Appealing user

GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the World War II history of Poland.[1] I was invited to appeal this sanction in six months (quote) - showing evidence of substantial, competent, prejudice-free editing.

Administrator imposing the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[2]

Dear colleagues.

In light of the recent AE case,[3] I wish to appeal my very old outstanding topic ban; based on evidence of good faith and a substantial period of positive behavior in other topic areas.

I was banned from editing Polish World War Two history articles on June 25th, 2018, almost two years ago.[4] I was originally falsely accused of disruptive editing [5] by now indef banned user Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Icewhiz misrepresented my edits, which involved a dispute about sourcing. If anyone wants more info specifically about that please let me know. (The source I was using was this [6] )

While Icewhiz grossly misrepresented my edits in order to get me sanctioned, I realize now that I made myself open to such an attack by not engaging in discussion more. If I had explained my edits on the talk page and engaged the user in discussion about the text quoted directly from the source (very reliable, as everyone would agree), then perhaps I could have avoided the topic ban all together. From now on, I promise to justify all my edits in the topic area on talk pages, before going forward.

I accepted the ban and proceeded to edit in other topic areas to my best abilities. Since that time, I edited hundreds of different articles including new page creations that received a DYK status. In the two years since the topic ban was imposed, I have learned a lot regarding the proper usage of sources and editing etiquette in general. I didn't run into any problems in other topic areas and I believe my editing there has been quite exemplary.

I would like to have my Topic Ban rescinded since I truly believe it does not serve a purpose anymore. I would like to emphasize that I did not strive to appeal my ban earlier because I was quite satisfied with editing in other topic areas, but I wish to have it lifted now to avoid potential stressful situations such as the one I experienced recently [7] when reverting disruptive editing (to be 100% honest, I also had one block in two years for accidentally violating the ban). According to admins who evaluated this case I unintentionally came very close to violating my topic and some judged that I crossed the line. Since then, I have taken every precaution. I trimmed my watch list to a minimum following suggestion of Awilley, I read twice every article I want to edit, I have also received guidance from RexxS during the case that I learned from and I'm very grateful for that. I’m even asking more experienced editors such as Piotrus[8] or El_C[9] for advice but I'm still worried about making unintentional errors, to the point that I almost stopped editing Wikipedia altogether at one point. I believe the best way to proceed for me as well as the community in general would be to simply have this very old ban lifted. I can promise to be extremely careful and to avoid controversy in any edits I might make in this topic area.

If it would help granting of this appeal I can commit to always discussing any potentially controversial edits on talk first, taking special care with sources, quoting the relevant text and generally making a conscientious effort to avoid controversy.

Thank you for your consideration.GizzyCatBella🍁 09:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum:

Below are the difs that led to my original Topic Ban listed by the editor filing the complaint, discussed by admins and non-admins. Please note that I was sanctioned as a result of a revert war with the above editor, following a content dispute regarding a single settlement article. I take full responsibility for my actions, but I wish to note that there were mitigating circumstances as well. Source of data: [10]

Firstly, I have the impression that settlement articles in Wikipedia (WP:CITSTRUCT[11]) usually don’t go into ongoing bitter controversies between historians, but if they do, then both sides of the narrative are presented. The settlement in question was a small town of Stawiski in Eastern Poland.

There were many sources in that article already before the edit-war started, but sourcing is a challenge sometimes, and in the end, l definitely learned my lesson.

The official web-page of Stawiski that is archived at: [12] as well as Stawiski Travel Guide [13] inform about the 1941 massacre. The first one, in just one sentence: “W 1941 roku Żydów wymordowali w Stawiskach Niemcy.” (In 1941 the Jews were murdered in Stawiski by the Germans). The second source informed who the German murderers might have been. The source is a paper by Holocaust historian Alexander B. Rossino archived by Wayback Machine. [14]

That source was described by senior editors, who commented at WP:AE, as a “blog copy of a copyright violation” misused and misrepresented. I did not write the text discussed by the senior editors though – someone else wrote that information years earlier. What I did however, was to object against the removal of it, in a subsequent edit war. The paper by Alexander B. Rossino is reprinted by Jewish Virtual Library and can no longer be seen as some dodgy source, so the information about the presence of the Nazi Germans in Stawiski on 23 June 1941 is confirmed reliably. [15] Rossino did not mention "Jewish militia" in that paragraph. But he did say, some paragraphs below, that “in many cases Jewish militia members directly participated in mass arrests and deportation actions” in those settlements according to research by Holocaust historian Bogdan Musiał, and that other leading scholars of the Final Solution have corroborated Musiał's conclusions,[16], including (reportedly) an Israeli historian Yitzhak Arad. This is not WP:SYNTH but the reading of the entire article as opposed to quoting just one sentence from it. However, I take full responsibility for not engaging the other editor in discussion about it. The 5 difs of our edit war were listed by the other editor with the summary that they “violate this sanction or remedy:” Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions.

Here they are:

• Revision as of 09:12, 24 June 2018 [17] revert to 27 Aug 2017[18] version.
• Revision as of 09:15, 24 June 2018[19] revert challenged as "gross misrepresentation of sources" + talk page Revision as of 09:18, 24 June 2018[20] post explaining the problem of misrepresentation.
• Revision as of 09:20, 24 June 2018[21] - re-revert to August 2017 version (+ breaking cutting out infobox of the article - resulting in a - 4 byte diff - but the article body was a simple re-revert.
• Revision as of 09:30, 24 June 2018[22] + Revision as of 10:08, 24 June 2018[23] - refused request to self-revert.
• User made some additional edits after this - but did not self-revert, and article continues to contain serious misrepresentations which are strongly defamatory.

In my original appeal (above) I did not include the details of the discussion that led to my topic ban because I wanted to be brief and because it happened two years ago so I thought my constructive edits and lack of further sanctions in those two years would speak for themselves. The other editor deleted a lot of material from Stawiski that seemed reliably sourced to me and replaced it with something completely different without a word of explanation. It is hard to separate the good from the bad when there is no discussion, so I restored an older version of the article first and then proceeded to make revisions which included his edits which did not seem controversial.

At the time I thought this was common practice. The other editor requested that I self-revert [24] because the information about the Jewish militia in his opinion was “highly defamatory” but I did not see it that way.

In the WP:AE case against me, the other editor did not reveal the fact that I had made over a dozen more edits to the article. Here was my final version at the time.[25] Almost all the purported POV texts that Icewhiz pretended were mine in his report were actually from the older version. I actually removed these statements myself. But because he didn’t show the later edits he misled admins into thinking I was responsible for the POV text (except User:Vanamonde93 who was the only one to notice).

I have been asked what lesson I learned from that situation. Since I was not the one who added all the problematic text (I removed it) I can’t say anything about that part. But I did learn that I should be really careful in restoring older versions of the article without first scrutinizing them for problems, even if my intention is to remove the problems in later edits.

The only issue that remained was my use of the Jewish Virtual Library as a source. I still think that is a reliable source and I did not misrepresent it. I do realize now, however, that I should have been much more explicit about the parts of the source I was using, and how it matched the text I added.GizzyCatBella🍁 05:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sandstein:

@Sandstein I attempted to keep my appeal brief and within a certain word limit since I knew you sometimes object and decline reports and appeals which are long and detailed, so I didn't go too much into the circumstances of the original topic ban[26] but I will expand if permitted to use more space.GizzyCatBella🍁 14:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Levivich and Buffs:

@Levivich and Buffs I brought up Icewhiz because he was the one who filed the original report that led to this ban. He even sought sanctions against me for such things as placing a discretionary sanctions alert on his talk page. [27] for what he was ridiculed by administrator Bishonen who wrote: Icewhiz, are you asking for GizzyCatBella to be sanctioned for giving you a discretionary sanctions alert ....Seriously?[28] So you see, Icewhiz's past is significant to my case. GizzyCatBella🍁 17:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC) PS. I responded to your further concerns in the Addendum.GizzyCatBella🍁 05:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to K.e.coffman:

@K.e.coffman 1 - So what happened at Lazar Berenzon article was - I translated the entire piece from the Russian Wikipedia including moving the sources that were already there. I originally didn't introduce any sources of my own. (link for verifying [29] I concluded that copying sources from another Wiki are not prohibited, and verification is not required. Just like introducing articles or adding content with no sources at all is not forbidden or blockable. I observed that happening all the time. Now, when I think about it, it's not the best practice thou. Nevertheless, I aimed to translate the article and then improve it according to our standards myself. I started to look for verifications and adding my sources [30] but within two hours I received unexpected help from the Russian speaking editors [31],[32], who used those sources from the Russian Wikipedia [33]. That was all to it.

2- I simply desired to expand category Category:Jewish atheists based on sources but I didn't know how to add a source to the category. I noticed that other articles that already have such a category are neither sourced or have mention of atheism in the person's bio. (links for verification: [34],[35], [36], [37], [38] ...) these are just first few starting with a letter A, but you can check the rest for yourself. There is no mention of their atheism in the bios and the category is solely based on the person's political affiliation which is atheist Communism[39] I was probably one of the first editors who added text about "atheism" to the person's bio and sourced it properly[40] And.. I'm sorry, but your insinuation of me being " preoccupied with Jewish atheism" I find hurtful and offensive and will not address it.

3 - This one [41] I removed because I didn't see it in the source and I still don't see it.[[42]] Where can you see that claim??? Did you mistranslate something or I made a mistake? Can you copy-paste that form the source in Polish --> "to create an emigration destination for Polish Jews.”?

Response to El_C and Guerillero:

@El_C and User:Guerillero I understand your concerns and I would like to present here some diffs of my substantial, competent, prejudice-free editing in other topic areas: I created a number of articles such as Alfonse Pogrom which I was appreciated for [43],[44], Easter Pogrom about a series of assaults against a Jewish population of Warsaw, Jakub Lejkin, Puławianie, Mary Wagner (Canada), Polish sociologist of Jewish descent Witold Jedlicki, Polish military hero of Jewish origin Józef Berkowicz, Soviet military commander Lazar Berenzon and other. I translated articles from Polish Wikipedia wishing to introduce is in our space [45] but due to the topic ban limitations, I can’t. I reached out [46] and opposed sanctioned against what many would consider being "my opponent" for what I got prase from User:Starship.paint [47]. If I notice that (again, some might imply to be my opponent) an editor might have broken their topic ban, I caution them politely instead of reporting them right away. [48] I politely discuss problems if they arise [49]. I cooperate with others on controversial subjects[50] I refused any involvement in subjects that were covered by my topic ban [51]. I didn't create any socks, I didn't cheat in any way, I was working hard to be a helpful and trustworthy contributor to our project. I really wish just to be able to edit Wikipedia without the constant fear of being reported, as the last time, for accidentally breaking the topic ban. Why not giving me a chance after two years of restraint? I've learned a lot since my ban, I didn't run into any similar problems that led to my ban for the last two years, why would I now? The ban was a good lesson for me regardless of the circumstances. If I for some God's known reason repeat my mistake or do something sanctionable, please reinstate my Topic Ban or ban me altogether, have no mercy. I'll not, I trust myself and please give me an opportunity to prove it.GizzyCatBella🍁 01:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C To prove how I'm being exposed to the danger of violating my topic ban, I'll give you this example.

K.e.coffman provided this diff[52] in his statement section (#3) with a summary: The cited source included: That is why Prosto z mostu [the periodical in question] supported the idea of Jewish emigration from Poland, preferably to the Zionist state in Palestine. Hence the sympathy for 'national, healthy and normal Jewish longings...', via Google translate of the Polish-language source. Contrary to GCB's claim, the removed segment was clearly supported by the source; the removal portrayed the publication in a more favourable, less self-serving light. So obviously K.e.coffman read the article, he read the source also (I hope) to produce an allegation against me... but guess what?... he didn't think I broke my topic ban. Otherwise, he would undoubtedly mention that.

Now imagine me going through such difficulties every day, for the last 2 years, doing my best to respect my ban just to find myself reported for editing a completely unrelated to the WW2 in Poland article about the Latvian Legion [53] as I just was reported here [54]. And now what? I'm being told - "keep editing Gizzy in other topic areas" for how long I'm asking? Another 2 years? And what? 2 years from now when I appeal again, somebody will run here with a diff of the similar mistake I made but neither I or K.e.coffman noticed? Of course, someone will find something somewhere if they really want. If not that mistake so some other mistake. We are all humans, we make mistakes. And what? We will reset the clock for another 2 years and start again? How many assurances I have to give that my problematic behaviour from the past will not occur again? .. and how fair it is to have somebody restricted for so long without giving them a chance to prove themselves in the topic area? I don't know what else can I do to better myself I haven't done so far, really...GizzyCatBella🍁 01:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Galobtter I didn't lie, (please!) when I look at it now, yes I did translate it from the Polish Wiki, not Russian as I thought initially. I wrote my testimony from my head, from what I remembered that's why... and the sources were taken from the Russian Wiki from what I remembered, and I read them with my limited Russian capabilities too I’m sure, before the Russian colleagues took over the article...maybe I can ask them to translate? Gosh, let me look at what happened... did I copy paste something incorrectly??? I remember having quite a few tabs opened... Why would I "make up" those sources?! What for??? GizzyCatBella🍁 03:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C and User:Galobtter Yes, I think I copy/pasted wrong tabs, it was an honest screw-up... OMG, such an embarrassment...I surrender :( I got confused because it was Cyrillic and copy-pasted wrong tabs when I was searching because I had too many opened, I think so.. yes.... OMG, such an embarrassment... I'm so sorry. In the Russian version, there is this (in Literature): Глущенко А. Г. "Колыма. Лично причастны…" 2013. In my article it became this (in References): Глущенко А. Г. Глущенко И.И., Козырев В.А., Глущенко И.И. Сервисология как научная основа развития сферы сервиса". Тренды и управление. 1 (1): 13–26. 2019. doi:10.7256/2454-0730.2019.1.20595. ISSN 2454-0730. The same last name: Глущенко - but the TITLES OF ARTICLES are different.

But there was no bad intention on my part. What would be the point of me faking refs?? The text itself is not controversial, there’s no POV there. I'll correct that and I will ask the Russian colleagues for help too.GizzyCatBella🍁 04:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the CORRECT link to Глущенко А. Г. "Колыма." [55] :( I’m so sorry :( :( GizzyCatBella🍁 04:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to SlimVirgin:

(the below applies to my original topic ban case from 2018)

SarahSV, here is my honest reply to why I reverted Icewhiz and then proceeded with my edits instead of working from the un-reverted version. First, I was still new here and I didn't realize at that time that I was doing an improper action. Second, I was driven a little by emotions because Icewhiz was very hostile towards me, he was seeking to get me sanctioned on every opportunity, even on bogus pretexts (see my reply to Levivich). Third, I thought he misrepresented the source, I didn't trust him. So the combination of these 3 factors led to my revert and then work from there. An obvious newbie mistake on my part, I already have learned from (acknowledgments to my topic ban). I shouldn't have done it, I should have assumed good faith, don't revert etc. etc. I know all of that now, but back then, I made these mistakes unfortunately and I can't turn back time. All I can do is learn from my mistakes, and I did. GizzyCatBella🍁 16:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ealdgyth:

Ealdgyth, I understand your concerns about the use of sloppy sources, but I'm trying my best now and I check sources for its quality to my best abilities. As far as editing in other topic areas - my interests are the history of Poland and because of my family ties, also Polish Jewish history. I don't have that many interests and knowledge in other topic areas that I could share. I was editing Polish topics outside the WW2 range for the last 2 years, but eventually, I accidentally violated my ban [56]. Now (I just noticed) EI_C saw another violation [57] but I swear, I don't see anything about WW2 in Poland in that article. I'm probably too old or too stupid but I don't.. I didn't intend to break my ban. You see, this is exactly why I wish to have it lifted. Not because I strive to edit the WW2 area so much but because I can't manage the constant stress associated with an accidental breach of my ban. Poland's history is so connected with WW2 that some articles that in my opinion aren't related to that area actually are related and vice versa. If I edit a bio of a person who owns a bicycle produced during WW2 in Poland, am I going to violate my ban or not? I'm exaggerating a little but these were the kind of questions are was asking myself every day for the last two years.

But coming back to your concerns, here is what I propose: If my topic ban is lifted, I would confirm, verify and get approval for every source I want to introduce into or remove from WW2 history of Poland topic area with you or Sarah. How does this sound? GizzyCatBella🍁 17:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, I have no problem editing articles on Polish cuisine, animals in Poland, clothing or gardening in Poland but you know what's going to happen? I will one day eventually run into an article about an animal used by the Polish army during WW2 or a favourite dish prepared during the war or a garden in Poland where some bomb fell during the war and never get out of this crazy cycle. I kind of joking, but kind of not. The problem for me remains the same regardless of the articles I edit.GizzyCatBella🍁 18:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth and El_C another idea! What about relaxing the ban while I edit other topics areas by allowing me to edit talk pages only in WW2 articles? This way I can ask on the talk page if the article is related to WW2 in Poland or not. That will take at least some pressure off my back. Again, I'll not jump into editing WW2 talk pages like mad, I'll just feel more secured not to break my ban.GizzyCatBella🍁 19:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ealdgyth and SarahSV I'm posting a link to Alexander B. Rossino here maybe you'll find it useful someday:

Alexander B. Rossino: "Polish ‘Neighbours’ and German Invaders: Anti-Jewish Violence in the Białystok District during the Opening Weeks of Operation Barbarossa", Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry, edited by MICHAEL C. STEINLAUF and ANTONY POLONSKY, Volume 16, 2003. PART III: NEW VIEWS. Liverpool University Press, Oxford; Portland, Oregon; pp. 431–452. (DOI: 10.2307/j.ctv1rmk6w.30). https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1rmk6w Thank you for your time guys.GizzyCatBella🍁 17:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I leave this decision to admin colleagues as I'm not currently active in AE. However, at first glance, I would decline this appeal. The statement does not accurately characterize or even recognize the misconduct that led to the ban. This suggests that it may well reoccur. Additionally, the statement does not contain the evidence (links or diffs) of the "substantial, competent, prejudice-free editing in other topic areas" that I asked for in the ban. With respect to competence, GizzyCatBella did not correctly use the appeals template when submitting their appeal here, which calls into question their technical competence as an editor, which is important in controversial topic areas. Sandstein 10:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've interacted with GizzyCatBella (GCB for short) on the topic of Jewish-Polish relations, so I'm posting in this section. I've not seen sufficiently positive editing from GCB in adjacent topics. A few examples:

• GCB lists a new article about Lazar Berenzon, a senior officer in the NKVD (Soviet secret police), as an example of a positive contribution. When GCB created the page, it listed three sources: version as of 21 February 2020. I searched all three for "Берензон", the subject's Russian last name, and did not see any mentions. In fact, the third source is entitled: "Servisology as the scientific basis for the development of the service sector", which has nothing to do with the NKVD or Berenzon.
• There was a series of edits in February 2020, with GCB adding Category:Jewish atheists to numerous articles, irrespective of whether the category was defining (in most cases, no) or whether atheism was even mentioned in the article: Adolf Warski; Boris Berman (chekist); Matvei Berman; Genrikh Yagoda and so on. Another case in point: when created, the above-mentioned Berenzon article also included this category, while atheism was not mentioned in the text: [58]. This may suggest a lack of familiarity with this wiki guideline, or a preoccupation with "Jewish atheism".
• In this edit in January 2020, GCB modified the sentence to remove the last part, giving a rationale of "removing unsourced content": 

While the publication was heavily antisemitic and opposed to presence of Jews in Poland, at the same time it supported alliance with Zionist movement and creation of Jewish state in Palestine, to create an emigration destination for Polish Jews.

The cited source included: That is why Prosto z mostu [the periodical in question] supported the idea of Jewish emigration from Poland, preferably to the Zionist state in Palestine. Hence the sympathy for 'national, healthy and normal Jewish longings...', via Google translate of the Polish-language source. Contrary to GCB's claim, the removed segment was clearly supported by the source; the removal portrayed the publication in a more favourable, less self-serving light. 

--K.e.coffman (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A follow-up to GCB's response [59] to my evidence: 

• GCB: I noticed that other articles that already have such a category are neither sourced or have mention of atheism in the person's bio. (links for verification: ... The first link I checked is to an article that indeed mentions atheism which is sourced: 2019 version. In any case, the unsourced "Jewish atheist" tagging only stopped after Doug Weller pointed out the issue on GCB's Talk page: You twice added an unsourced category to Adolf Warski, please stop, Feb 2020.

• GCB: I still don't see it, in re: the antisemitic periodical. Here's the original Polish [60]: Dlatego „Prosto z Mostu” popierało ideę emigracji Żydów z Polski, najlepiej do tworzonego przez syjonistów państwa w Palestynie. Stąd sympatia dla 'narodowych, zdrowych i normalnych tęsknot żydowskich. Tęsknot za własnym państwem i ewakuacją z państw obcych'.

Translation: Therefore, „Prosto z Mostu” supported the idea of emigration of Jews from Poland, preferably to the Zionist state in Palestine. Hence the sympathy for 'national, healthy and normal Jewish longings. Longing for their own state and evacuation from foreign countries'. The statement in the article is clearly supported: the publication "...supported the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, to create an emigration destination for Polish Jews" (part removed by GCB underlined).

• GCB: I translated the entire piece from the Russian Wikipedia including moving the sources that were already there -- Upon further review of the Berenzon article, my conclusion is the page was apparently translated from the Polish wiki: Łazar Bierienzon as of 2017 (latest version). GCB created the page with the Polish spelling of his name (move log); the content also matched the Polish wiki, rather than the Russian one: latest (July 2019) version. Finally, and contrary to GCB's claim, ru.wiki at no point listed the three bogus sources that GCB added as citations diff, and neither did pl.wiki. 

My assessment remains unchanged. Most of what I've seen in this appeal is unsubstantiated claims (which take quite a bit of effort to get to the bottom of), excuses, and blaming others for GCB's predicaments, i.e. the 1000+ word relitigation of the AE case that had lead to the topic ban. Add to that the continued newbie mistakes and an apparent assumption (?) that people are unable to check other Wikis for themselves (??), and this appeal is becoming more and more bewildering. At this point, I would echo Ealdgyth's comment that problems may actually be spreading outside the area of the topic ban. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing that the statements addresses that there were more problems brought forth not just with reverting to an old version, but with sloppy use of sources elsewhere. I'd like to see some actual editing in other areas (not things connected with Poland or Jews) that show that the editor has learned and taken on board all the issues. And that they are trying to distance themselves from the contentious topic area so that there is some sense of balance in their editing. Frankly, the edits K. E. Coffman brought up are concerning that problems may actually be spreading outside the area of the topic ban. And they also need to understand that if the topic ban is removed, that there are now sourcing restrictions in the topic area that would preclude the use of the Jewish Virtual Library anyway (and I'd like to point out that while the RfC at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Jewish Virtual Library hasn't actually been closed, it's heavily leaning towards the JVL not being reliable. While Rossino may be a subject matter expert, the JVL piece referred to isn't on his own blog and thus he had no control over it so we can't be sure it's a good transcription of the original source (and this is an endemic problem in the topic area, using mirrors of sources rather than being content to use offline sources.) --Ealdgyth (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GC - your topic ban is "...from the World War II history of Poland. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes any acts of violence by, in or against Poland, or by or against Poles or Polish Jews, during or immediately prior to or after World War II, as well as persons known for their involvement in the World War II history of Poland." It's not just WWII, it's things involving Jews in Poland immediately prior to WWII. The efforts of various parties (many of them fringe) in Poland to find a place to send the Polish Jews would definitely be within that scope. Also, it's best if you avoid things that discuss the immediate pre-WWII history in Poland if its discussing anti-semitism. Frankly, if you want to demonstrate that you are capable of editing well, I'd avoid anything to do with the history of Jews in Poland. There is plenty of plain Polish history out there that doesn't involve Jews that would amply demonstrate that you can edit in contentious subjects without issues. Or for that matter, take a leaf from many editors who approach a whole new area that they are not familiar with and use the editing experience to learn about a new subject. Polish cuisine? Animals in Poland? Crafts of Poland? Clothing? Gardening? All those subjects are usually areas where wikipedia coverage is lacking and would be excellent to improve.

As for running sources past us, I can't answer for Sarah, but I do not have the time to supervise other editors in that way. I'm always glad to help someone out in small amounts, but I do have editing *I* want to concentrate on and other time committments that need to be dealt with outside Wikipedia. --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with El_C's assessment below. Buffs (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella, I'm trying to understand what happened at Stawiski. The disputed text was added in 2011 by Lewinowicz, apparently one of Poeticbent's accounts. It was sourced to a 2003 paper by Alexander B. Rossino (it's online but as an apparent copyvio, so I won't link: "Polish 'Neighbors' and German Invaders: Contextualizing Anti-Jewish Violence in the Białystok District during the Opening Weeks of Operation Barbarossa"). Lewinowicz's text was too sweeping in its description of what had happened and in that sense seemed to repeat conspiracy theories about Jews:

Upon the Soviet invasion of eastern Poland in 1939, the local administration was abolished by the NKWD and replaced with Jewish communists who declared Soviet allegiance. Ethnic Polish families were being rounded up by newly formed Jewish militia, and deported to Siberia.

Some Jews, particularly younger ones, did join the Soviets, as did others, but the numbers were relatively small, and 20 percent of those deported were Jews. Rossino describes some of this. It is true that he paints a bleak picture of Jewish involvement, I would say bleaker than other sources. But he also writes: "... the outburst of Polish anti-Semitism in reaction to the arrival of German forces was largely based on a stereotype of the 'Jewish-Communist' that was shared by anti-Semites across Europe. ... The evidence clearly demonstrates that like Poles and other native Eastern European peoples with communist sympathies, a certain small number of Jews collaborated with Soviet occupation forces. But when speaking of an unholy union between all Jews and Communists ... one can only conclude that scholars are dealing with a fantasy imagined by resentful Poles ...".

The text remained in the article until an IP address removed it in 2013. Poeticbent restored it. In 2014 an IP tagged it as possibly unreliable. Poeticbent removed the tags. In March 2018, Icewhiz removed the text, stating that it had "misrepresented Rossino". This time Poeticbent did not revert and in May 2018 Poeticbent was topic-banned (not in relation to this article).

In June 2018, in your first edit to Stawiski, you restored Poeticbent's text. Icewhiz removed it again, and you restored it and were reported to AE. It's true that you did continue to modify the text to bring it closer to Rossino. But why would you twice restore an older text from Poeticbent? Even if you weren't familiar with the topic, Icewhiz's edit summaries stated that it misrepresented the source. If you wanted to make an edit, as you continued to do before the topic ban, why not just do that, rather than first restore an older contentious version? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• When will the argumentum ad Icewhiz end? It seems every Polish-related AE report since Icewhiz was indef'd brings up Icewhiz. It's not like Icewhiz's indef means that all opponents of Icewhiz are exonerated. It doesn't mean everything he ever said was wrong. It doesn't mean every new editor that disagrees about something is an Icewhiz sock. In fact, his indef means we can no longer blame him for anything. And while editors are free to continue to argue with Icewhiz on WPO (as they do to this day), at some point, on wiki, it's time to let go of the Ghost of Icewhiz. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Concur. Arguments for/against anything a la Icewhiz should just be ignored. They should stand/fall on their own merits. Buffs (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @GCB: Looking at the AE report, I see quotes from multiple admin like any misconduct by Icewhiz does not mitigate that by GizzyCatBella and has no bearing on the sanction we may decide to impose on GizzyCatBella, I would support a topic ban with the scope you have proposed. I am particularly unimpressed by the repeated use of dodgy sources after they have been questioned ... Based on the evidence here, this user is unable to edit neutrally in this area, and needs to be removed ..., and Agree with the above. An indefinite topic ban for sure .... You were not TBANed for giving someone a DS notice, nor were you TBANed based on anyone's misrepresentations. Specific edits were discussed by admin and non-admin alike at great length in that AE case. In this appeal, you really haven't addressed any of that. If anything, you seem to be saying that the TBAN should not have issued in the first place and that the filer did something wrong by filing the report. This is a classic and common mistake in making an appeal on enwiki. Your edits were examined and found to merit a TBAN by multiple uninvolved admins. This is not Icewhiz's fault, it's yours. You've got to come to grips with that. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• GCB -- at 4 1/2 years and 5K edits -- is surely past the point where mentoring would be worthwhile. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know whether having had a brief interaction with GCB in 2018 classifies me as involved or not, so this comment can be moved if necessary. I was struck at the time in an ANI filing concerning another editor [61] that GCB's adversarial tendencies had not changed even after their topic ban. GCB had been banned for misrepresenting sources and there GCB was misrepresenting me on the ANI noticeboard with "thank you for recognizing that similar data could be found in most editors edit history...". GCB is one of several zealous editors with an WP:AXE to grind in this topic area whose past form shows that they have been determined to have a fight. GCB has taken it to another level of misrepresentation. I don't see evidence of change. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I think GizzyCatBella should have waited a few more months before appealing, having just been warned (formally, by myself) about better following the terms of their topic ban. I agree with Sandstein that some (any) documentation is ought to be provided to support the basic assertions of the appeal. And I also agree with them about the problematic absence of an acknowledgment of the violations (themselves) that led to sanctions and how best will these be avoided in the future, specifically. But as for the misformatting of the appeal itself, I disagree with Sandstein that this is indicative of anything or relevant to the appeal. Technical mistakes happen. El_C 14:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would decline this appeal, based on evidence submitted by K.e.coffman. El_C 11:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting that both Sarah and GizzyCatBella have asked for this appeal to remain open so that they could each submit additional evidence. Sounds reasonable. El_C 20:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• About an emigration destination for Polish Jews — that should not have been removed by the appellant, for any reason, because it was a violation of their topic ban. El_C 13:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• GizzyCatBella, I think you've confused Guerillero with Galobtter. Anyway, I would still decline the appeal. Too many complainants have raised valid objections. I also note that this appeal has become a bit unwieldy. I'm not saying it's anyone's fault, but it just is. El_C 04:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would decline per Levivich and El_C --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm very uncomfortable with any sort of mentorship requirement --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GizzyCatBella: At this point, you are over the word limit by 7.3 times, not counting your signature or the collapsed content, please be judicious in you additions to your statement. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd decline the appeal. Per K.e.coffman's evidence the issues regarding use of sourcing continue. And indeed the more I look at his evidence the more concerned I become. The recent addition of "Jewish atheism" categories shows an almost bizarre lack of understanding of WP:V.

But even more concerning is the evidence related to Berenzon. It seems very much like to me that GizzyCatBella added three bogus, totally unrelated sources in [62] and is now lying at AE to cover that up. I indeed cannot find any of the sources she added in the ruwiki article, and they clearly appear to have nothing to do with Berenzon even from reading the title. In one edit she replaces a google snippet which she had added that mentions Berenzon but doesn't give any info on him with a source titled "Negative-aggressive behavior of a crime victim" (per google translate). If indeed as it seems she added false sources, that would support an indefinite block. That the sources she adds are not in English makes it especially hard to see when she misrepresents sources or adds completely unrelated sources so there are quite possibly more instances of this behavior that haven't been noticed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

PackMecEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAP2

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

1. 1 May Makes defamatory claims about Peter Strzok, a living person, which are poorly sourced or entirely unsourced.
2. 1 May Abuses rollback to Reverts my redaction of those statements and a warning that BLP applies to all spaces on the encyclopedia.
3. 1 May Reinserts the unsupported, unsourced defamatory statement with a threat - "Yeah, don't touch my post again."
4. 1 May Once again reinserts unsupported, unsourced defamatory statement after being warned.

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, here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

PackMecEng made a talkpage post on Talk:Peter Strzok which made several unsourced or poorly-sourced defamatory claims about the article subject. Their claims included misconduct, lying, or deception - sourced to opinion columns and NewsMax articles, or in some cases entirely unsourced whatsoever. In this edit, I redacted those claims and warned PackMecEng that BLP applies to all spaces in the encyclopedia. In response, PackMecEng abused rollback to undo my redaction and warning. They then repeated the unsourced statement again after I redacted it again. I request that rollback be removed from PackMecEng and that they be warned that BLP applies in all spaces. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, PackMecEng wrote The Hill reporting notes from director of counterintelligence on what Strzok said: What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" However, the cited source nowhere says the word Strzok and thus obviously does not say that Strzok said that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given this user's continuing inability to understand how BLP requires us to use quality sources and not make unsupported defamatory claims about people, I request that PackMecEng be topic-banned. They clearly are not able to edit in this topic space with the due consideration for facts and sensitivity required when dealing with living people.

The issue here is one common to political articles - we have an editor who races to the biography of a living person related to a controversy in order to stuff it full of dubious, unsupported, and outright false claims based upon poor partisan sources and misrepresentation of sources. A two-minute reading of The Hill article would have demonstrated to PackMecEng that the source did not, indeed, say what they claimed it said. However, instead of taking that time to investigate and make sure that what they said about a living person was correct - they simply hit the rollback button, because how dare anyone dispute their personal perception and pre-planned condemnation of Strzok which so preoccupied him as to claim that a source which never mentioned the words Peter Strzok supported a claim that Peter Strzok said something. They apparently aren't capable of taking their blinders off and editing with a fair mind and a sensitive eye in this topicspace, so they shouldn't be allowed to edit it anymore. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: Which Hill piece attributes the quote to Strzok? Not the one linked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: If you're referring to this opinion column in The Hill, it also does not say that Strzok said those words.All this led to a meeting at the highest levels of the FBI which included the director and the FBI’s head of counterintelligence, who took copious notes. It is in these notes that he reflected the discussion that took place about Flynn, writing: “Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute or get him fired.” That, in fact, says that Strzok did not say those words. Strzok was not the FBI's head of counterintelligence. He was a high-ranking official in that division, but he was not the head of CI. That's besides the fact that opinion columns are obviously not acceptable reliable sources for claims of fact about other people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthBySouthBaranof: You're 100% right. Struck accordingly. Strzok was a Chief of Counterespionage and a Deputy Director of Counterintelligence, it seems I conflated the two. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck the statement about rollback - I will take on good faith that it was inadvertent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffs: No one - certainly not me - has suggested that PackMecEng be blocked or banned from the encyclopedia. What I have suggested is that, at the very least, a strong logged warning is in order for misrepresenting sources to negatively portray a living person, and that given their evident disinterest in admitting that they have seriously violated policy in this case, a topic ban on Peter Strzok, broadly construed, may be in order if they can't demonstrate that they a) understand that they seriously violated policy and b) can be trusted to edit in that topic space responsibly in the future. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffs: You're absolutely, 100% wrong that It really isn't NorthBySouthBaranof's place to redact other people's comments. The Biographies of Living Persons policy is straightforward and clear: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. The statements in question were and are false, defamatory, and not supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source, and therefore must not be on Wikipedia in any fashion. The end.

That it was on a talk page is immaterial: This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. I don't have to file an ANI report or find an admin to enforce a policy, and the burden of evidence falls entirely on PackMecEng, not me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffs: Again, I'm not sure how to make it any clearer: You are 100% wrong. The cited source never mentions Peter Strzok. Go ahead, do a word search, I dare you. The source does not say that the notes were about anything Peter Strzok said. The association of that line with Peter Strzok is entirely an invention of the mind of PackMecEng. And that is entirely the problem here - PackMecEng apparently came to Talk:Peter Strzok with the single-minded intent of depicting Strzok as a villain and was so hell-bent on doing it as to make unsupported claims, read nonexistent words in sources which don't support their statements, and then double down three times when challenged, rather than read the source, realize they were wrong, and acknowledge their error. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here

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.

The rollback was actually a miss click, meant to hit undo but you reverted before I could. Also what threat? PackMecEng (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The altering interview notes is from here, specifically Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik reacted strongly on Thursday to the news FBI officials to altered a 302 report and reopened the case when the initial analysis indicated no crime had been committed. PackMecEng (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related to that this was a talk page discussion warning, ironically, that the article might get a bunch of POV pushers and bad sources and to keep an eye out for such things. I noted below that here, it was not a specific proposal for the article. PackMecEng (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per The Hill But then FBI agent Peter Strzok intervened with the idea that the never-used Logan Act could be invoked against Flynn; Strzok was cheered on by FBI attorney Lisa Page. All this led to a meeting at the highest levels of the FBI which included the director and the FBI’s head of counterintelligence, who took copious notes. It is in these notes that he reflected the discussion that took place about Flynn, writing: “Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute or get him fired.” No constructional protections were afforded Flynn, who was even advised by the FBI not to bring a lawyer when he was questioned by agents. PackMecEng (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And another Yahoo Dated January 24, 2017, the same day of the White House interview with Flynn that was conducted by FBI agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka, the handwritten notes apparently reveal that at least one agent believed the purpose of the interview was to entrap Flynn — or he believed that was the goal of his fellow agents and was trying to push back on them in the name of institutional integrity. Though again, this was not purposed content for the article but listing sources and something to watch out if it gets more coverage. I appreciate NorthBySouthBaranof's wanting to protect BLP but I think they jumped the gun a little going straight to a only warning followed closely with AE was overkill. The reverts as I added more sources were not the best either. PackMecEng (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I am not a fan of the extreme bad faith assumptions above by NBSB. Things like this & this are pretty unacceptable and demonstrate an aggressive battleground attitude. PackMecEng (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind the Hill opinion piece I mention here and was the first source I linked on the talk page covered what I was saying, though not in the right place for where I said it. I had the two Hill sources, numbers 1 & 6, which I had backwards in my first post. The source [1] I list at the article and above here I thought covered the disputed text. You mention that because it is an opinion piece it is not a valid source is for a BLP, if I wanted to use it for info in the article it would have to be attributed to Penn and then would probably fail weight. But the post was not about purposed text or something to add to the article, but a cautionary note. Now if I am mistaken about what the source says I do apologize but that is where I was coming from. With the Hill opinion piece would you consider it a BLP violation what I wrote? At the same time I do not think that excuses NBSB's behavior here or at the article, their aggressive behavior and misrepresenting the situation are a problem. One that has been noted by others but largely ignored for a long time. PackMecEng (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valjean I did float it on talk first. PackMecEng (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to make a quick note on BLP. NBSN just used a blog to call Jeff Sessions homophobic.[63] The source provided is Slate's XX Factor section here, which if you look at the launch of the page is described as When DoubleX launched in 2009, with the XX Factor blog as its backbone[64]. Luckily it was reverted. PackMecEng (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Then Beyond My Ken restored it with no edit summary.[65] PackMecEng (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a developing story still CNN, WaPo. I think that as this is not being forced into an article itself but being discussed on the talkpage a reminder to be cautious will suffice. Remember to approach BLPs with a "do no harm" thought process.--MONGO (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was hoping to make this an early night - it is Friday after all - but I've been spending it on research instead. I typically try to steer clear of RECENTISM but when a credible author like Jonathan Turley publishes an article on his website regarding this same topic, it begs to be read, if for no other reason than to learn about what's going on with Strzok according to a legal analyst for NBC & CBS News as well as being a highly credible professor and Chair of Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School. He discussed the release of the new FBI documents and he also mentions Strzok's role but I won't quote his analysis here. I'll just leave this link for the admins reviewing this case to read for themselves, if they haven't already seen it. I also recommend that prior to making any decisions in this case - including a potential boomerang - that those involved in this case become a bit more familiar with the information at the link I just provided, as well as the articles PackMecEng attempted to discuss before being drug over here. We don't have to like the contents, and as far as I know, we are still allowed to discuss it on an article TP with links to the articles we're discussing. If we intend to add controversial material to a BLP, we use in-text attribution, verify the information is published by a RS and cite it accordingly. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, you brought up an incident about something PME said/did over 2 years ago? And now you are using that and a simple TP discussion that the OP should have handled differently as your reason to justify a strong warning? PME has not done anything that reaches such a level of scrutiny much less a logged warning, especially in light of the diffs used against them. I cannot imagine that the arbs who created AE intended for it to be used for content and source questions rather than egregious disruption. What you are suggesting now is clearly disproportionate and comes across as punishment for PME daring to mention breaking news editors may need to prepare for. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valjean - Fox News is a RS. Please stop misrepresenting it, especially at venues like AE that could have negative effects on an editor who may be innocent. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order here. I see no warning that this would be taken to Arbitration Enforcement nor of discretionary sanctions. As such, this complaint belongs at WP:AN or WP:ANI for BLP violations. Likewise, this user has never once been blocked via normal means. Escalating to this venue seems preposterous. Many other avenues are available. This is the second such recent request of a conservative voice going straight from no blocks to a ban with no prior notice. It seems more than in bad faith to take this route. WP:IAR, maybe, but twice in a week? Without following our standards of warnings, blocks, bans progression?...unseemly, IMHO. Buffs (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please get your facts straight before you comment Keep it WP:CIVIL. My facts are straight. I never stated that there was a requirement to do so. I stated that we have standards of escalating discipline for disruptive behavior. This goes straight from a warning, past any block for disruptive behavior, past any block under discretionary sanctions (which have already been authorized by ArbCom), and brings it here; it's unnecessary. Furthermore, reasonable people can disagree about whether the information is accurate. Accordingly, no, it doesn't belong here. As for the AE notice and sanctions, the AE notification is listed as the history of their talk page; it doesn't specify the edit. The DS notification indeed was in February, but is within the realm of possibility that he didn't realize that this specific page was under DS. My point is that we're jumping straight to a ban when literally NO other actions (other than a single vague warning) have even been attempted. XavierItzm is spot on too. Lastly, you're pretty clearly advocating to Topic Ban him...that's a ban. I never said "ban from wikipedia"; it's a lot easier to win an argument when you intentionally misquote/bring in strawmen arguments... Buffs (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is all about a single disputed comment on a talk page. Whether it's accurate or not, it's certainly within the realm of possibility that it was a simple mistake. It really isn't NorthBySouthBaranof's place to redact other people's comments. I too would have taken offense at someone changing my remarks, especially in that manner. He should have reported it to WP:ANI and let the admins deal with it rather than argue and edit-war with him. WP:BOOMERANG should apply. Buffs (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthBySouthBaranof: The statement was "The Hill reporting notes from director of counterintelligence on what Strzok said...". I don't see this as quoting Strzok but the DCI's comment ON Strzok. Ergo, given the multiple sources, I don't see the issue here. I'm aware of BLP. You should have removed it and then, when re-added, report it to an an appropriate venue. Buffs (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get enforcement on the well-over-the-limit word count for NorthBySouthBaranof? Buffs (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs: As noted above, PME received an AP DS notification in February. There is no requirement that another notification be given before filing an AE report, simply that the editor in question has been informed of the sanctions. Nor is a history of blocks required to file a report here. Please get your facts straight before you comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs: Just a note - You are approaching 500 words. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PME: ""XX Factor" is a WP:NEWSBLOG, not a regular WP:BLOG. All of your objections to the material in Alliance Defending Freedom have been falsely based, and your reverts were unjustified. Fortunately, NbNWB provided additional sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming here to ARE to raise a formal complaint about an unrelated editor/incident, having already done my due diligence, collected diffs, etc. Then I see the big bold warning at the top about vexatious litigation, and look at this here complaint that is based on a TP suggestion for material to be considered, unrelated DS warnings from other users from months ago, and a single incident where one user asserts WP:BIO, and I wonder how far this case is distanced from the vexatious warning above; after all, consider the contributions above by MONGO, Atsme and Buffs regarding do no harm, fair progression, other media sources, etc.

Consider this: even Swarm got confused by reading the one of six sources for consideration PackMecEng added to which an objection was raised and at first Swarm thought PackMecEng was justified.

Note that NorthBySouthBaranof's objection was to the lack of the word "Strzok", not to the fact that Strzok was Chief of Counterespionage and a Deputy Director of Counterintelligence and not the FBI's head of counterintelligence (like Swarm misread at first). Is Pack not going to be afforded the same margin as Swarm?

I for one think that if warnings are going to be issued, perhaps both parties might be warned. Or perhaps this here ARE will be clarificatory enough for both. XavierItzm (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this was handled poorly by the filer. The Hill piece (the first cite in PME's first edit) is written in a confusing way. On my first read, I too thought the statement was being attributed to Strzok. This could have been handled better with a calm explanation on the article talk page rather than over the top accusations about defaming a BLP, redacting, edit warring, and an AE report seeking a TBAN. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PackMecEng, I suspect that part of the problem is your use of several dubious/unreliable sources to support your proposition, thus laying a treacherous foundation for any discussion/argument that follows. The sources are notorious for extreme spin, with the last four often getting into counterfactual territory as standard practice when it comes to Trump. This diff contains sources that are credibility killers for AmPol2, and that it involved BLP matters made it even more sensitive:

• Hill opinion[66]
• The Washington Times[67]
• Newsmax[68]
• Fox News[69]
• Fox News[70]

Just be more careful in the future to use much better sources. Otherwise, the idea of first floating the subject at Talk is proper. Better luck next time. That's all. -- Valjean (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what I commended you for. You did "first float the subject at Talk". Good for you. -- Valjean (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This piece in National Review should clear up any issues here. [71]. Nothing sanctionable nor BLP violations. Most of public responses is that FBI processes were normal investigative techniques rather than defamation of anyone. No one has claimed such behavior was wrong or malicious. Indeed, for WP to conclude that it is would be a BLP violation in itself by insinuating what Strzok did was improper. ConstantPlancks (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The recently linked editing about Jeff Sessions is an absurd double standard by NBSB - saying Strzok could have had a hand in something based on a RS that could have been written better is MUCH less serious than calling Jeff Sessions homophobic in Wiki voice based on a blog. If I wasn't so full of good faith I'd think some bias was at play here. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On the one hand, PME is literally discussing sources, and it may just be a good faith difference in interpretation of what the sources are saying. On the other hand, I can see where the redactions are coming from, because it's not obvious to me where the sources correspond with PME's statements. I could probably give PME a pass on the quotation, because the Hill piece does attribute the quote to Strzok. Sources either say that the note was written by the Director of Counterintelligence or that the author was unknown. I also don't see where the sources mention Strzok "Altering interview notes and trying to purposly get Flynn fired." Even assuming Strzok wrote the note, which no source claims, it would still not substantiate the claim in the slightest. PackMecEng, can you clarify how you believe that your statements are drawn from reliable sources, and not unsubstantiated accusation? As an aside, I wouldn't even broach the topic of revoking Rollback over a single misuse, intentional or not. As PME says it was unintentional, we can probably let that slide. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• A quick googling of the phrase "What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" indicates that the words were probably written by a guy named Bill Priestap example source and that the context is unclear (whether it was personal musings or recording a conversation). I didn't find anything indicating that Peter Strzok said that. But I only clicked on 5 results or so, so maybe I missed something.
  For what it's worth, this kind of thing (misrepresenting a source and then doubling down when challenged) is something I explicitly warned PackMecEng against in the past. [72] ~Awilley (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure where to go with this. It's been 2 days and PME has not substantiated the claim about Strzok trying to entrap and get Flynn fired. (Nor has she retracted/disavowed it that I can see.) She did provide this source which comes closer than anything I've seen yet to substantiating it, but that's an opinion piece which we all know isn't good enough for BLP issues like this. The Yahoo/National Review source doesn't substantiate it either, nor does the (personal blog?) source that Atsme provided or the CNN and WaPo sources that MONGO provided, though to be fair Mongo was just trying to illustrate that it was a developing story.

  XavierItzm made the point above that Swarm initially misread the Hill source. The important difference between Swarm and PME is what Swarm did after this was pointed out. Misrepresenting a source isn't good, but we all make mistakes. The real sin, in my mind, is doubling down on the misrepresentation when it's challenged. In what's supposed to be a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedia I see that kind of behavior as more serious than, say, making too many reverts in a day or telling somebody to go eff themselves. Which is why I made a point of warning PME the last time I saw it happen. Maybe I'm in the minority, so I'd rather not impose my personal preferences. But if it were up to me I would at a minimum issue a logged warning, this time with teeth. Like "Doubling down on misrepresenting sources after a misrepresentation has been pointed out to you will result in a topic ban" type warning. Something to convince PME that this is important enough to police herself on and not force other editors into edit wars to remove clear BLP violations. ~Awilley (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't like to think we're deciding on the basis of whether the content in a developing story turns out to be correct,; we should instead be deciding on the basis of the extent of a good-faith effort to support it. It seems to be that by providing the Hill source PME is making a reasonable effort. I suggest that disagreements of this kind are what the article talk p. is for, not AE. DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A trout all around here. PackMacEng should be very clear that Washington Times and Newsmax are not reliable sources for potentially controversial BLP assertions (as in the first edit), but The Hill could well be. NorthBySouthBaranof should, next time, explain their concern with such references rather than reverting; discussing whether references are appropriate for proposed article content is the purpose of a talk page. I don't think more than that is necessary here, but this should have been a talk page thread, not an AE. I would be good with this being an informal warning to both editors to take it down a couple notches. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This seems reasonable to me --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Seraphimblade: You say next time NorthBySouthBaranof should explain their concern. Is that not what they did in this first edit? ~Awilley (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The redacted quotes appeared to be out of the RSes of The Hill and Fox News, not WashTimes and Newsmax. Whether it was necessary to pull the quote to the talk page for the convo , I dunno, but certainly once there per BLPTALK there's zero need to redact it since backed by RSes, which fed into this brief edit war. To add, the specific Hill article is terrible with pronouns and this is a case where BLPTALK may be needed to figure out who exactly the quote came from, but again per BLPTALK, its allowed to be discussed, no redaction was needed, though editors just should be cautioned to avoid quoting if they need to (Better just to point out the sources and discuss). --Masem (t) 14:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This has gone unedited for 4 days and there’s not much appetite for sanctions. Closing with no action. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Onceinawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (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

ARBPIA discretionary sanctions

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

At First Jordan Hydro-Electric Power House

1. 22:14, 17 April 2020 Deletes half of a quote from US diplomat Wells Stabler, with editnotice "dubious material from a primary source"
2. 01:25, 24 April 2020 repeats edit
3. 02:50, 1 May 2020 repeats
4. 17:00, 2 May 2020 adds primary-source-inline tag to the same material, this time without deleting it
5. 23:17, 11 May 2020 Readds tag
6. 16:17, 13 May 2020 Readds tag

At Wadi Qana

1. 14:59, 10 May 2020 tags Geography and population section
2. 14:37, 11 May 2020 adds FV tag in Geography and population section
3. 17:58, 11 May 2020 adds same tag
4. 13:41, 12 May 2020 tags "altered to Nahal Elkana" in lede (immediately undoes it, with edit comment "undo for now, may have inadvertantly violated 1RR")
5. 16:12, 13 May 2020 re-adds same tag

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

• notified here
• discussed ARBPIA here

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Slow running edit war, against consensus at First Jordan Hydro-Electric Power House. There has been a long discussion on the talk page, with Shrike in support of JungerMan's arguments. Since Zero0000's comment on 11:51, 17 April 2020 and Selfstudier's comment 12:38, 18 April 2020, there was a 3:2 consensus supporting the inclusion of the material. This moved to 4:2 in support of the quote following Nableezy's comment at 21:25, 12 May 2020. Yet JungerMan has now deleted the content or tagged the content 6 times, of which two occasions have been just after the 24 hour 1RR deadline.

Separately, as has been discussed on the talk page, the nature of the edit appears to be tendentious. This is illustrated by the fact that although JungerMan is arguing that the quote is primary, when he deleted it (first three diffs above) he only removed half of the quote. The rest of the quote is from the same source, and the content is not covered by any other source.

I have not followed the discussion at Wadi Qana in detail, but per the diffs I have put above there seems to be a similar dynamic.

Final note, worth reading Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1036#JungerMan_Chips_Ahoy! from 5 days ago in a different subject area, where two administrators predicted that JungerMan will "eventually end up at AE". Here we are. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC has been opened at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Foreign_Relations_of_the_United_States_(book_series)_in_First_Jordan_Hydro-Electric_Power_House, which will hopefully resolve the content question. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[73]

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.

We should flip this around and ask for DS sanctions against Onceinawhile, who is repeatedly introducing contested material into the article w/o consensus, violating WP:ONUS.

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

1. 15:48, 13 April 2020 Introduces a very lengthy quote and an exceptional claim from a primary source, in violation of WP:RSPRIMARY
2. 22:15, 17 April 2020 one minute after the previous edit was partially reverted and contested by me, reinserts it into the article, in violation of WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, while noting in edit summary there is no consensus for this!
3. 16:26, 2 May 2020 removes tags next to the primary source despite the discussion still going on, and declares 'a consensus exist" when no such consensus is apparent on the talkpage, nor has he attempted to demonstrate such consensus via WP:DR or RfC
4. 21:49, 11 May 2020 again removes a tag, this time one validly placed next to a source that failed verification.

I have repeatedly explained to this editors (as have others - [74]) that WP:CONSENSUS is not a numerical vote, and that per WP:ONUS, if he wants to introduce material that has been challenged into the article, he must demonstrate consensus for it, but he refuses to do so. Instead, he merely repeats, time and again, that 3 editors (himself included) support the material, while only 2 oppose it, so 60% majority is a consensus. ([75],[76]). (that ratio is currently 4:3)

Note also, that for all his protestations, the contested material is still in the article now, despite having no consensus. Apparently he is not even content with the disputed material being tagged as the primary source that it is.

As far as the Wadi Qana article goes, this article is currently undergoing a major expansion/revision. In the process, many problems are being introduced, such as unbalanced sections (which I tagged - #1), statements that failed verification (which I tagged - #2,3), and dubious statements (which I tagged, #5). How are articles going to get any better if issues are not called out via tagging? (Note also the dishonesty in the filer's list, where #4 an #5 are one edit, made, then immediately reverted by myself, then added, yet he lists them as if they were two edits).

This is a tendentious request by a tendentious editor, sanctions are to be applied to them. If there is any doubt about this , just check out his final comment, referring to an unrelated AE report involving me - a report which was closed with no sanctions, described as a content dispute that should be resolved on the talkpage, and a call forWP:DR or an RfC (something I've been repeatedly asking the filer to do here, which he refuses). And while one of the admins arguing against me in that AE did write what Onceinawhile chose to quote, he was immediately replied to by another admin who said "at least at the linked article, they're making something resembling a good point.". Somehow that didn't make it into the tendentious filing here.

Finally, this editor has previously been sanctioned - blocked for edit warring and topic banned from this subject area for 3 months, for this exact type of conduct - it seems tht after cooling his heels for a while, he's right back at it.

Yes, In actu, I am going to disengage from that page for now.

There were never any consensus.The WP:ONUS was never satisfied for the inclusion of contested material.Those who restored the material without consensus should be sanctioned as violation of WP:ONUS like the filer[77] --Shrike (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Shrike. In this area, you can't include a Primary Source without satisfying the requirement laid out in policy and that wasn't met. Those editors who included it, violated DS and ONUS by reinserting it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a pattern of edits with this user, seen here and at, for example, The Federalist (website). Slow-motion edit-warring just outside the bright line rules. I also remain convinced that this is NoCa1l00 and should be blocked on that basis. nableezy - 22:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see a number of users at that page re-inserting material without a clear consensus, violating ONUS. The next proper step should be an RFC, with inserting the material on hold until it concludes. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Can everyone involved here agree to please stop edit warring? --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 00:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Eternal Father (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/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) :

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

1. 2020-05-03 Edit to Michael Flynn, clearly in the scope of AP2 and tagged as such with a notice on the Talk page where he left the edit.
2. [78], [79], [80], 2020-05-08 - edits to Plandemic leading to discussion and a warning that Plandemic is in scope for AP2, article talk page subsequently tagged. These edits are defensible as scope here is a matter of interpretation, but consensus was that the article is in-scope and Eternal Father was then duly warned.
3. Date See below for the inextricable connection between this and the explicitly in-scope Plandemic.
4. Date As above, so below...

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 2020-05-03 Topic ban from AP2

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 2020-05-03 by Doug Weller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Eternal Father was topic-banned from AP2 here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive265 § Eternal Father Consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1036 § American Politics and COVID-19 is that the COVID-19 conspiracy video Plandemic falls within the AP2 arena, due to the political nature of COVID-19 generally and COVID-19 conspiracy theories in particular.

Eternal Father was made aware of this on 2020-50-08.

Judy Mikovits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is inextricably linked to Plandemic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mikovits is the "star" of the video and her conspiracy theories around COVID-19 are its subject. The edits serve to promte the legitimacy of Mikovits against a background of the Plandemic video, e.g. adding {{Infobox scientist}} when the point is very much that she is no longer a scientist, having been dismissed during a course of events that included retraction of her most cited paper. I would say that it is difficult if not impossible to argue in good faith that if Plandemic is in scope, Mikovits is not.

This is Eternal Father's first mainspace edit since being alerted that Plandemic is in scope. Plandemic (and Mikki Willis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the director) were his first mainspace edits since the topic ban.

I'd like to ask an uninvolved admin to issue a firm and final warning to stick to the spirit of the topic ban and not be tempted to test its limits. Guy (help!) 08:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

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

I've given them a final warning making it very clear that this applies to every page on Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 10:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Rk adh (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

ARBIPA

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

1. 02:46, 18 May 2020 Deletion of sourced content without explanation
2. 19:23, 18 May 2020: Repeats the same deletion without explanation
3. 19:50, 18 May 2020: Repeats the third time without explanation
4. 20:09, 18 May 2020: When asked for explanation on the talk page, he quips " I have accepted most of your work."
5. 22:05, 18 May 2020: Resorts to personal attacks: "you may be sofisticated paid agent who can work around the clock. But you are displaying a pattern of spreading propaganda" and "I am not a person with a pseudoname."
6. 23:24, 18 May 2020: "That poor source is not removed". No mention of the source, or what is "poor" about it.
7. 00:08, 19 May 2020 Gives me an WP:NPA warning, with no mention of where I might have done any personal attacks. Also more aspersions.
8. 00:16, 19 May 2020 Supposedly I failed to "justify such poorly sourced content", with no explanation of what was "poorly sourced".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

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. 19:29, 18 May 2020‎

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a newish user, dealing with a page on a Nepali village on the Indian border, which has a certain amount of India-related content. It is close to a disputed territory.

It seems fairly clear that the user came around to bulldoze his way through the edits, and to make personal attacks against me and my editing, with no effort at good faith engagement of any sort.

After this spree of edits, a new account called Govinda Paudel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) got created, which did the same kind of edits the user would have liked to make.[81][82] Whether it is WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT is hard to say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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.

Please see my 'article talk page' how I responded his/her/it questions for real understanding of context. Please also see my 'user talk page' how many times he/she/it intimidated me. I also wrote on his/her/it 'user talk page' about my reasons why he/she/it was not working in wikipedia with good faith.Ram Adhikari (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)rk adh[reply]

What about taking action against User: Kautilya3? Do it need another request for it?

Ram Adhikari (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)rk adh[reply]

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

• When a new user arrives on Wikipedia and immediately plunges into nationalist editing, I think that a WP:NOTHERE block should be considered instead of the multiple stages of AE sanctions. It does not appear that User:Rk adh has any interest in obeying our sourcing policy or in trying to achieve a neutral article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed, Ed. I have blocked indefinitely as an ordinary admin action. Bishonen | tålk 04:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Opening the hat to mention that I have blocked Govinda Paudel per WP:DUCK. Bishonen | tålk 04:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Saxestrunk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAPDS :

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

1. May 11, 2020 Saxestrunk placed a POV tag at the top of the article. I reverted it four days later since previous discussion had gone stale and the user account Saxestrunk had not participated in it.
2. May 18, 2020 Saxestrunk placed a POV tag at the top of the article. They did not discuss on the talk page as required by the conspicuous page editing restrictions.
3. May 11, 2020 Personal attack in an edit summary. (Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.)

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[83]

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.

The mention of Snooganssnoogan`s POV is not really concerning because it is indeed obvious that Snooganssnoogans is guided by their POV if you look at their user page. Something I will take somewhere else. What`s clearly supporting a topic ban is, however, this admission of working towards a POV.Lurking shadow (talk) 11:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I find it hard to believe that this is a new user and not somebody's throwaway sock account. ~Awilley (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Awilley: I thought they were Rambo Apocalypse, but CU data disagrees --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The technical data supports the likelihood that Saxestrunk is User:Architect 134 doing their best to look like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rambo Apocalypse. I've blocked indef.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Bloodofox (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/Falun_Gong_2#May_2014 :

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

Edits/revert warring

1. May 19 Changes definition of subject in first sentence, adds new second paragraph (with misspelling of subject) drawing attention to media companies associated with subject. At least one of these sentences contained material not in the source (i.e. that FLG's Shen Yun contains "anti-LGBTQ messaging"). These changes are then discussed on talk page.
2. May 19 Revert of the above (included misstatement of New Yorker source)
3. May 19 Revert of above.
4. May 19 Revert again. Note that dispute less about the categorization of subject as a new religious movement, but about whether there's a scholarly consensus on this (apparently not) and whether it should be the single authoritative definition.
5. May 19 Revert (4th or more now) of the same content.
6. May 19 Preempts previous careful/nuanced discussion of the different ways FLG has been categorized with "Scholars overwhelmingly describe Falun Gong as a NRM." Whether this is a consensus seems to be a matter of dispute.
7. May 19 Coatracking? In any case the New Yorker article does not say The Epoch Times promotes conspiracy theories (other RS say so, I believe; but in the Shen Yun page I think the combination would be original research anyway. Point is it misrepresents the cited source again.)

Aspersions, insults, soapboxing

1. May 19 Effectively accuses users who disagree of trying to censor wikipedia.
2. May 19 User who disagrees is "parroting the organization's talking points"
3. May 19 Implies users who disagree are attempting to promote the subject.
4. May 19 Accuses users who disagree of attempting to censor wikipedia.
5. May 19 Again accuses those who disagree with the emphasis that the new religious movement categorization should have in the article of "scrubbing the article to replicate the group's talking points." My read of the discussion on talk page is one of emphasis: some saying NRM is one of the several appellations, Bloodofox saying it is the dominant and should be emphasized above all others, then accusing those who disagree or provide alternate sources of censorship and doing propaganda for the FLG. For instance, another user notes that one of the leading scholars of FLG says it "makes no sense" to call FLG an NRM ; other user also put NRM in the section on categorization [84]. Thus, a question of emphasis, not scrubbing.
6. May 20 An editor who reverted the disputed changes is described as an adherent. (It does not appear they identify themselves as such.)
7. May 20 "Adherents crawling out of the woodwork", "another Falun Gong-talking-point-promoting editor". He was called out for this [85] as unfounded and ad hominem.
8. May 20 Again those who disagree are adherents doing propaganda, not other editors who simply disagree with his personal view of emphasis, weight, etc.
9. May 20 More.

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 [86] (Note: not clear if before or after the edit warring.)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:Bloodofox recently began editing the article Falun Gong, as well as several other related articles that are also subject to discretionary sanctions. This complaint mostly focuses on his edits to Falun Gong, with a few other examples shown to demonstrate the pattern. I watch the page and take some interest in it and related topics.

The user's edits appear to be tendentious. He has violated the 3RR in an attempt to enforce his revisions to the page, even while a (what I found fruitful and interesting) discussion about the merits of those changes was ongoing. The discussion is a bit lengthy, but I felt he often mischaracterized his interlocutors' positions, and by implication seemed to repeatedly claim they were trying to censor him or the encyclopedia.

In terms of content, I think the main problem is neutrality and weight. His edits to the lede of the article seem to be a case of a) WP:coatracking; b) not consistent with requirements for neutrality and WP:WEIGHT, and c) not even supported by the sources given (as another user pointed out[87]. Indeed the excursion to the fringe noticeboard could be seen as an attempt at rather targeted forum shopping.

The user has accused other editors of acting in bad faith, including by interrogating them about their religious beliefs. This is just such an obvious form of ad hominem argument, and it doesn't contribute to a productive editing climate.

The central point of contention appears to be Bloodofox's attempt to give a master definition of Falun Gong as a New Religious Movement. (The previous version of the page, which seems to have been a stable consensus, called it a religious practice). It appears that other editors do not object to noting it has been categorized as a new religious movement, as one of several contested labels and categories that have been used to describe Falun Gong. They appear to disagree that it should be used as the authoritative, master definition, given the disputes among experts on it.

This is a controversial and difficult topic area. It doesn't appear that other editors disagree that the Falun Gong page include info on the media properties and performing troupes operated by adherents, or of discussion of how FLG is categorized by scholars. They seem concerned with weight, neutrality, tone. Bloodofox does not seem capable of or willing to contribute productively to these pages via reasonable discussion with other editors. In just one day or so he has adopted an aggressive approach, made accusations against other editors, repeatedly misrepresented sources, engaged in forum shopping, and edit warred. And anyone who disagrees with him is doing propaganda for the Falun Gong.

Additional additional comments by editor filing complaint

On the forum shopping, sorry that I neglected the diffs. Here the editor takes the issue to the RS noticeboard [88], and to the Fringe Theories noticeboard[89]. Maybe that is not a problem? The posts there however appear quite prejudicial and they seem to misrepresent the nature of the dispute. Per WP:forum shopping, "Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions." Accusing people who raised legitimate objections to his edits of being Falun Gong adherents, or suggesting that they're engaged in a conspiracy to censor him, does not seem like a neutral solicitation of input.

On my own revert to the page: I saw that Bloodofox made substantial changes to the lede section, edit warred to enforce his changes, and did so over the (seemingly reasonable) objections of editors on the talk page. I didn't understand my action as edit warring: it was a single revert back to a version of the page prior to the dispute, done because the proposed changes proved highly contentious, and it seemed improper that mere force be substituted for discussion and persuasion. But if I'm wrong please let me know, and happy to change back as this debate proceeds.

My read was that it was not the content as such that was being objected to, but cramming it in the lead in such a peculiar way. Why doesn't the article open with "Falun Gong is a group which some scholars believe is a cult." or alternatively "Falun Gong is a peaceful practice that suffers persecution in its native China." One could presumably find plenty of references for either of those statements, but they would be very poor opening sentences for an encyclopedic article. My ideal experience when reading pages here is to encounter an authoritative tone, where you cannot tell what the editors actually think of the subject - neutral, considered, all relevant views.

I do anti-prejudice stuff in my professional practice and I guess that drives my approach. I mostly lurk on wikipedia and haven't edited these pages much yet. I saw what struck me as aggressive conduct driven by obvious disdain for the subject, and after looking up the arbitration proceedings thought it warranted reporting. Tighter restrictions to the pages sounds like a fine idea. In this case it was an apparently seasoned editor who immediately did multiple reverts (seems I had not grokked the three revert rule) to enforce his preferred version of the page, and who has repeatedly disparaged editors who voiced objections to his changes without addressing the substance of their objections. All in a day.

A solution may be to suggest that the editor limit himself to the talk page and/or chill out on the name-calling and aggression?

I see the anti-LBGTQ issue now - the New Yorker article refers to Falun Gong teachings that homosexuality is unnatural, and later refers in passing to homophobia in Shen Yun. It's not clear whether there was an act in Shen Yun that was meant to be anti-gay, or if this is a transposition error. In any case, I read the piece earlier but when preparing the diffs did ctrl+f for the term that was cited and did not find it, so I called that out. It seems more borderline now, but still - is that something noteworthy enough for the second paragraph of an article? Now we write the encyclopedia by just picking out any detail that is negative (positive) for the subject and putting it in the second paragraph? The entire predication of tertiary sources is a familiarity with the body of secondary sources and discussion about how to integrate them all. With this precedent, what is to stop those who are pro-Falun Gong now filling the lede with their preferred tidbits, "10,000 Falun Gong practitioners were tortured in 2020," or whatever it may be. It simply seems like this editor really doesn't like Falun Gong and wants the pages to conform to that view. It's a bit confusing, and yes, not a particularly welcoming area to stick one's nose in. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 09:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bloodofox&diff=957815891&oldid=957610127

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.

This is such a gross misepresentation of the situation and specific targeting of yours truly that it's hard to know where to begin.

But let's start here: First and foremost, @Cleopatran Apocalypse:, the user who has brought this complaint, neglects to mention that she is by no means a neutral party on this subject: She has herself engaging in edit-warring to scrub the article of mention of the phrase new religious movement. For example, before bringing this complaint, she performed this edit, reverting @Helloimahumanbeing: and therefore removing a dozen of the highest possible quality academic sources available on this topic spanning over a decade, all flatly referring to Falung Gong as a new religious movement.

And that is really what this is about. Like most new religious movements, Falun Gong doesn't like to be referred to as a new religious movement, instead preferring to be thought of as an 'ancient spiritual practice', academics be damned.

This complaint is a waste of time. What we really need is more eyes on the Falun Gong article so that it doesn't simply read as a propaganda piece, as it currently does, alongside our Epoch Times and Shen Yun articles (both extensions of the new religious group). For readers unfamiliar with these propaganda extensions of the Falun Gong, read this, this, or this.

Finally, while this really goes without saying, at the fringe theories noticeboard, we talk about fringe theories. I'm a regular. The editor who has brought this complaint has attempted to frame this as lobbying while, I remind you, attempting to scrub the article. She neglects to mention that the Falun Gong extensions consistently and aggressively push fringe theories, such as anti-vaccination propaganda, anti-evolution propaganda anti-LGBTQ propaganda—you name it—all the while spending over a million dollars in promoting the Donald Trump campaign and, for example, extreme right wing groups in Germany.

It ain't a pretty situation, and the aggressive pushback myself and other editors are experiencing here is undoubtedly in no small part due to the presence of certain editors revert-warring to make sure that English Wikipedia's Falun Gong article parrots the new religious movement's talking points, while hiding what its media extensions are up. And therefore scrubbing anything 'controversial' about the group. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to this: Notably, when requested to provide more sources (framed above as "misrepresenting") on the Falun Gong's propaganda arms, I did so, eg.:

• Hettena, Seth. 2019. "The Obscure Newspaper Fueling the Far-Right in Europe". The New Republic. Online.
• Junker, Andrew. 2019. Becoming Activists in Global China: Social Movements in the Chinese Diaspora, p. 99. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781108655897
• Tolentino, Jia. 2019. Stepping into the Uncanny, Unsettling World of Shen Yun. The New Yorker. March 19, 2019. Online. Last accessed May 18, 2020.
• Zadronzy, Brandy & Ben Collins. 2019. "Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times". Online. Last accessed May 19, 2020.

However, the editor who has summoned us here has neglected to bring that to your attention—and in fact simply removed them. It is quite possible to rewrite this article from scratch with the hundreds of reliable secondary sources on this topic, both from recent media sources and from peer-reviewed academic sources spanning over decade. But then it would look quite different—it wouldn't agree with the organization's narrative.

As as a result, when reasonable and accurate changes with reliable sources are introduced, they're historically reverted or lawyered away with "there's no consensus, people just don't understand the history". The sheer volume of academic sources say quite the opposite: The academics understand the new religious movement very well, and they overwhelmingly don't mince words about that classification, as demonstrated in just this small sample, consisting entirely of sources said editor and others have repeatedly removed from the article:

• Barker, Eileen. 2016. Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements, cf. 142-143. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781317063612
• Clarke, Peter. 2004. Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781134499694
• Hexham, Irving. 2009. Pocket Dictionary of New Religious Movements, p. 49 & 71. InterVarsity Press. 9780830876525
• Oliver, Paul. 2012. New Religious Movements: A Guide for the Perplexed, pp. 81-84. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 9781441125538
• Partridge, Christopher. 2004. Encyclopedia of New Religions: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities, 265-266. Lion.

Personally, I write about new religious movements, fringe topics and pseudoscience quite frequently, and these sorts of responses are not at all unusual or even unexpected. But what is unusual here is the sheer volume of new accounts and long-term, specific-issue focused accounts hovering around this specific of articles. It's also worth noting that stuff like this regularly washes up on associated talk pages, as well. I certainly appreciate these articles getting more eyes and attention. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear they violated 3RR on Falun Gong, but they did go right up against it.

1 - (Undid revision 957628151 by TheBlueCanoe (talk) This is fully reference to reliable sources, neutral, and indisputable. Wikipedia isn't censored.)[90]

2 - (- Revert: These are all exceptionally high quality sources, Wikipedia isn't censored)[91]

3 - (Undid revision 957662712 by TheBlueCanoe (talk) Take it to talk. We need discussion of these topics in the article, if not here. Wikipedia isn't censored. Finally, that was your third revert in the past 24 hours: Discuss more, add more quality sources, revert less.)[92]

Just for what it's worth. The forum shopping seems to come from posting it at RSN and FTN. If that qualifies as forum shopping? Eh I dunno. I have not looked into the misrepresenting sources comment yet. PackMecEng (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, I had no idea that it would get to this point once again. I recently came back from a long PhD hiatus, but after going through the article's talk page I should probably make a few comments here. I don't wanted to get involved with any mudslinging.

First, I think Bloodofox is right in the sense that the New Religious Movement label is backed up by several reliable sources, and it absolutely needs to be mentioned in the article and given due weight. I have little tolerance for those who're trying to scrub it. The core of the debate is whether the different characterizations and definitions found in the mainstream academic sources ought to be described per WP:NPOV and WP:V, or if we should stick to one "master definition" (whether it's NRM, spiritual practice, or whatever suits your fancy.) Personally I think the former approach is better. Why would it be a bad thing to explain that there are various characterizations in reputable third-party sources? I really haven't seen a lot of opposition to that, with the exception of some random editors who just don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works, or who simply don't care.

One thing to keep in mind is that the FLG articles are under discretionary sanctions because there have been several attempts by both sides of this discursive struggle to take control. Several editors were dragged to arbitration and banned over the years for propagandizing either with a pro-FLG/anti-CCP or an anti-FLG/pro-CCP agenda. The status quo of the articles was extensively scrutinized in previous arbitration and mediation cases, and there must be a few books worth of back-and-forth discussions about the complexities involved. From what I was able to tell, everyone (including admins) decided a few years ago that major edits to these articles should be done by obtaining support and having good faith discussions on the talk page, as well as avoiding all ad hominem attacks. The discretionary sanctions were put in place to enforce that. To me it seems that Bloodofox has been quite eager to make a large number of significant changes in a short period of time and wield major definitional power without addressing the substance of some eminent concerns. It is unfortunate that this should escalate into edit warring and such; is it because of impatience or frustration with the discussion process that's inherently involved in these kinds of cases?

Furthermore, there does seem to be some bad faith involved, as a number of people who disagreed with the wordings, placements and structure (but who were basically in agreement about the reliability/notability of the sources) were accused of tendentiousness, and worse. I don't see that as being essentially very different from those crazies who think that everybody who's critical of FLG must be a CCP agent. I've experienced that myself in some situations. Real world doesn't operate like that. Reasonable people can have reasonable disagreements. There are legitimate questions to be resolved here, and patience is undoubtedly a virtue when the articles in question have a frustratingly complicated history. Bstephens393 (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I took issue with the anti-evolution/anti-LGBT edit, thought the sourcing was weak but it wasn't a "misrepresentation" and Bloodofox was perfectly reasonable[93][94] about taking another look. fiveby(zero) 21:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calling any and all users bringing in Falun Gong's favored version "adherents" is technically aspersions, but let's face it, at least some of them undoubtedly are. It would take a special kind of dedicated ignorance to insist that Falun Gong is not an NRM unless one is a follower who believes as a matter of faith that Li Hongzhi was merely preserving/reviving ancient traditions. On that note, WP:RSPSCRIPTURE but Li's Zhuan Falun promises mystical powers but says that any identical results in any similar movement (e.g. Vajrayana) will be a demonic illusion -- extremely sectarian for a Buddhist-inspired movement. The loose organization parallels Transcendental Meditation movement (which lets casual members pretend they're doing enough while seeking out diehard adherents for more demanding activities) more than the Church of Scientology's hierarchy but The Epoch Times is a clear sign of an organization with a contagiously self-gaslighting membership akin to the CoS. Yes, yes, the Chinese gov't's persectution of them is absolutely unacceptable and should be condemned, but that doesn't give them carte blanche to push even harder in the opposite direction when it comes to propaganda. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The OP doesn't understand 3RR (admittedly that's not surprising for a user with 337 edits) — consecutive edits count as one edit, so Bloodofox has not violated 3RR that I can see, or even come close. Altogether the OP's diffs (which look pretty harmless) and the accusations they level are curiously separate — for instance, the very serious accusations that Bloodofox has "repeatedly misrepresented sources [and] engaged in forum shopping" don't come with any evidence. Please give diffs for those statements, @Cleopatran Apocalypse: or I'm very inclined towards a boomerang here. The report looks like an attempt to weaponize AE against an opponent. Bishonen | tålk 20:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• (edit conflict) On the subject of edit warring, the filer has actually continued doing so even after filing this request ([95]) I'm also seeing some substantial problems with the filer's editing, including with what's presented here. Cleopatran Apocalypse states that Bloodofox misrepresented a reference by stating Shen Yun put forth anti-LGBTQ material, yet the cited source ([96]) clearly states that Shen Yun's performances contain "homophobia", so that particular accusation is flatly false and an aspersion. On the part of Bloodofox, referring to others who disagree with the edits as "adherents" and accusing them of involvement in a conspiracy is also casting aspersions, and that better stop too. Like Bishonen, I'm disposed, in terms of this particular request, to seeing a boomerang in the air here. However, given what I'm seeing on the article itself, there does indeed seem to be a substantial amount of ownership behavior by some editors, and some editors who edit very infrequently seem to pop up awfully conveniently when there's a dispute. I'm inclined to put the article (talk included) under both 30/500 and 1RR, and if that can't resolve those issues, maybe it would then be time for ArbCom to take a fresh look at this. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Bishonen and Seraphimblade. Also I note that when User:TheBlueCanoe reached 3RR, another editor User:Clara Branch (24 edits) popped up to remove all the materal again, and then when it was restored (not by Bloodofox), there was the OP (337 edits) with their first edit on the article since 2017 to wipe it all out again. ECP might be useful here. Black Kite (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  They are  Unrelated, BK --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • That doesn't surprise me, but even if they're not the same editor I would say there's a very good chance of off-wiki collusion there. Black Kite (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Seraphimblade and Bishonen. 1RR and ECP are good options --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Per the above, I am placing Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) under ECP for 1 year. Guy (help!) 11:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ceha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Čeha (razgovor) 06:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

<infinite ban on edits on eastern europe and tslk pagrs>

Administrator imposing the sanction

Bradv (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[97]

< moderator sanctioned me for trying to stop deletion of sourced and quoted text>

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

• I'd decline the appeal. Ceha's contributions to Bosnia (early medieval polity) and other articles appears to be an exercise in seeing how close they can get to violating their 1RR a week sanction without actually violating it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline appeal. This was clearly a gaming of the 1RR per week sanction. That sanction does not mean to pop in every week and make the same revert. This appeal in no way addresses what happened. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. It appears the topic ban was implement at 04:19, 21 May 2020 and this appeal, with no explanation, occurred two hours later. Such a response in such a contentious and hard-to-control topic indicates there is no reason to overturn the discretionary sanction. Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline, restriction is valid on its face. Come back after a minimum of 3 months' trouble-free editing in other areas. Guy (help!) 11:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per above --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

cjwilky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions :

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

1. 2020-05-18 Removes findings of misleading advertising against Vernon Coleman, whose books advocate homeopathy for a variety of diseases.
2. 2020-04-27 Artemisia annua is a plant used in homeopathy and both pharmacological and homeopathic preparations have been touted as COVID-19 remedies.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 2014-04-11 Topic banned from homeopathy broadly construed.

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 2014-04-11 by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Blocked for violation of the topic ban on 2020-01-20, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Cjwilky's edits fall into two classes: Doncaster Rovers, and problematic edits advocating fringe views. Cjwilky has acknowledged on-wiki his work as a homeopath, and his real-world identity is known but not I think linked to Wikipedia explicitly, so I won't give his full name. He is a homeopath in the UK. The content removed from Vernon Coleman concerns the UK's Advertising Standards Authority, which is a well known bête noir of UK homeopaths, having found large numbers of them and their own professional society (of which he is or has been a member) to have advertised misleadingly. In his off-wiki life as a homeopath, cjwilky is subject to rules imposed after the ASA rulings and directly relevant to the content he removed from the Coleman article, adding WP:COI tot he WP:FRINGE.

Coleman is also squarely within the scope of the pseudoscience case.

I'm not asking for a block, but I would ask for (a) a warning and (b) an explicit extension of the TBAN to cover the entire area of fringe/pseudoscience. Guy (help!) 17:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

I've just seen the note about 500 words max, and so tried to edit down, however, having seen the responses below, it appears explanation is just. An accusation is always easy to be succinct with, but to deal with the issue thoroughly and fairly, it surely has to be fair to fully respond. Yes, many egs of the pages I'd need to be banned from - however it makes the point of how ludicrous such ban as is suggested is.

Edit on Vernon Coleman came from seeing a youtube vid I felt was a bit flakey and subsequently trying to get an overview on him having never come across him before. The wiki page didn't say a lot and the ASA section was confused at best. I would have spent more time if I had time, though deleting the chunk I did, it being repetition, was a no brainer. So regarding this, I didn't actually remove anything bar the repetition. The claim of: "Removes findings of misleading advertising against Vernon Coleman" is patently mistaken. That he has written books on homeopathy, I have no idea. As said, I was trying to find out who he is, and in any case the homeopathy angle has no relevance unless it has been deemed an edit of mine was deliberately changing the weight of the article in some way. It's attempting to use hypothetical circumstantial evidence - I'm aghast at the logic there?

The edit on Artemisia annua came from researching the ingredients of the Madagascan medicine for covid - a significant topic at the moment, as can be seen from the page stats - sharply up from approx 500 views per day to 2000 over the last month. It had been very difficult to track down the ingredients of this medicine and I managed it, so added it to the section already in wiki, though a section that was missing some useful, crucial, info. Isn't this what wiki is about? Again, the relevance to homeopathy isn't there, certainly not from my part in it. The Covid Organics medicine is herbal, not homeopathy - maybe evidence of Guy's lack of understanding and comprehension on the issue and on what he refers to as pseudoscience in general. Given his accusations, I would be interested in what Guy has found regarding homeopathy, covid and artemisia? Many remedies treat the symptoms of covid, artemisia isn't one I've seen discussed in the professional forums. Further, herbalism is not fringe.

Two edits done without problem, but there is a complaint and a statement of "problematic edits advocating fringe views." - yet I see no evidence of anything problematic for Wiki.

If anyone is interested, check my edits. They are constructive and helpful. Even the breach of the topic ban on homeopathy was simply me observing how editors had no understanding of what they were talking about on a specific issue and so I tried to give them context and perspective - there was no trouble on my side, though there were some vile comments from other editors there - par for the course on the homeopathy page towards anyone not toeing a pseudoskeptic line, and ultimately why I was banned from there. Cjwilky (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just noticed the point made by Guy in his accusation:

"The content removed from Vernon Coleman concerns the UK's Advertising Standards Authority, which is a well known bête noir of UK homeopaths, having found large numbers of them and their own professional society (of which he is or has been a member) to have advertised misleadingly. In his off-wiki life as a homeopath, cjwilky is subject to rules imposed after the ASA rulings and directly relevant to the content he removed from the Coleman article,..."

This is shockingly personal and irrelevant! If I'd have been acting in the way in which Guy insinuates, I'd have surely removed more than I did, otherwise why bother? It was purely done for clarity - as all considered comments have noted below. Cjwilky (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've now also checked out the foundation of the first claim against me:

"Removes findings of misleading advertising against Vernon Coleman, whose books advocate homeopathy for a variety of diseases."

Not only is the first part of that claim nonsense, as noted by people below, and seen by taking a look at the page, but the second part, namely "...whose books advocate homeopathy for a variety of diseases." is glorifying one aspect of hs writings when they are in fact a minute part of what he says - or maybe Guy can show the detailed evidence for his claim? As far as I have just googled, in one or two of his 80? books he mentions homeopathy as one of a great many treatments available, as well as orthodox medicine.

Taking this to its logical conclusion, is Guy also suggesting I can't edit anyone or anything that gives a positive or negative reference to homeopathy? Many highly notable people speak about homeopathy or are widely reported with reference to homeopathy, so am I also to be banned from editing their pages, or is there some kind of distinction Guy has in mind, assuming there is a logic to be followed? To be clear, the number of positives is large e.g. - Prince Charles, the Queen, the late Queen Mother, Prince Harry, many past royals in Britain and elsewhere, Megan Markle, Jeremy Corbyn MP, Jeremy Hunt MP, Tony Blair, David Tredinnick and many other MPs, Usain Bolt, Boris Becker, Martina Navratilova, W.C. Fields, Paul McCartney, Vidal Sassoon, David Beckham, Hilary Clinton, Cindy Crawford, Jude Law, Jennifer Anniston, Pamela Anderson, Monica Bellucci, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Charles Darwin, Mark Twain, Yehudi Menuhin, Dizzie Gillespie, Mahatma Gandhi, Dr Charles Menninger, Dr Robert Mendelsohn, Benjamin Disraeli, Presidents James Garfield and William McKinley, Charles Dickens, Cher, Tina Turner, Whoopi Goldberg. And there are a few negatives, eg Edzard Ernst, Brian Cox, Dara O'Briain - I did try to find more.

• • • re: Guy "usefully" - in what way is it useful for wiki to not have had the two edits being discussed? Cjwilky (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • • re:TonyBallioni That's an interesting conclusion given that the views here are evenly balanced. And anyway, surely the point that no disruption has occured, and that improvements in wiki have happened, massively outweighs the theoretical concept that some kind of imaginary problem could occur. Cjwilky (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Moved to editor's own section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Cjwilky's homeopathy topic ban is logged at April 2014 and the 72-hour topic ban violation block is logged at Jan 2020. The first above diff at Vernon Coleman is a good edit (removing repetition) and the second diff at Artemisia annua is supportable. Neither appear to be related to homeopathy but both are clearly close to the fringiness of that topic. It is not reasonable for someone to be free to edit pseudoscience topics while carving out the homeopathy subsection and I would support widening the topic ban to include pseudoscience broadly construed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The diffs above seem to have 1 degree of separation from homeopathy which is enough to not be a clear topic ban violation in my view. If the user is consistently skirting the edges a warning or widening of the ban may be appropriate. But I would want to see evidence of disruptive behavior in the topic area before widening the ban. The diffs above don't look disruptive to me, and the one removing the long redundant quote was a clear improvement IMO. ~Awilley (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TonyBallioni: I would push back a bit on the idea that broadening the sanction is fairer to the sanctioned party because it provides more "clarity". "Homeopathy" is a small and fairly well-defined topic area, and it's pretty black and white if something is related to homeopathy. "Pseudoscience" is a much larger and less well-defined topic area with more grey areas. So I don't think broadening the ban would reduce the probability of the user accidentally crossing the line. ~Awilley (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I am somewhat reticent to expand a TBAN on the basis of non-problematic edits - if it were dubious edits (even if not ultra clear cut examples) then the reasoning for an expansion might be reasonable. However, having opted for one narrower TBAN, expanding it just to be clearer, rather than to stop ongoing problems, would be unfair and without a clear evidence of being beneficial. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I’m with Johnuniq, narrow topic bans usually fail because people try to find ways out of them. It’s why the trend of the last few years was to topic ban from entire areas rather than narrow sunsets. The purpose of our restrictions is to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia, and yes, skirting a TBAN is disruptive. So count me in the “expand to meet what we usually do these days” camp. I don’t really think it’s unfair to modernize a sanction for the sake of clarity. If anything providing more clarity is fairer to the sanctioned party. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless there are further comments in the next 24 hours opposing this, I plan to update the TBAN to be in line with the current norm of banning from the entire DS area. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved comment to editor's section; please see it there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • They weren’t when I commented, but even though they are now, it doesn’t matter: AE actions do not require consensus. Someone else chimed in after I posted this, so I’ll wait more comments, but I do consider skirting the edges of a TBAN to be disruptive in itself (we’re here now...) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Expanding the topic ban is the cleanest way forward --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• These edits were not disruptive and did not violate the topic ban. I would not be in favor of expanding the sanction either on the grounds of "that's how we do it today" or on the grounds that they were too close; an edit is or is not a violation. With no misconduct here, there is no grounds to expand the sanction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The edits skirted the topic ban, which is always a poor idea. I would strongly suggest that the editor sticks to his other fields of editing; I would not be opposed to expanding the TB but I am unconvinced it is necessary unless we end up here again. Black Kite (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not see any evidence that he is editing improperly on any other subject than homeopathy, so there's no point in extending the ban, no matter what he does with respect to homeopathy. WP does not use topic bans for punishment, but to prevent continued disruption DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• There seems to be no agreement that these edits warrant additional sanctions. Unless someone objects within 24 hours, I propose to close this request with no action. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objections here, and I was in the "update to modern practice" camp. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Aroma Stylish (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/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions :

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

1. 22:29, 25 May 2020 Violation of the 500/30 requirement, after the request to self-revert the preceding violation was ignored.
2. 22:25, 25 May 2020 Violation of the 500/30 requirement, with a request to self-revert here

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 here

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user has been repeatedly asked to abide by the 500/30 requirement, eg [98], [99],[100]. Doesnt seem to have had an effect.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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.

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

• Yeah, not really sure if this is covered by 500/30, but if someone is edit warring over something as silly as the origin of food in Israel/Palestine, that gets a block. Blocked for 48 hours. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also looked closer as I was blocking, this is clearly under the ARBPIA4 500/30. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Chiappoloni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAPDS :

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

1. 23 May Restores material removed by another editor in violation of "consensus required" restriction
2. 23 May Restores material removed by another editor in violation of "consensus required" restriction
3. 23 May Restores material removed by another editor in violation of "consensus required" restriction

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months - [101]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Appears to be a straightforward violation of the "consensus required" provision. User has not engaged in any talk page discussion, and has simply removed all attempts at communication on their user talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

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.

In reference to:

1. 05/23/2020

Political donations for George Soros page

As it appears NorthBySouthBaranof has mentioned in a previous talk page which also applies here, "The material is not questionably or poorly sourced, is not a violation of BLP... You're welcome to discuss the issue on the article talk page or bring more viewpoints to that page, but mere disagreement with cited sources does not justify removal of sourced material."

Removing factual information, that better informs our readers or provides improved access to our readers, is not helpful, especially if it is presented in a data-oriented, fact-focused, manner. Removing facts is doing the opposite for our readers to understand all political donations. Editing or reverting any changes in wording seems understandable if taking a certain viewpoint or interpretation of a paragraph, but removing an entire paragraph, source, or new facts provided to an article, does not appear understandable, or justified. Why are Federal Elections more or less important than local US Elections as mentioned in the Los Angeles Times? These edits are adding factual information to a page and making a section easier-to-read by adding sub-headings and additional source information. Not sure how presenting published news articles and a full data-focused and fact-focused description is being removed or in violation. Legitimate news sources, e.g. Politico, the Los Angeles Times, and the Telegraph, are being referenced or added for readers’ ease-of-access. To remove these sources for referenced articles is decreasing the ease-of-access and factual information for articles.

Contested Edits - Incorrect removal of LA Times and other sourcing articles regarding political donations

I'm not sure how any of these edits are able to be 'contested' by NorthBySouthBaranof in the first place? Being that the edits consisted of adding sub-headings for readability, sources for readability and reference-checking, public information, and published articles from news sources such as the Los Angeles Times, Politico, and the relevant and referred to donation funds' websites (- when NorthBySouthBaranof said that the sources were not legitimate? -) surrounding local political investment, without offering opinions on said donations. Specifically, these edits were added to the sub-heading titled, 'Political Involvement,' which appears appropriate. It is surprising that this added information to the said section would not be lauded versus 'contested?' Especially considering that this section appears lacking in organization, readability, comprehensiveness (no US-specific section while there has been substantial amounts of donations in this arena (in the billions of $s), and no separation of or information on the large amounts of local US donations versus federal-election-only US donations), and sourcing material.

Moreover, please can someone clarify, is only one person allowed to contest an article's changes to be considered 'consensus?' Whereas, reverting via an apparent incorrect contesting of an article's edits, out of disagreement with said factual information, is only needed by one person NorthBySouthBaranof?

Lastly, this user, NorthBySouthBaranof, appears to need to perhaps be placed on some sort of restriction themselves? Not only have they removed added sources helpful to our readers, but have also removed history and factual information for our readers. In addition, this user has filed an enforcement request 6 minutes after asking for the reverted edits to be removed. This not only seems overtly 'hasty,' in not giving an appropriate amount of time to myself to make said edits, but the fact that these edits were incorrectly placed by NorthBySouthBaranof in the first place, makes it all the more moot.

This next section makes the Statement go over 500 word limit, unfortunately - However, I believe this section is necessary and significant to present a full picture of NorthBySouthBaranof's actions and claims:

User NorthBySouthBaranof has also provided incorrect or false information here on this filing, as I have in fact tried to discuss the issue on NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)'s talk page (as can be seen on their talk page), and they in fact 'snipped' or deleted my response. My now-'snipped' attempt at conversing with them can be seen on their talk page, and which I re-posted on mine after noticing NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) snipped my attempt.

In my initial Wikipedia-user-interface naivete I removed what I thought were notices on my talk page (#notices), but not attempts at conversation, and these appear to be from a different user than NorthBySouthBaranof. I might be naive, as I am a beginner to the user-interface of Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how it is possible to believe that I have 'removed' any conversation attempts, when I believe these were intended as 'notices' versus conversation from a different user than NorthBySouthBaranof. I have recently tried to undo these edits due to me being a beginner, and they appear to be unable to be undone - but please redo them if possible, it will probably be more helpful to this case.

NorthBySouthBaranof, however, is an experienced user that I would imagine should know better than deleting my attempts at conversation on his talk page. He had in fact removed or 'snipped' all attempts at conversation. Hence, it appears surprising that he would then accused me of what he, NorthBySouthBaranof, has in fact done? His (and my) actions can easily be seen on these public webpages, and histories of these pages so I'm not sure why he would provide this false claim? Here is a copy of NorthBySouthBaranof's misdirected claim where not only do they only mention a 'consensus required' provision which refers to their Arbitration Request, but they also do not acknowledge their deletion of the sources and information or relevant and needed rationale therein, and then provide the misdirected, or false, claim regarding the removal of all attempts at communication (which NorthBySouthBaranof did, but I did not, funny enough): "Appears to be a straightforward violation of the "consensus required" provision. User has not engaged in any talk page discussion, and has simply removed all attempts at communication on their user talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)."[reply]

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

• Chiappoloni, just state your case in your own section, please. You do not need a new report for that — a report which was malformed anyway. El_C 19:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Chiappoloni, rather than ping the complainant almost 20 times (!), you should address the violation itself. Otherwise, you should use diffs as evidence. You appear to be filibustering, which is a problem. This is a volunteer project and the expectation is for you to be concise. Your wall of text, again, is a problem on multiple levels. El_C 17:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Chiappoloni, these do indeed appear to be straightforward violations of the "consensus required" restriction, and you were clearly notified of that. I'll wait for a reasonable amount of time to hear what you have to say, but I suggest you respond as soon as you are able. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The diffs provided in the request show two blatant violations of the "consensus required" page restriction on the George Soros article. Despite its length, Chiappoloni's response does not provide any arguments that mitigate or justify these violations. — Newslinger talk 02:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]