Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests  (Redirected from Wikipedia:AE)

Mr MilesEdit

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

Request concerning Mr MilesEdit

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Rab V (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 05:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Mr_Miles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. [1] 3RR violations on the trans woman article
  2. [2] more 3RR violations
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5]
  6. [6]
  7. [7]
  8. [8]
  9. [9] WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTFORUM derogatory references to trans women in the talk page
  10. [10] more WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTFORUM violations


Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. [11] Temporary ban for 3RR violation where admin suggested also seeking topic ban.


If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see [12].


Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[13]

Discussion concerning Mr_MilesEdit

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

Statement by Mr_MilesEdit

Statement by (username)Edit

Result concerning Mr_MilesEdit

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • There is a procedural problem with this request. All the diffs are from before the editor was blocked for the edits aforementioned. I am a bit wary of sanctioning someone twice. Unless there are new violations, I would not go beyond a warning at this time. El_C 14:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I would close this with no action per El C --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

GizzyCatBellaEdit

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 GizzyCatBellaEdit

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Notrium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 03:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
GizzyCatBella (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
Talk page notice of the topic ban, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive236#GizzyCatBella ARBENF topic ban :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 2020-07-05T04:23:09 Soviet civilians included the half of Poland annexed in 1939. The article specifically refers to Kortelisy.
  2. 2020-07-19T14:42:12 Second World War in Poland in this and previous paragraph.
  3. 2020-07-19T14:55:30 The article topic encompasses WW2 in Poland, as that's when and where a large portion of this Genocide happened. (Search for Poland in the article.) Also see previous diff.
  4. 2020-07-29T08:41:43 "Poor" is mainly WWII in Poland, described in the previous paragraph.
  5. 2020-07-29T22:31:06 The Slovak uprising was connected to the Russian attack on the Germans from Poland, and as planned should have enabled a direct terrestrial connection between Slovak forces and the Ally forces in Poland: see the Battle of the Dukla Pass, a battle on the border between Poland and Slovakia; the Soviet Air Force and the liberated Slovak air force flew from/to Poland; and 1944 Slovakia included parts of Poland.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 2018-04-26T14:44:53 Blocked for violating an arbitration decision with edits on the "Collaboration in German-occupied Poland" article.
  2. 2019-05-18T09:50:45 Blocked for violating an arbitration decision and for violating their topic ban.
  3. 2020-06-26T23:21:16 Blocked for both again.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Not applicable, I think.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The previous enforcement request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive268#GizzyCatBella.

I'd like to note that AFAIK GizzyCatBella has also been been warned on their talk page many times for violations without a sanction happening, including in April 2020 by El C. The many discussions on GizzyCatBella in the Arbitration Enforcement Archives are also relevant.

I fail to see what the proposed sanctions against me or François Robere are supposed to accomplish except making GizzyCatBella's ban effectively void. That's not the motivation, right? Notrium (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@El C: that was not my point. If you sanction anybody who audits somebody's (GCB's in this case) behavior, then any other potential "auditors" will not dare to do something similar again. Thus their TBAN would be effectively void. Notrium (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@El C: what is the rationale for giving me an IBAN? Surely it is not standard practice to sanction someone after their first non-actionable Enforcement request?
In case it's not clear, it seems to me that you are trying to punish me simply for starting this legitimate enforcement process. Have I done anything that should be a cause of concern? Notrium (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd just like to respond to the proposals of sanctioning me for raising this case: my behavior is and wasn't of a "battleground" nature, this AE case was not "malicious" or "weaponized" - it was done in good faith; I absolutely thought that GizzyCatBella was violating her TBAN with her edits. However I would like to note that, although it obviously flared up a bit now, the conflict between me and GizzyCatBella, as even Piotrus basically says, is quite small, from both sides, and I thus have an optimistic perspective on our future ability to functionally collaborate without an IBAN. I apologize for making the admins expend their time on what turned out to be non-actionable, and for my overly curt misinterpretable comment above ("fail to see what the proposed sanctions"), I assure you that neither was my intention.

I hope that you can while deliberating also note that this is only my second AE case and that I am in general inexperienced in the Wikipedia ways. Notrium (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, I should probably say this explicitly: because the problem that led you to consider an IBAN is related to just this AE case I raised, it would be unfair and unnecessary to sanction a general IBAN that would prevent us from editing in the same topics. Notrium (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Small note: A procedural error seems to have happened regarding GizzyCatBella's TBAN: it is not listed on WP:RESTRICT. I am mentioning this because the admins here are presumably best placed to take any needed action if necessary. Notrium (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Piotrus' comment, I want to say that it seems inconsistent with his recent previous position, as he emailed me a seemingly supportive message after my first AE; but now he turns 180°, even accusing me of "Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia" and proposing sanctioning me. Notrium (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, sorry for emailing you, Seraphimblade. Some questions for the admins, then: do you want me to elaborate on the background to this AE case? I wasn't asked anything explicitly, but some admins are suspicious of something, so I think maybe I should tell more. Notrium (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

2020-07-31T03:04:54


Discussion concerning GizzyCatBellaEdit

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 GizzyCatBellaEdit

Unbelievable battleground attitude! I can't believe it!! This is a continuation of this! [14] And this report [15] already reported by Notrium earlier following my prior disagreement with that user. There is no word "Poland" or any subject related to Poland from my edits presented above. They just can't stop until they get their way. See this discussion too [16] on RexxS talk page. I'm carefully avoiding any word POLAND in WW2. Article about Roma people?! Because of what?! Because some Roma communities lived in Poland during WW2 and Poland is mentioned somewhere else in the article!? What an ill-disposed report! This is absurd. I even state it clearly in the edits summary when I'm correcting ANYTHING where there was a mention of Poland somewhere else in the article, like here [[17]] when I was repairing Slovakia section. Notrium please get it over with and move on. I have nothing to do with your latest block [18] Just move on. I can't take it anymore. Dear administrators, PLEASE. Please, remove or alter my topic ban, so this kind of malicious reports don't happen anymore. I understand what I have done that resulted in my topic ban OVER two years ago already. [19] I know that I have to be careful with references, and I'm already. VERY CAREFUL. The topic ban doesn't serve any purpose whatsoever anymore, causes me significant distress and only attracts battleground oriented editors. They file insanely bad faithed reports and use it as a weapon to get back at me for God to know what. GizzyCatBella🍁 05:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Notrium OMG. Pushing for diff [20], which is very clearly related to pre-war Germany (the Romani situation in Nazi Germany) and trying to pass them off as topic ban violations when they're not, just further shows how bad-faithed this report is.GizzyCatBella🍁 05:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
or this one about Roma community they presented [21] it’s about communist governments policies against Roma community way after the war. I can’t believe they have the nerve to continue claiming a TP violation.GizzyCatBella🍁 05:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Note - Also, please note because this is VERY interesting. All the diffs the user Notrium presented above are related to the Roma community, Germany, Soviet Union and Slovakia. User Notrium, however, advocates for the expansion of sanctions to include - quote - widen the scope of the topic ban to encompass, e.g., Eastern Europe in the 20th century and Jewish history and individuals in the 20th century; in addition to writers, historians and other persons connected to the former. WHY Jewish History? There is nothing about Jewish history in the above diffs. I wonder if this report has anything to do with a now permanently banned user Icewhiz [22] because of whos complain the sanctions were imposed in the first place.[23], who charged against me on later occasions [24] [25]. His sockpuppets were involved in a recent slander campaign against me and other editors (TonyBallioni is aware of that) Tony could you please take a look at it when you get a chance? Can user Notrium please explain the "Jewish history" thing? GizzyCatBella🍁 11:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Notrium please reply to the question above, thanks.GizzyCatBella🍁 17:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Note - I'm just noting that Notrium failed to answer the question of why they advocated for the expansion of sanctions to include - quote - ..Jewish history and individuals in the 20th century; in addition to writers, historians and other persons connected to the former.

They now removed that text from his original filing [26] with an edit summary make room. Also, it's correct that I hardly interacted with Notrium and that they filed only two AE reports, both against me in short intervals. Frist on June 26th [27] (in the first one Solzhenitsyn, too, is considered by some to be anti-Semitic) and this one on July 31st [28] Please note that both include mention of Jewish history but Notrium never edited the same topic area as I did and my disagreement with them was never about the Jewish history.[29] - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

User François Robere who was a close friend of Icewhiz ,supposed to stay away from me following this discussion [30] but arrived here to comment. He also breached the interaction promise earlier here [31] and here [32] and here restoring my edit [33]. He pushed for sanctions together with Notrium here [34] on RexxS' talk page also. François Robere do you have anything to do with producing this report?GizzyCatBella🍁 14:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  • You see guys; I'm not the kind of person looking for fights, I simply want to edit in peace. For example, François Robere commented directly to me this discussion [35] despite the earlier pledge of staying away. [36] I reminded him about the "stay away promise" [37], but all I have heard in return is a suggestion about me being paranoid. So I left the discussion and moved on. I could have reported him to RexxS but I believed that FR would eventually stop. But these constant attempts by FR to get me sanctions are causing me too much stress and takes away the enjoyment of editing Wikipedia. I'll welcome anything that will prevent this mad block shopping. Lifting the Topic Ban would be ideal, again I understand my previous mistake from 2 years ago, I'll not repeat it, I promise. But if you still think this long-standing Topic Ban is necessary, then please do something else that will shelter me from situations like this one. I'm really stressed out.GizzyCatBella🍁 16:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • FR, you are presenting some old diffs claiming that I'm "hounding and following you around." We may have naturally ended up in the same article but before the April 4th agreement. [38] After that, you presented one diff [39] claiming that my edit [40] was an interaction with your edit. False, I just changed 500 to 600 and inserted the reference and then added another reference with a little text here [41] Didn't touch your revision what so ever. I would not dare to do that. Then I joined related discussion but never responded to you [42] I would not dare to do that. You said you have 15 diffs proving me braking my promise to stay away from you. You showed faulty two. Please present 13 more you claim you have, but the real ones were I directly started interacting with you, reverted you or commented on you. They don't exist.

Meantime on May 28, YOU joined this discussion and on May 29 directly challenged me [43] by saying GizzyBella: The IP hasn't been blocked, so your striking of their comment may be a violation of your T-ban then you said Stop being paranoid, Bella - it's a public forum, you're hardly the only one who comments here. Instead of charging, try to WP and imagine how this looks. Cheers. Then on June 3, I made this edit [44], and on June 16, you challenged my edit making an edit to the same substance [45]. Then on July 18 you changed my edit from traditional to conservative here [46] with the edit summary call it what it is Then on June 18, again, you restored this edit of mine [47] right here [48] with the edit summary Restoring some PiS mentions - state-sanctioned homophobia is noteworthy here I never challenged you and didn't complain to RexxS. I just moved on and stopped editing that article exactly because I did’t want to breach the interaction promise. Then you advocated for sanction against me on RexxS' talk page, and later today, you arrived here. I never did what you did; it is you who ignored the agreement. I don't care about what you do on Wikipedia, and I don't follow you. If I cared, I would complain about the breach of promise a long time ago, but I didn't, I just moved on to avoid unnecessary stress. This is how it is FR, not the way you are presenting. GizzyCatBella🍁 21:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  • or here just the other day [49] I voted AGREE, you arrived next day to vote OPPOSE. I don’t think I would dare to vote seeing you there voting first, not sure but probably I would not..anyway, I’m really tired, this is my last comment, I have to rest now.GizzyCatBella🍁 22:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Okay, François Robere, because I'm getting genuinely exhausted by all of this:

Let's get one fact straight here - Our agreement that is a consequence of YOU filing THIS [50] AE report against me on March 24th and states - I'll quote RexxS here - I don't know whether it's any help in reaching a decision, but I've spent time over the last few days talking to both GizzyCatBella and François Robere. As you can see ...each of them have given assurances that they will disengage and avoid each other going forward... [51] Then YOU, despite the pledge, arrived at the very same AE board yet AGAIN advocation for sanctions against me. IS THIS CORRECT François Robere? - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Administrative Team - I'm not sure if this will help, but I gathered all AE cases filled upon me below. I observe striking similarities in the requests' structure and composition, but I might be biased at this point, so I will leave it for you to assess.

[52] - Icewhiz April 26th, 2018

[53] - Icewhiz May 9th, 2018

[54] - Icewhiz June 24th, 2018

[55] (AE enforcement filed at admin. talk page) Icewhiz February 26, 2019

[56] - (AE enforcement filed at admin. talk page) Icewhiz May 18, 2019

Icewhiz Banned

[57] François Robere block shopping on admin. talk page January 1, 2020

[58] - François Robere March 24th, 2020

François Robere pledged to disengage from GCB

Notrium first ever AE filing

[59] - Notrium June 26, 2020

Notrium second AE filing (current case)

[60] - Notrium July 31st, 2020 - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Additional note:

Sorry but, this matter gives me no rest and I can’t sleep. Here is the link to François Robere block for suggesting that I'm conducting ethnic prejudice and ethnically-motivated vandalism (anti-Semitism). [61] François Robere was also warned on other occasions for the same [62], [63],[64],[65] I'm just trying to get to the bottom of the fact why Notrium suggested that my edit is being racially motivated at diff #3 on their first-ever filing [66] quote - Deleted the only mention in Solzhenitsyn's article of Solzhenitsyn's sympathies for Hitler and Nazi Germany regarding WW2 (against the USSR). Note that Solzhenitsyn, too, is considered by some to be anti-Semitic. And on this filing Notrium was advocating for the expansion of sanctions to include - quote - ..Jewish history and individuals in the 20th century; in addition to writers, historians and other persons connected to the former.[67] Notrium never edited any of those articles before, I never interacted with them before, but once here [68] and on History of Poland article. They don't know me, and I don't know them. Why this ethnic argument out of the blue? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Also, Here are just four clear examples from 2020 only were François Robere arrives at the article they never edited before and indicates in edit summary whom they are reverting. I am only showing this because they claimed that was me who follow them around:
[69] February 19, 2020
[70] March 25, 2020
[71] also March 25, 2020
[72] March 29, 2020

I didn't bring other instances were the revert is not clear and those from before 2020 but only articles they never edited before, with a clear editing summary who is reverted, so there are no arguments.GizzyCatBella🍁 03:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  • O yea, now I can see it, so the above, among other instances listed there, resulted in me asking François_Robere to stop following me - here: "hounding"_accusations #87 collapsed conversation March 29, 2020. François Robere answer was - quote - I'm not hounding you, I'm reviewing your edits... and quote - ...if that's "misleading", go sue the admins. I’m only reviewing edits? Go sue admins? What kind of disrespectful answer is this? Please read the entire conversation to draw your conclusions.- GizzyCatBella🍁 07:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Notrium - look, you're clearly inexperienced with the WP:AE board as per the conversation here [73] and your own admission in your priors statements. Maybe please consider coming forward and declare if you were guided to this board by some third party. I think honesty may only help. Thanks.GizzyCatBella🍁 13:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  • An idea for the administrative team members

@El_C, Seraphimblade, RexxS, Guerillero | Parlez Moi I have an idea, why instead of keeping me Topic Banned for another 4.5 months until appeal, conditionally lift the ban for 4.5 months instead and see if I run into problems in WW2 Poland related articles. In 4.5 months, I myself will arrive here with a request to review my conduct. I'll remember about it, so you don't have to. This procedure will prevent further abuse of this board and allow me additionally to prove further what I have learned from my 2-year-old ban in real-time. If the evaluation fails, the Topic Ban will be reinstated. (?) - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by PiotrusEdit

Hmmmm. Something is fishy. Or at least doesn't look pretty. Do correct me if I am wrong, but Notrium has never edited Polish history articles much, nor interacted with GCB. In June they got into a minor disagreement at Talk:History_of_Poland#Human_activity_in_Poland_in_antiquity, then took care to investigate GCB's topic ban which concerns topics Notrium never edit themselves, presented well formatted Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive268#GizzyCatBella last month (their first AE report ever) and now they are filing one again (this time really scraping the barrel, the presented evidence - fixing a few typos here and there - is really weak IMHO). It is interesting that Notrium has never edited the articles he reports GCB for; he is clearly not interested in this topic area and instead is just looking for any and all technicalities to 'stick it' to someone who dared to disagree with him. This seems to me to be awfully far from WP:AGF and in turn too close to WP:NOTHERE, and given that Icewhiz is still active behind the scenes (for example he is actively harassing me in real life, which led to his recent site/SanFran-level ban), I have to wonder if he isn't sending diffs/pre-formatted AE's to some people hoping to see 'if they'll stick'. Frankly, WP:BOOMERANG for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior would be, IMHO, worth considering here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as the topic ban on her is one of the two last vestiges of the "Icewhiz era" I can recall (the other being a similar topic ban on Volunteer Marek), removing it and returning to the state from before (i.e ~10 years of peaceful, good faithed editing with no AE reports and such) would be my preference. As noted by others below, her edits are helpful, and it is unlikely they'll become disruptive - and if they do, well, we can always reimpose it or harsher sanctions. But so far all I see coming from her TBan is the discussed 'weaponization of policies', where clearly constructive and innocent edits, even fixing of misspellings or such, are being stretched to see if something will stick. I can only applaud GCB for continuing to try to follow our policies, how many other editors in similar circumstances would abandon their account and start socking? An interaction ban (or bans, given multiple parties) might be helpful, but it could still be used just like the t-ban, so it is my distant second preference (and if it is imposed I'd suggest it holds only as long as a t-ban, and if/when the t-ban is revoked we should automatically revoke the i-ban as related and unnecessary when the other one is gone). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@Mr Ernie: "Finally I don't think it's useful for editors to claim "Icewhiz!" for justification anymore - that was a while ago and it is time to move on." Please familiarize yourself with the case first. First, it is public knowledge that Icewhiz has been socking (latest confirmed sockpuppets in May): Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz/Archive and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Icewhiz. But in case two and a half months are 'a while ago' for you, then I can confirm Icewhiz has been harassing me and several other individuals, including impersonating one, on and off-wiki, as recently as last month. Which is why he got the site/SanFran ban in late June ([74]). If anyone thinks such an individual has given up and/or wouldn't try some form of WP:MINION (to use a recently created redirect by Francois himself...), I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you for a very good price. I am sorry to say "Icewhiz justification" is going to be valid for at least a few more months, and I fully expect we will catch more his socks soon (he is probably training them doing random Twinkle edits or such to get auto-confirmed, just like he did with a bunch earlier this year). Be on a lookout for new accounts (from this year) with few hundred edits who suddenly become interested in Polish-Jewish topics and will happen to share his POV. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by François RobereEdit

  • Diff #1: The rename from "German war crimes against Soviet civilians" to "World War II German war crimes in the Soviet Union" could be construed to include about half of Poland that was occupied by the Soviets; and would certainly include hundreds of thousands of Polish refugees and exiles on Soviet soil, as well as border counties that were split from Poland and annexed to the Soviet Ukraine.
  • Diff #3: The Romani genocide, insofar as it was perpetrated on Polish soil, falls within the extent the T-ban.
  • Diff #4: Direct reference to wartime events...

@Piotrus: You don't have to be close friends with someone to report them (you probably shouldn't if you are :-P). Her T-ban appeal drew comments from several editors who follow the TA but don't interact with her personally.[75] You shouldn't be surprised that other editors notice her as well. François Robere (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C: How exactly did I not "follow RexxS's advice"? I've avoided her contribs, avoided commenting on her AE appeal (which was denied), and even avoided filing here despite having concrete evidence that she's hounding me, something she gave her word she'll stop.[76] That's >15 diffs that I kept to myself, and four months of avoiding her while knowing that she's still following me. And now, when I make a very narrow, focused comment in a TA that I have some knowledge in, you make this suggestion? François Robere (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C: See below.

  1. Before April 2020:
    1. GCB comments on unpublished content in my "sandbox".[77][78]
    2. Follows me to two articles on Israeli current affairs, which is a TA she rarely touched at the time.[79][80]
    3. Edits an article I started on architect Joseph Berlin,[81] which is TA she never touches.
    4. Follows me to Sandstein's TP.[82][83]
    5. Follows me to WP:ANI.
    6. Follows me to two articles within the TA that she never edited before, and rarely since.[84][85]
  2. April 2020 onwards:
    1. GCB claims that I'm "hounding" her and that it's distressing.[86][87][88] I denied it, but accepted RexxS's resolution (the alternative was an indef block, despite my relatively clean "sheet").
    2. Note that while my discussion with RexxS was ongoing, I was forced to engage with no less than four other editors (all from this TA, all backing one another) in 5-6 other discussions across two talk pages. Two editors who came to my defence were summarily excused. The whole thing lasted about a week, and was quite draining.
    3. She gives her word to two admins that she'll avoid contact with me.[89]
  3. The following June she makes her first edit to History of Poland less than a day after I edit it, with content that is a direct response to my changes.[90][91] She then joins the discussion that I started,[92] broke her T-ban,[93] and even went to WP:ANI to attack another editor (the OP).[94] That's not the behavior of an editor distressed by "hounding".

Regarding GCB's T-ban:

  1. Two and a half months ago she appealed her T-ban; her appeal was rejected and ban was prolonged by two more years.[95] Several editors who rarely interact with her commented, including admins Sandstein and Ealdgyth. I made it a point of not commenting.
    1. I suggest going through that discussion before making a decision here, as the comments made there directly address her comments above.
  2. Several admins asked that GCB display productive and error free editing in other TAs before she asks for the ban to be repealed. This hasn't happened.
    1. On June 3rd she added "cherry-picked" quote to LGBT ideology-free zone,[96] which was removed by Trasz.[97] The full source text is actually much darker, with claims of censorship and an attack on "ideas and practices that undermine human dignity and contribute to the depravity of children".
    2. On June 21st she added a couple of references to History of Poland.[98][99] One of the references was broken, and failed verification; more importantly, though - the other pointed to a 1985 book by the "Veritas Foundation",[100] which is not an RS.

There are some issues that can be raised here, but again - I'm not looking to make this messier. I doubt others will see it the same way, though.

As for GCB's claims:

  1. "Close friend of Icewhiz"? Lady, I don't even know his name, and I'd appreciate if stopped making these insinuations. You don't see me going around suggesting you're intimate with Tatzref, do you?
  2. On "staying away": as I stated above, I kept my word and "stayed away" from her contribs, and in general tried to engage her as little as possible. Her following me into discussions and attacking other users (see "hounding" above), suggests my presence is not as distressing as she claims.
    1. She claims this was a violation of the agreement, but that edit actually precedes the agreement by two days (April 3rd vs. April 5th).[101]
    2. She claims these [102][103] were violation, but there was nothing in the agreement about editing articles I'm already involved in.[104][105]
    3. This is a violation?? Asking for protection from someone who's hounding me is a violation??
    4. Here she erased someone else's comment.[106] They weren't accused of anything, there was no admin involved, it was just her decision. I didn't file on it, I simply voted and left a message.[107][108] Again, there's nothing in the agreement about interacting in a public forum on a public vote.
    5. So it's a total of three encounters over four months: one in a public forum after she erased someone else's comment, one in an article I'm already heavily involved in, and one in me asking for help from an admin. That's not "hounding". Trying to get someone sanctioned for asking for help with hounding... that's hounding. François Robere (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Later claims:

  1. She misrepresented several of my claims here, eg. "I only changed the numbers" etc. which is clearly not true (See "The following June..." above) - she very much followed me to that article and edited my revision, and now she's attacking me for asking RexxS for help.
  2. Much of the rest concerns the nature of the agreement, which I already explained: my sole commitment was to avoiding her contribs; RexxS accepted that, and explicitly said that he won't try to enforce an I-ban. I held up to my end of the bargain, GCB didn't.
  3. She claims that she stopped editing LGBT ideology-free zone after I reverted her on June 18th, because she "didn’t want to breach the interaction promise". What is she doing commenting on the TP five times over the following week, then?[109][110][111][112][113]
  4. She claims this vote was "against her", and she "wouldn't dare to vote seeing me first". Funny, because that vote directly follows from this thread, which I started, which itself follows from three other discussions in which either her or me participated.[114][115][116] In other words - she knows I'm involved in this page, she knows my stance - she herself participates there freely and frequently - and now she's trying to present it as if she's apprehensive and wary? That's disingenuous at best. François Robere (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: I filed, you got warned,[117] then you and your friends stormed my TP and RexxS's.[118] RexxS then threatened to indef block me because of two diffs (!) that ended up being wrong, and despite my relatively "clean sheet" (two blocks in >7 years), and I was forced to agree to avoid your friend's contribs list.[119] RexxS explicitly stated that he will not try to enforce an I-ban.[120] I was straight up about everything, explained exactly what I did and why, and kept my word.

Meanwhile, you had your ban prolonged by two years (which had nothing to do with me),[121] then got blocked for breaking it (which again had nothing to do with me).[122] You then promised RexxS that you'll "try to avoid anything that has "Poland" in the text" for six months,[123] then ten days later you're back to editing Polish articles and following me,[124][125][126][127][128][129] and you still deny any wrongdoing. Is that accurate? François Robere (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I can keep on replying to GCB's older diffs (Ełk riots was created by Icewhiz, and GCB and others followed him there;[130] GCB shouldn't have removed Lithuania's national poet from List of Lithuanians; Prosto z mostu was actually mentioned at her AE appeal, so I'm clearly not the only one to have noticed it... etc.), but the bottom line remains that I was completely truthful and upfront about everything, and once I gave my word, I kept it. It's unfortunate that others haven't done the same. François Robere (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Why an I-ban? None of her examples hold up (see right above this message). The fact is I neither "hound" her nor harass her in any way whatsoever, while she still follows me. I kept my end of the bargain, so why would you do that? François Robere (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth's mention of "newspapers" refers to discussions like these,[131][132][133][134][135] where editors repeatedly pushed for treating dailies as RS, despite the presence of special sourcing restrictions. François Robere (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Mr ErnieEdit

I am uninvolved in this topic area, and have given all of the offered diffs posted by François Robere a close looking through. I must admit I'm perplexed to see sanctions proposed against FR, when the diffs clearly paint a much different picture to me than what the admins see. El_C in fact requested such a thorough analysis, and after looking through it I do not see any justification for a sanction against FR with a reduction to a sanction for GizzyCatBella. At the very least this is equal behavior, and that's at the VERY least. I do not have any additional input on the diffs presented by Notrium. Finally I don't think it's useful for editors to claim "Icewhiz!" for justification anymore - that was a while ago and it is time to move on. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by AlmostFrancisEdit

François Robere is one of the few editors willing to spend the time to patiently push back against editors with a certain point of view, a point of view that has caused multiple arbcom preceedings. Allowing editors to be slowly picked off who disagree with that point of view would be catastrophic for Wikipedia, especially in light of a recognized holocaust experts making note of issues with POV being pushed into Polish topics.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of things that are fishy,@Piotrus: what exactly do you feel needs to be eyes only with GizzyCatBella. With your history that seems an odd request, and I wonder if you were canvassed off wiki to join this report.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Calling someone "a close friend" of a Wikipedia banned user is a blatant aspersion. It GizzyCatBella is going to keep attacking people they disagree with, their topic ban should be extended to the complete topic of Poland. That seems to be the real issue here.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Ealdgyth (peripherally involved in the past)Edit

No, the topic area hasn't improved ... and frankly, it still is a morass of badly sourced stuff with plenty of POV pushing. And until the ArbCom sourcing restrictions are actually enforced, I have no great desire to edit in the area ... as long as newspapers are still considered to fit the ArbCom's sourcing restrictions, the area is never going to improve. --Ealdgyth (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

And the latest comment by Piotrus is another example of why would anyone want to step foot in this topic area? If you start editing, even as an established editor, you're likely to be accused of meatpuppetry for Icewhize. No thanks, I can find other ways of having an unfun time. Icewhiz socks likely ARE around, but the constant search for them is driving established editors away. --Ealdgyth (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (username)Edit

Result concerning GizzyCatBellaEdit

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Actually, from those diffs, I'm seeing GizzyCatBella being quite careful not to contravene her sanction. Is it ideal she's flying this close to the sun? Probably not, but that remains her prerogative. El_C 03:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, Notrium, I have read WP:TBAN, having imposed and enforced it on multiple occasions. El_C 03:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • François Robere, to say the USSR-related diff constitutes a topic ban violation is a bit of a stretch. Like Notrium, this approach widens WP:BROADLY beyond its conventional usage in determining WP:TBAN violations. To reiterate, this report should be closed as not actionable due to there being   No violation. El_C 14:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • GizzyCatBella, I agree that François Robere has not been following the advise of RexxS. Perhaps formalizing that advise as a one-way WP:IBAN sanction toward François Robere is due. Or at least a final warning that it is imminent. I would welcome further input on that question. El_C 14:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Concur on the weirdness cited by Piotrus, Guerillero. Perhaps a imposing a WP:TBAN from WP:ARBEE or a one-way WP:IBAN (with GizzyCatBella) sanction on Notrium will deescalate matters. Per that, though Notrium has not received a DS alert, I already consider them WP:AWARE due to their filing of the current as well as the previous AE request concerning GizzyCatBella. El_C 14:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No, Notrium, I doubt you and François Robere are the alpha and omega of the auditing of GizzyCatBella's adherence to the terms and scope of her topic ban. If you both fail to convince admins your own auditing of GizzyCatBella's edits is a productive undertaking which is in the interest of the project, then expect to be given a DS directive to cease. It's not complicated. El_C 15:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • RexxS, I agree with your assessment. I am not opposed to testing the waters by vacating GizzyCatBella's topic ban. Maybe that is the path of least resistance here. El_C 15:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • François Robere, I can only make a recommendation or take action according to the available evidence that is before me. You may choose to compile pertinent evidence to verify your assertion as you see fit. Now would be the time — this would be the forum. El_C 16:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • François Robere, okay, I won't deny your evidence contains compelling components. And I realize her last appeal was declined —I am the one who closed it— but I still think vacating her ban should be on the table. Truthfully, I'm not sure she would be, at present, any more disruptive to the topic area than the other regulars, yourself included. And so, I don't know if her ban continues to be of benefit to the project — especially in the sense of her having to put up with weaponized AE reports such as this. El_C 19:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Guerillero, fair enough. An IBAN also works for me. I will, however, amend my previous 2-year wait recommendation to GizzyCatBella about the timing of her next appeal. I now would welcome her appealing in ~4 months (for ~6 months wait from the last appeal). I have now changed my mind about that. El_C 19:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • François Robere, I don't know yet that I would with you, but I definitely support an IBAN on Notrium. That I am unlikely to change my mind about. El_C 20:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Seraphimblade, I approach a one-way IBAN pretty much like a do a 2-way IBAN, with the exception that only one party is noted as having been sanctioned. Maybe that's outside convention, but that has been my modus operandi. El_C 23:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree Piotrus that something is weird here. My first thought was also Icewhiz related. I also agree with El_C that this isn't a topic ban violation and an I-Ban might be helpful here. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Since we extended GizzyCatBella's topic ban only in May, I would be opposed to lifting it. Lets try the I-Ban --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm also concerned about this report. GizzyCatBella was topic-banned two years ago for causing problems with articles about the history of Poland in WWII. Since then she hasn't caused problems with any articles that I'm aware of and has generally successfully skirted around the TB, even though her principal interest is in Eastern European topics, where she is clearly an asset to the encyclopedia. She does sometimes make mistakes and I reluctantly gave her a short block recently for a violation of her TB.
    Nevertheless, none of the diffs above would raise any concerns were it not for the TB: they are absolutely harmless and it takes a considerable stretch to make an association between them and Poland in WWII. It's like playing seven degrees of separation and I am now suspicious about how Notrium came across them.
    I gain the impression that this report resembles an attempt to weaponise AE, and I'm not keen to see a repeat. I can only see two ways of avoiding this issue coming back here: either a broad I-Ban between the principle players or vacating GizzyCatBella's topic ban. It's a pity in some ways that she didn't take up Sandstein's concession to hear an appeal after six months, but I can understand that she may have felt the TB protected her from editing in an area where she had become too involved. I'd like to hear from other AE admins if they agree with my assessment. --RexxS (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I would not agree to the sanctions being lifted without an actual appeal taking place, but believe the IBAN (between both; never been a fan of one-way IBANs) is the way to proceed here. It's clear there's some animus here against GCB by the filer. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Notrium, no, I will not read any emails which you have sent me. I very deliberately discard any off-wiki communication regarding an AE request unread as attempts to backchannel with them are entirely inappropriate. If you have something public to say then say it here; if it needs to be handled privately you may contact the arbitration committee. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Do not post private correspondence here (or anywhere on Wikipedia) without the express consent of everyone involved in the discussion. If you feel that some background information would be helpful (and it doesn't violate anyone's privacy, of course), then it is fine to provide that, but please keep it brief. We don't need a blow-by-blow of every tangentially related thing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)