TrangaBellam
TrangaBellam and GizzyCatBella have received logged warnings; Marcelus is subject to a 0RR. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:18, 7 March 2023 (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 TrangaBellam
I need to report TrangaBellam behavior regarding the Naliboki massacre article and its talk page. To keep it brief. There has been a discussion for some time about the content of one of the sections. TrangaBellam not engaging in the discussion did change the section title, I reverted it inviting user to join the discussion. Twice. Then the user made a much larger edition, which I also reverted, invoking the WP:BRD method and inviting to discussion. It started WP:EDITWARRING. Afraid of breaking the WP:3RR rule, I withdrew the last one, asking TrangaBellam to voluntarily withdraw from the changes and join the ongoing discussions. TrangaBellam ignored the ongoing discussions and started new ones, in which he acted as if they were new WP:CONSENSUS. He refused to revert the changes and continue to editing discussed section ingoring my pleas to stop doing so. TrangaBellam accused me of "engaging in a fair amount of acrobatics to push a particular ahistorical POV", without claryfing what he means about that. To me, this is an example of WP:DISRUPTIVE, as expressed on WP:CONSENSUS: Response to Gitz:
Discussion concerning TrangaBellamStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by TrangaBellamPaging Levivich, Adoring nanny, K.e.coffman, Gitz6666, Horse Eye's Back and GizzyCatBella — the other participants in this discussion, article (today), and the ANI thread. I believe their opinion might be of aid. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Response to GCBGCB promised to shorten the list of diffs to ELC but it didn't happen. So, I am bound to respond to all, despite being at an inherent disadvantage:
Response to Calanecc
That said, all of these diffs (barring #2) concern a single article on a single day about a fortnight ago; I even made amends with the recipient of the only PA a whole week ago. So, ...
Statement by K.e.coffmanI'm not sure that my voice was ignored, and all of my edits were removed diff is a sufficient reason to open ANI and AE threads. For the preceding ANI, pls see: thread. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by My very best wishesI noticed that TrangaBellam also made this large-scale removal of sourced text on another page, during an active discussion on article talk page, but without having any sign of WP:Consensus for such removal [2],[3]. This text was sourced to publications by Jan T. Gross, Ann Applebaum, Tadeusz Piotrowski and Aleksander Wat, among many others. None of these authors belong to fringe Polish nationalists. The views by authors were not misrepresented on the page, as far as I can see. I think such removal was unhelpful for building WP:Consensus on the page. But this does not rise to the level requiring any sanctions, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by GitzMarcelus complains that This is not only a content dispute. First, it's a blatant case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, with Marcelus ignoring the arguments made by other editors. Secondly, Marcelus violated the 3RR (13:50, 2 March 2023; 13:37, 2 March 2023; 12:03, 2 March 2023; 11:56, 2 March 2023), engaged in disruptive/tendentious editing ([18], reverting my reverts of their text on Nowicki and Boradyn; [19], unexplained removal, not accounted for in the edit summary, of I believe WP:BOOMERANG is in order and badly needed in the delicate area of Antisemitism in Poland. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by GizzyCatBellaWithout remarking on the already carried forward disturbing factors of TrangaBellam's behaviour, I would like to draw the attention of the reviewing administrators to the serious incivility issues..
and refusal to refactor that personal attack with straight No When asked about the same, my appeal was reverted with the accusations of trolling [29] (see edit summary] Here is the list of incivility - that is just from the last few days:
Statement by Horse Eye's BackI was originally going to abstain from participating here as I feel that the move from ANI to here was inorganic and bludgeoned[31][32][33][34][35]. That was until I looked through the diffs which GizzyCatBella provided, going through them I was struck by two things: first the vast majority of the diffs don't actually contain the sanctionable behavior described in the link ("battleground and aspersions" etc), the second thing I noticed in the diffs is that GizzyCatBella appears to be sealioning the conversation (some would call it stonewalling, but I think more specifically its sealioning). They have a habit of popping into conversations and asking very direct questions which are tangential to the issue under discussion which most often effectively derail that conversation (GizzyCatBella often abandons the discussion after throwing the wrench). Taken on their own each appears to be civil and the result of GizzyCatBella's curiosity. Taken as a pattern of behavior its extremely disruptive. At Talk:Tadeusz Piotrowski (sociologist)[36] at Talk:Naliboki massacre[37][38][39][40][41][42] at Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust[43][44] at Talk:The Forgotten Holocaust[45][46] at Talk:Kielce pogrom[47] and at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard[48]. On the topic of Marcelus they appear to have reverted three other editors and then pretended to be the victim. Thank you for your consideration. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Statement by LevivichI was pinged and am involved so take it with a grain of salt, but I think there's a big difference between TB and GCB. TB has never been warned or otherwise sanctioned in this topic area before AFAIK and shouldn't be TBANed as a first sanction, at most warned. GCB on the other hand has been sanctioned previously and disruptive lately: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, plus the ones that were add/removed: +1/-1, +2/-2, +3/-3. Levivich (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC) A few things to consider:
Statement by AndreasI would be in favour of final warnings rather than topic bans at this point. The editors concerned are doing productive work to remedy some of the failings highlighted by the Grabowski/Klein essay (and as problematic as some of the attributions of guilt in that essay are, it also pointed out some real problems with sourcing in this topic area). Let us please not throw out the baby with the bathwater. --Andreas JN466 12:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Statement by Volunteer MarekI was going to stay away from this but above TB says Here's the thing... I have not made ANY edits to either the talk page of that article or the article itself. Here, check for yourselves. Search for "Marek". So why is TB accusing me of saying something on a talk page when I literally didn't make ANY edits to that talk page? This seems to be similar to the situation described above by MyVeryBestWishes where TB accuses MVBW of accusing them of "anti-semitism" even though MVBW did no such thing. (No opinion on whether saying "The POV-pushing in this area beggars belief" constitutes casting aspersions (I guess in general?) or battleground language) Volunteer Marek 06:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Statement by Paul Siebert
This is the ONLY sentence where she discusses that diff. In the next sentence, she conveys a totally different idea: she is trying to explain our policy to GCB. She writes:
In other words, TB takes the words of her opponent as an example of what is NOT a personal attack (which is an asccusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.). I think TB's words are commendable, not punishable. I cannot believe VM was acting in a bad faith, he just misread the TP's statement, who wrote nothing bad about him in that her post. Quite an opposite: she mentioned him as an example of a correct behaviour. I think VP should retract his post and apologise for his ______________________________________________________________________________________ With regard to "antisemitism", I think Levivich's description seems correct. However, as soon as MVBW was mentioned, I would like to point admin's attention at this MVBW's statement: Why am I discussing it here? That issue is less relevant to the TB's case, but is totally relevant to the bigger "Holocaust in Poland" case. It shows one of the mechanism of introduction of distortion: the statements like "I believe the views of the authors were not misinterpreted" is something that have never been punished by admins, because it is neither a personal attack, nor an edit/revert in the article space. However, in reality, by supporting false claims, and by falsely claiming that "views by authors were not misrepresented", the users commit the worst violation of Wikipedia's policy: they help keeping misinformation in the article space. Until we make the statements of that kind severely punishable, we never resolve the problem with misinformation in the Holocaust in Poland (and related) areas. Indeed, the attitude towards a user "A" who falsely writes in the article that, e.g. "an author X says that Jews were responsible for Y", and a user "B" who says (on a talk page) that the text added by a user "A" contains no misinterpretation should be the same: both "A" and "B" are doing a nasty job that leads to a gross distortion of what sources say, and they both should be sanctioned equally. If I exceeded the 500 word limit, I can remove this my post from this page, but I would like to add it as an evidence to the Holocaust in Poland case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Statement by ElinrubyThe following concerns GizzyCatBella at Collaboration with the Axis Powers, although I had previously encountered her preconceptions ([49]) at other articles. She seems to strangely misunderstand policy. At an RSN post about a statement that Blue Police in Poland were recruited "on pain of death", she seemed offended that I would ask. I could not find the Polish-language book sourcing the statement online, and had asked if anyone could verify it. GCB posted saying:When I was unconvinced by this primary source: Horse Eye's Back and Rotary Engine disagreed with her translation, btw. Later that night I moved the first sentence in the Poland section to the talk page because I couldn't verify any of its six sources:[50] GCB was again affronted. Piotrus correctly reminded me that "verifiable" is not "readable online," but proposed other sources. At 8:09, pinging GCB, I agreed to use one of these, after I got coffee, since I was apparently tired enough to make mistakes. GCB refused to take yes for an answer at 8:11, 8:36 and 8:53. The entire thread is worth the click imho. Elinruby (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Request to admins: Marcelus just made a proposal at Talk:Collaboration with the Axis powers (BRD fail section), and I invited him to develop it further. Since it looks like he's headed for a sanction, can you please tailor it to allow him to do that? Make that page an exception or whatever? I promise not to get into a knife-fight with him, am familiar with his work, and would welcome his input on the history. It would be hard to discuss rewrites if he had a 0RR restriction or topic ban. Thank you for any thought you give this. Elinruby (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Result concerning TrangaBellam
|
TheTranarchist
It is debatable whether a) any of the diffs presented violate TheTranarchist's topic ban, and b) whether that would be a matter for AE if they did. Given how new the topic ban is, and that it is still under discussion elsewhere, TheTranarchist gets the benefit of the doubt but is strongly advised to find something uncontroversial to edit. Note that "dispute resolution concerning the ban itself" (eg clarifying the scope with the imposing administrator) is permitted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:45, 5 March 2023 (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 TheTranarchist
The user has been told to not try to push the limits of her topic ban (23:21, 4 March 2023), but despite that, the user has continued to do so. Rather than abiding by the topic ban that the community has already imposed, the user has decided to make GENSEX-related edits, going onto the talk page of an administrator and openly calling for sanctions against Jweiss11 for GENSEX editing that the user objected to, publicly alleging a COI without providing any sort of on-wiki evidence. This was not related to any sort of appeal of their sanction, nor was it reverting obvious vandalism, nor was this portion of the comment addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. For these reasons, I plainly ask that the editor be formally reminded to not violate her topic ban, with a note that future attempts to stretch the limits will not be looked favorably upon by the community. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning TheTranarchistStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by TheTranarchist
I already stepped away from GENSEX. Those examples are all meta-discussions of my case. The final one is literally me saying goodbye to GENSEX on my own userpage. I get it, I'm already staying far far far away from GENSEX, I've been chased off and from now on I won't even mention the case either since that's GENSEX editing apparently. This just feels like rubbing salt in the wound.TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist
Statement by Silver serenNone of this even has anything to do with editing in the GENSEX topic area. Apparently responding to an ongoing AN discussion about them counts as a violation? That's ridiculous. I don't know why you're still trying to go after this editor, Red-tailed hawk, but I think it says more about your own biases than anything else. As for Jweiss11, if you wants diffs that they are just blatantly a WP:NOTHERE editor, this one is pretty explanatory. Unless you think commentary of this kind is appropriate;
I'm not sure why pointing out a known POV-pushing editing problem, in a manner that is far beyond any specific GENSEX issue, as TheTranarchist noted in the very diff you gave, is a violation. SilverserenC 21:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Statement by Ppt91Does the editor have no right to respond while the close review is still ongoing? These are all related to that review. I am genuinely curious as to whether this is an actual violation, because if not, then this feels excessive and unnecessarily stifling. And while I would encourage TheTranarchist to disengage as much as possible, I am also wary of going overboard with endless accusations of misconduct. Ppt91talk 22:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Statement by (kcmastrpc)There are two areas that concern me, the primary one is making comments about the political climate / genocide on the users own talk page post-ban (which was briefly mentioned by the filer) and to a lesser degree, the comments made on the talk page of CaptainEek by TTA (specifically, making comments about another editors actions in GENSEX). I support a very succinct warning, and my hope is that this matter can be put behind us and discussions continue around how to make this community healthier and more inclusive to editors. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning TheTranarchist
|
Flibirigit
Article in question is not subject to AE, and the concern itself is a simple misunderstanding. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2023 (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 Flibirigit
Discussion concerning FlibirigitStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by FlibirigitStatement by (username)Result concerning Flibirigit
|
Springee
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Springee
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- FormalDude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Springee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 19:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Springee removes a contradictory and significant portion of a sentence, misrepresenting what the source says in a flagrant NPOV violation.
- 02:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Immediately challenges my revert of their edit on the talk page by claiming that "police found no damage to the door" does not mean the same thing as "police did not observe any visible damage to the front door".
- 05:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Continues to make objections with no substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines, or conventions.
- 06:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Tries WP:STONEWALLING by using the dispute they created as a reason to support their version.
- 06:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Finally comes up with a policy based justification: half a sentence is apparently undue weight.
- 11:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC) "We cherrypick all the time."
- 12:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC) To back up their undue weight claim, they make a list of sources that don't mention the portion of the sentence they want removed because they only listed sources that were published before the relevant information was made public.
- 12:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Continues to imply that their list of sources from the first initial days when the story broke, before the disputed content was made public, is a reason to not include said content. Also casts doubt on a greenlit RS with no reasoning.
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I realize some may see this as primarily a content dispute, but the diffs I provide show Springee's editing is textbook disruptive POV pushing. I can't see how it is possible for an editor as experienced as Springee to make these edits in good faith.
I propose Springee be, at a minimum, indefinitely blocked from editing Tucker Carlson and its talk page. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- To those saying it was too early for me to start this request, I would have waited in most other scenarios, but this is a hotbed article with an longtime experienced editor who should clearly know better than to make the arguments they did. I wanted to draw attention to what the experience is like when one tries to make a simple, policy-based edit supported by 1 2 3 4 reliable sources at Tucker Carlson. This is not the only time Springee has used less than impartial tactics, as Dlthewave pointed out below. Springee has over 500 combined edits to Tucker Carlson and its talk page over the past 3 years–nobody else involved in the discussion has anywhere near that amount in the same timespan. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Springee
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Springee
Statement by (slatersteven)
I could argue (and will do so) that both parties can be argued to be at fault. "did not observe" doesn't quite mean the same as "did not find", as one can be seen as a classic plausible deniability as it implies there might have been some, just not seen. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by (Bookku)
- Uninvolved opinion. (Sorry for totally unaware of topic area)
- Brief check of difs and talk page seem to indicate above complaint largely seems to be content dispute brought here before completing protocol mentioned @ WP:DDE
- IMO content disputes are best resolved through regular WP:DR IMO people need to have more patience and WP:Goodfaith about fruitfulness of WP:DR. Always think over giving best chance to WP:DDE andWP:DR before coming to ARE.
Statement by Peter Gulutzan
I noticed an earlier case where FormalDude reverted Springee in order to re-insert contentious material in the Tucker Carlson BLP article, on 23:54 5 March 2023, despite two other editors having indicated on the talk page that they were not in favour of the contentious material (later it was removed). FormalDude joined the talk page discussion 3 minutes after the edit, and I had previously -- in an unrelated matter -- asked FormalDude to look at WP:BLPUNDEL so there shouldn't be doubt here about awareness. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Thebiguglyalien
Involved. I believe that Springee and FormalDude have both been engaging inappropriately in this discussion. I'm sure that they both believe their position would improve the article, but neither seems willing to engage in dispute resolution or to assume good faith (evidenced in one case by the fact that we escalated straight to AE), and the end result is that they're both disrupting any meaningful collaboration on this article. They're not the only ones to do so in recent days, but they're the ones we're talking about here. We haven't reached the point where I'd recommend restrictions against one or both editors, but I wouldn't object to it either. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm challenging some of Dlthewave's statement. Dlthewave has been engaging tendentiously by attempting to enforce a negative POV on the article:
- They insisted that it was required by policy to call Carlson racist in wikivoice and implied I had ulterior motives for disagreeing (diff), saying that we had to use the exact word choice of a source even after WP:LABEL and WP:CLOP were explained to them (diff).
- They deleted a talk page discussion (diff) against the poster's wishes (diff).
- They twice restored WP:SYNTH content that had been removed (diff and diff) and refused to meaningfully address concerns about the sourcing when asked (diff)
- There are more before this, these are the ones since I became involved a few days ago. Dlthewave's statement, particularly points 3 and 4, is trying to litigate talk page arguments where they were out of step with policy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Dlthewave
Involved. Like most disputes, this does involve content, however I would encourage folks to look at the bigger picture as this is part of a larger ongoing pattern of tendentious editing by Springee at the Tucker Carlson article. This editor continually invokes made-up rules and unusual interpretations of policy and I think that editors are getting tired of humoring these fallacious arguments. Here are a few recent ones:
- 17:12 20 Feb 2023 - Arguing that content shouldn't be added because the article is already too long and editors don't trim material when making additions (why on earth would they be expected to do that?):
" “The whole article is already too long and editors typically don't remove or consolidate old content when adding new material.”
- 20:32 7 March 2023 - Proposing that we predict the subject's significance in "50 or 100 years" (this is absurb, we usually use the 5-year test) and invoking a bizarre standard that compares the subject's significance and article length to a random historical figure:
"Perhaps a better way to look at it is how significant will Carlson be in 50 or 100 years. Let's apply the Hooke test. Take someone like Robert Hooke. Are we going to claim Carlson is more significant than Hooke? If no then chances are this bio is too long."
- 02:46 11 March 2023 - Referring to "racist" and "anti-Islamic" as "subjective claims" and violations of IMPARTIAL, despite being used verbatim by multiple reliable sources:
"We also don't treat subjective claims as fact in wiki-voice, hence why LABEL exists. The long standing versions of the text in question was careful to attribute the claims to their sources. You have chosen to instead put them in wiki-voice in violation of LABEL and IMPARTIAL."
- 06:19 11 March 2023 - Same argument as above, but with the assertion that even the Washington Post (!) isn't sufficient to support these words in Wiki voice:
"The diff I linked to has the long standing text. Even with the consolidation, that is the text we should follow. Also, even if the Washington Post says it, these are still LABELs."
- 19:48 11 March 2023 - Proposing that Reason (a biased source whose opinions must be attributed) be used to provide a more "balanced" and "impartial" POV than the existing MSNBC source.
"Willbb234, I think this content is clearly due. However, I think the current presentation is unbalanced. The Reason source could be used as a more balanced source as well as more IMPARTIAL tone."
- 20:06 11 March 2023 - Same thread as above, again saying that reliable sources go "too far" and the biased source (Reason) should be used as a middle ground between Carlson's version of the events and what RS reported.
Although Springee's arguments apppear superficially polite and policy-based, they all too often misrepresent sources, P&G and common practices. Editors shouldn't be expected to "resolve disputes" with an experienced editor who behaves this way. –dlthewave ☎ 17:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- I need to address a few of the points made by Thebiguglyalien. I'm open to feedback about my editing, however some of this seems like an attempt to discredit me in order to obviate my concerns about Springee:
- I did not "delete" a talk page discussion against anyone's wishes, I moved it to the relevant user's talk page. I pinged the two participants with a "I hope this is okay" note; this is the first objection that anyone's raised. Please either provide a diff demonstrating that this was against the poster's wishes or strike the accusation.
- The editor who challenged the content refused to elaborate when I asked them to explain the SYNTH concern. The best answers I got were "I suggest using your eyes" [58] and the nonensical "adding additional sources to support specific parts of the content violates WP:SYNTH" [59]. I gave my rationale for inclusion (after I once again asked for clarification [60] and editors insisted that I first make a case for inclusion [61]. Please either provide diffs where a viable SYNTH concern was expressed (I generally disregard content challenges that do not have a valid explanation) or strike the accusation. I do apologise for not seeing the SYNTH issue when I looked with my eyes, I will now go flagellate myself with the CIR stick. –dlthewave ☎ 20:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment by GoodDay
Content disputes should be worked out at the talkpage of where the dispute is occuring. If a stalemate of sorts occurs, then one should begin an RFC there or go to the Dispute Resolution board. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Spy-cicle
I have not been involved in this specific discussion on the talk page, but I have previously edited the Carlson talk page 6 times over a year ago. After reading this discussion, I do not see this as "textbook POV pushing" to me it just appears to be a content dispute in already contentious topic area. WP:BLPRESTORE is worth considering as well. If so clear consensus can be found it can be resolved via an RfC or DR. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 18:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Atsme
I will state upfront that I do not watch Tucker Carlson because I find his laugh extremely irritating, but that's my opinion. Our job is to include the facts and far less opinion. We are obligated to dredge objectively through the material so that we are publishing all relative points of view in a neutral dispassionate tone. What I'm seeing here now is another episode of "let's get Springee" which crops up every now and then because Springee dares to maintain an objective and neutral POV. Neutrality is quickly becoming a thing of the past because of mainstream media's bias – on all sides...globally, not to mention the omission of important events. The Columbia Journalism Review brought some serious issues to our attention in their 4 part report, which included a quote by Matt Taibbi about how the more neutral approach to reporting has gone completely out the window. We are seeing it here now because we are nothing more than a mirror of mainstream media. Springee simply removed suggestive language that leaves readers with the wrong impression because information that belongs in the article was omitted. He's a good editor doing his job as a good editor. So the OP brings us all these innocuous diffs under the pretense Springee is being disruptive. The only disruption I'm seeing is the OP wasting our time here now. Another issue that we're seeing in recent years is omissions which have become the norm in mainstream media. Is it a new style of writing that our editors have picked up on? Some journalists are actually demanding that their personal truths be published and to hell with NPOV. The mere fact that Springee's appropriate responses and edits have raised such a stir speaks volumes to the OP's approach, not to Springee's, especially after you examine the innocuous diffs used as evidence. Smells alot like a WP:POV railroad to me. For as long as I can remember, Springee has been the most composed, polite, neutral and objective editor we have in this highly volatile topic area. We need more like him, not fewer, and we also need to put an end to these vexatious filings. Atsme 💬 📧 19:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Objectiive3000
Just a few side comments:
I don’t think WP:DR is an effective solution for highly contentious articles. I’ve not seen it work. Most of the editors involved are experienced, the issues are complex, the number of involved editors is generally larger, the contentious topics procedure is helpful on the TP, and the less formal TP discussion format is far quicker.
I believe FormalDude did abide by the relevant parts of WP:DDE and don’t think the need for a time consuming RfC was reached. Having said that, it was likely premature to come here.
I do believe some of Springee’s discussion was tendentious. When FormalDude presented four sources, Springee responded “If we have to stoop to Vanity or Daily Beast perhaps it's not due.“ Three of the four sources are green-lit at WP:RS/PS. Yet, Springee continued to point to the sources they presented, all of which were dated before the claim under debate, and therefore completely irrelevant. Sorry, for not including diffs, but the thread must be read in toto to understand – and I’m not suggesting sanctions anyhow.
Atsme stepped in again to make yet another general complaint about mainstream media (and editors), and then ironically states: “The Columbia Journalism Review brought some serious issues to our attention in their 4 part report, which included a quote by Matt Taibbi about how the more neutral approach to reporting has gone completely out the window.“ Ironically because that CJR article was widely panned as being heavily biased and Mike Taibbi, IMO, has defenestrated all manner of objectivity. In any case, none of this is relevant to this filing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Result concerning Springee
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Just noting that at least this admin has seen this request. No substantive comment as yet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'll write more later, but so far, after reading the report and the relevant discussion at the talk page, I have to agree with Thebiguglyalien's take, in that neither users come out looking good from that dispute. @Dlthewave: I think you meant to link to WP:RSP in your diff #5. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 20:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
BleedingKansas
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning BleedingKansas
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- MrOllie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- BleedingKansas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19#Contentious_topic_designation
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 01:41, 13 March 2023 BLP / Point violation on Jay Bhattacharya 1
- 01:43, 13 March 2023 BLP / Point violation on Jay Bhattacharya 2
- 01:45, 13 March 2023 BLP / Point violation on Jay Bhattacharya 3
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BleedingKansas&diff=prev&oldid=1141483993 08:23, 25 February 2023 (see the system log linked to above).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
BleedingKansas has been editing the articles about the Great Barrington Declaration and its authors, generally in a way that is supportive of the declaration. Since that is largely against the mainstream medical position, their editing attempts have not met with a great deal of success. Today, in an apparent effort to make some kind of WP:POINT, they have switched to adding straight up attacks on one of the declaration's authors to their biography. I think something needs to be done about this.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning BleedingKansas
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by BleedingKansas
Statement by (username)
Result concerning BleedingKansas
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.