GizzyCatBella (talk | contribs) →Statement by GizzyCatBella: I've learned something again, that's a good point. Thank you. Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
|||
Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_Pliner&diff=prev&oldid=941029833&diffmode=source].It’s also worth noting that this is again reverting edits by one of Icewhiz’s likely sock puppets [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Muddymuck]. Likewise this diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Poland_(1918–1939)&diff=prev&oldid=938597421&diffmode=source] concerns another one of Icewhiz’s socks [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Agent_Mosh],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Poland_(1918–1939)&diff=939238909&oldid=938963210&diffmode=source]. |
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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_Pliner&diff=prev&oldid=941029833&diffmode=source].It’s also worth noting that this is again reverting edits by one of Icewhiz’s likely sock puppets [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Muddymuck]. Likewise this diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Poland_(1918–1939)&diff=prev&oldid=938597421&diffmode=source] concerns another one of Icewhiz’s socks [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Agent_Mosh],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Poland_(1918–1939)&diff=939238909&oldid=938963210&diffmode=source]. |
||
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:MEATPUPPET]]ing 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:MEATPUPPET]]ing for an indefinitely banned user? |
<s>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:MEATPUPPET]]ing 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:MEATPUPPET]]ing for an indefinitely banned user?</s> |
||
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.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:#40">'''GizzyCatBella'''</span>]][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]]</span></small> 23:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC) |
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.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:#40">'''GizzyCatBella'''</span>]][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]]</span></small> 23:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:20, 4 April 2020
PainMan
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning PainMan
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- PainMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 03:33, 19 March 2020 Edits John Mitchel, a prominent Irish nationalist activist
- 03:35, 19 March 2020 Further edit to John Mitchel
- 03:51, 19 March 2020 Edits Young Irelander Rebellion of 1848, an Irish nationalist uprising against British rule
- 09:14, 19 March 2020 Edits Land War, which is again about Irish nationalism
- 03:47, 21 March 2020 Changes "Dáil Éireann" to "Dáil Éireann (Irish parliament)", edits like this got him topic-banned to begin with
- 03:48, 21 March 2020 Changes "Taoiseach" to "Taoiseach (prime minister)", edits like this got him topic-banned to begin with
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 20:25, 1 March 2020
You are indefinitely topic-banned from making edits relating to The Troubles, broadly construed
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Already subject to discretionary sanctions, see above section.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions makes it clear it isn't just limited to articles relating to The Troubles, but covering Irish nationalism in general.
- @In actu: I guess it depends how you define "broadly construed". As the discretionary sanction in the case says it covers Irish nationalism in general. While The Troubles definitely started in the 1960s they can't really be seen in isolation. In the 20th century alone before the Troubles there was the 1916 Easter Rising, 1919-1921 Irish War of Independence, 1939-1940 S-Plan, 1942-1944 Northern campaign (Irish Republican Army) and 1956-1962 Border campaign (Irish Republican Army), and Irish opposition to British rule didn't start in the 20th century. I wouldn't object to this being closed with a clear message to PainMan as to the extent of the topic ban, if his edits are seen as a good faith mistake. FDW777 (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Since this report has been made PainMan has made this edit (changing "Dáil Éireann" to "Dáil Éireann (Irish parliament)" and this edit (changing "Taoiseach" to "Taoiseach (prime minister)". That would appear to me to a continuation of the disruptive behaviour from before, albeit with a slight variation. FDW777 (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Swarm: I do not consider this report "erroneous". Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Current areas of conflict and {{ArbCom Troubles restriction}} use the phrase
pages relating to The Troubles, Irish Nationalism and British Nationalism in relation to Ireland
, and I quite reasonably thought that "edits relating to The Troubles, broadly construed" was the same as that phrase. As I said at 15:29, 19 March 2020 I would have no objection to this being closed with a clear message as to the extent of the topic ban, since the original notification did not include the full definition as listed in multiple other places. FDW777 (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- In addition if they thought
Taoiseach (prime minister)
was an acceptable solution to objections raised to their previous edit, surely the correct course of action would have been to raise it at the discussion I started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles#Use of Taoiseach (which he was notified about here)? FDW777 (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- In addition if they thought
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning PainMan
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by PainMan
Comment from SN54129
Wrt to the nature of the edits. Most harmless, and indeed useful, e.g. adding wikilinks etc. On the other hand, edits such as translating common Irish terminology could be interpreted as pushing an anti-Irish/pro-British pov, which is very much at the core of DS:THE TROUBLES. As we know, PainMan holds strong views on things Troubles-related (and language is very much at the forefront of the ideological struggle, on both sides). So on the one hand, they are clearly capable of making helpful and useful edits, but on the other hand allow themselves to drift close to the TBan. the former is to be encouraged, the latter of course discouraged; can the TBan be tweaked (not necessarilly expanded a great deal) to encourage the fomer and act as a deterence from the latter?
Easier said than done, I know; perhaps just add Irish language to the scope?
And although not relevant to the scope of the request—but for the record—it's my opinion that PainMan's repeated refusal to comment here is damned rude if nothing else. ——SN54129 14:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
It's a content dispute
...PoV pushing—if that's what's going on—always is. ——SN54129 16:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning PainMan
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I realize it may be contentious whether these articles fall under "The Troubles, broadly construed" so I'll leave this for more comments,
but in my opinion each of these edits is a clear violation of the topic ban and an AE block of no less than one month is warranted.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)- Partially struck. Not linked above AFAIK but the ban discussion is here. The pages presented as evidence of disruptive editing were Operation Flavius, Battle of the Bogside, Ulster Volunteer Force, Ulster Defence Association, Ulster Special Constabulary, and ETA (separatist group). All but the last of these fall within the scope of the ban as worded, and the last would not even if the scope were expanded. The disruptive behaviour was repeatedly changing "Taoiseach" to "Prime Minister of Ireland" (or variations) against consensus, and edit warring, across all of the articles. Since the topic ban PainMan has evidently respected it despite a series of outbursts on 9 March ([1], [2], [3]) and again yesterday ([4], [5], [6]). The pages they've edited since do not fall under that scope per other comments here, and they don't seem to be repeating the same disruptive behaviour, so I don't see the benefit of extending the topic ban and do not support it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC) (edited 19:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC))
- I think this is purposeful skirting of the ban conditions by editing topics which are contentious and related to the topic area, just not directly, although one can easily say: The Troubles -> irish nationalism, hence construed. I see two options here: 1) extend the ban to the entire remedy area of TT (found in the case) which includes British and Irish nationalism (et al.), and 2) AE block. I say the edits definitely violate the spirit of the TBAN, and maybe also its letter. --qedk (t 心 c) 13:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- To me, The Troubles started in the 1960s. So, the edits are not within the bounds of the topic ban. However, they weren't a great idea. I would extend the topic ban to all of Irish nationalism and not block --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 15:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- This looks to me to be clearly against the spirit of the topic ban, but not the letter of it. Accordingly I think the topic ban should be extended to match the extent of the DS authorisation (The Troubles, Irish nationalism and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed) with a warning to PainMan that any further boundary testing will result in sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- According to our own article on the subject,
The Troubles (Irish: Na Trioblóidí) were an ethno-nationalist[13][14][15][16] conflict in Northern Ireland during the late 20th century
(emphasis added). I do not see these edits as violations, though I agree they're skirting rather close.Given that they were not apparently contentious or any type of misconduct, I would not extend the topic ban based upon them, but I would certainly warn PainMan that there will be no hesitation to do so if there's any trouble.Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)- Based upon the last two edits, I would now support expanding the topic ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- The text of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles #Standard discretionary sanctions separately names three areas:
"all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed."
So I concede that the sanction applied on 1 March 2020, "You are indefinitely topic-banned from making edits relating to The Troubles, broadly construed" doesn't strictly cover the other areas, although that may have been the admin's intention, and certain the spirit of the restriction, as Thryduulf so clearly reasons. I agree that an explicit extension of the topic ban to "You are indefinitely topic-banned from making edits relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed" would be a reasonable response to this request. That should then solve the issue one way or another. --RexxS (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)- I intentionally narrowed it (agreeing with the consensus formed and my own judgement) with the implied expectation that they would cease making contentious edits in the entire topic area. Apart from this, PainMan does not seem to understand that communication is required, the last time they did not participate in the AE request, then went to edit AE archives after their sanction to add a statement (which comes to me as a lack of WP:CIR), and for some reason, went to debate the sanction on Thryduulf's TP even though I was the sanctioning administrator (again, WP:CIR). Their justification last time was that they do not get talk page message notifications on their phone, which even if makes sense, talk page message notifs are also sent to emails and you can still access your talk page if not notified, it's a general expectation to do so.
The templateAnd yet again, PainMan has not participated in this AE request. --qedk (t 心 c) 10:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC){{Userlinks}}
also notifies editors on the mobile interface (correct me if I'm wrong).- @QEDK: I've just tested in my sandbox, and the {{userlinks}} template does generate pings if the edit adding it is signed. Notifications on the mobile web interface work as they do on desktop. On the Android app you have to explicitly look to see if you have notifications (which can only be done when viewing the main page I believe), but when you do look you do see notifications of pings and talk page messages (I presume the iOS app works similarly but I don't have any way of testing that). Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, struck. On a technical note, the mobile advanced web interface and the mobile desktop version both show notifications by the way. --qedk (t 心 c) 13:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- I've just looked at their contributions list, and it seems they only edit using the Android app so we can't be certain they've seen the notifications or talk page messages. They do not have an email set so that option isn't available, and I'm not certain what else we can do? Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, struck. On a technical note, the mobile advanced web interface and the mobile desktop version both show notifications by the way. --qedk (t 心 c) 13:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- @QEDK: I've just tested in my sandbox, and the {{userlinks}} template does generate pings if the edit adding it is signed. Notifications on the mobile web interface work as they do on desktop. On the Android app you have to explicitly look to see if you have notifications (which can only be done when viewing the main page I believe), but when you do look you do see notifications of pings and talk page messages (I presume the iOS app works similarly but I don't have any way of testing that). Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- I intentionally narrowed it (agreeing with the consensus formed and my own judgement) with the implied expectation that they would cease making contentious edits in the entire topic area. Apart from this, PainMan does not seem to understand that communication is required, the last time they did not participate in the AE request, then went to edit AE archives after their sanction to add a statement (which comes to me as a lack of WP:CIR), and for some reason, went to debate the sanction on Thryduulf's TP even though I was the sanctioning administrator (again, WP:CIR). Their justification last time was that they do not get talk page message notifications on their phone, which even if makes sense, talk page message notifs are also sent to emails and you can still access your talk page if not notified, it's a general expectation to do so.
- I've never commented in one of these things before but I think it's also worth considering these edits to Charles Boycott, another topic related to Irish nationalism, which I just reverted because I saw them as mostly detrimental. I don't want to get any further involved though ... I only have that article on my watchlist because I found his life story fascinating. Feel free to move this comment if it's in the wrong place. Graham87 05:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Do you really see these edits as disruptive? In one instance they changed "Boycott worked as a land agent for Lord Erne (John Crichton, 3rd Earl Erne), a landowner in the Lough Mask area" to "Boycott worked as a land agent for the the Earl Erne, a landowner in the Lough Mask area". The revision has an extra "the" but otherwise removing the awkward parenthetical seems like a reasonable improvement to me. You reverted stating "makes the text more stilted" but I think the reverse is true. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Graham says he saw them as "detrimental", not "disruptive". You have to remember not every English speaker shares the same idiomatic usages, and the phrase "a land agent for the Earl Erne" sounds archaic to me. Graham, who is Australian, might well find that a very odd use of a definite article. You wouldn't write "a land agent for the King George". Taking into account the overlinking, I have to agree with Graham that those edits were not an improvement to the article, and don't improve my confidence that PainMan's contributions outside of the strict range of their current topic ban are likely to be a net positive. --RexxS (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Do you really see these edits as disruptive? In one instance they changed "Boycott worked as a land agent for Lord Erne (John Crichton, 3rd Earl Erne), a landowner in the Lough Mask area" to "Boycott worked as a land agent for the the Earl Erne, a landowner in the Lough Mask area". The revision has an extra "the" but otherwise removing the awkward parenthetical seems like a reasonable improvement to me. You reverted stating "makes the text more stilted" but I think the reverse is true. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- While The Troubles discretionary sanctions are authorized so that they can be expanded beyond The Troubles, the relevant sanction here was not, the edits here do not violate the ban, even "broadly construed", nor do I see them as disruptive enough (or at all) to justify expanding the scope of the ban, even though we can. There is no violation here. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think the last two diffs are enough to warrant expanding the topic ban to "The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed". These edits are identical to some which prompted the topic ban being imposed in the first place, only on different pages. There is a widespread consensus that the use of these words is OK (e.g. here) which means that continuing to make these changes without discussion is disruptive. I agree that the other diffs don't reasonably relate to the Troubles, our article describes the Troubles as starting in the 1960s and nineteenth century history doesn't count. Just as a topic ban from the American Civil War wouldn't cover the entire history of race relations in the US. Hut 8.5 08:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- We need to do something here, in any case. So unless there are any strong objections, it seems the general (though not unanimous) consensus here is to expand the topic ban accordingly. I'll leave this open for a bit to hear any objections, but otherwise will close with that result. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Woah, woah, woah. We need to do something? Why? I mean I may still be missing something, but I'm honestly not seeing what behavior warrants expanding the sanctions. The diffs were reported as violations of the existing topic ban, and it has subsequently been established that they are not in scope. The secondary consideration is then whether the edits were disruptive on their own merits. Looking at the diffs I literally can't comprehend how anyone could say they are, even in the context of the past disruption. The user was sanctioned for making a contested edit and then engaging in an extreme edit war over it, and then he did not defend himself at AE. I get that. A fairly acute violation, but I get it. But none of the diffs are continuing that behavior. In fact, he's straightforwardly avoiding repeating the edit that got him into trouble. This report literally appears to be erroneous, based on a misunderstanding of the sanctions. None of the diffs are problematic on their own merits in any way. I don't know why you're chomping at the bit to railroad this guy for apparently doing nothing wrong! Like I said, if I am missing something, please explain it to me! But my current reading of the situation is that we'd literally be sanctioning a user for nothing, basically rubber stamping an erroneous report. It doesn't make sense. Yes I get that the last two edits look similar to the edits that got him sanctioned in the first place, but they're not the same edit, nor is there inherently anything wrong with simply providing a translation in good faith. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Because he was informed that Wikipedia refers to the Taoiseach as the Taoiseach, not the Prime Minister of Ireland and continued to add the English translation. I'm most worried about the edits on the 21st. The rest of the edits weren't a great idea, but aren't alarming. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- I mean should he have deleted the literal English word for something because he doesn't think people know what it means and then edit war over it in an ACDS area? No. Is that the same thing as adding a simple explanation after a relatively uncommon word that some people might realistically not know the definition of? No, it's not. It's not the same offense. There's quite simply nothing inherently disruptive in trying to explain what a "Taoiseach" is in good faith. Yes his methods in the past did become disruptive, by way of edit warring and not communicating, and he was correctly sanctioned for that. However he's not in violation of those sanctions, broadly construed, which means he's allowed to make bold, good faith changes to articles. No, he's not allowed to do so disruptively, but I have yet to see anyone actually allege that he did anything disruptive or in bad faith. Without wading into the actual content dispute of whether those edits should be made, they are not inherently disruptive. It's a content disagreement. ~Swarm~ {sting} 16:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- My primary concern is making very similar edits (and yes, as is apparent, calling the Taoiseach the "prime minister" is apparently contentious, as we clearly see here), in an area pretty well adjacent to one in which he's gotten sanctioned for making such edits. If he didn't know that would raise objections and be contentious, I believe he should have—but I suspect he rather did, especially after last time. That's the conduct issue. I don't really have any opinion on what the article ultimately should say, but I think it should have been clear to a reasonable person that those edits weren't a good idea. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- I mean should he have deleted the literal English word for something because he doesn't think people know what it means and then edit war over it in an ACDS area? No. Is that the same thing as adding a simple explanation after a relatively uncommon word that some people might realistically not know the definition of? No, it's not. It's not the same offense. There's quite simply nothing inherently disruptive in trying to explain what a "Taoiseach" is in good faith. Yes his methods in the past did become disruptive, by way of edit warring and not communicating, and he was correctly sanctioned for that. However he's not in violation of those sanctions, broadly construed, which means he's allowed to make bold, good faith changes to articles. No, he's not allowed to do so disruptively, but I have yet to see anyone actually allege that he did anything disruptive or in bad faith. Without wading into the actual content dispute of whether those edits should be made, they are not inherently disruptive. It's a content disagreement. ~Swarm~ {sting} 16:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Woah, woah, woah. We need to do something? Why? I mean I may still be missing something, but I'm honestly not seeing what behavior warrants expanding the sanctions. The diffs were reported as violations of the existing topic ban, and it has subsequently been established that they are not in scope. The secondary consideration is then whether the edits were disruptive on their own merits. Looking at the diffs I literally can't comprehend how anyone could say they are, even in the context of the past disruption. The user was sanctioned for making a contested edit and then engaging in an extreme edit war over it, and then he did not defend himself at AE. I get that. A fairly acute violation, but I get it. But none of the diffs are continuing that behavior. In fact, he's straightforwardly avoiding repeating the edit that got him into trouble. This report literally appears to be erroneous, based on a misunderstanding of the sanctions. None of the diffs are problematic on their own merits in any way. I don't know why you're chomping at the bit to railroad this guy for apparently doing nothing wrong! Like I said, if I am missing something, please explain it to me! But my current reading of the situation is that we'd literally be sanctioning a user for nothing, basically rubber stamping an erroneous report. It doesn't make sense. Yes I get that the last two edits look similar to the edits that got him sanctioned in the first place, but they're not the same edit, nor is there inherently anything wrong with simply providing a translation in good faith. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
GizzyCatBella
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)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- 23:06, 25 June 2018 T-ban from "World War II history of Poland" :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 02:21, 21 March 2020 Restored a photo of the body of an executed war criminal who governed Eastern Europe (including half of Poland) on behalf of the Nazi regime. The restoration was justified as "reverting vandalism or test edit", but the removal was neither ("Portrait of a dead person").
- 01:00, 24 February 2020 Changed
[[Lviv]]
to[[Lwow|Lwów]], [[Second Polish Republic|Poland]]
. The time frame and place - 1943 in occupied Poland - fall strictly within the remit of the ban. The substance of the edit - the change of name from the Ukrainian Lviv to the Polish Lwów, and the mention of the then-dissolved Second Polish Republic - concerns the results of the 1939 invasion by Soviet and Nazi forces, so it too is part of the ban. - 22:04, 21 March 2020 Commented on Talk:Latvian Legion. The LL was involved in the 1945 Podgaje massacre of Polish forces, so part of "World War II history of Poland". More broadly, the subject of wartime enmities between the various Slavic nations is still charged enough (see eg. here) to merit caution if a T-ban is in place.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 23:06, 25 June 2018 T-ban from "World War II history of Poland".
- 12:50, 18 May 2019 Block for T-ban violation.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Despite sanctions, editor remains involved in the topic area.[7][8]
- In addition, the editor seems focused on Jewish Communists[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] and criminals,[17][18] adding bits of unsourced information[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] to many articles (see admin's comment here). While one's choice of subjects on Wikipedia is not always a problem in its own right, Sandstein's original conclusion[27] that the editor "[edits] articles about the World War II history of Poland with a view to... making them more sympathetic to right-wing Poles, and less sympathetic to Polish Jews or left-wing Poles" raises questions in this case.
- The editor also seems focused on removing properly sourced information related to antisemitism[28][29][30][31][32] and prejudice[33][34][35][36][37][38] in Poland (or even just national pride [39][40]), usually stating that it was either "undue" or "not in source". I've checked all of the sources so marked (including one marked "OR" that was mentioned earlier), and all of them pan out.[41][42][43][44][45][46] Deferring to Sandstein again, who invited the editor to show "evidence of substantial, competent, prejudice-free editing in other topic areas".
- @Ymblanter, RexxS, Black Kite, and Awilley: I would like to draw your attention to a particular comment made by the editor below:
FR claims "I've checked all of the sources so marked... and all of them pan out". This is not true and it’s not clear why we should take his word for it... The truth is that most of this content is indeed undue or not in the source, as has been noted by several editors.
In short, she's accusing of me of lying. Now this is a simple factual matter: either the sources say what is claimed, or they don't. In either case one of us has lied not once but twice: once about the sources, and once in accusing the other of lying. To settle this I've reverted the editor and added back the sources with quotes,[47][48][49][50][51][52] so you may judge for yourselves. I know editors are usually given broad leeway at the boards, but dishonesty should never be tolerated. However you choose to conclude this complaint, do take this into account.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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)
Okay, enough is enough! This is an extremely ill-intended report - a continuation of block shopping attempts [54], 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 [55] 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 [56] and here [57]. 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 [58] 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 [59] of indef banned user Icewhiz [60]
- 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. [61] 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 [62] was a misunderstanding shortly after my ban was introduced and promptly explained by the imposing administrator and this [63] 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. [64], he was warned by Bovlb not to accuse me of being racist, [65]. He was also advised by Black Kite to scale down with his accusations of antisemitism[66] and eventually was blocked [67] 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 [68].It’s also worth noting that this is again reverting edits by one of Icewhiz’s likely sock puppets [69]. Likewise this diff [70] concerns another one of Icewhiz’s socks [71],[72].
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)
- @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)
- @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)
- @Ymblanter - thank you for your time, I appreciate you inspecting it more thoroughly.GizzyCatBella🍁 11:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- @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)
- @~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)
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)
- Please see this conversation: [73]
- .. also this conversation with another contributor: [74] and editor departure from the project notice [75].
Could somebody please look deeper into this whole thing. Thank you. GizzyCatBella🍁 23:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Background can be found here:[76] GizzyCatBella🍁 23:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- I guess I'll post my plea here also... [77] I'm so exhausted of these tricks that I'm on the edge of crying..GizzyCatBella🍁 22:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
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: [78]), 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" [79]). 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)
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)
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[80], which was subsequently ignored [81] and requested him to stop harassing me on Wikipedia[82].If it would be confirmed as highly likely that FR edited on behalf of Icewhiz would it fall under proxing rules [83]] ? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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[84], [85]. 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- At the moment this isn't looking clear-cut to me. To save everyone checking here is the text of the topic ban:
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)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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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.
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) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning JIJJRG
JIJJRG JIJJRG
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 :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pat_Day#WP%3AUNDUE_criticism_in_lead_and_%22Technique%22_section; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Day&action=history; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
Discussion concerning USERNAMEStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by USERNAMEStatement by (username)Result concerning JIJJRG
|
Fowler&fowler
No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Fowler&fowler
As an example of disruptive editing, Wikipedia's guideline includes Ownership of Content, which states:
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: 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)
Discussion concerning Fowler&fowlerStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Fowler&fowler
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 [[86]]. 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) I think a warning might be in order for the filer.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by SN54129Per 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
Statement by SerChevalerieBeing 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) Statement by AnachronistIn 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) Statement by Lingzhi2I'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) Statement by Johnbod
Doug WellerDisappointing 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) Statement by RegentsParkI'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) Statement by (username)Result concerning Fowler&fowler
|
SPECIFICO
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)
- 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:
- 19 May 2014
- 14 February 2017
- 20 May 2018
- 24 May 2018
- 15 December 2016
- 15 June 2018
- 11 May 2017
- 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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
- [87] Personalizing dispute, character assassination and bullying.
- [88] "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.
- [89] "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.
- [90] "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)
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)
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)
- I anticipated such a comment would be made. As at least two of the editors expressed a fear of receiving further grief from SPECIFICO, I have no intention of providing their identities. I have recommended that they comment here if they feel it is appropriate to do so. Ergo Sum 16:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Well, if I were of a mind to stir up trouble against an editor I didn't like, I suppose I would also suggest:
a fear of receiving further grief
, and this would work better if there were multiple such anons. At the least, it doesn't seem appropriate to include anonymous, negative, off-wiki comments to which SPECIFICO cannot respond. O3000 (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)- @Lepricavark: And how are we to judge if they are acting in good faith and not engaging themselves in retribution? AE has been weaponized in the past, and all participants can have their own behavior scrutinized -- assuming they haven't found a loophole in remaining anonymous. I trust they are not engaging in ex parte communications with possible judges to the filing. I'm not weighing in on the substance of this filing one way or another. I'm just uncomfortable with the origin. O3000 (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Well, if I were of a mind to stir up trouble against an editor I didn't like, I suppose I would also suggest:
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)
- 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)
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)
- @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)
- @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)
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)
- 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.
[91] (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.
[92] (Better to say nothing)Ernie, get a grip.
[93] (Better to make your point without the personal comments)You are either unable or unwilling to understand the basics of editing Wikipedia articles
[94] (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.
[95] (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)