Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive264

GlassBones

GlassBones is blocked indefinitely (as a normal admin action) for breach of topic ban. --RexxS (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning GlassBones

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAPDS :

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

2020-03-13 Commenting on the politics surrounding Chelsea Manning
2020-03-13 More on Chelsea Manning
2020-03-17 Removing content on the political bias of Fox News

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

2020-02-14 1RR on AP2
2020-02-18 Blocked for violating 1RR sanction
2020-03-03 1RR raised to Topic ban for 1 year on AP2
2020-03-10 Blocked 72h for violating topic ban

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict by Awilley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (see above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think GlassBones either doesn't accept the topic ban (which is pretty much what he says on his Talk page), or he is so determined to continue his feuds, most notably with Snooganssnoogans) that this overrides whatever deterrent effect it might have. I suspect that nothing short of a lengthy block will stop this. Awilley and Bishonen may also have a view on this. Guy (help!) 20:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGlassBones&type=revision&diff=946062655&oldid=944947664

Discussion concerning GlassBones

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 GlassBones

I edited the article about Fox News - a news organization - not any article about post-1932 US politics. I also did not insert or remove any political language. Further, I see nothing in the article's editing message warning about it being protected as a US political article. I don't understand how this could be construed as violating the topic ban regarding post-1932 US politics.GlassBones (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's clear to me that the Admins believe I have violated the post-1932 politics ban, I am willing to indefinitely stay away from anything even remotely close to US politics. I still don't get why folks here think that Fox News is somehow a political organization when it's a news organization, but so be it. I also will stay far away from articles about USA Today, New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, MSNBC, and every other news organization, as someone may also construe those news organizations as political. I can stick with editing historical articles and other absolutely, positively non-political articles.

I continue to have an issue with the double standard that has been applied to me compared to other editors who are allowed to run roughshod over Wikipedia with their edit warring, incivility such as undoing without comment or with flippant insulting answers like "nonsense" or "conspiracy theory" or "fringe", harassment of other editors, and battleground behavior when it comes to making sure their POV is reflected in all articles they edit.

One minor point - I have no clue what the "sock" comment about me means, but if that was intended to be an insult then it was for naught.

Wikipedia is a fantastic resource for articles about history, physics, chemistry, biology, sports, geography, and a plethora of other topics. The one glaring area where Wikipedia falls short is in articles about US politics, which have a decidedly liberal bias that sadly is apparently just fine with the folks who run Wikipedia.

In any event, if I am allowed to continue editing I can certainly stay even further away from US politics and just edit other articles. GlassBones (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning GlassBones

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

This report shows ~~three~~ two clear topic ban violations. All three diffs are of edits in the post-1932 American politics topic area. Chelsea Manning leaked classified information from the US government, which was acknowledged in the first diff. The Fox News edit changes language regarding Fox News's reporting on the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and the George W. Bush and Donald Trump administrations. — Newslinger talk 21:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Edited: — Newslinger talk 22:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support indefinite block. GlassBones has just 407 edits, and over a dozen warnings on their talk page, many of them for edits on American political topics. The editor's defect rate is unacceptably high. — Newslinger talk 01:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - After reading GlassBones's 18 March comments, I still support an indefinite block. The 18 March comments attempt to redirect blame to other editors in the topic area. GlassBones has not explained why they ignored the unavoidable Template:Editnotices/Page/Fox News notice to change sentences referring to two US political parties and two post-1932 US presidencies in violation of their topic ban. Considering the querulous tone of the "I continue [...] they edit" paragraph in the 18 March comments, I have no confidence that GlassBones will abide by their topic ban unless it is enforced with a block. For the record, the term "sock" refers to sockpuppetry. — Newslinger talk 21:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly ambivalent on the Manning diffs, but the Fox News one is unequivocally a violation. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just looked at this (pre-topic ban) edit. I would support an indef. ~~To be honest, looking at their early edits I'd also suggest there's a very significant chance that they're a sock anyway.~~ Black Kite (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: GlassBones' previous account is BattleshipGray, as stated at the top of their talk page (and to note, they are not evading the block there). Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, missed that. My main point stands, though. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think GlassBones has any intention of abiding by the topic ban. They are unreceptive to explanations and advice, to put it mildly. Compare this discussion on Awilley's page, where Awilley and myself tried to advise and assist them, and this on GlassBones' own page, where we can see it's all Snooganssnoogans' fault. See also this recent comment where they defend their edit to Fox News (mentioned in JzG's report above) with "I edited a news article - not any article about post-1932 US politics. I also did not insert or remove any political language." We have told them so many times what American politics covers. I see in their response above that they have failed to notice the big fat yellow box at the top of Talk:Fox News which warns of active arbitration remedies (in extra big bold all caps) per the discretionary sanctions for post-1932 politics of the United States. (Added note 22:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC): these American politics discretionary sanctions are also mentioned in the edit notice that appears when one goes to edit the article itself.) I suggest a long block — at least three months. If other admins want an indef, I won't oppose that either. Bishonen | tålk 22:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I don't see any mitigating circumstances to a clear breach of a topic ban, nor any apparent realisation of what the topic ban entails. Unless some contrary view gains traction in the next 24 hours, I'm prepared to indef GlassBones at that point. --RexxS (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've blocked GlassBones indefinitely as a normal admin action, as ARBAPDS only allows a maximum of 1 year. If they can convince an uninvolved admin that they will abide by their sanctions and edit productively at some point in the future, it won't need the bureaucracy of an AE appeal to grant an unblock. --RexxS (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In case there is any doubt that the scope of the topic ban was explained to GlassBones, I think I was pretty explicit about it here. I don't object to a long block since the main thrust of this user's editing, even post-topic ban, seems to be axe-grinding and score-settling. ~Awilley (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would support an indef block --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only the edit about Fox seems relevant here. The edit [1] arguably achieved more neutral content by removing less neutral language that had restored by another editor. None the less, despite the good intentions, this is a violation of the topic ban. Since the party is prepared to take an extended topic ban from everything to do with politics altogether, I think that would be sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Race and intelligence

Consensus here is against unanimously implementing an IP ban. Continue to deal with issues on a case by case basis, and feel free to try to renegotiate this in the community forum. Regards, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Race and intelligence

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article and talkpage where enforcement is requested: Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

At Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Exclude IP accounts and the result of Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Dispute_resolution diff there seems to be some strong arguments made that this area should not be subject to IP editing for fear of sockpuppetry and its attendant abuses. Some commentary indicated that "community input" was needed, but as these pages are under DS, I request an administrator to step in and force the issue. Allowing IP editing on the talkpage is entirely disruptive and is additionally causing issues with respect to measuring consensus and being able to track history as one particular user is using a dynamic IP that changes essentially constantly. Previous requests to semi-protect the page were rebuffed at WP:RfPP since it was beyond their remit. I believe that judicious application of this remedy here via WP:AE would help in these disputes. It might also help to apply it to additional related pages, but I'll leave that to others to propose in due time. jps (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I sympathize with the exhaustion, but please understand that this sort of behavior is very taxing on the editors who are trying their level best to figure out how to navigate the minefield. When there are WP:SEALIONs who hide behind dynamic IPs, it really shuts down the ability for us to do the normal work that has to be done (as witnessed by the close of the WP:DR). The user in question refuses to get a user account so we can keep track of the ongoing issues, so it would be good to force the issue. We don't need more IP disruption. jps (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I'm sorry that it is a section's worth of material, here, but the concept is pretty clear. How does one begin to document the problems with an IP account when the IP changes sometimes over the course of less than one day? Why should this particular talkpage be open to IP editing? What is it gaining us? I can point to what the frustrations and difficulties are. Is it a "targeted" request? Only inasmuch as the IP refuses to get an account. But the IP could get an account and edit away. I'm not asking for autoconfirmed protection here. We just want to keep track of who is saying what! jps (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: I don't think the special contributions method works very well. It seems to me that there are a lot of false positives in this list of edits: [2] I feel like I'm in a catch-22 situation here where the admins are annoyed because I'm not providing a lot of evidence, but I'm having a hard time finding a way to actually collect the evidence. We're talking about an article under discretionary sanctions so if this isn't avoiding WP:SCRUTINY, what is it? jps (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so it looks like a lot of admins, with the possible exception of @RegentsPark: are coalescing around the idea of asking for a clarification from arbcomm. I wonder if arbcom might be open to making a decision by simple motion? Question for the admins: is there any debate here about whether WP:DS gives WP:AE the remit to do things like semi-protect talkpages? My interpretation was that this is in line with what standard discretionary sanctions are supposed to entail, but reading the admin discussion makes me wonder whether there is some confusion about this. On the other hand, maybe y'all are just too tired with the conflict and want arbcomm to step in and do some housecleaning? My basic point is, I think it best if an admin who thinks arbitration is needed would be the one to pose the problem to them because I am still unclear what exactly y'all think about this. Is it that you feel your hands are tied or is it that you don't have the necessary information to move forward? jps (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the enforcement request placed at the talkpage

[3].

Discussion concerning Race and intelligence

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 Mr rnddude

This is forum-shopping. There is insufficient support for ejecting IP editors from being able to comment on Talk:Race and intelligence, and IP editors are already restricted from being able to edit the article. JPS's proposal failed to gain adequate traction. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship, we do not need autocratic measures. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich (R&I)

Ivanvector just closed Talk:Race and intelligence#Exclude IP accounts as no consensus. No comment on whether this should be an AE thing or an RFC or what, but I think it's worth noting, on the numbers, that proposal looks like it went 10 opposed, 9 support. But of the opposes, two editors are now TBANed and/or indef'd, 2 are IPs, 2 are non-EC SPA accounts, and 4 are registered EC accounts. Discount non-EC !votes and it's 9 - 4 in support. (I didn't !vote but I would have supported it.) I think there is already consensus to semi-protect the talk page. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Race and intelligence#Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Race and intelligence (esp. the close) are recent examples. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector and El C: I'm sorry but Special:Contributions/2600:1004:b140::/44 does not capture all recent IP contribs. For example, that range omits the following IP addresses, each of which have edited Talk:Race and intelligence, or the dispute resolution page I linked to above, and/or some other related page (like Heiner Rindermann), within the last two weeks:

At the DR request, 2600:1012:B042:1ED6:89E2:C68C:38B:3A8 stated that they were a different editor than 99.48.35.129 or 2600:1004:B166:536E:8800:9BF8:FCBA:FABB. That was three days ago, and 2600:1012's only contribs are to the DR page. I have no idea how many people these IPs are. Does anyone? How do we have a discussion like this? I'm not sure what AE can do, but the problem is definitely a real problem. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

30/500 protection would help. Just look at all the SPAs (I just tagged them) at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC on race and intelligence. Same thing with the DR request–new IPs just popping up to join that conversation? This is like IPA, not just the article, but the whole topic area should be 30/500. Also, an editor who cannot use cookies would not be able to log in to JSTOR, Gale, PubMed, or any other website on the web, so that begs the question, if you can't register an account because your device doesn't support cookies (and what kind of device doesn't support cookies?), then you can't read any of the sources, either, unless you have print copies of all of them, and if you can't read the sources, then how can you participate in discussions about the sources? Also, what kind of device doesn't support cookies but supports PDFs? I'm not really buying this claim. Anyway, 30/500 helps IPA, it'll help here, too. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dlthewave

A quick procedural note: ~~JPS~~ ජපස filed this request at 10:48 17 March 2020, and Ivanvector closed the "Exclude IP accounts" talk page discussion at 12:08 17 March 2020. I'll comment later in greater detail, but I want to make sure this sequence is clear since it's relevant to the forum shopping/venue concerns. –dlthewave ☎ 18:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are seeing a certain amount of "civil POV pushing" from IP(s) at the R&I article. This type of behavior is difficult to demonstrate through a set of diffs; I know it's tedious, but I would encourage folks to read through the Global variation of IQ scores: proposal opened by the IP. Note that every time an editor raises concerns about the heavy use of Hunt and Rindermann sources, the IP dismisses them by citing a recent RSN discussion which concluded that they are reliable. Although this is technically true, they're ignoring the fact that the closer also stated that these sources must be treated as fringe since there is no evidence that their views are widely accepted. The IP doesn't seem willing to accept this consensus; they even stated "There was not a consensus at RSN that these sources are fringe" after this was pointed out to them. It's very difficult to work with an editor who doesn't accept other editors' NPOV concerns and insists that we use the "best available" sources even when those sources do not represent a mainstream view. Dispute resolution is not an option since the volunteers at that noticeboard are unwilling to work with an unregistered editor. –dlthewave ☎ 16:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, the consensus I'm referring to is here: "... The discussion indicated that there is a lack of sources supporting or opposing the notion that the views in these books are fringe, though when a viewpoint does not have wide support, we do treat it as fringe, and do not give it undue weight. That is, we can give the views of Rindermann and Hunt, sourced to their books published by the Cambridge University Press, but take care not to promote their views as widely accepted unless/until sources can be found which indicate their views are widely accepted." This is from the closing statement at RSN. The IP frequently selectively quotes other parts of the closing statement to support their view that Hunt and Rindermann are the some of the best sources on the topic, while ignoring these final sentences.

Regarding DRN, please see the recent close by Robert McClenon. The request was declined for several reasons but registering an account seemed to be a firm requirement for future requests by the IP editor(s).

There were apparently two different 2600 IP editors who participated at DRN: The one who made the initial request and a second who commented. I would suggest that we treat the second IP with the same level of scrutiny as a brand-new registered editor whose first edit was a detailed description of a dispute at DRN. –dlthewave ☎ 17:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

I agree with Levivich's analysis. This is a WP:FALSECONSENSUS situation (more precisely, a false failure to come to consensus). As a long-term though very intermittent patroller of this and related "race" articles, I know from long experience that the majority of input from anons there is not constructive and that their unconstructive input is frequent. I mean seriously 100 archive pages? The amount of editorial time wasted on trolls and socks and meat is probably the reason the article is in such not-exactly-FA-material shape. When sockpuppeteers are forced to create new accounts to do what they do, it's much easier to patrol them (if a new account's first edit is to run to this article and make posts that say the same things as the last 10 socks of Mikemikev that we blocked, we have a tidy WP:DUCK situation). If an anon who insists on remaining one is dead certain there's a policy/sourcing issue to raise about this article, they can do so at the appropriate WP:Noticeboard, which will also have sufficient uninvolved watchlisters to address the matter if legitimate, or get a disruptive socker blocked all the more quickly. But that article's talk page (very recent attention notwithstanding) is a backwater playground for trolling sockpuppets and has been for years. That's not what article talk pages are for. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sirfurboy

Having been summoned by In actu (talk · contribs)'s ping, I must confess I am confused by: "I would like a firm argument as to why we haven't reached the point for the AE admins to file a request for a second review of the original case on WP:ARCA." What was the original case we are referring to? I don't think it was anything I was involved in unless you are referring to the AfD.

As I am here though, El_C (talk · contribs) says: "I think (any) :2600 IPs should be seen as a single individual in the context of this topic area." 2600::/16 is about half of the ARIN IPv6 address space![4], and in this case conflates at least two editors. The recent IP editors to this or related pages are:

2600:1004:B1::/40 - A good faith editor on a dynamic IP who has stated he cannot use cookies.
2600:1012:B042:1ED6:89E2:C68C:38B:3A8 - seen only at Dispute Resolution.[5] Definitely an SPA, acted like a Sprayitchyo sock.
2605:8d80:660::/42 - All edits from this range on this subject appear to be Sprayitchyo socks.
73.149.246.232 - an IP user who got heavily involved in the AfD to the point of looking like an SPA but edits appear in good faith.
99.48.35.129 - seen only at Dispute Resolution. SPA that weighed in to support Sprayitchyo socks.

Sprayitchyo is a problem, and SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) makes a good case about past issues from other IP trolls, but let's be clear that we can identify "2600:1004:b1::/40" from the others, and the actual number of IP editors on this article at this time is at most 5 and almost entirely just the one editor. We cannot selectively allow one IP editor so the community must decide whether the loss of edits from one editor who has acted in good faith is acceptable in pursuing closing down of other IP socking issues. I make no !vote on that. I said before I would not take a side on this issue, and I will not do so now. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

I will respond on behalf of DRN. We haven't had a position of coordinator for more than a year, and I cannot recall Nihlus ever actually mediating a dispute anyway. I closed a dispute request by an unregistered editor, concerning Race and Intelligence, for various reasons, including that at least two editors said that they did not think that DRN was in order, as well as that it is more difficult to conduct dispute resolution with an unregistered editor whose IP address changes. There are at least two unregistered editors in Race and intelligence, one using various IPv6 addresses in the 2600.1004.* range, and one using IPv4 addresses in either the 99.* range or the 73.* range.

Also, I think that there was conflation of Dispute Resolution, which is a policy and a general process, and the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which is a specific forum for carrying out the process. Some of the administrators here at Arbitration Enforcement said that the parties should be using Dispute Resolution rather than dragging their disputes to a conduct forum. I think that 2600.1004 thought that they had been told to go to DRN, which is only one of the forums for dispute resolution. DRN is voluntary. All of the dispute resolution processes are voluntary, except for Request for Comments, which has the advantage that it is binding.

I would prefer to work with editors who have names and so whose handles do not change. However, if there is a dispute where editors and administrators agree that DRN involving one or more unregistered editors with dynamic IP addresses in blocks is the best way to resolve the dispute, I am willing to act as the mediator, at least if I have an administrator backing me up, that is, ready to intervene so that intervention is not necessary.

User:Ivanvector? User:RegentsPark? User:Sirfurboy?

Do at least two editors have a content dispute where they agree that moderated dispute resolution at DRN is the best way to resolve the dispute? Are they willing to abide by the usual rules? Or is this not really about DRN after all? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears, now that I have reviewed this dispute, that this specific filing is not about DRN. To restate, I would prefer that parties to mediation at DRN be registered editors, because shifting IPs are a complication; there isn't an absolute rule against unregistered editors participating in moderated dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, the issue in this case appears to be whether to semi-protect a talk page due to disruption by unregistered editors. Semi-protecting a talk page can be done as an extreme measure, but is an extreme measure, and almost certainly is not needed in this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation by Robert McClenon

Multiple attempts to resolve this dispute by the community and by the administrators at Arbitration Enforcement have been unsuccessful. I concur with the recommendation that the Arbitration Committee needs to be asked to open a full case. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PaleoNeonate

"Anyone can edit" is the third pillar of Wikipedia Anyone can also create an account and banned editors no longer have the right to edit. SPI and CheckUser, already being clunky and labor-intensive, are not allowed with IP addresses. —Paleo Neonate – 05:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich seems right about the closure of the RFC that should probably be reviewed. —Paleo Neonate – 23:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nihlus

I am not sure why my name was brought up by Robert McClenon alongside an unnecessary and erroneous attack on my performance. The DRN removed the coordinator role long ago; although I would say the role should return as it is seemingly a mess at the current moment. I have no comments on this case as I am not familiar with its history. Nihlus 14:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Race and intelligence

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

Not this again! El_C 17:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ජපස: have you tried weighing local consensus on this? You are asking me to review a lot of material here. This is not a well-documented request. El_C 18:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: could you link to this RfC, please? El_C 18:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, regentspark. I would decline the request at this time as forum shopping. El_C 18:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: the next step should have been WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, not AE. El_C 18:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ජපස: but by forcing the IP to get an account, we are effectively reversing the closing admin's decision. They are an integral part of the conversation. ~~Maybe they support granting your request, in which case I withdraw my objection.~~ El_C 18:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On further thought, perhaps the sanction of forcing the IP to identify isn't the worse idea. If they are difficult to identify, that could be taxing for the already troubled topic area. El_C 18:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objection on simply referring this to the Committee, either. El_C 18:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your guidance, Ivanvector. If the IP isn't really that difficult to identify, then this request is a non-starter. El_C 19:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: I think (any) :2600 IPs should be seen as a single individual in the context of this topic area. Until we have definitive evidence to the contrary, it is on them. For them to account for. I'm just not sure there's much that should be done otherwise. El_C 19:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this is an interesting request. On the face of it, there isn't a whole lot of IP activity to ban and it does seem like a targeted request. However, race and intelligence has been a contested area for a long time and has been plagued by long term SPAs and their sock and meat puppets. I don't think there is consensus (in the RfC) for banning IPs outright but this might be worth visiting after the RfC closes. --regentspark (comment) 18:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Exclude_IP_accounts. IvanVector has now closed this as no consensus. --regentspark (comment) 18:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the content of this IPs edits but, historically, it has been very hard to deal with a particular group of editors in this area. Polite SPAs who stay within the bounds of AGF but consistently push fringe views was what lead to the arbcom cases in the first place. Identifying IPs is hard and dealing with unidentifiable fringe pushers can be frustrating and complicated and I'm not averse to banning IPs from a contentious and problematic talk page like this one. Or, as suggested above, perhaps this needs to go back to arbcom. --regentspark (comment) 21:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Took a look at the edits by the IP in question and I think we should implement closing the talk page to IP editors proposal. Perhaps they are genuinely not a sock but the content, the "am I doing this right" (Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Dispute_resolution), the politeness,.. Like I say above, this area has been plagued by polite SPAs and the only reasonable way to AGF is to attach a moniker to each and every editor. --regentspark (comment) 19:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade: It does not follow from a "no consensus" RfC that the community has explicitly declined to protect the talk page. Regardless, the suspicion that we are dealing socks is a valid one, this is a contentious area that already has discretionary sanctions authorized by arbcom, so we should be able to apply talk page protection and I would prefer that we do just that rather than pass the buck to arbcom. My guess is everyone who regularly contributes to R&I has a pretty good idea whose socks we are dealing with (I have my own suspicions) but, as PaleoNeoate points out, SPI is unlikely to be of help. In some cases "an encyclopedia that anyone with an account can edit" is not a bad idea. --regentspark (comment) 14:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) has Ivanvector closed the discussion. I would like a firm argument as to why we haven't reached the point for the AE admins to file a request for a second review of the original case on WP:ARCA with ජපස, NightHeron, 2600:::, Sirfurboy, Dlthewave, ArtifexMayhem, Levivich, Jweiss11, SMcCandlish, Grayfell, PaleoNeonate as parties. Handing this off to ArbCom is starting to sound really good to me. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 18:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy: [[6]] It underwent a review in 2012 --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 17:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As several of you have already observed, I closed the discussion as "no consensus", as in, it's not clear a consensus either way was established or was going to emerge. I don't really have any comment on the merits of the proposal, but in my opinion, universally banning IP editors from all possibility of contributing to an article without clear evidence of ongoing disruption requires a much more substantial consensus than what was evident in that discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A couple extra points (for free no less):
- @ජපස: the IP editor's contributions can be seen at Special:Contributions/2600:1004:b140::/44, more or less. There are some edits by other users there but it's mostly just that one editor on that range, since about mid-February (I only looked at the last 50 edits). It is true that you cannot ping them (effectively, at least), but mitigating that technical difficulty is on them, not us.
- There is presently just the one IP editor participating at Talk:Race and intelligence. If they're being disruptive they can be blocked.
- I don't know how we can "force" an IP editor to create an account, but in my opinion doing so would not be against the "no consensus" close. "No consensus" = nothing was decided. It would be highly unusual though.
- "Anyone can edit" is the third pillar of Wikipedia. If we don't have a very good reason to prevent IP editors from editing, we don't.
- Dlthewave is correct about the timeline: I closed the talk page discussion after this AE request was opened. I don't necessarily agree that this request does not constitute forum-shopping, as requests for closure are normally listed at requests for closure, not here, but you all can form your own opinions on this point.
-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My analysis of the talk page discussion is that consensus was not established. I don't think there's anything for AE to do with this, but if the editors bothered by IP participation feel strongly about it, a proposal to enact a 30/500 general sanction for the article could be made at WP:AN (I have WP:GS/IPAK in mind when I say this, although I don't think that applies to talk pages either). To Sirfurboy's analysis I agree: geolocation of the first "good faith" IP range is several thousand miles away from the two suspected sockpuppet ranges, and both are in areas where geolocation is generally reliable, and I don't see any indication of proxy abuse. The "good faith" editor's range does appear to be /40 although it's advertised in WHOIS as /44, but WHOIS is unreliable for CIDR. I should say I have not checked any of these addresses, I'm going by publicly available info. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: "the volunteers at [DRN] are unwilling to work with an unregistered editor" - WTF? IP editors are editors and have disputes needing resolution too. Nihlus is the current DRN coordinator, perhaps they can comment on this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Robert McClenon, I was hoping that was a miscommunication or exaggeration (the "no IP editors at DRN" sentiment). I think based on what you're saying that this is a matter that Arbcom should handle as a case. Several community discussions have failed to resolve the issue. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ජපස: in my opinion it is well within admin discretion to semiprotect a talk page, DS or no. However it is an extreme solution. In 3 years as an admin I've semi'd a Talk: page 5 times, never for longer than one day (I just checked). Indefinitely semiprotecting a talk page should require a much more firm consensus. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC on the matter has already closed without a consensus to enact such a remedy. AE is not here to do things the community has explicitly declined to. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the conditions are correct to semiprotect the talk page. However, I disagree with Seraphimblade that AE is not here to do things the community has explicitly declined to. The whole reason we have arbitration enforcement, that is a partial delegation to sysops of ArbComs extraordinary powers, is to solve issues the community cannot tackle on its own or declines to tackle. However, owing to all the complexities I would join in suggesting a close that suggests or actually brings this to ARCA. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SunCrow

SunCrow blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing as a normal admin action. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning SunCrow

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: SunCrow (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/Abortion#Discretionary sanctions :

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

2020-03-05 Changes a statement of fact to "asserted that abortion is significantly safer than childbirth"
2020-03-08 pointed out --> asserted (same content)
2020-03-09 noted --> asserted
2020-03-13 noted --> assertted
2020-03-21 noted --> asserted

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

DS alert from Doug Weller, 2020-02-28 [7]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

SunCrow is an active participant at talk:Unplanned, arguing from a hard-line anti-abortion POV. There is ongoing discussion of SunCrow's desire to change the statement noting that abortion in the US is safer than childbirth, to the status of assertion. There is no consensus for this change, but SunCrow has now made the change on at least five separate occasions.

The content has a piped link to abortion in the United States, which includes, inter alia, the following:

In the US, the risk of death from carrying a child to term is approximately 14 times greater than the risk of death from a legal abortion.^[1] The risk of abortion-related mortality increases with gestational age, but remains lower than that of childbirth through at least 21 weeks' gestation.^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

^ Raymond, E. G.; Grimes, D. A. (2012). "The Comparative Safety of Legal Induced Abortion and Childbirth in the United States". Obstetrics & Gynecology. 119 (2, Part 1): 215–219. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31823fe923. PMID 22270271.
...The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions...The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion.
^ Bartlett LA; Berg CJ; Shulman HB; et al. (April 2004). "Risk factors for legal induced abortion-related mortality in the United States". Obstetrics & Gynecology. 103 (4): 729–37. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000116260.81570.60. PMID 15051566.
^ Trupin, Suzanne (27 May 2010). "Elective Abortion". eMedicine. Archived from the original on 14 December 2004. Retrieved 1 June 2010. At every gestational age, elective abortion is safer for the mother than carrying a pregnancy to term.
^ Pittman, Genevra (23 January 2012). "Abortion safer than giving birth: study". Reuters. Archived from the original on 6 February 2012. Retrieved 4 February 2012.

In rebuttal to this, SunCrow states ([8]): It is NOT a documented fact. As I have repeatedly stated, it is a documented assertion that depends entirely upon the perspective of the person making the statement. It assumes that the safety of the fetus is not being taken into account, which implies that one has taken a position on the underlying issue of abortion. This is a personal religious or philosophical perspective, whereas the fact that abortion is safer than childbirth in the US is a fact noted in many WP:MEDRS compliant sources (and the wording quoted above was a response to endless argumentation from anti-abortion and abortion-rights proponents on the talk page of the abortion article).

So: SunCrow is repeatedly changing the documented medical fact, backed in the linked article by MEDRS, to a personal POV that is not backed by any RS but instead based on personal philosophy, and doing so despite knowing that there is no consensus for this change.

In fact according to this revert by Symmachus Auxiliarus, At least two of the “rewording” changes have been discussed and had no consensus. There is no reason to change the wording substantially here, unless we doubt the expertise of the interviewee. These changes appear to do that, and also removes factual statements uncontested by medical experts she reports.

Redux: SunCrow's personal opinion of abortion and those who perform it is driving content edits against consensus, and this is disruptive. Guy (help!) 12:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASunCrow&type=revision&diff=946632949&oldid=946592795

Discussion concerning SunCrow

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 SunCrow

Guy's request for enforcement is deeply misleading.
The dispute in question centers around one sentence in the Unplanned article. The sentence currently reads as follows:

Anna North of Vox criticized the film for depicting abortion as very dangerous and noted that abortion is significantly safer than childbirth.

I brought my concerns to the talk page (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unplanned/Archive 3#Safety_issue) in an effort to build consensus. The issue is that an assertion that abortion is safer than childbirth can only be considered accurate if one assumes that the safety of the fetus is not part of the equation. To be clear, my goal was not to remove the sentence, but only to edit it so that the contention it includes is made in the speaker's voice and not in the encyclopedia's voice. I proposed four (4) different solutions, each of which has been rejected.
At present, the dispute centers on one word. I believe that the word "noted" should be changed to "asserted", and have attempted to make that change on several occasions.
Guy's responses on the talk page included snark and insults, as follows:

"SunCrow, not an option for you, perhaps, but the reality-based contingent don't have an issue with it". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unplanned&diff=944349685&oldid=944326147)

"The actions of anti-abortionists actually contribute to the statistic that the anti-abortionists dislike so much". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unplanned&diff=944517552&oldid=944449573)

"PaleoNeonate, good luck persuading some of the people active here that the fetus does not feel pain - or that the unjustly convicted black man does". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unplanned&diff=944552454&oldid=944519976)

"SunCrow, your issue is with the real world not with Wikipedia". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unplanned&diff=945122367&oldid=945122105)

"Doctorx0079, it's necessary as long as a couple of editors insist on trying to turn fact into conjecture through handwaving". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unplanned&diff=945132386&oldid=945132100)

Guy's assertion that I have "repeatedly changing the documented medical fact, backed in the linked article by MEDRS, to a personal POV that is not backed by any RS but instead based on personal philosophy, and doing so despite knowing that there is no consensus for this change" is--with the exception of the part about no consensus--false. The disputed sentence does not contain a medical fact. Also, I am not attempting to push a POV, but to make the encyclopedia neutral and balanced in a topic area that is highly charged and controversial. While I have pushed hard to edit this particular sentence and I acknowledge there is no current consensus to change it, the edit I am attempting to make is correct and in line with WP:NPOV. The encyclopedia should not take a position on the abortion issue, and the current version of the disputed sentence does exactly that. My attempts to gain consensus should be taken into account as well.
I have repeatedly confronted Guy about his obnoxious and insulting behavior on the Unplanned talk page, with no results. Guy has made no effort to hide his own POV on the talk page, and routinely insults both the Unplanned film, the pro-life movement, and editors who disagree with him. So I find the accusation of POV-pushing to be, quite frankly, hypocritical. When I realized that he was an administrator, I was dismayed. (How did that happen?) Once this issue with content is resolved, I intend to address Guy's conduct issues through the appropriate Wikipedia channels. I generally prefer not to question others' motives, but I make an exception when others are questioning mine. I believe Guy is simply attempting to push me out of this topic area because I do not give in to his POV or to his bullying.
With regard to Bishonen's comments below: I would challenge Bishonen to provide a basis for asserting that I am a "tendentious editor" or to withdraw that assertion. Furthermore, my contention about Guy comparing people who disagree with him to racists was true (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unplanned&diff=944552454&oldid=944519976). For a good example of someone "bludgeoning" a talk page, please see Guy's behavior in this talk page section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unplanned#%22Who_performs_abortions%22
Does Bishonen have an issue with that?
Finally, it should be noted that my history on Wikipedia is clean. I have never been banned from anything.
I do not believe that a sanction is appropriate. Thank you. SunCrow (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some editors below are making extraordinarily broad and negative characterizations of my editing that are not based in fact. Bishonen, at the risk of drawing more complaints about "bludgeoning", I respectfully request that you withdraw the following statements:

That my editing is "characterized by 'in a nutshell, pov editing with specious rationales' or, per Number 57, 'Their entire existence on Wikipedia appears to be about pushing their political viewpoint.'" What happened to WP:AGF here? And how did you get from a dispute over one word on the Unplanned to this characterization of my entire existence on Wikipedia? Are you really familiar enough with my editing history to make that kind of a characterization? Certainly, Doug Weller's complained-of actions--pulling material out of a lede that I believed violated WP:UNDUE and removing attacks from an advocacy organization from two BLPs--don't justify that conclusion. Your comment about how my editing in controversial areas is "practically all of [my] editing, possibly excepting some religious BLPs) isn't accurate, either. If you look at my last 500 edits (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/SunCrow&offset=&limit=500&target=SunCrow), you'll see that they include edits to Great Vowel Shift, Independence Day: Resurgence, Korla Pandit, Mark Stuart, Dog's Eye View, Mario Elie, Johnny Crawford, List of presidents of the United States by net worth, Daniel Radcliffe, and Tracy Chapman. Please help me out here. Which of these articles is controversial? I especially take issue with the broad-brush characterizations that my editing in controversial topics is a "net negative for the encyclopedia" and that my "bludgeoning style on talkpages wears out and wearies constructive editors". I have made more than 25,000 edits to the encyclopedia, and have collaborated with many other editors--including some whose POV is very different from mine. With respect, I don't believe that my record reflects your assertions at all. My entire existence on Wikipedia is about contributing to the encyclopedia by cleaning up content that needs it, adding sources to content that needs them, removing unsourced and unnecessary content, and promoting accuracy and fairness. Fairness isn't what I'm seeing in this discussion. SunCrow (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doug Weller

My few experiences with SunCrow have been bad. Two years ago SunCrow changed the lead for the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood [9] I did some work on the section concerning a major statement it made, and then added one sentence to the lead (which at that point made no attempt to summarise the article).[10] SunCrow reverted my attempt to start improving the lead and add some balance[11] with the edit summary "removed material from lede that is adequately addressed below and is not notable enough to be placed in the lede". Not only is it obvious that we'd have barely no lead if it didn't contain material well addressed in the body of the article, the text was about the organisation's Nashville Statement which is clearly notable, read its article.

I ran into him recently at Alan Sears where they removed a comment on a book by Sears[12] with the edit summary "remove POV material sourced to advocacy organization website", ie the SPLC. SunCrow objected at Talk:Alan Sears#Citation to SPLC Website arguing that the SPLC is " an advocacy group whose ideology is diametrically opposed to that of ADF (the organization Sears founded). I removed the material sourced to that website, but Doug Weller reinstated the material. I don't see this as a close call. The SPLC website isn't a reliable source for this page." I pointed out that we can use such groups so long as they are attributed and that they could raise this at RSN (where as we know its been discussed always with the same result, we can use it attributed).

That was in January. On March 9th SunCrow removed text attributed to the SPLC[13] from David Barton (author) with the edit summary "not notable or reliable", whatever that meant, which I later restored. They used the same "notability' argument when removing a statement that Barton lectures at Glen Beck's Book University, "source does not establish notability".[14] Their edits on all three of these articles were basically whitewashing - not every edit, some were probably justified, but that was the basic result, and they seem to have a serious problem with understanding what sort of sources we can use and the concept of "notability". Or in a nutshell, pov editing with specious rationales. Any topic ban should be wider than just abortion. Doug Weller talk 20:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SunCrow

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

SunCrow's tendentious edit warring deserves a topic ban from abortion. Especially when combined with bludgeoning the talkpage (e.g. repeatedly accusing JzG of "comparing people who disagree with you to racists", which is pretty far-fetched[15][16]). Speaking of bludgeoning, SunCrow appears as an aggressive and tendentious editor altogether. I was writing up a BLP warning to them a couple of days ago for repetitive bludgeoning of an RfC on Talk:Ilhan Omar, but I hung fire as they were apparently just at that time diverted away from the RfC to quarrelling on Talk:Unplanned instead. Perhaps we need to consider a wider sanction. Bishonen | tålk 17:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Adding: Black Kite, SunCrow is interested in many controversial areas, compare also Doug Weller's experience and opinion detailed above, so I'm not sure what kinds of partial sanctions we could well institute. Topic bans from BLPs, American politics, and abortion? As Doug puts it, their editing is characterized by "in a nutshell, pov editing with specious rationales", or, per Number 57, "Their entire existence on Wikipedia appears to be about pushing their political viewpoint." If it seems extreme to go to an indef (which can't be used as an AE sanction anyway, but would have to be a standard admin block) from JzG's complaint, how about a limited block, such as six months? Their current editing in controversial topics (=practically all of their editing, possibly excepting some religious BLPs) is indeed a net negative for the encyclopedia. Their bludgeoning style on talkpages wears out and wearies constructive editors, whose time and patience is Wikipedia's most precious resource. (There she goes again, just like a broken grammophone record.) As an example, see the RfC at Talk:Ilhan Omar, with SunCrow's repetitiousness and self-quoting. I make it five separate editors who are separately told by them to ""please review the policy language at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures". Bishonen | tålk 20:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Looking at their editing history, I would agree with Bishonen that a wider sanction might be worthwhile. Their entire existence on Wikipedia appears to be about pushing their political viewpoint. Judging by this from 2018, it seems somewhat surprising that they are still here. Number 5 7 18:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I remember this editor from the issue mentioned above by Number57, where they were trying to label a statement backed up by multiple reliable sources as "POV" [17], and wanted to change a section to "make it clear that whether or not homosexuality ... is a normal, healthy variation of human behavior is not a matter of science, but of opinion." [18]. The warning posted at the time after this went to ANI was "unless they stop their disruptive editing - which includes erroneously labeling articles, parts of articles, or users POV and edit-warring - they risk being blocked. This seems to be the same problem - and frankly when you look at "The issue is that an assertion that abortion is safer than childbirth can only be considered accurate if one assumes that the safety of the fetus is not part of the equation.", it is utterly obvious that the sentence - and the source - are referring to the mother and the claim that it doesn't, because it doesn't take account of the foetus, is ludicrous. Obviously it has been two years since the previous issue, unless I'm missing something, and so I am minded to look at partial sanctions rather than blocking, but I remain to be persuaded by other arguments. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find SunCrow's attempted rebuttal unconvincing and indicative of the confrontational behaviour that the request complains of. I have previously seen arguments such as "The encyclopedia should not take a position on the abortion issue", but we all know that it must: Wikipedia takes the position of uncontested mainstream scientific viewpoints as described in the best sources, by design. There is plenty of MEDRS-compliant evidence that carrying a child to term entails a greater risk than safe abortion. That is a matter of statistical fact, not of opinion. Allowing SunCrow to continue to edit in controversial topics will result in a net negative for the encyclopedia, and I support sanctions that prevent that. --RexxS (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find JZG's diffs concerning, and SunCrow's "rebuttal" even more so. The entire affair smacks of someone who is unable to recognize and work with our fundamental principle that when reliable sources reach a consensus on something, we report that thing as fact (the relevant policy is WP:YESPOV). You don't have to agree with the sources, or the policy, to be a productive force on Wikipedia; but you have to be able to work with it, and SunCrow doesn't seem able. I would ban them from AP2 and abortion, at the very least. Ideally, the TBAN would be from anything related to religion or politics; but that's wider than the mandate we have at AE; so, whatever comes closest. And SunCrow should note that the next step after such a wide sanction is likely to be an indefinite block. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing that 2018 ANI thread and what's transpired since, I am quite honestly astonished that there hasn't already been an indef issued. I believe the time has come to change that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, I would not object to that. But we can't indef them as a discretionary sanction, it's against the rules. You, or any of us, can do it as a regular admin action. Or else one year as a DS and the rest of the indef as a regular admin action. Bishonen | tålk 23:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, yes, it would generally be done either just as a normal admin indef, or one year AE and then a normal block thereafter. I'm leaving some time in case anyone strongly objects, but if not, I am entirely planning on doing so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is time for an indef block of User:SunCrow. EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JIJJRG

The user has been CU-blocked, the filer has been indeffed as well, and the administrators who commented were not really impressed by the request. I formally close without action--Ymblanter (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning JIJJRG

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NatroneDay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

JIJJRG JIJJRG

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION : I need this user's access to Pat Day page blocked in order to prevent him from one-sided character assassination against Hall of Fame jockey Pat Day and his continuous actions over the past month to block and delete every positive and properly sourced fact I have added to the page on one of racing's greatest jockeys.

Please block access of user JIJJRG to Pat Day page - he wars and vandalizes all of my additions which are factual and deeply researched and properly cited from the Associated Press, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, ESPN and other Wikipedia pages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Day&action=history; Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :

Date Explanation https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Day&type=revision&diff=947705356&oldid=947700453https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Day&action=history#Date User deleted 3,425 characters of additions on March 27 on Pat Day page
Date Explanation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pat_Day#WP%3AUNDUE_criticism_in_lead_and_%22Technique%22_section; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

Date User deleted 2,929 characters of additions on March 13
Date User deleted 2,294 characters on March 12

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pat_Day#WP%3AUNDUE_criticism_in_lead_and_%22Technique%22_section*Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pat_Day#WP%3AUNDUE_criticism_in_lead_and_%22Technique%22_section*Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pat_Day#WP%3AUNDUE_criticism_in_lead_and_%22Technique%22_section*Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
Placed a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Day&action=history; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning USERNAME

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 USERNAME

Statement by (username)

Result concerning JIJJRG

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

NatroneDay, please proofread this request better. Thanks. El_C 19:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a request from an account barely a fortnight old, whose stated single purpose is "to defend Pat Day and provide a factual accounting of his career and to counter the one-sided slanderous and malicious attacks against Pat Day by user JIJJRG". I would guess we're looking at a family member who is not happy with the description of Pat Day in our article.
I have some sympathy, but this isn't a matter for Arbitration Enforcement. It's obviously difficult for a brand new editor to make progress in improving an article when faced with someone who has been editing the article for years. It must be particularly galling to see the content and sources they added reverted. I'm not at all happy with the edit summary for JIJJRG's reversion: Don't remove reliably sourced content; and you need reliable sources cited correctly and properly for any new material you add into article; and all of what you added is already in the article, including Triple Crown race wins and Breeders Cup wins. That is very BITEy; no experienced should be telling a new editor that they need "sources cited correctly and properly". They just need sources, and your job is to show them how to format them, not use it as an excuse to remove them.
I see from the talk page that both Drmies and Eggishorn have shown interest in the article recently. I would like to encourage them to get NatroneDay to discuss their concerns on Talk:Pat Day with JIJJRG. I think this dispute really ought to be resolved there, not here or at ANI. I would suggest trying to get NatroneDay to list text that she thinks should be included and/or rephrased (e.g. there is a good argument in BLPs to change "ranking him well behind Eddie Arcaro" to "ranking him behind Eddie Arcaro" and "but often was criticized" to "but was sometimes criticized" if our sources don't make that strong a point), and encouraging JIJJRG to try to find a consensus that both of them can live with.
Let's see if this can be resolved at the specific location with some neutral moderators. I think we should dismiss this request. --RexxS (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler

No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Fowler&fowler

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NedFausa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Disruptive_editing:

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

As an example of disruptive editing, Wikipedia's guideline includes Ownership of Content, which states: No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page. Filers here are cautioned that requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale; yet our Disruptive Editing guideline recognizes that disruptive editing "may extend over a long time." Such is the case with Fowler&fowler's ownership of 2020 Delhi riots. Fresh diffs alone cannot adequately evidence his domination of both the article and talk page. MediaWiki's Who Wrote That? indicates Fowler&fowler has written 19.7% of the article, and shows visually that he's accounted for probably 90% of the lead. He enforces his dominion chiefly via the talk page:

6 March 2020 "Please don't waste my time with nonsense," he dismisses an editor who dared to question his NPOV.
19 March 2020 When a user suggested the lead was too emotive, Fowler&fowler demands: "What sort of defensive nonsense are you guys spouting, nickel and diming sentence fragments, of all people, to me?"
19 March 2020 Simultaneously pinging three administrators, he declares, "As invariably happens, once other topics gain the attention of Wikipedians, toxic forms of editing return. Please see the bizarre edit made by Anupam."
20 March 2020 Rationalizing possession, "I came here because I was requested to by a number of people; my presence was welcome[d] by some administrators," he signals ownership by naming it Fowler&fowler's Lead.
20 March 2020 Flouting our Manual of Style, which advises: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents, he asserts, "I cannot stress this enough: in all these articles [including 2020 Delhi riots], the lead is not a summary of the article content; it has no connection. It can't: the article main body is in so much of a mess of little details that fixing it would require removal of the content and a rewrite which is more effort than available NPOV editing-power can manage."
22 March 2020 "I have vast experience in working on controversial South-Asia-related pages. The only ones that have some kind of stability are the ones that follow the general guidelines of Fowler&fowler's Lead section above."
22 March 2020 Unilaterally decrees, "In the lead, only third-party international sources are the standard with a few allowances for obvious factual details... That should be the standard in the main body as well; otherwise, people will stuff all sorts of stuff into the various sections and then arrogate the right to add them to the lead. So, please remove Indian sources."
28 March 2020 Openly scoffs at "editors of the moment who have appeared to edit [the lead], citing Wikipedia's platitudes of 'anyone can it.'"
30 March 2020 Pinging administrators El_C and RegentsPark he begins, "I understand that it is not the job of admins to intervene in content disputes" then goes on to complain, "Each time these editors edit, they introduce errors which have to be set right, even when they claim in long edit summaries that they are not changing the status quo."
30 March 2020 Fowler&fowler's Lead is inviolable, "as admins Abecedare, RegentsPark, and Doug Weller have pointed out, we should be employing the lead to expand the rest of the article, not preternaturally focus on the phrasing in the lead."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

NOTE: 28 April 2019 alert by now-blocked user Highpeaks35 does not show in search of system log. However, it can be found in Fowler&fowler's talk page archive and was confirmed by him on 30 March 2020.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After the "legalistic point" made below by Johnbod, who is not an administrator, that 2020 Delhi riots is not an "India-Pakistan" article, I offered at his user talk page to withdraw my complaint immediately if he could demonstrate that Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement is the wrong forum. I explained that administrator El C on 27 March 2020 advised Fowler&fowler and me: if either of you contend that there has been disruptive or tendentious editing, I recommend making use of AE. Because the article is subject to discretionary sanctions, you have access to this superior forum where a well-documented report gets to be evaluated by a quorum of uninvolved admins. In response, Johnbod said, "Well the admins will know, so let's leave it to them. I see none have mentioned it yet."

So please let me reiterate my offer accordingly. If an administrator assures me that I have filed in the wrong forum, I shall withdraw my enforcement request immediately, with apologies to everyone who has weighed in here, and especially to Fowler&fowler. NedFausa (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

Discussion concerning Fowler&fowler

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 Fowler&fowler

I have just woken up. I have to feed the cats, change the kitty litter, and bring in the groceries that have just been delivered (in this age of coronavirus). I have to do all that before my wife comes downstairs and hollers at me. I will then post something. "Egotistical," "impatient," and "aggressive" I sometimes am, but I've also unstintingly discussed syntax, coherence, or paraphrasing issues with anyone who has cared to bring them up. But when interlocutors, great or small, in response make only vague insinuations based on little more than mother's milk arrogations of the English language (epitomized by Wikipedia's thumbnail, "I'm a native speaker of English,") I do get a little irritated. SerChavelries and SlaterSteven's assessments are more or less accurate. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to say in response. I've been writing articles on Wikipedia for 13 years. I've written on big topics, such as the FA India, the oldest country FA on Wikipedia (since 2004) and the most viewed, (with over 31,000 page views a day, and 4,400 watchers); I've written on small topics such as Stanley Henry Prater, Walter Samuel Millard, Ethelbert Blatter, Herbert Musgrave Phipson, that most likely no one reads, but which garnered an email from a scientist at the Bombay Natural History Society mentioning that even they didn't have all the copies of the 150-year-old journal of the society (which I had found in our library, and pictures in which I had photographed for inclusion in the articles.).

At the risk of sounding egotistical, I've written large parts of the British Raj article, whose phrasing in the lead has been copied by the OED. I've written articles on Indian famines that have been copied verbatim by books that are considered scholarly on Wikipedia; at the very least, their enumeration and listing has been followed by books that even I consider scholarly. (I thought to myself: at least now no one can accuse me of OR). Over the years a certain approach to rewriting highly-trafficked POV-embattled South-Asia-related pages has emerged. It involves first writing and consolidating the lead as a summary of the entire topic, sourced to the highest quality sources; then, if time and available editor-power admit, rewriting the rest of the article, in accordance with the lead. It was taught to me by Nichalp, admin, arb, and the prime mover of the South Asia-related focus on WP, and Saravask, admin, and author with me of the India page, (see here) along with admins Abecedare, RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, and Ragib. Over the years, other admins or experts such as Doug Weller, Vanamonde93, MilborneOne and Johnbod, have at one time or other watched over the article; although they may or may not have been on board with the approach, they certainly would have caught blatant POV promotion were I engaging in it.

The approach is seen in a number of articles. In some, such as Mahatma Gandhi (20,000 page views a day and 2,100 watchers), Subhas Chandra Bose (6244 page views a day); Bhagat Singh (5,000 page views a day, and 375 watchers), Indian rebellion of 1857 (3,000 page views a day), 2019 Balakot airstrike (1,500 page views a day) it never got much beyond the lead or a few sections after. (The page views are not meant to demonstrate any acknowledgement of the writing, but correlate to the likelihood of POV interference.) In others such as Indian rebellion of 1857, British Raj, Company rule in India, Presidencies and provinces of British India, Indian mathematics, large parts of the article were written as well. In still others such as V. S. Naipaul, what I considered was an engaging article (for which I read or reread some 20 books of Naipaul, and half a dozen about him) was begun (see here), but after my unforeseen absence from WP, others reduced it to a junior high school level article, see V. S. Naipaul. In many articles, I have contributed a large number of maps and pictures, that are not to be found anywhere else (see, for example, Bengal famine of 1943, about which Lingzhi2 wrote somewhere: the author of one of the seminal books of the famine, Paul Greenough, mentioned not having seen those pictures earlier.)

When such time and effort has been invested, an allegiance emerges to what I consider the highest value in WP, the highest-quality sources and their finely balanced summaries. Everything else, whether MOS, or WP-this-or-that—let alone arrogations of mothers-milk-expertise mentioned above—are subordinate to them. I've never shied away from discussing writing when specific writing-related reasons have been offered. (See this discussion on Talk:India for example.) But you have to understand, 2020 Delhi riots is a POV-embattled article. The NPOV state of the lead took a long time to achieve. A number of editors with India-related expertise such as Kautilya3 and SerChevalerie, took a big personal risk writing; another, Banswalhemant, took a higher personal risk, actually going to the neighborhoods, taking pictures; one other, DBigXray took the highest personal risk: he was outed by a right-wing Hindu-nationalist magazine in India, and had to retire from Wikipedia. We are talking about an unspeakable calamity. People have been brutalized, stripped, their genitals mangled, and left to die in the gutter. 53 people are officially dead. Many more are missing. Someone traipses into the article, fiddling, granting themselves the right to do so because anyone can edit, or worse yet, granting to themselves the knowledge of what is normative in writing. Someone changes "ancestral villages," to "home villages," just because that was the wording of the New York Times. What are we supposed to do? It takes knowledge to understand that in rural India home villages are ancestral villages. Had social mobility been a feature of rural India (other than a limited one accompanying depopulation in famines), the Caste system would have disappeared long ago. We are human. There is a limit to which we can suffer arrogant inexpertise gladly, and if people are bristling, and some are champing at the bit to take me to WP this or that, there is not really much I can say beyond this. There are higher WP values at stake than soothing some bruised egos. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS By "someone," I don't necessarily mean NedFausa, who to be fair, has often been supportive of my edits, has many a time made cogent and acute interventions. So I'm a little puzzled by his filing. I even gave him a barnstar, which he has since removed. Something changed. I'm still not sure what. I don't see him as someone malevolent. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (slatersteven)

I have thought Fowler&fowler has been overly aggressive in that discussion, but then he is not alone. Its produced as lot of heated discussion. An example might be this [[19]]. I assume they mean the statement about "drive by" which is not really much of an insult. I also note the page is now under special DS. This is a case of 6 of one half a dozen of the other.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a warning might be in order for the filer.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SN54129

Per Slatersteven mostly. This is a topic with both heightened emotions and realife life implications. This means we should bear the forrmer in mind and give some leeway to editors working to uphold our P&G in such a difficult area.

Agree with SS also per his addendum of a warning to the filer for attempting to weaponize and trivialise AE ~~—or appearing to, anyway. They have after all only been here three months.~~ ——SN 54129 09:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On edit: striking my assumtpion of good faith; Black Kite's link, and particularly Newslinger's comment re. WP:INVOLVED makes it quite clear in my mind that the filer knows perfectly well what they're doing. ——SN 54129 09:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SerChevalerie

Being one of the first contributors to the article (aside from retired user DBigXRay), I vouch for what is referred to as "Fowler&fowler's lead" to have introduced a great deal of quality to the article. His changes came about slowly and surely but had the effect of introducing a NPOV that even the multiple disruptors cannot break through. The article is still far to go from being perfect, but F&f's approach to building a good lead and then constructing a body around it is working slowly. Regarding his Talk page comments, I agree that they come off as being egotistical but in my personal experience he has offered reason when I have asked him to. I hardly think that this calls for AE. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anachronist

In my view, F&F has done good work, but the way he goes about it is disruptive and a source of conflict. I have advised him of alternate established approaches to modifying the lead section, which have fallen on deaf ears; he seems incapable of operating outside of his chosen mode, and appears to feel that guidelines (such as WP:LEAD and WP:MOS) can be freely disregarded. The article on 2020 Delhi riots now has a lead that is well written and well sourced but contains far too much detail for a lead, is too long, and doesn't serve as an overview (and there's already an "Overview" section that would work as a lead)... and the article is likely to remain in that confusing state for a long time. As to sanctions, I don't see what remedies would be appropriate, but I also don't want to see this editor continue being disruptive while going about making much-needed improvements. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lingzhi2

I've read the ten points listed above which are intended to describe F&F's allegedly punishable actions. I see little above a mild-to-moderate level of crankiness. After taking into account the emotionally-charged nature of the topic and the added charge that comes from the fact that it is very recent, I see nothing strange or unusual here. [Note that I have argued with F&F in the past too, at times sharply, and at times at a level approaching bitterness on my part.] I think someone should buy F&F a nice cup of tea and ask him to take a walk and get some fresh air. Above I see that the filer has only been on Wikipedia for 3 months, is that correct? Then we should be patient with him/her too, sit him/her down and explain the realities of Wikipedia and the nature of arbitration. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnbod

On a legalistic point, this complaint is brought under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Disruptive_editing, from some years back, but this is not an "India-Pakistan" article, though I know that Discretionary sanctions cover all articles about both countries. I haven't contributed at all to the article (I think), or much on talk, but I did suggest the current title there. I haven't been following the ins and outs of the changes or the discussion closely, but I'm aware of "a mild-to-moderate level of crankiness", as User:Lingzhi2 puts it, perhaps now calming down. I don't know what to say that Lingzhi2 hasn't. The diffs aren't very hair-raising given the context, raising some of them is a bit silly. F&F is a hugely respected editor in this extremely difficult area, with lots of editors piling in with edits and talk comments. This shouldn't go anywhere, nor do I believe it will. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my first sentence, as it may not be right, & User:NedFausa is (rather touchingly) concerned that my opinion may sway others. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller

Disappointing because this is an inappropriate use of AE. There's nothing sanctionable here. Yes, as has been said, F&F can be a bit impatient/short, but I've been watching this area and it's too often a disruptive mess. I'm still not sure about the filer as I haven't examined their edits in detail, but they are on thin ice here. Doug Weller talk 14:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RegentsPark

I'm not sure what the filer is trying to achieve with this complaint. This particular article has been plagued by waves of POV editors attempting to skew the article toward what appears to be an untenable POV. There has been off-wiki collaboration and a wikipedia editor has been doxed and harrased in RL in the process. Some level of acerbity is likely in a highly charged situation such as this one and I don't see fowler's acerbity at anywhere near sanctionable levels. Going through NedFausa's list, I barely see anything at all. Statements such as "Nickel and dimeing sentence fragments" are hardly bothersome (and might even be justified with requests like this one). Fowler appears to have done an great job getting the lead into shape, several admins (including myself) have suggested that editors leave the lead alone and focus on getting the body into shape but, apparently, the lead is way too magnetizing. I'm trying to assume good faith (and, in fairness, I've skimmed NedFausa's edits and cannot see any evidence that places them in the off-wiki collaboration camp), but this focus on the lead concerns me because it gives the appearance of trying to use minor edits as an entry point for getting a more non-neutral POV slant into the article. --regentspark (comment) 16:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Fowler&fowler

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

Reported "violations" strike me as an editor being a bit too brusque, not any serious disruptive violations warranting sanctions. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly obvious attempt to remove an editor on the "other side" without any real justification. It's a "no action" from me. This is interesting as well (note Newslinger's comment). Black Kite (talk) 09:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a reason to dole out sanctions --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the discretionary sanctions on disruptive editing were meant to be used for the purpose suggested by the filer. I cannot see that any action taken here would be a benefit to the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless it were a boomerang, RexxS. But I'm not formally proposing one (yet); I haven't had the time to study Ned Fausa's editing in depth, or, frankly, to read the whole of F&F's post above. Bishonen | tålk 21:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  - To be honest, chère, I'm not happy about discussing too much at AE beyond the resolution of the original request. I certainly don't object to coming down hard on blatant bad-faith requests, but once we allow ourselves to start delving into BOOMERANG and similar considerations, we'll encourage pages of each side finding stuff to blame the other over, and we'll end up bogged down in the sort of mired deadlock that many threads at ANI become. --RexxS (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - ANI gets bogged down because of all the pile-on and often content-free commentary that obscures the issues. AE is almost always free from that as it is only the comments in this section which count regarding whether a boomerang is appropriate (although of course all comments in the above sections should be considered). Like Bishonen, I haven't examined the background and do not know if a boomerang is appropriate, but considering that issue is necessary because AE should not be available to poke opponents free from any possible repercussion. Johnuniq (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Either "no action" or a boomerang for use of AE to gain advantage in a content dispute look like the way to go to me. Given what goes on in this topic area, I'm not going to sanction someone for being a bit short. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella

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

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

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

Request concerning GizzyCatBella

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: 23:06, 25 June 2018 T-ban from "World War II history of Poland" :

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Despite sanctions, editor remains involved in the topic area.[20][21]
In addition, the editor seems focused on Jewish Communists [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] and criminals,[30][31] adding bits of unsourced information[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] to many articles (see admin's comment here). While one's choice of subjects on Wikipedia is not always a problem in its own right, Sandstein's original conclusion[40] that the editor "[edits] articles about the World War II history of Poland with a view to... making them more sympathetic to right-wing Poles, and less sympathetic to Polish Jews or left-wing Poles" raises questions in this case.
The editor also seems focused on removing properly sourced information related to antisemitism[41][42][43][44][45] and prejudice[46][47][48][49][50][51] in Poland (or even just national pride [52][53]), usually stating that it was either "undue" or "not in source". I've checked all of the sources so marked (including one marked "OR" that was mentioned earlier), and all of them pan out.[54][55][56][57][58][59] Deferring to Sandstein again, who invited the editor to show "evidence of substantial, competent, prejudice-free editing in other topic areas".
@Ymblanter, RexxS, Black Kite, and Awilley: I would like to draw your attention to a particular comment made by the editor below: FR claims "I've checked all of the sources so marked... and all of them pan out". This is not true and it’s not clear why we should take his word for it... The truth is that most of this content is indeed undue or not in the source, as has been noted by several editors. In short, she's accusing of me of lying. Now this is a simple factual matter: either the sources say what is claimed, or they don't. In either case one of us has lied not once but twice: once about the sources, and once in accusing the other of lying. To settle this I've reverted the editor and added back the sources with quotes,[60][61][62][63][64][65] so you may judge for yourselves. I know editors are usually given broad leeway at the boards, but dishonesty should never be tolerated. However you choose to conclude this complaint, do take this into account.
@Lepricavark and Awilley: I've avoided replying here until now, but I see my reputation being tarnished and it's important for me to set the record straight. I've no intention of attacking anyone, so I'll try to keep it short and on point:
1. Piotrus claims I haven't been editing in the TA as of late. The fact of the matter is in the last three months I've edited at least 17 articles in this TA, most recently on March 25.[66][67][68] Piotrus knows it, and he even left me a "thank you" for the second one.[69]
2. Piotrus claims that the TA has been quiet and without page protection. The fact is I've had a page protected as recently as January 23 to stop several editors from edit warring.[70] Piotrus knows it, because he was there.
3. Piotrus claims I haven't been interacting with GCB. The fact of the matter is I interacted with her in at least four articles, including once when I warned her against breaking her T-ban.[71][72][73] Piotrus knows this, because he was there.
4. The fourth interaction happened when GCB reverted an edit I made in a different TA, in an article that she had never edited before.[74]
5. Piotrus claims I should've warned GCB to promote good faith - and I did.[75] And on another occasion I didn't even do that - I just noted the violation and let it lapse.[76] Piotrus must know this, because he complained about it shortly after.[77]
6. Piotrus places the blame for the entire thing on Icewhiz, but the fact of the matter is there were problems in the TA before he arrived, and there's still problems after he left. Just last week Holocaust historian Jan Grabowski published a scathing review of the TA in a leading Polish newspaper;[78] I know Piotrus read it, because he published a reply.[79] Icewhiz is everyone's favorite punching bag (with me as a close second, apparently), but you don't draw the attention of people like Grabowski and Havi Dreifuss [80] if there aren't real problems with a TA.
7. And a final note on WP:AGF: I've always tried to AGF with everyone - new or old, friendly or antagonistic. In daily life I tend to follow Hanlon's razor: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". It's a good defence against conspiracies, and means you AGF "by default". However, I find it exceedingly difficult to do so when I see editors leaving comments that I know that they should know are false.

That said, in the spirit of the letter and despite the grief the whole thing had caused me (having had to engage with accusations from five editors in six different threads for the better part of a week), I'll say this: the goal of this AE was never to get GCB sanctioned, it was to stop this dance around the T-ban (the "nibbling around the edges",[81] so to speak). That was the whole point of my conversation with Piotrus and GCB back in February.[82] If they've finally agreed to some arrangement then all the best to them, it's just unfortunate it took this much effort to get to this point.

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[83]

Discussion concerning GizzyCatBella

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

Statement by GizzyCatBella

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

Okay, enough is enough! This is an extremely ill-intended report - a continuation of block shopping attempts [84], followed by disgusting insinuations of antisemitism and support of a permanently banned user Icewhiz and his possible sock accounts. This bad-faith report should be dismissed and BOOMERANGED. I will additionally inform ARBCOM about this.

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

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

1- I reverted IP account edit [85] that I viewed as vandalism. Please note that the same IP editor removed similar photos from 2 other pages and has been also promptly reverted by Antique Rosehere [86] and here [87]. So yes, it was a vandalism in our opinion. The fact that Francois Robere would try to get someone sanctioned over this legitimate revert of vandalism shows how bad faithed this is.
2 - This diff is completely unrelated to WW2 in Poland [88] has nothing to do with WW2 in Poland. A brand new account removed the birthplace of a composer who has not been involved in WW2 so I reverted that. And of top of all that this was clearly a sock puppet [89] of indef banned user Icewhiz [90]
3 - a Talk:Latvian Legion I commented on the talk page in support of K.e.coffman. Latvian Legion is unrelated to WW2 in Poland. It's about Latvia. The Legion might have done something in Poland at some point but this isn't the nature of the edit or the subject of the discussion. The Dutch soldiers of the Kampfgruppe Elster 48 SS took part in the Podgaje massacre I also didn't even discuss the issue of the WW2 murder in my comment. [91] Francois Robere is pretending that it is somehow related through some kind of 7 degrees of separation. Again, the fact that he brings this up and pretends that is a violation underscores the insanely bad faithed nature of this report. Which is worth of a boomerang alone.

Now the additional comments of Francois Robere:

1- I don't remain involved in WW2 Poland related topics since my ban advanced almost 2 years ago (!) This is a totally false and shameful fabrication.This [92] was a misunderstanding shortly after my ban was introduced and promptly explained by the imposing administrator and this [93] refers to Poland before WW2 that started 2 years later.

2 and 3 - are disgusting insinuations of me being an anti-Semite. Francois Robere was previously warned not to cast aspersions against me without convincing evidence. [94], he was warned by Bovlb not to accuse me of being racist, [95]. He was also advised by Black Kite to scale down with his accusations of antisemitism[96] and eventually was blocked [97] by TonyBallioni for insinuating without evidence that I'm an anti-Semite.

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

Francois Robere padded the report with multiple diffs in his “additional comments” section to create a false appearance of some kind of malfeasance. He knows these diffs are not violations else he would include them in his “violation” section. And these are indeed ridiculous. For example, there’s nothing wrong with noting that a Soviet communist was a Soviet communist [98].It’s also worth noting that this is again reverting edits by ~~one of Icewhiz’s~~ likely sock puppets [99]. Likewise this diff [100] ~~concerns another one of Icewhiz’s socks~~ [101],[102].

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

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

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

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

Please see this conversation: [103]
.. also this conversation with another contributor: [104] and editor departure from the project notice [105].

Could somebody please look deeper into this whole thing. Thank you. GizzyCatBella🍁 23:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Background can be found here:[106] GizzyCatBella🍁 23:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll post my plea here also... [107] I'm so exhausted of these tricks that I'm on the edge of crying..GizzyCatBella 🍁 22:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Piotrus

I concur with User:RexxS that the most applicable action is a warning to be more careful and a note that BANREVERT does not overrule a topic ban. Neither of the three topics is obviously related to Poland and WWII history, and I am rather concerned that good faith is nowhere to be found in this report. The one that's according to RexxS "most connected" to Poland, Alfred Rosenberg, doesn't even mention Poland outside a footnote. Yes, he governed some conquered EE territories, including part of Poland, for a while, but it is not common knowledge (I am quite interested in this topic area and I've never heard of him), and if one is reverting some vandalism and doesn't read an article carefully, it is a an easy fact to miss. We should assume good faith. GCG's edits were not concerned with anything connected with Polish WWII history. If the removed picture was related to this topic, yes, there would be a cause for concern. But it wasn't, and neither is this a biography one of a person significant in Polish history. I think a good rule of thumb for such cases is to check the lead of an article. If the lead doesn't seem to mention topics related to an edit ban, we should not expect the editor to read the entire article, to see if an unrelated edit might (such as adding or removing a picture that has no violation to the topic ban) be a borderline topic ban violation because of some minute fact mentioned somewhere deep in the article. The other two diffs are even further removed from this, how many degrees of separation one needs for something to even be borderline? That someone was born in Poland in WWII makes his or her article fall within a topic ban? C'mon. Neither is Latvian Legion related, it was about as involved in Polish WWII history as Greek partisans (which had a few Polish volunteers, you can always find a connection), US or UK armies (which did air drops in Poland and were war time allies), or the issue of Polish-Japanese relations (which to my surprise was actually subject to a study within WWII context: [108]), or the article about the continent of Europe itself. Sure, if you try to find a connection, you always will, for almost any edit ("Give me the man, there'll be a paragraph for him" [109]). Let's focus on the intention of the topic ban, which was to prevent GCB from editing topics related to Poland and WWII: she hasn't. No problems here - outside of the bad faith in the report itself.

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

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

Statement by Lepricavark

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

Statement by MyMoloboaccount

In regards to the comments above I can confirm that Icewhiz has been stalking GizzyCatBella's edits on off-wikipedia forum. As the forum is involved in revealing real life personas of users I am hesitant to provide link here but I can send a copy to the Admins(I am not a member, but it can be read by guests). Unfortunately there is possibility here of FR acting here on behalf of perma-banned user. In regards to FR behaviour I concur that the editor has been engaging in questionable behaviour including avoiding discussion with other users and simply going to WP:AE asking for immediate ban instead of following attempts to discuss, acting confrontational towards these who were targeted by Icewhiz in the past;his ongoing snipes at my personal contributed to my decision to withdraw from Wikipedia and led me to even openly ask him to stop posting on my page[110], which was subsequently ignored [111] and requested him to stop harassing me on Wikipedia[112].If it would be confirmed as highly likely that FR edited on behalf of Icewhiz would it fall under proxing rules [113]] ? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that immediately after this comment was made FR has started following me around on articles he never edited before, and which I have edited[114], [115]. I have repeatedly asked FR to stop harassing me, and this has been ignored, which seems to me clear case of WP:Hounding. Could this be commented on or does it deserve a separate disccusion?-MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

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

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

Statement by SarahSV

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning GizzyCatBella

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

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

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

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

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

SPECIFICO

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

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

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

Request concerning SPECIFICO

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAPDS

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Sanctions requested but declined or warning issued instead:

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning SPECIFICO

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

Statement by SPECIFICO

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

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

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Valjean

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

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

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

1 April 2020 Incivility and telling editors to stop editing

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

Similar for this one:

30 March 2020 Telling editors to stop editing.

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

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

Statement by MrX

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

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

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

Statement by MONGO

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

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

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

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

Statement by Objective3000

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

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

Statement by Mr Ernie

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

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

Statement by Lepricavark

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

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

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

Statement by Buffs

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

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

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

Statement by JzG

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SPECIFICO

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

I don't really see much incivility here; some of the diffs presented are a bit fiery, but the whole thing is really exaggerated. For instance, the "creepy" behavior here is not very creepy, though it's silly--but it is in response to something equally silly by the other editor (someone not filing the request). (That diff is really weird, by the way--someone goes around putting no break spaces on talk pages?) There is no "personal attack" in this diff. This isn't remotely uncivil. I could go on, but I won't: this is already taking up too much time. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- RexxS I appreciate your comment and diffs. Specifico, that last comment—-when you’re in a hole, stop digging. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think Drmies is correct that there's not anything blockable in the diffs presented. There is, however, a good deal that is unhelpful. For example:
- BS. please try to restate that clearly and specifically if you would like a response. It's unintelligible. [120] (Better to say "I don't understand the point you're trying to make")
- Considering that no article content has been proposed, and that you appear to be uninformed on the longstanding discussion of this issue, I agree that it's just as well you do not comment further. Thanks for your thoughts. [121] (Better to say nothing)
- Ernie, get a grip. [122] (Better to make your point without the personal comments)
- You are either unable or unwilling to understand the basics of editing Wikipedia articles [123] (Again, better to just make your point.)
- It is evident what you do not care about. Frankly, you got off to a bad start cramming a false narrative contrary to RS WEIGHT, into the lead. You were called out. [124] (Better to just focus on content. Personal commentary generally isn't helpful on article talk pages.)
- I can also understand why the OP might have wanted to get more eyes on this when all they got in response to their warning was this.
I think everybody can agree that atmosphere in the American Politics topic area is toxic. Editors are increasingly (and understandably) exasperated with each other. The point is, I think SPECIFICO is making that problem worse, not better. For that reason I would support at minimum a specific logged warning against making personal comments on article talk pages. ~Awilley (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Awilley: Can you propose the wording you would use for a specific logged warning to SPECIFICO? I agree that the comments highlighted in green above are not ideal. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Something along the lines of "SPECIFICO is reminded that talk pages are for discussing article content, not contributors, and warned that continuing to make personal comments about other editors on article talk pages may result in sanctions." ~Awilley (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's good. I looked at some of the OP diffs a couple of days ago and couldn't see much in them but your diffs show there is too much lack of WP:FOC. That may apply to several others in the area but that can be considered another day. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Drmies that a response to this request doesn't need to involve sanctions. Nevertheless the AP topic area is difficult to work in and I'd be happy to see SPECIFICO dial back the comments aimed at other editors. If others agree that a logged warning would help achieve that, I would not dissent. --RexxS (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I find myself losing whatever sympathy I might have had when I now read SPECIFICO's comments here. @SPECIFICO: One "light-bulb moment" that I experienced at my RfA was that if I am sharp, snide, or bitey when addressing an editor I disagree with, it also has a big impact on neutral observers – far greater than I realised – and diluted the message I was trying to make. In short, if you want to be on the side of the angels, you have to behave like an angel. Tell us that you understand the concerns the admins here have, and that you'll genuinely make an effort not to take the bait, not to reply in kind, and not to escalate. It's not easy, but it's worth it. --RexxS (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also support a firm warning to avoid personal comments as a necessary prerequisite to continued editing in this topic area. El_C 15:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Raymond, E. G.; Grimes, D. A. (2012). "The Comparative Safety of Legal Induced Abortion and Childbirth in the United States". Obstetrics & Gynecology. 119 (2, Part 1): 215–219. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31823fe923. PMID 22270271.
...The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions...The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion.

[bartlett-2] Bartlett LA; Berg CJ; Shulman HB; et al. (April 2004). "Risk factors for legal induced abortion-related mortality in the United States". Obstetrics & Gynecology. 103 (4): 729–37. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000116260.81570.60. PMID 15051566.

[emedicine-3] Trupin, Suzanne (27 May 2010). "Elective Abortion". eMedicine. Archived from the original on 14 December 2004. Retrieved 1 June 2010. At every gestational age, elective abortion is safer for the mother than carrying a pregnancy to term.

[Genevra-2012-4] Pittman, Genevra (23 January 2012). "Abortion safer than giving birth: study". Reuters. Archived from the original on 6 February 2012. Retrieved 4 February 2012.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]