Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

< Wikipedia:Arbitration  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFAR)

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Requests for arbitration

Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment request: Falun Gong

Closed and archived. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by Marvin 2009 at 05:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Falun Gong arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request

Statement by Marvin 2009

Can an editor who has been under a topic ban use a sock puppet to report another editor to arbitration enforcement? Clearly not. And if the editor do so before the sock puppetry is uncovered, should any sanction arising from his or her complaint be nullified, after the sock puppetry is uncovered?

By the end of June, I was informed for an indefinite topic ban from Falun Gong in response to PatCheng's arbitration enforcement request. On July 27, both PatCheng and PCPP were blocked, as PatCheng has been confirmed to be a sock puppet of PCPP who has been topic banned on Falun Gong since Nov 2011. I am requesting a clarification that whether the topic ban enforced on me due to PatCheng's AE request should be nullified? Thanks. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 05:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tantusar: In response to PatCheng's complaint, yes, in the beginning one admin was concerned about edit warring and aspersions casting.I replied to the admin right away at that time explaining how each of my altogether 7 edits in June was not edit warring (even not 1RR), and nor did i cast any aspersions in communicating with others. On the contrary, I was the one who was attacked by POV editors. After that, there has been no further response from that admin. Thanks. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 13:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by PatCheng

Statement by PCPP

Statement by Guerillero

You may also want to take a look at

Marvin 2009 has been trying their darnedest to reverse their topic ban; this is the fourth try in a month to reverse their topic ban. I stand by the topic ban and point to the fact that each of the 4 have failed to follow WP:NOTTHEM. Marvin 2009 interacts with dispute resolution as if it was a court or justice system instead of as a system to prevent disruption. The topic ban is from an area that is plagued with edit warring, aspersions, and general intractability. The whole area may need an additional arb case shortly to do another round of site/topic bans and place 30/500 over the topic area --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Newslinger

See the following discussions for context:

This amendment request is Marvin 2009's third appeal of their topic ban this week. — Newslinger talk 09:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Tantusar

That PatCheng was a sockpuppet seems to me to be largely irrelevant to whether Marvin 2009 should or should not have received a topic ban. The administrators on the enforcement request found that Marvin was edit warring and casting aspersions. PatCheng's behaviour does not change these findings. Suggest amendment request be denied. Tantusar (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade

I do not see any particular relevance to the fact that the AE complaint was brought by someone later found to be a sockpuppet. Even at that request, the three of us who discussed it did note that the PatCheng account seemed awfully fishy in the way they were behaving, and for that reason (among others) they were sanctioned as well. Marvin 2009's sanction has already been subject to, and upheld by, community review at AN, so I think it is shown to be valid. It is not unusual, at AE, for a filer of a request for sanctions to themselves have engaged in misbehavior too, but that cannot mean we just ignore what they bring up if the concerns are indeed legitimate. It may mean, as in this request, that both parties wind up sanctioned.

That aside, I'll reiterate my concern that there has been a lot of unusual behavior in regards to Falun Gong, including sleeper accounts popping right back to activity the moment a serious dispute starts. I still think that warrants a closer look, and finding the sockpuppetry here makes me think so even more. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I think Newyorkbrad is right. Socking to report other users is a high risk strategy, and any report is unlikely to result in sanctions unless the behaviour merits it. Which in this case it seems to have done. Marvin was edit-warring to advance a POV, and his only excuse was "but look at all this bias". He has under 5,400 edits, over 11 years, and FG topics dominate. I don't think he's here to be part of the wider project. Guy (help!) 21:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Falun Gong: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • This request seeks to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. I have therefore reformatted this request as an amendment request for the original case and named the administrator who imposed the sanction as a party. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Falun Gong: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • This would be akin to fruit of the poisonous tree if this were a judicial system. Since it's not, overturning an AE topic ban for that reason alone is not required (and from what I understand, the appeal has already been declined for other reasons). Looking at it another way: If a non-topic banned party had requested the enforcement, would it still have been applied? Since the sockpuppetry was not known to the placing administrator at the time, the answer seems to be yes. –xenotalk 16:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • For convenience, link to the topic-ban discussion is here. My approach is similar to Xeno's (and continuing the American legal metaphor for a moment, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine has its inevitable discovery exception). We obviously don't want people creating or using sockpuppets in edit-wars or to get people sanctioned at AE (or for any other reason), and if the editor's problematic behavior was largely provoked by the since-revealed sock, that fact might be relevant to a sanction decision. But if an editor is behaving so poorly in a DS area that he or she would have been brought to AE by someone else in any event, then it would be pointless bureaucracy to vacate the existing sanction and wait for another AE complaint to be filed with the same result. Pinging the other admins who participated in the AE discussion (@JzG and Seraphimblade:) in case they have any thoughts to share. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Broadly agree with the above remarks. The topic ban was imposed based on the sanctioned editors behavior, who did the reporting doesn't change that, this is a website, not a court. The best way forward if you want a topic ban rescinded is to completely ignore said topic for a prolonged period while making positive contributions elsewhere. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Xeno. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with all the above. Katietalk 20:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I also agree with those who commented above. There is no indication that the reporting user being a sock in any way influenced the sanction (as NYB points out), so overturning it just because of that seems to be bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. Regards SoWhy 07:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Amendment request: Climate change

Initiated by Hipocrite at 12:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Climate change arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Hipocrite topic-banned


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



Information about amendment request
  • Hipocrite topic-banned
  • Termination


Statement by Hipocrite

I have successfully not edited this website for over 1 year at this point, and have, to first order, not edited for over 4 years. I would like this stain removed from my record going forward. I have no present intention to edit this website, but if I were to edit again, I would not, in the future, be nearly as combative with people I disagreed with - instead relying on the wisdom of crowds, as opposed to feeling sole ownership to do the right thing. I have successfully demonstrated this by not editing in large bulk, for the past many years. Over the past 10 years, I have become 10 years more mature and realised that this stuff is mostly meaningless anyway. The one block I received as a result of this sanction was determined to be in error - [1]. I will respond to any direct questions anyone has for me, but otherwise, leave it in your good judgement. Hipocrite (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@SoWhy: The evidence presented of my not editing for years demonstrates my ability to not get involved and/or walk away from conflict, which was the key failure I believe I needed to fix a decade ago. While I currently have no intention of editing, that might change - however, I'm not very excited to edit with an albatross around my neck. You can review my edits post the case for 5+ years of semi-active participation - I am in no way saying that I did not edit at all - noting that in those 5 years I was not blocked once, while never requesting this restriction be modified. Hipocrite (talk)
@Joe Roe: I don't mean to be smarmy or hypocritical, but you'd review the case if I merely said "I'd like to edit climate change articles again?" Can do. "I'd like to edit climate change articles again, if that's the only way I can get this topic ban lifted." I will pledge to make 15 good non-controversial edits to climate change articles as soon as the topic ban is lifted - here's the first edit - in the "Discovery" section of Global_warming, the first reference to Edme Mariotte refers to them only by Mariotte. Alternatively, the reference to Svante Arrhenius uses his full name. I would attempt to normalise this to full name first time, last name future times unless there's a failure to be clear (S. Arrhenius if there's also an A. Arrhenius). If there's push back, I'd try to go the other way. If there's further pushback, I'd just leave it in the non-normalised state it's in. I continue to have no intention to get in any arguments about Climate Change, regardless of the abject wrongness of anyone else. Best wishes. Hipocrite (talk) 10:15, 6 August 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.

Climate change: Clerk notes

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

Climate change: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • If you have not edited at all, what evidence should we have to consider that the topic ban is no longer necessary? Also, if you have no intention of further editing, what would be the point of formally removing a remedy? In general, I don't think there is a point to repeal a remedy for editors who are not interested in returning to editing and in this case in particular the very fact that editing ceased means there is no evidence to judge whether the remedy is still required. Regards SoWhy 12:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh, I don't know – that case was in 2010, and while there's certainly not a lot of recent editing, Hipocrite does have a track record for us to view. I'd like to hear from some others, but I'd be willing to consider vacating it. Katietalk 15:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Pretty much what Katie said, I'm open to the idea but would like to hear a bit more before making any decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not particularly interested in entertaining an appeal from someone for whom the point is some sort of "honor". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Unless something unexpected is brought to our attention soon, I would grant the request. Ten years is a long time under any circumstances and certainly with respect to this topic-area. (By way of disclosure, although it's not especially relevant now, I was the only 2010 arbitrator who thought the sanction was probably too severe in the first place.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I would support vacating the old remedy absent evidence it remains necessary. –xenotalk 17:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • If you don't even intend to return to editing, isn't this a bit of a waste of time? You can not edit just as effectively with a topic ban than without. I think we should dismiss this request for now and look at it again if/when Hipocrite actually wants to edit climate change-related articles. – Joe (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The appeal has shown that the restriction is no longer necessary, and while the net effect to the encyclopedia seems the same regardless of whether the restriction is active or not, it remains that the continued restriction does bother the appellant, and thus I see a convincing case to remove it. Maxim(talk) 12:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Motion: Climate Change (Hipocrite)

The restriction imposed on Hipocrite (talk · contribs) by Remedy 14 of the Climate change case ("Hypocrite topic-banned") is hereby lifted.

For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 3 who are inactive and 2 who have abstained or recused, so 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. As no longer necessary. –xenotalk 12:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. Per my comment above. Maxim(talk) 18:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  3. Per my comment above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose


Abstain
  1. Per my and SoWhy's comments above. – Joe (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. Per above. Regards SoWhy 08:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms

Initiated by ProcrastinatingReader at 21:33, 3 August 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#1RR_imposed


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



Information about amendment request
  • That the scope of the 1RR remedy be changed to "genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed"


Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

Apologies in advance for the upcoming wikilawyering. In the GMO case, in 2015, the Committee authorised DS and 1RR with the same scope, "all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed". That was amended in this motion, as a result of a clarification request, and the scope was narrowed to "all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed." That motion only changed the scope for the DS; the 1RR remedy retains the old scope. I suppose if one wanted to wikilawyer this, the 1RR remedy currently has a broader scope than the DS itself. I'm assuming that this was an oversight, rather than intentional?

Statement by Kingofaces43

I was part of drafting both the original ArbCom and the clarification request language on the non-arb editor/subject matter expert side of things. To clarify for ProcrastinatingReader, the second motion did not functionally narrow the DS. It just clarified that yes, agricultural companies related to the locus of the dispute, genetically modified organisms and/or pesticides, were included in the DS. There was no intended change in scope, just tweaking the wording to prevent wikilawyering on scope that as going on at the time. "Agricultural biotechnology" that was also dropped and just treated as being lumped in with GMO in terms of meaning assuming broadly construed would handle the rest. "Commercially produced agricultural chemicals" was basically added to avoid a really WP:BEANS situation of someone saying water was covered by the DS. In short, a lot of care went into clarification on precise wording as opposed to scope changes.

I'd also be curious where ProcrastinatingReader came across this in terms of if there's an area that needs to be looked at further where this became an actual issue, or if they're just being preemptive. I haven't seen anything pop up on my watchlist, so I'll definitely be glad if there isn't a fire to put out.

Functionally, there's no real difference between the two right now since the motion clarifies that the companies are part of the "broadly construed" language of the original, but that also means there's no harm in updating the 1RR language to match the motion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:30, 5 August 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

  • On an initial reading the request seems logical, but awaiting additional statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Absent arguments against doing so, harmonizing the two seems appropriate to eliminate confusion. DGG: you voted on that 2015 amendment. –xenotalk 17:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • no objection either. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Sounds sensible. I've proposed a motion below. – Joe (talk) 08:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms: motion

Remedy 2 ("1RR imposed") of Genetically modified organisms is amended to read as follows:

Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 3 who are inactive, so 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. As proposer. – Joe (talk) 08:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. The reason for the amendment is to match the scope of 1RR with the scope of the discretionary sanctions covering the same subject area. –xenotalk 12:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  3. Per the request above and per Xeno. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  4. Per above. Regards SoWhy 19:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain

Amendment request: Unban decision

Initiated by North8000 at 14:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=756686514#Motion_regarding_North8000
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=756686514#Motion_regarding_North8000


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



Information about amendment request
  • Remove all restrictions. I believe that the older case restrictions were replaced by incorporation into this, but if not, then them too.


Statement by North8000

Request for removal of older Arbcom-placed restrictions.

I have topic bans on tea party movement, gun control, the homophobia article, and post 1932 american politics and a limitation to one account. Most of my restrictions originated in the 2013 tea party movement 2014 gun control cases and the newest (american politics) was placed in 2016 as a sort of “add on” condition when I came back. All were appeal able starting in mid-2017 but I’m just first asking now. I learned and wiki-evolved an immense amount from the entire process, as well as from time and experience. The newest event that any of these were based on was over 6 years ago.

Since (2016) I’ve been active in Wikipedia in wide ranging areas with an additional 12,000+ edits (now 53,000+ total) in article creation & improvement, GA reviews, helping folks out, and very active at NPP / new article curation, policy and guideline page discussions and a range of other areas which provide a diverse “proving out”. . This has all been with zero issues and zero drama of any type. This has not been due to any of the restrictions, it’s just how I roll throughout that period and now. I’m requesting that you remove of all of the restrictions to give me a clean slate. The “clean slate” aspect is more important to me than any restrictions in particular. Thanks for your consideration and of course I'd be happy to answer any questions.North8000 (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

responses

  • I've treated libertarianism articles as political science, not American politics. That was not an edit war, and Davide King and I respect and compliment each other and value each other's presence and he has thanked me I'd estimate 40 times for my edits. The extraction and characterization of this as something else says much.North8000 (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Black Kite and others; my view and basis then was that phobia means phobia and that anything else was a then-neologism. But I left voluntarily and never went back even when my promised 1 year was up and no longer had even a self-imposed restriction. Also I no longer want to and don't participate in high-drama debates such as that. I also don't want to ever edit the homophobia article; after all of these years (that was 8 years ago) I just want to have a clean slate. North8000 (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by MrX

The committee should reject vacating North8000's topic ban on Homophobia. Although it was eight years ago, his contributions there were entirely disruptive and wasted a great deal of editor's time.[2][3] There is no reason to believe that North8000 has some unique perspective or skill that will benefit this fully developed article. The risk greatly outweighs any potential reward.

At this point, I have no opinion about whether the Tea Party topic ban should remain. Regarding gun control and post-1932 American Politics, I can only say that that topic area has settled down quite a bit in the past few years as a direct result of several editors having been topic banned and editing restrictions having beed imposed on several articles. I may have more to add later. - MrX 🖋 17:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Relatively recent edit warring on an American politics article does not help the case:[4]
  • These six edits were violations of the gun control topic ban: [5]; Warning:[6]. (To my knowledge, North8000 never responded.) - MrX 🖋 18:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Springee

I have only limited engagement with North8000 but I've seen no issues between them and other editors. The tbans are 8 years old, if they haven't caused trouble since I think its safe to assume they have learned better ways to deal with editorial disagreements. If problems return it's not like the tban's can't be reinstated. In cases like this we should always err on the side of assuming good faith. Springee (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

I haven't much knowledge of the other topic-bans so I'm not going to opine about them, but I would definitely oppose lifting the topic ban on Homophobia, on which North8000's 266 talk page posts wasted vast amounts of other editors' time arguing for the article to be completely re-written to include a WP:FRINGE definition of homophobia (that using the word which includes -phobia denigrates opposition to homosexuality), and accused other editors of being "activists" [7]. He eventually exhausted everyone's patience (as an example, try this conversation. It's one article, there are 6m+ others. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 6 August 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.

Unban decision: Clerk notes

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

Unban decision: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Awaiting additional statements; generally amenable to lifting old restrictions if it can be demonstrated they are no longer necessary. –xenotalk 14:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Motions


Lightbreather unban

Closed and archived. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Lightbreather (talk · contribs) is unbanned. The following remedies of the Lightbreather arbitration case are rescinded: Lightbreather's topic ban from edits relating to gun control (4.3.2) remains in force. She may appeal this restriction in no less than six months.
For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
Proposed, and noting that in her appeal Lightbreather confirmed she would be staying away from Gun Control articles, so there is no need to remove the topic ban. WormTT(talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. Per WTT. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
    Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
    Katietalk 15:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
    bradv🍁 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
    Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Moving to oppose due to the community concerns expressed below, as well as offwiki evidence of continued hostility toward other editors. I am no longer convinced Lightbreather has changed her approach sufficiently to be allowed back into the community, and unbanning at this time would be a mistake. – bradv🍁 19:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. I think we are on the brink of making a mistake here, per my reasoning below. Going back through the appeal, the original arbcom case, LB's block log, and material off-wiki, it paints a picture of someone who puts their own agenda ahead of Wikipedia's best interest at all times and shows a pattern of blind obsessiveness that may have abated somewhat in the intervening years but is not gone altogether. I believe knowing of the awful harassment they were previously subject to may have made us more sympathetic than was warranted. We can and should abhor the harassment, but it doesn't excuse the other behaviors. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. Per off-wiki evidence and the contents of the unblock request. Please consider me opposed to the rest of the motions. Maxim(talk) 20:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. on the basis of the off-wiki evidence we have received, this is a continuing problem. DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  5. yes this is nonviable based on off-wiki exchanges Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  6. A shame, as I do believe Lightbreather is in a better position than she was 5 years ago and would be able to return. However, I'm not happy with the off-wiki evidence either and cannot support a return at present. WormTT(talk) 08:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  7. Procedurally, as I have moved to close with the view that this cannot pass. –xenotalk 15:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  8. Per all the above. Katietalk 17:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Abstain / Recuse
  • Striking my support for an unban for the moment. The concerns brought by the community need to be considered before we make a final decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC) moved to oppose. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Additional vote on rescinded restrictions

Clerks, please add each of the following passing bullet points to the list of rescinded restrictions in the final motion, should it be successful.


  • one account restriction (4.3.3)
Support
  1. I do not see this as a legitimate concern. WormTT(talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. Lightbreather does not have a pattern of sockpuppetry that would require this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. For clarity, a "support" vote on these restrictions means support for lifting them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. There hasn't been any sockpuppetry in five years, as far as we're aware. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  5. per all the above Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  6. If she was going to sock, she'd have done it by now. Katietalk 15:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  7. bradv🍁 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  8. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  9. DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain / Recuse

  • one revert restriction (4.3.4)
Support
  1. I support lifting the restriction. It would have been quite reasonable as an alternative to the site-ban that was passed, but I do not believe it is necessary five years later. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. I don't think this will be necessary with the gun control TBAN in place. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. I'm not aware of any issues of edit warring outside of the gun control topic area, and even those are 5 years old. – bradv🍁 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. - an admin needn't wait for 3 reverts to determine that edit-warring is problematic, hence I trust that any infractions that skirt but not transgress 3RR will be viewed with past history and current circumstances in mind. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I would prefer this remains in place for the time being on the understanding that if Lightbreather returns to editing productively, it can be removed in 6 months. WormTT(talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. Per Worm That Turned. After six months of editing I'd be happy to look at lifting this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. Although I support lifting the ban, changed my vote on that.Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC) there was good reason for it at the time, and I'd prefer to leave this particular restriction in place for now, per the above comments would be happy to reconsider in six months. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. I'd rather come back to this after six months of productive editing. Katietalk 15:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  5. I think considering the six months from now would be a reasonable way to proceed DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Abstain / Recuse

  • Reverse topic ban (4.3.5)
Support
  1. I do not believe this is a "good" restriction. WormTT(talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. I only supported this in the original case because I thought it could be an alternative to a full siteban. Now that Lightbreather has spent five years away from the project I don't think such a harsh restriction will be helpful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. Per WTT and GW. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. This was an interesting idea, but we really have no precedent for this kind of complex restriction, and this seems a poor time to try it out. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  5. Not a fan of this type of tailored restriction. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Affirming that regardless of the site ban, I would still favor lifting this as it's absurd. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  6. Per GW. Katietalk 15:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  7. bradv🍁 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  8. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  9. I, along, with all the other arbs, voted for it at the time, but it was not a good idea. We shouldn't do anything this complicated. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain / Recuse

Split out interaction bans below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Interaction bans which have been taken over by the Arbitration Committee (4.3.6)
Support
  1. Partial support. Three of the four interaction bans are with editors who have left the project, each under very different circumstances (one globally banned, one locally banned, one retired). I do not think it is necessary to keep those interaction bans on the books. The fourth is with a still-active editor and it probably makes sense to leave that one alone at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. as with NYB, there's no point in these when they are with people who have left. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I am hesitant to remove interaction bans in any circumstances, as I do not consider them stigmatised sanctions, but rather an acceptance that two people cannot get along. I am aware that there are 1-way interaction bans, which I am less happy about, but I would hope that Lightbreather might consider appealing these separately at ARCA in the future. WormTT(talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. Can be looked at later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Abstain / Recuse

  • One way Interaction ban with Mike Searson which has been taken over by the Arbitration Committee (4.3.6)
Support
Oppose
  1. I am hesitant to remove interaction bans in any circumstances, as I do not consider them stigmatised sanctions, but rather an acceptance that two people cannot get along. I am aware that there are 1-way interaction bans, which I am less happy about, but I would hope that Lightbreather might consider appealing these separately at ARCA in the future. WormTT(talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. This is a one-way interaction ban from Mike Searson interacting with Lightbreather. As I mention below I'm not a big fan of one-way IBANs, but I also see no reason to lift this unless Mike Searson requests it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. Mike Searson has been retired for over a year in any event. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. Unless Mike Searson tells us otherwise. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  5. Mike Searson would need to appeal this. – bradv🍁 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  6. Per all the above. If and when Mike returns to editing they can ask for this to be lifted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  8. Katietalk 17:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Abstain / Recuse

  • Interaction ban with Eric Corbett which has been taken over by the Arbitration Committee (4.3.6)
Support
  1. Eric Corbett is currently banned, and I don't feel comfortable discussing him in his absence, beyond saying that an interaction ban with someone no longer here is largely moot. If Eric were to return, we can address this issue at that time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. As EC is currently banned and the chances of him returning seem slim. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. bradv🍁 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I am hesitant to remove interaction bans in any circumstances, as I do not consider them stigmatised sanctions, but rather an acceptance that two people cannot get along. I am aware that there are 1-way interaction bans, which I am less happy about, but I would hope that Lightbreather might consider appealing these separately at ARCA in the future. WormTT(talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Abstain / Recuse
  1. Recuse. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. Recuse Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. Abstain. Katietalk 15:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  • One-way Interaction ban with Sitush which has been taken over by the Arbitration Committee (4.3.6)
Support
  1. I'm generally not a fan of one-way interaction bans so would like to try lifting this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. Per GW. – bradv🍁 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I am hesitant to remove interaction bans in any circumstances, as I do not consider them stigmatised sanctions, but rather an acceptance that two people cannot get along. I am aware that there are 1-way interaction bans, which I am less happy about, but I would hope that Lightbreather might consider appealing these separately at ARCA in the future. WormTT(talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. Unless Sitush tells us otherwise. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. If the unban passes, I'm now convinced this should remain in effect. (Still evaluating re other issues.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Abstain / Recuse
Removing this would probably be harmless at this point, but unlike the others users mentioned in this section, Sitush is still an active editor, so holding off pending any comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  1. I'd like to hear from Sitush first. Katietalk 15:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. per Katie Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Interaction ban with Scalhotrod which has been taken over by the Arbitration Committee (4.3.6)
Support
  1. Given the behaviour of Scalhotrod leading to his global ban, I am willing to remove the this. WormTT(talk) 15:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support, given that Scalhotrod has been globally banned and this seems unneeded. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. Per above. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  5. rather moot given the global ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  6. As above. Katietalk 15:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  7. bradv🍁 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  8. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain / Recuse

Lightbreather unban: Motion to close

These motions should be closed 24 hours after 4 net votes in support of closing.

Draft wording for notice:

Following a request to the committee and community consultation, a motion to unban Lightbreather (talk · contribs) has been closed as unsuccessful. Lightbreather may file another appeal to the committee in six months' time.
Support
  1. While I haven't sufficiently read-in to this to responsibly opine above, I can see this motion cannot move forward at this time given the additional information provided to the committee. –xenotalk 13:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. bradv🍁 15:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. Maxim(talk) 21:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  5. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  7. A formal change of vote above would feel like piling on at this point, but this is clearly the outcome. I copyedited the second sentence of the motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose

Discussion by arbitrators

  • Lightbreather has come to the committee requesting to return to editing. As this was a full arbitration case, there should be a public motion to rescind the site ban. In discussion, some arbitrators felt that there were too many restrictions left upon Lightbreather given the passage of time, and so we decided to look at these at the same time. WormTT(talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I've just copyedited slightly to make it clear that the additional items are existing restrictions we're considering rescinding, not additional restrictions we're considering imposing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
    Could the interaction bans be considered separately now? I would like to recuse from one party but vote on the others if possible. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I've split out the Interaction bans. Newyorkbrad are you ok to vote again separately. WormTT(talk) 15:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
    Done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Pudeo: I'm not sure I've parsed your comment correctly so I'll respond to both possible interpretations: If you're saying LB didn't retire, but rather was banned, that's arguable but I'd note that post was made 15 days before the ban was enacted and it was in fact her last edit outside of the arbcom case that was ongoing at that time. If what you are saying is that it's flatly untrue that she was the subject of sexual harassment, I can assure that she most certainly was. It was off-wiki. Ask anyone who was on the functionaries team or arbcom around the time of her ban, we all saw it. It was pretty awful. That doesn't excuse her behavior on-wiki, which is why she was still banned, but it did happen, and was one of the FoF in the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ealdgyth: We did have significant discussion of this on our mailing list, both amongst ourselves and dialogue with Lightbreather, before this motion was posted. And I for one am very aware of how disruptive LB was in the past, as I'm sure other arbs are as well. So it is safe to say that we had considered our positions before this motion was posted. That being said, this isn't just a formality. I'm willing to reconsider my vote if something compelling is brought into the discussion. But I also wrote WP:ROPE and am a big fan of second chances for those who seem sincere in their desire not to repeat their past mistakes. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Thryduulf: LB has discussed the other restrictions with us, and that's why we're voting on them here instead of simply unblocking and leaving them all in place. Katietalk 15:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ealdgyth: I suspect that if any problems are to recur, they will be obvious and able to be dealt with promptly without a huge deal of fuss. Hence I felt it was worth a second chance after five years. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I've been looking a little deeper here and I think we've made an error here. Sure, some of those additional restrictions may seem un-needed now, but we should probably have thought a bit more about how somebody winds up with eight different restrictions on their account, and how they managed to get blocked three times during an arbcom case about their behavior. I'm also concerned about the offsite activity, which seems to reflect an obsessive attitude. These aren't issues that are going to be resolved by a topic ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Just noting here that I view all the "additional" motions as amendments to the main motion, so if the main motion fails the amendments fail too. If that's not the way we're doing this we should probably clarify that before getting to the closing stage. – bradv🍁 20:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Bradv: I agree with your interpretation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
      • As do I. These were designed as modifications of the motion. If arbs want other parts removed, then they should do so by separate and specific motion. Not that I see the point while the site ban is in place. WormTT(talk) 08:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, I read them as riders requiring an unban to be effective. –xenotalk 12:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC) (I've made that explicit)

Community discussion

All users – not just committee members – are welcome to comment here.
  • Noticed the AN notification. What is there to discuss? The unblock motion itself has already almost passed without any community input, and the ArbCom has not shed any light as to what the appeal included. There is no way to examine or comment on it. I suppose it isn't such a big deal if the gun control topic ban stays, but you should remember that Lightbreather was also a part of the Gender Gap Task Force ArbCom case, although wasn't named as a party for some reason, despite playing a prominent role around the issue. Also, there was a lengthy rejected ArbCom request called Civility in August 2014. The current statement on Lightbreather's userpage, "RETIRED DUE TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT", is a flatly untrue WP:GRUDGE claim, which is a bit odd. So drama isn't, and won't be, restricted to just gun control. --Pudeo (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
    I just re-read the whole #Findings of fact section in the designated case. The disruptive editing was extensive in so many ways that things rarely get that far. Well, the appeal must have been good, especially given the stance completely opposite to WP:NOTTHEM at the time. Apparently the timing of this appeal coincides with Lightbreather's first comment in years on an off-site Wikipedia criticism forum in a thread where her nemesis', Two kinds of pork's, new alias was allegedly uncovered. --Pudeo (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Beeblebrox, thank you for your comments above. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Pudeo, thanks for the strikethrough. This might also be a good opportunity to reflect on why your first instinct was to reflexively (and wrongly) claim that Lightbreather was lying about being sexually harassed, even though you didn't have the first clue what you were talking about. MastCell Talk 06:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, the off-site sexual harassment was real, and more extensive than I remembered. But as Beeblebrox responded, there were two interpretations. Retiring after the evidence phase of an ArbCom case named after you, in which a mountain of evidence of wrong-doing was posted, isn't a real retirement. Especially from someone that had already retired twice[8][9]. That's more of a "you can't fire me, I quit" type of a thing with no self-reflection on own conduct. --Pudeo (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not exactly getting the impression that the committee is really going to listen to the input of the community, since it's well on the way to passing. I'd love to know what managed to sway folks to an unban given all the problems detailed in the #Findings of fact section of the decision, but ... again, this sure looks like a done deal. I have my doubts, but ... whatever. --Ealdgyth (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Yeah, well, color me not quite so sure that "if any problems are to recur, they will be obvious and able to be dealt with promptly without a huge deal of fuss". The "they will be obvious" part isn't the issue ... it's the "promptly without a huge deal of fuss" part that I'm disbelieving. And are the arbs going to be the ones enforcing that "promptly without a huge deal of fuss" or is it going to be left up to some poor soul like Karanacs to have to bring another ArbCom case just to get disruption dealt with? We'll leave aside the issue that the arbcom case was in mid-2015, and that pretty much is the end of Karanacs' active participation in Wikipedia? Are we going to lose other productive editors like Karanacs in the future just so some arbs can feel good about letting someone have a second chance? What's the cost? Will we lose Sitush next? Or Dennis again? --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Five years is a long time, and while the original ban was justified, it may no longer serve a preventative purpose. If Lightbreather wishes to contribute positively and assures us that the conduct in the 2015 case will not recur, I would welcome her back. Given that it's already passed, I assume that assurance was given and is believable. Wug·a·po·des 03:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Lightbreather was a central player in some of the most contentious and divisive ArbCom cases leading up to the ban those years ago. Will the community be able to read the appeal to understand what has changed between now and then? Mr Ernie (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • If the appeal has convinced the Committee that the very extensive disruptive editing that resulted in the ban will not reoccur, and Lightbreather understands that (a) her editing will be closely scrutinised and (b) any disruption will almost certainly result in a swift (re-)imposition of sanctions (including a community ban) then I see no reason to deny the appeal. I'd rather the other restrictions remain in place until separately appealed though. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @KrakatoaKatie: I understand why you are discussing them, but I would still rather see them all appealed publicly. There is nothing in the restrictions that would prevent her returning productively in the short term and only the reverse topic ban beyond that and with no restriction on when they may be appealed there seems to be no real benefit to not hearing the appeal publicly. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Sitush: "May appeal in 6 months" will almost certainly be because "indefinite does not mean infinite". What sunk this appeal was apparently evidence that her attitude has not changed since the ban, so I'd suggest that if in the future (which may be six months, may be six years) she presents convincing evidence that she has changed then it is right that an appeal be considered. As this very page demonstrates an appeal being considered does not mean that it will be successful, but the comments suggest that given enough time and evidence of change, the community might accept her back with restrictions, so at this time declaring her block to be infinite does not seem to accord with the community's desire. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with yinz lifting the site ban, but I think the i-bans (With Eric, Sitush, and Mike), topic ban, and revert restriction should remain. The disruption that lead to her ban was extensive and widespread. I have little doubt that the community will enact the reverse topic ban if she goes back to testing the community's patience. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Discouraging since Arb seems to have already made up its mind on this and isn't really listening to the community. I would oppose simply because drama seemed to constantly follow her, and I don't see this as a net positive. Lifting any restrictions would make it a double problem. Dennis Brown - 11:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
    Dennis Brown, we've been discussing this for a little while, so it's not surprising that arbs have current views, however I'm not seeing anything from the community that can't be mitigated with the remaining restrictions and knowledge that she would be under scrutiny. I'm certainly willing to listen to counterpoints on that though, as I'm sure are other arbs. I'll also note that this set of motions have a "close" motion which hasnt started yet. There's still time for participation. WormTT(talk) 12:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
    I don't see anything here to change my mind. No information was introduced, so all I can go by is the past, and the past was full of drama. I haven't seen many people who were known for drama come back and not cause drama. We don't change our spots. We can change our methods, maybe even our words, but that isn't the issue. I don't want to make it appear I'm poisoning the well for someone who it seems WILL be returning, so I will simply say I think it is a large mistake. Foolish even. If this were a discussion at WP:AN, I'm confident the community as a whole would vote against it. I wish her luck at whatever she may do, but I don't think returning here is wise at all. Time will tell, I suppose. Dennis Brown - 14:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
    As mentioned by Dennis and others, the community doesn't know what has changed since the editor in question was banned, so it has no way to infer how likely a return will be successful. The extensive disruptive conduct found in the case documents a pattern of behaviour that reflects a fundamental disagreement with Wikipedia's current ethos. I appreciate that ethos may be flawed in numerous ways, but it is what it is, and editors who cannot contribute within its shortcomings (even if trying to overcome them) are bound to clash with others repeatedly. isaacl (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
    Worm That Turned, as an Arb, I think you really have to ask yourself, if this was taken to the entire community to decide, would they remove the ban? Arb is supposed to reflect the community, no different than admin actions should reflect community consensus. If the community had the same info you have, would they remove the ban? I find it very, very difficult they would, but admit I don't have your info. There was a lot of damage that still hasn't healed, and at the end of the day, taking this risk is going to be questioned when and if it backfires. I just can't imagine a scenario where the community as a whole would support this. Dennis Brown - 19:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
    Dennis Brown, there are two points to this. Firstly, if the community as a whole had been faced with the information we'd been given for the appeal, I think there's a good chance that she would have been unbanned. The community is a forgiving one, and I have seen us bring back other previously disruptive editors into the fold. However, this wasn't a community ban, it was an Arbcom ban - so it is right that it should be on Arbcom to make the decision, private information and all. That said, having been presented with additional information, I have swapped my vote. WormTT(talk) 08:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
    It's a tough call, I get that. I'm only aware of some of the offwiki stuff (I run a business, I don't keep up with much drama). I just know that we have always had problems with certain types of editors, in particular, those with agendas that are incompatible with the neutrality required to edit here. My goal was just to raise the issue of "what would the community do, if they could cut through the mess?" which isn't the only thing that (I believe) a good Arb must consider, but it is core to the job. Dennis Brown - 13:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm a little confused too on why the Community got notified half-way through, but the main decisions all seem reasonable. No complaints with the end result. I should note that I disagree with WTT that IBANs aren't "stigmatised sanctions". Perhaps 2-way IBANs shouldn't be...but they absolutely are. 1-way IBANS definitely are. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Given the accusations below and the off-wiki evidence that has rapidly driven a mass arb-change in votes, I'd somewhat say don't do it, and I'd definitely say "I'm not informed enough to make a confident comment" Nosebagbear (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • GorillaWarfare, if you think you've pinged Sitush, I believe you're mistaken. There, now I've done it. But pings don't always work. Shouldn't he be notified that Lightbreather's one-way I-ban from him is up for review? He may have an opinion. Bishonen | tålk 12:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC).
  • Indeed, if GorillaWarfare pinged me it did not work. I am flabbergasted by this decision when Lightbreather would appear still to be criticising individual editors etc off-wiki. We had extensive problems across many areas and with such apparent off-wiki criticism I really do not think this is a good idea at all, whether or not specific topic bans etc are in plae. I certainly do not want to see Lightbreather even on the same page as me - I still bear the scars of all the nonsense she perpetuated off wiki several years ago (people caste-warring on articles look up my username and then, among other things, sometimes come at me with insults that can only have been derived from the Lightbreather fracas as reported by certain outlets). Yes, I understand that she suffered some awful off-wiki abuse herself but this is not a "two wrongs make a right" game. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I am not going digging through years of old off-wiki stuff but if memory serves me right, LB was actually fuelling unwarranted accusations about me off-wiki, including in media interviews. And, as I have just said, it seems she may be fuelling stuff off-wiki regarding at least one other person as recently as this year. - Sitush (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
    Sitush, do you have any evidence of this that you can send to ArbCom? If any of this is ongoing or has occurred within the past year or so, that would affect my thinking on this. I also recognize that people aren't as likely to report off-wiki issues with banned editors, so it's quite possible that there have been instances that ArbCom is not aware of. – bradv🍁 15:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, ten+ years on and I still struggle with complex indent schemes Evidence of what? Of the recent criticism relating to A. N. Other, yes. Of the fact I still get hassled about it, less easy to do. If someone knows how to search interactions with me over the last, say, couple of months and do so for threads involving the word misogynist, there is definitely something in that period. And it didn't even relate to an article about a woman, it was just random and therefore obviously connected with the disruption reported years ago. But there is much more further back and I get emails about it which I simply delete. I think there are a few admins who would be prepared to vouch for me getting vile hassle via email due to my involvement in the India sphere but I'd be mad to keep it.
I do not routinely follow what Lightbreather does off-wiki - I've looked today due to this thread and the last time I saw anything was maybe six months ago, when something was linked from somewhere that ... you know how it works when you go clicking links.
I'm curious as to why LB's user page at meta was deleted on 1 July. Well, I know it was "user requested" because it says so ... but what was it that needed to be hidden? - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Is it possible to caste aspersions against someone who is currently banned? Is it even an aspersion to question the timing of this, given it is US election year and LB was vocal in all sorts of matters on Wikipedia that might be significant come November. I realise you are suggesting that the topic bans remain but the involvement was spread wide on-wiki and, as Dennis Brown suggests, this is not a leopard likely to change its spots. If I've overstepped by saying this then, obviously, remove it and accept my apologies. - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Xeno should the move to close really say Lightbreather may appeal this decision to the committee in six months' time. bearing in mind the concerns that have been raised? The chances of Lightbreather returning as a valued contributor seem to me to be vanishingly small. We all know it is easy to continue indulging in the same obsessive behaviour, both in interests and criticism, without being detected, whether on or off wiki. Is your wording simply because of "indefinite does not mean infinite" and, if so, is that not sending a poor message in this circumstance? - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
@Sitush: The committee generally sets a limit on when an appellant can submit a fresh appeal (in this case, six months will put this to a new committee). We can't bind future committees (so we rarely say "never re-apply"; such a user would probably be globally banned or something), and if we remain silent on a re-application period, the committee receives re-appeals too soon for the workload to be efficiently managed. That a limit was set does not speak to whether any of those setting that limit believe a re-appeal would be successful. –xenotalk 15:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
xeno, that a future committee cannot be bound by this one makes some sense but, at least in theory, it means that longevity becomes a significant issue in determination: institutional memory weakens through people leaving and any poor off-wiki behaviour can be hidden even though it might continue (a case of WP:BEANS, in effect). Thryduulf responded to this query also with I'd suggest that if in the future (which may be six months, may be six years) she presents convincing evidence that she has changed then it is right that an appeal be considered. As this very page demonstrates an appeal being considered does not mean that it will be successful, but the comments suggest that given enough time and evidence of change, the community might accept her back with restrictions, so at this time declaring her block to be infinite does not seem to accord with the community's desire. which seems ill-informed to me because (a) this decision was not made by the community, nor was its desire anything near that which is claimed; (b) they actually do not know what the committee saw; and (c) for some members to swing so quickly on presentation of evidence suggests that the appellant may have outright misled them in the application and, if so, could well do it again.
As an aside, I would be grateful if the committee consider try to simplify any consideration of future appeals by anyone. This one actually gave me and, seemingly, a few other people the misapprehension that the appeal had been successful as to unbanning and the issue at hand was just the various restrictions. Furthermore, not notifying someone with a direct interest (ie: me) was a pretty appalling oversight and, combined with the appearance of a fait accompli, might even have led to a field day for conspiracy theorists. - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Sitush, not promptly notifying interested parties (i.e. the ones affected by the motions above) was an oversight. In the future we should ask the clerks to make such notifications as soon as the motion is posted, and the committee should refrain from voting until such notifications have been issued. Regarding this specific motion, the deliberations needed to be on-wiki as it was a public ban, but even more importantly, we needed to give the community the opportunity to provide any potentially missing pieces to make sure we weren't making a mistake. I'm grateful that has happened.
Regarding your first point, I would not be in favour of applying any additional restrictions on future appeals, nor should we prejudge whether they might be successful. The only thing we should do is ensure that there is a proper record of past appeals so that a future committee has all the information it needs, and this motion and discussion will serve as part of that record. – bradv🍁 17:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Bradv, thanks. I assume ArbCom's own private systems keep a note of whatever is not permitted to be shown publicly and would be reviewed by a future committee if another appeal emerges. Does Lightbreather get told the specifics of why her appeal is rejected thus enabling her, if she so desires, either to amend her overt behaviour or fly under the radar in future, depending on one's point of view. I don't think I've been involved in an arbcom site ban review before, so I'm an innocent with this stuff, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Sitush, no problem. We have an internal mailing list which keeps complete archives, so any future committee will be able to see our discussions with Lightbreather, our internal deliberations, and the draft motions (also recorded on arbwiki). We have conversed fairly extensively with Lightbreather by email and she is aware of the committee's concerns. – bradv🍁 20:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Ealgdyth let me know that this discussion was ongoing. We determined as a community that even the most productive editors don't deserve a home here if they are uncivil and their language or attitude may scare off other potential editors. The problem is that uncivil language is not the only measure of whether we are scaring off productive editors. Some editors - myself included - quit because of the immense headache of trying to follow the rules when someone else is being completely disruptive in a "nice way". It's having to repeatedly clean up messes being deliberately made by someone who can toe the line just enough to make their agenda slightly less obvious. I was once an extremely productive editor here. I now limit myself to creating the occasional article here and there in large part because the project does a poor job of preventing disruptive editors from sucking all of the oxygen out of the room. Lightbreather was one of those disruptive editors. During her time on this project, her ratio of productive to disruptive conduct was extremely low. She also targeted other editors on other sites (which should, IMO, be grounds for a permanent ban). She was given many chances to change and chose to double down. If Lightbreather has been able to be productive on other wikis, that's great - let her stay there. Why would we run the risk that she will drive off other editors again? Not necessarily people she's attacked, but people who see the mess on the pages she touches and decide they don't want to get involved? If we allow her back, who is going to monitor her behavior here? How many chances will she get? If things degenerate, how much of a timesuck will she be allowed to be? How many other editors will decide this place isn't worth it because we are protecting the disruptive over those who want to put their heads down and get to work? Karanacs (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • It seems I missed the chance to voice my thoughts as it appears that Arbcom has already decided on the outcome. Oh well, I'm sure we'll get to discuss it further at AN or ANI ... or even an Arbcom case down the road. If only banning disruptive editors were as easy as unbanning (see WP:AN if you doubt this). Anyway - best wishes to all, and good luck with the outcome. — Ched (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Striking some of my comments as it seems that a good fair number of the Arbs did indeed have a second look at evidence(?), and some listening to the community). Have to admit I'm impressed by some of them. TY — Ched (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a tricky case. A couple thoughts. (a) I have no idea about what off-wiki business there may be, and I trust arbs' judgment as far as that goes. Depending on what it is, I would expect that it could trump all of this. (b) if a motion that was going to pass then fails because of "community concerns", then it should probably actually be put to the community rather than rely on this section being a representative sample (even those who have commented here have mentioned that the role of the community is unclear). (c) As for the merits, what I remember of this case is that there was a whole lot of unpleasantness involved from many people, including bad behavior from LB, bad behavior from others (no fewer than four of whom went on to be indeffed or banned), and lots of on- and off-wiki drama. None of these are reasons to vacate the outcome of the case themselves, since there was some clear evidence of problematic behavior by LB, but considering the messy circumstances of the case and the amount of time that's gone by (5 years is a very long time here), I'm sympathetic to the idea of seeing what happens (and the expectation, as the arbs mentioned, that there will be considerable scrutiny on her edits). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • For clarifying - is it possible for individual restrictions (like 4.3.3 or 4.3.5) to be removed even if there are no consensus to remove the site ban?--GZWDer (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I mean, anything's possible but I think at the end of the day if we don't unban there's no point in the rest of it. As far as an actual rule or anything, I honestly don't know. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I read those "additional votes" as "riders" that need the unban as a vehicle. Without the unban, no riders. –xenotalk 12:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
It's actually useful to remove excess rules. We have a lot of individual restrictions on editors, which are exceptions to the main "rulebase" which is complicated enough. The simpler these things are the better for all concerned. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC).
  • Lightbreather’s behaviour was so egregiously bad, she should simply be invited to find another hobby. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • People can change in 5 years, If there's off-wiki evidence suggesting little to nothing has changed then to be blunt LB should remain blocked . –Davey2010Talk 17:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Requests for enforcement

Mr Miles

No action required --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:31, 7 August 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 Mr Miles

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. [10] 3RR violations on the trans woman article
  2. [11] more 3RR violations
  3. [12]
  4. [13]
  5. [14]
  6. [15]
  7. [16]
  8. [17]
  9. [18] WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTFORUM derogatory references to trans women in the talk page
  10. [19] more WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTFORUM violations


Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. [20] 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 [21].


Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[22]

Discussion concerning Mr_Miles

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_Miles

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mr_Miles

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)

GizzyCatBella

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 GizzyCatBella

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 GizzyCatBella

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 GizzyCatBella

Unbelievable battleground attitude! I can't believe it!! This is a continuation of this! [23] And this report [24] 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 [25] 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 [[26]] when I was repairing Slovakia section. Notrium please get it over with and move on. I have nothing to do with your latest block [27] 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. [28] 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 [29], 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 [30] 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 [31] because of whos complain the sanctions were imposed in the first place.[32], who charged against me on later occasions [33] [34]. 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 [35] 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 [36] (in the first one Solzhenitsyn, too, is considered by some to be anti-Semitic) and this one on July 31st [37] 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.[38] - 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 [39] but arrived here to comment. He also breached the interaction promise earlier here [40] and here [41] and here restoring my edit [42]. He pushed for sanctions together with Notrium here [43] 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 [44] despite the earlier pledge of staying away. [45] I reminded him about the "stay away promise" [46], 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. [47] After that, you presented one diff [48] claiming that my edit [49] 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 [50] 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 [51] 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 [52] 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 [53], and on June 16, you challenged my edit making an edit to the same substance [54]. Then on July 18 you changed my edit from traditional to conservative here [55] with the edit summary call it what it is Then on June 18, again, you restored this edit of mine [56] right here [57] 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 [58] 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 [59] 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... [60] 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.

[61] - Icewhiz April 26th, 2018

[62] - Icewhiz May 9th, 2018

[63] - Icewhiz June 24th, 2018

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

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

Icewhiz Banned

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

[67] - François Robere March 24th, 2020

François Robere pledged to disengage from GCB

Notrium first ever AE filing

[68] - Notrium June 26, 2020

Notrium second AE filing (current case)

[69] - 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). [70] François Robere was also warned on other occasions for the same [71], [72],[73],[74] 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 [75] 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.[76] Notrium never edited any of those articles before, I never interacted with them before, but once here [77] 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:
[78] February 19, 2020
[79] March 25, 2020
[80] also March 25, 2020
[81] 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 [82] 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 Piotrus

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 ([83]). 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 Robere

  • 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.[84] 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.[85] 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".[86][87]
    2. Follows me to two articles on Israeli current affairs, which is a TA she rarely touched at the time.[88][89]
    3. Edits an article I started on architect Joseph Berlin,[90] which is TA she never touches.
    4. Follows me to Sandstein's TP.[91][92]
    5. Follows me to WP:ANI.
    6. Follows me to two articles within the TA that she never edited before, and rarely since.[93][94]
  2. April 2020 onwards:
    1. GCB claims that I'm "hounding" her and that it's distressing.[95][96][97] 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.[98]
  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.[99][100] She then joins the discussion that I started,[101] broke her T-ban,[102] and even went to WP:ANI to attack another editor (the OP).[103] 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.[104] 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,[105] which was removed by Trasz.[106] 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.[107][108] One of the references was broken, and failed verification; more importantly, though - the other pointed to a 1985 book by the "Veritas Foundation",[109] 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).[110]
    2. She claims these [111][112] were violation, but there was nothing in the agreement about editing articles I'm already involved in.[113][114]
    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.[115] 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.[116][117] 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?[118][119][120][121][122]
  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.[123][124][125] 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,[126] then you and your friends stormed my TP and RexxS's.[127] 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.[128] RexxS explicitly stated that he will not try to enforce an I-ban.[129] 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),[130] then got blocked for breaking it (which again had nothing to do with me).[131] You then promised RexxS that you'll "try to avoid anything that has "Poland" in the text" for six months,[132] then ten days later you're back to editing Polish articles and following me,[133][134][135][136][137][138] 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;[139] 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)

@El C: It's been two days since Notrium posted their defense. Unless there's some interest in exploring it (or Piotrus WP:DGF by releasing the email of his own volition), I suggest that this case is closed with a warning and we can all carry on with our merry lives. François Robere (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth's mention of "newspapers" refers to discussions like these,[140][141][142][143][144] 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 Ernie

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 AlmostFrancis

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)

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)

Result concerning GizzyCatBella

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)

Thomas Meng

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 Thomas Meng

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 21:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Thomas Meng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Neutral_point_of_view (2007) and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun_Gong_2#Neutral_point_of_view (2012) :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. July 21, 02:36. Thomas Meng added "truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance" to the Background section, citing scholar Benjamin Penny. This was now the third time in the Persecution of Falun Gong article that these principles were mentioned. This was not the the general topic article about the Falun Gong which should, of course, discuss the group's moral teachings.
  2. July 21, 02:45. Binksternet removed two of the three mentions, as off topic and promotional, leaving the instance where the moral principles were criticized, because it was relevant to the persecution topic.
  3. July 21, 18:19. Thomas Meng restored challenged text, "truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance", the three moral principles of Falun Gong, adding a partisan paid political statement as a citation.
  4. July 21, 19:01. Binksternet started a talk page discussion about truthfulness as a moral principle.
  5. July 21, 22:48. Thomas Meng argues that scholar Benjamin Penny affirms that Falun Gong adherents follow the moral principles, that they strive to be good people.
  6. July 22, 23:31. Thomas Meng restored challenged text.
  7. July 28, 20:25. Thomas Meng argues that WP:WEIGHT should determine how the Falun Gong moral principles are portrayed.
  8. July 28, 20:34. Thomas Meng argues that scholar Heather Kavan should not be cited per WP:WEIGHT.
  9. August 2, 00:03. Thomas Meng restored the challenged text, adding citations for support.
  10. August 3, 03:23. Thomas Meng restored the challenged text, removed the valid Kavan cite, and cast aspersions on James R. Lewis (scholar) by linking him to Wuhan U.
  11. August 3, 03:28. Thomas Meng restored the challenged text.
  12. August 4, 17:26. Thomas Meng violates Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources by casting aspersions on the cited scholar James R. Lewis (scholar).
  13. August 5, 02:34. Thomas Meng says lack of further discussion affirms his POV, states his intention to restore the challenged text. Previously, Horse Eye Jack had said there was no consensus to do so.[145]
  14. August 5, 17:30. Thomas Meng restored the challenged text, removing the Kavan citation.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. May 18. Notice given to Thomas Meng about discretionary sanctions on Falun Gong articles.
  2. July 23. AE block on Thomas Meng by Daniel Case (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Thomas Meng has not been discussed in previous arbitration requests. He registered his username in April 2020. He was blocked by Daniel Case on July 23 because of a discretionary sanctions violation, tendentious editing at Li Hongzhi, an article in the Falun Gong area.

In all of his edits and arguments in the Falun Gong area, Thomas Meng has sought to promote a positive image of Falun Gong, arguing against a very well-researched NBC News report because they failed to describe enough of Falun Gong's positive attributes.[146] Thomas Meng has argued against the validity of scholars Heather Kavan and James R. Lewis who have published negative findings about the Falun Gong. Such arguments are further instances of tendentious editing, the part about disputing the reliability of apparently good sources. Thomas Meng has tried to retain or insert promotional material into the Persecution of Falun Gong, including an attractive photo of people meditating,[147] and the three moral principles which cast the group in a good light. These are completely inappropriate for an article about persecution. In this topic area, Thomas Meng is behaving exactly like an activist for Falun Gong, and as such he is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


Discussion concerning Thomas Meng

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 Thomas Meng

Below are some points in response to Binksternet's accusations:


  • [148]—I have pointed to the fact that Kavan's view lacks WP:WEIGHT (without dispute from other editors), since all 6 scholarship sources provided (+ [149]) contradict the content of Kavan's conference paper. Interestingly, Binksternet deleted all of this well-sourced content and replaced them with the Kavan source. More than that, he did not even present Kavan’s source with in-text attribution, and simply represented the content of that source as if they were facts.
  • However, I did not remove this source, or revert Binksternet’s edit as he did with mine. Instead, I had merely added a clarification that he works at Wuhan U. My edit was promptly deleted by Binksternet without any edit summary and without consensus. Note that none of my concerns about Lewis were addressed. Instead, Binksternet simply called my arguments baloney (without saying why) and accused me of having COI issues.
  • [152] There were comments to the effect that mentioning FLG's three core principles is undue. I made a serious and thorough effort at addressing these concerns by citing many reliable sources that prove the relevance of FLG's tenets to the persecution. After waiting for 1+ days without further objections, I proceeded to edit.


Binksternet claims that FLG's tenets are challenged texts, but they are widely supported by well-established scholarship. The only challenges come from 1. Lewis, a professor at Wuhan U, an institution under the persecuting party's leadership 2. Kavan's conference paper that runs counter to the WP:WEIGHT of academic opinion 3. Binksternet's anti-FLG POV as demonstrated in his edit summaries here and here, which violate WP:ADVOCACY.


  • [153]—I presented the relevance of this photo in this diff. Instead of disputing its relevance, Binksternet turned to arguing, without evidence, that the photo is "promotional".
  • [154]—I  proved that the photo conforms to scholarly findings and that it's not "promotional". Binksternet was unable to prove otherwise, so he simply asserted no promo photos, just no.
  • [155][156]— I made detailed comments showing that the NBC article is not proper to cite in a BLP. Without engaging my comments, Binksternet simply dismissed my input, saying that it is not our problem, and that it's perfectly fine
  • Despite Binksternet's bald assertion, I did not simply revert his edit. I left the NBC untouched, and instead, added a source from the WSJ, per  WP:RSOPINION, that presented a response to NBC's accusations, [157].
  • Yet, [158] – Binksternet promptly removed the RS content, asserting that it is a ridiculous reply, even though WP:NPOV says that all major viewpoints should be represented, which include the target attacked by NBC. 
  • But I did not revert back, as our discussion carried over to another related article. Please refer to my talk page for the entire context of this dispute [159]


So, I'm not the tendentious editor here. In all my edits, I have tried assiduously to abide by all WP:PG's, including WP:BLP, and have logically addressed every concern from other editors. I invite everyone to thoroughly read our conversations on these talk pages.--Thomas Meng (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Horse Eye Jack

On the 30th I warned Thomas Meng for edit warring on Li Hongzhi. Their response was to immediately accuse me of talk page harassment (this was my first ever time posting on their talk page) and to claim they were only carrying over a settled consensus from another page. That consensus was apparently from the discussion in question here, I could not verify that a consensus had ever been reached and I believe their statement to be untruthful. The discussion can be found at User talk:Thomas Meng#Edit warring at Li Hongzhi and adds strong support to the case for WP:NOTHERE. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Ian.thomson

I've been dealing with Meng at Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong over the moral principles bit. Other users and I have explained how it's simply undue for a tangent article to be going into their core teachings and how the sources don't really demonstrate that FLG is being specifically being targeted for claiming those principles (another pro-FLG editor could say they only "sort of" fit). He displays serious WP:IDHT issues whenever it comes to objections to his edits, reading any message to the contrary as affirmation of his desires (when he doesn't straight up ignore them). That doesn't work in a consensus based project. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by TheBlueCanoe

I don't recall ever dealing directly with this editor, but Ian.thomson referenced a comment I made above, so I'll make a quick note.

As a content question, there is actually good reason to cite Falun Gong's moral teachings in Persecution of Falun Gong, because several scholarly journal articles and chapters draw a direct connection between these things (e.g. some academic commentators believe that the persecution was precipitated, in part, by a clash of visions between the theistic Falun Gong and the materialist Communist Party. The Communist Party itself said that Falun Gong needed to be suppressed because its moral tenets of truth, compassion, and tolerant, were incompatible with Marxist ideas). I cited some examples on the relevant talk page,[160] and there are more than that. Inclusion of relevant content on the page is fully justified. I'm frankly more concerned by the OP's repeated removal of this content and his apparent misrepresentation of sources on the same topic.[161][162][163][164][165]

Anyway, content disagreement shouldn't be solved at AE. There are behavioural issues on these pages, but they implicate editors on both sides of this dispute, and should probably be referred to ArbCom.TheBlueCanoe 01:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel Case

This is what I would have said if he had opened an appeal (which as he noted he couldn't have) when I told him I couldn't erase the block from his record:

As I had explained to him, I did not intend to get involved, when Binksternet reported him to AIV.

I really wish people would not make reports citing arbitration enforcement to AIV. It is not the place for it. But whatever one might wish, it was reported that night, and I decided I owed it a look. As I told Thomas, indeed there was something there. Two weeks after Thomas's removal of some content he considered dubiously sourced led to a contentious discussion where two other editors strongly opposed the edit (and one briefly popped in to support him), he had retutned and restored it. This to me was clearly editing against consensus.

I would have let it pass because as Thomas does point out, the warning and report came after his last edit. And vandals get to walk in that situation. But there are discretionary sanctions on that article, and even though I looked at the sanctions log, where no new enforcement has been recorded for over a decade, it is still in force. So I decided to block him.

It's not often that I have the kind of cordial discussion with someone I've blocked that I did with Thomas, and I was certainly open then to the possibility I might have overreacted.

However, seeing what has happened since, I'm not surprised it has ended up here. Since only now have I been able to read his long explanation to me, I must say that he isn't doing himself any favors. In his position, I would have tried to explain that there was consensus for his edit, regardless of how it seems otherwise. But, instead, he basically says, well, he upset me so much that I had no choice:

At that point, I realized the futility of attempting to logically discuss with Binksternet by using WP policies and RS evidence, given his unrelenting anti-FLG agenda demonstrated in both discussions. So, on that same day, I went to Binksternet's talk page and gave him a warning, at the same time, back to the BLP article and removed the NBC hitpiece despite his objection.

Even in an area not under DS, that attitude is asking for a block. I agree Binksternet's tone could have been less confrontational, that he could have entertained the idea that Thomas had a legitimate criticism of the NBC article and worked from there rather than a blanket assertion that everything NBC reports is beyond question (Not necessarily). But ... that's not something you resolve by completely disregarding the other person and going and doing what you want, especially after leaving a templated warning on their talk page. You don't do that and then wonder why you've forfeited a lot of good faith all of a sudden. Daniel Case (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by PaleoNeonate

My recent involvement is noticing disruption on Falun Gong related articles and occasionally having a look. I confirm that I've seen at least one instance of editing against consensus with a moment of silence after an objection on the talk page taken to mean consensus existed. This is a running-in-circles situation as other editors would have to revert and repeat over and over the same policy and source based arguments. At a recent ANI report I expressed my intention to eventually file AE reports, but considering the limited time I can put in Wikipedia and that a 0R sanction was already applied to some editors, it didn't seem as urgent. While admins are to take the decision, I would propose trying 0R first before applying a complete topic ban in the area. I wasn't personally familiar with this type of sanction until recently (vs 1RR, topic, partial or full blocks). It might allow discussion while also hopefully preventing reinstating edits when repeated arguments are eventually ignored by other editors, possibly breaking the loop.

For context: this is a difficult topic where good and bad exists on both sides of a complex debate that also involves human rights. China has a bad record of human rights violations; Falun Gong also accumulates a bad public record in relation to propaganda and exaggerated claims. A persecution complex exists and is used to promote and validate beliefs, while at the same time the group faces true challenges. An effort is done to select reliable independent sources that report about these.

One of the comments suggests this is a content dispute that should be solved at ARBCOM, but that's not the proper venue for that, we'd still be on the talk page or at mediation if AE wasn't necessary (and ARBCOM is also to address behavioral and policy violation issues and apply technical solutions). It seems that socking of long-term-abuse editors historically occurred on both sides as demonstrated recently at ANI (SPI).

Lastly, the argument was still presented here that the reason for persecution are tenets like truth, when it is clear that it is more perceived extremism allowing members to deny authority and feel above the law. It is of course debatable where the line can be drawn under a difficult regime and I think that most editors are sympathetic to this. In this case, the mention of those religious and philosophical tenets have their place at the main article rather than presented in the persecution article as being the cause of their ills, especially when scholars point out that they can be used as justifications. Unfortunately, the situation has also been exploited by other opportunistic groups with a political intent to foment public anti-Chinese sentiment and promote various conspiracy theories.

My word count is already near 500... —PaleoNeonate – 11:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning Thomas Meng

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

Aman.kumar.goel

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 Aman.kumar.goel

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Za-ari-masen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 13:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Aman.kumar.goel (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:ARBIPA :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Incessant violations of WP:EW and WP:OWN on Bangladesh liberation war
  1. 8 August 2020 Reverted an edit by Aditya Kabir in POV dispute over the interpretation of the sources
  2. 7 August 2020 Reverted an edit by Kmzayeem to remove citations added by the editor in a POV dispute
  3. 7 August 2020 Reverted another edit by Kmzayeem in a POV dispute over the result in the infobox
  4. 20 June 2020 Reverted an edit by DdBbCc22 in a POV dispute over the number of strength of the combatants
  5. 14 June 2020 Reverted another edit by DdBbCc22 in the same POV dispute
  6. 9 June 2020 Reverted an edit by Zarifobayed360 in a POV dispute over result in the infobox

There is no evidence of sock/block evasions in the edits. These diffs are just the most recent edit warring on Bangladesh liberation war, there are further cases of edit warring by Aman.kumar.goel in the earlier history of the article, all in content disputes. The edit wars in August have come even after a concern was raised at WP:ANI on Aman.kumar.goel's perpetual edit warring on this and other articles. Note that Bangladesh liberation war is only one example of the unabating edit warring tendency of the user. There are plenty of other articles in the IPA area where the user has engaged/been engaging in edit wars in content disputes, often tag teaming with others. A simple look on his contributions can prove it. If needed, I can provide more diffs if the limit allows.

Other conduct issues
  1. 7 August 2020 Violates WP:DE, WP:BULLY and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Left a DS alert on an editor's talk page who was already notified about the same discretionary sanctions on 8 July 2020, as the editor is involved in an ongoing dispute with Aman.kumar.goel. Made false accusations of dubious edit summaries and others.
  2. 17 July 2020 Violates WP:BULLY, WP:BATTLEGROUND by making false accusations of WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:Civility at a WP:ANI discussion. Another editor reviewing the case also validated the fact of false allegations by Aman.kumar.goel. Also misrepresented several diffs as WP:EW. The ANI discussion was filed without even discussing the contents in the article talk pages or seeking dispute resolution.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 13 February 2020 Blocked to prevent further disruption caused by his engagement in an edit war on Siddha medicine.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
13 May 2020
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 8 August 2020
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

These are just the incidents that came into my notice. Aman.kumar.goel has a perpetual tendency to violate WP:BATTLEGROUND mainly to intimidate his ideological opponents instead of seeking effective dispute resolutions, a fact that is also corroborated by an admin with this statement. As it seems in different discussions, the user even refuses to admit that he has been engaged in an edit war. This only means that there wouldn't be any change in his disruptive conduct unless a sanction is enforced. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

In response to Aman.kumar.goel's statement: It is quite self-contradictory when Aman.kumar.goel himself says he made reverts in the ongoing disputed article and yet claims the allegation of disruption is false. Pedantic perusals like 2 or 3 reverts, partial or full revert don't matter when the gist of the report is the tendency to edit-war, not limits of reverts.

Regarding WP:VERIFY, I already provided the source in an earlier edit and the discussion was mainly about the false claim of consensus by Aman.kumar.goel at the user talk page.

WP:Gaming the system, WP:Wikilawyering by Aman.kumr.goel can be validated by the comments of different editors, this for example. It should be noted that before filing this report I tried discussing with Aman.kumar.goel here about his edit-wars and asked him to self-revert but the user refused to respond. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Aman.kumar.goel

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 Aman.kumar.goel

It needs to be noted that OP filed this report after he failed to WP:VERIFY his sources,[166] and failed to implement his POV on the article per Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War#To update a information even after his toxic attempt to poison the well by falsely alleging me of "totally disruptive ... WP:Gaming the system and WP:Wikilawyering" as clearly visible from his talk page message. I made 2 reverts on the article in question this month and these 2 edits should be technically counted as one revert, instead of 2 reverts.

Needless to say, such a misleading complaint which is nothing more than a clear attempt to weaponize a content dispute deserve WP:BOOMERANG. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Kmzayeem

I'm one of the participants in the current dispute at Bangladesh Liberation War.

I have had my share of editing disputes and I know these South Asia-related topics always tend to be a heated area but earlier at least I had seen there was a desire to have a peaceful resolution from both sides. The one here at Bangladesh Liberation War is quite unprecedented in my eight years of editing experience. When my edit was reverted, I tried to follow WP:BRD and continued discussing at the article's talk page without making any further edit. Suddenly, I discover Aman.kumar.goel's misleading warnings at my talk page with allegations of "dubious edit summaries", "blatant source misrepresentation" and "Misrepresenting "consensus"". These issues were already being discussed at the article's talk page and instead of continuing the discussion there, he left this bad faith message at my talk page which I found disruptive, not to mention the inappropriate DS alert notice already stated by the OP. Today, I found another warning by Aman.kumar.goel at my talk page, this time accusing me of WP:CANVASSING, pointing towards this message. As it can be seen, my message was entirely neutral and the editor I invited to the discussion was Aditya Kabir who is one of the major content contributors to this article (perhaps the only one currently active among them). Aditya Kabir was also involved in the peer review process of the article.

It does seem to me that Aman.kumar.goel is applying WP:POV railroad tactics with such antics, just to take control of the article. --Zayeem (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning Aman.kumar.goel

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

श्रीमान २००२

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 श्रीमान २००२

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
SerChevalerie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 16:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
श्रीमान २००२ (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:ARBIPA :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 15:12, 8 August 2020 Added unproved allegations to Tahir Hussain (politician) (Article currently in AfD)
  2. 11:42, 7 August 2020 Added controversial information about Hussain's confession
  3. 15:24, 6 August 2020 Created page with the line "who was instrumental in the 2020 anti-CAA riots"
  4. 15:26, 8 August 2020 (RevDeleted, visible to admins only) Added WP:BLP violations related to ex-AAP councillor Tahir Hussain's involvement in Delhi riots at Stone pelting in India
  5. 17:35, 25 June 2020 Added WP:BLP violations related to Harsh Mander at Shaheen Bagh Protests
  6. 17:39, 25 June 2020 WP:BLP violations on Harsh Mander
  7. 17:25, 27 June 2020 Removal of sourced information from Ramesh Pokhriyal
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

17:59, 25 June 2020‎

  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User was warned about violating WP:BLP in June by Doug Weller and Tayi Arajakate over his edits (given above) regarding Harsh Mander. User was warned to not present statements made by the police as statements of fact. However, here we are again in August, with the user's new target being Tahir Hussain. Hussain's name has long been a point of WP:BLP violations in the article and the Talk page of 2020 Delhi riots (multiple admins have reverted multiple edits regarding Husain's involvement in the riots). He has repeated the same behaviour in this article, violating WP:BLP multiple times, showing no signs of stopping. I added a WP:PROD notice on Hussain's page today, which the user removed, without properly reading or addressing the relevant sections of WP:BLP and WP:NPOL that I had linked. SerChevalerie (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

User's contentious editing and WP:OR has continued, now on the article on National Women's Front. Created a whole section on "Love Jihad and Forced Conversation" (you read that right) which is based on a single unproved instance of the president of the organisation being linked to the case. No mention of the organisation itself being involved. SerChevalerie (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified user


Discussion concerning श्रीमान २००२

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 श्रीमान २००२

Statement by Vanamonde93

I recommended this user be brought here after applying revdel to one of their edits (under IAR because I am tangentially involved). Jumping from "supporters of X threw stones at property" (which is what the source said) to "X threw stones" (which is what they wrote) is the sort of egregious OR that we do not need in an area under discretionary sanctions. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Tayi Arajakate

I should clarify that the problems with their editing on the Shaheen Bagh page go much beyond that violation of WP:BLP regarding Harsh Mander. In general, there was quite a bit of NPOV violation which inadvertently gets noticed more through its consequent BLP violations. They didn't pursue it further but it seems they have moved on to other pages with the same pattern of editing. Tayi Arajakate Talk 11:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning श्रीमान २००२

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