Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

Dispute resolution (Requests)
Tips
Assume good faith Use etiquette Be civil Be open to compromise Discuss on talk pages Failure to discuss Editor assistance (Request)
Content disputes
Resolution noticeboard (Request) Get a third opinion (Request) Request comments (Request)
Conduct disputes
Administrator assistance (Request) Arbitration (Request)

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Talk
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Discretionary sanctions (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section: Request a new arbitration case Request clarification or amendment of an existing case This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case Arbitrator motions Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms

Initiated by David Tornheim at 06:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. David Tornheim's topic ban from topic of genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed is reduced to be a topic-ban from glyphosate, broadly construed. David Tornheim is further warned that any disruption in the GMO topic area after this appeal will likely result in additional sanctions, including but not limited to the restoration of the original topic ban as a new sanction. 17:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• David Tornheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification TonyBallioni
• diff of notification Seraphimblade

Information about amendment request

• David Tornheim's topic ban from topic of genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed is reduced to be a topic-ban from glyphosate, broadly construed. David Tornheim is further warned that any disruption in the GMO topic area after this appeal will likely result in additional sanctions, including but not limited to the restoration of the original topic ban as a new sanction. 17:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Remove restriction

Statement by David Tornheim

I am appealing my topic ban from GMOs imposed by Seraphimblade in July 2016—almost four years ago. I have not made any edits in the area since then.

In April 2019, I appealed this topic ban, and it was reduced by TonyBallioni to a topic-ban from glyphosate, broadly construed.

I have not edited articles related to glyphosate or GMOs since then. I would like to have this restriction removed.

After four years, this restriction appears to be more punitive than WP:PREVENTATIVE. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv and GorillaWarfare::

Can you comment on what kind of edits you plan to make in this topic area?

I mentioned this in my previous appeal last year, where I said, "If my topic ban is lifted, I will help keep the area up to date with the most recent science using the best reliable sources." I also commented on the fact that the science has fallen out of date, where a nearly 20-year-old report has been superseded.

I have a Bachelor of Science from University of Cincinnati and Master of Science from University of Southern California, and can bring a science background and knowledge of proper review of scientific literature to articles. I edit under my own name.

(a) understands the reason for their ban * * * (c) has a plan for doing things differently going forward

I explained that in my response to Seraphimblade in my previous appeal. In particular, I said that I will focus on content, not editor.

At the time of my 2016 topic ban, I had only made about 3,000 edits; now I have made over 12,000 edits. I am far more familiar with the policies and guidelines around casting aspersions and civility, and I now understand the importance of collaborative editing and how to resolve conflicts when there is disagreement.

I am now far more familiar with sourcing requirements than in 2016.

(b) can demonstrate a history of making productive edits in other areas

I believe my edit-history speaks for itself. I provided a number of examples of areas I was involved in, in my appeal of 2019 in the initial post. Since then, I have continued to work on vandalism reversion and created articles on the John Robinson Circus and Tillie (elephant).

I'm also curious to know why you haven't returned to editing GMO topics since the reduction in your topic ban scope.

(1) I wanted to demonstrate continued restraint. Often, editors who have been blocked or topic-banned immediately return to their past behaviors as soon as the ban is lifted.

(2) Shortly after the reduction in my topic-ban, I sought clarification on the scope of the topic ban. I was puzzled by the responses and simply stayed away.

(3) That almost any edit in GMO might be construed as related to glyphosate was a big deterrent.

I value my reputation on Wikipedia. Editing under my real name, my reputation at Wikipedia reflects on me personally and directly. In four years of the topic ban, I have learned from my mistakes.

--David Tornheim (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Statement by TonyBallioni

No real thoughts on this. I’m happy with whatever the arbs decide. My standard comment is that a sanction working should not be taken as evidence that it isn’t needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade

I was rather apprehensive about narrowing the original sanction's scope, but it appears that doing so hasn't had any negative consequences. I suppose this could be tried, with a clear understanding that if the problems occur again, the topic ban will be put right back in place. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

As someone who spent a lot of time trying to curate the GMO topic and deal with the disruption David Tornheim and other editors caused, I'm going to ask arbs to carefully read the comments (especially admins) from both David's original topic ban AE, and the appeal, especially in the context of how frustrated the community was with what David was constantly stirring up in this topic. A lot of David's actions outlined there more or less forced us to need a DS-enforced RfC on the scientific consensus for genetically modified food safety. There (and before) David frequently engaged in denialism on the consensus, and in the real-world, that is generally treated similarly to climate change denial, anti-vaccine sentiment, etc.[1][2] Such WP:PSCI policy violations generally require a significant demonstrated change in subject matter competence for sanctions to be not needed.

Even at that AE appeal less than a year ago, the topic ban reduction was pretty tepid among admins, and part of the expectation was that David could use it demonstrate they could edit appropriately in the broader GMO area. Instead, they haven't edited the area at all. That's somewhat akin (though not exactly the same) to the problem of an editor being topic banned, "retiring" for the length of it, then appealing it saying that haven't caused problems since. In the real world, fringe proponents have shifted the goal posts away from GMO safety to glyphosate to make that the new point flash pan controversy filled with fringe theories us agricultural/science editors have spent a lot of effort separating from actual science. That David wants to directly jump into this new controversy without any other GMO edits is a serious red flag. Contrary to their last appeal's comment I think this illustrates that I was a newbie who did not fully understand the rules and Wikipedia norms..., the kind of stuff they engaged in went well beyond being a newbie and shows disregard for what they actually were banned for. My specific comments at the appeal have more background on that.

Prior to the ban, David's main area of disruption was primarily in GMOs with serious WP:FRINGE and WP:ADVOCACY issues, which is documented pretty well at their original AE ban and the previous sanctions listed there. Part of the behavior issues that the topic ban was meant to handle was to keep David away from science curators in the topic such as myself in lieu of a one-way interaction ban. That has to do with a specific GMO principle we passed at arbcom on aspersions (e.g., the Monsanto shill gambit). There's a lot of other history behind that principle, but a major reason for David's ban was hounding editors and disrupting content discussion with that gambit and encouraging others as you can read about in their original AE ban that led to two others getting sanctioned at well. See David's Monsanto must be pleased thread for another example of what we had to deal with until admins finally stepped in.

If anything else, it still looks like the WP:PREVENTATIVE ban is still working, and David hasn't given us any reason to think otherwise given how serious their behavior issues were before the topic ban (most comments at the last appeal were very generic that struck me as a mix between empty and incomplete apologies). As I asked at the last appeal, why would David be so interested in coming back into a topic they were so dead set against the science on? Their last appeal really didn't address the problems they caused at all, and this appeal has even less. We really need a good reason given past behavior to let David into controversial areas on this subject beyond it's been awhile and the topic seems calmer now. If anything, that's because the sanction was working correctly. I might have different opinions on more periphery GMO editors that were banned/sanctioned (13+ at last count), but David was one of the core editors in this subject that led to the original GMO case and problems afterwards.

Obviously I've had to deal with a lot from David in the past I've tried to distill down into something manageable, but if you boil this all down into one line, if David still can't even directly address the serious behavior that led to their ban, then the appeal should be denied. They haven't said or done anything different since the last appeal, glyphosate is still controversial, and this appeal seems to be significantly lacking for establishing what would be considered low-risk upon return. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv and GorillaWarfare: Seeing David's most recent response, I'm concerned they especially skirt around one of the core issues. They say they have a science background, yet outright denied the scientific consensus and significantly disrupted the topic as part of it. The "updating" the science thing goes back to WP:TE type issues that came up in the GMO RfC I mentioned above. An issue there wasn't not using scientific sources, but cherrypicking low quality fringe articles and taking up community time pushing that. What David has said on having a science background doesn't differentiate them from before their topic ban, but I realize it's not easy for arbs either since you need to somehow assess subject matter competence changes to address the fringe advocacy history, especially with no edit history in the unbanned areas. I'm not sure how you could reasonably assess if the POV problems wouldn't come back.

On the old rejected change they do mention, the science hasn't really changed in that area significantly (I'll stay out of those weeds), so David's comment is already a red flag for me. It may seem minor at first glance, but those kind of edits using attribution or middling language to lessen the apparent weight of a source were a common problem back before the ban (normally something from the from a secondary source like the EPA wouldn't even need attribution). In reality though, that entire section was already since updated over the years looking for more current sources. Editors still decided to use the source in question (ref 80) along with a more current one in part because nothing was really superseded. This isn't exactly an area lacking attention. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Just a reminder since this is still open that group battleground behavior was an issue at David's original ban where Jusdafax was also sanctioned. Jusdafax's Unless one assumes bad faith comment is just continuing that same pot stirring from old disputes. That case partly shows why those of us science editors actually in the subject are so cautious about this all.

Otherwise Nosebagbear's comments are a fairly even-handed read of the situation. There are plenty of GMOs that don't deal with glyphosate. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Side note

• Just a slight aside, but I also wanted to update arbs on the general status of the GMO/pesticide topic. Back at the original 2015 case, only a few editors were actually sanctioned just because of the sheer number of problems to sort through. Slowly over time, other disruptive editors were topic-banned (or some interaction bans) as I mentioned with the 13+ sanctions above. However, that left a lot of fatigue on the few editors who did remain trying to handle the tough content while also juggling with problematic behavior from editors and not wanting to run to AE each time giving the appearance of policing the topic. It wasn't until recently that things mostly settled down in 2018 and a flareup that took up a chunk of 2019. That's largely why I'm so cautious from a WP:STEWARDSHIP perspective now.

In general, agricultural topics don't attract as many subject matter experts, but in the real-world, the subject does attract a lot of WP:FRINGE stuff that finds it way to the encyclopedia when you get people coming in with advocacy issues. The volume of that may be higher in things like climate change or alt med, but there are also more editors to handle that in those topics. We've lost some good editors in part because of how long it took to really tamp down on behavior issues here, so I would ask arbs to consider for future GMO/pesticide discussions what their risk tolerance for an editor in the subject should be. I know I'd like to go from maintenance to fleshing out mode in the subject again now that it's been in a relative lull for a few months, but being stuck with new or old behavior problems has often put a stop to that for me. Those of us left in the subject have had a lot on our plates, and while the DS have helped take some unnecessary burden off them, I think I can speak for a lot of us that we shouldn't be handed something that has a decent risk of stirring up the subject again and ending back up at AE/Arbcom. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

This seems like a bad idea to me - the anti-GMO brigade are hammering hard at Monsanto right now after the capricious court award. Guy (help!) 22:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie

It's a bit sad to see this stall. I thought the appeal had merit and deserved a bit more consideration. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Nosebagbear

While there might not be a benefit to immediately become a hyper-active editor in a field that an editor was recently Tbanned in, not editing in any of it (but still planning to) is almost as problematic.

Certainly we could deduce that the editor is more patient than they were, which is a plus. But we can't tell that their editing has become any better, whether they can handle dispute in their controversial field and so on. Thus, I'd like to advise the following:

1. David Tornheim's appeal to be declined
2. A recommendation/request be made to Tornheim to get at least some activity in the now open bits of their original TBAN to show it as a viable field for them
3. A shorter timescale than ARBCOM refused appeals are often suggested with to be given. I can't see any reason why 3 months of helpful contribution by Tornheim, after his lack of issues thus far, wouldn't be sufficient, so make that the timescale before a permitted re-appeal (rather than 6 months etc etc)

Nosebagbear (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Jusdafax

I am in agreement with Seraphimblade and Mr Ernie that David Tornheim’s restriction should be lifted. Four years really is a long time on Wikipedia.

DT’s statement here is direct. His answers to the questions are reasonable, regarding his not editing in the GMO field since he was partially unbanned in 2019: the conditions appeared to him to be open to interpretation.

A look at his User page and his last 500 edits, all made this year, show a diverse ongoing commitment to the project. Unless one assumes bad faith, I believe there is no good reason not to lift the remainder of the topic ban. Jusdafax (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recuse. Katie^talk 15:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• David Tornheim, can you comment on what kind of edits you plan to make in this topic area? Typically when topic bans are lifted we would want to see that the appellant (a) understands the reason for their ban, (b) can demonstrate a history of making productive edits in other areas, and (c) has a plan for doing things differently going forward. You claim in your request that you haven't made any edits in the GMO topic area since that ban was lifted, so why does it need to be lifted further? How would doing so benefit the project? – bradv🍁 19:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• David Tornheim Like Bradv, I'd like to hear what kind of editing you plan to do if the ban is lifted. I'm also curious to know why you haven't returned to editing GMO topics since the reduction in your topic ban scope; normally that would be a good path towards demonstrating that the remaining restriction is unnecessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Upon reading David's replies and the comments by others, I am agreeing with Jusdafax that lifting the ban after four years might be beneficial to the project. I also think David is sufficiently warned that any return to old behavior will swiftly result in sanctions again. Regards SoWhy 07:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Amendment request: Race and intelligence

Initiated by AndewNguyen at 21:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Race and intelligence arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• AndewNguyen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)

• I request that ArbCom open a review (I am not sure which clause this falls under, but I assume it's the discretionary sanctions.)

Statement by AndewNguyen

I am requesting that ArbCom examine the long-running series of disputes over this topic, which have escalated in the past few months, especially the past month. Several administrators and non-administrators have argued an arbitration case or review is needed to address this situation. This view was expressed at Arbitration Enforcement by the admins User:In actu, User:Ivanvector, and User:Barkeep49, and more recently in this discussion by user:SMcCandlish and the 2600:1004 IP user.

The following are some of the recent or current community discussions about these articles, although I may have missed some:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive252#Grayfell (May 2019)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive261#Oldstone_James (February 2020)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive262#Peregrine_Fisher (March 2020)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive263#Jweiss11 (March 2020)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive264#Race_and_intelligence (March 2020)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_283#Talk%3ARace_and_intelligence (January 2020)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_286#Books_from_Cambridge_University_Press (February 2020)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Rindermann%2C_Intelligence (April 2020)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#RfC_on_race_and_intelligence (April 2020)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Self-requested_closure_review:_RfC_on_race_and_intelligence (April 2020)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Peer-reviewed_journal_R&I_articles_as_WP:PRIMARY? (April 2020)

The following are some of the issues that need to be examined:

• There is a concern, expressed in several of the recent Arbitration Enforcement reports, that some editors are attempting to remove or exclude well-sourced material from the article for dubious reasons.
• There is a concern, expressed mainly in the RFC, that some users (especially NightHeron) are violating BLP policy by repeatedly stating that some living people are white supremacists, without presenting any sources that call them that.
• There is a concern, also expressed in the RFC, about possible meatpuppetry or off-wiki canvassing.
• There is a concern about whether or not TonyBallioni's closure of the RFC was improper.

I have not added the list of editors that should be parties, but see the comment by In Actu in which he suggested who the parties should be to such a case. If ArbCom decides to open a case or review, I request that they exercise their own judgement about who the parties should be, or follow In Actu's suggestion.

When this situation was escalating at the end of March, I took a break from Wikipedia for 4 weeks, so upon my return I'm disappointed to see that it is continuing to spawn new disputes among the same group of editors. Without ArbCom's intervention, it is likely to continue coming up again and again indefinitely.

@Joe: An argument now being made on the article's talk page, especially by NightHeron, is that the RFC outcome means it's no longer necessary for statements in the article to be based on any reliable source. The argument to ignore what reliable sources say about this topic was made by many of the people who voted "yes" in the RFC, and there was a fear that TonyBallioni's closure of the RFC would be seen as an endorsement of that position. SMcCandlish especially expressed that concern, both during the RFC and during the closure review afterwards. This is the most important concern about whether his closure was improper: whether it will be initerpreted as superseding the WP:Verifiability policy, as appears to indeed be happening. Now that the closure is being interpreted in this way, it seems inevitable that there will continue to be many more noticeboard reports over similar issues.

I don't completely understand the difference between making a request here and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, but I made it here because that is what was suggested by the admins at Arbitration Enforcement who argued that a review is needed. I ask that ArbCom please consider this request on its merits, instead of whether it was made in the correct venue. --AndewNguyen (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

In the time since I made this request, another new noticeboard thread has been opened, so I've added it to the list above. --AndewNguyen (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn I think what SMcCandlish and Ferahgo are saying about the discretionary sanctions not working is that certain editors are now able to violate content and behavioral policies with impunity. For example during the RFC NightHeron apparently doxxed another Wikipedia editor, although the diff is no longer visible. No one else reacted to that or took any action. Isn't doxxing another Wikipedia editor normally a severe offense? If this topic area has reached the point that not even doxxing has any action taken about it, that's a sign that the discretionary sanctions aren't working. --AndewNguyen (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG (R&I)

This may need a new full case. There are two deeply entrenched camps, and there is a good deal of argumentation that seems to an outsider to be intellectually dishonest, a sort of "teach the controversy" approach. Accusations of bad faith abound, not always without merit. Admins have tried to deal with the issue and failed.

Above, we have "there is concern" over TonyBallioni's well-reaosoned close of the recent RfC. That seems problematic: there was no consensus to overturn, and debate was often about the apparent invention of new policies on the fly. Guy (help!) 14:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Following discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Trolling (permalink), 2600:1004:b100::/40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) has been blocked from talk:Race and intelligence and I have extended that to this page, following Bradv's comments below, which highlight this IPs disturbing tendency to extend and disrupt discussion of this topic. It appears the IP has an undisclosed conflict of interest, through a close link to a WP:FRINGE player off-wiki.

It seems likely to me that the removal of this one single individual, with their remarkable talent for argufying, may be transformative. The talk page archives show, to my reading, many examples of stonewalling, sealioning, circular and tendentious argument by this IP and I think we should close this and see what happens without that one highly disruptive, prolific and, as it now turns out, probably bad-faith voice.

I therefore join with those others here who urge rejection of this request, especially since it contains no actual request for amendment or clarification. Guy (help!) 22:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by slatersteven

I was involved in the RFC and made the point that the claim "blacks have a different form of intelligence" is used by some as an example of white privilege (for example our system of maths is set up for the way white brains work). I was pointing out how this can in fact impact on articles about that (after all if its a fringe to say race affects intelligence that applies even when it is used as an excuse for black underachievement). But the RFC came to a conclusion, and I see no reason not to respect our processes. I however would be concerned if it could be shown the close ignored opinions based upon an essay, or presumptions of being a NAZI!.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by IP editor 2600:1004:b100::/40

Many thanks to AndewNguyen for making this request. As one of the people who thinks that an ArbCom case is needed, I had recently suggested to several other editors that someone should request arbitration. Now that this finally has been brought before ArbCom, I can mention something I've been wanting to mention for about a month, but that would have been inappropriate to bring up outside of ArbCom or AE.

It has been evident to me for a long time that NightHeron is a parody account, most likely being operated by someone associated with the alt-right. It's reasonably well-known that a large portion of the material related to human intelligence and intelligence researchers at RationalWiki is deliberate parodies (see the discussion here and here, among other places). The people who write this material are trying to make RationalWiki such an obvious caricature of left-wing talking points that no one takes the site seriously. Wikipedia has been vulnerable for a long time to the same type of trolling, and that appears to be what's happening now.

It is important to recognize the distinction between actual leftist beliefs, and the beliefs that members of the alt-right claim that leftists hold, and how perfectly NightHeron's editing matches the second description. Aside from race and intelligence, nearly all of NightHeron's editing has been to hot-button political topics such as White privilege, Male privilege, Ilhan Omar, and Abortion. This is not a random selection of topics - it is the precise set of topics that the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory claims are being used to undermine the culture of Europe and the United States. As a further way of advocating this conspiracy theory by basing his edits on its claims, during the RFC NightHeron was actually citing a book by a communist party member, which itself cites the works of Karl Marx, and arguing that this is a mainstream source.

There are three actions in particular that I think demonstrate NightHeron's status as almost certainly a parody account.

• First, when NightHeron was challenged to provide a source supporting his statement that Heiner Rindermann is a "diehard white supremacist", the source that he provided was The New Observer, a right-wing fake news site that propagates anti-semitic conspiracy theories. The New Observer article that he cited is not publicly accessible, apparently because it either is paywalled or requires registration to view. By citing this article he let his disguise slip momentarily - why would any non-member of the alt-right not only be reading that site, but have access to the non-public articles there?

• Second, as NightHeron explained in his comment here, he has been evading scrutiny with the use of multiple accounts. The explanation he gave there (that his other account uses his real name) is not convincing, because he could simply rename the account if he wanted to avoid editing under his real name. Presumably, his main account is the one that he uses for pushing his actual, right-wing point of view.

• Finally, I wish to call attention to NightHeron's comment here, in which he stated that The same IP-editor recently made a similar accusation [of BLP violations] against me on the user-page of another admin, Barkeep49, who'd also been involved in the AfD/DRV. After I learned of the accusation by chance, I was able to defend myself, and nothing came of it. Barkeep49's actual words to NightHeron were, So as to the other pieces, I do think, now that you're here, that you need to be very careful when describing people as white supremacists. More careful than you've been to date - the stuff on Piffer is not nearly strong enough, for instance. NightHeron's statement that Rindermann is a "diehard white supremacist", cited to a right-wing fake news site, came after he was given this warning. So this is a case of an an editor gloating about how he was merely warned by an admin instead of sanctioned, and that he's thus entitled to continue the same behavior. (Incidentally, this behavior also has included an attempt at doxxing another Wikipedia editor.)

None of this is the behavior of a normal Wikipedia editor. But it is exactly the behavior one would expect from a person who is planning, sometime in the future, on writing an article for an alt-right website about how many Wikipedia policies he was able to get away with violating by making an alternate account that pretended to be a leftist. Wikipedia's admins should be embarrassed that they've allowed themselves to be hoodwinked with this tactic, especially if it's allowed to continue even now that I've pointed it out. 2600:1004:B159:2CC4:F8F8:76FE:335B:DEF6 (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv: If you aren't able to see the evidence for what I'm saying, I recommend familiarizing yourself with the ways that members of the alt-right act when they're impersonating leftists. This is something that happens quite regularly, the NPC Twitter meme being a well-known example. This pattern of behavior becomes fairly easy to recognize after you've seen enough examples of it.

Regarding your question about behavioral issues that AE can't handle, I described one such issue in my comments here and here (the last two paragraphs). This is a case where an intelligence researcher lost his job as a result of the pattern of BLP violations in his Wikipedia article, and it was the catalyst for my becoming involved in Wikipedia, as well as for several other editors. (NightHeron was not the user responsible in this case.) His biography was tagged as an attack page twice, and six different users attempted to remove the violations, but their changes were almost immediately undone in each case. When the attorney of the person that this happened to contacted the Wikimedia Foundation legal team, he was told that it was the responsibility of the Wikipedia community to address this issue. But when the issue was raised at AE, the admins there took no action because the user responsible had not been notified of the discretionary sanctions with the correct template. [3]

All of this happened about a year ago, but the fact that both AE and the WMF legal team took no action in such an extreme case - as well as the fear among many other intelligence researchers that they may eventually lose their own livelihoods in the same way - is the original cause for many of the disputes that are happening currently. 2600:1004:B16D:68CB:B8D2:906A:61F4:A60E (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv: Gerhard Meisenberg's attorney sent an e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation legal team, explaining how the additions to his Wikipedia article led to him losing his job, on June 17 of last year. The evidence was presented in that e-mail, but it included personal details that would not be appropriate to post in public. As a member of ArbCom, can you look at the contents of that message?

I don't want to have a long argument with you or act in a way that you consider disruptive, but you must understand that many of the people who feel they're in real-life danger because of this situation are my professional colleagues. So it's very difficult for me to accept that there truly is nothing ArbCom can do about it. 2600:1004:B16D:68CB:B8D2:906A:61F4:A60E (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, in case you weren't aware, the most recent AE report specifically referred these matters to ArbCom. So for ArbCom to refer them back to AE seems to be saying there are some issues that both ArbCom and AE think it's the other party's job to address. 2600:1004:B16C:96C5:758A:B689:DD57:B12C (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by NightHeron

I'd prefer not to waste everyone's time with a detailed reply (or any reply) to the IP-editor 2600.xxx's cockamamie conspiracy theory about me. If anyone wants me to respond to any specific allegation, I'll do that and I'll try to be brief. NightHeron (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Several of the no-voters on the RfC are using this forum to re-argue their position. Most recently, Literaturegeek has made some outrageous statements about the differences between supporters and opponents of the RfC. While claiming to be basing their appeal to ArbCom on core policies, these no-voters are ignoring the core policy that Wikipedia works by consensus. In this case the RfC lasted 35 days, had the participation of about 50 editors, and reached the consensus that the belief that some races are genetically inferior to others in intelligence is a fringe view. The close of the RfC [4] was upheld overwhelmingly by admins at WP:AN[5]. NightHeron (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Barkeep49

I do not think that a full case would be warranted at this time. My concern over retaliatory AE filings, which caused me to suggest this, has since abated. I think the content issues are being worked through in the ways described by policy. I think the community in the RfC review and AE actions taken is showing itself capable of handling this dispute for the moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that 2600:1004 has now been TBAN'ed by the community from Race and intelligence an action I support. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Statement by TonyBallioni (R&I)

I generally agree with Barkeep49 above that I don't think a case is required, and in all honesty I don't think any amendment is needed either. The standard grounds for a case is that the community process is unable to work. In all the recent cases cited, the community process is working. I closed the recent RfC and took it for self-review because I knew otherwise someone would have. That was closed endorsing the outcome both on the merits and as rejecting the argument that my close was somehow improper. That brings an end to the community process for that content based question and the behavioral question that some tried to introduce was also resolved there as not having consensus either.

I'd add the on top of all that I don't see what a case would add. There's nothing particularly new here, and DS already exist. If there is misbehavior in the content areas, just take the people misbehaving to AE. If someone is seeking ArbCom to review a content RfC that has already been reviewed by the community on both behavioral and content questions and resolved successfully on both point, that is outside of ArbCom's remit.

If people feel someone is violating the conduct standards of a DS area, they should request enforcement at AE. If there are people engaging in retaliatory filings, that can also be dealt with at AE. If people are trying to use the closed RfC to argue for things it doesn't support, AE can be used. If people are stonewalling the implementation of a well-attended community RfC on one article's talk page, AE is also an option. There is zero evidence anything other than DS is needed here. People should let the DS process work. It's here to avoid repeated cases over the same issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

Note that I have partially blocked the IP range from Talk:Race and intelligence page as a normal admin action. I would have notified them on their user talk page, but of course, no such user talk page exists as such. El_C 03:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal by PaleoNeonate

I would like to also mention my post here which includes more context and the RFC was here. I have not had time to work on this since, but considering that we're here, it was my intention to eventually propose as Clarification&Amendment a motion for WP:ARBR&I that is similar to a precedent in the abortion area: WP:ARBAB#IP editing prohibited (temporary measure) and WP:ARBAB#Modified by motion (allowing admins to as a discretionary measure protect talk pages when necessary). —PaleoNeonate – 10:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by jps

Anyone else find it interesting that the person who filed this is a WP:SPA with a penchant for editing from a pro-eugenics POV? That the account was inactive since 30 March and waltzes in to file this now that the RfC has closed? Oh, so very interesting, isn't it? jps (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Regarding the IP, from ANI, "Trolling":

• I think the IP's posts to ARCA about editing this topic area because they are colleagues with Gerhard Meisenberg [6] [7] are tantamount to an admission of COI in this topic area. (Or at least WP:RGW.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Amazing, according to the article, Meisenberg "is a director, with Richard Lynn, of the Pioneer Fund" and those us familiar with the R&I debacle understand that means the IP should be indefinitely topic banned, broadly construed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I am amused to see that Ferahgo the Assassin, a former front-line warrior in the R&I conflicts – who over the course of 6 years was topic banned, site banned, un-sitebanned with R&I restrictions and finally un-restricted [8] – and is still an editor with a definite POV concerning the subject, had the gall to express an opinion here as if she is an impartial observer. I call that chutzpah. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Dlthewave

Except for the RfC closure which was discussed and endorsed at AN, the specific concerns raised here haven't been brought to a noticeboard (aside from side comments in tangentially related threads) or become an intractable situation that needs the attention of ARBCOM. I would expect an editor coming off a month-long hiatus to at least engage in the ongoing talk page discussions before seeking arbitration remedies. If that fails, I don't see anything that can't be resolved through the standard AE/DS process.

More than anything, this topic would benefit from a few admins willing to wade into the mess and address user conduct issues as they happen. Swift admin actions like blocking an IP range and issuing inline warnings can quash bad behavior before it escalates while avoiding noticeboard drama. It's encouraging to see that this taking place and I'm optimistic that our normal consensus building process will suffice for the time being. –dlthewave ☎ 02:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

AndewNguyen can you tell us what steps were taken by editors who were aware of the alleged doxxing incident? Did anyone file an ANI or AE report or perhaps send an email to ArbCom? If you're claiming that our processes failed to address the issue, you should present evidence that an effort was indeed made to utilize those processes. –dlthewave ☎ 13:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

I think this badly needs further ArbCom review and clarification, if not a whole additional RfArb. (And I'm okay with being named a party, as I've been long-term involved in this and related topics, e.g. as a "voice of reason and science" shepherd at Race (human categorization), and am even responsible for that article title; also the author of WP:Race and ethnicity; and I'm the opener of the back-to-back WP:VPPOL RfCs that led to |religion= and |ethnicity= being removed from most biographical infoboxes. I am definitely involved.)

On Race and intelligence, we've been through months of back-to-back dispute resolution methodologies on this (from AfD attempts to noticeboardings to a recent RfC with a close that said nothing we didn't already know and failed to address the central policy question, about suppression of sources). This has all been basically to no avail at all. The current restrictions and AC/DS regime for this topic (for several years now) have had no useful effect at the community level, only for swiftly blocking trolls/socks (who were already blockable under existing policy anyway). We're right back to the same two entrenched camps trying decide how to slow-editwar their way to a doctrinal victory. This is not how WP is built. My previous comments in the RfC this month, and in previous rounds, and in very recent/ongoing thread at User talk:SMcCandlish#The RFC cover this in more detail than anyone would want.

The short version is that the idea "there is a connection between race and intelligence" is basically a fringe-science viewpoint. However, research demonstrating population differences at various discrete tasks are not always fringe (though they almost always point to socio-economic and other cultural factors, not genetic ones, and it is often later, follow-on, cross-disciplinary research that demonstrates this). Likewise, research demonstrating heritability of minor deltas in performance at discrete cognitive tests of various sorts are also not all fringe. But population != gene != "race"; and isolated cognitive tests (e.g. regurgitation of strings of numbers from short-term memory, or whatever) != "intelligence". Yet there is a putsch here to effectively censor mention of all such research from Wikipedia, including a smear campaign against publishers of such research as "fringe scientists", which is basically a WP:BLP and WP:NPA policy failure. This has been predicated upon an "ends justify the means" far-left extremist position, being brought to bear against the misinterpretation and mis-spinning of such research by racist far-right extremists. It's time for the extremists on both sides of this matter to be barred from the subject area.

What we're dealing with here is an umbrella subject that is basically artificial (both as to "race" and as to "intelligence"), but this is something that people are going to continue overgeneralizing to, both in bad research and in bad press, and which our readers are going to continue searching for and reading about. This is not going to go away. WP has a responsibility to get this right: to present why the central idea is – according to a broad scientific consensus, not just dogmatic socio-politics – pseudo-scientific; what evidence there is of population differences in some discrete cognitive tests (usually statistically insignificant), and why it does not equate to "intelligence" or to "race", but is most often related to level of Westernization, society-internal class and economics, and other cultural biases in the testing; and what claims have been debunked, how, and why.

If we don't do this right, then we effectively cede total control over this topic to far-right webboards, which are going to rely on long-discredited "research" to "prove" a bunch of racist nonsense. WP is the place where, for the average reader, discrediting has to live. It can't live here if people keep mass-deleting all material relating to the claims and the research flaws that led to them, and to their debunking. This cannot be hidden away in the back of the closet. This is one of those "sunlight is the best disinfectant" matters.

While ArbCom cannot decide a content matter, it certainly can decide when particular parties are violating policies and pillars to enforce their own politicized viewpoint, and ban them from the topic. ArbCom can also identify topic-specific PoV-pushing patterns of this sort, proscribe them, and add more DS to enforce those proscriptions, so that a new crop of combatants a month after the current batch are T-banned can't just re-start the same disruption.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I would add that (now T-banned or not), 2600:... makes a good procedural point: "the most recent AE report specifically referred these matters to ArbCom. So for ArbCom to refer them back to AE seems to be saying there are some issues that both ArbCom and AE think it's the other party's job to address." That's not the first time this sort of buck-passing cycle has occurred, and it always resolves back to ArbCom having to clarify or take a new case, so we might as well just get on with it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@AndewNguyen: I wasn't even aware of the doxxing/outing you referred to (though the party you name as responsible for it is one of those whose behavior I already thought should be examined with an eye to a T-ban). So, that specific incident didn't have anything to do with my comments above, which are more generalized. This is simply a hot-bed of non-stop editorial strife, in which people at both extremes are getting away with all sorts of things that are counter to policy and to the purpose of Wikipedia. When AE finally gets around to leveraging any of the extant DS about it, it's generally a one-sided application. While I'm sure it does not have the intent of a supervote, it is likely to have the effect of one, due to WP's strongly left-leaning internal editorial bias. I lean that way myself, but I'm self-analytical enough to recognize that it is a bias, and that no matter how much I might agree with the politico-philosophical impetus behind bad-acting antics, they are still bad-acting antics and should not be excused, nor permitted to continue. If the current AE enforcement regime on this topic is having this result, it means that ArbCom hasn't made it clear enough what is proscribed and that it isn't proscribed only for people right of center.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Ferahgo

SMcCandlish's comment that "sunlight is the best disinfectant" is on point. Clearly the discretionary sanctions haven't been effective, at least in recent months. I don't foresee the community being able to untangle the long-term problems in this topic area on its own. I'm curious if DGG has an opinion here, as an arbitrator whom I believe understands the scope and depth of the issues. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Steve Quinn

I am a little confused as to what's happening. I don't actually see any requests for Amendments or Clarification, except a generalized comment by User:Ferahgo saying the discretionary sanctions have not been recently working. But nothing specific is being requested in that post. In any case, I think discretionary sanctions and the dispute resolution process in this area are working just fine. As was stated below, frequent disputes are expected in a topic area such as this. It's only a problem if the dispute resolution process breaks down - and it hasn't. Frankly, I am glad to see it working. It's the way it's supposed to be. It may not be fun sometimes - but that's showbiz. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I am adding that TonyBalloni has given a good summation of the tools currently available to resolve issues, and which issues apply to what venue. An arbcom case is certainly not necessary at this time. In fact, maybe we should post Tony's statement to the top of the R & I talk page (humorous), or at least provide a link to the statement (humorous). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Literaturegeek

The amendment that I think would help, in terms of trust and confidence as well as the long-term future of this topic area, is for RfCs that are likely to lead to major changes to the topic area (e.g. deletion of articles or an RfC that could result in a major rewriting of the topic area as a whole) require to be closed by a 3 admin panel, to guard against bias and WP:SUPERVOTEs. There is a recent example in this topic area where race and intelligence was nominated for deletion: this AfD, wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Race_and_intelligence_(4th_nomination), where, if you click the show button for the overturned close, below the three admin close statement, you will see that a very substandard close as delete occurred, which many in the deletion review felt was very POV or even a WP:SUPERVOTE was made that caused a lot of wasted community time in a deletion review and almost resulted in a major article being deleted without just cause. A three admin close panel reached the opposite conclusion to the alleged supervote and overturned it and closed the article as “keep”. See the deletion review here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_February_12#Race_and_intelligence_(4th_nomination). The deletion review was only successful because the Close was so poorly worded where even the closer themselves pretty much said as much in their close, otherwise, like I say, an article could have been deleted without just cause.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Another area of clarification that this topic area requires is what takes precedent when an RfC close conflicts with policy? The ‘race and intelligence’ ArbCom case confirms the no original research policy, etc, however the recent RfC close effectively instructs editors to misrepresent the weight and conclusions of academic sources because there really is no academic consensus in this subject area: there is indeed differences of opinions between anthropologists and educational psychologists, neuropsychologists who research intelligence. Take for example this 2020 survey published in Intelligence (journal) of intelligence research psychologists (which actually answered the RfC question but supposedly wikipedians know more than the experts) that found that only 16 percent of experts regarded I.Q. gaps between races to be fully explained by environmental factors, with 43 percent saying mostly genetics and 40 percent saying mostly environmental factors explain the gap. The RfC instructs the community to misrepresent the entire discipline of psychology and falsify an academic consensus that does not exist instead of explaining the controversy neutrally. Although I have never edited the race and intelligence article I did watch list it after becoming involved in the associated Articles for deletion discussion and indeed editors are now actively ignoring NOR/WEIGHT etc., citing on the talk page the RfC close. From following the AfD, RfC etc., I believe that the problem is more complex than ‘racists versus anti-racists’, I think many of the editors fall into two different camps, those who don’t like racism but personally find pseudoscience more unacceptable and those who find racially offensive datasets and interpretations thereof more offensive than pseudoscience/misrepresenting sources. The RfC, if carefully read, shows that ‘Yes votes’ provided mostly original research or misinterpretations of sources to justify their arguments whereas ‘No votes’ were backed by sources and strong WP policy arguments. So what takes precedent, an RfC close or WP policies? Currently the article talk page has turned into a new escalating battleground which I feel attention from ArbCom could benefit. If you would like some diffs I can provide them if requested but will wait to see what the Arbs feedback is first. The question for ArbCom clarification is: should the conclusions of sources and the weight of sources be misrepresented as well as original research be permitted in article editing in order to comply with the RfC close?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Race and intelligence: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Race and intelligence: Arbitrator views and discussion

• @AndewNguyen: ARCAs usually contain a question about or request to modify specific remedies (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Types of requests). If your intention is to request a new case on race and intelligence, it should be made at WP:ARC with all the parties listed and notified. But personally I would not accept a case on the basis of "concerns" alone. Race and intelligence is a fraught topic that's already subject to multiple sanctions. That there are frequently disputes about it isn't particularly unexpected or problematic in itself. It would be a problem if these disputes weren't being resolved, but almost all the discussions you linked were formally closed by an experienced admin with an appropriate, consensus-based outcome. That would suggest that the normal dispute resolution procedures are working. – Joe (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @SMcCandlish and 2600:1004:B100::/40: Did AE refer this to us? In the thread 2600:1004 linked, Swarm's close was just Consensus here is against unanimously implementing an IP ban. Continue to deal with issues on a case by case basis, and feel free to try to renegotiate this in the community forum. In any case, if we do need to look at this afresh, it needs to be a case request and not an ARCA. The difference is more than procedural hair-splitting: ARC has guidelines on formatting so that we can actually assess whether there is a reason for ArbCom to be involved, will make sure the parties are properly listed and notified, and is much more widely viewed than ARCA. As bradv says below, there is no request here so we will have to archive it soon. Please consider filing a case request if you think this needs further attention. – Joe (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Discretionary sanctions are already authorized for this topic, so most of the conduct concerns that come up should be able to be handled to AE. If there's something that cannot be handled at AE we can of course have a look, but it's not clear to me that there is any such concern expressed in this thread.
  However, I am very concerned by the extraordinary allegations presented by the IP above, for which there is an acute lack of evidence. This does not strike me as an accusation made in good faith. – bradv🍁 01:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  2600:1004:B100::/40, you still have not offered any evidence for your accusation. I don't dispute that there are people who pretend to have the opposite point of view from their own in order to troll others, but your allegations that NightHeron is guilty of this behaviour are baseless. Furthermore, the AE discussion you link lacks evidence, in that it doesn't prove that someone lost their job due to a BLP violation in an article, nor does it provide a clear explanation of what those alleged BLP violations actually are. The aspersions against other editors need to stop. I'm not sure if this is the case or not, but I'll say it anyway: choosing to edit without an account cannot be used as a way to avoid scrutiny or sanctions. – bradv🍁 02:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  I see that the IP range has now been topic banned by the community, which addresses the concerns I expressed in my previous comment. While some of the opinions expressed above have been enlightening and informative, and those editing the topic area would do well to read them, I still don't see any specific requests to clarify or amend the existing R+I case. Assuming there are no further comments from the other arbs, I think this discussion can be archived. – bradv🍁 01:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• No one has suggested a specific clarification or amendment of the prior case decision that would be helpful, so I don't see anything useful for us to do here at this time. The accusations by the 2600 IP are without merit and I note the subsequent community ban of that editor. The discretionary sanctions authorization remains in place and can be invoked as needed. Questions such as whether certain RfCs should be closed by multi-admin panels are questions of policy not for decision by ArbCom. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• I have been asked some time ago to comment,I apologize for not posting this here earlier, but: " I think the question is whether RfC and AE enforcement on this topic is fair, done by neutral admins not having a prejudice on the issue. The number of people involved, their differing amounts of real-world knowledge of the subject, and of Wikipedia , the intractable RW nature of the controversy, the length of time this has been discussed at Wikipedia , all make this a singularly difficult situation.. But whether we have jurisdiction and responsibility depends upon whether we have the right to be the final resort to correct gross failures of NPOV. Earlier committees have indeed thought we did: I refer here to the decision Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience in  2006 (UTC) and the subsequent decisions based on it. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Requests for enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Yae4

There is consensus here for an indefinite topic ban from climate change. Also noting that, as this is the user's first sanction, an appeal that recognizes the problem and commits to fixing it, combined with constructive editing elsewhere, should be granted. ~Awilley (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Yae4 User who is submitting this request for enforcement  JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 14:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested  Yae4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Standard discretionary sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it  2020-03-28 Adding Forbes comment by Roger A. Pielke Jr., a climate change contrarian, for claims of "suppression" of a climate change contrarian - sourced, bizarrely, to a profile attacking Pielke in the "DeSmog blog". 2020-03-28 Forbes blog (non-RS, see WP:RSP) with extensive quote from Robert L. Bradley Jr. (a promoter of a free-market anti-interventionist position on climate change), promoting climate change denialist talking points. 2020-04-24T06:19:56 Reverts to include citations to primary material at climate change denialist group the Global Warming Policy Foundation. 2020-04-06T17:04 New article presenting climate change denialist talking points, e.g. extensive quote from musician Harold Ambler dismissing climate change as "the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind". 2020-03-30 adding invalid tags to Skeptical Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), reverted then again and again. 2020-04-02 Addition of synthesis serving to undermine the reputation of Climate Feedback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by cherry-picking superficial criticisms from an assessment that was overwhelmingly entirely positive (see talk:Climate Feedback). [9] (admin only(, adding references to https://principia-scientific.org/, a seriously fringe website, on now-deleted Mototaka Nakamura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [10], initial creation of Mototaka Nakamura, seriously cites Cooley, Richie (2019-09-22). Climate Change and Bible Prophecy. Richie Cooley. ISBN 978-0-463-55559-0. as a primary source. 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 2020-01-15 by Doug Weller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Additional comments by editor filing complaint  In Yae4's view many articles have been "FUBAR'd by climate change alarmists". Climate change alarmist is a pejorative used to dismiss mainstream views on climate change (and "a particularly infantile smear considering what is at stake" according to that linked article). Holding a fringe POV is theoretically fine, Wikipedia does not require ideological groupthink, but his POV comes across in disruptive article edits and talk space activism promoting idiosyncratic and non-mainstream views in a contentious area at a time of heightened political tension, and that is not fine. I believe that a restriction from at least mainspace editing related to climate change is justified. Explaining reality-based policies such as WP:FRINGE to editors who reject the mainstream view is a source of tension and burnout, and, bluntly, wasted time. Guy (help!) 14:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested  diff Discussion concerning Yae4 Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Yae4 Immediately before this, I questioned three JzG/Guy Guardian "blogposts" sources. (Reference "Guardian blogs"). Previously, I created Climate Forecast Applications Network, which remains after JzG/Guy's speedy, delete. Roger_A._Pielke_Jr. is expert on "policy education for scientists in areas such as climate change." At Noticeboard JzG/Guy: I don't know if it's reliable or not. At least it has the advantage of supporting the mainstream view., and kept/updated DeSmogBlog sources in articles. Prior Forbes blog source was reverted because "author has strong personal POV." Blog sources and attribution rules seem inconsistently applied. I've observed practices (#1), and sought guidance. Robert L. Bradley Jr., Phd "with distinction," and decades experience, is "author of several books on energy economics." was discussed at Judith Curry, where, there, was consensus. Climate Models for the Layman is essentially identical to (self-published) Climate Models for Lawyers on Curry's blog site, and presents her views. Harold_Ambler, author, musician, teacher (rower and surfer), got much notice, co-wrote/edited Ever True, history of Brown Crew (cited), wrote Don't Sell Your Coat, was controversially published on HuffPost, and got US Senate attention. Skeptical_Science has many self-published and blog sources, bias, noted long ago; my assessment. I wrote 41% of Climate Feedback, which demonstrates useful, lasting contributions. However, poor (Axios), non-attributed sources remain. "IFCN concludes its investigation into Science Feedback complaint" was removed, but several Poynter sources remain. NPOV should say they were certified, but all 3 annual IFCN/Poynter reviews had criticisms, and they were investigated; Conclusion: "the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards required of IFCN signatories." /8. Mototaka Nakamura, ScD : impressive qualifications, decades climate modeling, noticed by numerous sources, some stronger, some weak; h-index 60% above widely cited blogger Dana Nuccitelli (13 versus 8). JzG/Guy's Climate change alarmist quote source is a 404 (and bad archive link). Details matter. Kerry_Emanuel starts the paragraph: Dividing the entire field of climate research into “believers,” “skeptics,” “deniers,” and so on is a particularly egregious tactic deployed by those who wish to discredit climate research. Science is not about belief, it is about evidence. Projections of climate change by the IPCC are deeply skeptical, and there is no attempt to hide the large uncertainty of climate forecasts. The possible outcomes, as far as we have been able to discern, range from benign to catastrophic. "huge anti-fans": See "huge fan" by recruiting editor. Jlevi criticism contrasts previous: "Good going!", "Awesome work here." Bringing sources to Talk pages? Apologies for "collapse" if offended; noting 7 back/forth self-revert-indecision. When admin/editor JzG/Guy uses "bizarre" DeSmogBlog and Guardian blogposts, etc., I sometimes "step back" (disengage). @Jlevi: You now have two articles deleted, same as I have two, except yours were in less contentious "tech" topic area. I don't think it's a wiki-crime to try and fail. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC) If Hob Gadling may "turn over a new leaf" after civility issues, this enforcement seems out of proportion. Definition unsure; however, Bishonen and El_C seem "involved." (history available) @Bishonen: You closed a related article delete, which is no problem as "purely admin role." However, you said you were "already following Yae4's tendentious editing with growing concern," indicating "strong feelings" before this. (Aside: Why had you not communicated such concerns?) @El C: Closed a Noticeboard which is "purely admin," however, felt strongly enough to delete communication from talk page, during direct communication attempts with JzG/Guy. Earlier involved in Snooganssnoogans dispute; Snooganssnoogans created Climate_Feedback, #6 here. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC) PaleoNeonate, My creating Dave Hakkens, Precious Plastic, Stephen_Yafa, or David J. Rose while banned from "climate change broadly construed" seems doubtful. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC) @Black Kite: Not sure I can take space or time to discuss it here. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC) @PaleoNeonate:Thank you for at least previously attempting an explanation of general WP climate topic guidance. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC) @Only in death:First "climate" involvement was mid-January, non-neutral titled Noticeboard. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC) @Buffs, PackMecEng, JFG, Atsme, and Springee:, Thank you for your comments and suggestions. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC) @RexxS: After Jzg/Guy complained, I toned the heading down. That didn't stop them from complaining again here. Conclusion: Toning it down didn't matter. Plus, having a POV is no wiki-crime. JzG has an extensive POV essay (TL;DR). -- Yae4 (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC) @Awilley: Thank you for having a more balanced, flexible approach, as I also saw at Hob Gadling's civility dispute. Sorry in advance for what some may criticize as WP:SOAP. I don't know how to help except to say: (1) If my ability to pick and choose topics to edit is severely restricted, then my editing will be similarly reduced, for whatever time period. I volunteer to take a 1-3 month (warmth of summer) break from climate-related articles, and most of WP, to consider whatever specific suggestions for change I get here or on my Talk page. Collapsed comments 2-10 by Yae4 (2) Editing productively in other less controversial topic areas of interest, as I have already done, is very different than editing in the climate area (except for several articles where JzG/Guy has followed) me. More during a topic ban would not demonstrate much, and feels like trying to extort more volunteer time as a penalty. The topic difference is not my understanding of wiki-rules, but may be not understanding why wiki-rules are applied so differently in the climate area, or why non-civil behavior is more tolerated from "non-fringe POV" editors there, or my lack of "belief" in "fringe" treatment of climate. (3) I am unimpressed and unconvinced by John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli et al 2013 study of studies, or similar approaches by others. On climate science and model predictions, I value stated opinions of one MIT (or Georgia Tech) PhD climate scientist more than 10-100 opinions inferred by historians, sociologists, web developer cartoonists, cognitive psychologists, politicians, or a master's degree environmentalist blogger with some publications (who do those studies of studies). I'm aware there was a WP list of more scientists who disagree, about 35% of participant editors disagreed with deletion, and Bishonen closed it, seeing "consensus" over a significant minority objection (i.e. <<97% agreement), and siding with (feeling strongly?) a particular view of general scientists vs. climate scientists. I'm aware of the contrasting catch-all "denier" category. (4) I'm aware non-scientist Al Gore promoted the "science is in" approach, and got rich (partly from that, partly other things). There are 4 Huff Post sources in "Climate Reality Project". There are 2 in Al_Gore. "Al Gore’s Stupendous Wealth..." is not used in either article, although the source covers both. Nor is this, nor this. Why is that? Is it a "fringe" view that money may motivate Al Gore? Are those unreliable sources? (5) I'm happy to "step back" or slow down. I already have. I've tried to engage constructively on talk pages. Talk:Climate_Feedback or Talk:Tobacco_industry_playbook shows the (worst) kind of "collaboration" that sometimes results. (6) The fact that JzG/Guy is stressed or something "at a time of heightened political tension" is not my problem, but I'm not unsympathetic to their predicament or their pain when typing. (7) Re: "disruptive article edits and talk space activism": I ask, did anyone act with the spirit of WP:DDE and post any diffs of problematic edits or explain what I did "wrong" on my Talk page? Did JzG/Guy say anything on my Talk page other than "this is normal paranoia. The idea that I'm somehow stalking this editor is laughable and entirely unsupported by evidence, but when people advocate unorthodox views on Wikipedia and can't accept that they are not going to get their way, they often feel they are being persecuted." (~15 days after I first edited a climate article)? Note: El_C also said I was being too aggressive (defending JzG/Guy). (8) My FUBAR list is similar to User:JzG#Shitty_sources at a glance, so why is mine a problem? (9) My authorship remains high at four climate articles discussed here: #1 (no surprise), #1 (sort of a surprise) still top 10 top 5. I'm happy with that. (10) Of the long list at WP:NOTHERE, what have I done? (a) General disruptive behavior, battleground, Little or no interest in working collaboratively? Or is it (b) Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner? WP:NOTNOTHERE. If the (impartial) feedback here is (a), then please give me specific suggestions of what I should do differently; something more significant than don't use "bizarre" sources like DeSmogBlog (or a self-published religious book), even though JzG/Guy is OK with similar if it supports their view. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by PaleoNeonate I would also like to point at "Note the usual recruiting of huge anti-fans here" at the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Ambler discussion. And to this related NPOVN thread: WP:NPOVN § Non-NPOV at Climate Feedback (and budding edit war, poor sources, and more). At the AfD, voters are disparate, as can be expected, especially that the discussion is actually about the subject's notability. As for "anti-fans", shouldn't Wikipedia simply reflect the scientific and academic consensus? The prevention of undue promotion in relation to climate-change denial is part of normal editor duties and not activism. I didn't have the time to dig for diffs yet, but have noticed slow edit wars on various articles. I might post some examples later. An eventual topic ban seems unevitable. —PaleoNeonate – 23:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC) This suggests that this may be a domain-specific problem That is also my impression and Yae4 demonstrated an interest in some Computer Science articles; I don't think that a site ban is necessary and it could prevent potentially useful contributions. —PaleoNeonate – 04:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC) JFG: You do not appear to realize that persistent civil POV pushing in relation to various articles, with the promotion of unreliable sources, is disruptive and wasting the community's precious time. The report is not about a content dispute. —PaleoNeonate – 08:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by Jlevi The user does not tend to follow core editing policies on climate-related pages, operating in a manner that make it difficult to engage constructively. I will highlight some WP:RS and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution problems that occurred over a long span of time. Note that these diffs occurred on WP:BLP pages. - diff from 21 January 2020 Non-RS sources restated on the talk page without any RS-related arguments after removal from a BLP entry (diff Jan 19). - diff from 23 January 2020 Unwillingness to discuss issues and focus on content. - diff from 23 January 2020 More ref-bombing without consideration for source quality. Similar behavior occurred in a recent AFD: - diff from 20 April 2020 Ref-bombing with demonstrated lack of understanding of WP:RS and WP:N guidelines. These sources were largely present in the article when Yae4 moved it into mainspace (article at that time). - diff from 20 April 2020 Unwillingness to 1) discuss further, or 2) to consolidate sources. - diff from 23 April 2020 Collapsing another editor's comments outside the WP:COLLAPSENO talkpage behavioral guideline. Edit: I reverted to Yae4's collapse under the good-faith assumption that they were correctly conducting their behavior, but a review of the relevant guideline makes clear that this wasn't the case. Thus, this provides one example of acting without knowledge or instinct for behavioral guidelines. Jlevi (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC) Please note that all the interactions above come from my personal interactions with the editor, so I am not an outside observer. However, I think I have provided a reasonable analysis of the diffs in questions, as well as of the lack of movement on these issues. On quick inspection, it seems like the user's handling of policy outside of the climate domain appears more accurate. This suggests that this may be a domain-specific problem, though I have not engaged with the user extensively outside of the climate domain and hesitate to speak about quality of edits in technology- and company-related articles. 15:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC) Edit: Added mainspace examples. Jlevi (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC) To be clear, I to a large extent take Springee's points. Yae4 brings a lot of enthusiasm, and that's worth supporting. If it were tempered with some judiciousness in the future, then all the better. I'm somewhat more bearish than Springee on the probability of reform, given that article deletions would probably result in reappraisal of one's actions for most (and Yae4 will soon have a third deletion due to lack of awareness of policy), but a permanent topic ban would probably be excessive. Jlevi (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by Buffs If this person is such a problem, why have they not been blocked for any length of time? [11]. It seems that this should have been done prior to WP:AE. DS already gives that authority. Shouldn't we try something else first? Buffs (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by PackMecEng El_C & Bishonen How can we be past warning if they have never been warned or sanctioned? PackMecEng (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC) @El C: Correct it is not required. That is not what I was saying though. Why go straight to a sanction when no warnings, sanctions, or issues have occurred before this point? Generally they get a chance to correct problematic behavior before a restriction. If this is something that has been going on this long I would expect to see something, anything in fact before this. PackMecEng (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC) Just feels wrong when an one side of a content dispute brings the other in to get sanctioned, especially given how weak the evidence is and general lack of disruption for the topic area. PackMecEng (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by JFG I don't see much more than disagreement about content here, and the accused editor has replied cogently to accusations. The matter could be settled by a reminder to tread lightly in a DS subject matter, and strictly adhere to RS sourcing. Sanctions such as a TBAN would look punitive rather than preventive at this time. — JFG talk 06:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by Atsme Appears to be a case of a new editor needing a mentor rather than a t-ban or a block right out of the box. Lighten up - let's not run-off all of our newbie editors. Remove your dentures and gum 'em first, especially those who just need a little guidance. It's a learning process. If your ban hammer trigger finger itches, go fight some vandals...j/s. Atsme Talk 📧 18:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by Springee Seems like a new editor who probably can contribute once they get the hang of things. A knock upside the head followed by some guidance, not removal from the island, is probably the correct remedy here. I would start with telling Yae4 the fact that you are here and admins are discussing some form of possible sanctions is a good sign that you dune messed up. But that doesn't nessicarily mean you are a lost cause or can't be fixed. Here are some generally true things that many new editors miss. 1. Not everyone who disagrees with you or reverts your edits s a POV pusher. When you are new, much like a teen you know you are right and those who object are cleraly wrong. That is often not the case. Often it's because you aren't following accepted practices that often aren't obvious to new editors. Things like getting consensus before making changes when edits have been rejected, asking for help if you are certain you are right but, dang it, editors just arnen't hearing you. Sometimes it's good to look back at article histories and see how/why people were able to get consensus for changes. Sometimes it's understanding that you just aren't going to succeed if its you vs several editors. Anyway, when new and enthusiastic it's easy to cross invisible lines then end up here. 2. Pay attention to the diffs above. Try to understand why they are being used as evidence against you. At the same time, for anyone who posed a diff, please be willing to explain why it's wrong so Yae4 will have the knowledge needed to avoid similar mistakes in the future. As for the appropriate "knock", perhaps a warning or perhaps a short term tban (say 1 month). As this is the first official anything I would suggest something other than an indef. Give the editor some rope. Hopefully they will use it to build a bridge not a noose. Springee (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC) @Awilley, Bishonen, and RexxS:, could I offer an alternative suggestion. Several times I've suggested what I have called a soft-indef tban. The idea is that the editor is tbanned until they can show they understand the issue. The idea is that as soon as the editor understands what they did wrong and stops doing those things, the tban becomes punative rather than protection. So in a case like this where there is no prior warning history the tban is indef but also understood that the bar to lift it is light. So they can appeal almost right away (I would suggest waiting at least a week) and if they can explain what bad behaviors they will avoid in the future it gets lifted. The worst case scenario is the ban is put back in place. The best case is that we didn't needlessly tban an editor who was going to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by OID To those above saying 'Oh they are a new editor'. Check the editing history, despite only starting in August 2019, they are by no means anything close to what a new editor would be. Quack Quack. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Yae4 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I could support a topic ban. I think the documentation establishes that as an appropriate remedy. At the very least, there needs to be a logged warning alongside a commitment to do better. But we may be past that point now. El_C 16:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC) PackMecEng, an (extra) formal warning isn't really necessary in order for sanctions to apply immediately. There is no such requirement. El_C 19:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC) PackMecEng, this is a volunteer project, sometimes things slip through the cracks. There is always the prospect of a successful appeal in a while, so that's where I'm still leaning. It doesn't appear likely that Yae4 is able to edit in this topic area without disruption. That is a fact. El_C 20:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC) I am, I have been and will continue to be uninvolved with respect to Yae4. El_C 20:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC) Yae4, that action was taken as an uninvolved admin. Having done so does not make me involved. El_C 15:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC) I was already following Yae4's tendentious editing with growing concern, and I find JzG's collection of diffs and links above convincing. The user only recently changed a fire-breathing section header on their userpage from "Hall of Shame (or Articles FUBAR'd by climate change alarmists)" (quoted by JzG above) to the blander "Hall of Shame (or articles not consistent with "reliable" source coverage)". Support a topic ban from climate change broadly construed. I do think we are past the point of warnings. Bishonen | tålk 16:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC). @Yae4: re [12]: What makes you think I'm an involved admin, or El C either? Please take this opportunity to read WP:INVOLVED. What is the history you mention? Bishonen | tålk 13:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC). @Yae4: this is getting ridiculous. I won't respond to further sealioning from you. We'll just have to see if any other admins think my post that you mention, clearly visible right here, one inch higher up, suggests I'm "involved" with you. Bishonen | tålk 15:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC). @Yae4: without prejudice to your position, you appear to be at almost twice your allowed word limit. Would you be kind enough to trim back to no more than 500 words, please? --RexxS (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC) @Yae4: I don't see any problem with the four articles you mention, even if you were under a climate change topic ban. It would be climate change that is the defining issue, not the environment in any shape or form. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Having reviewed the request, I'm minded to issue a 12 month topic ban from making any edit on any page related to the climate change topic, broadly construed. Unless opinion here opposes that within the next 24 hours, I'll enact the ban. --RexxS (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Well, I like that, RexxS, except for one thing: I don't favour a situation where a user can simply stop editing until the ban from the topic closest to their heart has expired, and then start on the same topic again, having in the meantime learned nothing about editing Wikipedia. What I like is indefinite T-bans, with encouragement to edit other topics as well as other Wikimedia projects, and then appeal the ban, perhaps after six months — having hopefully learned lots about our principles, policies, and customs. If they can point to constructive editing in those other areas, the appeal is very likely to be granted. Mind you, I won't exactly object to your proposal. I'm just very fond of the "learning while topic banned" principle. Bishonen | tålk 21:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC). You've convinced me, 'Shonen. An indefinite topic ban isn't necessarily forever, and an appeal after six months seems very reasonable. If you want to do the paperwork before I get around to it, please do. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC) @RexxS: @Bishonen:, I spent some time looking at this today and I'm a bit uncomfortable with an indefinite topic ban as the first resort. I dug into the user's edit history a bit and I can see that Yae4 has a lot of energy but that energy doesn't always seem to be directed at building an encyclopedia. (There's certainly a battleground approach and I suspect some WP:RGW going on.) It would be nice if that energy could be redirected, which is why I do support a topic ban. What would you think about doing a 6-month topic ban with a warning that returning to pushing fringe narratives after the ban expires will result in the topic ban being reinstated as indefinite? ~Awilley (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC) @Awilley: I could have some sympathy if I hadn't seen this morning's edit by Yae4. Did you see that? There's no appreciation of what the complaints against them are. I think I prefer putting the onus on Yae4 to demonstrate good editing and appeal a ban in six months, rather than someone else having to demonstrate further misconduct after Yae4 just sits it out. --RexxS (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC) @RexxS: I had seen the userpage, not the edit. (I just had to look up FUBAR.) That was part of what convinced me of the Battleground mentality. I don't typically expect a user to appreciate the complaints against them while they are in the process of being topic-banned. My hope is that they will come to appreciate them in time. If not, it will be less time-consuming for you, me, Bishonen, El_C, or any single admin to reinstate the topic ban than it would for us to go through an appeal here. ~Awilley (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC) I'm also open to the suggestion by Springee. Maybe the easiest way to do that would be to stipulate that the ban can be lifted by any single admin (as opposed to going through the whole process here) when that admin is satisfied that Yae understands the problem and is willing to remedy it. ~Awilley (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC) @Awilley: I draw the opposite conclusion: someone editing in exactly the manner complained of, while facing the prospect of a topic ban, seems even less likely to me to come to appreciate what is required after the event. The process for appeal is laid down at WP:ACDS #Appeals by sanctioned editors. The first port of call suggested is the admin who imposed the sanction, so that whenever the appeal is straightforward, it can be accepted without unnecessary fuss (this already is a "tban lite"). Therefore, if an appeal is heard at AE, or at AN, or at ARCA, it means that the enforcing administrator has either not been consulted or opposes it. In either case, you're not looking at a straightforward appeal and it is not obvious that the sanctioned editor has demonstrated the good editing expected for the topic ban to be lifted. With all due respect to Springee, they don't have to make the difficult decisions, nor clean up the consequences of not getting them right. The idea of any admin being able to lift an AE sanction cuts across the setup of AE, where the judgement of the enforcing administrator is paramount. I would not be happy to see an AE action – especially one imposed after consultation and consensus at AE – simply being overturned by another admin without "the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator". The result of allowing a topic-banned editor back to editing in the affected area without being reasonably certain that they will not cause problems again, will be more disruption to the encyclopedia and another debate here to re-impose sanctions. I prefer some means of being reasonably certain. Nevertheless, as I don't see any prospect of consensus for my proposal made yesterday, I'll withdraw the offer and await other solutions. --RexxS (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC) @RexxS: I don't know of any administrator who would unilaterally overturn the sanction without looking deep enough to be "reasonably certain" that the problem is resolved. (Do you?) Another idea if you don't object: I'd be happy to place an indef topic ban myself and then handle the appeal (if it comes) on my own too. If that doesn't work then I won't stand in the way of the indef. ~Awilley (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC) @Awilley: I don't know of any administrator who could unilaterally overturn any AE sanction placed by another admin without being de-sysopped – no matter how deeply they had looked. You can take any reasonable AE action you choose, of course; that's the whole point of how AE works. But you would do so in the knowledge that I had concerns over the lack of any indication of the time you expected Yae4 to observe the topic ban. I can't speak for Bishonen, but her comment to me above seems indicative of a similar position. --RexxS (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Yes, I agree with RexxS. Usually people are on their best behaviour when their behaviour is being discussed on a noticeboard, as opposed to cocking a snook at the discussion, as here. Yae4 restored his belligerent header "FUBAR'd by climate alarmists" to his page just a couple of hours after RexxS's original topic ban proposal above. That's a poor look. I don't know what is in Yae4's head, but it certainly could be that they really want this attack on their opponents on their page and realise they won't be able to put it there once the topic ban is in force. "Unpromising" would be a weak word for that. The difference between you, AW, placing an indefinite ban on your own + handling an appeal on your own, and RexxS doing it on behalf of AE, seems rather finespun, since Yae4 would in any case be encouraged to go to the "placing" admin first with an appeal. The differences would be a) it sounds from the way you put it like your verdict on that appeal would be final, whereas RexxS's could be appealed further to the admins or the community, at AE or AN. And b) an appeal to you could be made quickly, whereas one to RexxS + AN/AE would have little chance before six months had passed. Which of the differences is it that makes you prefer your own suggestion, or is it both? I'm not sure I believe in a), btw — surely if an admin declines to lift a sanction, it can always be appealed to the community? Bishonen | tålk 03:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC). Bish, a) doesn't make sense to me at all, so closer to b) I think, but without any arbitrary timeframe. Could be a month, could be 6 months, could be a year, could be never. The idea was a simple way to implement Speingee's "lite" suggestion by allowing the unban to happen at a lower level (like a regular unblock) instead of going through the AE process. Nothing special about me; you or Rex or anybody could do it. I just volunteered because I had brought it up. Anyway it looks like the consensus here is for indef, and I won't stand in the way of that. ~Awilley (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Eternal Father

There is consensus here for an indefinite topic ban from post-1932 American politics and related people. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Eternal Father User who is submitting this request for enforcement  JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 09:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested  Eternal Father (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it  2020-04-28 cites a Fox News opinion piece in support of tendentious content on Michael Flynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), reverted by NorthBySouthBaranof 2020-04-28 introduces negative BLP content to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), reverted by Wikieditor19920 2020-04-28 Editoriliaising at Mike Cernovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), rverted by Grayfell 2020-04-24 Unsourced promotion of Mike Cernovich, reverted by JzG 2020-04-20 WP:UNDUE promotin of Mike Cernovich at Jeffrey Epstein, reverted by Calton 2020-04-19 tendentious addiution of Mike Cernovichg at Investigative journalism, reverted by JzG (n.b: there is consensus at talk:Mike Cernovich that he is not a journalist, and he admits he only calls himself one to trigger people). 2020-04-18 Promotion of Mike Cernovich at Roger Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), reverted by Grayfell; reinserted and reverted by Calton; reinserted and reverted again by Calton; reinserted and reverted by Muboshgu There are plenty more where those came from. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any  Date Explanation Date Explanation 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 (diff). Additional comments by editor filing complaint  Eternal Father came to my notice as a result of promtional editing of Mike Cernovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where he argued (unsuccessfully) to classify Cernovich as a journalist, based on WP:SYN (see my analysis of the propoosed sources at permalink). He has since then received warnings and advice from many experienced Wikipedians including Calton, Doug Weller, Muboshgu and MelanieN. Bluntly, I don't think he's getting it. Case in point: Draft:Hoaxed (2019 Film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was declined on 15 April and 19 April, by different reviewers, but Eternal Father created it by copy-paste into mainspace anyway at Hoaxed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), leading to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoaxed with attendant canvassing (e.g. [13]). It seems clear that Eternal Father is a fan of Mike Cernovich's work, which is a red flag in itself given that Cernovich is pretty much universally described as a right-wing provocateur or troll. He's also a fan of Project Veritas. This likely explains the recurrent problem of failure to understand what constitutes reliable sourcing on Wikipedia, as exemplified in the Hoaxed article, and what constitutes OR/SYN, per the Cernovich article. In order to reduce drama, I think Eternal Father should have a 12 month topic ban from AP2, to give him time to learn Wikipedia's sourcing and content policies in areas less prone to strife. Guy (help!) 09:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC) DGG A narrower ban would be fine by me but should probably include O'Keefe / Project Veritas and Jack Posobiec as well, since those are also a focus. I agree that the principal problem as seen to date is centred on Cernovich but I read it as right-wing faux journalists (not disputing your underlying point that this is much narrower than the entirety of US politics and, implicitly, that excessively broad sanctions are to be avoided). Guy (help!) 16:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested  [ diff] Discussion concerning Eternal Father Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Wikieditor19920 I definitely had a big problem with this user's addition at the Joe Biden article. It strings together information to suggest guilt in a way that sources do not explicitly do, and some sources have taken active efforts to avoid, namely conflating the Biden inappropriate touching with the sexual assault allegation. Whether this on its own warrants a ban, I don't know. I've seen a lot of concerning behavior at Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden and I doubt all of it will be sanctioned. I don't think that revert on its own warrants a ban rather than a warning. However, if it's part of an overall pattern of POV editing as JzG suggests, a ban might be appropriate. Will leave that for others to decide. @Eternal Father: WP:SYNTH. The content you added is in a reliable source, but presented to imply a conclusion not stated by the source. And please place your replies in the appropriate section: yours. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC) (Edit) I've moved EF's reply to his section, since he chose to reply directly under my statement. This is after I asked him to do so himself here and on his talk page. This user does not follow rules even when asked to do so. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by Eternal Father Note: more information can be found on the talk pages of those articles Several users have consistently reverted edits, a pattern which may indicate political bias on their part, if not for assumed good faith. None of the edits have been found to be factually untrue and fall under subjective and matters of opinion, like how reliable sources, like Bloomberg and Fox News consider Cernovich to be a journalist, it seems multiple editors "oppose" this because they don't like his work. From my perspective, simply adding basic facts (backed by RS) is considered "promotion" by those that simply don't like Cernovich or other figures. As for BRD, I've seen plenty of B (bold), R (revisions), but not, however, much discussion on the talk pages by those that have make the revisions. Why do the articles on Steve Bannon and Sean Spicer get to include an infobox module of their military record, but not Cernovich or Posobiec (whose article calls him an "internet troll" and has multiple instances of neutrality violations)? That doesn't make much sense to me. The Mike Cernovich article, along with others, does not currently have a neutral point of view. He filed several motions, which are public record and have been substantially reported on. To deny this is to deny fact, which is against the spirit of Wikipedia. 1. The Michael Flynn source may include opinion, but the supplemental court filing is fact, and the statement from his attorney indicated that exculpatory evidence ("Brady Disclosure") was produced. Once those documents are made available to the public, this will be expounded upon further. 2. The same content is in the main Joe Biden article, and should be in the allegation article, as his other instances of confirmed inappropriate behaviour are relevant. 3. A simple analysis of the diff logs will show that JzG was the one who first "editorialized" the Seder section of the Cernovich article, under the deceptive guise of "removing unreliable sources". Original: "On November 28, 2017, Cernovich published a post on [Medium] that resurfaced a deleted tweet progressive talk radio host Sam Seder wrote in 2009 joking about convicted statutory rapist and fugitive film director Roman Polanski. The tweet read," JzG: "Cernovich promted a conservative attack on Sam Seder" 4. Cernovich has been considered part of the IDW.,but again, that is a subjective matter of opinion, and it seems that Wikipedia is dependent upon the press to decide. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.html 5. There were only 3 parties to the motion: Alan Dershowitz, and then Mike Cernovich filed along to that motion, and then the Miami Herald. So "other media" doesn't make sense in that context. 6. I believe the accuser is referring to the addition of investigative journalist and Project Veritas Chairman, James O'Keefe (not Cernovich), to the list of notable investigative reporters, to which I see no issue. 7. Allegations of jury bias in a Federal case are a serious matter, especially given the publicity that it received. Cernovich did, in fact, file a motion to unseal the jury questionnaires., which is a relevant and notable detail of the Roger Stone Trial. Overall, this seems to be a matter of the accuser's narrative, not facts, as those have not been disputed. Eternal Father (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC) References user:wikieditor19920 See statement below. The content in the Joe Biden Allegation article is also in the main Joe Biden article. Why have you not challenged or removed it from there as well? Eternal Father (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by Buffs Am I the only one seeing a pattern of issues being brought to WP:AE by JzG that a) are at least partly frivolous in nature b) should simply be handled by Admins via DS (if warranted) and c) seem to be targeting conservatives? The first piece of evidence seems to be that he added a sourced addition to an article. Buffs (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC) @NorthBySouthBaranof: I get it. You don't like conservative opinions. He's hardly a conspiracist (certainly not a "noted" one). He certainly is pro-Trump. But regardless of that, it was a piece published by a reliable source of information. If you find something in it inaccurate, that's ok! Point it out and we can talk about it, but you cannot dismiss it just because he's conservative or has made some inaccurate statements in the past. Buffs (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC) Labeling dissenting opinions of someone as a "conspiracy theorist" + looking at his previous contributions...I'm pretty confident my assessment is spot on. As for reviewing our core policies, perhaps you would be so kind as to reduce the vague and condescending remarks and specify what policy you're referring to; it seems rather pointless to guess. Buffs (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC) Yep...my opinion of your assessment definitely stands, NorthBySouthBaranof. Buffs (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC) Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof Buffs, if you think that an opinion column written by a noted conspiracy theorist is ever a usable source for anything other than the columnist's attributed opinion, you may wish to review WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:DUE. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Buffs I'm not sure what you want me to call someone who peddles false, misleading, and unsubstantiated claims about Hillary Clinton, "deep state collaborators," and the Russia investigation; describes Robert Mueller as "illegitimate and corrupt"; and literally changes his mind about whether grand juries are good or bad overnight depending on whether the grand jury is investigating Hillary or Trump. You are experienced enough to know that we have higher standards for sourcing than that. An opinion column written by a partisan columnist clearly and indisputably fails WP:V for any other purpose than sourcing the attributed opinion of the columnist. Never facts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken Buffs, once you finish reviewing those core policies, you might want to read NorthBySouthBaranof's comment again, since nowhere there does NbSB say anything even close to "I don't like conservative opinions," or even imply it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC) I agree with Doug Weller than an AP ban seems like a better solution than a single-subject ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC) Statement by Rusf10 Another frivolous filing by the biased administrator JZG. I don't see anything more than a content dispute here. If you want to know how out of mainstream JZG's views are, just read his essay User:JzG/Politics. He describes the Democratic Party as "a centre-right party". Sure, I've heard people describe it as center-left or even centrist, but center-right is ridiculous, and it must mean he views Republicans (or anyone that would usually be considered conservative in the United States) as far-right. But he doesn't stop there he goes a step further by accusing the Republican party of voter fraud (isn't that a conspiracy theory???) and it compares to the Conservative Party which is run by "white nationalists" and "people who want to go back to the 1950s, when it was fine to be racist". Someone with extremist views like this should at the very least not have any administrative duties in the area of politics.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC) Result concerning Eternal Father This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. It would seem sufficient to block his editing the Cernowitz article, and from inserting his name elsewhere in Wikipedia . That's the principal complaint. DGG ( talk ) 15:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC) I presume you mean a topic ban from anything regarding Mike Cernovich anywhere on the project. I'd certainly support that. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC) I agree. The only question is whether the topic ban should be broadened to include O'Keefe / Project Veritas and Jack Posobiec as Guy suggests. I only see diff 6 as mentioning O'Keefe, but it may be worth asking if there is further evidence available? --RexxS (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Although looking again at his edits and the above, I think if he's not banned from AP he'll be brought back here again. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Does anyone object to an AP topic ban? Time to close this. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Sounds good to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC) I would support an indefinite AP topic ban. Bishonen | tålk 12:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC).

PackMecEng

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning PackMecEng

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 

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

User against whom enforcement is requested 

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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)

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)

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)

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

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notified here

Discussion concerning PackMecEng

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by PackMecEng.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• I would like to make a quick note on BLP. NBSN just used a blog to call Jeff Sessions homophobic.[14] 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[15]. Luckily it was reverted. PackMecEng (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Then Beyond My Ken restored it with no edit summary.[16] PackMecEng (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

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)

Statement by Atsme

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)

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)

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)

Statement by Buffs

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

Statement by Beyond My Ken

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)

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

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)

Statement by XavierItzm

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)

Statement by Levivich

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)

Statement by Valjean

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[17]
• The Washington Times[18]
• Newsmax[19]
• Fox News[20]
• Fox News[21]

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)

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)

Statement by ConstantPlancks

This piece in National Review should clear up any issues here. [22]. 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)

Mr Ernie

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)

Result concerning PackMecEng

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)
• 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. [23] ~Awilley (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  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)

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)

• 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)

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

  @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)

  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)

Venue9

Indefed as an admin action by Bishonen --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Venue9 User who is submitting this request for enforcement  Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 19:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested  Venue9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced ARBIPA Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it  02:57, 3 May 2020 and 03:01 3 May 2020: Gives WP:FAKE sources, along with purported page numbers and quotations 09:15, 3 May 2020: (1) Changes the post with FAKE sources when countered (2) Also claims at the bottom that my comment of "I am relieved" amounts to support for his claims 13:22, 3 May 2020: Claims at WP:Redirects for discussion that I had agreed with him 13:34, 3 May 2020: When I deny that I had agreed with him, he doubles down saying that I did! 18:30, 3 May 2020: When another user challenges him, he triples down again. Supposedly, "this hoax" meant "not a hoax". This claim is then repeated further four times: [24], [25], [26], [27] 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. 15:02, 1 May 2020 Additional comments by editor filing complaint  This account is only a few days old, but the user has devoted the majority of his 70-odd edits to claiming that the Indian political leader Sonia Gandhi's "original name" is "Antonia Maino" (or something related). He is the third largest contributor to Talk:Sonia Gandhi! The majority of the discussion can be found at Talk:Sonia Gandhi#Birth name controversy and the subsection #Alleged sources. After investigating it for a day, I came to the conclusion that the claim is WP:HOAX generated by the political opponents of Sonia Gandhi to underscore her Italian origin, and then popularised by Wikipedia. The Wikipedia information seems to have been copied by a number of Indian news sources and now even appears on Encyclopedia Britannica. (So it hasn't been an easy issue to decide). The user's contribution was to supply three citations that appeared before 2004, which he later admitted he just copied from the Catalan Wikipedia. When asked for page numbers and quotations, he produced random page numbers and made-up quotations. When challenged on these, he started revising his earlier statements. Meanwhile, having gotten convinced that this was a HOAX, Akhiljaxxn submitted the redirects for Antonia Maino etc. for discussion. The user showed up there and started claiming that I had agreed this was not a hoax. When quizzed by me as well as other users, he continues to persist with this ridiculous claim. Essentially, the charges are source misrepresentation, gaslighting, obsession with FAKE information, and possibly a politically-driven agenda. Casting aspersions, which happened before he received the ARBIPA alert, is no less of a concern. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested  Notified - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Discussion concerning Venue9 Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Venue9 Statement by (username) Result concerning Venue9 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Blocked indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE as a regular admin action, i. e. not per DS, which don't do indefinite. Bishonen | tålk 20:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC). Compare also this SPI. Bishonen | tålk 23:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC).

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by GizzyCatBella

Appealing user 

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

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the World War II history of Poland.[28] 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

[29]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

Dear colleagues.

In light of the recent AE case,[30] 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.[31] I was originally falsely accused of disruptive editing [32] by now indef banned user Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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 [33] )

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 [34] 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[35] or El_C[36] 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)

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: [37]

Firstly, I have the impression that settlement articles in Wikipedia (WP:CITSTRUCT[38]) 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: [39] as well as Stawiski Travel Guide [40] 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. [41]

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. [42] 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,[43], 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 [44] revert to 27 Aug 2017[45] version.
• Revision as of 09:15, 24 June 2018[46] revert challenged as "gross misrepresentation of sources" + talk page Revision as of 09:18, 24 June 2018[47] post explaining the problem of misrepresentation.
• Revision as of 09:20, 24 June 2018[48] - 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[49] + Revision as of 10:08, 24 June 2018[50] - 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 [51] 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.[52] 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)

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[53] but I will expand if permitted to use more space.GizzyCatBella🍁 14:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

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. [54] 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?[55] 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)

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 [56] 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 [57] but within two hours I received unexpected help from the Russian speaking editors [58],[59], who used those sources from the Russian Wikipedia [60]. 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: [61],[62], [63], [64], [65] ...) 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[66] I was probably one of the first editors who added text about "atheism" to the person's bio and sourced it properly[67] 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 [68] I removed because I didn't see it in the source and I still don't see it.[[69]] 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 [70],[71], 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 [72] but due to the topic ban limitations, I can’t. I reached out [73] and opposed sanctioned against what many would consider being "my opponent" for what I got prase from User:Starship.paint [74]. 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. [75] I politely discuss problems if they arise [76]. I cooperate with others on controversial subjects[77] I refused any involvement in subjects that were covered by my topic ban [78]. 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)

@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[79] 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 [80] as I just was reported here [81]. 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)

@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)

@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)

This is the CORRECT link to Глущенко А. Г. "Колыма." [82] :( I’m so sorry :( :( GizzyCatBella🍁 04:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

@El_C Please allow me some additional time to respond to the evidences presented by K.e.coffman. I spent a lot of time yesterday describing the grounds for my appeal, which was so challenging to me, but today, regrettably, I have other responsibilities to do with my family. I'll answer as soon as I get some time. Probably late tonight, but most likely tomorrow. Thank you so much.GizzyCatBella🍁 19:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

Extended content

Hi SarahSV, I'm back home now. I'll address your concern and answer questions, but first I'll respond to K.e.coffman since they were first, then you, and then Ealdgyth, from what I can see, they were the last person to raise concerns. Please allow me some time to compose everything, I'm not very fast at typing.. and completely drained after yesterday, to be honest.GizzyCatBella🍁 05:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

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 [83]. Now (I just noticed) EI_C saw another violation [84] 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)

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)

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)

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)

Statement by Sandstein

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)

Statement by involved editor K.e.coffman

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: [85]. 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)

A follow-up to GCB's response [86] 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 [87]: 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)

Statement by Ealdgyth

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)

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)

Statement by Buffs

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

Statement by SarahSV

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)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by GizzyCatBella

• 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)

  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)

  @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)

• 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)
• 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 [88] 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)

Result of the appeal by GizzyCatBella

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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• I would decline per Levivich and El_C --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm very uncomfortable with any sort of mentorship requirement --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @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)
• 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 [89] 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)