Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive316

Amendment request by GoodDay (talk)

Sanction, that amendment is being requested for

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive307#GoodDay

Administrator imposing the sanction

• Dennis Brown

Notification of that administrator

• notified

Statement by GoodDay

I'm requesting that my t-ban be amended to allow me to edit main space only, concerning Gender & Sexuality related pages. I make this request, so that I don't erroneously edit a page that may have any connection to the gender/sex topic. For example: If I were to fix a spelling error (nothing to do with gender/sex) on the Nicola Sturgeon page? I wouldn't want an editor (or editors) complaining, because Sturgeon is connected to the Bryson case. PS - At the very least give me clarification, so I won't have to check nearly every page (from top to bottom) before editing, to make sure there's zero connection to the topic-in-question, if it's decided not to remove my t-ban from main space. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will make an effort in 'toning down' edit summaries. That being said, I will be avoiding the gender/sex area of pages, even if my proposed amendment is passed. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking that my t-ban be amended so that I'm restricted only from the talkpages/discussions in the Gen/Sex area. At the moment, (I assume) I can't edit the pages (for example) Jordan Peterson or Justin Trudeau 'at all', because they're directly or indirectly connected to the Gen/Sex topic area. If Trudeau was to announce his pending resignation? I wouldn't know if I could edit his page concerning his resignation (assuming it had nothing to do with Gen/Sex), because he brought up the preference of using "people kind" in the past. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't compel arbitrators to amend my t-ban. Amending it or not, is entirely Arbcom's choice. I'm merely asking that it be made slightly easier for me, when editing pages. I'm certain that we're all in agreement that my t-ban is a preventative measure & so I'm trying to persuade arbitrators that there's no longer a need to t-ban me from main space, concerning the Gen/Sex topic area. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just would feel (figuratively) safer & less stressed, if I didn't have to check over every article I edited. At the moment, I avoid (for example) editing bios like Sturgeon, Peterson, Rowlings (etc) as I already know they're connected to the Gen/Sex topic area, be it pre-tban participation 'or' Youtube observation. However, not 'every' bio page is so well known to be connected to that topic area. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: would you provide me an example page. I'd be able to tell you 'how' I would edit the example page & how I would handle being reverted. GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna Wu, assuming the bio page is under the Gen/Sex topic. I would have to move on, if an edit of mine was reverted. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I edit pages via the "Random article" route & just moments ago, made some changes to the lead of Joe Hasham. I then read some of the page's intro & reverted my changes, due to uncertainty about the bio page's status. Would appreciate it, if editors would check the bio page (and my changes/revert of changes) over. It would give more light on why I'm requesting an amendment. Note - This wasn't a test edit. But rather a situation where I discovered something in the bio, 'after' editing the bio. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: I've no interest in messing around with 'pronoun usage'. My concern about a bio page of a trans person, would run along - Is the birth date correct 'or' the place of birth. Is the birth place spelled correctly. Should a bigger dash be placed between the birth & death dates, in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: I'd rather stay away from pronouns, gender identity, etc. See my response above to Jayron32. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell:, @Jayron32:, @Floquenbeam: & @Callanecc:, earlier (today) I made edits to 2023 Scottish National Party leadership election, which had nothing to do with gender/sex. But, after reading through the entire page, I sided on caution & reverted my edits, as I'm not entirely sure if that page falls under the t-ban. Would appreciate much, if you'll 'review' my edits. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

HJ Mitchell, I tend to be a forgiving type where there is any reasonable chance of success, as I hope people already know. I haven't looked into this recently, so I would say the same as last time, that I have no objections and trust the admins adjudicating the case to use their best judgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newimpartial

Without prejudice, I just wanted to point out that GoodDay has filed and then withdrawn two previous requests concerning this topic ban, this one last month and this more recent one. I may have missed it, but I didn't notice links to either in the current filing.

In fact, I don't even see a link to the original TBAN discussion, though I may well have missed it. Newimpartial (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

I'd conditionally support a tightening of the TBAN if GoodDay can give us a good sense of what he will do if reverted. If it's something like "I'll make sure the talk page isn't covered by my TBAN and just move on if it is", I'm fine with it.

Every time I've seen a similar proposal pop up—that an editor be allowed to edit mainspace but not the talky spots—I've seen reluctance on the part of administrators, due to the important we place on discussion to resolve content disputes. If there were ever an exception to that reasonable reluctance, it would be an editor like GoodDay. His gnomish edits do not really require a full reading of the article (ATG, you really fully read every article before editing?) and are often full passes through related articles to adjust things like image sizes, dash style, and whitespace. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An example for GD: let's say you were gnoming your way through Category:Candidates in the 2020 United States elections and you got to Brianna Wu. You make some minor edit, which is then reverted. How would you respond? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 3)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the amendment request by GoodDay

Statement by AndyTheGrump

This appears to be a request to be permitted to edit articles without reading them through first. I can think of no good reason why this should be encouraged in any editor, whether subject to a topic ban or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

If I'm understanding things right, I can see two potential options that would (I think) satisfy GoodDay's desire in this area:

1. Allow GoodDay to make minor edits to article content as long as the edit is not related to gen/sex.
2. Allow GoodDay to make (minor or major) edits that are unrelated to gen/sex to parts of articles that are unrelated to gen/sex even if other parts of the articles are related.

To use the example from above, adding content about Justin Trudeau's (currently hypothetical) resignation would be allowed by option 2 but not by option 1, but both options would allow the correcting of typos in content about that registration. Option 1 would theoretically allow fixing typos in sentences unrelated to gen/sex in articles/sections that mostly are, although I would personally not recommend it.

In either case the permission could be restricted so as not to apply to articles that are wholly and/or primarily about gen/sex if desired; and I would strongly recommend careful consideration of the exact wording. If either are allowed then I would suggest also explicitly allowing GoodDay to respond to questions asked of them about edits they make under their provisions, even if other comments in that location would be a breach (e.g. if someone asked a question on Talk:J. K. Rowling)

I don't know yet whether I would support either or both options (I want to see other's comments first), and I am not suggesting these are the only or even best possible options, just ones that can be usefully considered.

Regardless of whether the restrictions are changed or not clarification on what is and isn't a breach should be given. Thryduulf (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

@GoodDay:, one month ago, you withdrew the same request when it appeared to be going against you and you committed to avoiding talk pages for six months before returning here. In the intervening single month, by my count, you've made roughly 500 talk page comments, a staggering number. What has changed during the month that leads you to return so soon? SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the amendment request by GoodDay

• I can't see an issue with allowing GooDay to make edits they expect to be entirely uncontroversial, like fixing typos, even if the article subject matter would be covered by GENSEX, on the proviso that this is
  just enough rope. Per Thryduulf, there should probably be an exemption to allow them to explain themselves on the talk page if requested, but not to reinstate a reversed edit, because at that point the edit would not be uncontroversial. Obviously this would require Dennis's consent or a rough consensus of admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'm inclined to call this a consensus of uninvolved admins and modify the restriction to allow edits that would otherwise be entirely uncontroversial unless any admin objects. Courtesy ping for Dennis Brown. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I think so long as the edit is truly unrelated to GENSEX (no shenanigans like changing "he" to "her" and claiming it was a spelling error), I concur with HJ Mitchell's regime above for allowing limited participation. Again, would require Dennis's consent as he instituted the initial ban. --Jayron32 19:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm satisfied with GoodDay's response to me above; with the caveat that like Floq says below, the rope will be VERY short on actual disruption in the area of gender and sexuality broadly, like expect a no-warning block if there's anything untowards. Regarding Callanecc's idea below, in my mind, that's a little too unrestrictive. I think that we still need a prohibition on editing in the gender/sexuality realm broadly. Maybe that's a conversation for another time, though.

  GoodDay asks above to review These edits. I see no way that changing "A" to "The 2023", adding the bold markup, or adding a parameter "ongoing = yes" to the infobox violates anything

  WP:GENSEX, either as their content or as the general subject matter of the article in which they occured. --Jayron32 16:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• We choose to impose topic bans because it is exhausting for everyone to deal with the editor in some topic areas, but we hope they can be productive in other areas. The topic ban scope is guaranteed to annoy someone. Too narrow, and the editor can constantly push new boundaries, say it wasn't technically a violation, and exhaust the community some more. Too wide, and the editor has to walk on eggshells to avoid an accidental violation when the edit would normally not raise flags. I tend to support wider topic bans, because if someone has to do something exhausting, I'd prefer it be editor, not the community. But a wide scope for its own sake isn't a goal. So if this topic ban can be narrowed in a way that doesn't risk exhausting the community - where changing the format of J.K. Rowling's birthdate wouldn't raise an eyebrow, but changing "he" to "she" in some other article would result in an AE block without endless discussion - I'd be OK with it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @GoodDay:, to be clearer, I'm not saying it's necessarily a risk, I'm saying if it happened, I wouldn't want there to be a lot of discussion about whether it violates the revised topic ban scope. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems like the discussion here is mainly around GoodDay not making edits relating to the gender of people (including editors) rather than other areas that may be related to GENSEX. What about if we replace the topic ban (which is very broad) to a prohibition on making any edit that changes or questions the gender of any person (including article subjects, editors, people mentioned in articles and so on). That would seem to address the concerns in the original TBAN discussion as well as comments above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Reading the original AE request, it seems it was GoodDay's conduct on talk pages that caused particular concern. I don't want to open a door that would lead back to that. I would prefer to see how things go with a few months of uncontroversial edits. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Truth&Wisdom365

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Truth&Wisdom365 (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:PSCI

Diffs

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

1. [1] 25 February 2023 — blatant violation of
   WP:AGF
   . I don't have much trust in people who at their first edit state something like WARNING: The following input contains highly editorialized input by a clear critic. Which often means "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts". Speaking of myself: I had pretty weird ideas when I began editing Wikipedia, but I wasn't blocked and banned because I wasn't obnoxious.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If

WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics

)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [2] 24 February 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [3] 25 February 2023

Discussion concerning Truth&Wisdom365

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

Statement by Truth&Wisdom365

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Truth&Wisdom365

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

• I'm thinking a NOTHERE block as a single purpose account might be more appropriate here especially as Truth&Wisdom365 hasn't received {{
  alert/first}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I agree with Callanecc that a NOTHERE block would be more appropriate given that this is a new user who hasn't made any other edits. Hut 8.5 08:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I see that there have only been four edits (all of them appearing to be an issue), and none since the start of this AE. While an indef per
  WP:NOTHERE would be perfectly reasonable within policy, my first choice would be to wait and see if the disruption continues or if the editor starts engaging with the community. If the pattern resumes, I think an indef would be a pretty simple matter without any need for discussion. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I don't see a block as being preventative at this point given the lack of recent activity, though an indef will be likely if disruption resumes. (Tgeorgescu, just for future reference, you do need to use Template:Contentious topics/alert/first rather than Template:Contentious topics/alert when giving someone a first CT notice: otherwise, as Callanecc notes, they're technically not considered aware under ArbCom's new guidelines.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning TheTranarchist

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

1. 10:16, 4 March 2023 Specifically alleging misconduct against another editor for involvement in GENSEX, in violation of her topic ban.
2. 18:05, 4 March 2023 Referring to another editor as hypocrital at best for their involvement in the GENSEX topic area, in violation of her TBAN.
3. 17:38, 5 March 2023 Accusing another editor of conflict-of-interest and other misconduct in their editing related to
   WP:GENSEX
   , again in violation of her topic ban.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 16:08, 11 February 2023 officially warned for conduct in the topic area.
2. 20:24, 3 March 2023 Indefinite GENSEX topic ban, broadly construed, imposed by the community.

If

WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics

)

• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 11 February 2023 by AmandaNP (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user has been told to not try to push the limits of her topic ban (23:21, 4 March 2023), but despite that, the user has continued to do so. Rather than abiding by the topic ban that the community has already imposed, the user has decided to make GENSEX-related edits, going onto the talk page of an administrator and openly calling for sanctions against Jweiss11 for GENSEX editing that the user objected to, publicly alleging a COI without providing any sort of on-wiki evidence. This was not related to any sort of appeal of their sanction, nor was it reverting obvious vandalism, nor was this portion of the comment addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. For these reasons, I plainly ask that the editor be formally reminded to not violate her topic ban, with a note that future attempts to stretch the limits will not be looked favorably upon by the community. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will separately note this edit, which is clearly related to GENSEX and is not a reversion of vandalism nor an appeal of one's block, but still was added to her userpage. I'm not listing it above because it doesn't attack anyone specifically, but it does appear to be a pretty clear TBAN violation as it makes claims related to gender and sexuality (i.e. the current political climate around trans people is getting steadily more genocidal). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren: The bigger issue is that this pushes the boundaries of the TBAN. There's a clear bright-line TBAN violation in the statement I quoted above (yes, that clearly is about gender and sexuality), but I suspect that if Philip Cross were to have started popping off about editors editing biographies with a pro-Labour POV after he was banned from BLPs relating British politics, he would have been simply blocked. People do not get one free polemic after they've been topic banned, and my point in coming here is to ask for a logged reminder of that. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:GENSEX, and that I am free to make requests either here or at ANI. If this is incorrect, I apologize for filing at the wrong venue. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

TheTranarchist: No, I do not think that making statements about one's own identity (i.e. I am a trans woman) is plausibly a violation of this nor what the community intended. That sort of stuff is very different than making statements about the general political climate in a polemic on one's own user page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

20:59, 5 March 2023

Discussion concerning TheTranarchist

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

Statement by TheTranarchist

• 1) In a discussion of my case, I noted that one of the editors calling for a full GENSEX ban had some messed up GENSEX behavior themselves. The entire close review counts as a GENSEX discussion, and I have already stepped completely away from it.
• 2) Refers to the same editor, in the same discussion, who has an undisclosed COI in the area. The "hypocritical" was in relation to them literally having defended race science and gone on a long rant about how we should get to misgender a trans teen who was just murdered and then calling me a POV-pusher
• 3) That was me accepting the topic ban, asking some questions about moving forward, and asking ANI to review a COI, not GENSEX, case I filed weeks ago. @GeneralNotability:, can you confirm that I filed that weeks ago, provided pretty clear evidence, and on-wiki mentioned it to you weeks ago on your talk page asking you to review it?
• 4) Is literally me saying goodbye to GENSEX on my user page. How the hell is that a GENSEX violation? Am I just not allowed to ever mention the case since it's a GENSEX case? Should I remove all mentions of the words "I'm trans" or "I'm a lesbian" on my userpage too? If I list Tri-Ess on my articles worked on since I haven't had a chance to put it there yet, will I be dragged back here again?
• Finally, I think it should be noted for the record, again, that AmandaNP's warning was specifically in regards to improperly reporting a COI, not for my GENSEX conduct.

I already stepped away from GENSEX. Those examples are all meta-discussions of my case. The final one is literally me saying goodbye to GENSEX on my own userpage. I get it, I'm already staying far far far away from GENSEX, I've been chased off and from now on I won't even mention the case either since that's GENSEX editing apparently. This just feels like rubbing salt in the wound.

I also just want to say, in the whole fucking month of dealing with this entire shit-show, I've tried to be strong. I've struggled, but kept a stiff upper lip and moved on. As soon as I was TBANed from GENSEX I stopped editing every single GENSEX article and talk page I was involved in. As much as it hurt, being completely blocked from anything even vaguely LGBT related when the only evidence of problems was just anti-trans BLPs/ORGs, I accepted it. Tried to discuss it a little, but didn't evade it. After CaptainEek's response to my on their talk page, I gave up. When someone else tried to fight for me, I was so ecstatic and participated in the discussion then recused myself after asking how I can demonstrate good behavior and leaving it up to the community. And in the month of hell this has been for me, I have kept myself from crying - as much as I wanted to I felt too fucking numb to actually do so. But this latest fucking petty bullshit? Congratulations, you succeeded where everybody else had failed, I've been crying my eyes out for the last 5 minutes and can't stop. I was already chased off from all LGBT related articles, I've been staying away from them as much as it hurts - just please for the love of god leave me alone. I already lost, it hurts so fucking much already, stop fucking re-opening the goddamn wound.

talk) 22:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not sure why pointing out a known POV-pushing editing problem, in a manner that is far beyond any specific GENSEX issue, as TheTranarchist noted in the very diff you gave, is a violation. Silverseren^C 21:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ppt91

Does the editor have no right to respond while the close review is still ongoing? These are all related to that review. I am genuinely curious as to whether this is an actual violation, because if not, then this feels excessive and unnecessarily stifling. And while I would encourage TheTranarchist to disengage as much as possible, I am also wary of going overboard with endless accusations of misconduct. Ppt91^talk 22:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (kcmastrpc)

There are two areas that concern me, the primary one is making comments about the political climate / genocide on the users own talk page post-ban (which was briefly mentioned by the filer) and to a lesser degree, the comments made on the talk page of CaptainEek by TTA (specifically, making comments about another editors actions in GENSEX). I support a very succinct warning, and my hope is that this matter can be put behind us and discussions continue around how to make this community healthier and more inclusive to editors. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TheTranarchist

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

• Red-tailed hawk, since the topic ban was a community sanction rather than an arbitration enforcement action, I'm curious why you think AE rather than ANI is the right place for this. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @
  TheTranarchist: I don't think any of those diffs are actionable, and even if they were I'm not sure they're within AE's jurisdiction (not that that would prevent an uninvolved admin acting unilaterally) but I would advise you to find a nice, quiet corner of the encyclopaedia to edit for a little while. Let people get used to not seeing your name all over noticeboards. Then people might look sympathetically at narrowing the scope of your topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

1. 12:54, 2 March 2023 Changed the title of the section that was under ongoing discussion
2. 13:01, 2 March 2023 Restored the title of the section without engaging in discussion
3. 14:30, 2 March 2023 Made a major change to the text that was being discussed at the time, without engaging in the discussion
4. 14:47, 2 March 2023 Restored the same edition, ignoring offers to participate in the ongoing discussion on the talk page
5. 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"
6. 20:15, 2 March 2023 "I plan to ignore your commentary on the meta-issues"
7. 20:35, 2 March 2023 Continued to edit the page ignoring requests to undo the edits and discuss them on the talk page

If

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

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: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

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

]

@

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.

@

WP:AE

)

@

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

]

@

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: [4], starting with: With regard to the discussion on Anne Applebaum here above, note that she has been selectively quoted if not misunderstood in the article... --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

I noticed that TrangaBellam also made this large-scale removal of sourced text on another page, during an active discussion on article talk page, but without having any sign of WP:Consensus for such removal [5],[6]. This text was sourced to publications by

@K.e.coffman. No, I believe the view by Applebaum was not misrepresented by not citing everything she said. If the contributor thought the citation was incomplete [7], nothing prevented them from expanding this citation to fix the problem. And what bias? "anti-NKVD"? My very best wishes (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• We just had a conversation that might be relevant: [8]. No, I do not think that comments by GizzyCatBella qualify as sealioning. No judgement about others from me. My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• [9] - here TrangaBellam re-includes claim by G&K that Piotrowski "blamed Polish antisemitism upon the Jews" despite valid BLP objections on article talk page [10]. In edit summary TrangaBellam incorrectly said that a consensus is needed for removing this claim (TrangaBellam included this a couple of days ago [11]). TrangaBellam does it during the standing AE request about them. Now I believe that some action may be needed. My very best wishes (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I should respond to the latest false accusation made by TrangaBellam right on this noticeboard: [12]. I have never accused any contributor, including TrangaBellam of making antisemitic edits on this site. That was my comment [13]. I only said (addressing to another contributor) that, in my opinion, the entire section about non-existent "Jewish perpetrators" should be removed because the way of framing the controversy in the current version of this section sounds antisemitic to me. Basically, why should we include at all a section about "Jewish perpetrators" to this page if such "perpetrators" never existed? I realize that other contributors may see this differently and that I may be wrong about removing the section (I never edited this page and did not check its editing history and who did what), but I did not accuse anyone of making any antisemitic edits. This is perfect illustration of TrangaBellam misinterpreting comments by other contributors and creating conflicts. My very best wishes (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• In their response TrangaBellam continue to insist on their misinterpretation of my comment [14]: 'Err, and it was me who framed the section?... I said that you accused the edit.... No, I had no idea (and did not care) who made any edits, and no, I did NOT accuse any specific edit, and I did NOT refer to any specific edit. I would not respond here, but the false repeated accusation/misinterpretation by TrangaBellam, right on this noticeboard, is a serious issue. It does show TrangaBellam is not capable of interacting with contributors who disagree with them about something. Same can be concluded from some other diffs discussed during this request. My very best wishes (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[16]. @Levivich - thank you, but no, I wrote in my edit "@Adoring nanny" (not @TB), and my edit does not imply any guilt by her. However, I striked through this my comment now, with an explanation [17]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC) (K&G said in their article "Wikipedia’s coverage of the Naliboki massacre should not even mention Jews" - this is something I happened to agree with. My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Gitz

Marcelus complains that [TrangaBellam] refused to revert the changes and continue to editing discussed section ingoring my pleas to stop doing so, but everyone who commented on the talk page agreed that TrangaBellam's edits were an improvement (Adoring nanny, K.e.coffman and myself) and no one (apart from Marcelus) reverted them. They complain that TrangaBellam ignored the ongoing discussions and started new ones, but TrangaBellam engaged in extensive discussions with Marcelus and repeatedly asked them to explain their objections: no less than six times (!) from 13:50, 2 March 2023 to 17:55, 2 March 2023. Marcelus didn't want TrangaBellam to remove this text of theirs [18] mentioning Nowicki and Boradyn and lending some credibility to the fringe theory that the Jews perpetrated the Naliboki massacre. Most of Marcelus's editing is aimed at substantiating that theory. See e.g. this edit [19] reverting my revert of their bold edit on Jewish partisans active in the Naliboki area; see their comment on t/p about that fringe theory being an accepted course of events in historical literature rather than some figment of the imagination of a few crazy nationalists from the Canadian Polish Congress [20].

This is not only a content dispute. First, it's a blatant case of

I will spend the luxary of my last 80 available words to advise you not to T-ban TrangaBellam. Albeit perhaps not "intentional", there's indeed a serious distortion in the topic area. Unfortunately there are not many experienced reliable editors actively engaged in remedying this deplorable situation. Harassed by IPs [30][31], they must remain professional in long discussions with uncooperative users such as Marcelus and GCB. Staying calm and civil is not easy. A warning from AE could help, a T-ban most defintely not. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

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

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

and refusal to refactor that personal attack with straight No When asked about the same, my appeal was reverted with the accusations of trolling [32] (see edit summary]

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

• 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 [33] 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[34][35][36][37][38]. That was until I looked through the diffs which GizzyCatBella provided, going through them I was struck by two things: first the vast majority of the diffs don't actually contain the sanctionable behavior described in the link ("battleground and aspersions" etc), the second thing I noticed in the diffs is that GizzyCatBella appears to be sealioning the conversation (some would call it stonewalling, but I think more specifically its sealioning). They have a habit of popping into conversations and asking very direct questions which are tangential to the issue under discussion which most often effectively derail that conversation (GizzyCatBella often abandons the discussion after throwing the wrench). Taken on their own each appears to be civil and the result of GizzyCatBella's curiosity. Taken as a pattern of behavior its extremely disruptive. At Talk:Tadeusz Piotrowski (sociologist)[39] at Talk:Naliboki massacre[40][41][42][43][44][45] at Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust[46][47] at Talk:The Forgotten Holocaust[48][49] at Talk:Kielce pogrom[50] and at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard[51]. On the topic of Marcelus they appear to have reverted three other editors and then pretended to be the victim. Thank you for your consideration. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

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

A few things to consider:

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

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

@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 JN466 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

(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

"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

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

______________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Elinruby

The following concerns GizzyCatBella at Collaboration with the Axis Powers, although I had previously encountered her preconceptions ([52]) at other articles.

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

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

Later that night I moved the first sentence in the Poland section to the talk page because I couldn't verify any of its six sources:[53]

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

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

Result concerning TrangaBellam

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

• The rules above read (in bold): Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs. I count +1,500 words by Marcelus and and 40+ diffs by GizzyCatBella. Both need to be trimmed accordingly. Also adding to the confusion, Marcelus has split sections for some reason. These need to be merged (at the top). Note: I'm unlikely to follow up on this, so no need to ping me. El_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 [54] came before the removal.[55] 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: [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]. 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

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
  ]

. 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

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.

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If

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
  ]

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

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

If

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

[61]

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

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]

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

revision-deleted

on discovery.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A; seeking page-level sanctions

If

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

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

• Michael Pocalyko had already been extended-confirmed protected and I've increased the protection of The Navigator (Pocalyko novel) to ECP based on the editing at Michael Pocalyko. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. 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.
2. 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".
3. 05:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Continues to make objections with no substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines, or conventions.
4. 06:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Tries
   WP:STONEWALLING
   by using the dispute they created as a reason to support their version.
5. 06:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Finally comes up with a policy based justification: half a sentence is apparently
   undue weight
   .
6. 11:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC) "We
   cherrypick
   all the time."
7. 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.
8. 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

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

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 [62] 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 [63], [64], [65], [66].

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[67] 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[68].

"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) [69], [70]. 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
  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

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 (
  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:

1. 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?)
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
  • 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" [71] and the nonensical "adding additional sources to support specific parts of the content violates WP:SYNTH" [72]. I gave my rationale for inclusion (after I once again asked for clarification [73] and editors insisted that I first make a case for inclusion [74]. 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.

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

I believe FormalDude did abide by the relevant parts of

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

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.[75] Springee responded: If we have to stoop to Vanity or Daily Beast perhaps it's not due leaving out two greenlit RS.[76] When I responded that this was cherry picking, Springee's response started with BS.[77] 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[78] of his edit, Springee mentions that the CNN source[79] 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

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

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

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

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

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,

• [84] 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
• [85] Interprets the archived banner as Ennis "suggesting violence against Cole"
• [86] I clarify that the banner in question is Ennis quoting from Cole, from where Cole misspoke in an interview with Ennis
• [87] 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

• [88] Makes that sources instead of engaging in Cole's arguments, reliable sources are often attack her via ad hominem, guilt by association etc
• [89] 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
• [90] Instead of listing any sources, Springee tries to dismiss TT's request and point as a motte-and-bailey argument
• [91] I reiterate the question, asking Springee to prove his assertion that sources are not engaging with Cole's points and are attacking her
• [92] 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.
• [93] 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
• [94] 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]

Statement by Filiforme1312

I want to echo sideswipe9th's concerns and say I also see similar issues in the Cole article, as they have outlined. I'm new to this process and have a lot of IRL work to get to so I'll leave it there. For disclosure, I've been involved in the conversations referenced in the Cole article. Filiforme1312 (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Maddy from Celeste

I agree that there is a GENSEX problem here. In addition to Sideswipe9th's diffs, I wish to present a few more here, just off the top of my head.

On the matter of Chloe Cole, Springee misapplies policy in unlikely ways:

• WP:FRINGE
  does not apply to a topic because no source uses the word "fringe" about the topic.
• WP:INDY
  , both of which are plainly inapplicable here. INDY explicitly states that strong opinions about a topic are not the same thing as nonindependence.

Here they do a weird goalpost-shift, which I have a hard time reading as anything but a bizarre attempt to score a win against their interlocutor in some way:

• Special:Diff/1142090658 – You are making a bunch of claims but not supporting them. Your opinion is fine but this is why we have NPOV policies.
• Special:Diff/1142143022 – I asked for the research papers (in particular review papers).

In the wake of TheTranarchist's topic ban, they made a series of accusations on the closer's talk page, which I feel serve more to hurt the affected editor than to actually address problematic editing:

• User_talk:CaptainEek#ANI_closure_request

While compiling these, I found this AP2-related user-talk-post, which I feel is highly relevant here:

• WP:BATTLEGROUND
  mentality, accusing unnamed editors of being "out to get" Tucker Carlson.

■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not that any of these diffs is in itself a disruptive argument so beyond the pale it entails sanctions, but these and Sidesqipe9th's diffs are examples of how Springee's contributions in total are unhelpful and disruptive. Such is

WP:CPUSH. I don't understand Crossroads's argument about my fourth and fifth diffs. In my view, it is mainly behaviour that is sanctionable on Wikipedia, and viewpoints usually not. That comments cannot be examples of disruption because they are aimed at someone who agrees with another editor who later was topic-banned, is a completely absurd argument.

All in all, this seems to be an attempt to remove Springee from certain topic areas. – that is indeed what topic bans are for. Disagreement is disruption when you disagree disruptively. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 07:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Maddy from Celeste cited this diff as supposedly problematic, but - though some good faith editors may disagree - it is in no way a disruptive argument so beyond the pale it entails sanctions to say that a BLP should not be labeled as fringe unless sources specifically say so. Maddy's fourth and fifth diffs are Springee arguing against an editor who wanted to label that BLP as "anti-trans", a position which did not get into the article, and was also being argued by a different editor (as seen on that talk page) who was recently topic banned for their behavior on BLPs of this nature. It's thus clear which side of that matter the community actually considers disruptive and POV pushing.

All in all, this seems to be an attempt to remove Springee from certain topic areas. I echo Levivich's comments as well. Disagreement is not disruption. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:15, 14 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
  WP:RSP in your diff #5. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Looking at the diffs provided by
  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]
• My opinion is that both Springee and the filer deserve a gentle reminder to respectively not flood a talk page with comments and to regulate their tone and that otherwise this is a no action close. Courcelles (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]