Dispute resolution (Requests) |
---|
Tips |
Content disputes |
Conduct disputes |
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
Track related changes |
A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.
To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.
This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
|
Requests for arbitration
Requests for clarification and amendment
Motions
Requests for enforcement
François Robere
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 François Robere
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 00:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- François Robere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Sanction under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision - interaction ban with GizzyCatBella [1]
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
1- Referred to me in their post on the Arbitration page --> (...in June another one was blocked (the imposing admin, who was knee-deep in the TA, has since been desysopped... in August an I-ban was imposed between three editors...
) diff - [2]
2 - Furnished within a new text and restored [3] my prior removal - [4] - please notice Szarek is affiliated with PiS..
- [5] notice young historians
changed to young missionaries
, restoring the exact citations (see Behr Valentin 2017-01-02 Historical policy-making in post-1989 Poland), etc.
Explanation and additional information:
On August 9, 2020, a two-way interaction ban was imposed on François Robere and me. (important - please note that the two-way ban is of no fault of myself but François Robere and another participant; the reason for imposing two-way interaction ban was the fact that one of the assessing administrator's didn't like one-way interaction bans[6] One-way interaction ban have initially been proposed[7],[8],[9],[10])
On April 18, 2021, François Robere referred to me in their post on the Arbitration page [11] and included link to my talk page[12] despite the fact that interaction ban forbids to make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly
.
This latest development prompted me to bring this to the administrative attention; however, I was also surprised to see that François Robere (after modifications) also commenced restoring my removals on one of the articles despite the precise instructions per WP:IBAN that editors under interaction ban can not - undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means
.
François Robere restoration of my prior removal furnished within a new text - [13]
My prior removals - [14] - please notice Szarek is affiliated with PiS..
- [15] notice young historians
changed to young missionaries
, restoring the exact citations (see Behr Valentin 2017-01-02 Historical policy-making in post-1989 Poland), etc.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
Warnings:
I’m going to add BANEX rules for everyone to see easily with related underlined.
Exceptions to limited bans
Exceeds word limit, and unnecessary. Editors can review WP:BANEX by following the link. — Newslinger talk 16:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
An important note to all administrators for future actions
Failure to note in closing that results in two-way interaction bans and not mentioning the fact that one side is of no fault may result in denial of the guilty party of responsibility (as we can see in the statement of user against whom this enforcement is requested) or confusion. Just as I was worried about during my closing.[23],[24]
Quote of one of the involved administrators involved in my case -->[25] (they allowed me to quote them on that) -
..Indeed, my recommendation for a one-way IBAN was unfortunately not accepted. But all that remains at the discretion of the closer. I certainly will oppose any attempts to use that sanction against you when your appeal is submitted, since this was a bogus report whose closure should have made clear you were not at fault. I think the fact that the closing failed to note this is not to the credit of the AE process. Feel free to quote me on that.
@Nsk92 I appreciate your assistance here; Thank you. I have to point something out... You write -->"deletion nomination is the equivalent of starting a discussion on the talk"
- That might make sense in the future, but as of today, this is not what is written in the WP:BANEX rules. The rules carry five particular points (not examples but specifically spelled out details).
Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to:
- - edit each other's user and user talk pages;
- - reply to each other in discussions;
- - make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;
- - undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
- - use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.
There is nothing about deletion nomination being an equivalent of starting a discussion on the talk. I carefully memorized every point written. When I nominated that page for deletion, I didn't check for any contributors, only for the author and only shortly before posting the proposal. Please also keep in mind that the other party is also accountable for bringing this IB into the picture, not me, but I had to endure the consequences. But as I said, that actually makes sense to include an additional rule when I think about it; therefore, it should be included in Banex rules as point 6. As of today (May 1, 2021), according to the current Banex rules, I didn't break any; the other party did breach what's written. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@Awilley - The falsehood of the disputant is astonishing, shamelessly making a completely false statement [26]. They were the one who was hounding me not the other way around - despite my pleas to stop [27], "hounding"_accusations That included filing bogus AE reports[28], block shopping [29] among many, many other examples of hounding my edits (on articles they never edited before)[30],[31],[32],[33] (the diffs examples could go on) Their exact action (showing up [34] at yet another bogus report against me after THEM breaching the interaction promise [35]) led to this Interaction Ban. I would be ok with Iban lifted, but I'm very concerned that the other party will resume stalking me around again when this IB is lifted. Their comments on this very board show that disputants is not displaying any remorse for their past behavior and suggest that they are unwilling to change. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
(Below comments were made before the reported user re-wrote their narrative without striking the original - details at the bottom)GizzyCatBella🍁 20:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Due to the unwillingness of the opponent to strive towards resolving this civilly, here is further proof of them hounding me and breaching an Interaction Ban.
@Nsk92 and Awilley - So if the opponent insists on escalation instead of trying to see if removal of restriction would work, then let's look at yet another case of them following me into the article they NEVER edited before me and later breaching an interaction ban by rewriting my prior removal into a new text.
- On May 26, 2020 I made this edit to Krasiński article [36]
- On February 15th, 2021, the opponent basically restored it (after IB was already in place) by modifying the text and section title (Antisemitism to Antisemitic themes), using the same references, etc. See below:
My removal before the interaction ban:
A Polish nationalist, Krasiński's work in The Undivine Comedy positing a Jewish conspiracy against Christians was among the first or possible the first work in a string of modern antisemitic literary works in Europe leading to the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion -
[37]
Opponents added text on Feb.15, 2021 (after IB is in place):
Some of Krasiński's work contains antisemitic motifs. His Undivine Comedy is cited as a predecessor of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion -
[38]
The opponent followed me to the article they never edited before me and restored the text (modified) with the same references (Stephen Eric Bronner, Abraham G. Duker and Adamiecka-Sitek) changing the title section from Antisemitism to Antisemitic themes.
My first comment to the talk page - May 26th, 2021 [39]
Opponent follows me to the article and comments on June 2nd, 2020 [40]
My first edit to the article main space - May 26, 2020 -[41]
Opponents first edit to the article Feb.15, 2021 (after IB was already in place) - [42] - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
For a visual comparison of the last example of the Interaction violation, please click on Extend content beneath - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Entire text
Below parts of the re-written sentences from the above and section title change Section title change
This becomes this
This becomes this
This becomes this
The above demonstrates that the editor was conscious that they are restoring my edit with the same references (Stephen Eric Bronner[43], Abraham G. Duker[44] and Agata Adamiecka-Sitek[45]) so decided to conceal it by compressing it, re-writing using different words, and changing the section title. |
As supporting evidence of constant stalking, I'll throw in a few examples where the reported user followed me to the articles they NEVER edited before and AFTER the I-ban has been imposed. (If you wish to see the diff's when I was followed before the Iban I may provide that but the list will be very long. Please also note that the reported user declared in the past that they are not hounding me but only "reviewing" and "policing" my edits.[46]. The "policing" diff I can't find at the moment, but I'll if requested.)
a) - Axis Powers talk page - GizzyCatBella- [47] Reported user four hours later- [48]
b) - Historical policy of the Law and Justice party talk page - GizzyCatBella - [49] Reported user two days later - [50]
c) - Witold Pilecki talk page - GizzyCatBella - [51] Reported user five days later - [52]
d) - Hamas - GizzyCatBella - [53] Reported user - 8 days later - [54] - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC) (Note - My comments (21:43, 6 May 2021 and 00:21, 7 May 2021) where in reaction to and addressed the reported user's post that has been since altered without striking the original - see below.)
Please note - the reported user just altered his comment AFTER it was already responded to [55],[56],[57]. I was reacting to the initial comment, NOT what's written now. They were warned in the past by one of the administrators not to do that[58] (in issue of hounding different editor). But they did it yet again! They also did that in the past, even after administrative note. [59]. This is very unfair to me, misleading to other readers and, if not carefully examined, also confusing for eventual records. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Awilley - if naming a party one holds interaction ban with is considered a minor issue solely because it was made on the Arbcom page, then that's fine. I believed that it was a significant breach, hence my reaction to it. I would NEVER refer to them regardless of where it is. I only hope that the other party will not take it as an encouragement to mention me in the future and will stop referring to me anywhere on Wikipedia, just as I do in regards to them. I also understand your desire to avoid unnecessary burdens, and I hope further reports will not be needed. Please extend a warning uniformly, so they don't run here carelessly; they already have a history of doing precisely that. (See links above of them filing and showing up at every bogus report against me and the latest report that lead to this Interaction Ban) GizzyCatBella🍁 21:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Please note - François Robere has not been notified about this complaint since it's not clear to me if that's allowed - see WP:IBAN -
I believe I can do that under the circumstances ---> [60]
Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to edit each other's user and user talk pages
. Please advise if I can notify or let the user know. Thank you.
Discussion concerning François Robere
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 François Robere
- Background
- The ban between the OP and myself was imposed as part of an AE request filed by a third editor.
- It wasn't clear that I should be party to an I-ban,[61][62][63] but one was enacted anyway; along with another between the OP and the filer. Both were "no fault" bans.[64]
- During the discussion I've shown that the OP was following my activities on Wikipedia, including my "sandbox", mainspace edits, and correspondence with at least one admin.[65]
- Soon after the ban was imposed I stated that it makes me uneasy, since it can be "weaponized" against me.[66]
- The diffs
- Diff 1 complies with WP:BANEX, as well as the imposing admin's instruction that the ban isn't retroactive.[67]
- Diff 2 is unrelated to the OP.
- I've edited Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) before, including on Szarek[68] and the ref to Goddeeris.[69]
- On March 3rd I mentioned the IPN in a comment.[70]
- On March 4th I mentioned Szarek.[71]
- On March 5th the OP made her first edit to Institute of National Remembrance since January the previous year.[72][73] Later that day she removed a statement regarding Szarek.[74]
- On the same day I posted a long analysis of the changes made to the article by other editors.[75] I did not mention the OP nor her edits.
- Point #22 in the analysis refers to the IPN's budget. An hour and a half after it was posted the OP removed a mention of the IPN's budget.[76]
- The discussion evolved throughtout March. On March 29th I collected quotes from several sources and posted them to Talk.[77] This is my work, it has several new sources and perhaps 80-90% new content.
- On April 14th, seeing as no substantial objections have been raised, I added the content to the article.[78]
- The edit was soon reverted,[79] and we went back to Talk.[80]
- After I replied to the reverting editor,[81] another editor voiced their support for my edit.[82]
- The OP then made an off-topic comment about an edit that editor made three weeks earlier.[83][84] She then inserted an opinion that pertains to both our edits,[85] potentially complicating the discussion for me.
- Another incident
- On February 3rd I commented on Talk:Bogdan Musiał.[86]
François Robere (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Rosguill and Newslinger: I object to the change in the sanction as proposed, and would rather you didn't support it if, as you say, you're not familiar with the history that precipitated it. François Robere (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Newslinger: Thank you for your analysis. Could you please opine on my own diffs, as well as on JzG and Nsk92's comments? I find it difficult to believe that the OP would edit a specific statement within three minutes of me mentioning it - in article she hasn't touched in 2.5 years - a sheer coincidence. François Robere (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Newslinger: You're actually the first admin to address my diffs, so thanks. Do you mind looking at the others regarding the IPN ("Diff 2")? The OP hasn't touched that article in over a year, then suddenly makes three edits about stuff I'm discussing as I'm discussing it. That's a lot of coincidences. François Robere (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Newslinger: Thank you for your analysis. Could you please opine on my own diffs, as well as on JzG and Nsk92's comments? I find it difficult to believe that the OP would edit a specific statement within three minutes of me mentioning it - in article she hasn't touched in 2.5 years - a sheer coincidence. François Robere (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Awilley: I'd definitely like to see it lifted on my side, but it's unlikely without a complete lift, so I'd rather it wasn't lifted at all. The OP has been "hounding" me since at least September 2019 (see diffs above), and one of my concerns is that removing the ban now instead of enforcing it would just legitimize her behavior, while exposing me to further harassment. François Robere (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Awilley: The OP read my reply and brought back a bunch of diffs that were already discussed with Guerillero, El C et al. back in August; I have some of my own,[92] but I don't see the point in rehashing any of them. We're not here to discuss the past.The reason I'm being cautious about a ban lift is given in the diffs throughout this thread: of the OP's two examples, Newslinger found just one violation on my end, and that one is "not significant enough to issue any type of sanction". Of my and Nsk92's five examples, however, Newslinger found two violations, one of which could potentially rise to "hounding" - and he only checked two. I'd like to see the other three looked at before the I-ban is lifted, and I'd like to see whether the OP takes responsibility for any of them. As long as the OP continues to insist - despite all the evidence - that she never "hounded" me and that I'm solely to blame, then I don't see how this can be done in good faith, and would rather the ban just stayed in place. François Robere (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Awilley: Again, I'm not engaged with the OP and haven't been since the ban was set up nine months ago. This idea that "the sides need to disengage" etc. - it's just irrelevant AFAIC. If you think this is a bogus report and want to warn the OP, be my guest. François Robere (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Awilley: The OP read my reply and brought back a bunch of diffs that were already discussed with Guerillero, El C et al. back in August; I have some of my own,[92] but I don't see the point in rehashing any of them. We're not here to discuss the past.The reason I'm being cautious about a ban lift is given in the diffs throughout this thread: of the OP's two examples, Newslinger found just one violation on my end, and that one is "not significant enough to issue any type of sanction". Of my and Nsk92's five examples, however, Newslinger found two violations, one of which could potentially rise to "hounding" - and he only checked two. I'd like to see the other three looked at before the I-ban is lifted, and I'd like to see whether the OP takes responsibility for any of them. As long as the OP continues to insist - despite all the evidence - that she never "hounded" me and that I'm solely to blame, then I don't see how this can be done in good faith, and would rather the ban just stayed in place. François Robere (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian, JzG, and Nsk92: Following on your comments: the OP's lengthy addendum to her report, while bearing little relevance to her claims against me, does show you some of the extent of WP:APL beyond "History of Poland during WWII", to both historical subjects (Zygmunt Krasiński) and current affairs (Historical policy of the Law and Justice party). The same editors, positions and editing patterns that make APL difficult recur there as well, which suggests lackluster enforcement and a too narrowly-defined TA.
- @Nsk92: Guerillero was actually the admin one enacted this I-ban, and the one I asked for help the first time it looked like it was violated.[93] François Robere (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (uninvolved) RandomCanadian
"interaction ban forbids to make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly." - making a long-winded AE request about it seems about as clear cut of an infringement as I could imagine. Making an AE request is also very much against the purpose of an IBAN, which is to avoid confrontations between two editors - WP:BANEX also seems to suggest you'd have better done to ask an uninvolved editor about it before making a report here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- As to the evidence presented, referring to the interaction ban itself (one amongst a chronicle of other sanctions imposed in the area) within an ArbCom request for clarification ([94]) does seem to be a perfectly allowable course of action. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- The history of Institute of National Remembrance seems more complicated; though I note that the removal of dead link source by GCB (apparently reverted by FR, along with a much larger change - not sure if this was just lack of attention and forgetfulness) appears to be incorrect per WP:LINKROT. Other changes seem much more minor; though they might be violations as understood under the guidelines. Of course, two editors under a mutual IBAN editing the same page is obviously recipe for disaster and the wiser recommendation to everyone would be to avoid it if possible. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek: Linking to the discussion announcing the IBAN (as part of a reply which does appear to contribute to the discussion, by arguing the case that there is still disruption and need for enforcement actions) can hardly be construed as violating said IBAN, unless we're in lawyering territory. Of course entirely ignoring this has gone to and been amended by ArbCom so many times the whole area seems to be irreparably prone to WP:DRAMA. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek: I do not see such a link in the evidence presented by GCB here. If there's something I'm missing point it out, but the supposed link to their talk page is a diff of an edit (block notice) by Rexxs, not by FR. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek: Linking to the discussion announcing the IBAN (as part of a reply which does appear to contribute to the discussion, by arguing the case that there is still disruption and need for enforcement actions) can hardly be construed as violating said IBAN, unless we're in lawyering territory. Of course entirely ignoring this has gone to and been amended by ArbCom so many times the whole area seems to be irreparably prone to WP:DRAMA. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- The history of Institute of National Remembrance seems more complicated; though I note that the removal of dead link source by GCB (apparently reverted by FR, along with a much larger change - not sure if this was just lack of attention and forgetfulness) appears to be incorrect per WP:LINKROT. Other changes seem much more minor; though they might be violations as understood under the guidelines. Of course, two editors under a mutual IBAN editing the same page is obviously recipe for disaster and the wiser recommendation to everyone would be to avoid it if possible. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- On further look, agree with JzG and Paleo that this appears to be entrapment over what are, in essence, very minor details (a few words here and there, an incorrectly removed source, on an article FR edited first). As to VM's comment, the ArbCom discussion is clearly BANEX, I've also had a further look; so that's end of argument as far as I am concerned. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- @VM: You seem to be arguing over technicalities. ArbCom IS, by default, an appropriate forum to talk about sanctions related to ArbCom cases and ArbCom enforcement actions. Everyone in this tense topic area could use more WP:AGF and less technicalities, me thinks (otherwise, the IBANs and other sanctions would not have needed to be imposed, ...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- The more I read into this issue; the more I look at prior parts of ArbCom case; the more I look at all the WP:DRAMA (including the absurd quibbling over BANEX), the less inclined am I to think that there's any solution to this but a permanent topic ban for many of the involved participants - Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and if editors can't agree to collaborate on a topic and are instead perpetuating a long, entrenched, dispute, the solution would be to remove the problem (the editors) and hope that new faces bring new looks. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- @VM: You seem to be arguing over technicalities. ArbCom IS, by default, an appropriate forum to talk about sanctions related to ArbCom cases and ArbCom enforcement actions. Everyone in this tense topic area could use more WP:AGF and less technicalities, me thinks (otherwise, the IBANs and other sanctions would not have needed to be imposed, ...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Statement by PaleoNeonate
Since both users are involved in that amendment discussion, wouldn't this be somewhat unevitable? It also appears that Robere first participated before GizzyCatBella joined the discussion. One could argue that Bella should have avoided that thread to avoid involvement, but this is ARB related. Why not try to endure eachother, at least on that page (encouragement to both to avoid trying to trap the other)? —PaleoNeonate – 02:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Volunteer Marek
In this comment, aside from making personal attacks and false accusations against other users and administrators, FR gratuitiously referred to GCB ("in June another one was blocked") and linked to one of GCB edits. The comment in general adds nothing to discussion and is not even on topic - it does not address the use of sources in the topic area. It's just an unnecessary griping about other users, including one that he is interaction banned with - GCB. There was a hundred different ways that FR could've said the same thing without violating the IBAN, or, just not make the comment altogher. Yet, they chose to do that anyway. As such, that one is a clear cut IBAN violation. Volunteer Marek 02:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
User:PaleoNeonate - GCB made a comment on a request for clarification and amendment concerning an area they're active in. In that comment GCB made no reference, direct or indirect, to FR. GCB was one of ... 29 (?) editors to comment at the request. It was a general discussion. This is completely, 100%, different from FR's comment, which specifically refers to GCB and links to one of their edits. It should also be noted that the IBAN was put in place due to FR following GCB around, not vice versa. Only reason it was made mutual is because admins believe that "one way interaction bans don't work" so they said "might as well make it mutual" even though it was FR who was at fault. Volunteer Marek 02:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian - FR didn't just "link to a discussion announcing an IBAN" (there's two links related to GCB in their comment). He also linked to GCB's talk page. FR's comment is basically the standard griping and attacking of GCB, precisely what and why he was IBAN'd for. Volunteer Marek 03:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- @RC, there’s nothing “supposed” about FR linking to GCB’s talk page. It’s right there in FR’s comment at ARCA: it’s FR’s 18th line here in this diff [95]. And yes it’s to a comment by Rexx (and that part of FR’s post is also problematic, especially since Rexx isn’t around anymore to defend himself against FR’s false accusation) but the point is that FR is clearly breaking his IBAN by commenting on GCB and making it clear their comment refers to GCB by linking to their talk page Volunteer Marek 05:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
“Bob not Snob” account, the least you can do is remove the absurd “uninvolved” from your comment heading. Volunteer Marek 04:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
User:JzG Item #1 is most certainly NOT covered by WP:BANEX. FR was NOT "reverting vandalism". FR was NOT "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum". There was nothing "legitimate" or "necessary" about FR's comment. If he hadn't made it, nothing would've happened. If he had made it but left GCB out of it, nothing would've happened. He could've also made it without all the personal attacks against several users. FR's comment has nothing to do with the I-Ban and it's in a forum where the subject of discussion is sourcing restrictions and NOT any I-BANS. To claim this qualifies under BANEX is frankly absurd (otoh, this request by GCB clearly DOES qualify under BANEX, contrary to Random Canadian's assertion, since it involves "asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another user").
As far as the IPN article goes, FR might have edited it before GCB, but the difference is that GCB's edits were to different parts of the article and did not revert or edit anything FR put in. However, FR DID revert (with some rewording) GCB's edits. Editors under an I-Ban are in fact allowed to edit and comment on the same article as long as they don't revert or edit each other's text. FR violated that.
And frankly Bob not snob's "evidence", which is stuff they already posted to the ARCA page where it was rightfully ignored, is just an attempt to deflect the discussion from Francois Robere's very obvious violation at ARCA to "other stuff". Volunteer Marek 15:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
There was absolutely no reason for FR to mention GCB or link to GCB's edits or talk page on the ARCA discussion. NONE. It had nothing to do with the discussion. It had nothing to do with the proposal. It was just gratuitous sniping at an editor FR doesn't like. That he's under an IBAN with, for a good reason. BANEX simply does not apply. Not even remotely. Volunteer Marek 17:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
@User:RandomCanadian - these are not technicalities. This is a user under an IBAN bringing up (even attacking) the user he's not supposed to mention or interact with on a Wikipedia page. WP:IBAN explicitly says: Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly It's a pretty straight up violation honestly. The only Wikilawyering here is by the editors who want to pretend that it isn't by invoking WP:BANEX without bothering to explain why FR's comment was "necessary" or how it "referenced the IBAN itself" (because it wasn't, and it wasn't). IBANs are made for a reason. In this case it was imposed after a long history of warnings to FR to stop bothering GCB. Since FR hasn't bothered to heed these warnings, the part of the notification about IBANS that they received, the part that says "If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions." should be put into force. Volunteer Marek 15:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
User:François Robere - you say: "Diff 1 complies with WP:BANEX, as well as the imposing admin's instruction that the ban isn't retroactive"
- Can you explain how your comment at ARCA (Diff 1) was "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum"? Because that's what it takes for BANEX to apply. Did your comment even refer to the IBAN itself? Was it made in an "appropriate forum"?
- Can you also explain what you mean by "retroactive"? Usually "retroactive" means you cannot get sanctioned for edits you've made before the ban was imposed. Are you saying your comment was actually made before August 10, 2020, even though the date says "April 18th 2021"? This is a strange claim to say the least. Volunteer Marek 12:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- User:François Robere - in addition to explaining how your comment concerning GCB at ARCA supposedly falls under "BANEX", can you explain why you are claiming that GCB removing text inserted by a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT editor (indef banned Icewhiz) [96] is supposed to be an iban violation with YOU? I know there's lots of Icewhiz socks around, but I'm pretty sure you are NOT one. So why are you claiming that a revert of Icewhiz, is an IBAN vio with you? You also didn't mention Szarek on the IPN article page until AFTER GCB's March 5 edit (your first mention of Szarek was March 23 [97]). It seems you're trying to flip or confuse the timeline here so let's get this one clear - Icewhiz adds stuff on Szarek before he was banned in 2019. In early March 2021 GCB removes it. In late March 2021 you bring up Szarek on talk. If there's an IBAN vio here (and personally I'd give this one a pass) it's you violating the ban not the other way around. Volunteer Marek 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
User:Nsk92 and User:JzG - I don't know why you're bringing up a completely irrelevant AfD here, but it seems quite ridiculous to argue that someone should be sanctioned for disagreeing with you on an AfD. I voted to delete that article as well. Why? Because the subject is not notable!!! The article was started by indef banned Icewhiz, it's on a topic that was reported in the news briefly at the time but then hardly ever again and one which simply does not meet notability criteria. Trying to drag an AfD disagreement into this AE is... I'm not sure how to put this politely, but "bad faithed" and "disruptive" come to mind. Especially since this Whataboutism, as unbecoming as it is, is also combined with this bending over backwards to pretend that Francois' very clear and straight forward topic ban violation at ARCA qualifies under "BANEX". Neither of you, nor FR< has actually bothered to address how BANEX would apply here - what portion of FR's comment "addressed the IBAN itself"? What portion was "necessary"? You're just slinging Wikipedia acronyms around in a fairly transparently biased manner (you like one editor so they get a pass for harassing another). It's kind of depressing to see actual Wikipedia policies get thrown out the window so quickly under flimsiest pretexts. Volunteer Marek 19:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@Piotrus:, I think that removing the IBAN is a bad idea. It was put in place after years of User:François Robere bothering and following around GCB as noted in the AE request which led to it. At one point FR even stated that he was "policing" GCB's edits for which he got, rightfully, reprimanded by admins (this was before the IBAN). Furthermore, removing the IBAN would also reward FR for violating it, just creating the wrong incentives (it would encourage the bothering to resume). Note that FR hasn't even managed to acknowledge that they violated the ban, but rather has tried to WP:WIKILAWYER it by claiming absurdly that their edits are okay under "BANEX" (they're not). That kind of shows that they haven't learned anything from this experience or from the fact the ban was imposed in the first place. Volunteer Marek 14:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (uninvolved) Bob not snob
Blocked by the Arbitration Committee |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The indirect reference at ARCA falls under WP:BANEX, legitimate and necessary dispute resolution. The second part of GCB's report is disingenuous, as GCB is the one who is in clear violation of the IBAN on Institute of National Remembrance:
Further back, GCB also made this post (right under FR's ANEW notification, linking to the IBAN case, and responding to this ANEW report by FR against E-960. GGB went even further and posted to the ANEW complaint FR started. I recommend admins read this statement by Dallas Holocaust and Human Rights Museum to understand how the IPN is viewed in the historical community and compare this to what GCB and VM are doing on the IPN's page. GCB's complaint on Institute of National Remembrance is disingenuous, besides breaking the IBAN herself, she initially jumped into the article in March right after FR made a large a post challenging VM's edits, and has done the same now in April. She is complaining about Behr, but FR discussed Behr (points 18, 22) 2 hours before GCB jumped into the article.Bob not snob (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC) |
Statement by Piotrus
Whether there is a technical violation here or not, I don't have a strong opinion (as I don't feel like reviewing the diffs in detail). In general, I find such remedies to be producing more harm / noise than good, not to mention they can encourage battleground mentality (more diffs to save/report, sigh); vacating it may be a simple solution but I really don't have a strong feeling here. It would be interesting to hear from both parties (GCB and FR) whether they think the remedy was necessary and whether they think it still is. The main reason I am posting here, however, is to just comment than in one of the recent comment submitted as a diff here [104], FR incorrectly claimed I was blocked. I was not. Please WP:REFACTOR this. TIA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC) PS. The above error has now been fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- I had the time to look at the diffs and read the comments here and I certainly think the i-ban should be removed. It does nothing but encourages battleground mentality on both sides. As for any new restrictions, there is no evidence that any party here is disruptive; their edits seem fine (not particularly controversial or edit warred by others) - the only problem is that they both share similar interests and occasionally overlap. It's really hard to judge whether it's intentional or not, reverting stuff from years ago, or making an edit in an article another one commented on not that long ago or whatever. I say unmuzzle both of them and see what happens, if they start edit warring and fighting, then we will have evidence to consider more restrictions. For now let's AGF and hope they can behave themselves, after the lesson of how annoying it is to operate under various half-way bans. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek, I certainly agree that if the i-ban were to be removed, François Robere should confirm they no longer are planning to "police GCB". My point is that this entire report seems to be making mountains out of molehills. Yes, he skirted the i-ban, maybe violated it once or twice (no, I don't think BANEX applies to his recent edit, there was no need to mention GCB, it's as simple as that) but I'd rather see a warning than any block. I never liked the use of excessive force to drive some point, American-police-style, although I do know that I am in a minority when it comes to this. That said, this would be helped if François acknowledged they got a bit zealous recently and apologized, instead of trying to counterattack. Blocks should not be needed if one acknowledges their mistake and promises to be better (yes, I know, another notion that is not very popular here). Call me naive, but I still believe that forviness, and building bridges, rather than blowing them up, would be a better mindset, given we want to reduce any WP:BATTLEGROUND.
- Thinking about this a bit more, if there is no support for removing the i-ban (I don't think anyone else here besides me expressed support for this), how about this: perhaps a better remedy would be to change the full i-ban into a simple ban for both from reporting one another to AE/AN(I)? My point is that they should not be prevented from regular interaction with one another in the mainspace, particularly as when they edit the same articles, sometimes months apart, and perhaps innocently change content that another one added before, this creates a very technical i-ban violation that is really not a violation of the spirit (being arguably accidental, not intentional, but that's hard to verify). On the other hand, the existence of the i-ban encourages both to collects diffs on the other, and encourages borderline violations such as reports here, or worse, the usage of meatpuppets or worse (see Bob's section, now indef blocked). Also the "first mover" advantage, which i-bans encouage, is ridcolous. One edits an article, the other one is banned from it for life? And they are supposed to check edit history to make sure that sections they edit were not, by any chance, added by the other one? That's a nightmare. The fewer bear traps, aka "remedies", we have, the better for everyone. If our main concern is that those editors were making too much noise at AE/ANI about one another few years back, just prevent this from happening, no need to also prevent them from commenting in the same discussion or make them look for "gotcha's" in obsure edit history ("I edited this first 5 years ago, he violated the i-ban fixing a typo there now"). Love and peace, guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piotrus (talk • contribs) 03:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Statement by JzG (GCB/FR)
Item 1 is clearly covered by WP:BANEX.
Item 2 invites us to look at Institute of National Remembrance ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in the context of an IBAN enacted on 9 August 2020. FR edited that article before GCB did, FR was also the first of the two to edit the article after the IBAN. GCB's first edit to the Talk page was both after the IBAN and after prior comments by FR. If an IBAN violation exists here, it is GCB. This looks like an attempt to abuse of Wikipedia process to remove an opponent, and is, at the very least, a vexatious filing.
As to the content matter, GCB's edits seem to me to be tendentious, adding WP:MISSION statements and uncritical discussion of figures identified by RS as controversial. Taken along with this vexatious filing I would argue that a TBAN may be indicated. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- This is reinforced by the prior TBAN, thanks Nsk92, whic I had forgotten. This is textbook recidivism. The ban should be reinstated. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Nsk92
Regarding JzG's TBAN comment, GCB was under a Poland-related TBAN in the past, but it was lifted here at AE in December 2020, see the relevant thread at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive276#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by GizzyCatBella. The closing statement for that appeal request reads: "The appeal has been accepted, with the understanding that if the user resumes problematic editing, more severe sanctions will be swiftly imposed." Nsk92 (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- This AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship (conference) (which somebody should really close by now, as it has been resisted three times already and has been open since March 7) may also be tangentially relevant here. The AfD, where CGB is the nominator, concerns a page about a Holocaust conference in France in 2019 that was disrupted by an anti-semitic attack by a group of Polish nationalists. Apart from !voting twice (as the nominator, and then again as a participant), there is nothing overtly disruptive about GCB's participation in this AfD but the choice of the topic is indicative and it does overlap with the topic of GCB's prior TBAN [105]. The Institute of National Remembrance was one of the bodies that criticized the conference. The page New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship (conference) and its talk page had been actively edited by François Robere; the first edit by GCB appears to be the AfD nomination itself. Nsk92 (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Err, sorry, Guerillero, but I don't think it's an acceptable approach for the AE admins to declare that they have "no appetite" for enforcing WP:ACDS in an entire area for which discretionary sanctions have been authorized. And I don't think I've seen AE wash its hands off from dealing with an entire area of discretionary sanctions before, no matter how unpleasant. Develop some appetite. If necessary make a post at WP:AN and ask for extra admin participation. But do something. Nsk92 (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Statement by BMK
How very exciting to see all the same names once again! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Statement by My very best wishes
The comment by FR on ARCA (diff #1) seems to be an obvious IBAN violation by the letter. The comment was made when FR was already under the editing restriction, and this is not "a legitimate concern about the ban itself". However, I do not think his comments were such a big deal to deserve filing this AE request. I would suggest a closing without action or a warning. No need in Arbcom or anything else. My very best wishes (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning François Robere
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I suggest that the people involved here take this to arbcom, because I don't see that there is much appetite among AE admins to get involved in this area --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 17:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Nsk92: Admins are volunteers and work on what they want. This has been open for more than a week and no other AE admins have commented on this issue despite a number of other threads getting a wide variety of comments. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 18:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Having briefly reviewed the report, I think I'm most sympathetic to Piotrus's view that the IBAN is counterproductive. I'm not particularly familiar with the history that precipitated the ban, but this report appears to have devolved into sniping at each other over technicalities, rather than providing a way for editors to continue to contribute constructively. signed, Rosguill talk 20:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I support a modified version of Piotrus's suggestion, which would rescind the two-way interaction ban and replace it with an editing restriction that disallows GizzyCatBella and François Robere from filing or participating in conduct disputes against each other on any noticeboard, while still allowing participation in conduct disputes involving each other. This change would hopefully encourage future interactions between GizzyCatBella and François Robere to be content-oriented, rather than conduct-oriented. — Newslinger talk 06:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Examining the presented evidence:
- Special:Diff/1018499331 in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment § Clarification request: Antisemitism in Poland
- François Robere's comment includes two relevant links:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GizzyCatBella&diff=964681750&oldid=964628379&diffmode=source – which shows GizzyCatBella receiving an arbitration enforcement block (26 June 2020 AE discussion) for violating a topic ban that was issued as the result of a 25 June 2018 AE discussion
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=972053194#GizzyCatBella – which shows the 9 August 2020 AE discussion that resulted in two-way interaction bans between François Robere and GizzyCatBella, and between Notrium and GizzyCatBella
- The clarification request is regarding article sourcing expectations that were implemented on 22 September 2019. Because neither the 26 June 2020 AE block nor the 9 August 2020 interaction bans is related to the article sourcing expectations, I consider this comment a violation of the interaction ban. However, the fact that the clarification request concerns a provision in a discretionary sanctions topic area (antisemitism in Poland) that is a subset of the topic area under which the 26 June 2020 AE block and the 9 August 2020 interaction bans were implemented (Eastern Europe or the Balkans) is a mitigating factor.
- François Robere's comment includes two relevant links:
- Special:Diff/1017768220 in Institute of National Remembrance
- François Robere adds a large amount of content, including the text:
- Idesbald Goddeeris writes that the law "changed the rules of the IPN administration council, abolishing the influence of academia and the judiciary. A week later, the Polish parliament elected four PiS candidates for the new kolegium, and in July, it voted Jarosław Szarek as the new IPN director. Szarek was affiliated with PiS... One of his first measures was to discharge Krzysztof Persak, the coauthor of the authoritative and two volume 2002 IPN study of Jedwabne."
- GizzyCatBella had previously removed the text Szarek is affiliated with PiS, and in his campaign to be elected said that "Germans were the executors of the Jedwabne crime and that they had coerced a small group of Poles to become involved". in Special:Diff/1010514365. François Robere had participated extensively on Talk:Institute of National Remembrance prior to the edit, and had discussed the sourcing for their edit beforehand in Special:Diff/1014929504. Given the negligible overlap ("Szarek [...] affiliated with PiS" is four words in a 6,738-character addition) and the background of the content addition, I do not consider this edit a violation of the interaction ban.
- François Robere adds a large amount of content, including the text:
- Special:Diff/1018499331 in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment § Clarification request: Antisemitism in Poland
- The interaction ban violation in #1, in my opinion, is not significant enough to issue any type of sanction. The current AE request is not a very good use of editor resources, and it would be beneficial to direct the attention of editors in this topic area toward resolving content disputes and away from initiating conduct disputes. — Newslinger talk 16:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Primefac: Could you please clarify whether Bob not snob (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of another user, or evading a ban or block? The {{ArbComBlock}} block log entry is unclear. — Newslinger talk 16:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- I believe you will find that both of your possibilities are in fact that same thing. I am also not entirely sure why the specifics regarding the block are relevant, as the entire point of an ArbCom block is to block a user based on private or otherwise confidential information. Primefac (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm interpreting that as a "yes" and will collapse the section. — Newslinger talk 18:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- I believe you will find that both of your possibilities are in fact that same thing. I am also not entirely sure why the specifics regarding the block are relevant, as the entire point of an ArbCom block is to block a user based on private or otherwise confidential information. Primefac (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- @François Robere: Many of the other diffs in the discussion were evaluated above, but I will take a closer look at two other incidents:
- Special:Diff/1004836057 on Talk:Bogdan Musiał and Special:Diff/1004836571 on Bogdan Musiał
- GizzyCatBella removes text regarding Bogdan Musiał's views regarding the Israeli reaction to the Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance that was cited to Commentary, wPolityce.pl, and Polonia Christiana. Three minutes prior, François Robere commented on the talk page regarding Musiał's views on the Israeli reaction, quoting an academic source that was published in the Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs. There is some overlap between the content that GizzyCatBella removed ("According to Musiał, the exaggerated complicity of Poles in the Holocaust has become part of this religion, and therefore Israelis are outraged over the Polish Amendment on a basis of emotion rather than of historical facts.") and the text quoted by François Robere ("According to Musiał, the Israeli reaction to the Polish law is a result of recognizing the memory of the Holocaust as a form of religion, in which emotions play a crucial role at the expense of facts.").GizzyCatBella's removal prevents François Robere from quoting the specified text from the academic source in the article, as doing so would be a violation of the interaction ban. While GizzyCatBella's removal by itself is not technically a violation of the interaction ban (since it prevents the implementation of a proposed edit instead of reverting a preexisting edit), GizzyCatBella's removal is against the spirit of the interaction ban and this type of edit, if repeated, would be a form of hounding.
- Special:Diff/1010778379 on New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship (conference)
- GizzyCatBella nominates the article for deletion. François Robere is the second-most prolific editor of the page, having written 10% of the article. The top editor (Icewhiz), who GizzyCatBella named in the deletion nomination, wrote 64.5% of the article. The deletion discussion was closed two weeks later, resulting in no consensus. GizzyCatBella's deletion nomination is the equivalent of starting a discussion on the talk proposing the removal of a section that contains content that François Robere had added. I consider the deletion nomination a violation of the interaction ban, although the "no consensus" result of the deletion discussion is a mitigating factor.
- Special:Diff/1004836057 on Talk:Bogdan Musiał and Special:Diff/1004836571 on Bogdan Musiał
- Looking at the bigger picture, most of the edits reported in this discussion would be policy-compliant if it were not for the interaction ban. Interaction bans are intended to reduce the burden of handling conduct disputes between the affected editors. However, since GizzyCatBella and François Robere are highly-active editors who frequent the same pages, this particular two-way interaction ban has become a high-maintenance sanction that engenders conflict and encourages territorial behavior.Articles in this topic area would be better off if the effort put into the comments and the reviews of this AE report were redirected to resolving content disputes. That is why I would like to see the interaction ban rescinded. The proposed editing restriction (against conduct disputes) might not even be necessary, since removing the interaction ban would eliminate discussions such as the current AE report. However, this means any future conduct issues in this topic area will likely be responded to with full topic bans. — Newslinger talk 18:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Examining the presented evidence:
- @François Robere: & @GizzyCatBella: Do I understand correctly that you do not want your current interaction ban lifted? ~Awilley (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- OK, so with both parties ambivalent about the ban being lifted (GizzyCatBella slightly for, Francois Robere slightly against) I don't know if that's the right approach here. I am having a hard time wrapping my head around the TLDR report, but on the surface, the diffs of the violations don't seem terribly damning. Like making an edit that partially reverts an edit the other person made a year before. I think one of the reasons my colleagues are considering lifting the ban is because reports like this are a time sink for all involved. We want you two to continue avoiding each over, but we don't want to deal with squabbling over minor slip-ups here. I don't know how to best make that happen. Perhaps a warning that submitting a report here over minor issues will lead to a WP:BOOMERANG block. ~Awilley (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
TopGun1066
TopGun1066 is indefinitely topic banned from The Troubles, Irish Nationalism and British Nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed. ~Awilley (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC) See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TopGun1066. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2021 (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 TopGun1066
None
At User:TopGun1066 the editor admits to being a member of the British Armed Forces. The above edits are the totality of their edits in the Troubles area, there are no positive edits to mitigate the disruption.
Discussion concerning TopGun1066Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by TopGun10661. 09:29, 16 November 2020 FDW777 is incorrect and their bias towards showing IRA members in a positive light is blatant. Living people are described as Terrorists on Wikipedia: Ted Kaczynski. 2. 16:51, 24 November 2020 Desribing McMahon as a convicted terrorist is totally within Wikipedia's fair use policies, as per Ted Kaczynski and Murder_of_Lee_Rigby, and also follows precedents of retroactive application of laws created by the Nuremberg trials. As stated, although McMahon was not convicted under any Terrorism Laws in the Republic of Ireland, the sources cited from the Guardian refer to him as a terrorist.[1] 3. 08:58, 10 March 2021 The Scots Guards edit was tidying the text up. The fact that they were accused of murder was irrelevant as they were also re-admitted back into the Army. 4. 09:20, 26 April 2021 I didn’t remove this. 5. 09:33, 26 April 2021 The text describing the Scots Guards were involved in contentious shootings, including that of Peter McBride is an appropriate level of information to include. It doesn’t hide the incident. 6. 07:40, 26 April 2021 It is more inappropriate for FDW777 to slander people who have not been convicted of any crimes by describing them as ‘murderers’. Joe McCann was however, appointed commander of the Official IRA's Third Belfast Battalion. On 22 May 1971, the first British soldier to die at the hands of the Official IRA, Robert Bankier of the Royal Green Jackets was killed by a unit led by McCann. Describing McCann as a Terrorist is consistent with Wikipedia labelling other people (alive and dead) as terrorists. TopGun1066 (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by PaleoNeonateThis is not about the editors or this particular instance but I would like to mention that I opened a thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch § Widely vs in text attribution. This is also the style guide, that sometimes can conflict with policies. This source for instance doesn't attribute it and it would be difficult to know who to attribute it to, yet it's obvious to that article's editor(s) and likely to many. —PaleoNeonate – 11:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning TopGun1066
|
Springee
This has gone stale with no consensus for any action. @Springee: Please be more careful with unreliable/deprecated sources. @DGG: "Reliable sources are those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, independent of any particular point of view. Please don't conflate verifiability with political rhetoric." ~Awilley (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2021 (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 Springee
Arguing for inclusion of unreliable sources:
Rejecting opinion pieces published by reliable sources
I realize that all sources are open for discussion and nothing is universally reliable or unreliable, but constantly challenging reliable sources while pushing unreliable ones is a form of tendentious editing per WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH. Springee's rationale for assessing sources often does not seem to be based on any discernable guideline, for example they argued that an opinion in The Intercept is unreliable because "the person offering the opinion/commentary is just a reporter, not some sort of expert." This is becoming a huge time sink as editors are expected to explain basic sourcing practices over and over, and content is kept out of articles per NOCONSENSUS when Springee cannot be convinced, leading to whitewashing and NPOV concerns. This is not conducive to collaborative editing in a contentious topic area. I encourage folks to look over the talk pages at Talk:Andy Ngo and Talk:Tucker Carlson to fully understand how tedious these discussions have become due to Springee's participation. Springee, don't lie to Drmies, you knew damn well that the Daily Signal source was syndicated Daily Caller content. I clearly mentioned that fact when I removed it on 19 March and you even referred to it as Daily Caller when you first discussed it on 20 March. –dlthewave ☎ 04:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Springee, I can see how you could have made a careless mistake and confused Daily Caller with Daily Signal if you overlooked my edit summary and just looked at the URL instead of actually reading the source. However, you knew it was Daily Caller when you argued for its inclusion:
I appreciate Springee's pledge to refrain from inserting content without consensus that the sourcing is reliable, made on the good advice of Awilley. However, I don't think this will solve the problem, since it still leaves the door open to interminable talk page discussions about sourcing. –dlthewave ☎ 05:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Thank you all for the various perspectives on this. I appreciate the concerns with using a series of "news bites" and agree that it it would be ideal to write higher-level summaries of what reliable sources have to say about these BLP subjects. Springee and others have mentioned that we shouldn't be overly reliant on opinion pieces and should carefully assess whether or not they have due weight. That is certainly something that we should be discussing on talk pages, however Springee has specifically challenged the reliability of opinions published by The Washington Post and The Intercept without giving good reasons (beyond the fact that one was written by a journalist) why these normally-reliable sources would be unreliable for statements of opinion in this specific case. This feels more like an effort to build a "we can't include this because there's no consensus for inclusion" case than an earnest reliability concern. Editors mentioning WP:NEWSORG have omitted a key part, Folks have also raised the topic of civility. I would agree that at first glance, Springee's comments generally come across as polite and civil. I do have to give him credit for avoiding personal attacks. However, "civil POV pushing" is still POV pushing. I don't think it would be appropriate to excuse the behavior outlined above just because the editor said "please" and "thank you" while doing it. Editors have come forward as character witnesses for Springee's willingness to work with others to build consensus. I would dispute this, as an important part of consensus building is knowing when to accept that one's viewpoint does not have consensus. The long-running Bellingcat discussion is one example of Springee refusing to drop the stick and acknowledge that their objections have not gained traction among other editors. Building on Aquillion's statement, Springee doesn't seem to be trying to expand our coverage to include all viewpoints. Instead, many of his comments in the Andy Ngo Congressional Testimony focus on repeating Ngo's statement verbatim while removing (or insisting that other editors do the work of rewriting) any sort of secondary analysis. I'm unfamiliar with the idea that we should be avoiding sources that do more than just report the bare facts; I believe that secondary analysis is an important way to place an event in the proper context. We shouldn't be covering Ngo's questionable or demostrably false statements about Antifa from his point of view with no fact-checking. This would favor the subject's own views over those of reliable sources and could lead to the same "sound bite reporting" issue that Springee is so concerned about. There seems to be a misconception that if a source says something negative about a person, then they must have a bias against them. I do agree that practically all sources have some sort of bias, however we generally trust high-quality sources (WaPo, NYT, CNN etc) to report on events and apply labels accurately. Our writing should reflect the general mainstream view of the topic and in the case of some of these BLPs, the mainstream view is often quite negative. It seems that reliable sources just don't have many good things to say about Carlson and Ngo. We can certainly include positive coverage if it can be found, but we absolutely shouldn't be looking to bottom-tier sources for the sake of "balance". WP:IAR does not function as a veto or override to our sourcing guidelines; if an editor believes there is a special case where a generally unreliable source should be used, they should come with a strong argument for why an exception should be made and be prepared to accept that it may not gain consensus. The fact that Springee continued to use the same arguments to include a questionable source regarding Ngo's testimony, after a different unreliable source was rejected for the same reason, shows that he either doesn't understand or chooses to ignore this standard. I'm very concerned about the double standard that Springee seems to be applying to content. As his statements here show, he insists on establishing very strong due weight for content that he disagrees with and will often drag out discussions about minor points, such as whether we can use two sources that say the same thing to establish due weight. At the same time he argues that a person's Congressional testimony is inherently due or "something that people would want to read about" with no regard for due weight. I really struggle to see good faith when an editor expects others to meet certain high standards while ignoring those standards when it comes to their own edits. Springee has been around long enough to know better. –dlthewave ☎ 14:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC) Springee typed "Daily Signal isn't a RS" in the edit summary so I'm not quite sure where the confusion with Daily Caller would have happened. Whatever source he thought he was talking about, the point still stands that he characterized it as flat-out unreliable in one case and argued that an exception should be made in another. It would seem that the same logic should apply to both since they were each quoting a primary source that could be used for verification. –dlthewave ☎ 02:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SpringeeStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SpringeeI'm not really sure how to reply to Dlthewave's arguments here. This feels like weaponizing AE to solve content disputes, and not even content disputes based on edits to the article. Rather cases where Dlthewave doesn't like that I don't agree with their POV on the talk page. We have 3 examples where Dlthewave feels I was defending poor sources but they fail to provide any context and totally ignore a critical part of WP:RS, the part that says context matters. 22 March, I was actually defending material Bgrus22 added last July that was cited to The Daily Signal though they were republishing a Daily Caller article. At the time the Daily Signal was not declared unreliable and the very factual claims in question were not contentious and supported by the second citation, a congressional record. When it was recently removed I challenged the removal on the grounds that the Daily Signal was the source and since we have a record of what was said, per WP:RS-context matters, the source was sufficient for the claim. I asked RSN if, in a case where one source runs an article written by the other, which source is considered the publisher. In the end it consensus was the source was not reliable. Since I never added nor restored the source to the article what is the issue? Another editor found The LaCorte as an alternative source for roughly the same content, again backed by congressional records. Dlthewave seems to suggest I was the only supporting this new source but it's clear other editors also supported it [[108]]. As before, I did not add the source nor did I restore it to the article when challenged. The final case where I mentioned several RSP red sources is falsely presented by Dlthewave. I was making a logical argument, not suggesting their inclusion. My argument was to include any information in an article we need to verify that it is reliable and it has weight. The reliability of "Person said X before congress" is established by a primary source (the congressional records). As for weight, my feeling is that for most individuals, testifying before congress is a significant event and in most cases should be DUE in their own biography. We have a reliable source for what was said (the congressional record and C-span videos), the question is weight. My argument was if a large number of right sources, even unreliable ones, are saying "Person testified to this" then it probably is something that is important to at least some readers. Again, this was an argument for why such content should be in the article, not which source should be cited. Again, no edits were made to the article. When Dlthewave says I'm questioning RSs, they fail to say my concern is opinions contained in RSs. WP:NEWSORG specifically notes, "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact." In both cases on the 14 April the discussion is opinion/commentary published in normally RSs. I stand by my view that we don't automatically assume the contents of a RS op-ed article have weight for inclusion just because the parent publication is generally reliable. This is especially true when they are being used to make contentious claims about a BLP subject. Spudlace, while agreeing that the 14 April source was reliable in general, noted the gossipy nature of the claim that was being disputed [[109]]. The point of talk pages is to discuss sources and sourcing. This certainly isn't the first time Dlthewave and I have debated content, in fact we have a long history of disagreeing on several topics [[110]]. But this isn't even a slow edit war. This is a civil talk page disagreement about sourcing. Springee (talk) 05:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC) I think it is worth noting that a number of editors have expressed concerns with the state of the Andy Ngo article since 2019. The primary concern is a balance between including many negative things said about Ngo by sources that are typically politically opposed to Ngo and IMPARTIAL. As Blueboar said, the real issue with the article is SUMMARIZATION [[111]]. I think a number of editors have tried but in the end most just give up or in a few cases get frustrated, say the wrong thing then get topic blocked. Sadly, content is more often than not decided based on head counts. I work hard to be civil even when I disagree [[112]] and when possible seek consensus even with those whom I don't agree. For example Bacondrum and I collaborated on an intro section rewrite[[113]]. As for Noteduck's comments, it is worth noting that Noteduck was warned by AE for civility just over a month back[[114]]. Since that time they have made 46 edits. Only 3 were unrelated to me. Those related to me range form joining new topics to oppose my edits/comments, canvasing other editors against me and cataloging my perceived sins. Thus far I have tried to ignore the behavior.Springee (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
References
Rosguill, I have a serious issue with Noteduck's new evidence though I must admit, I likely confused Daily Signal with Daily Caller at the time (note my comment to Dlthewave about a similar mistake). The real issue here was if it was OK to include a quote comparing Ngo to Joseph Goebbels. That quote was inserted and removed several times by the 14 Feb edit in question and I suspect my revert was a quick one where I confused Signal and Caller. Keep context in mind here. The Goebells comparison was added and removed several times 9-10 Feb. (Original insertion 9 Feb [[116]]). Talk page discussions started 10 Feb [[117]] and NPOVN 11 Feb[[118]]. This material never had consensus for inclusion so it shouldn't have ever been restored after it was first challenged. The quote was restored again on the 14th by an editor who was site banned a few days later[[119]]. That is when I hastily removed it (the diff Noteduck cited). The discussion of this Goebbels quote never mentioned the Daily Signal (or Caller since I seem to confuse them). No where in the talk page discussion did I argue to keep the quote out because based on the daily signal/caller. I think there is a huge difference between saying a poor source is acceptable when comparing a BLP subject to a to high ranking Nazi, vs using a poor source to suggest weight for including primary source content neutrally taken from the congressional record (see ProcrastinatingReader's comment as well as my general comment above). Springee (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Rossguill, I would like to note one other thing that I think may help. A number of editors have suggested my intent is to push a right wing POV. I think it is more correct to say I don't like seeing articles turn into long lists of why certain people, organizations are bad. This is something that I think Masem,
Statement by 69.158.90.121Springee also has a habit of blanking complaints of "POV pushing." They have done so to my talk page, in addition to blanking complaints from myself and another "IP editor" on their own talk page. They have taken to citing conspiracy theories on Talk:Andy Ngo, including about Hunter Biden. It should be noted that Springee has a history of canvassing and of deleting warnings on their talk page. Springee has also faced previous criticisms of "POV-pushing" with regards to right-wing pundit Douglas Murray, indicating that there is a method to Springee's actions. It's no coincidence that they keep getting these accusations with regards to activities on multiple pages for specifically right-wing media. 69.158.90.121 (talk) 05:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC) Springee has since made two different (and baseless) accusations of being a sockpuppet. Springee complains of "AE" being weaponised, but seems to have little concern with trying to address my criticisms in good faith. I am also extremely perplexed by suggestions that the actions of numerous editors are "questionable." I'll admit that my actions probably do not conform to the culture of Wikipedia, it is because I do not regularly edit Wikipedia. I tried blowing the whistle on extremely blatant attempts to discredit reliable sources elsewhere, and have been reprimanded accordingly. Bellingcat was not the only reliable source targeted, Alex Zielinski has also been derided in Andy Ngo's talk page. What is even more absurd is that Springee used the Post Millennial, a site known for misrepresenting its critics, as a source to discredit Zielinski. As stated prior, Springee has a history of canvassing and votestacking. Their discouragement of participation, not just of myself but of dlthewave too, suggests that they are once again abusing the editing process to make disputes a matter of attrition, wearing down participation from other editors as a tactic to push Springee's own POV. With any luck, they discourage enough participation to manufacture the appearance of a lack of consensus. Kyohyi, policy on reliable sourcing does not constitute a "loophole" that subverts Neutral Point Of View (thank you Google!). Articles on Holocaust denial and deniers do not cite unreliable sources potentially engaging in Holocaust denialism in the name of "neutrality." The primary issue with Springee is a recurring pattern of pushing unreliable sources, the underlying commonalities between them being their editorial stances and similar reputations for peddling false information. However, this user has repeatedly acted dishonestly, even going so far as to repeatedly blank criticisms from other users. Springee's new accusation of multiple users being "canvassed" against Springee's edits only reinforces my position that they don't have any interest in objectivity. 69.158.90.121 (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC) I am frankly exasperated with there being little to no comment on Springee's violations of process, nor their citation of Hunter Biden conspiracy theories that have drawn scrutiny over the New York Post's reliability. DGG's hysterics of "liberty" and "free expression" ring hollow to someone whose talk page and criticisms have been constantly reverted or blanked by Springee. Springee has been demonstrated to utilise multiple tactics for votestacking, and has censored past warnings (ostensibly to feign ignorance). It's clear that there is a contingent of Wikipedia users intent on pushing far-right POVs, and that contingent has become increasingly agitated over having propaganda from their favourite conspiracy rags excluded from the project. It's one thing to introduce reliable right-wing sources (which Bellingcat is), and another to cite Post Millennial and the Daily Wire. Another glaring issue is that there has been a constant complaint of "left-wing bias" and denouncement of centre-right news sources (Bellingcat, Oregonian, Portland Mercury). Are libertarians like myself now the "left?" These are rhetorical tactics designed to condition users to the censorship of critical voices, and to gaslight the public by projecting their bias on to other editors. 69.158.90.121 (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Springee has now blanked multiple past warnings. As I understand, Wikipedia policy is that users control their talk page. However, it should be noted that Springee has a record of deleting previous warnings and feigning ignorance. This is not normal behaviour. 69.158.90.121 (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC) PackMecEng Springee blanked my talk page immediately after pointing out that Springee has a pattern of disingenuous behaviour and POV-pushing. Prior to that, I've had nothing to do with Springee. They came under my radar because I've been watching Andy Ngo after Ngo made public complaints to his fans about the content on his Wikipedia article. Springee immediately went to blanking my page, which further tipped me off that this user is not participating in good faith. It should be noted that Springee has a habit of deleting warnings on their talk page and later feigning ignorance when they continue to break the rules. 69.158.90.121 (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by (Noteduck)If Springee is simply being cautious and acting in good faith, why are their edits almost entirely (more than 95% by my estimate) related to right-wing political topics, exclusively skewing in one ideological direction, and always preoccupied with blocking the inclusion of unflattering material? Cedar777 and Shadydabs have summed up the repeated problem with Springee's editing: Springee reverts whole blocks of new material on a page related to conservative politics (I've alerted Springee to WP:ROWN repeatedly, apparently to no avail) claims the source is not DUE, claims the source is not an RS, misrepresents the source's contents, and if this all fails Springee then claims there's no consensus, essentially demanding a veto, ensuring WP:Stonewalling is the result and keeping the page purged of unflattering material. Springee's name appears on the WP:AN noticeboard a jaw dropping 97(!) different archive pages, usually many times over. Springee is highly litigious and recently commenced an arb request action against me, partly on the false basis that I violated the 1RR on the Andy Ngo page due to Springee's seeming inability to understand the difference between "reverts" and "edits"[121] Shortly after this complaint closed, Springee made a separate accusation against SnoogansSnoogans on the basis that they had violated the 3RR policy, apparently on the same basis of a misreading of the term "revert"![122] This was particularly galling given Springee's decade-long experience on Wikipedia, and I believe Springee weaponises Wiki policy to spook other editors, particularly newish editors. A recent example of tendentious editing: Springee apparently has made a unilateral decision that no sources marked "op-ed" or "opinion" can be used in BLP pages. On April 13 2021 alone they reverted a flurry of material on pages related to controversial right-wing topics:Tucker Carlson, Andy Ngo and Douglas_Murray_(author)[123][124][125][126] When Dlthewave brought this up on their talk page, Springee blanked it all without discussion.[127] On the PragerU page, Springee invoked WP:RECKLESS when I suggested material related to PragerU's well-established climate change denial based on more than a dozen RS's, essentially demanding a veto on new material, as well as crying "poor sourcing" on a suggested header with two dozen sources.[128] Springee also invoked poor sourcing on material on the Douglas Murray page based on more than a dozen academic sources, seemingly on the basis that "open access" journals were invariably poor quality.[129] Springee seems to have a particular fixation with whitewashing material on climate change denial.[130][131][132][133][134][135][136] Firearm pages and far-right shootings have also drawn attention from Springee,[137][138] while there are many more, I'm all out of diffs. It's worth noting that Springee does not always act alone and seems to have many editors sympathetic to them. For those who know Springee socially, try to put those ties aside when considering this pattern of editing. It's alarming that Springee is currently deleting huge volumes of material from their talk page archive,[139] an ongoing pattern that I think shows a lack of integrity. It's only because of the 20 diff limit that I haven't included more evidence - I've been compiling examples in my sandbox and you are welcome to have a look[140] Noteduck (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Statement by BacondrumI've had run ins with Springee's dubious and often tendentious views about sources at Andy Ngo, Quilette and other articles associated with far-right American politics. I think a look at their editing history demonstrates a civil POV pusher at work. I think they routinely make unreasonable objections to reliable sources regarding claims that are not favorable to far-right article subjects. I am bias though, this editor has rubbed me up the wrong way more times than I can count, often over citations for fairly uncontroversial claims about far-right figures and media outlets. The ridiculous argy-bargy in post truth American politics at it's finest, IMO. Bacondrum 07:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by starship.paint (2)diff diff Not impressed by the arguments being put forth by Springee here. I wouldn't argue to include content because unreliable sources think it is important. Likewise I wouldn't argue to include content just because some readers (who follow unreliable sources?) would find it important. We have standards here and that is adhering to reliable sources. Furthermore listing Meaww above smacks of desperation - [150] - a media company from India which doesn't have weekend business hours, and has only two people on its masthead. The Meaww article in question is written by an "entertainment journalist" [151] whose specialty is apparently reviewing TV/films. Shows cause for concern about Springee's judgment, unfortunately. starship.paint (exalt) 14:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC) @Mr Ernie: - in using Levivich's First Law of AP2 Sourcing, we expect coverage from at least one of those sources, but I don't think we can expect every one of these sources (e.g. NYT) to cover everything encyclopedically notable. Regarding Cuomo's nursing home missteps, you can refer to Syracuse May 2020, Guardian May 2020, USA Today June 2020, ProPublica June 2020, AP July 2020, AP August 2020. Furthermore, the official determination of undercounting (by the Attorney General) came only in January 2021, and NYT reported on it immediately. starship.paint (exalt) 02:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@Rosguill: - for additional arguments, I was reminded of an example when I read Aquillion's statement that Springee is tendentiously arguing for extremely loose sourcing requirements for things he agrees with, while arguing against even comparatively high-quality sources for things he disagrees with. Here's the example. Back in March 2021, Springee objected to certain content I added [152] on a controversy involving conservative commentator Tucker Carlson. The 3 sources for the content are Politico, CNN, and BBC, all generally reliable per WP:RSP, and Springee does not dispute their reliability. The content is based on statements Carlson made on his TV show, so there is video evidence, similar to Andy Ngo's testimony. One of the two arguments Springee makes is: Is this really DUE? This again raises the concerns regarding what level of "outrange" is needed before we add something to this article.[153] After I provided a list of 20 sources [154], one of two arguments Springee makes is [155]: Your list of sources doesn't address several issues. First is RECENT, which in a world of click to pay based add revenue means a cheep to write story like this is going to get a lot of short term press.Contrast this to what Springee said regarding Ngo's testimony: we clearly have a number of sources that think this is important ... probably is something that is important to at least some readers- and I think there clearly is some double standards here. starship.paint (exalt) 05:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC) If we wanted consistency, for a lenient standard, these 20 sources definitely thought that Carlson's comments were important enough to report, and it's probably important to some readers. If we wanted consistency, for a consistent strict standard, it's possible that the unreliable sources Springee mentioned with regard to Ngo were presenting 'outrage' on the topic of Antifa, and going for short-term press as well. Now, Rosguill you mentioned you were considering a topic ban. Personally I think a warning is enough. Springee's errors have been made in arguments and they have not been overtly disruptive. Based on the previous AE [156] case, Springee voluntarily restricted themselves regarding 1RR, and that restriction seems to have worked. I believe that Springee is a good faith editor who needs to be more cognizant about their own biases, and I am hopeful that a warning will be enough for Springee to change their behaviour. starship.paint (exalt) 05:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by KyohyiI'm going to pose a question to the Admin's below. What impartial (preferably also non-circular) mechanism do we employ to determine whether a source is reliable? Are we really suggesting that the editor Consensus model (E.G. RSP) is actually impartial. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Willbb234Firstly, Springee is correct in saying This feels like weaponizing AE to solve content disputes. The articles on which Springee edits are highly controversial and there are, naturally, many disputes and debates regarding content. Springee always goes about these discussions in a civil manner and is willing to listen to others, and allowing discussions to be resolved (for example, Talk:Odal (rune)#RfC CPAC stage Odal shape). Springee is correct to be cautious of Op-Eds and Springee's beliefs are often supported by others, see Talk:Tucker Carlson. Some editors want to shove every opinion and statement from reliable sources onto articles relating to the American far-right, and these should only go ahead following discussion and consensus. Springee often facilitates these discussions and actions by performing reverts where appropriate and participating in talk page discussions. Springee has been accused of not following common source guidelines such as WP:RS and WP:RSP, but I think that their comment This article might have a NPOV issue but if everything in it is sourced to RS the its not due to a sourcing issue. Instead you might look at how much weight is devoted to various aspects/topics and if any particular one is getting too much emphasis. (at Talk:Tucker Carlson) sums up their actions; they are not here to kick away RSs, but rather to add and remove information based off WP:DUE, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:OPINION. This may involve approaching, discussing and gaining consensus on the use of less reliable sources, or even those that are considered unreliable such as The Daily Caller, in order create well-rounded article that covers aspects of an article which the mainstream media can't be bothered or does not want to cover. Springee always explains their objections to the addition of content and is willing to follow up with more evidence, and, as such, it would be unfair to say that they are unreasonable as it seems those with problems with this are more WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than genuine concerns. As for the reopening and repeated removal of content, I would be much more concerned if this was performed several times in the span of a few weeks, but over five months, community consensus and coverage by sources can change hugely. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by PaleoNeonateAdding the Talk:PragerU archives to the to-read list, that wasn't mentioned above, —PaleoNeonate – 19:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by Thomas MengI actually was the one who inserted LaCorte News as secondary source for Andy Ngo's congressional testimony and first deleted the Intercept's derogatory claim about Ngo, while most of Springee's actions are on the talk page, which do not warrant this AE report. Springee is not pushing any unreliably sourced content, contrary to what the OP claimed. The content under question is whether including the info that Ngo testified before Congress on June 29 is WP:DUE. Dlthewave thinks that it is not due since no "reliable, secondary source" covered it. But it's also no secret that WP:RSP consensus has declared most conservative sources as "unreliable", while left-wing mainstream media do not think covering Ngo's testimony advances their cause. That's why I went to look for alternative sources and found LaCorte News. But a left-leaning editor promptly deleted it, saying that LaCorte News has not "established any reputation for fact-checking", and is therefore "unreliable". As such, left-leaning users have created a Catch-22 scenario where a significant congressional testimony (that says much about a person's reliability) can't even be included in a journalist's WP bio, and when Springee goes to defend LaCorte News for such verifiable content, he gets reported to AE, smh. Springee is also NOT pushing to remove RS material. The material under question is whether we should include an Intercept journalist's claim that says to the effect that Ngo's congressional testimony in August was a "total farce" and that Ngo shamelessly omitted something he should've said. But this is completely biased opinion rather than news. And according to the Intercept's RSP entry, there is I also notice a shocking double standard here. Left-leaning editors can go to Ngo's page and carelessly remove reliably sourced and objective info from Reason, despite objections from Volteer1, while Springee gets reported to AE when he removes biased opinion from the Intercept. As North8000 noted, Andy Ngo's article is comprised of 90% biased opinions against him rather than encyclopedic content. I very much agree, also with admin DGG here. This is a situation where some editors are using WP's DUE policy for censorship of objective, verifiable information. Thomas Meng (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Statement by North8000I've seen Springee at work and they are one of the most polite, careful cautious editors I've seen who is willing to work on contentious articles. IMO at contentious articles there is too much viewing someone as an opponent based on which "side" they are on and even trying to deprecate them or use the system to do so. IMO the current article has too much of being a "hit piece" with cherry-picked narrow negative material having been argued in. I think that Springee has been trying to encourage having less of that and more informative encyclopedic content and has encountered a rough reception there accordingly. IMHO nothing Springee has done is even near requiring sanctions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by PackMecEngYeah I have to say, I am little surprised by the accusations here. I am not really seeing much wrong on Springee's side. Everywhere I see them working it is always trying to build consensus even if it does not always favor their point of view. I will have to echo those above in that it is a little disappointing to see an attempt to weaponize AE like this. I would also like to register my total shock at seeing GW list themselves as uninvolved in pretty much anything AP related. But especially something related to right-wing politics. I mean just take a quick look at their recent AE and ANI filings. Every single one is basically targeting someone they see as right wing. PackMecEng (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC) IP 69.158.90.121 I have to ask. What is your thing with Springee? At this point you have already been blocked for harassing them. I think you should just let it go. PackMecEng (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by AtsmeI agree with North8000, and will add that I never imagined Springee being named in an AE case. Editors are expected to present substantive arguments in a civil and reasonable manner during the consensus building process, especially when trying to comply with NPOV. Of course the opposition is going to object to it and present their own argument. How is civil POV pushing not an oxymoron? A proper debate to reach consensus is, in its simplest form, civil pov pushing. Are we going to start topic banning all editors for doing their job? Unless one side is being uncivil, I see no cause for any admin action here. I'm also of the mind that these value-laden labels need to stop, because I've seen them being misapplied, or purposely used in a derogatory manner in noncompliance with WP:PA, and/or being attached to people who reject such a label. I don't think it is either accurate or proper for editors of an encyclopedia to publish in Wikivoice the contentious labels used by clickbait online news sources. We can use intext attribution and quote the source but that should be as far as it goes. Those types of labels can be just as derogatory and insulting as any other contentious label, be it motivated by gender, race or religion. If my memory serves, I can vaguely recall a time when we didn't even mention a person's political party in the infobox. As for sources, Jimbo summed it up quite well. Atsme 💬 📧 02:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Statement by The Four DeucesRe: Rejecting opinion pieces published by reliable sources. In this case, Springee is correct. Dithwave accuses Springee of "Characterizing the reliability of a Washington Post op-ed as similar to a self-published source." But News organizations says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." IOW, it has to be assessed on a similar basis as Self-published sources. Note also that this is a Biography of a living person, which requires strict adherence to content guidelines. User:JzG wrote, "if you remove opinions, you're left with the inescapable conclusion that Ngo isn't actually important at all."[158] That seems to be the problem. The subject is of marginal notability and details are being filled in with otherwise unreliable sources. I would suggest to both sides that if we don't have reliable sources to have a detailed article, the cautious approach is to have a stub article with well sourced material. TFD (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by 力Lacorte News appears to clearly not be a reliable source; if Springee were tendentiously claiming otherwise there would be course for action. I don't see any diffs remotely along that line or that justify any action. More broadly: the community and ARBCOM probably will BOTH have to have a serious discussion of how people are mis-using WP:RSP. That page was established informally based on the Daily Mail RFCs and as an index of WP:RSN threads, but has led to a flood of RFCs where the opinions of a few people allow editors to view news sources as "always reliable" or "always unreliable". This is, in many situations, appropriate. We do not want people citing The Onion or http://diply.com (a clickbait site once in the Alexa top 200). We also don't want black propaganda (aka "fake news") (white propaganda is in some situations fine) or sources that regularly intermingle fiction with fact. However, bona fide news outlets, even those with a clear house political bias, are primary sources. WP:PSTS states "it is easy to misuse" primary sources. I find that many of the editors active in American politics will not agree that contemporary New York Times is even a primary source, so am skeptical that consensus to improve will be found quickly. But the idea of a regime of GOODSITES and BADSITES and an implied suggestion that editors should not use their own reason and expertise to determine how sources are used ... User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by LevivichFirst Law of AP2 Sourcing: There exists no fact X that (1) should be included in an encyclopedia article about American politics but (2) cannot be sourced to any book by any reputable publisher, any non-predatory academic journal, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, NPR, PBS, C-SPAN, CNN, CNBC, Associated Press, Reuters, Bloomberg News, Foreign Affairs, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Politico, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, The Denver Post, Chicago Tribune, The Boston Globe, Star Tribune, or any leading media outlet in any of the 50 United States. Levivich harass/hound 06:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by AquillionI feel that some people are missing the real issue here. It is one thing to argue for universally looser sourcing requirements in order to represent as many points of view as possible, or to argue for universally tighter sourcing requirements and less reliance on opinionated or low-quality sources - I try to lean towards the latter, but both are certainly defensible positions. The problem is that Springee is tendentiously arguing for extremely loose sourcing requirements for things he agrees with, while arguing against even comparatively high-quality sources for things he disagrees with. He is hardly the first editor to do so, and if we removed everyone guilty of that I doubt the AP2 topic area would have many editors left, but this seems a particularly stark example. More broadly... every editor has biases or opinions, especially in topic area like this. We work past them and manage to collaborate by sticking (as much as we can) to strict definitions of reliability, balance, and due weight. It is one thing to argue over the reliability of a source, or to argue for using a source in specific contexts according to exceptions such as WP:ABOUTSELF; but if an editor acknowledges that a source is unreliable in the specific context where they want to use it, yet argues that it should be included anyway because it establishes what they consider some vital truth or essential point, then what they are actually saying is not simply that we should WP:IAR, but that we should override the rules in the service of producing an article that advances their personal view of the world. I am certain that anyone who makes that argument doesn't see it that way, because to them their personal view of the world is simply the truth and any article that fails to reflect that is unfairly biased or woefully incomplete. But the whole reason we have the rules on sourcing that some people in this discussion are arguing we should selectively ignore is because we're trying to produce an encyclopedia that is more than just the opinions of its individual editors - that is, one of the core principles of Wikipedia is that we can produce a useful, worthwhile encyclopedia by adhering, as much as we can, to WP:V. I have no doubt that the editors arguing for special exceptions to our sourcing rules believe that they are doing so in pursuit of the truth and that an article without those exceptions will be unjustly biased; but it is nonetheless tendentious editing. --Aquillion (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by OIDDGG: "there are few RS on the right. But we need to hear about their view anyway". Actually no we dont. This is not according to our rules on reliable sources and is essentially how racists, misogynists and other right wing extremes seek to convince people their views are valid (not that those views dont appear on the left wing as well, its just not as formally enshrind in policy). We are under no obligation, nor is there any policy backing for that standpoint. It is perfectly acceptable to use an unreliable source on an article about themselves (then we line up the 15 reliable sources saying why they are wrong) but we have no need to use them in any other venue. Eg we quote the Daily Mail in an article about the Daily Mail, but we dont use it elsewhere. Your view is essentially 'every view has equal weight and deserves to be heard' which is amoral, dangerous, and a threat to Wikipedia's integrity. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by JzGThere is definitely a problem. I am not sure if the problem is Springee, specifically. Here is the issue: When multiple reliable independent sources describe a figure popular with one political extreme or the other, in terms that their supporters dislike, they will expend enormous amounts of energy trying to "balance" the consensus of reliable independent sources with pretty much anything that challenges it, in the name of NPOV. But NPOV is not the average between mainstream and hyper-partisan sources. NPOV is the average of mainstream sources. The opposite of mainstream is not conservative, or liberal. The opposite of mainstream is fringe. The fact that the majority of popular right-wing media is now fringe and not reliable is a problem for us, but it is not our problem to fix. Wikipedia editors are not supposed to mine unreliable sources, decide which nuggets are reliable anyway, and use them. We can report on what the right thinks from reliable sources that report on what the right thinks. God knows there have been enough New York Times interviews with the same three "women for Trump" in a diner in Pennsyltucky. There is also an appalling tendency to use WP:RSOPINION to justify the inclusion of any primary-sourced opinion from anybody who has a blue link. "X said Y on his blog, source, X saying Y on his blog". We should never do that. I don't care if X is Alex Jones or Noam Chomsky. Opinions are like arseholes: everybody has one, and we can only distinguish notable opinion by seeing if it's reported in reliable independent secondary sources. The solution, in my view, is to reduce the amount of blow-by-blow coverage, reduce the reams of verbiage about Twitter spats and other things, and edit the article down to what reliable, independent, secondary sources say, directly about the subject. I believe that 90% or more of these intractable disputes would be solved by doing just that. And if that leaves you with nothing to say? Perhaps the subject is just not that important. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Masem(Not directly involved but would feel wrong to be included in "uninvolved" due to past participation at BLP/N + NPOV/N) I was going to write something longer on my usual NOT#NEWS/RECENTISM issues related to how we cover contemporary alt/far-right people and how Springee is at least appealing towards that, but I think its easier to simply point to what Four Dueces and JzG have written - the solution that needs to be done across the board is to significantly trim down these laundry lists of every slight reported in the mainstream RSes about these people or groups, and instead write at a high-level about these individuals, which would avoid the need to try to balance with poor RS; these need to be written from the ten- or twenty-year out POV, and not the Wikinews POV. We (Wikipedia) need to be far far less vindictive about writing towards these people or groups than the media does per NPOV, though we still certainly be able to summarize the broad opinions of the media about these people and groups. This may require a wholly separate centralized discussion to consider but that's beyond the scope of AE here. --Masem (t) 15:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by Bgrus22
Statement by CrossroadsThis very much looks to me like an attempt to take down an opponent. I have always found Springee to be both exceedingly civil and making an utmost effort to be balanced in some very difficult topic areas. I don't see serious problems warranting a topic ban above at all. For example, he is absolutely on good ground in rejecting a Washington Post op-ed, and especially on a WP:BLP. The Four Deuces covered this. And that is the sort of thing being presented as grounds for "enforcement"? I agree with 力 (power~enwiki) that there needs to be a major discussion on the ideological misuse and distortion of WP:RSP, which has gotten worse and worse in the time I and it have been around. I've read and participated in enough discussions at RSN to know that they are little more than a popularity contest, and double-standards are rife. Things that would get a right-leaning source marked as unreliable or deprecated (which in practice is treated the same anyway) are waved away for left-leaning sources. Look at the WP:RSP entry for HuffPost, for example. It openly admits that it uses clickbait headlines which are unreliable and is generally biased. Would a right-leaning source be listed as green/yellow for "politics" if it did this? Would that not be taken as evidence of general unreliability or of falsehoods? Many other outlets that are heavily or entirely opinion and are openly biased are green if left-leaning, red if right-leaning, even if otherwise comparable. Yeah, yeah, asymmetric polarization and all that. That may explain the phenomenon somewhat, but not entirely. Editors' own feelings about what is True and Righteous will have an impact. The above is why statements about "the sourcing rules" are problematic. The WP:CREEP in AMPOL has been incredible, and the NPOV of these "rules" (as refracted through a thick lens of interpretation by individual editors) is very questionable. I am all for MEDRS, the SCIRS essay, and the preference for scholarly sources as specified at SOURCETYPES and defend those often. But when it comes to mass media sources, our "rules" seem to be going astray. And people are afraid to suggest this or prevent POV railroading of BLPs, lest they get labeled, explicitly or implicitly, as far-right/racist/sexist/transphobic/white supremacist. I want to emphasize that, regarding Springee, I see nothing but a run of the mill content dispute above, one that is well within even the current rules. Crossroads -talk- 22:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC) edited Crossroads -talk- 02:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC) Rosguill, I don't see how that can be a smoking gun at all. A brief edit summary stating that the Daily Signal is not an RS (possibly including UNDUE) for this quote consisting of (Graham's) commentary on (Nazaryan's) commentary on (Ngo's) commentary, [159] a statement of his own view for a very specific use, is very different from his statement about the Daily Signal not yet having been declared unreliable by the community (as quoted by Noteduck above), and in regard to someting also sourced to the congressional record. And really, it is quite clear that Noteduck is WP:HOUNDING Springee and seeking to remove someone they see as an opponent from the topic area for ideological reasons. Most of their last 50 edits have to do with him. [160] Noteduck also received a warning to "be careful and to abide to policies while editing in the topic area of American politics" less than two months ago. [161] Even if Springee were being as inconsistent as claimed, that's not sanction-worthy; by that standard many, many editors in the AMPOL topic area would be topic banned. The tendency on Wikipedia very much seems to be reams of forgiveness for editors perceived as favorable to the political left/progressives, and seizing on any seeming mistake to justify sanctions for editors perceived as favorable to the political right/conservatives. Whether conscious or unconscious, this needs to stop. And I say this as a proud Democrat who was very much relieved when Joe Biden won the presidency. Crossroads -talk- 04:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC) Rosguill, Springee being confused by those names at some point is very reasonable to me. Between those and the Daily Wire, there's just too many right-wing outlets named Daily Something-or-other. :) Regarding "stricter with troublemakers on all sides rather than to leave the topic a quagmire", two things: (1) I want to re-emphasize my statement that "I see nothing but a run of the mill content dispute above, one that is well within even the current rules"; in other words, it's just not a real offense, so no sanctions warranted; and (2), as a result of probably systemic factors, the strictness with both sides never comes; the topic area, especially including evaluations of sources at RSN and considerations of DUE, becomes more and more slanted to one side as a result. Crossroads -talk- 21:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by MJLI went back and forth on commenting here, and that's mostly because I respect a lot of the people who have commented thus far on either side of the issue. I also don't want to make a trivially short post nor repeat things that have already been said. Therefore, I am going to try and come at this with a fresh angle in order to make sense of my own thoughts on the matter. It's pretty much widely understood that Springee holds minority views and dissents with some current established consensus as it regards the AP2 topic field, interpretations of the reliable sourcing policy, and how best to portray articles neutrally. If that is not the case, I do hope someone will correct me if that is not the correct understanding of the situation. The basis of this report is whether or not Springee can be considered disruptive due to his:
Of the diffs provided to support both claims, 6 diffs occur in talkspace and 3 diffs occur in mainspace (all ranging from a 6 month period). All of the mainspace diffs regard Point B. I don't think that Point A in itself is a sanctionable offense. Merely arguing that we should include a source of questionable reliability is not an inherently disruptive act, but there are times when doing so repeatedly could be seen as disruptive. However the three diffs presented do not support that here, so I think we can throw out Point A as it relates to conduct problems (people are free to debate the underlying content dispute there, but I'm going to ignore that). Now, Point B is a sanctionable offense in my opinion.. except when it comes to WP:BLPs. We have a higher standard for inclusion of material regarding BLPs for legal and policy reasons, and I have not seen enough evidence that Springee was removing these sources in anything other than good faith. I mean.. we aren't talking about news reports here from reliable sources; he was removing opinion pieces, right? Opinions on a BLP are going to inherently be contentious, and that is going to be double the case if said opinions are negative. Editors should be encouraged to freely debate said topics and discuss article inclusions standards on a case-by-case basis. Don't get me wrong; there might be a reason to sanction Springee. I'm just not seeing it here with this specific evidence nor this exact reasoning. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by Nsk92Both WP:V and WP:NPOV are fundamental tenets of Wikipedia, but between them WP:V is by far more important. The matters of bias and neutrality can and should be mitigated in the way we present the information. But mitigation won't help if the information we present is factually inaccurate. We are not fact-checkers and we have to depend on reliability of the sources that we use. That's how Wikipedia works. That's why it is a cardinal sin on Wikipedia to push the use of a known unreliable source. Pleading for balance cannot be accepted as an excuse or an explanation. Just a few days ago the New York Post published a doozy of a fake news story about VP Kamala Harris. Even when caught, they didn't fully retract the story[162][163]. Now, compared to the Daily Caller, the New York Post is a paragon of journalistic integrity. We should still try to avoid using the NY Post as a source for anything other than sports scores and the weather (and try to find better sources even for those). More broadly speaking, I agree with JzG that we should also be trying to limit quoting opinions (whether from the left or from the right) unless those opinions are themselves widely reported upon. Nsk92 (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Mr ErnieThe problem with this blanket source deprecation is that it limits the availability of information to create an encyclopedia to a certain handful of sources and what they choose to write about. If Levivich's First Law of AP2 Sourcing is true, Mr Ernie's corollary holds that those sources don't write about everything encyclopedically notable, and not everything they write is notable either. An interesting and tragic example is that The Daily Caller ran a story about Cuomo's mishandling of nursing home COVID information in May of 2020, something the NYT didn't report until a few days ago. Either the NYT journalists deliberately ignored the Daily Caller article back in May or perhaps worse, decided not to investigate it due to Cuomo's status as a heroic foil to Trump, but regardless here's a clear case where "conservative" readers were better informed than others. Wikipedia editors should have the freedom to use that factual information where appropriate, instead of having it blocked on grounds of source deprecation. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Cedar777It is a time sink to repeatedly address quality of RS at Andy Ngo. Springee has argued against The New York Times, The Washington Post, Bellingcat, Willamette Week, The Daily Dot, and The Intercept among others. As other observant editors have noted, holding impossible standards for sources that express unfavorable content is only half of the equation - the other half is a simultaneous elevation of garbage sources that express supportive content. It's this combination that rankles a number of involved editors. What should not be lost in this discussion is that the odd logic used by Springee to support preferred content and to denigrate content disproved of is a recurring issue that raises significant concerns. I share a growing uneasiness with Springee's advocacy for unreliable sources, including The Daily Caller, LaCorte News, MEAWW, The Daily Wire, The Post Millennial, and The Western Journal. It's peculiar that debate over sources established as unreliable is happening with a user with over 12,000 edits. The long term logic by which sources are accepted or discarded seems to relate only to the content's ability to bolster or diminish a subject's reputation.
This user presents as a Civil POV pusher. When editors have raised concerns in the appropriate place on the user's talk page, Springee has swiftly deleted their comments. Diff 4 Diff 5 It also troubles me that the contributing IP's entire talk page was blanked by Springee, including the contributions of another unrelated editor Diff 6. This, along with recent mass deletions on Springee's talk page, indicates a lack of integrity and an absence of genuine civility.
(Springee earlier argued that the WP couldn't be used because Ngo wasn't mentioned outside of the embedded twitter content, making it rather odd that he suggests other editors are somehow at fault in the congressional testimony section for not finding sources that don't mention Ngo). Without a genuine effort to shine a light on this matter, WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH, i.e. Springee's advocacy for low quality sources paired with an insistance on holding unfavorable content to impossible standards, the situation is unlikely to improve. Multiple articles will continue to suffer for it. Cedar777 (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by ShinealittlelightSo Springee makes a few arguments that are, let's say for the sake of argument, a bit shaky, and his enemies pounce on him. This is ridiculous. If you disagree with his arguments, then say so, and if you are right consensus will prevail. He's not violating any policies, and having people think you have good judgment about sources is not a requirement for contributing here. Neither is never making a shaky argument. Springee follows the rules. I think admins need to be very careful about chasing people like him off the project. He's a rare bird who is willing to try to make a contribution here despite being almost always in the minority because he isn't clearly on the left (I don't actually know what his politics are). Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishesIt does appear to me that Springee argued to use sources that should not be used. But does it warrant any sanctions? That was only on article talk pages. If he would repeatedly insert poorly sourced materials directly to BLP pages, over the objections by other contributors, that could be a reason. But I do not see it in the diffs provided by filer. If Springee would argue about it on article talk pages, over a prolonged period of time, that could also be a reason per WP:Idonothereit. But again, I do not see this over a prolonged period of time, at least in the diffs originally provided by the filer. Yes, one could say that Sprengee is an experienced contributor, so he suppose to knew better and did not argue about such sources on article talk pages to push their POV. But again, I am not sure that warrants any immediate sanctions. I did not read everything here, tl;dr, sorry.My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by ProcrastinatingReaderSo basically:
The argument used to exclude this content is that it isn't WP:DUE due to lack of coverage in secondary sources. However:
The Daily Caller et al are obviously not reliable. But the Congressional transcript is. As far as I can see, Spingee's tried to satisfy the DUE concerns by citing coverage in unreliable sources. While that argument is obviously not going to go far, the crux of the dispute is whether to include factually accurate material written in a neutral manner without appropriate coverage in secondary sources. It isn't sanctionable to make this argument. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by CalidumI'm not sure there is much else to be said, but just so everyone is aware this isn't Springee's first trip here. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive272#Springee. -- Calidum 18:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by Hob GadlingMy field is fringe theories: pseudomedicine, pseudoarcheology, pseudophysics, pseudo-everything-else, creationism, parapsychology, conspiracy theories, and so on. In articles about such subjects, you regularly encounter individuals who want to make the articles say what they believe, not what the reliable sources say. I revert their edits in the articles, I debate why on the Talk pages, and I notify WP:FTN. Those individuals are IPs, new accounts, sockpuppets, and/or SPAs. Some of them give up and disappear when they encounter opposition, some stubborn ones stay for a few weeks or months and get indeffed or topic-banned when it is clear that they do not want to adhere to the rules, and some learn how to do it right and become normal editors. But there are some fringe theories which have been embraced by lots of people or organizations associated with the Republican Party, such as climate change denial. On Talk pages about such people or organizations, Springee fulfils the same role as the IPs and new accounts in other articles where WP:FRINGE is relevant. He behaves like the more polite, but also more stubborn SPAs - sealioning is probably the right word. He tries to treat the fringe theories not as fringe theories. It is as if he thinks they become less fringe by getting added to the standard collection of ideas of such a huge group. But they are still fringe. When half a country believes a stupid thing, it remains a stupid thing. Because of Springee, and others like him, it is far more difficult to maintain a WP:FRINGE-compliant standard in articles like Tucker Carlson than in articles like Erich von Däniken. Examples:
It would be nice to have to use a piece of sound reasoning once, and being listened to, instead of having to say it again and again. I do not favor any draconic measures, but could someone please tell him that popularity of an idea does not trump (heh!) the rules, and that being part of a large group embracing fringe ideas does not allow you to ignore the rules about propagating fringe theories. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC) Result concerning Springee
|
Thepharoah17
There appears to be agreement. One month block without opposition. For BOTH editors. — Ched (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2021 (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 Thepharoah17
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds_and_Kurdistan/Proposed_decision#Thepharoah17_topic-banned. The Pharoah17 is topic banned as already mentioned below by Bishonen. I would like to see action in order to stop these topic ban violations which sometimes even occur in user pages of other editors. I leave it up to the Arbiters/Sysops how to proceed with this issue, I just report it.
The Pharoah17s and Amr Ibn al Kulthoums blocks are not logged in the block log on Kurds and Kurdistan. I suggest these blocks to be included in the log for an eventual appeal when the time comes. I have the explicit [169] allowance by GPinkerton to use anything which they see as useful to raise the issue on Kurds and Kurdistan and their block. Don't know if anyone has such an allowance who also includes a diff on their user page.
Discussion concerning Thepharoah17Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I do not know what I was topic banned for in the first place nor do I even know anything about this topic but I am apologizing. And can you just take care of that suspected sockpuppet that is being mentioned on my talkpage because I do not even know what to do about that. I am Egyptian for god's sake. What does Kurdistan have to do with Egypt anyway? There was just a sockpuppet that caused this whole case to be opened and I got rid of him and reverted lots of his edits and it gets called disruption for some reason. And I am wondering why you say I am experienced. I only started editing when the pandemic broke out and I really have no idea how I got into this. I actually do not know that much about Kurds. So what was said on Paradise Chronicle's user page makes me a bad editor? And just do something about that suspected sockpuppet. I removed that because I do not know what you want from me and I do not know what to do. I made 20,000 edits with literally zero problems and zero warnings. Feel free to go through my talk page history. Then all of a sudden I revert a sockpuppet's edits and I turn into a bad guy. This just started because someone asked me about a sockpuppet. If you guys can just take care of the sockpuppet, that would just be nice. I just really did not know what to do or say. If you guys think its ok for a sockpuppet to run around, then that is your choice. user:Ecrusized looks like he is a sockpuppet of user:Lapsed Pacifist. If you guys could look into it, that would be nice because someone asked me a question about it on my talk page. Statement by (Paradise Chronicle)The editor is rather productive in highlighting and maintaining Muslim and Arab related articles. On Kurds and Kurdistan though, they were absolutely wrecking havoc and this should be remembered which is what I do on my user page. If you wish to keep them, good luck. I suggest a longer block than just a week as it was the last time.
Statement by Nsk92First, Paradise Chronicle, you need to follow the required AE format and provide the relevant diffs, regardless of whether or not the case had been discussed at AE before. Each AE report is considered by a different group of admins and they are not expected to be familiar with the prior background here. Also, note that only the uninvolved admins are allowed to post in the "Result" section of the report, and, more generally, there are no threaded discussions at AE. If you need to respond to another editor's comment, you should do that in your own section. Second, on the substance, Paradise Chronicle is correct that several edits by Thepharoah17 constitute a clear t-ban violation, e.g. [171][172]. Moreover, Thepharoah17's claim above that "I do not know what I was topic banned for in the first place nor do I even know anything about this topic but I am apologizing" is not credible on its face. Thepharoah17 was notified about the t-ban as a part of the arbitration case final decision on February 27, 2021[173]. On March 6, 2021 Thepharoah17 received a one-week block for violating that t-ban [174]. Thepharoah17 attempted to appeal the block, unsuccessfully[175], and the scope of the t-ban was certainly made clear to Thepharoah17 then. Nsk92 (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Shadow4dark
Result concerning Thepharoah17
|
Magherbin
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 Magherbin
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Ayaltimo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 03:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Magherbin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- [181] His history of edit wars was being covered by the discretionary sanctions.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
Warnings:
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Magherbin has since made two different (and baseless) accusations against me of being a sockpuppet. [190] [191]
Magherbin has a habit of making bold edits and forcing people to follow his policy as if he runs encyclopedia. I've constantly been engaging in good faith with him. All this user does is follow me and harasses my edits.
1. It's started off on the Harari people page. I removed unsourced additions but were reverted by Magherbin. [192] I've explained to him on the talk page why it's filled with original research.
2. The source literally says "And settled among the Cushites of the Harar-Chercher plateau produced the semitised culture". [193] Nowhere does it say they settled the shores of Somaliland.
3. "By the thirteenth century, Hararis were among the administrators of the Ifat Sultanate." Does not state on page 228. [194]
4. "The sixteenth century saw Oromos invading regions of the Somali peninsula from the northern areas of Hargeisa to its southern portions such as Lower Juba, incorporating the Harari people." Does not state that at all when you use the search bar called From inside the book. No page reference either. [195]
I've decided to leave that page alone in good faith despite the page containing several original research because I was new and I didn't want to cause more tension. There was another page called Yusuf bin Ahmad al-Kawneyn where Magherbin decided to engage in an edit war against me and another user. [196]
He wanted a one-sided view and was against other scholars criticizing his sources to the point, he thought it would be wise to undo both user's revisions. After explaining to him on the talk page he left the page after realizing his misconduct.
He has followed me and conducted edit wars with me on several more pages. [197] [198] [199]
Despite coming from a recent block due to edit warring he didn't mind reverting several articles against me and I decided to let him have it so I can use it against him in the future of how impatient and impulsive this user is when you check out his history. [200]
What I find very hypocritical of him is even if the Harari people page contains original research you can't remove it without consensus because it's a two-year-old revision. [201] I followed the same policy for Ifat Sultanate. [202] The reason for this was because we were discussing several topics so we can make major changes but he didn't want that. It's like he manipulates his own rules.
Nevertheless, I proposed a brilliant idea where we could solve our dispute. I told him on his talk page [203] that we should create sub-sections for people of Ifat Sultanate discussing both theories since there is lots of research on both sides. He didn't like that neutral idea because he wants a single POV to be pushed while repressing other views despite massive scholarly research. He made a claim that it contains original research and I asked him to please share which source contains original research. He only mentioned that Jabarta was a terminology for all Muslims in the Horn of Africa. I told him this is not from my own mouth but the words of a historical Muslim traveler called Al-Maqrizi. According to Maqrizi, the ancestors of ' Umar Wälasma first settled in Jabara ( or Jabarta ) a region which he says belonged to Zeila; they gradually moved further inland and occupied Ifat. [204] I also explained to him you don't have to agree with the opposing views because it's called theory for a reason and I explicitly told him you can expand your own theory section explaining why you think they're Ethio-Semitic. He didn't like the idea nor would he bring evidence to his claim that it contains original research. He would simply threaten me to self-revert after talking with him on the talk page for a couple of months. [205] This user doesn't wish to progress but waste time and war. I've become fed up with his harassment and calling on all the reasonable moderators to check on his poor behaviour and sanction him. I also want to note that Magherbin was an ex-sock puppeteer with a history of abusing multiple accounts and engaging in edit wars with multiple users. Ayaltimo (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I also want to add a few more things like he claims I failed to follow BRD policy. Where was your BRD policy on Malassay page? Where was your BRD policy on Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi page? Where was your BRD policy on Garad page? It's exactly why you got banned for edit warring, not me. I didn't break any rule I simply made a neutral deal and even proposed the idea on your talk page. [206] I've repeatedly asked him which source contains original research. He has failed to address them and simply gets off the topic without wanting to progress. [207] I've been dealing with sock puppets and vandalism on Ifat Sultanate page. [208] You only came there to start an edit war. I also want to note I and Ragnimo have also run into problems where I reported him for edit warring. [209] Beware of this user's dishonesty. Ayaltimo (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Rosguill If consensus was the way forward why was Magherbin aggressive in making changes and not consulting nicely with other users? For example, on the fourth of May, he could've contacted us why he wants to make a change but he didn't address anything despite being in dispute. [210] He then decided to revert again and I explicitly told him to seek consensus before removing sourced content. [211] He left the page alone because he knew he was being hypocritical. Mind you this is the exact same reason why he got banned just recently when you slide to the next history page who he was in dispute with. [212] If anything this is more concerning. He decided to make changes on Walashma ruler pages after he was with an edit war with another user because he was salty. All this happened within the 10th of March. [213] and I decided to revert them back because he was making changes to year old pages. I thought he would improve after coming back from his ban but I was wrong. He did not care and reverted back without even consulting. [214] [215] [216] [217] [218] [219] [220] [221] I left it alone because I was smart not to get in trouble with him and use this as evidence. The reason why I made new changes for Ifat Sultanate was because Magherbin made similar aggressive new changes on Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi article and he was already in dispute with three users over there. [222] [223] I could've reverted it and asked him to explain on the talk page but I wanted to take things slow and carefully because I was discussing with him on other pages. Also, the idea I proposed was far better because I thought it would end all conflicts. He was trying to push his own view and I accepted it because the demographics are disputed by various scholars so it's better to explain both sides instead of pushing one POV. The idea was not about getting the consensus of reliable sources. He argued they contained original research and I told him three times to state which source contains original research and he would avoid answering it. [224] Nevertheless the big elephant in the room is how is he still edit warring and making aggressive changes in other articles when he just recently came back from a ban for the same reason? That should be the most concerning topic relating to Magherbin. However, I can agree with your conditions and agree with Magherbin to make a self-revert on Ifat Sultanate page if he makes a self-revert on Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi page to make it fair and we can discuss in good faith from there. Ayaltimo (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Magherbin
Statement by Magherbin
An Admin had suggested I report this user on the platform [225] and the user beat me to it apparently. Ayaltimo has trouble citing sources and even uses WP:Circular. I notified noticeboards as the editor began editwarring, and multiple editors expressed their concerns that the source failed reliability. [226] [227] Other users got involved and reverted their edits [228] After this, Ayaltimo added new content on the same article which contained original research, synth and other issues, I reverted these edits and I explained to the user on the talk page about BRD, the user reverted. [229] Ayaltimo fails to follow the BRD process and instead editwarrs to maintain these problematic edits that I express concern about on the talk pages. The user doesnt know how to handle a content dispute and turns it into a battleground. This is a recurring problem, the last time an admin had to intervene when the user kept insisting on consensus after removing content that was on the page for years. [230]. We are also in an RFC due to a dispute and the user clearly holds fringe views thats i've been trying to tackle on these pages and Ayaltimo has been a road block, see rfc [231]. Ayaltimo in their report is discussing content dispute on an enforcement page, I believe this is a competence issue when including the inability to properly source. Ayaltimo surprisingly seems to have admitted to the problem on the board.[232] Ragnimo the other user who had similar problematic edits like Ayaltimo is now blocked for socking [233] and Ayaltimo may be continuing disruption on their behalf.
User:Rosguill, on point one, there's another source attached to the statement which Ayaltimo ignored which states "From the northern Somali coast, the Adare (Harar) cultural synthesis occurred and spread into the Chercher - Harar plateau" see.p.53 [234]. Adare is another name for the Harari as stated on the articles page "The Harari were previously known as "Adere", although this term is now considered derogatory.". The article doesnt even state they settled in Somali territory as claimed by Ayaltimo anyway. The second point of contention is the statement that "Hararis were among administrators of Ifat", the source clearly states that Hararis were among the leading principality of ifat with other groups, see p.288 [235]. I have no issues with altering the wording so that it can go more in line with the source however Ayaltimo has not provided any solution. Ayaltimo wants the statement removed completely and has even implied on the talk page that Harar/Hararis have nothing to do with Ifat Sultanate, they say here "Sa'ad ad-Din II was born in Zeila and was headquartered in Zeila. He was the last Sultan of the Ifat Sultanate. He had nothing to do with Harar". On point three p. 155 states; ""During their huge expansion in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Oromo occupied a territory as far as Hargaysa and the lower Juba and had assimilated its inhabitants of Hadiya-Sidama and Harala-Harari stock" [236]. The user stated the statements in the article were fringe and said they would take it to the board but did not do so. Overall the user has a POV that only Somalis ever lived in modern Somali territory. Magherbin (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Rosguill, some google book previews are regionally locked it depends on location, I can see the text on my end and thats what it states. Responding to your point about page numbers not being cited, at the time of citing, google books didnt reveal the page number. There's also issues with searching keywords at times on google books hence why some results dont appear. Anyways Ayaltimo is suggesting I follow BRD on the Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi article when clearly the user didnt even oppose any of my edits there. This is why I was correct in the fact that the user is turning wikipedia into WP:BATTLE. Ayaltimo was instead removing the dispute tag I placed after the now blocked sock ragnimo reverted my edits. [237] I was following BRD and discussing on the talk page unlike Ayaltimo. Magherbin (talk) 05:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Magherbin
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- The sanction is at WP:ARBHORN and Magherbin was notified in diff on 11 December 2020. Re the first point concerning Harari people, Rosguill reverted your changes diff. Admins are not in a position to evaluate content disputes. Perhaps Rosguill missed your point but the situation is that Talk:Harari people is not showing any further discussion since that revert in March so evidence about that issue is not useful here. You would need to show a discussion where consensus disagreed with Magherbin. I have not yet examined the remaining evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Having reviewed most of the evidence in this report, I see some concerning behavior on both sides. Regarding Magherbin, the examples 2, 3 and 4 provided by Ayaltimo are somewhat concerning, and I'd like to see Magherbin respond to these specific concerns. However, the examples of edit warring provided by Ayaltimo raise more concerns about Ayaltimo's behavior than they do Magherbin's; in the provided examples, Magherbin appears to generally make singular objections to new changes. While in some cases Magherbin reverted against such changes more times than appropriate, unlike for Ayaltimo I don't see any examples where they are re-introducing a new change after it was already objected to, the cardinal sin of edit warring. I'm also unimpressed by Ayaltimo's "brilliant idea", as it basically suggests creating POV-forks within the same page. This is not an appropriate way to resolve most content disputes, we need to strive to present the consensus of reliable sources. Based on my assessment, I think that a medium-length topic ban for Ayaltimo is likely necessary unless they can clearly communicate here that they understand when reverting is appropriate (in which case a warning could suffice). I'll reserve judgment regarding Magherbin until I see a direct response to the concerns I highlighted at the beginning of this comment. signed, Rosguill talk 22:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Magherbin, I can't verify the claim regarding 1 because the preview won't show me that page. Regarding the second point,
I'm not sure thathaving looked up "principality" in the dictionary, I realize my reading was wrong and see no problems with Magherbin's interpretation. Regarding the final point, it looks like the claim checks out, and this ordeal in itself can serve as a lesson for why page numbers aren't optional in book citations. signed, Rosguill talk 02:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC) edited 02:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)The population of the leading principality of Yifat included some of these Cushitic-speaking nomadic groups such as...the Harari
backs the claim that the Harare were administrators, my reading is that this says that they lived in the capital - Ayaltimo, ah I see now with regard to Adal Sultanate, Magherbin was in the wrong to revert on May 4th, (Special:Diff/1021447630), I had previously thought that to be unrelated to the prior reverts on April 27th. My impression from seeing all of these disputes between you two is that they follow a pattern: one of you makes a change, the other contests it, you briefly discuss on the talk page, neither of you agrees with the other, and then the matter gets dropped, only to get revived with another revert several weeks later. In a situation like, this, the way to actually resolve the content dispute is to either head to WP:DRN or call an WP:RFC to get additional editors to weigh in and help form a consensus. I'm wondering if a formally logged warning will be enough for both Ayaltimo and Magherbin to learn this lesson. signed, Rosguill talk 03:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Magherbin, I can't verify the claim regarding 1 because the preview won't show me that page. Regarding the second point,
Leechjoel9
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 Leechjoel9
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Boud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 15:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Leechjoel9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 14:33, 13 May 2021 reverting a tidying up of the result of the Demographics of Eritrea RfC (and reverting unrelated edits by other people than me)
- 14:36, 13 May 2021 violation of the spirit of the result of the Demographics of Eritrea RfC on the Eritrea page (e.g. removing "three and a half ... million")
- 15:00, 13 May 2021 repeat violation of the result of the spirit of the RfC, on Eritrea
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Leechjoel9 seems to be trying to interpret the RfC on the population of Eritrea in a pedantic way and to prevent edits improving the referencing quality. I see no sign that the closing summary of the RfC described an intention to disallow the use of precise referencing with full, complete references. Pedantically speaking, the RfC did not specifically mention edits of the main Eritrea article, and it's true that in principle, an editorial consensus on one article does not imply a consensus for another related article. However, common sense in this case says that if the Eritrean population needs NPOVing on the main article on the topic of the Eritrean population, then there should also be an NPOV on the discussion of population on the article Eritrea itself. The RfC result does not oppose adding UN DESA 2019's explanation of its change. All three of Leechjoel9's above three edits remove the reference ref name="UNDESA2019_release_notes" that explains the surprising change in population estimates. The RfC favours NPOV. Leechjoel9's three edits oppose NPOV. (Explanatory notes by other sources would be valid to add for NPOV, but the sources are not demographic sources, so they don't publish explanations, they just provide raw "believe me, it's true" numbers.) Boud (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Response to Leechjoel9 18:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Due weight does not mean that "believe-me-it's-true" sources prevent explanations by demographic research "we-calculated-things-this-way-from-these-sources" sources from being mentioned. Ordinary reasoning about sourcing should not need wikilawyering and another month or so of effort for making an edit in the spirit of the result of an RfC. The risk of this editor's behaviour is to discourage editors who lack the stamina needed to argue at length for making changes that are normally uncontroversial in Wikipedia. (Side note: the {{UN Population}} template does not appear to be controversial; for Eritrea, it gives 3,452,786.) Boud (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Leechjoel9
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 Leechjoel9
Boud is ignoring and violating the reached consensus and proceeds doing changes without discussion. I have addressed the matter in the talk page of Demographics of Eritrea, and I have urged the user to participate in that discussion. Repeatedly filing for AE and ANI as soon someone disagrees is not a way forward, this is time consuming for everyone involved and a behaviour possibly breaching with Wikipedia policy. This can easily be resolved by discussion which Boud don’t want too, see [238].
The reason for restoring the Eritrea article was that this newly added content goes beyond the reached consensus and has yet been agreed upon. Consensus had been reached for estimates in the Demographics of Eritrea and BubbaJoe123456 did update this article with info that the population of Eritrea is estimated between 3,5- 6,7 Million. This was presented fairly, mentioning the range of estimates but also that majority views supports ~6M est, see [239]. Now a month later Boud decided to update the Eritrea article with new estimates in the info box and in the lead in the Eritrea article, see [240]. The user has done own interpretations of the consensus and did not propose any suggestions on how this should be implemented in the Eritrea article. The consensus did not reach beyond the Demographics of Eritrea article, however a change in the demographics article would affect the Eritrea article. So, there is several issue that needs to be taken in consideration when adding this content to the Eritrea article.
Unlike BubbaJoe123456, user Boud did not mention that all sources besides UN DESA supports estimates in the 6M. In the changes made to Eritrea article the user do not even bother to mention that the broad majority view and sources supports estimate in the 6M. Sources that consist of CIA (2021), Eritrea Ministry of Information (2020), African development bank(2017) and more. By doing this the user presents the UN DESA estimate (single- minority view) source as it has the equal weight of the all of the other sources (majority view), this is giving undue weight to the minority view per WP:RSUW. This is not acting neutral and what the consensus says. The consensus however says both estimates should be presented, which nobody including myself are not objecting to. The objecting comes on how it is should be presented and formulated. This has been discussed before and I have urged that we find a solution on how to implement the consensus also in the Eritrea article.
The Eritrea article is not constructed as the Demographics article. For instance it has an info box unlike the Demographics article. In the early days of the dispute there was an discussion regarding which section that should be affected by these changes (I.e lead, info box, body). That discussion is also not closed, and should also be discussed before implementing. There is currently no dispute about the Demographics of Eritrea article. I would again suggested that the user keep the discussion in the talk page. Leechjoel9 (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Leechjoel9
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- This is particularly difficult for admin resolution. I might say more later but my primary concern is always what is in the article and I have to say that it is not satisfactory to put population = 6,081,196 in the infobox at Eritrea given reliable sources with estimates from 3.6 to 6.7 million. I see a comment that the issue is extremely contentious—apparently a small number implies a certain political outcome while a large number implies some other real-world consequence. Unless there is a knock-out argument that I can't see, editors have no basis to decide which RS should be chosen for the infobox number. The problem cannot be solved by the walls of text in Talk:Eritrea/Archive and throughout Talk:Demographics of Eritrea. The approach at Demographics of Eritrea is better where there is no simple factoid—it starts with "Sources disagree as to the current population of Eritrea, with some proposing numbers as low as 3.6 million and others as high as 6.7 million." Question to participants: is there a dispute relevant to this report about text in the article apart from the number in the infobox? If yes, please succinctly identify it. If not, I'm afraid this issue might have to go back to article talk with a focus (that I couldn't see) on exactly what to put in the infobox (one suggestion would be to put nothing there). Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Leechjoel9, could you explain why you performed the edit at Demographics of Eritrea linked to in the first diff provided by Boud in this report? signed, Rosguill talk 23:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Maudslay II
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
- Appealing user
- Maudslay II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) – Maudslay II (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- Topic ban from the subject of Arab-Israeli conflict.
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- Newslinger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
- The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.
Statement by Maudslay II
The original request was here
Maarakeh bombing article, which is accusations 1 and 2
Geshem Bracha moved the page without discussion, then changed the infobox title & lead name (which should reflect the article title) before reaching consenus. That's why I reverted it. Nableezy pointed that out later and reverted it as well.
Geshem Bracha added a "hoax" template because of a lack of sources. I added extra sources and removed the template. After realising that I broke the 1RR rule, I reverted my last edit.
Zrarieh raid article, accusations 3 and 4
The editor Free1Soul did this: changed the infobox title & lead name, before reaching any consensus, removed references and removed categories. He also moved the page without any discussion. The same thing was done by Shrike earlier. How is this good faith edits? That's why I called it vandalism. All of this is clear in the page's history ~ 10 April.
Deir Yassin images, accusation 5
I thought that the Deir Yassin massacre was missing out on a photo. Given the subject is important and well-known, I downloaded a bunch of images from google and uploded them to commons. I realised that they are unrelated to the even when @Huldra: pointed that out and I supported deleting them when it was later proposed for deletion. It was an honest mistake and I agree that I did not put enough effort in the begining.
Canvassing, accusation 6
I invited Alexandermcnabb to participate in a related discussion of which he actually talked about but did not know it existed. My invitation can not be described as canvassing in any way. According to this guidline: "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions" and it is acceptable to invite "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". My notification was limited, neutral, nonpartisan and open.
Admin Newslinger indefinitely topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, and linked me to "policy on verifiability, policy against edit warring, and guideline on canvassing". I do not think this is fair. It is too harsh. I appelead in his talk page but did not recieve any answer.
Edit 1: @Shrike: My sv was about the removal of the hoax template, as seen above. The problem was about that. Earlier, SoarlingLL deleted sourced material without a valid reason. My revert was to restore those. This edit was after 25 hours of the first revert.
Statement by Newslinger
Statement by (involved editor 1)
Why you continued to edit war[241] after your self rv? --Shrike (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- You always should count 24 hours from the last revert not from the first anyhow If you self rv you shouldn't continue to edit war even if 24 hours have passed. The Topic ban is needed so you will know who to properly interact with other users and how to use WP:DR --Shrike (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by selfstudier
Unless there are things I don't know about, I stand by what I said previously, a tban seems a bit ott to me despite the CIR issue. A stiff warning and maybe a week break might have done the trick. Maybe I'm a softie.Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Maudslay II
Result of the appeal by Maudslay II
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- The result of the previous WP:AE discussion is archived here. Maudslay II's account was created in December 2020. It is unfortunate that a new editor has been (apparently) mislead by hoax images/sources on the internet, but Newslinger went to a lot of trouble to spell out problems in the previous report and they would need to be addressed for a successful appeal. Are they addressed above? A feeling that a topic ban might have been unduly harsh for a new editor has to be balanced against the fact that this is a super-charged topic where meticulous care and collaboration is required. I'm not seeing a reason for the topic ban to be lifted at the moment although some months of constructive work in other areas might be sufficient for an appeal if the original points are addressed. Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Maudslay II, could you respond to two of Newslinger's comments from the last AE discussion, specifically their analysis of the first two diffs from Geshem Bracha's comment (which can be found by checking the archived link provided by Johnuniq above, or at Special:Diff/1020638246)? signed, Rosguill talk 23:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
أمين
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 أمين
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 18:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- أمين (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 18:26, 14 May 2021
- Removal of sourced information to RS:
On 14 May, four Palestinians were killed, including one said to have attempted to stab a soldier and more than 100 people injured. There have been daily demonstrations since the escalation in Gaza.
- Replacement with:
On 14 May 2021, the Israeli army and Israeli settlers killed 10 Palestinian civilians in the West Bank who were in peaceful demonstrations and others while they were in their homes.
(issues w/ this explained below) - Addition of
In Iskaka village near Salfit, Israeli settlers under the protection of the Israeli occupation army, attacked Palestinian homes, and they killed a young man and shot 10 young men.[242]
- I can only read the source via Google translate, but it appears to say nothing that sounds like
under the protection of the Israeli occupation army
. It doesn't seem to say anything about settlers attacking Palestinian homes either.
- I can only read the source via Google translate, but it appears to say nothing that sounds like
- Removal of sourced information to RS:
- 18:49, 14 May 2021
On 14 May 2021, the Israeli army and Israeli settlers killed 10 (according to the Palestinian Health Ministry) Palestinian civilians in the West Bank who were in peaceful demonstrations and others while they were in their homes.[243]
- Misuse of Al Jazeera (RSP entry), noted as a partisan source in Arab–Israeli conflict.
- Original research and POV issues. Even Al Jazeera doesn't say what the editor is trying to say. It says nothing about people being shot for peaceful protest or for being in their homes. This is what the source says (entire article):
The number of Palestinians killed by Israeli fire during confrontations in the occupied West Bank has risen to 10, the Palestinian health ministry has said.
500 people were injured in different parts of the West Bank.
Violent protests erupted across the territory, with mainly young Palestinians hurling stones, Molotov cocktails and other projectiles at Israeli forces who have responded with tear gas, rubber bullet and live rounds, multiple sources said.
- Another entry on Al Jazeera[244] directly says otherwise, writing:
The Palestinian health ministry said nine Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces during protests across the occupied West Bank on Friday, and a sixth was killed during an attempt to stab an Israeli soldier near an illegal Israeli settlement in Yabad near Jenin.
- According to other sources:
Five were killed after protesters started throwing stones at Israeli troops, while the sixth was shot after ramming his car into a military post and then trying to stab a soldier, officials said.
- 20:46, 10 May 2021 On its own, probably fine. Along with the rest, appears like POV pushing.
- 20:45, 10 May 2021 Ditto
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 30 December 2018 Violating 500/30 to edit ARBPIA.
- 4 January 2019 Block for violation following unblock
- 25 January 2019 Block for gaming extended confirmed
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Report updated slightly in [245]. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Whether Al Jazeera is biased or not is not key to this report. The issue is that it appears the editor made all this up. The edits claim that Israeli armed forces shot Palestinian civilians in the West Bank while they were in their homes, and for peaceful protests, and that "the occupation army" protected Israeli settlers as they attacked Palestinian homes. Simultaneously removing actually verifiable information e.g. about the knife, also contained in the same source the editor used. Both Al Jazeera and Ma'an, as well as other HQRS, contradict what the editor wrote. (Unless it's me who can't read sources today?) Surely the editors below don't think that the report is about a numbers issue of 10 killed vs 6 killed on a current events topic... The edits are a complete fabrication. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC) e: 19:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- The assertion that the sources have changed their portrayal completely and that the edits were based on an old version of the source is difficult to believe. The archive here, from an earlier count, says
Palestinian health officials say six Palestinians have been killed by Israeli army fire in the occupied West Bank. The officials say five were killed in stone-throwing clashes with Israeli forces in several locations, and a sixth was killed during an attempt to stab an Israeli soldier.
This is before the figure was updated to 10. So are we seriously saying that Al Jazeera updated from "6 killed -> 5 throwing stones and a 6th trying to stab a soldier" to "10 killed -> they were all peacefully protesting and/or in their homes" and then reverted back to the original statement with the new count (without any notice of amendment)? Similar for the other source - Ma'an - which allegedly said that the IDF was protecting settlers as they attacked Palestinian homes, and then deleted that statement from their article? - Incidentally, I read this source between the user's two edits, and it didn't say anything of the sort at that time either. Again, whereas the tone and phrasing are secondary POV concerns, the primary one is persistent addition of statements that are nowhere to be seen in the sources. This unverifiable statement remains in the current article's revision. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- The assertion that the sources have changed their portrayal completely and that the edits were based on an old version of the source is difficult to believe. The archive here, from an earlier count, says
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [246]
Discussion concerning أمين
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 أمين
You have included text supported by two sources but you claim to be biased. How is it biased? Is it because I said the occupation army? I put two sources, but you retrieved my amendment, because I settled with one. By blocking a lot of amendments, you are biased toward the Israeli side You could also create a discussion to guide me about the sources and how to choose them, not start blocking me just because I am an Arab. أمين (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Al-Jazeera appears to have modified the text it published, because it removed some words such as settlers and homes. this is not my fault. أمين (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I will be more careful in using sources next time. أمين (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by selfstudier
For the sake of clarity, the first line of AJ entry says "Al Jazeera is considered a generally reliable news organization." That there are "some editors" who think it is biased for the IP area is not relevant. The discrepancy in the figures above is because this is a fast moving current event and the casualty count has apparently been rising all day, it was reported as 4, then 6, 9 and now 10 and reports are frequently changed.Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I have updated the article with the latest report (11 fatalities now) and removed material not in the current source.Selfstudier (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Nableezy
What WP:RSP says is Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Not that there is any consensus that al-Jazeera is anything other than a RS. In fact, the actual consensus position is summed up in the green check mark showing generally reliable. Disliking an editors edits is not an arbitration violation and misusing this board to remove an opponent because they used a generally reliable, per consensus, source merits a boomerang in my opinion. Including what numerous reliable sources discuss about the fatalities (that they included nine children) is likewise not a violation of an arbitration decision, and reporting it here merits a boomerang in my opinion. nableezy - 19:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- I will say that Ameen should take care not to import the POV of the sources here. The source uses "Israeli occupation forces", but we should be using "Israeli army" or "IDF" or some such thing. nableezy - 19:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- ProcrastinatingReader, the Maan source does indeed call them the occupation forces, which is what I said Ameen should be careful in importing the POV of his sources. As far as the al-Jazeera piece, it's a live link thats constantly changing. Best to avoid using such links and find a stable url, but what it currently says is According to the Palestinian health ministry, 10 Palestinians were killed by Israeli fire, nine of them during confrontations. The Israeli army said that one of them was killed after he tried to attack Israeli settlers. nableezy - 19:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I dont see where the source support that the deaths were of people peacefully protesting or in their homes, and that is indeed concerning. I mostly object to the way that this was presented as though using al-Jazeera is an offense when it is a perfectly reliable source. Or the addition of the number of children killed which is well sourced to a number of places being some sort of POV violation. nableezy - 22:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning أمين
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Content related to ongoing armed conflict is something we must get right. Ameen's edits don't seem to properly represent the sources, so even if made in good faith this pattern needs to stop. Given previous blocks, I would recommend a topic ban from ARBPIA for at least 6 months. I'm assuming I shouldn't take unilateral action at AE, so I'm leaving this open for more comments. — Wug·a·po·des 01:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Paragon Deku
Closed without action - appears to be a good-faith mistake on the part of Paragon Deku, there was no topic-area disruption here. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2021 (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 Paragon Deku
None.
On May 14, I provided the user notification of relevant general sanctions to the Israel-Palestine conflict. On May 15, despite having been notified, the user chose to participate in a move discussion, despite this being explicitly noted as a sort of behavior that was restricted only to extended-confirmed user in the relevant alert. I am requesting
The user was notified at 09:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Paragon DekuStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Paragon DekuI was not aware at all that I wasn’t allowed to participate in the vote because I do not have EC permissions, and that is my fault. I will strike my vote from the record. That being said, the sanctions warning did not mention this at all, and considering my previous interactions with the reporting user on other pages, I cannot help but feel that this is a personal vendetta against me rather than an earnest attempt to improve the encyclopedia. I have been very even handed in any discussions I made on the talk page in question. Paragon Deku (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by ParabolistThe notification you gave them says nothing about EC permissions. You've posted nothing to their talk page about EC permissions. You jumped straight here after striking out their comment, with no explanation of what EC permissions are. Given the fact that they are a new user, which is why they aren't extended confirmed, did you at any point consider explaining any of the complex rules involved to them? Even maybe linking them to what they would need to understand? Instead you've jumped straight to the club, which is absolutely indicative of SOMETHING. Parabolist (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by selfstudierIf there were to be a filing for everyone who voted in formal discussions but were not theoretically permitted to, this page would be very full. Why has the filing editor not filed any complaint in respect of all the other cases in the same discussion?Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by RandomCanadianWikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions is rather clear that "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive." The relevant page has no mention of "formal discussions" or anything so that doesn't appear to justify, even if I ignore WP:CREEP, the claim that a good faith, constructive comment on a RM (which is not disruptive) should be striken through for violating one of our arcane policies. WP:AGF and WP:BITE are not just someone's imagination but common practice, and I don't see why we should do anything against the reported user. He's been here sporadically for just about 5 years, and is just some edits shy of the 500 count, and doesn't have any of the trappings of usual SPAs. They were notified about the sanctions (but not given an explanation as to why their edits might not be allowed) less than a day before this. Suggest closing without action, allowing their good-faith !vote on the RM to stand (done so), and trouting OP. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Paragon Deku
|
TrottieTrue
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 TrottieTrue
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 07:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- TrottieTrue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#May 2014
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 01:15, 16 May 2021 Adds a year of birth referenced by this, in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Where is the evidence "Kate Osborne" and this "Katharine Helen Osborne" are the same person? The disclaimer at the bottom of the page is particularly troubling,
We make no warranty whatsoever as to the accuracy or completeness of the FreeBMD data.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 20:39, 4 May 2021
logged warning to use only high-quality sources for information relating to biographies of living persons
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1066#TrottieTrue at least two editors suggested a ban on BLPs might be needed entirely, I'd suggest the bare minimum that's needed is a topic ban relating to dates of birth.
- From the comments below,
They claim to have little interest in UK politics, yet are picking up on my mistakes in this topic area quite readily - leading me to suspect they are watching my activity . . . these bad faith accusations against me . . . Wikipedia:Assume good faith
The history of Kate Osborne ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) clearly shows this edit by me on 3 May. Obviously if someone truly was assuming good faith, like they insist others do, they might consider that the only "watching" going is because I watchlisted the article.
- Also from the reply below,
Searching at FreeBMD only brings up one matching result for Katharine Helen Osborne
. My jaw has literally hit the flaw on reading this. It is wholly unacceptable to assume that they are the same person based on the results of a search. That they would consider doing this so soon after the close of the previous enforcement request (which was again solely relating to dates of birth of living people) is staggering. FDW777 (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note this change to their post after my previous reply. FDW777 (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Also the claim that I said
They claim to have little interest in UK politics
is misleading. The post referred to is this, and I saidNot because of any pressing interest in the vast majority of UK politics
, the vast majority generally being politics unrelated to Ireland. As now admitted below, I had edited Kate Osborne before to remove an unreferenced date of birth, and as Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive285#TrottieTrue demonstrates, TrottieTrue has a tendency to restore dates of birth with questionable references. This is aptly demonstrated by the fact I'm even posting here now, as TrottieTrue did indeed restore a partial date of birth at Kate Osborne with an unquestionably bad reference. So it would seem my prudent watchlisting of that article was in fact correct. FDW777 (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Also the claim that I said
- Further to my reply about searching FreeBMD, the website's home page states
FreeBMD is an ongoing project, the aim of which is to transcribe the Civil Registration index of births, marriages and deaths for England and Wales . . . To search the records that have so far been transcribed by FreeBMD
. Should certain points of that not raise giant red flags? Point 1, it only covers England and Wales. What if someone had been born in Scotland, Northern Ireland, or even outside the UK? Point 2, it says it's a work in progress and that the records are not complete. Thus, even if it was permitted per WP:NOR (which it isn't) and WP:BLP (which it isn't), it should be glaringly obvious that simply searching for a name and only finding one result gives absolutely no guarantee that the record you've found is the same person you're looking for. FDW777 (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Further to my reply about searching FreeBMD, the website's home page states
@Valereee: I'd have been happier if I'd not have had to waste time filing this at all. But despite several previous discussions (as well as the previous AE report see User talk:TrottieTrue#BLP:PRIMARY, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#Dates of birth for politicians and an IP User and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive332#Disruptive and uncivil IP user, including vandalism) TrottieTrue thought it was acceptable to clearly violate WP:BLPPRIMARY again regarding the date of birth of a living person. I didn't seek out this edit, they violated it on an article on my watchlist. My belief, based on past and present history, is that TrottieTrue will continue to add dates of birth to articles about living people, and if the BLP policy just happens to get in the way of the edit they want to make they'll simply ignore the policy. FDW777 (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
they haven't taken issue with List of living former United Kingdom MPs, which includes hundreds of unreferenced years of birth
, are you saying that with a straight face? I have made numerous posts at Talk:List of living former United Kingdom MPs about that exact issue. In face, you are 100% aware of this because you made a complaint about my post on that page at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1066#Incivility by User:FDW777. There is one very good reason I haven't removed all the dates, because I can't be bothered to manually remove hundreds of dates from individual fields. There is no quick way of doing it, it's a time consuming process and I simply don't want to waste time doing it at present.
The issue here appears to be that FDW777 claims I have violated BLP policy by using FreeBMD. There is no consensus on this website. I understand that it could be viewed as "public records", and therefore a violation of BLP policy, but I didn't violate it on purpose, as has been suggested
. Anyone looking at FreeBMD can see it's nothing other than public records, it's a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. In their earlier statement they said Where is the evidence that Kate Osborne and the BMD entry are the same person? . . . Searching at FreeBMD only brings up one matching result for Katharine Helen Osborne
. As detailed in my comment at 17:52, 16 May, FreeBMD only covers England and Wales and is not complete. Therefore to perform a search, find only one record, then assume "Aha, that must be the same person" is not acceptable under any circumstances. FDW777 (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Since this point has been ignored before, I'll emphasise it. There is currently no evidence Kate Osborne was born in England. There was an unreferenced claim she was born in Folkestone, Kent, but I can find absolutely no evidence it is true. I assume, unless evidence to the contrary can be provided, it was originally added based on the assumption that the FreeBMD does indeed refer to her. Let's say for the sake of argument she was born in Scotland. Would a record of her birth appear by searching FreeBMD? No, since it only has (partial) coverage of England and Wales. That would make the "Katharine Helen Osborne" born in Folkestone in 1966 a totally different person. Or let's assume she was born somewhere and/or in some year that FreeBMD have yet to transcribe records for. That would again make the "Katharine Helen Osborne" born in Folkestone in 1966 a totally different person. This is precisely why searches of databases of public records are not acceptable references, and they are absolutely not
high-quality sources for information relating to biographies of living persons
as required by the logged warning from the previous AE report. FDW777 (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning TrottieTrue
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 TrottieTrue
I feel like I'm being harassed by FDW777, since their recent complaint about me resulted in a one-way interaction ban preventing me from contacting them. They claim to have little interest in UK politics, yet are picking up on my mistakes in this topic area quite readily - leading me to suspect they are watching my activity (they note they've edited Kate Osborne before, but it was only to remove my edit!). Anyway, I did not realise that FreeBMD was a source to be avoided, although it appears to have a good reputation. I used it because I had seen it used on BLP articles before: see Frank Kitchen, Tony Barrow and Karl Sabbagh. A search for FreeBMD in BLP articles brings up 877 results. Nonetheless, I apologise if this is a source to be avoided, as I can see how it might be interpreted as "public records". I was only using it to cite the year of birth and place though, not the full date. Where is the evidence that Kate Osborne and the BMD entry are the same person? The election results from South Tyneside council state the winner of Jarrow was "Katharine Helen Brooks-Osborne Commonly known as Kate OSBORNE". As she is married to Pamela Brooks, it can be deduced that this is her double-barrelled married name (see also [247]). Searching at FreeBMD only brings up one matching result for Katharine Helen Osborne. The marriage was actually unreferenced, but I have now added a citation for it. I didn't see the logged warning about only using "high-quality sources" because it was added after the case had closed. I suffer from chronic health problems, and these bad faith accusations against me exacerbate the issues. I have made thousands of edits (particularly on BLP articles) without issue, and spent time researching better sources. User:Johnuniq misunderstands my issue with the IP editor - it was not the first time they had alerted me, and I found their comment violated WP:CIVILITY: "No. You should see WP:BLPPRIMARY and learn the policies and learn your facts." I think a topic ban would be highly disproportionate: "at least two editors suggested a ban on BLPs might be needed entirely" is mentioned. This was from two editors who are not administrators (one of whom was abusive towards me in their reply), and WP is in danger of being ruled by the court of public opinion on these matters. I'm happy not to use FreeBMD again, and exercise extreme caution with anything similar, but I don't think arbitration requests like this are the right way to treat an editor like myself who has made a big contribution to the site. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. FDW777 actually suggested years of birth being used for another BLP article here (no mention of references being needed), a solution enacted by the administrator who created the article, User:Andrew Gray. I have been adding full DOBs with RS citations to that article since then. I think a sense of perspective is needed here, and some compassion. There’s a lot of smears about me here - I’m clearly being victimised. I certainly didn’t violate policy intentionally.--TrottieTrue (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- User:Johnuniq: Well, it feels like it is "bad faith accusations against me". Surely I'm entitled to say how I perceive a situation, whether others think it is "correct" or not. I previously left a message on FDW777's talk page asking them to refrain from harassment of other editors. Surely that message should be taken seriously too, instead of removed with the comment "don't post here again". The comment left by the IP editor wasn't the first time they had posted on my talk page, and I don't think "you should learn your facts" is the most constructive way to draw my attention to BLP policy. The issue here appears to be that FDW777 claims I have violated BLP policy by using FreeBMD. There is no consensus on this website. I understand that it could be viewed as "public records", and therefore a violation of BLP policy, but I didn't violate it on purpose, as has been suggested. However, that source has been used on hundreds of other BLP articles. If I see it used regularly, am I not going to think that it's acceptable as a source? Not to mention the fact that FDW777 is picking and choosing when policy gets enforced, and who for; they haven't taken issue with List of living former United Kingdom MPs, which includes hundreds of unreferenced years of birth. Hence it feels like they are singling me out for this treatment. Surely the best way is to build consensus; it could have been politely pointed out to me if there was a problem with my edit on Kate Osborne. Instead, yet again, FDW777 is escalating it to AR. If you look at my list of edits, you'll see that I have been adding DOBs with reliable sources, to improve the articles; I was just under the impression that FreeBMD was acceptable as a source. As ever, this discussion has got way out of hand, when a more consensual discussion could have resolved things sooner. But there's probably little point in me arguing my case here, as I won't get a fair hearing. My good work at WP clearly counts for nothing. I apologise for using FreeBMD, if that's the issue, and won't use it again for BLP, but I'm uncomfortable with the same editor repeatedly reporting me for such issues.--TrottieTrue (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Further to the additional comments above by the complainant, I would like to emphatically state that I already accept the point about avoiding FreeBMD as a source for BLP articles, and apologise for using it on this occasion. However, if such policies are not enforced consistently across WP, it’s easy to see why an editor like myself might be misled into thinking they are acceptable. Last night I actually removed Findmypast as a source for a DOB at Martin Whitfield, and replaced it with a better reference.
- I have contacted User:Valereee by email about my health conditions, which I didn’t want to mention before, for obvious reasons - for one thing, they are private, and I don’t want to share personal information in a public forum like this. However, a volunteer-run organisation needs to take these things into account - it is in fact standard practice, and could lead Wikipedia open to accusations of discrimination, especially when multiple editors and administrators join together to harangue an editor who has a disability.
- Incidentally, my reverted edit to Kate Osborne included her full name (as cited on the election results statement), so it was unnecessarily removed by the complainant. There were other unreferenced statements about her on the article which I have now cited or removed: for example, her spouse has been referenced, and the "birth name" in the infobox has been taken out, as it was (wrongly) assumed that the name she used to be sworn into Parliament was her birth name.—TrottieTrue (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Buidhe
I recommended a topic ban from BLP at the ANI. At this point TT has made it abundantly clear that they are either unable or unwilling to consistently follow the requirement to properly source biographies. (t · c) buidhe 17:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Result concerning TrottieTrue
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I see an IP providing correct advice to two editors at User talk:TrottieTrue#BLP:PRIMARY. I would be inclined to endorse a BLP topic ban based on the dismissive reply to the IP in which TrottieTrue asserts that being provided a correct link to policy is a civility problem. The previous AE report resulting in "logged warning to use only high-quality sources" from Seraphimblade is here and that further demonstrates the need for a topic ban. Any thoughts on this? Indefinite? Johnuniq (talk) 07:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- @TrottieTrue: It is not correct to describe the situation as "bad faith accusations against me". Also, I do not misunderstand your issue with the IP editor. If someone leaves a message on your talk, that message needs to be taken seriously. Of course it might be wrong but it would be better to ask for independent advice, say at WP:BLPN or WP:Teahouse rather than dismiss the reporter. What is needed on this page is a focus on the issue—do you know what that is? Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am not experienced here at AE, but I'd like to register that I'm a little uncomfortable with a situation in which editor X has a one-way iban from editor Y, and editor Y brings editor X to AE. Is that something that makes other people uncomfortable, or am I way off base here? (Please ping, IRL is crazy right now). —valereee (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- valereee, it looks like the IBAN is a community sanction, not AE. That said, if only one party is subject to that sanction, the other is, well, not. (Of course if the editor who is interaction banned is the direct subject of the report, they are permitted to defend themself, and have already done so here.) So no, the filer did nothing wrong here by putting forth the request. That aside, it looks like the warning did not have the desired effect, so it is time for an actual sanction to be issued. I would agree to an indefinite BLP topic ban, with the usual note that "indefinite" need not necessarily mean "permanent" and it could be relaxed after some reasonable period of time, if there is a clear desire and ability to do better. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Seraphimblade, I'm sorry, to clarify it's not that I think FDW777 did anything wrong. I just that I think one-ways are really difficult situations for the person who has the restriction, and my very strong feeling is that best practices are that the other editor just try to ignore the person who has the iban from them. —valereee (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- @FDW777, I get it. I really do. I've also filed reports that I felt like were a waste of my time. I am actually not questioning you as much as I am our processes and policies. Honestly I'm wondering if we need to require that reports can't be filed by someone on either end of an iban. Because if we know FDW777 can't keep an eye on this user, someone else will. —valereee (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Valereee: There is no problem about the one-way iban. While they are rare, the usual situation is that user X notices that user Y is repeatedly introducing some problem. Rather than fixing the problem, Y sometimes retaliates against X but a discussion finds that Y's complaints about X are sufficiently unfounded and repeated to warrant a one-way iban. The whole point of making it one way is so X can continue to monitor the situation because often they are the only editor willing to do so. At any rate, that is a discussion for WP:VPPRO. Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well, this probably isn't the place, but if editor X is the only person willing to monitor editor Y, and no one else is even noticing what editor Y is doing, maybe we need to rethink how bad editor Y's issues are. Because if editor X can't and still no one else puts it on their watch list...how bad is it? I mean, I get it. I've been the only one who was willing to keep monitoring the problem, and when it became clear I was involved, other people stepped in. —valereee (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- And, er, I'll shut up now, as I'm the newb here. —valereee (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- TrottieTrue, to be clear, FDW777 is quite correct about the issues with your editing, and your statement Incidentally, my reverted edit to Kate Osborne included her full name (as cited on the election results statement), so it was unnecessarily removed by the complainant. is actually further evidence against you. My concern here is not that FDW777 is not bringing a valid concern. It's that as a matter of policy Wikipedia probably should be strongly encouraging those in an i-ban -- even a one-way i-ban -- to ask another uninvolved editor to bring such concerns. —valereee (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq, FDW777 actually said they'd be fine with a 2-way as they didn't want to feel like they had to monitor TT. They were talked out of it because they were advised it might affect their ability to edit in their primary interest because if TT had edited there, they wouldn't be able to undo something. So, no, the point of this i-ban wasn't to make sure they could still monitor this person because no one else would. I'm sorry to derail this discussion, I really will shut up now other than to say I think a
1-yeartopic ban from BLPs probably is needed. I'd like an exception for their own user talk, as I'd like to make an attempt to see if I can make a dent in their understanding of sources for BLP facts. —valereee (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well, this probably isn't the place, but if editor X is the only person willing to monitor editor Y, and no one else is even noticing what editor Y is doing, maybe we need to rethink how bad editor Y's issues are. Because if editor X can't and still no one else puts it on their watch list...how bad is it? I mean, I get it. I've been the only one who was willing to keep monitoring the problem, and when it became clear I was involved, other people stepped in. —valereee (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Valereee: There is no problem about the one-way iban. While they are rare, the usual situation is that user X notices that user Y is repeatedly introducing some problem. Rather than fixing the problem, Y sometimes retaliates against X but a discussion finds that Y's complaints about X are sufficiently unfounded and repeated to warrant a one-way iban. The whole point of making it one way is so X can continue to monitor the situation because often they are the only editor willing to do so. At any rate, that is a discussion for WP:VPPRO. Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)