Kautilya3
Erik-the-red is topic banned from all pages related to India's borders, broadly construed. They may appeal the ban after a period of not less than six months.--RegentsPark (comment) 15:17, 28 July 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 Kautilya3
I believe the WP:BULLY diffs above best demonstrates the problems with engaging in WP:DR (such as RfC) with Kautilya3, and why I am requesting WP:ACDS. At 18:17, 13 July 2020, I opened an RfC following the suggestion from a closed AE report which Kautilya3 filed against me. Subsequently,
How can RfC work with an editor who doesn't accept other survey responses as valid?
Diff Erik-the-red (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Kautilya3Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Kautilya3Thanks to Number 57 for checking the reverts made. I actually count two reverts in 24 hours, not even three. As for the allegation of "BULLY", obviously evidence is presented to admins when a case is made against an editor. Whether those allegations make sense or not is for the admins to assess. I find it hard to see how this can count as "BULLY". As to "how can the RfC work?", the answer is that an independent closer assesses the input provided by various users. Meanwhile, I would like the admins to consider if this editor is being given too much WP:ROPE. I brought a genuine 3RR violation report, for which no sanction was applied. In response to this substantive ARE report, the user was let off with a light sanction. Is this emboldening the user (and perhaps others) to try more extreme measures to take out the "opposition"? Notice also this very long ANI report on quite a related topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by SerChevalerieThis ARE looks like an extension of the content dispute that the editors are having. The diffs provided prove the same. K3 has been invaluable in India-related articles; I hardly think sanctions are necessary. As has been previously pointed out by the admins, a dispute resolution would be ideal before entertaining stricter requests such as this ARE. SerChevalerie (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by USaamoI replied to User:Kautilya3's allegation against my comment which he stated in his statement in my case above, I'm posting it here again to clarify my position. "As to my comment on Dhola Post RfC, he's(Kautilya3) wrongfully alleged me and the other editor(Erik-the-red) involved. I commented in that RfC with having a background over McMahon Line since the history of India Pakistan before of 1947 was common history under British India and the said discussion is of a 1914 event which is taught to us in history. I came across this discussion while looking through different RfCs and here I commented on another I found during that[1] and I came across this as well and as I have read the case involving User:Erik-the-red below(my case) so having a background on it I went on to comment in that RfC. And my comment there is backed by sources and is not merely a comment. He is just showing up the same attitude he is showing on other side (In edit dispute with me) and tending to stonewall sourced content." An admin here didn't understood my comment in that RfC at all interestingly. Perhaps I have a very bad grip on language's syntax. I tried clarifying it for him as well in this respnose I added there. [2] Hope it clears my stance. Also I wanted to know whether a user can be questioned for his response to RfC like that or not? USaamo (t@lk) 22:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by BirdValiantI've just popped in after seeing the RfC going on for Talk:Ayurveda, where I noticed that one of the users in that discussion, User:Siddsg has been both blocked and indefinitely topic banned on the topic of pseudoscience. I scrolled up and happened to notice that User:Kautilya3 was the subject of arbitration enforcement. This very much surprised me, because I had come to know Kautilya3 while being involved with the Indigenous Aryans RfC. I remember Kautilya3 being a level-headed voice of reason during these typically emotion-ridden debates. Looking the differences in Dhola Post, it seems to me that Kautilya3 made the right decision to revert; it seems like a case of POV pushing to me. One might as well change the map on the Arunachal Pradesh article to be a map of China and say that it's southern portion is claimed by India. These kinds of major changes require a consensus to be achieved first, which User:Erik-the-red did not achieve. I would like to point out the language in one of Erik-the-red's edit summaries: "Believe it or not, it is possible for someone other than you to write in a way that abides by WP:NPOV and WP:NOR." That sounds pretty passive-aggressive to me; not something one would expect out of a collaborative project. Also, Erik-the-red accuses Khautilya3 of "blatant hypocrisy" in the Dhola Post content dispute. Finally, I would hope that there is more discussion on Talk:Dhola Post from disinterested parties. BirdValiant (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Kautilya3
|
Urgal
Urgal is siteblocked for one year for repeated violations of their WP:ARBAP2 topic ban. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:34, 24 July 2020 |
---|
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 Urgal
The following edits are all topic ban violations:
The inital topic ban notice was removed by Urgal on 30 June 2020 with the edit summary "Lol".
Discussion concerning UrgalStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by UrgalStatement by Ian.thomsonIt looks like the pre-ban edit war at InfoWars was to claim that it's a news site. Not just a fake news site, but a news site. Now, they weren't removing the "Fake news" label, but I must admit that whenever I see a new user questioning why we call InfoWars "fake news," I might give them a single warning shot before indefinitely blocking them under WP:CIR. Oh, wait, here they are arguing that the fake news was in the past and that they shouldn't be called a fake news site. Their actions in the above report show that they won't respect the their ban, and frankly the only reason I can imagine for not indeffing them are their prolific editing combined with their history of sockpuppetry: by letting them continue to edit in other topics, we're (hopefully) reducing the risk of producing an LTA case. I'm only saying I can see that reason, not saying I agree with it. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by MrXThere is a clear pattern of flaunting the rules here, so Urgal is probably about to be indef blocked. This is probably worth looking into as well: [4] - MrX 🖋 11:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Noting for the record that I have filed an SPI: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/WhatsUpWorld. - MrX 🖋 13:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by IvanvectorI saw Newslinger's revert this morning on Infowars which referenced the topic ban, and started to do an investigation of their last few weeks of edits since being banned, but I see it's here already; thanks for doing the work, Newslinger. I only got as far back as a series of boundary-pushing edits to Clint Eastwood (e.g. this edit about Eastwood's political positions, though Urgal later self-reverted). My analysis was an indef partial block from InfoWars was in order, and was on my way to their talk page to begin the process when I saw the note there referring to this discussion. Given Newslinger's evidence of multiple ongoing violations and evidently no willingness to abide by the sanction, a sitewide block is clearly in order, the only question is for how long. Taking everything here into account and including the recent abuse of multiple accounts, I suggest the answer is indefinite. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Urgal
|
Symphony Regalia
Symphony Regalia is indefinitely topic banned from gender-related disputes, controversies, or social movements. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:34, 27 July 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 Symphony Regalia
This editor has provided three poor-quality sources to try to claim that reliable sources do not agree that MGTOW is a misogynist movement. I didn't even know that members of MGTOW themselves disputed that MGTOW is a misogynist movement—after all, the core belief is that women are so terrible they must be avoided completely. They have yet to provide any quotes from these sources that actually refute the descriptor, and continue to maintain the sources are somehow usable without providing any evidence the authors are "field experts" as they claim. For clarity, the sources they have produced are:
A topic ban from the subject area strikes me as appropriate, as well as a reminder that not every "book" you can find on Amazon is a reliable source. They have stopped replying to the talk page discussion (Talk:Men Going Their Own Way#Not all RS describe MGTOW as misogynistic) and have moved on to POV-pushing elsewhere in the article: just now they've removed the quotes around "female privilege" in the sentence It appears based on their talk page that this user has also been troublesome in other topic areas, including pushing for COVID-19 to be called the "Chinese virus" or "Wuhan virus".
Discussion concerning Symphony RegaliaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Symphony RegaliaGorillaWarfare is directly involved and what you are witnessing is an attempt by her to weaponize sanctions against someone she holds ideological disagreements with. I haven't violated any sanctions, there is currently no ongoing conflict, and I've engaged on the talk page every step of the way. Her diff explanations are also misleading. Diff 1 was not a removal, it was me restoring the contribution of another editor who is also currently in disagreement with her. In the spirit of collaboration my edit summary also suggested using a qualifier, but this was of course left out of her account of the events. Diffs 4 and 5 are talk page edits. Diff 6 isn't related to any of the other diffs. The quotes in diff 6 were removed to remain consistent with the rest of the article, as the term is not jargon, and because they are completely redundant in a sentence that begins with A quick look at the edit history for the article will directly demonstrate the clear WP:OWNBEHAVIOR that GorillaWarfare consistently engages in. This report appears to be backlash for violating that sense of ownership. You will also notice that she is the one who requested sources that were not self-published, so I gave her two published by reliable independent publications, and stopped editing the line. Now she is attempting to improperly weaponize sanctions against me because she apparently does not personally like that one publisher has Catholic affiliations, which I did not know, and of course should not matter anyhow. I have nothing more to say and will not be engaging with any of the ad hominems from her acquaintances, or her new attempt to modify the original report to "refute" this statement. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by JormThis is pretty open-and-shut. Symphony Regalia has been rolling deep in "I didn't hear that" territory and edit warring to delete sourced writing. A topic ban feels like the right path.--Jorm (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC) AlmostFrancisFor what its worth their username comes from an obscure Japanese anime in which the main rebel faction is called nudist beach, for which Regalia is a member. It seems likely given their username and area of interest that they are here to push a POV and annoy everyone and not build the encyclopedia.AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC) @Ian.thomson:, I am content with your disagreement. With your crudity, and pedantry about anime, I suspect we would disagree about much. I see little difference between choosing a name after the character or after an article of clothing the character wears. AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Ian.thomsonSince I locked the Men Going Their Own Way article, I wasn't gonna comment but @AlmostFrancis: your reasoning is... Honestly awful. Like, really, really bad. I'm saying this as someone who thinks GorillaWarfare has built a solid case that Symphony Regalia needs to be topic banned from gender-related disputes (and opened the door for a case regarding politics) and as someone who has not watched Kill la Kill. The show is not obscure (it was on Adult Swim and so pretty popular with the western anime fandom and there's still plenty of merch floating around here in Japan), and there are fans of the series on every part of the political spectrum (whether they get that the series's creators intended it to be anti-fascist or ignore that to interpret it as libertarian individualism, whether they think the message is troubled by the sexualization of its female character or that Hiroyuki Imaishi is satirizing fan service as he did in Panty & Stocking with Garterbelt, or whether they just pretend that media couldn't possibly have deeper meanings). And Symphony Regalia isn't even a character, it's an article of clothing worn by a character. And I really hate myself for being this pedantic about an anime I've never even watched right now but my God, your argument is so bad that it risks derailing the case against Symphony Regalia (possibly with the help of childless single men who masturbate to anime) with a red herring of "why does Wikipedia hate anime fans?" Your argument is ignorant and unhelpful, please strike it and do not make similar ones in the future. (The links are not meant to imply that anyone currently present is a member of the alt-right but there's no informed and good-faith argument that an alt-right editor would not want to take a particular side on this case). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Symphony Regalia
|
Mr Miles
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 Mr Miles
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Rab V (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Mr_Miles (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/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [5] 3RR violations on the trans woman article
- [6] more 3RR violations
- [7]
- [8]
- [9]
- [10]
- [11]
- [12]
- [13] WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTFORUM derogatory references to trans women in the talk page
- [14] more WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTFORUM violations
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- [15] Temporary ban for 3RR violation where admin suggested also seeking topic ban.
- 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 [16].
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Mr_Miles
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_Miles
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Mr_Miles
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- There is a procedural problem with this request. All the diffs are from before the editor was blocked for the edits aforementioned. I am a bit wary of sanctioning someone twice. Unless there are new violations, I would not go beyond a warning at this time. El_C 14:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- I would close this with no action per El C --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:39, 31 July 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
- Notrium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:10, 31 July 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
- Talk page notice of the topic ban, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive236#GizzyCatBella ARBENF topic ban :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 2020-07-05T04:23:09 Soviet civilians included the half of Poland annexed in 1939. The article specifically refers to Kortelisy.
- 2020-07-19T14:42:12 Second World War in Poland in this and previous paragraph.
- 2020-07-19T14:55:30 The article topic encompasses WW2 in Poland, as that's when and where a large portion of this Genocide happened. (Search for Poland in the article.) Also see previous diff.
- 2020-07-29T08:41:43 "Poor" is mainly WWII in Poland, described in the previous paragraph.
- 2020-07-29T22:31:06 The Slovak uprising was connected to the Russian attack on the Germans from Poland, and as planned should have enabled a direct terrestrial connection between Slovak forces and the Ally forces in Poland: see the Battle of the Dukla Pass, a battle on the border between Poland and Slovakia; the Soviet Air Force and the liberated Slovak air force flew from/to Poland; and 1944 Slovakia included parts of Poland.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 2018-04-26T14:44:53 Blocked for violating an arbitration decision with edits on the "Collaboration in German-occupied Poland" article.
- 2019-05-18T09:50:45 Blocked for violating an arbitration decision and for violating their topic ban.
- 2020-06-26T23:21:16 Blocked for both again.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Not applicable, I think.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
The previous enforcement request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive268#GizzyCatBella.
I'd like to note that AFAIK GizzyCatBella has also been been warned on their talk page many times for violations without a sanction happening, including in April 2020 by El C. The many discussions on GizzyCatBella in the Arbitration Enforcement Archives are also relevant.
Because of the volume and degree of repetition (after warnings) of GizzyCatBella's TBAN violations, I think it's fair to say (assuming good faith) they either have trouble discerning what is and what is not covered by the ban or have no respect for Wikipedia policy. Thus it might be beneficial (by preventing misunderstanding, and thus further violations) to widen the scope of the topic ban to encompass, e.g., Eastern Europe in the 20th century and Jewish history and individuals in the 20th century; in addition to writers, historians and other persons connected to the former. Notrium (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- User:El C have you read WP:TBAN, especially "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic"? Apart form that, I think the Roma diffs are especially obviously violations. Notrium (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- I fail to see what the proposed sanctions against me or François Robere are supposed to accomplish except making GizzyCatBella's ban effectively void. That's not the motivation, right? Notrium (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- @El C: that was not my point. If you sanction anybody who audits somebody's (GCB's in this case) behavior, then any other potential "auditors" will not dare to do something similar again. Thus their TBAN would be effectively void. Notrium (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- @El C: what is the rationale for giving me an IBAN? Surely it is not standard practice to sanction someone after their first non-actionable Enforcement request?
- In case it's not clear, it seems to me that you are trying to punish me simply for starting this legitimate enforcement process. Have I done anything that should be a cause of concern? Notrium (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- @El C: that was not my point. If you sanction anybody who audits somebody's (GCB's in this case) behavior, then any other potential "auditors" will not dare to do something similar again. Thus their TBAN would be effectively void. Notrium (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- 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
Unbelievable battleground attitude! I can't believe it!! This is a continuation of this! [18] And this report [19] already reported by Notrium earlier following my prior disagreement with that user. There is no word "Poland" or any subject related to Poland from my edits presented above. They just can't stop until they get their way. See this discussion too [20] on RexxS talk page. I'm carefully avoiding any word POLAND in WW2. Article about Roma people?! Because of what?! Because some Roma communities lived in Poland during WW2 and Poland is mentioned somewhere else in the article!? What an ill-disposed report! This is absurd. I even state it clearly in the edits summary when I'm correcting ANYTHING where there was a mention of Poland somewhere else in the article, like here [[21]] when I was repairing Slovakia section. Notrium please get it over with and move on. I have nothing to do with your latest block [22] Just move on. I can't take it anymore. Dear administrators, PLEASE. Please, remove or alter my topic ban, so this kind of malicious reports don't happen anymore. I understand what I have done that resulted in my topic ban OVER two years ago already. [23] I know that I have to be careful with references, and I'm already. VERY CAREFUL. The topic ban doesn't serve any purpose whatsoever anymore, causes me significant distress and only attracts battleground oriented editors. They file insanely bad faithed reports and use it as a weapon to get back at me for God to know what. GizzyCatBella🍁 05:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Notrium OMG. Pushing for diff [24], which is very clearly related to pre-war Germany (the Romani situation in Nazi Germany) and trying to pass them off as topic ban violations when they're not, just further shows how bad-faithed this report is.GizzyCatBella🍁 05:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- or this one about Roma community they presented [25] it’s about communist governments policies against Roma community way after the war. I can’t believe they have the nerve to continue claiming a TP violation.GizzyCatBella🍁 05:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Note - Also, please note because this is VERY interesting.
All the diffs the user Notrium presented above are related to the Roma community, Germany, Soviet Union and Slovakia.
User Notrium, however, advocates for the expansion of sanctions to include - quote - widen the scope of the topic ban to encompass, e.g., Eastern Europe in the 20th century and Jewish history and individuals in the 20th century; in addition to writers, historians and other persons connected to the former.
WHY Jewish History?
There is nothing about Jewish history in the above diffs.
I wonder if this report has anything to do with a now permanently banned user Icewhiz [26] because of whos complain the sanctions were imposed in the first place.[27], who charged against me on later occasions [28] [29]. His sockpuppets were involved in a recent slander campaign against me and other editors (TonyBallioni is aware of that) Tony could you please take a look at it when you get a chance?
Can user Notrium please explain the "Jewish history" thing? GizzyCatBella🍁 11:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
User François Robere who was a close friend of Icewhiz ,supposed to stay away from me following this discussion [30] but arrived here to comment. He also breached the interaction promise earlier here [31] and here [32] and here restoring my edit [33]. He pushed for sanctions together with Notrium here [34] on RexxS' talk page also. François Robere do you have anything to do with producing this report?GizzyCatBella🍁 14:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- You see guys; I'm not the kind of person looking for fights, I simply want to edit in peace. For example, François Robere commented directly to me this discussion [35] despite the earlier pledge of staying away. [36] I reminded him about the "stay away promise" [37], but all I have heard in return is a suggestion about me being paranoid. So I left the discussion and moved on. I could have reported him to RexxS but I believed that FR would eventually stop. But these constant attempts by FR to get me sanctions are causing me too much stress and takes away the enjoyment of editing Wikipedia. I'll welcome anything that will prevent this mad block shopping. Lifting the Topic Ban would be ideal, again I understand my previous mistake from 2 years ago, I'll not repeat it, I promise. But if you still think this long-standing Topic Ban is necessary, then please do something else that will shelter me from situations like this one. I'm really stressed out.GizzyCatBella🍁 16:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- FR, you are presenting some old diffs claiming that I'm "hounding and following you around." We may have naturally ended up in the same article but before the April 4th agreement. [38] After that, you presented one diff [39] claiming that my edit [40] was an interaction with your edit. False, I just changed 500 to 600 and inserted the reference and then added another reference with a little text here [41] Didn't touch your revision what so ever. I would not dare to do that. Then I joined related discussion but never responded to you [42] I would not dare to do that. You said you have 15 diffs proving me braking my promise to stay away from you. You showed faulty two. Please present 13 more you claim you have, but the real ones were I directly started interacting with you, reverted you or commented on you. They don't exist.
Meantime on May 28, YOU joined this discussion and on May 29 directly challenged me [43] by saying GizzyBella: The IP hasn't been blocked, so your striking of their comment may be a violation of your T-ban
then you said Stop being paranoid, Bella - it's a public forum, you're hardly the only one who comments here. Instead of charging, try to WP and imagine how this looks. Cheers
. Then on June 3, I made this edit [44], and on June 16, you challenged my edit making an edit to the same substance [45]. Then on July 18 you changed my edit from traditional
to conservative
here [46] with the edit summary call it what it is
Then on June 18, again, you restored this edit of mine [47] right here [48] with the edit summary Restoring some PiS mentions - state-sanctioned homophobia is noteworthy here
I never challenged you and didn't complain to RexxS. I just moved on and stopped editing that article exactly because I did’t want to breach the interaction promise. Then you advocated for sanction against me on RexxS' talk page, and later today, you arrived here. I never did what you did; it is you who ignored the agreement. I don't care about what you do on Wikipedia, and I don't follow you. If I cared, I would complain about the breach of promise a long time ago, but I didn't, I just moved on to avoid unnecessary stress. This is how it is FR, not the way you are presenting. GizzyCatBella🍁 21:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- or here just the other day [49] I voted AGREE, you arrived next day to vote OPPOSE. I don’t think I would dare to vote seeing you there voting first, not sure but probably I would not..anyway, I’m really tired, this is my last comment, I have to rest now.GizzyCatBella🍁 22:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Piotrus
Hmmmm. Something is fishy. Or at least doesn't look pretty. Do correct me if I am wrong, but Notrium has never edited Polish history articles much, nor interacted with GCB. In June they got into a minor disagreement at Talk:History_of_Poland#Human_activity_in_Poland_in_antiquity, then took care to investigate GCB's topic ban which concerns topics Notrium never edit themselves, presented well formatted Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive268#GizzyCatBella last month (their first AE report ever) and now they are filing one again (this time really scraping the barrel, the presented evidence - fixing a few typos here and there - is really weak IMHO). It is interesting that Notrium has never edited the articles he reports GCB for; he is clearly not interested in this topic area and instead is just looking for any and all technicalities to 'stick it' to someone who dared to disagree with him. This seems to me to be awfully far from WP:AGF and in turn too close to WP:NOTHERE, and given that Icewhiz is still active behind the scenes (for example he is actively harassing me in real life, which led to his recent site/SanFran-level ban), I have to wonder if he isn't sending diffs/pre-formatted AE's to some people hoping to see 'if they'll stick'. Frankly, WP:BOOMERANG for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior would be, IMHO, worth considering here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Statement by François Robere
- Diff #1: The rename from "German war crimes against Soviet civilians" to "World War II German war crimes in the Soviet Union" could be construed to include about half of Poland that was occupied by the Soviets; and would certainly include hundreds of thousands of Polish refugees and exiles on Soviet soil, as well as border counties that were split from Poland and annexed to the Soviet Ukraine.
- Diff #3: The Romani genocide, insofar as it was perpetrated on Polish soil, falls within the extent the T-ban.
- Diff #4: Direct reference to wartime events...
@Piotrus: You don't have to be close friends with someone to report them (you probably shouldn't if you are :-P). Her T-ban appeal drew comments from several editors who follow the TA but don't interact with her personally.[50] You shouldn't be surprised that other editors notice her as well. François Robere (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- @El C: How exactly did I not "follow RexxS's advice"? I've avoided her contribs, avoided commenting on her AE appeal (which was denied), and even avoided filing here despite having concrete evidence that she's hounding me, something she gave her word she'll stop.[51] That's >15 diffs that I kept to myself, and four months of avoiding her while knowing that she's still following me. And now, when I make a very narrow, focused comment in a TA that I have some knowledge in, you make this suggestion? François Robere (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@El C: See below.
- Before April 2020:
- GCB comments on unpublished content in my "sandbox".[52][53]
- Follows me to two articles on Israeli current affairs, which is a TA she rarely touched at the time.[54][55]
- Edits an article I started on architect Joseph Berlin,[56] which is TA she never touches.
- Follows me to Sandstein's TP.[57][58]
- Follows me to WP:ANI.
- Follows me to two articles within the TA that she never edited before, and rarely since.[59][60]
- April 2020 onwards:
- GCB claims that I'm "hounding" her and that it's distressing.[61][62][63] I denied it, but accepted RexxS's resolution (the alternative was an indef block, despite my relatively clean "sheet").
- Note that while my discussion with RexxS was ongoing, I was forced to engage with no less than four other editors (all from this TA, all backing one another) in 5-6 other discussions across two talk pages. Two editors who came to my defence were summarily excused. The whole thing lasted about a week, and was quite draining.
- She gives her word to two admins that she'll avoid contact with me.[64]
- The following June she makes her first edit to History of Poland less than a day after I edit it, with content that is a direct response to my changes.[65][66] She then joins the discussion that I started,[67] broke her T-ban,[68] and even went to WP:ANI to attack another editor (the OP).[69] That's not the behavior of an editor distressed by "hounding".
Regarding GCB's T-ban:
- Two and a half months ago she appealed her T-ban; her appeal was rejected and ban was prolonged by two more years.[70] Several editors who rarely interact with her commented, including admins Sandstein and Ealdgyth. I made it a point of not commenting.
- I suggest going through that discussion before making a decision here, as the comments made there directly address her comments above.
- Several admins asked that GCB display productive and error free editing in other TAs before she asks for the ban to be repealed. This hasn't happened.
- On June 3rd she added "cherry-picked" quote to LGBT ideology-free zone,[71] which was removed by Trasz.[72] The full source text is actually much darker, with claims of censorship and an attack on "ideas and practices that undermine human dignity and contribute to the depravity of children".
- On June 21st she added a couple of references to History of Poland.[73][74] One of the references was broken, and failed verification; more importantly, though - the other pointed to a 1985 book by the "Veritas Foundation",[75] which is not an RS.
There are some issues that can be raised here, but again - I'm not looking to make this messier. I doubt others will see it the same way, though.
As for GCB's claims:
- "Close friend of Icewhiz"? Lady, I don't even know his name, and I'd appreciate if stopped making these insinuations. You don't see me going around suggesting you're intimate with Tatzref, do you?
- On "staying away": as I stated above, I kept my word and "stayed away" from her contribs, and in general tried to engage her as little as possible. Her following me into discussions and attacking other users (see "hounding" above), suggests my presence is not as distressing as she claims.
- She claims this was a violation of the agreement, but that edit actually precedes the agreement by two days (April 3rd vs. April 5th).[76]
- She claims these [77][78] were violation, but there was nothing in the agreement about editing articles I'm already involved in.[79][80]
- This is a violation?? Asking for protection from someone who's hounding me is a violation??
- Here she erased someone else's comment.[81] They weren't accused of anything, there was no admin involved, it was just her decision. I didn't file on it, I simply voted and left a message.[82][83] Again, there's nothing in the agreement about interacting in a public forum on a public vote.
- So it's a total of three encounters over four months: one in a public forum after she erased someone else's comment, one in an article I'm already heavily involved in, and one in me asking for help from an admin. That's not "hounding". Trying to get someone sanctioned for asking for help with hounding... that's hounding. François Robere (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@El C: Why an I-ban? None of her examples hold up (see right above this message). The fact is I neither "hound" her nor harass her in any way whatsoever, while she still follows me. I kept my end of the bargain, so why would you do that? François Robere (talk) 20:16, 31 July 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.
- Actually, from those diffs, I'm seeing GizzyCatBella being quite careful not to contravene her sanction. Is it ideal she's flying this close to the sun? Probably not, but that remains her prerogative. El_C 03:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, Notrium, I have read WP:TBAN, having imposed and enforced it on multiple occasions. El_C 03:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- François Robere, to say the USSR-related diff constitutes a topic ban violation is a bit of a stretch. Like Notrium, this approach widens WP:BROADLY beyond its conventional usage in determining WP:TBAN violations. To reiterate, this report should be closed as not actionable due to there being No violation. El_C 14:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- GizzyCatBella, I agree that François Robere has not been following the advise of RexxS. Perhaps formalizing that advise as a one-way WP:IBAN sanction toward François Robere is due. Or at least a final warning that it is imminent. I would welcome further input on that question. El_C 14:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Concur on the weirdness cited by Piotrus, Guerillero. Perhaps a imposing a WP:TBAN from WP:ARBEE or a one-way WP:IBAN (with GizzyCatBella) sanction on Notrium will deescalate matters. Per that, though Notrium has not received a DS alert, I already consider them WP:AWARE due to their filing of the current as well as the previous AE request concerning GizzyCatBella. El_C 14:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- No, Notrium, I doubt you and François Robere are the alpha and omega of the auditing of GizzyCatBella's adherence to the terms and scope of her topic ban. If you both fail to convince admins your own auditing of GizzyCatBella's edits is a productive undertaking which is in the interest of the project, then expect to be given a DS directive to cease. It's not complicated. El_C 15:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- RexxS, I agree with your assessment. I am not opposed to testing the waters by vacating GizzyCatBella's topic ban. Maybe that is the path of least resistance here. El_C 15:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- François Robere, I can only make a recommendation or take action according to the available evidence that is before me. You may choose to compile pertinent evidence to verify your assertion as you see fit. Now would be the time — this would be the forum. El_C 16:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- François Robere, okay, I won't deny your evidence contains compelling components. And I realize her last appeal was declined —I am the one who closed it— but I still think vacating her ban should be on the table. Truthfully, I'm not sure she would be, at present, any more disruptive to the topic area than the other regulars, yourself included. And so, I don't know if her ban continues to be of benefit to the project — especially in the sense of her having to put up with weaponized AE reports such as this. El_C 19:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Guerillero, fair enough. An IBAN also works for me. I will, however, amend my previous 2-year wait recommendation to GizzyCatBella about the timing of her next appeal. I now would welcome her appealing in ~4 months (for ~6 months wait from the last appeal). I have now changed my mind about that. El_C 19:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- François Robere, I don't know yet that I would with you, but I definitely support an IBAN on Notrium. That I am unlikely to change my mind about. El_C 20:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- I agree Piotrus that something is weird here. My first thought was also Icewhiz related. I also agree with El_C that this isn't a topic ban violation and an I-Ban might be helpful here. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Since we extended GizzyCatBella's topic ban only in May, I would be opposed to lifting it. Lets try the I-Ban --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm also concerned about this report. GizzyCatBella was topic-banned two years ago for causing problems with articles about the history of Poland in WWII. Since then she hasn't caused problems with any articles that I'm aware of and has generally successfully skirted around the TB, even though her principal interest is in Eastern European topics, where she is clearly an asset to the encyclopedia. She does sometimes make mistakes and I reluctantly gave her a short block recently for a violation of her TB. Nevertheless, none of the diffs above would raise any concerns were it not for the TB: they are absolutely harmless and it takes a considerable stretch to make an association between them and Poland in WWII. It's like playing seven degrees of separation and I am now suspicious about how Notrium came across them. I gain the impression that this report resembles an attempt to weaponise AE, and I'm not keen to see a repeat. I can only see two ways of avoiding this issue coming back here: either a broad I-Ban between the principle players or vacating GizzyCatBella's topic ban. It's a pity in some ways that she didn't take up Sandstein's concession to hear an appeal after six months, but I can understand that she may have felt the TB protected her from editing in an area where she had become too involved. I'd like to hear from other AE admins if they agree with my assessment. --RexxS (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)