lieu of better ones, raising false balance issues; or when every other editor in the discussion has agreed that the events are undue and would be better for the quality of the article for its mentions to be removed, but this one editor refuses to budge. I'm still not sure about a sanction, but would like to hear from other administrators. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlthewave and Springee: you two are above the word limits for this noticeboard. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Springee: In response to your post at my talk page, I'm extending your limit to 700 words for now, which means you will need to slightly trim your current text. Since it was already replied to, please strike or hat wherever necessary. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 17:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dlthewave: 100 extra words should be sufficient if you reduce the usage of quotes from your initial response. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anything terribly damning in the evidence presented here. I do see content disputes, and disagreements on how biased sources in both directions should be handled in contentious articles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Objective3000, in that same discussion where Springee said BS, there was also Are you trolling me?, You don't get to pick and choose which parts of a reliable source to include based on your personal preference., Note that an objection to an edit that gives no substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines, or conventions is not a valid objection., multiple accusations of cherry picking, Crazy how that works.. No one is covered in glory in that discussion. Picking out a use of BS as the example of lack of politeness isn't convincing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing anything sanctionable here. I see two editors in a content dispute. Springee would do well to make their comments more concise and perhaps comment less frequently (it's not necessary for any one editor to reply to every comment). FormalDude would do equally well not to assign motives to other editors and not let their frustrations show through in their comments. But fundamentally, if it wasn't these two editors in this topic area, we wouldn't be here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BleedingKansas

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 BleedingKansas

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MrOllie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: BleedingKansas (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/COVID-19#Contentious_topic_designation

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

01:41, 13 March 2023 BLP / Point violation on Jay Bhattacharya 1
01:43, 13 March 2023 BLP / Point violation on Jay Bhattacharya 2
01:45, 13 March 2023 BLP / Point violation on Jay Bhattacharya 3

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 08:23, 25 February 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

BleedingKansas has been editing the articles about the Great Barrington Declaration and its authors, generally in a way that is supportive of the declaration. Since that is largely against the mainstream medical position, their editing attempts have not met with a great deal of success. Today, in an apparent effort to make some kind of WP:POINT, they have switched to adding straight up attacks on one of the declaration's authors to their biography. I think something needs to be done about this. MrOllie (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[91]

Discussion concerning BleedingKansas

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 BleedingKansas

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

BleedingKansas responded on their user talk page. A partial quote (I'm leaving out their self-outing and some personal info):

"those of you managing Wikipedia have allowed it to become a joke, a mouthpiece for the "socially approved" among us. It is a shame that I must say this - you have let down the potential of Wikipedia by allowing it to become captured by the intellectual forces of our "new aristocracy", who lord over the rest of us, declaring things acceptable or unacceptable, true or false. Know this - a backlash is brewing up against you. Those of you who secretly sympathetic to my complaint - now is the time to take the unpopular actions to restore true collaboration to this platform. If not, it will die a death of irrelevance."

I don't know if there's a part of the project they'd be a good fit in, but I highly recommend a COVID TBAN at the least. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

Bleeding Kansas led to the US Civil War. Not surprising that someone who chooses this as a username would have a pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND editing and say things like "now is the time to take the unpopular actions". Levivich (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WaltCip

It can be argued that this user with insurrectionist invective does not possess much interest in participating in a collaborative fashion. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning BleedingKansas

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

Based on the pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND editing I see, a COVID topic ban is definitely warranted. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've indef'd as WP:NOTHERE as a normal admin action. A COVID topic ban is the bare minimum necessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the tban on COVID-19, which appears to be this user's main focus of editing. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good indef. Bishonen | tålk 17:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Concur with the indef. Short of a dramatic change of attitude, there doesn't seem any likelihood they'll be unblocked so I think this can be safely closed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pocalyko

In advance, I apologise for the very nonstandard request. Can we please get a template for requests that are seeking page-level sanctions instead of sanctions against specific users?

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022), WP:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: I cannot provide diffs as the situation is such that they are being revision-deleted on discovery.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: N/A; seeking page-level sanctions

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): N/A; seeking page-level sanctions

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am seeking extended-confirmed protection under the provisions of WP:GENSEX and WP:ARBBLP on Michael Pocalyko and The Navigator (Pocalyko novel). Yesterday an explosive Twitter post was made by a transgender woman which essentially accused him of provoking their suicide by forcing her into a position where she would need to de-transition; since then the article has been targeted by angry users calling him a murderer as a result. As far as I can determine the only sources for this accusation aside from her twitter post are extremely sketchy websites which seem to have no editorial oversight. Once the BLP was protected, the edits moved to the article on the novel, hence why I am adding it to this request.

The articles were semi'd yesterday and, at the time of this post, Pocalyko is under an hour-long XCP. As I am fairly certain this is going to be a major issue from experience even when and if reliable outlets start to corroborate the claim, I am seeking XCP as an enforcement measure for at least two weeks on The Navigator and one month on Pocalyko. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 21:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Per the IPv4 below, and looking at that page's history, I'm thinking they're right and that Fahad Almubarak should also get an XCP of at least a month. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 21:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: N/A, seeking page-level sanctions

Discussion concerning Michael Pocalyko

Statement by LilianaUwU

It's a touchy situation to say the least. I agree that both the novel and BLP pages should be ECP'd for the mentioned lengths of time, or at least until actual reliable sources start to be published. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 199.208.172.35

It would be helpful to add Fahad Almubarak to the list of articles being considered for upped protection in this case. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Michael Pocalyko

[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]

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