Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive233

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Cassianto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Cassianto^Talk 22:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Block of one week

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[1]

This was a report of disruptive behaviour, on a contentious article, to an uninvolved administrator on their talk page. Another helpful admin was also present and between them they brought calm back to Sinatra and one of the committee's coverted DS notice was dished out by the ever so helpful RexxS. I was not "discussing" infoboxes and the use of them. To have a "discussion" about Infoboxes would require at least two people to...erm... discuss them, and a discussion, in its literal sense, would require at least two comments from either side. I am fully aware of my limitations, as per here. I was trying to be transparent by reporting this over wiki and seeing as this case was "not about Cassianto", then you should all be thankful that I'm helping to fight this problem rather than aid it. Both Bishonen and NeilN have stated that it never even occurred to them that my report was in breach of this clumsily written sanction. Clearly, this is just another example of someone with tools not able to write a clear and coherent instruction; quite what Sandstain's use of "abstract" means is beyond me. But if the committee really want to force me underground to email people off-wiki about such matters, then fine, I will, and none of you will be able to prove otherwise.

Re Sandstein: "No, I'm not defending the reverted edit, it's clearly disruptive trolling. But as a topic-banned editor, Cassianto should have let somebody else address it." -- I did, on Bishonen's talk page. This is wholly contradictory, bearing in mind, according to you, I'm banned "in the abstract". How else would you propose that I let Bish know...by the power of positive thought?

This appeal should be declined.

Cassianto is subject to a topic ban (WP:TBAN) from infoboxes ([2]). The ban prohibits Cassianto from making any edits involving, or about, infoboxes. By making such an edit at [3], Cassianto violated the ban. The block was therefore necessary to enforce the ban.

Edits such at the one at issue here are neither excepted from topic bans by WP:BANEX nor by any other policy. The point of the topic ban (and the preceding ArbCom sanction against Cassianto) was exactly to get Cassianto out of acrimonious disputes about infoboxes, such as the dispute Cassianto attempted to further with the edit at issue. The conduct at issue here was therefore exactly the kind of conduct the topic ban was intended to prevent.

Cassianto previously unsuccessfully appealed this topic ban to WP:AN ([4]). It is therefore clear that the ban is valid and binding on Cassianto. The statement by Cassianto, above, that they intend to circumvent the ban by off-wiki proxying is a further indication that Cassianto does not intend to abide by the valid restrictions applying to them, and that the block (or probably a longer one) is therefore needed to prevent Cassianto from violating these restrictions. Sandstein 06:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I now noticed another topic ban violation by Cassianto just prior to the edit at issue here. Sandstein 12:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen: I do not know who among the users involved here supports or opposes infoboxes, and I don't see why this should matter here. Sandstein 17:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: No, I'm not defending the reverted edit, it's clearly disruptive trolling. But as a topic-banned editor, Cassianto should have let somebody else address it. Per WP:BMB, "bans apply to all editing, good or bad". Sandstein 09:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: I agree that the edit taken in isolation would probably not merit sanctions (although it does contain battleground-like, aggressive statements). But what you may not be aware of is that Cassianto is subject to a comprehensive topic ban from infoboxes, which applies without respect to the merits of their edits. The ArbCom have clarified that the ban is within the scope of discretionary sanctions, and uninvolved editors at AN have declined an appeal against the ban. Under these circumstances, I think that for an arbitrator to question the enforcement of the topic ban is to question the binding nature of discretionary sanctions imposed per WP:AC/DS itself, and therefore the possibility of effective enforcement of the Committee's decisions. Is this what you are arguing for here? Sandstein 09:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: I do not think that reducing the block duration would be appropriate here. Cassianto's latest statement indicates that they do not understand (or pretend not to understand) what a topic ban means: no editing related to the topic, period. The block is therefore still needed to prevent Cassianto from continuing to violate the topic ban. Sandstein 13:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy: quick point. Yes, almost certainly a "breach." Less certain is whether it was a deliberate experiment, and that is the crux of the matter. As others have suggested, if it was for a reasonable purpose (re. the discussion on Bishonen's talkpage) then that makes it an accidental breach; no mens rea = no "experiment," I suggest. On a broader note, this whole episode of bombasticity seems likely acieve little more than make it harder for editors to report problematic behaviours: a curious position to arise. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 14:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cass is damned if he does and damn right damned if he doesn't, Decline the case and amend the rule to say something along the lines of "Reporting editors on a users talkpage is fine". –Davey2010^Talk 23:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was a clear violation of the topic ban. At one point in the recent past (I'd have to comb through the various post-arbitration proceedings to find it) I said that the arbitration decision would never be clear and that you were in for an endless series of hair-splittng and wikilawyering. I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. Coretheapple (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. "Whatever you decide will be tested further. Nothing ever will be clear." Coretheapple (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just here to address a comment from Sandstein. That second edit you are linking to, is Cass reverting a now indefinitely blocked nothere user. Is trolling really the type of thing you want to defend? Mr rnddude (talk) 04:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing, I have little time for much of what has gone on at ArbCom, given how unfit for purpose it or its members are, but don't talk about me behind my back - that shows a lack of courtesy. Furthermore, I am not "wikilawyering": if what is supposed to be the main arbitration body on WP cannot do things properly, and draft their decisions with fucking big holes in it, one can hardly expect people not to question the ineptitude. The only thing I'll add, is that if you have a place that is open to ask for clarification, don't bitch and whinge when people actually use it to ... ask for clarification. Don't also be surprised when people are fucking angry that the "solution" ArbCom have come up with still does not address the main cause of grief around IBs - POV pushing, drive-by voting, endless re-litigation, socking, soft and hard canvassing and logged out editing. No-one even bothered to look to look at that, they simply focussed on the people who get frustrated at having to deal with the questions time after time after time with no help or protection from Arbs or Admins. So yes, "forceful" it may be - it's because I'm furious at yet another fuck up that will see yet another IB case at Arbcom in a few years, if more people are not driven away from editing in the meantime. - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• So Sandstein, do you think it's better to keep battering with heavy-handed blocks, or do you think explanation would be a suitable course to someone who has said they don't know the extent of the sanctions against them? As for "pretend not to understand", please read WP:AGF and remember what it advises. – SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no current opinions on the merits of the current block, but I would like to suggest, in order to avoid future confusion, that an addendum to the sanction be made to the effect that Cassianto is not to mention, refer to, or allude to infoboxes. That would seemingly clear up the grey area. Softlavender (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Likely best to return to WP:AN & ask the community if the entire Arbcom ruling should be appealed. If that's not possible? then further clarification on the ruling would suffice. GoodDay (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cassianto's unblock. He was not discussing infoboxes, he was not making article edits related to infoboxes, he was asking an administrator to take action. Surely even if you can't do something yourself, you can still ask an admin for help? User:Bishonen is not a greenhorn who doesn't know what she's doing or can be swayed by a quick appeal, she's one of the most experienced admins on this project. If the request was inappropriate, she would have certainly said so, or possibly even brought down a hammer herself, she is not shy. --GRuban (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also what Olive says, below. Right down to the disclaimer... which should, of course, be outlined in a small rectangle and displayed at the upper right of her statement... --GRuban (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I generally support the use of infoboxes and I have not had a good relationship with Cassianto.

This seems so simple. There is confusion among everyone including the arbs as to whether DS applies to a talk page where a user asks for help. Assume good faith. Warn the user if DS includes the talk page and a request for help. How in heaven's name is the user supposed to know what even the arbs don't seem to agree on. The sanction was draconian and also punitive. That said, why can't an editor ask for help with out going underground? Are we trying to build transparency or not? Something like this happened to me. I understand the frustration and I hope this can be dealt with quickly and most importantly fairly while not damaging a productive editor.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Cassianto's request for help by Bishonen and watching users (such as myself) was clearly no violation of the original restrictions, and not even a violation on the superimposed topic ban. - Once I'm here: I believe that both the topic ban and the restrictions are too broad. If anybody would listen to me, there were no restrictions on user talk pages (but free discussion). Also, Cassianto (and anybody else) should not be restricted from adding to infoboxes ;) - The idea of the restrictions was to avoid waste of time. We should not spend it here, instead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This looks like a very obvious topic ban violation to me, but I'd like to hear from NeilN and Bishonen as those who were involved in the discussion. GoldenRing (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree that this looks like a clear violation. Number 57 11:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• At the very least, this is a breaching experiment. It's time to stop. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear violation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• As I stated on Sanstein's talk page, I wasn't thinking of Cassianto's topic ban when I replied on Bishonen's page as I hadn't been following the proceedings. Had I been aware that it was still in effect, I would've advised them to disengage. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I've already given my opinion of the block on Sandstein's page.[5] I believe a warning would have been appropriate, and that a one-week block was a draconian response. For the record, I'm also pretty unhappy about Sandstein's comment above, that Cassianto intends to circumvent the ban by off-wiki proxying (=by e-mailing concerns about what he perceives as violations) and therefore needs the block "or probably a longer one" to prevent him from violating his topic ban. Surely not? The intent of the ban was to make sure Cassianto wouldn't disrupt infobox discussions. Wasn't it? Does a topic ban really extend to e-mail as well, and what discussion would it disrupt? And how would a block, however long, prevent somebody from e-mailing, if it comes to that? (Cassianto doesn't actually have wikipedia e-mail, so we can't remove it, and I do believe by now he probably has all the e-mail addresses he could possibly need.) I think you've become overly engaged in this, Sandstein, and are taking a too rigid approach. Threatening to "sanction" RexxS, a well-known supporter (!) of infoboxes, for offering to assist Cassianto off-wiki suggests the same thing.[6] RexxS is a highly respectable and experienced user; the notion that he'd "proxy" for Cassianto is just an offensive assumption of bad faith. Compare RexxS's entirely credible reply here: "Any assistance I give will be to help ensure that he doesn't involve himself in on-wiki conflict going forward, but what contributions I make on-wiki are the product of my own reasoned decisions, not as a proxy". Bishonen | talk 14:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• @Sandstein: No, I understand you don't, or didn't, know that RexxS is a supporter of infoboxes. But are you saying you also don't find the fact of any interest, now that you have been told about it? Considering, I mean, that what's got Cassianto into so much trouble is the way he's expressed his resistance to infoboxes. Bishonen | talk 11:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• I also do not believe Cassianto was trying to fuck around the ban experimentally or otherwise, nor do I believe they're setting up an off-wiki proxy ring. The comment may not have been wise, but that quick block was a bit too quick for my taste. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Drmies: Consider the history of events; looked at one way, Cassianto was put on probation by the committee; fairly quickly violated the terms of their probation; tried to wikilawyer their way around the terms of the probation; got a wider topic ban as a result; almost immediately violated the terms of the wider ban; got blocked; now is trying to wikilawyer around the terms of the ban again. Whether that's Cassianto's intention or not, I can certainly see how an observer might see events in those terms and when looked at that way, the block is pretty understandable, isn't it? For a first tban vio, I might have picked 48 hours, though on that history I might not have, too. At any rate, Cassianto is no stranger in these parts and should know how these things work. The continual claims that they didn't think they were violating their probation/ban are not very impressive - any other editor, we would expect to be careful around the edges of their ban, and to make the same mistake twice in a couple of weeks at least suggests that they're really not bothered about abiding by the sanctions in place. GoldenRing (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Though I should perhaps add that the most forceful wikilawyering has come from ShcroCat, and in my mind SchroCat is not doing Cassianto any favours - most recently with their aggressive input at ARCA. GoldenRing (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I know it's generally discouraged for arbs to comment here, but I don't see this particular block as a constructive use of the discretionary sanctions. While I could do without the barbed phrasing at the end of the comment, Cassianto did go through an appropriate channel to legitimately seek assistance with dispute resolution, by way of asking Bishonen to invoke DS - rather than try to intervene with the user directly himself. Frankly that's the kind of thing I'd prefer to encourage in infobox disputes (not only for Cassianto), and I don't think it's helpful at all to slap Cassianto down for it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sandstein: I am aware of the TBAN, and I'm not disputing that the post was a violation. However, as I stated above, I don't think that a one-week block was a useful response to this specific situation. I certainly don't think that my disagreeing with your specific enforcement action here "is to question the binding nature of discretionary sanctions imposed per WP:AC/DS itself" in a broad and general sense. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A clear violation of the topic ban. I wanted to respond specifically to PMC above; the ban exception for "legitimate dispute resolution" applies only to resolution regarding the ban itself, not to resolution regarding others in the topic area. We tried to allow Cassianto to work within normal editing guidelines and remain in the topic area. That didn't work, so they were banned from the area entirely. At this point, Cassianto is unable to participate regarding infoboxes. That was not the desired end outcome, but it's the one he chose by not abiding by his original restriction. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Cassianto's post on Bishonen's talk page is definitely a technical violation of the topic ban. Intent is always hard to figure out but, if enough admins feel that the block was unnecessary or excessive then, perhaps, the straightforward solution is to reduce the length of the block. That way the justification for the block remains in place and serves as a useful reminder to Cassianto that topic bans are not toothless but, simultaneously, allows everyone to move on. --regentspark (comment) 12:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• In case there's any uncertainty, the ban we are discussing here is Sandstein's from May 2, "I am topic-banning Cassianto from infoboxes for three months as a discretionary sanction". This is a plain old topic ban, not a restriction on how much Cassianto can comment in infobox discussions. Although Cassianto's post to Bishonen was nominally a request for Bishonen to issue a warning, it was not up to Cassianto to ask *anyone* to issue a warning, since they are banned from the topic. Sandstein issued a block 19 hours later, though some admins here think a week was too long. If Cassianto will agree to back off in the future, Sandstein might consider shortening the block. But since Sandstein's block was within discretion, for us to grant an appeal wouldn't be justified. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Cassianto's comment was a violation of the topic ban. A topic ban means to stay away from the topic entirely, whether that's direct edits, talk page comments about it, whatever else have you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• There does not appear to be a clear, substantial, active consensus to overturn this block as is required by policy. SQL^{Query me!} 04:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. 8 May 2018, 8 May 2018 continuing an edit war started by others, despite being directed to an ongoing talk page discussion
2. 8 May 2018 Disruptively attempting to restart a conversation that was already well underway on the page (later merged up the page by myself)
3. 10 May 2018 Addition of unsourced content
4. 10 May 2018; note edit summary (re-added after revert; again note edit summary) Addition of unsourced content, with the rationale that it is a "widely held belief in incel forums" and "If so much space is allocated to Elliot Rodger why should his crucial belief be omitted?"
5. 12 May 2018 Sexist edit summary "well this would need good sources to remain in the lede. all evidence is women don't care a damn about a man's intellectual capabilities (and it's not just me)"
6. 13 May 2018 Addition of content sourced to a screenshot of a forum post, originally posted at PUAHate.com. Screenshot is hosted at sluthate.com.
7. 13 May 2018 Inability to understand why the sluthate.com source is unacceptable.
8. 15 May 2018 Addition of unsourced content
9. 15 May 2018 ABF against the editor who removed the above unsourced edit
10. 18 May 2018 Created Beta provider -- an article entirely sourced to two sources: a pick-up artist website called "Girls Chase: Get Girls Chasing YOU" and This Black Hole: Anacostia Diaries Continued by Francwa Sims, a book published by a vanity press by quite the eccentric author (see the title page, which identifies the book as: "This Black Hole - The Anacostia Diaries Continues // A Continued Personal Chronicle of the Years Beyond 2000-Plus. Started in the Year of our Lord Two Thousand and Eight Under the Authority of His Excellency, King Barack I (President Barack H. Obama) // May God Save the United States of America and His Excellency, King Donald I (President Donald J. Trump)". The article itself includes such statements as "especially if the woman is under some duress such as being a single mom (perhaps from one night stands with various alphas)".
11. 18 May 2018 Unsourced talk page comments about how women have it easier to find one-night stands, describing it as an "elementary biological fact"
12. 18 May 2018 More addition of uncited content
13. [7] [8] Repeated, disruptive talk page comments based on personal experience and anecdotes and rarely providing sources, often duplicating conversations that have already happened on the page. When sources are provided, they're often unreliable (e.g. links to Google search results).
14. 17–18 May 2018, 18 May 2018, 18 May 2018 Repeated failure to understand that citing a number of Google Hits is insufficient and not useful

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Miacek has become disruptive in the topic areas of involuntary celibacy, prostitution, and related articles. I am most familiar with him from interactions at Incel and Talk:Incel, where he has tried to skew the article towards treating "involuntary celibacy" as a legitimate phenomenon that isn't covered by articles such as sexual frustration and celibacy, and add text that's uncited or that he attributes in edit summaries as coming from incel forums. His attempts to change the tone of the article on the talk page are disruptively repetitive, both of his previous comments and of other comments by editors on the talk page. He fails to provide reliable sourcing when asked, and does not seem able to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources (and becomes very defensive when asked to familiarize himself with the policy). I think a topic ban would be prudent here.

You can also see evidence of other disruptive editing and poor sourcing complaints in his talk page history (including violations of WP:MEDRS, which he removed with an edit summary accusing the person of harassment) but they are not all related to the ARBGG topic area.

@Miacek: I actually found your Beta provider article while compiling evidence for this AE report. I wish I could say I'm a quick enough researcher/editor to compile a detailed AE complaint while finishing my workday in the short time between you replying to that AfD and me posting this, but sadly I am not. Additionally, I am not trying to make you out as "some kind of inveterate bigot"—if anything, you are the one who has called me a bigot [9] Stricken misunderstanding, see below comment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)) GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

@Miacek: You were proposing that alt-right sources are reliable sources about involuntary celibacy, and suggesting they be used to support a statement about "elite men" "acquiring" women... I do think I misread your comment about "wouldn't that be bigoted" at the AfD, though. When I first read your comment I thought you were saying deleting beta provider without deleting bi-curious would be bigoted. I've stricken the point above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Miacek: It took me a lot of effort until I proved Angela Nagle was speaking in her own voice rather than reflecting alt-right. For some reason, though, ever new pretexts were found not to reinstate the book. The book is cited in the article (and has been since before you started your conversation about it).

The point of this discussion is so that other folks can weigh in on the issue here, so please excuse me if I don't keep going in this back-and-forth with you—it's clearly becoming less and less productive. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Miacek: Good advice from Mandruss, but I've had this page watchlisted since even before my days on the ArbCom, so I saw your reply. However, as I mentioned above, I don't plan to continue going back and forth with you here on each small point you bring up unless I think there's a really good reason to—diminishing returns, and all that. But since I'm already replying: I think my diffs above make it quite clear why I think you shouldn't be editing gender- or sexuality topics—it is rare that an editor who's been topic banned from a subject has made 100% poor or disruptive edits to that topic—it's a matter of net results, and your contributions have been net negative. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Timotheus Canens: I think a topic ban from anything gender- or sexuality-related, and people associated with such topics, would be reasonable. Jorm mentions explicitly including feminism, but I think a gender/sexuality tban would implicitly include those. Wouldn't hurt, I just think it's a bit redundant. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[10]

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

I find this thread by GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) disappointing, especially given all my efforts to improve the article Incel and our recent cooperation at the talk page there, see e.g. Talk:Incel#Sub-culture_vs._wider_variety. It seems she couldn't find any proper arguments against my case at AfD (my latest views) and instead wanted to get me banned altogether so as to get rid of an opponent. The article Incel suffers from severe anti-Incel bias which I've tried to rectify with my careful analysis at talk, rather than edit warring. Moreover, I can't see why on earth does she bring up Prostitution in the United States. If anything, my edits reveal willingness to improve the article in good faith by filling in significant lacunae, no [11]? Also, I would like to point out in the wider context of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary_sanctions to my good edits in the LGBT topics such as here or here and starting new articles such as on the courageous woman Lisette Kampus which, I believe, should discredit the line seemingly pursued by Gorilla that I'm some kind of inveterate bigot.Miacek (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jorm: What exactly are you criticizing about my "other work in the space of sexuality" apart from Incel and Beta provider where we explicitly disagreed? I was trying to point out at my good-faithed edits on a wide variety edits on the topic of sexuality yet you dismiss it all as "focused around hearsay sources, their personal experience", evidently not true if you had read at least one of the articles I created.Miacek (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: Oh don't come up with the suggestion I accused you of bigotry, right? I pointed out I disagreed with the (hypothetical) deletion of an article, something you never pursued [12]. And yes, It was you who attributed to me a week ago the following "verdict": "Shocking how hard it is to find reliable sources for viewpoints like "women are subhuman", isn't it...".Miacek (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: - "You were proposing that alt-right sources are reliable sources about involuntary celibacy" why can't you just drop the stick? It took me a lot of effort until I proved Angela Nagle was speaking in her own voice rather than reflecting alt-right. For some reason, though, ever new pretexts were found not to reinstate the book.Miacek (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: - what exactly did you find wrong with my edits to the broader "sexuality" topic that you suggest banning me from? What fault did you find with this harmless article G0y? Or this one - Love Against Homosexuality? Can I expect an answer?Miacek (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality: why this "broad" topic ban stuff? The articles in dispute were only Incel and Beta provider. I've demonstrably made lots of good-faithed edits to various LGBT topics, why ban me from them, too? I suggest you modify your suggestion to reflect this concern.Miacek (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality: But what did I say in my comment? The dispute concerned Incel and Beta provider. And you nevertheless brought up 2 examples, both regarding beta provider. But I was saying I'm one of the few major contributors to topics like LGBT rights in Estonia / Russia, perhaps due to my language skills, yet you only insist on this sole article of mine that was proposed for deletion, instead of considering my reasonable suggestion of a more limited topic ban that would allow me continue work on topics where no controversies arose.Miacek (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)~[reply]

@Bishonen: "At the same time, when an editor has no understanding of what reliable sources are (per Sandstein and Neutrality above), and does not appear willing to learn" and how did I create all these 100+ articles then I wonder if I have no clue as to "what reliable sources are"? Could you explain me this mystery? Yeah, I will have much to learn from your impressive achievements in this area during the last 4 years. I promise I'll do my best!Miacek (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: I'm very much willing to learn! Shall you help me? You have lots to teach me on how to write good articles: [13]. This one was particularly impressive with its excellent sourcing (such as Google Maps and two are flawless 2 RSs), quite contrary to "garbage" what I've started, like, say this one in something like 4 different Wiki language versions. Shall you give me a try?Miacek (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miacek has been nothing but a bag of WP:IDHT and disruption at Incel. Their other work in the space of sexuality and gender has been... sub-optimal, focused around hearsay sources, their personal experience, and arguments about "google hits".

Second the topic ban recommendation.--Jorm (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

T. Canens: I think something along the lines of "Sexuality, Feminism, and Gender-related Articles, broadly construed" would solve for this particular problem.--Jorm (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am editorially involved at Incel, but I agree that Miacek's editing indicates a total lack of understanding of what reliable sources are; see e.g. my comment to them here. I think a topic ban from anything related to sexuality or gender is appropriate. Sandstein 06:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Any suggestions about the scope of a topic ban? Given the things being used to source beta provider, I'm also inclined to revoke autoreviewer and reviewer. T. Canens (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I would impose an indefinite topic ban on all edits related to gender or sexuality. The diffs provided here are damning and the editor has not shown any understanding of basics such as reliable vs. unreliable source.

• Miacek, I want to avoid engaging in a lengthy colloquy here, but to respond to your question — your editing is broadly concerning, hence the need for a broad topic ban. Edits here (editing-warring to restore bizarre, self-published, patently unreliable source at alpha (ethology) that had already been removed by another editor) and here (insertion of unsourced content at human mating strategies). Both of these edits added links to the article you created, also without any reliable source. This kind of stuff demonstrates to me that you don't have a sufficient understanding of what constitutes reliable sources in this area. Neutrality^talk 05:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• An indefinite topic ban on all edits related to gender or sexuality is the least sanction we can contempate IMO. At the same time, when an editor has no understanding of what reliable sources are (per Sandstein and Neutrality above), and does not appear willing to learn, an indefinite block is more logical. I see them here defending the use of a screenshot of a site called sluthate.com as a reference. Bishonen | talk 14:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• I'm inclined to block indefinitely, with the first year under AE jurisdiction, personally. Topic ban doesn't do the job. Courcelles (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking through the original complaint as well as the responses here, I'm in agreement with Courcelles suggestion above, with an indef tban on gender/sexuality + revoking autoreviewer/reviewer rights as a second choice. —SpacemanSpiff 17:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I support an indefinite block per Bishonen, Courcelles and SpacemanSpiff. The editor's ongoing defense of their use of sluthate.com as a source even after being challenged is conclusive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm rarely moved to comment here, but an editor who argues that sluthate.com is a reliable source? Oh dear. And Beta provider and its sources? Wow. I've read all of this report and have examined the provided evidence. As a minimum, I support the suggested indefinite topic ban on all edits related to gender or sexuality. And as this appears to be someone very far away from understanding the Wikipedia way of doing things (and apparently unwilling to learn), I would not argue against an indefinite block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Blocked and topic banned. Both indefinitely. Courcelles (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Meir Frenkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:Vandalism, WP:Single-purpose account, WP:Edit-warring

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

1. 15:38, 21 May 2018 Unsourced, arbitrary, unexplained change in statistics
2. 22:12, 20 May 2018 Fake statistics, pointless edit-warring
3. 21:39, 20 May 2018 idem
4. 18:56, 20 May 2018 idem
5. 14:58, 17 May 2018 ... you get the point

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I asked specifically to insert extended confirmed protection in that article, but for some reason it was only semi-protected, which is useless since "Meir Frenkin" can still making us lose our time with his vandalism.--יניב הורון (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[14]

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

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

• Run-of-the-mill vandalism-only account, not an AE matter. Indeffed. T. Canens (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

E-960 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBEE, page level article restrictions - 1RR (+original author as in ARBPIA)

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

1. 0408 11 may + 0420 11 may revert1
2. 1717 11 may + 1725 11 may + 1730 11 may revert2. 1rr on revert1
3. 1814 11 may revert3 (+ original author clause) 1rr on revert1,2.
4. 0702 12 may revert4. This one of an ip that does not count to 1rr, but does show pattern and is gaming of 3rr - 4th revert in 27 hours
5. 1354 12 may + 1249 12 may revert5, again of ip. This one is a 3rr vio in relation to revert2,3,4.
6. 1701 12 may. revert6. 1rr in relation to revert2,3. 3rr - 5 reverts in 24 hr window in relation to reverts2,3,4,5.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 228 8 May will voluntarily refrain from editing the article for 72 hours. If disruptive tagging is an issue, another request should be made, with evidence that will allow admins unfamiliar with the sources to understand the issue

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

notified. Also previosuly discussed here on 7 May 2018.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I chose to focus on the narrow aspect of 1rr/3rr given this is easy to demonstrate and previous discussion here. User returned to article 1.5 hours after the 72 hours were up and proceeded to revert multiple times.

RE E-960's comments below:

1. I did not add any tags or comments removing text (in relation to the 6 reverts reported) - so it is unclear to me I've been gaming the system here. I will note that E-960's has been adding dubiously sourced information (based on the Facebook posts of a Polish ambassador) - however that is a content issue (there is a RfC presently running on the article talk-page regarding the use of the ambassador's observations on research methodology).
2. It seems that E-960 in addressing the diff list was referring, in some comments, to the previous edit - not to their own.
3. 1717 11 may + 1725 11 may + 1730 11 may - reported as one-consecutive edit (FR did make an edit and self-revert it in the middle - in 1726-7- however this was ignored for reporting purposes - lumping 1730 with the consecutive edits of 1717 and 1725).
4. Revision as of 18:14, 11 May 2018 - E-960 reverted changes by Volunteer Marek - consecutive diffs in 1757-1809 - restoring the changed image caption and quote that VM removed - [15]. E-960 added this information in 1717-1730 - so very shortly before VM's removal of the new information. I would not have filed AE over a single quote and image caption - but it is a clear revert.
5. Revision as of 13:54, 12 May 2018 - Icewhiz did not place the tag. The tag was placed by 198.84.253.202 at Revision as of 12:47, 12 May 2018 - E-960 should take care in attributing actions to users. I will note that I agree with 198.84.253.202 - the article does indeed overemphasize Polish views, while ignoring wider Holocaust and World War II history (for instance, it would seem that Jewish views (which have addressed this topic at length, which are long standing, are almost lacking all together in terms of opinions/assessment of the Polish role in the Holocaust - there is also an overemphasis in the use of Polish sources - which is a problem given that NOENG has us preferring English when available at the same quality and of BALASP as the sources selected do not reflect the wider world-wide scholarly consensus) - however, I did not place the tag.
6. Revision as of 12:49, 12 May 2018 - E-960 should retract his accusations of vandalism against the 198.84.253.202. This text is not agreed upon. While most editors agree, on the talk-page, that Gazeta Wyborcza is a WP:RS - many editors have failed to see the relevance of a statement which repeats the previous statement and says nothing new. If at all, WP:ONUS is on E-960 to include not on 198.84.253.202 to exclude.
7. E-960 reverted, in the 6 reverts, at least 4 different users - François Robere, Icewhiz, 198.84.253.202, and Volunteer Marek. Some of his edits may be justifiable in and of themselves. And perhaps I was nit-picky in counting reverts in one case - however the aggregate of 6 reverts in 37 hours on a 1rr article is not how a 1RR article should be edited.Icewhiz (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified

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

This report filed by Icewhiz is nothing short of a dishonest MANIPULATION, and I would request that sanctions are placed on Icewhiz for filing a false report against another editor. If you notice (and go through the actual sequence of the edits [16]) you will see that these are reverts of DISRUPTIVE edits done by Icewhiz, François Robere and IP 198.84.253.202 including placing of more shame TAGS into the article and removing text using the <!-- Hidden text --> code.

Exampels:

• Revision as of 17:17, 11 May 2018 [17] - reverted edit by François Robere who placed yet another shame TAG into the article
• Revision as of 17:21, 11 May 2018 [18] - added a quotation earlier into the reference source citation and for clean up removed Polish word in parenthesis, how is that a violation of any kind
• Revision as of 17:27, 11 May 2018 [19] - reverted my own edit, due to all the disruptive changes made by François Robere who himself reverted his own edits earlier, how is that a violation of any kind
• Revision as of 18:14, 11 May 2018 [20] - restored the quotation that was added in the reference citation, since François Robere was making more changes to article and Volunteer Marek was reverting all the disruptive changes, and accidentally removed an unrelated edit I made
• Revision as of 13:54, 12 May 2018, 12 May 2018 [21] - reverted another shame TAG placed by Icewhiz in the article
• Revision as of 12:49, 12 May 2018 [22] - reverted a vandalism edit by IP 198.84.253.202 who place the <!-- Hidden text --> code to hid the text that was agree on in on the Talk Page [23], pls notice the Edit Summary caption made by another editor (→‎The Holocaust: Per talk), and this is where earlier IP 198.84.253.202 tried to remove the text outright from the article [24]... after being revered he decided to use the <!-- Hidden text --> code to blank the text.

This type of behavior by Icewhiz is nothing short of trying to game the 1RR rule, and create enough disruptions in order to level a false change against an editor who is simply reverting VANDALISM, because when you <!-- Hidden text --> or keep placing random shame TAGS you are causing major disruptions to the article. I think that users GizzyCatBella, Volunteer Marek, Nihil novi and MyMoloboaccount can all confirm what is happening because they all at some point were forced to revert all the TAGS and disruptive editing on the page. --E-960 (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• NeilN, to respond to your follow up questions. In reference to the edit which included this tag {{verify|reason="Collaborators" or "blackmailers"?}}, I went ahead and simply resolved the issue which the TAG highlighted, by adding the following text "and blackmailers (szmalcownik)" after confirming that the image related to both 'collaborators' and 'blackmailers'. So, this was not a blank revert, but a resolution of the question which the TAG asked. Though, I removed the TAG first [25] (which is the edit you are following up on), and in the following edit included the correcting text [26], because if you notice below, this was a really BIG TAG that was messing up the small IMAGE THUMBNAIL where it was placed inside of, yes actually inside the image frame (bit annoying when I first saw it, but went ahed to resolve the issue not just blank the TAG). And to my surprise actually received a public Thank You from François Robere for resolving this items. (I'll admit there was a bit of clumsy editing on this one, but there was never an intent to just revert, but to resolve the question which the TAG addressed).

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Archive233" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this message)

• Regarding the second item, [27], this was a first time reverted (not a revert after a revert), of text about 'anti-Jewish sentiment related to the Catholic Church and Communism', which though related to the article went off on a tangent outside of the scope of collaboration, thus I recommend that this should be discussed first. However, again I'd like to note that this text was only removed one time (not a revert of a revert). Also, there was a second statement which discussed 'Polish wartime casualties' which François Robere removed from the introduction paragraph, which again simply did not relate to collaboration. But, this time Volunteer Marek reverted (accidentally running over the two TAG items that I resolved successfully), so thus I did not again try to revert this particular text, but in the Edit Summary left a note that this text does not really belong in this article [28]. --E-960 (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no time to measure this but I would like to make an honest plea to the evaluating administrator. Please (please) review this especially thoroughly since Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of filing dubious claims.[29]. Also please consider the frequency Icewhiz arrives here denouncing his opponents of violations [30] [31] [32] - 3 times in the last five days alone. Thank you. GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think E-960 had any ill intent in any of these edits, but I very much dislike their characterization of others' edits as dishonest or intentionally damaging, and I similarly dislike GizzyCatBella's tendency of doing so. Icewhiz is well within his rights in filing this request, and I suggest any editor who thinks of initiating yet another uninvited smear campaign examine their own behavior instead. François Robere (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:NeilN, yes, that was a straight forward correction (and it was my fault - I was editing while travelling) not a revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @NeilN: These are your page restrictions, could you evaluate this report? Sandstein 08:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I will look at this some time today. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I've semied the article under DS for a month. E-960, I am concerned about two reverts. [33], [34] This seems like a violation of WP:1RR. Please comment. Volunteer Marek can you please kindly confirm or not if E-960 was correcting some accidental editing here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Judging from the responses above and the lack of administrator comments here, there's little appetite for sanctioning E-960. Unless there's further input, I will be closing this with note to E-960 to be a little more careful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

K.e.coffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#Battleground_conduct
• AE: Thewolfchild is warned

The March 2018 AE discussion (AE:Thewolfchild) detailed a pattern of battleground behaviour, directed at me (largely) & other contributors. It closed with a warning to TWC to not personalise disputes; avoid 'clerking' / impeding consensus; canvassing, & more. However, such behaviour has continued:

1. 24 April, Creating drama / aspersions: "This constant bickering..." & "that huge train-wreck of an RfC..." (TWC's inability to let go of the RfC was discussed at the prior AE). TWC edit warred to prevent collapsing off-topic material: [35] & [36]. Added for clarity: I did not collapse TWC's comments nor reverted him; that was done by another contributor: [37] & [38].
2. 14 May 2018, Hounding / issuing threats: suggesting that all firearms articles that I edited "(33 and counting!)" should be listed at WP:GUNS to discuss "what, if any, further actions or sanctions are required" & "This should be examined, this should all be examined, and thoroughly." After pushback, TWC seems to have backtracked a bit: "the main goal here is to review the edits, not the editor" [39]. This still leaves open the door that, perhaps, a secondary goal is to "review" (i.e. lightly harass) the editor.
3. 8 April 2018 & same, Clerking discussions / redacting comments. I reverted TWC once [40]; the other revert was by the OP. This resulted in a discussion on my TP (User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2018/April#April 2018), with belittling: "like some probational-acting-deputy-admin-in-training", etc.
4. 7 May 2018 More clerking, after an admin specifically told TWC "Don't ask for closes" [41].
5. 18:34, 5 May 2018, Personalisation of disputes: "your friend K.e. basically told me...". In response to the "friend" reference (a second time), I posted on TWC's TP: 19:11, 5 May 2018. (Prior reference to "friends": 15 April 2018). TWC then requested that I "please keep it off [his] talk page": 22:51, 5 May.

Previous sanctions

• Given a warning (AE:Thewolfchild) on 25 March 2018 by NeilN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Block log

DS awareness

• Alerted about relevant DS on 0:55, 22 February 2018.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I believe that these diffs display battleground behaviour and targeting of my contributions. They also show no learning curve in terms of Wiki norms; e.g., this (unrelated) ANI about TWC closed w/o sanctions, but provided this illuminating diff by TWC: 11 April. Since TWC doesn't want me on his TP and reacts strongly even to mild cricism (e.g.: I'm genuinely shocked, shocked!...), I'm bringing this report here.

@Pudeo: Re ...far from actual personal attacks, I did not use the words “personal attacks” in my statement; please read it more carefully before commenting. On your other point, I indeed participated in the H&K TP, where I provided a detailed rationale & review of sources: Sample material in question, which was all cited to the manufacturer's web site.

@PackMecEng: Re ...you left that comment on their talk page right after they asked you not to post there anymore, I'm afraid that you got the timeline wrong. I added times to the diffs for clarity: TWC's request to "keep off" his TP comes last. Separately, I see that you participated in the 1st AE, where you accused others of "bludgeoning, threats, and badgering" [42] & "WP:RIGHTGREATWRONG" [43], yet you don't see the same in TWC's behaviour.

General comment: Since my first interaction w/ TWC, which I can only describe as a series of emotionally unhinged outbursts ([44], [45] (bottom of page) & [46]), TWC seems to have had a preoccupation with my editing. Despite having stated several times that he's not a member of WP:GUNS, TWC's suddenly so concerned for firearms articles that he's willing to recruit WP:GUNS editors to "thoroughly" examine my contributions?

Specific to the H&K aticle, I had suggested the participants raise the issue at either WP:NPOVN or WP:NOT: Applicable policies. This was ignored by TWC in favour of apparently conspiratorial thinking ("To what end?") and the suggestion that "as many [WP:GUNS] editors as possible be made aware of this activity" [47]. The latter may also violate the spirit of the warning given to TWC against canvassing by "using project pages". In any case, project TPs are not designed for involved editors to discuss possible "sanctions" against an editor who they may disagree with; that looked to me like a threat.

Lastly, the redactions by TWC are problematic because he was specifically warned about 'clerking' discussions, with a separate warning on his TP: "just stop acting like a clerk". This comment does not warrant placing an RPA template. That’s why I was puzzled as to why TWC insisted on redacting it, to the point of edit warring and badgering me on my Talk page. This suggests ownership to me, same as was brought up in the first AE discussion. Or as NeilN puts it: "...what was seen as disruptive was you [TWC] having to get your two cents in everywhere" [48]. In summary, some admins were calling for a topic ban at the 1st AE, so a warning was a fair outcome. The conditions were not that hard to follow, but here we are. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: ...a provocation and uncivil. K.e.c. should not have restored the collapse..., this implies that I was uncivil and / or was provoking TWC. That's not the case as I did not collapse TWC's comments nor reverted him in this case; that was done by another contributor: [49] & [50]. I added this to the original statement for clarity.

General comment: Re my edits allegedly being about essentially demonizing firearms in general, we can't go about editing these articles as if firearms were people too; BLP policies do not apply to them. Regarding TWC's list, what it shows is that our firearms articles suffer from a significant amount of unsourced / self-sourced promotional material and trivia, or what TWC calls content of neutral, encyclopedic value. I liked this bit of self-cited "origins story", with distinct settler-colonialist undertones:

In 1919, Chief Lame Deer from a Cheyenne tribe approached Arthur Savage to purchase lever-action rifles for the Indian reservation. The two men struck a deal — the tribe would get discounted rifles and Savage would get the tribe's support and endorsement. It was at this time in the company's history, that Arthur Savage added the Indian head logo — a direct gift from the Chief — to the company name.^[1]

In Savage Arms. I'm always happy to discuss my edits, but since TWC's idea of me is that I'm set on "demonising" firearms, I'm not sure he's the right person for the task. In short, TWC has not been a positive presence in these articles. His participation has mostly amounted to disruption of talk pages & bullying of other participants. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

• 14 May

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.

Well, let's start by calling this what it really is... a pre-emptive strike. As K.e noted in point #2, on the H&K416 talk page, I had suggested that some of the edits he has made to firearm-related articles be reviewed at WT:GUNS. He clearly is not happy about the prospect of that occurring. But the facts are this: in the 6 months prior to Feb 14, K.e. didn't edit a single firearm-related article. Then the Stoneman shooting occurred, he was heavily involved in the editing of that article from the beginning, along with the mass-shootings in the U.S. article, and since then (the past 3 months, Feb 14 - May 14), he has gone on a spree, removing and altering content to numerous (approx 50, perhaps more) firearm-related articles on a massive scale (see here, this is just major edits and does not include numerous minor edits). His editing has the single-minded objective of removing content of neutral, encyclopedic value, while at the same time pushing for the addition of "criminal use", "use in mass-shootings", and other controversial material, essentially demonizing firearms in general. Just because he adds (the almost standard now) edit summary; "remove per wp:catalog, will save on talk page" doesn't really mean anything. Multiple editors have objected to these edits (see the Glock talk page) but K.e. either just stands his ground or doesn't engage. I don't feel a single editor should be changing the entire encyclopaedic presentation of firearms on WP, while at the same time, completely dismissing the Firearms Project, it's scope and it's members. Hence the reason that I suggested the review, other editors agreed... and now we have this "AE complaint".

As for the rest of K.e.'s report, (other than the minutiae he went digging for from weeks ago), the gist of it is some of my talk page posts are sarcastic. Well, let's gauge that against the condescending arrogance of his comments, the ones that aren't appallingly hypocritical or just outright bullshit. Look no further than his comments here; "badgering", "edit-warring", "threats", "hounding", "harrassment", "emotionally unhinged", "conspiratorial thinking", "canvassing", "ownership", "clerking" (ad nauseum), etc., etc., etc. At what point does an admin see that this clearly crosses the line from "report" to "blatant, personal attacks"...? Not to mention that this is basically abuse of a project function. Like K.e's, my contribs speak for themselves. I've made enough edits to firearm-related articles (though few and usually minor) over the years to show that I don't have a "sudden interest" in this subject. However, I haven't made any significant content edits to firearm-related articles since the Stoneman shooting (save for reverts, even to changes I agree with but were done improperly), instead my edits have been mostly confined to talk pages. Since that event, there has been this persistent, topic-wide debate between two entrenched factions of editors and IP users (call them what you will, "pro-gun", "anti-gun", whatever...), constantly debating and changing content, most of which leads to article disruption (how many pages have been protected now?) and/or page-fill/time-sinks on talk pages. Most of my posts have called out against this; look no further than K.e.'s point #1 for an example of this. Yes, I have a recent AE warning, and while I clearly stated that I disagreed with both the way that report was handled and some of Neil's warning afterward, I don't feel that I've violated that warning. Tagging one comment as RPA (which was not an issue until K.e. made it one days later), posting one simple close request or un-collapsing my own comment, hardly qualifies as "clerking", nor do I see it as a violation of the warning I rec'd (2 months ago now) or the AE sanctions in general. In other words, I think this is a big waste of time. How many reports has K.e. filed here now anyway? He can't just come running here every time he doesn't like what someone posts on a sanctioned talk page. Perhaps a boomerang is in order and if I really cared about all this, mayne I push for that, but really... enough of this nonsense already. - ^theWOLFchild 23:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ Bishonen - I already memtioned the allegations of "hounding" and "harrassing" above as I don't see how that's been demonstrated. I've largely avoided K.e. since the last AE report, except, as seen in the very diffs he's provided, where he has "hounded and harassed" me and I asked him on his talk page to both explain and stop this behaviour. I'm aware of what Neil's warning stated, but the simple fact is, I had no idea just how extreme it was intended to be, nor exactly what all activities are considered "clerking" (eg: the "don't ask for closes" bit; At all? Ever?) Since that comment, I've asked for for exactly one close. A simple, straight forward and uncontroversial close that no one took issue with - until K.e. brought it up here. I redacted exactly one comment, that again was discussed, resolved and uncontroversial - until days later when K.e. reverted, collapsed and basically shit-disturbed a minor issue that had nothing do do with him. Nothing. And I un-collapsed my own comment. I see where Neil has said below; Also, if an editor feels there is a pattern of inappropriate collapses, bring that issue (with solid evidence) to AE., but first, why would anyone need to do that, just to un-collapse their own comment? Isn't that just straight-forward disruptive behaviour that any admin can address at any time? And conversely, where was it shown here, (with solid evidence) that I have such a history of disruptively un-collapsing my own comments, that I should've assumed that the warning extended to me 'never being allowed to un-collapse my own comment again'? The point is, I take it that these warnings are to prevent disruption to the project, especially to articles which fall under AE sanctions, and I don't see how these three three minor actions noted above can in any way be construed as being disruptive, nor do I see how they clearly violate the warning issued, as it is written.

Lastly, in regards to comments about my post at the HK416 talk page; I have seen on other project talk pages where editors have posted concerns about changes being made to articles that fall under the scope of that project, how is this any different? (And this isn't just me, other editors agree with that post). I had noted that multiple editors were expressing concern over the content removals to that article (concerns that were not being addressed). Then I noticed the same issue at the Glock talk page. At that time, I had no idea as to the extent of the issue (I only have 3 or 4 firearm articles on my watchlist) and when I started to look further, I also 'blinked in disbelief' when I saw just how many articles were affected and how much content was being arbitrarily removed, all quietly under the radar, and all by a single editor! An editor whom others have expressed neutrality concerns about in the past in regards to this topic. There are ≈ 50 articles affected (so far), why try address this on 50 article talk pages when we have a central project talk page to review this on, all at once? Now, something that is repeatedly and conveniently being overlooked is the immediate (and last) comment I posted after the "proposal" comment, where I wrote: the main goal here is to review the edits, not the editor. Further, as you noted, I suggested that as many editors as possible review these content removals, not just people that don't like K.e. or just me on my own. The more editors involved, the more neutral and transparent the process. Beyond that, the simple fact is I had no intention of taking part, because I wanted to avoid accusations of bias. But that said, the simple fact is if these edits were found to be in violation of the AE sanctions, any other editor could post a report about that here. I've seen where one editor has reminded another that an article has fallen under sanctions before, so just what is the issue here? How is this considered to be "personalizing"? How can this be construed as a "threat"? K.e. made the edits, I can't help that, and I didn't start the (multiple) discussions complaining about those edits. Lastly, as you well know, editors can't impose sanctions, bans, blocks etc., it's supposed to be uninvolved admins that do that. Editors can only file reports, and I haven't even done that. I was still listing out all the content removals when this report popped up, clearly to prevent those mass content removals that are causing such discontent from being reviewed. This is distraction, and it seems to be working. - ^theWOLFchild 00:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Petty complaints about word choices that are far from actual personal attacks. K.e.coffman, you should go back to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Heckler & Koch_HK416#Recent_edit because five people disagreed with your removal of the "intricate detail". I really don't think just citing WP:INDISCRIMINATE gives you the mandate for this deletionist streak on gun articles because the policy's just against "unexplained statistics". People agreed WP:PROMO material should be removed, but self-published sources are allowed for non-controversial claims (WP:SPS). And you also removed important information such as the weight of the weapon from the infobox. If you really think that's "intricate detail" you should start a RfC to remove it from Template:Infobox weapon, not do it article by article.

Also anyone is allowed to remove personal attacks per WP:RPA, but yeah, it tends to lead to a controversy if you do that because PAs can be ambiguous. --Pudeo (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all a fan of wolfie, in fact I think in general he's a great example of how an editor should not behave. However, in reviewing this RFAR/E that I stumbled upon, I can't find anything that would be actionable as a violation of his sanction. Toddst1 (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think TWC's response here speaks for itself and negates what I wrote above. Toddst1 (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage folks to consider the context of point #1. Sure, we often see poor word choices during spirited discussions, but this is something different. TWC chose to start a new section in the midst of an ongoing discussion to complain about the fact that the discussion was taking place as well as the outcome of the RfC and the amount of "disruption" in this subject area. I tried to collapse the unproductive side conversation which ensued but TWC insisted on keeping it open. TWC was also among a group of editors who opposed efforts to rewrite the WP:GUNS style guide to comply with the outcome of an RfC. Their contributions to this discussion amount to nothing more than whining about the RfC and more allusions to disruption, with no real effort to move forward. I'll leave it to TWC to explain which instances of "disruption" they are referring to. This incivility has a chilling effect on the consensus building process and may well be discouraging editors from participating in gun politics-related discussions, an area which is in desperate need of additional neutral voices. –dlthewave ☎ 02:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TWC's problematic behavior is not limited to gun politics. Over the past several months they've shown ownership at Federal Bureau of Investigation as well: In a talk page discussion (permalink to section) TWC advised a new user that if you're planning on making major/mass changes to an article, especially one as significant as this one, I would suggest that you first work them out in your sandbox, that way you're not filling up the page history as well as all the watchpages of those editors who have this page on their watchlist. Also, once you've written out all the changes you wish to make, you can propose them on the talk page. They repeated the demand on the user's talk page, leaving out the fact that editors are also welcome to edit the article directly without first proposing changes. This was all in response to a fairly small series of edits. More recently, TWC reverted an edit with the reason "perhaps propose this on talk as a more abbreviated version could be added to "controversy" section", again implying that changes need to be proposed first. In the ensuing discussion, TWC adds As it is, It's somewhat lengthy, the writing needs improvement and it should probably go to the "controversy" section (if it's to be re-added). I'm not necessarily against re-adding, but I haven't read through all the attached sources yet. I will do that shortly, and perhaps add some suggestions. But this is a high-profile, high traffic page, so I wouldn't be surprised if others have some comments and suggestions to add as well. Give it a day, there's no harm in that. Talk soon. This is essentially a demand that content be kept out of the article until it has been reviewed and approved by TWC and other unnamed editors. Of note is the fact that this seems to have convinced the other editor to drop the proposed edit and leave the discussion, even though no policy-based rationale for outright removal was provided. (I've since reopened this discussion, I didn't include recent developments here but folks are welcome to take a look at the ongoing conversation.) –dlthewave ☎ 17:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting a little silly.

1 - I was part of that RFC and it basically went the way I voted, but it certainly was a heated train wreck. I still feel back for Fish and karate on that mess of a RFC coming with the right close, but one no one would appreciate.

2 - Seeing as they have not seemed to follow K.e.coffman to any other articles hounding is a bit of a stretch. But the unilateral large scrubbing of over 33 articles did create issues and disruptions on several of those articles that everyone is still trying to workout.

3 - Has been covered above by Pudeo, but not sure why you took it upon yourself to insert yourself in that situation two days after it was done. Second revert should of just been left alone and done by someone else in my opinion. Finally everything in this part is over a month old at this point.

4 - It appears they were not part of the discussion there and reading it over two people in the discussion asked it to be closed. Posting a neutral request on the proper board does not seem like a violation of NeilN's request from the looks of it.

5 - Seems minor, though your response was not exactly helpful. Especially when you left that comment on their talk page right after they asked you not to post there anymore.

The "shocked!" did not come off as serious in the context of the discussion. At this point seems like you two could use a break from one another. PackMecEng (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman You are right on the time stamp, I was mistaken sorry about that. In regards to my previous comments at AE you posted, kind of an ad hominem attack there but different situation in response to a more disruptive editor posting about me specifically. Not relevant or equal. PackMecEng (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Geogene: you seem to have it a little backwards here. Several people that work on that project have already stated above that the disruption is K.e.coffman gutting parts of several gun related articles in a aparently POV manner and has issues collaborating with people of different views leading to WP:PUSH type of situations. As for intimidating the invader, which is an odd thing to say since it is K.e. that has repeatedly brought people here they disagree with. PackMecEng (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: Habbit would be the correct term here, in reference to bring in people they disagree with. A search through the archives shows that pretty well. Even being dragger here two previous times with no sanctions shows the hounding KEC is doing here with a chilling effect on other contributors. As to beyond the pale and disbelief blinking, those are good ones by the way, from what I can tell it was never posted at GUNS unless I am not seeing it. Though I will admit GUNS would of been a better place to fix all the issues caused by KEC than one of the disrupted articles talk pages. PackMecEng (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reluctant to post here. Like Dlthewave and PackMecEng I've been active on some of the articles in question and typically I'm on the same side of the debate as TWC and PackMecEng (opposite K.e.coffman and Dlthewave). TWC is certainly not dry in their presentation. If K.e.coffman has any flaws they aren't terse comments directed at others. K.e.coffman is very calm even in disagreement but can also be politely pushy. Both editors are trying to make a better encyclopedia. That said, I don't see merit to this ARE.

First point was disparaging an RfC. OK, well that RfC was a train wreck. See PackMecEng's comments above.

The scrubbing of gun articles was something I've also noticed as well. I felt K.e.c was often too aggressive but in general I haven't wanted to get involved. I think they were doing it in good faith but too dogmatically and without thinking about what readers might find of value. Given the range of articles impacted, WP:Firearms (WP:guns) is the most obvious place to start a discussion regarding what sort of information is going to be of interest to readers etc. I reviewed the H&K HK416 cuts, Talk:Heckler & Koch_HK416#Recent_edit, and found that many were good (and credit to K.e.c for always leaving talk page comments noting the changes) but others were questionable. I argued that perhaps 1/4 of the material either shouldn't have been removed or could have been easily fixed (remove promotional language, keep the factual statements). If that was true across the other articles then yes, the content should be reviewed. In a reply above K.e.c noted that TWC isn't a WP:Firearms project member. Why would that matter? I'm not either but that didn't stop K.e.c from reproachfully suggesting my edits/comments in the area were unwelcome advocacy (twice if I recall).

The collapsing of "off topic discussions", like the removal of personal attacks, is a dangerous game. I don't blame TWC for getting annoyed with some of that behavior. When editors who are participants on the talk page and on opposing sides of a contentious issue collapse one another's posts it certainly will come across as provocative. Dlthewave collapsed TWC's comments (from the original complaint [[51]]) and TWC likely, and not unreasonably, didn't appreciate it [[52]]. It would be different if an uninvolved admin had collapsed the comments.

The worst thing I see in this whole list was the redacting of what TWC felt was a personal attack. I think that was a borderline case and it would have been better to let it go or ask an uninvolved editor to help. This seems like a lot to do about not much. Springee (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to agree with PackMecEng's comment here [[53]] which disagrees with Geogene's assessment. NeilN, I would request that involved editors should seek consensus before collapsing comments. K.e.c's complaint included the claim that reversing this collapse of TWC's comments was a violation of their edit restrictions. [[54]] I would see such a collapse of my comments as a provocation and uncivil. K.e.c. should not have restored the collapse after it was removed. Perhaps a clear option for dealing with such provocations would be helpful if TWC isn't allowed to reverse them directly. Springee (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• dlthewave, while I can see your recent complaint about the FBI page do keep in mind that you went to that article and reverted TWC more or less out of the blue and without a really strong talk page justification. Not that you aren't allowed to make such a change and with your input the consensus just became 3:1 for the new material. But consider what you did. You inserted yourself into a discussion that wasn't overly heated or confrontational and made changes that are likely to increase tensions. BTW, I'm not saying that was your intent but we (and I'm sure this points at me too) should think about how others might view our edits, not just what our intent might be. I can see why, given your other editor interactions with TWC, they might be rather defensive about that. Springee (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sandstein, NeilN, MastCell, Bishonen, Drmies, and Thryduulf: For what it's worth, I would like to suggest the 3 month appeal window. If this were a time limited block then I can see the logic in waiting 6 months rather than 3 (harder to just wait it out). However, since the topic ban indef what's the harm in allowing a 3 month vs 6 month appeal? If TWC gets things in order then the extra 3 months is no longer needed to protect Wikipedia and thus is nothing more than punishment. On the other hand, if they can't show things have improved then the topic block stays in place. Springee (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've had some recent interactions with TWC that were unpleasant and verging on uncivil, for instance this. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TWC's response here is bad enough by itself to suggest admin intervention. Not only do they not see any issue with their previous suggestion of setting up some kind of Project Firearms taskforce to spy on K.e.coffman's (K) edits in an organized manner, TWC took K's concern about that bizarre and aberrant suggestion as an admission of being guilty of...something (a pre-emptive strike....He clearly is not happy about the prospect of that occurring). Then TWC reveals an OWN mentality when they begin trying to insinuate doubt into whether K should be editing firearms articles at all due to a short tenure (But the facts are this: in the 6 months prior to Feb 14, K.e. didn't edit a single firearm-related article) and because K may not be editing with the motivations of a firearms enthusiast (Then the Stoneman shooting occurred, he was heavily involved in the editing of that article from the beginning, along with the mass-shootings in the U.S. article). TWC then makes a vexatious complaint about K being too prolific (since then (the past 3 months, Feb 14 - May 14), he has gone on a spree, removing and altering content to numerous (approx 50, perhaps more) firearm-related articles on a massive scale). And finally, he complains about K, in effect, not asking Project Firearms for permission to edit firearms articles: ( I don't feel a single editor should be changing the entire encyclopaedic presentation of firearms on WP, while at the same time, completely dismissing the Firearms Project, it's scope and it's members).

K.e.coffman is now editing firearms articles, TWC sees this as an incursion on his longstanding territory, and is trying to intimidate the invader. This is unacceptable behavior from TWC; Admins should remove him from the conflict area. Geogene (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminaries first: I've had some run-ins with The Wolfchild but I think we've been getting along better--at any rate my decreasing powers of memory make it hard for me to carry grudges. Anyway, I think I kind of like em; they remind me of good old Dennis, with whom I still have to have a beer. On the other hand, I've sided with Coffman a few times on content things, and I am aware of their habit of seeking arbitration resolutions, which kind of sucks cause that makes things complicated. Reading over the diffs and then reading over the comments, it is tempting to say that INDEED there are not the hugest, disruptivest matters--but then one overlooks the previous history, and that's the problem here. Wolfchild, I read your list of quotations, the words that you argue make this turn from report into personal attacks: the problem here is, sorry, that Coffman has a good point. These are things that you do. And I'll tell you what, it was a very minor thing that you just did that reminded me that there was a thread here--you just archived a bunch of stuff on that AR-15 style talk page, which is fine! absolutely fine--but it brought me back here, and yes, there is something to this clerking bit, the accusation that you are doing more than just housekeeping. I'll leave it to the admins (if any of em want to jump into the gun thing) to weigh the diffs presented by Coffman, but I do think they should look carefully at them, since I do think that on occasion you can be a bit...aggressive, maybe, in your out-of-article behavior. I'm trying to phrase this delicately; I'm sure I'm not succeeding. But I'm really with Geogene, above, with whom I just edit-conflicted. Your response here kind of proves the point, and there are other topic areas where there is less of an opportunity for things to get out of hand. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Bishonen, you're right--I guess it's my confirmation bias: I've looked at those two earlier requests (because I have had run-ins with the same editors, I think), and I look at very few others, so I extrapolated unjustifiably. My apologies to K.e.coffman. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the criticisms formulated by user K.e.coffman. User Thewolfchild seems to have no understanding of what a collaborative effort is. The contributions of an editor is not measured simply in terms of their actual edits, but just as much in terms of how they affect other contributors that they interact with. With respect to the latter, user Thewolfchild uses basically every opportunity to demonstrate that they have no regard for how their actions may negatively impact other editors. Based on that, I support the request. Lklundin (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since some contributions here may be out of general interest in the matter, I wanted to detail my specific interactions with Thewolfchild.

In connection with this minor edit [55] I had apparently made an formatting error and had unfortunately not even understood that I had made an error. Since Thewolfchild's subsequent revert had an edit summary that was not very helpful I tried to understand what the problem was with this message to his talk page: [56]. This caused Thewolfchild to post this [57] on the talk page of the article itself, describing my contributions with words such as 'monkeying about' and 'ridiculous' using an overall condescending language, that as an example of abusive language is worth a read.

I had by then seen and fixed my error and I took note of the importance of not making a mistake while contributing to Wikipedia. When I later went back and made more substantial contributions to the article, it did occur to me that the Thewolfchild's behaviour is something that could cause other editors to question their motivation for continuing their effort on Wikipedia. So when my Watchlist indicated that Thewolfchild's editing behaviour was a topic here, I felt I should contribute my experience. Thank you. Lklundin (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope I can write understandable, especially because I a absolutely not used to write in this areas of en:WP. For me it is quite clear, that here a case is just between two users. One of them has done his job in an area for a good while .. a second wants to enter and to be a new "primate". I would suggest to evaluate the working force which has been spend for this project. It is more or less ridiculous to push away authors which have done and do their job for the purpose of this project. HTH --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC) I'll try to explain more ... sorry for googletranslation: "If someone is new somewhere, you first see who has the most experience. This is a process as it is practiced in many areas of this company. New colleagues are always kindly welcomed. How it goes then lies in the positive contributions. For Karl-EE and D-David that was completely indifferent. They were not interested in content, nor to help [58] each other, but in structural changes, as D-David clearly[59] demonstrated. In the Ottoman Empire, the fratricide on the inauguration of a new sultan from the 15th to the 17th century was common. See Fratricide#Ottoman_Empire. We do not want something like that in this company. The complainant Karl-EE should be ashamed of what. Both (Karl-EE and D-David) did not remain without guilt. The constant pursuit of the work of Wolf and others had no other purpose than to keep them from the work and to fulfill the own mission of Karl-EE and D-David. This is like playing chess - whoever pulls first has the advantage. But that is not in the sense of this company. Complainant Karl-EE should be reminded. This is a colloborative project. I can say that I had no problems with Wolf. I can not understand why Wolf would have any restrictions." I hope that is not to weired. I just try to explain the situation. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to point out the editor who started this discussion has been guilty of some very uncivil behavior and he himself has made personal attacks such as this [60]. So I would say it takes two to tango. The other editors who have come here who share his views (seem intent on removing obstacles to there views) and claimed inappropriate behavior, have themselves also have been uncivil at times and have engaged in harassment. Such as but not limited to making repeated unsubstantiated warnings, even after ask to not post on numerous talk pages because of this. -72bikers (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'll await input from User:Thewolfchild. TWC, could you please comment here, or else indicate whether or not you intend to? Bishonen | talk 18:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• It seems Thewolfchild can't help themselves. I'd block for a week. This shows poor judgment in determining what is a redactable personal attack and they were also told not to ask for closes. Since maintain or "clerk" any discussions still seems unclear to them despite my followups, I'd add "they must not touch other editors' comments for any reason on any talk page except their own". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Springee: Other editors can handle that with an appropriate edit summary at which point the discussion should not be re-collapsed without seeking the advice of an uninvolved admin. Also, if an editor feels there is a pattern of inappropriate collapses, bring that issue (with solid evidence) to AE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose TWC's question above, "How many reports has K.e. filed here now anyway?" was rhetorical, but I'll answer it anyway: three reports AFAIK. This one in December 2017, which concerned American politics, nothing to do with gun control, and led to a warning, this report concerning you, TWC in March 2018, which also led to a warning; and now this ongoing report, which claims you have violated that warning. The reason I'm answering a rhetorical question is that I don't want it to become a meme, for lack of contradiction, that KEC comes "running here every time he doesn't like what someone posts on a sanctioned talk page", and because it worries me a little to see Drmies apparently buying into it ("I am aware of their habit of seeking arbitration resolutions, which kind of sucks" — their habit, really?).

Anyway, I recommend admins to read the original report from March 2018, which contained some very strong admin statements, and ended in a strong warning, phrased and logged by NeilN. Note, as soon as the next day, NeilN warned TWC again for being too bold with talk page actions and "clerking", despite just having been warned against it.[61] What concerns me most, though, is the personalising of disputes. This recent post, on the talkpage of some model of carbine rifle, from an editor who was fairly recently warned "not to personalize disputes or to use inflammatory language ("comment on the content, not the contributor")", is so far beyond the pale it can't even see the pale. It's an article talkpage, but TWC nevertheless posts a proposal to list all articles KEC has removed content from at WT:GUNS (sic, the firearms wikiproject talkpage), to have as many editors as possible review "this activity" en masse, and then determine "what, if any, further actions or sanctions are required". All this at WT:GUNS! Of course that sort of thing is by no means what project pages, or article talkpages, are for. I blinked in some disbelief when I saw it. I propose a topic ban from gun and gun-control related pages (broadly construed) and discussions for TWC, to be appealed in the usual ways, but also specifically with a recommended appeal here in six months, which will be viewed favorably iff TWC is then able to show they've been editing in other areas without hounding or harassing other users. Bishonen | talk 15:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• The March 2018 AE report on Thewolfchild was closed with a series of warnings to Thewolfchild about his behavior. He seems to have set about systematically disregarding those warnings:

1. "not to personalize disputes or to use inflammatory language": K.e.coffman's evidence, and Bishonen's comment above, show Thewolfchild doing exactly that.
2. "not to impede the formation of consensus by being too bold with talk page actions": Again, K.e.coffman's evidence shows Thewolfchild continuing to aggressively over-police talkpages (e.g. [62]).
3. "to acknowledge consensus can change and having external events bring increased scrutiny and change to potential walled gardens of articles can be beneficial and should not be ridiculed": K.e. coffman presents evidence that Thewolfchild continued to resist and ridicule the impact of outside scrutiny (and the result of an RfC) on the walled garden of firearms articles ([63]).

• The previous AE thread also closed with a warning that "canvassing amongst project members or by using project pages will be heavily frowned upon". Yet here's Thewolfchild, suggesting that the Firearms WikiProject should conduct a targeted "review" of all of K.e.coffman's contributions in the topic area. As others have pointed out, this suggestion shows a profound misunderstanding of the role of WikiProjects and of our policies on article ownership and "hounding" other editors. (I'll give WikiProject members the benefit of the doubt and assume that they similarly recognized the inappropriateness of this suggestion and pushed back against it). Thewolfchild's comments here are similarly suffused with an inappropriate "ownership" mentality.

  In any case, at the previous AE request, I argued that Thewolfchild should be indefinitely topic-banned from firearms-related content. At the time, I was in the minority, and I accepted warnings as a suitable alternative. Everything I've seen in the interim has confirmed my initial impression: this is an editor who cannot comport himself productively in this topic area, and who is a net-negative in the effort to build encyclopedic coverage of firearms. His point-by-point flouting of the previous set of warnings is conclusive, and I would recommend an indefinite topic-ban from firearms-related articles, pages, and material, with an option to appeal once six months have elapsed. MastCell ^Talk 18:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that NeilN as issuer of the previous warning should decide what to do here. A block would be understandable. Sandstein 18:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• My recommendation was implemented and we've ended up here. Time for another admin to take the lead, I think. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with NeilN. There's no reason to make the issue "his" because he implemented the warning — on the contrary, if anything. I know this has been open for a while, but I suggest we wait for at least one or two more uninvolved admins to opine. Bishonen | talk 20:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• Something needs to be done here regarding TWC's actions, and there are two ways forward as I see it. The first is to give them a last chance, the second is to treat the warnings given last time they were here as their last chance and to sanction appropriately. I'm inclined towards the latter option as the evidence shows they have done almost the exact opposite in all cases, but a block feels punitive at this point so I suggest a time-limited topic ban (perhaps 3 months) from pages related to firearms (broadly interpreted), including but not limited to, articles, talk pages, project pages and drafts.

I also think that the warnings should be converted into ongoing restrictions, specifcally TWC:

1. Must not personalize disputes, use inflammatory language or make personal attacks.
2. Must not mpede the formation of consensus, for example by being too bold with talk page actions. Specifically this means they not edit, collapse, refactor, reformat or remove any comments from any other user on any page other than their own user talk page (or its archives). The only exception is for obvious BLP violations.
3. Must accept consensus can change and must not ridicule, disparage or resist discussions related to determining whether it has.
4. Must not ridicule, disparage or resist increased scrutiny or wider input to discussions (or attempts to bring these)
5. Must not engage in canvassing or otherwise attempt to manipulate consensus.

Violation of these will result in topic bans, blocks and/or other sanctions as appropriate. These would apply across the whole project, but violations within the firearms topic area will be regarded as more serious and result in stronger sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I object to a time-limited topic ban, Thryduulf, because in my experience people often wait them out and then return to the area without having reconstructed their attitude any. If you think three months is suitable, I suggest instead an indefinite topic ban, to be appealed in three months at the earliest. (I know we can't stop people from appealing according to the usual rules, for instance tomorrow, but we can say it's unlikely to be viewed favorably before three months have passed.) I'd prefer six months, but I'll trim. Secondly, I also object to all the other restrictions you list, that are basically the old warnings refurbished; they're just too many; it's honestly too discouraging to have to edit under such a hailstorm of restrictions and restraints. I couldn't do it, and I also think it might invite, well, misuse by opponents. Instead, how about this? Thewolfchild is indefinitely topic banned from pages and discussions related to firearms, broadly construed. An appeal in no less than three months is likely to be viewed favourably provided they are then able to show their editing in other areas has avoided a) personalizing disputes, making personal attacks, ridiculing or disparaging other editors and b) impeding the formation of consensus, for example by being too bold with talk page actions, or canvassing. What do you say, @Sandstein, NeilN, and MastCell:? And @Drmies:, or do you count yourself as involved? Bishonen | talk 17:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: I would not oppose that (or six months if other prefer). Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that I have examined this case closely enough to be able to voice an opinion. Sandstein 14:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, I don't consider myself involved but I think The Wolfchild does--I think they have a tendency, ahem, to personalize disputes, and the last thing we need is yet another censured editor who takes up our time and resources by arguing that blah blah etc. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: I think a three-month timer for an appeal would be fine (I see that Springee has requested this as well). I guess 3 months is no more or less arbitrary than 6 months; the main point of these timers is to prevent the inevitable instantaneous, vexatious appeal, and also to provide time for an editor to show an actual change in his or her behavior. That said, I do disagree, mildly, with your proposed wording in one regard: I would remove the language about an appeal being "likely to be viewed favorably". As I mentioned in the March 2018 AE request, this editor had already been given quite a few "last chances" (even before the March 2018 warnings), and in each case abused the leeway and the benefit of the doubt that he was given. If/when he appeals this sanction, the bar should be set quite high given his previous track record and multiple failed "last chances", so I'd prefer not to create a presumption in favor of lifting the topic ban. He has a lot to prove in terms of being able to edit productively in this topic area. MastCell ^Talk 18:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was also struck by Springee's sensible comment about three vs six months, MastCell. I'm fine with three. Do you think you could phrase something that avoids the "likely to be viewed favorably"? Bishonen | talk 19:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I'd probably keep the first sentence of your proposal, and change the second to something like: "He may appeal in no less than 3 months." I think it should be clear to him by now what he needs to work on. MastCell ^Talk 20:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I spelled out the conditions and so on in order to distinguish the "appeal in no less than three months" from the formal right all users sanctioned per DS have to appeal right away. But hopefully we can take that as implied. So "Thewolfchild is indefinitely topic banned from pages and discussions related to firearms, broadly construed. They may appeal the ban in no less than three months." Is everyone all right with that? If we don't hear any objections from uninvolved admins, I suggest either you or I (HINT HINT: you!) do the paperwork in about 24 hours, MastCell. Bishonen | talk 21:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Three months before appeal sounds good. I would prefer the "likely to be viewed favorably" wording to be included as getting yourself banned/blocked hits home and triggers a change in behavior the way other sanctions often don't, but will not press the issue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Poeticbent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBEE, page level article restrictions - 1RR (ARBPIA)

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

1. 15:29, 14 May 2018 User Icewhiz in less than one hour (!) removed all mentions of notable historian Anna Poray from over 60 articles. This massive POVPUSH was closely connected with Icewhiz's bad-faith AfD nomination. Citation restored by me, was reverted by Icewhiz in less than two minutes.
2. 15:37, 14 May 2018 Exactly as above. Citation restored by me, was reverted by Icewhiz in less than two minutes.
3. Got the message (!) and decided NOT to continue restoring citations pending request for enforcement.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• 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 Date
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
• Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

See explanation by NeilN accompanying his editing restrictions imposed on 18 April 2018 (quote) Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when reverting logged-in users. Poeticbent talk 23:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to comment by Sandstein (16 May 2018). This has been going on for months thereby causing me great distress. For Icewhiz, all Polish sources are mere "opinions of Polish nationalists".

1. Icewhiz 10:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC): use of recent sources from within Poland in regards to the estimate is questionable.
2. Icewhiz 07:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC): The opinions of Polish nationalists (and lest I be accused for singling out a nation - the same is true of Russian, Ukrainian, or American nationalists) are for the most part WP:UNDUE, out of WP:PROPORTION, and possibly WP:FRINGE in the scope of scholarly discourse on Holocaust history.
3. Icewhiz 07:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC): As for including opinions of PhD holders - if we were to include the opinion of every PhD published on the web - that would be a very wide inclusion criteria. Nationalism, as a movement as a whole, is not fringe. A specific flavor of nationalism (in this case - Polish nationalism) - is a small minority...
4. Icewhiz 14:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC): surely there is a better source than Ambasador RP w Szwajcarii (Ambassador to Switzerland)
5. Icewhiz 11:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC): Institute of National Remembrance. That's not a peer reviewed publication or an academic publisher, but a government run organization. A better source, if available, preferably in English, would be an improvement.

What followed was a series of disruptive edits in mainspace along the same lines, meant only to inflict pain. If it wasn't Icewhiz but someone else, I would immediately report this user as a WP:vandalism-only account which (at that point) it certainly was:

1. Icewhiz 11:55, 25 April 2018 (-11,007)‎ Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust ‎ Quite a bit here is not sourced. The source in the lead is not a RS.
2. Icewhiz 11:56, 25 April 2018 (-1,645) Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust ‎ (→‎References: not RS.)
3. Icewhiz 11:57, 25 April 2018 (-268)‎ Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust ‎ (→‎Bibliography: not RS)
4. Icewhiz 11:59, 25 April 2018 (-933)‎ Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust ‎ (remove non-RS.)
5. Icewhiz 12:01, 25 April 2018 (-386)‎ Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust ‎ (→‎Jews and the Church: not RS. Text left unmodified - other supporting ref.)
6. Icewhiz 12:01, 25 April 2018 (-555)‎ Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust ‎ (→‎Difficulties: not RS)
7. Icewhiz 12:03, 25 April 2018 (-991)‎ Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust ‎ (→‎Jews and the Church: Mislabelled authorship. Not a RS.)
8. Icewhiz 12:04, 25 April 2018 (-561)‎ Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust ‎ (→‎Bibliography: not RS)

I created that article with a lot of effort; and, I don't see how, with so many disruptive edits by Icewhiz within just several minutes, I could still pretend to continue to comment on content, not on the contributor anywhere in Wikipedia. However, it was just the beginning as I soon found out.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified, 6 May 2018.

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.

A number of comments:

1. 1RR is not relevant. There is a page level restriction on Collaboration in German-occupied Poland‎, not on any page Poeticbent mentioned (some of which may not be under ARBEE - but most probably are). It seems this report was partially copy-pasted from a 1RR vio report I filed above.
2. I was not notified of this AE filing by Poeticbent as required (the diff supplied [64] is a WP:POINTy BLP DS alert by Poeticbent - with text copy pasted from an alert I gave him after after he made this comment on a talk page, and given he made similar comments in the past (calling a work by a notable historian a "fabrication").
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Poray was made in good faith - despite the 45 WP:ILIKEIT votes that appeared in very short succession (from non-AfD regulars) after nomination. The subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (doesn't come close to meeting SIGCOV. BEFORE doesn't show much else. This was a librarian who in retirement ran a website http://www.savingjews.org/ which was also WP:SELFPUBLISHed as a book or e-book (publishing house listed as A. Poray), 7 refs in articles - 2 are by Poray herself, 2 are interviews on releasing the book (in sources that may not be RSes - however interviews do not establish notability regardless), 3 are obits).
4. I have indeed removed references to WP:SPS - this is well grounded in policy. In most cases I left a cn needed tag (as I suspected the information was copied (possibly with overlaid editorial) from a primary RS initially - e.g. Yad Vashem). In some cases I suspect the subjects mentioned were possibly BLPs (e.g. the son/daughter of a WWII era person) - which I removed outright per SPS: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.. Note that it seems that Poray, other than her self-published book, never published in a reliable source, so it doesn't seem she falls under (the use with caution exception) the Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. (which doesn't apply to BLPs in any event).
5. Regarding the Poray SPS I have engaged in discussion where reverted - see Talk:Żegota#Anna Poray - SPS. Also see PB's response - [65] (which contains personal attacks, addressing SPS with a very short and novel argument of "Anna Poray is not a WP:SPS publishing historian because she is deceased" (AFAIK self-published books do not become published on the death of their author)). The following 2 diffs are BLP violations by Poeticbent [66] and GizzyCatBella [67] (unless they have a RS for each of the 27 names showing they are dead - per WP:BDP we assume individuals less than 115 year old (birth year 1903) are alive.).
6. GizzyCatBella has been inserting/resorting SPS content in a discretionary sanction area against policy - [68], [69], [70], [71]. including false information (see Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#"only German-occupied European country" with death penalty and Talk:The Holocaust in Poland/Archives/2018/May#"only occupied county with death penalty" for detailed refutation) from a questionable (Talk:The Holocaust in Poland/Archives/2018/April#Use of Ewa Kurek as a source) author without discussing (I will note that I believe that a consensus has been reached with other editors to exclude) - repeatedly - [72][73][74][75][76]. (I will note I took this to RSN[77] - but it shouldn't have gone there - as there are no grounds for inclusion of information proven false, by a questionable author, in a self-published (iUniverse) setting). Note the IDHT given Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Your Life is Worth Mine: How Polish Nuns Saved Hundreds of Jewish Children in German-occupied Poland, 1939-1945 - E. Kurek (while editing as an IP for a month (self-admitted)) back in April following another attempt at using Kurek.
7. Poeticbent has been inserting SPS content (over a very long period, however an exhaustive list of diffs will take time to compile) in several articles. He has been reverting removals (and for the most part not discussing constructively) - [78][79][80] (added when PB created the article),[81] (created by banned user Ecoleetage, Poray added by PB in 2008), [82].
8. I have been cleaning up poorly sourced and even outright fringe material (contrast Stawiski#Jewish community with the last version by Poeticbent whose actions have been commented on (not by myself - well before I started improving some of these articles), in the press outside of Wikipedia (this item does not mention Poeticbent by name, but if you follow the article history he is "On each occasion, the author of the Wikipedia Stawiski article immediately wiped out my edits") - I will note that this item makes the interesting observation that "Surprisingly, the Polish Wikipedia articles evidence greater willingness to admit Polish participation in massacres of Jews" (a pattern I have seen myself on many low traffic articles - I've been balancing some of the English Wikipedia articles using the Polish Wikipedia (tone and sourcing used there) - as the Polish Wikipedia is much less POVish, reflecting a diversity of Polish (and foreign) sources (as opposed to a very particular POV type of sources used in these enwiki articles)). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre of Brzostowica Mała (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 March 23 (IIRC - created by Tymek, but heavily expanded by Poeticbent) are also instructive regarding the sort of content that has entered into the English Wikipedia in less visited topics.
9. During these cleanup efforts, I have been personally attacked by Poeticbent several times. As an example, please see the following: [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], in an edit summary - restoring SPS, [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93].

To sum up - removing a WP:SPS from articles, as mandated by policy, should not be attacked - definitely not on a personal level, and this is not a valid AE report (both in form (1RR, no notification) and in substance (removing a SPS is not a policy violation - to the contrary)). Despite the personal attacks, I have responded in a WP:CIVIL manner and on-topic (and I hope to the point, though I self-admit my writing may be winding) - addressing the content/sourcing dispute at hand, and not Poeticbent personally. Icewhiz (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: - my intention had been following an attempt at removing this clear SPS to proceed to the relevant talk pages and then to RSN if need be - following BRD. Many of these were added a long time ago when sourcing standards may have been laxer - it was not clear a-priori that removal would be challenged.Icewhiz (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: - regarding WP:FAIT - It is less than 60. I did not continue removing this SPS from other articles after being challenged by Poeticbent via reversion - I was not "apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed" while I was editing. I can revert all of my removals of this SPS in less than 15 minutes - this is much easier/faster than reviewing the articles and finding them in the first place - and I will do so myself if consensus is against this change (which I believe is well grounded in policy, this being self-published by an author not previously published in this field in a RS).Icewhiz (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do however request that the following diffs with personal attacks by PB (a selection of item 9 above) be examined - [94][95][96][97][98][99][100].Icewhiz (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE Piotrus - I did notify Poeticbent of the AfD. I want to note that the mass insertion of WP:QS authors self-published works (such as works by Ewa Kurek, Mark Paul, Anna Poray) is a serious WP:NPOV / WP:FRINGE issue. Take Poray for instance - Her self published work was present in some 50 Wikipedia article (in many of them - further reading or as reference that was not inline, much of this inserted by Poeticbent) - google scholar has her at 0 citations (scholar only accounting for academic use). Contrast this with Gross's Fear - 359 google scholar cites vs. 11 uses on Wikipedia (including articles on Gross and the book itself), or Neighbors 718 google scholar cites vs. 13 Wikipedia cites (4 of them being the book, Gross, a book award, and a list of books).

Poeticbent has been inserting (and defending with great gusto) several of these WP:FRINGE WP:SPS works. At present, we have some articles that read like Alternate history - describing the Holocaust as a collaboration between Jews (Per Kurek they "had fun in the ghettos"[101] enjoying autonomy and self-governance under the Germans[102]) whose activities "'constituted de facto collaboration with Nazi Germany, with which the Soviet Union shared a common, criminal purpose and agenda in 1939–1945" (see this diff - quote from Mark Paul - from NEIGHBOURS -On the Eve of the Holocaust,); Oddly (per Paul, Kurek, and Poray who have all written on the subject) the majority of Poles acted in a noble fashion and despite the Jewish persecution against them - acted in an organized and dis-organized effort to rescue Jews on a massive scale - although this was not recognized properly by Yad Vashem's righteous awards. (mainline historical writing, while extolling the few righteous, seeing rescuers as a persecuted minority (by Poles and Germans) - with Jews in Poland being killed at one of the highest rates (approaching 90%) in the Holocaust - the majority of survivors surviving outside of Poland - escaping (or being expelled to the gulags by the Soviets) to the east).

This is the true disruption here - not only are these highly questionable authors, but more importantly - WP:FRINGE text from them is inserted into Wikipedia articles, in Wikipedia's voice and without balancing sources, in the first place - counter to WP:SPS / WP:BALASP / WP:FRINGE - attempts to rectify the situation are met with long discussions (with no policy legs), call for administrative action, and vehement personal attacks ([103][104][105][106][107][108][109]).Icewhiz (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional personal attack/WP:ASPERSIONS by Poeticbent - 15:33, 16 May 2018 - (selective quotation) you are being manipulated by a POV pusher with a deep bias against Polish people in general.... Dozens of Wikipedia articles about Poland are under attack by the same WP:TAG TEAM on the basis of a smear campaign by Israeli media. Instead of buying into this WP:GAME of casting aspersions .... It is a false claim made by notorious POV pushers. (it also describes Poray's work in a manner not congruent with Wikipedia policy or other RSes).Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: While the original circa 2008 additions by Poeticbent are not actionable, the multipe recent reverts by Poeticbent [110][111][112][113] [114] and GizzyCatBella [115], [116], [117], [118] - after they have been clearly challenged as WP:SPS (by a fringe author to boot - and USHMM incidentally collects everything holocauat related - also fringe /denialist) - are actionable as editors are supposed to adhere to core policies such as WP:V and WP:NPOV in a sanctioned area. This is not a borderline source - this is a clear fringe, self published book, by a non expert who has not published in a RS on this topic. I will further note that the revert in the Zegota article violates BLP policy (both of them being alerted to) - assuming they did not verify that all 27 named individuals are dead - then they are assumed alive per BDP.Icewhiz (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE the diffs causing "great distress" above - the first 3 are to a page (talk and main) Poeticbent never edited (he did place a single oppose comment in the DYK nom). However, this page (talk and page) was edited heavily by GizzyCatBella at the time. This is quite interesting in regards to still open Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GizzyCatBella and the evidence therein, being possible additional evidence.Icewhiz (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE Poeticbent: For Icewhiz, all Polish sources are mere "opinions of Polish nationalists". - this is a stmt easy to refute - as I've used Polish language sources (including nationalist ones - government in exile) for Aleksander Piotr Mohl e.g. [119][120][121][122][123], in Jan Grabowski (historian) (Polish language or Polish authors (in German and English)) - [124][125][126][127], or in Piotr Śmietański (where I removed text that was sourced to a blog which didn't actually make this claim, and then expanded the text there based on an article by two Polish historians) - [128][129]. These popped off the top of my head - but there are probably quite a few additional examples.Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE Poeticbent : In regards to Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust diffs presented- this is an article (also after these removals, all the more prior to them) with serious V and NPOV problems, not reflecting mainline sources - in its present state, as a hagiography with dubious and false claims - it might be a net-negative for existence (the topic - is notable - and yes - there are some 6500+ recognized Polish rescuers of Jews). I removed self-published material from Mark Paul (a figure shrouded in mystery - little is known of him beyond his connection to KPK's good name committee - scant coverage of him, though his self-published writings have been referred to as an expression of the "ignoble ungrateful Jew" myth in a footnote in a RS - [130]) and Ewa Kurek (who is better known, but notorious - views described as outlandish ("Jews had fun in ghettos"), compared with David Irving, and described as a Holocaust Distorter [131][132][133][134]). Following adamant support for inclusion of this WP:SPS material (iUniverse in one case) by Poeticbent and GizzyCatBella - I took it to RSN - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul (which elicited comment also from a brand new account). However, I submit that supporting the inclusion of self-published material by authors described in RS as writing "myths" or engaging in "holocaust distortion" in an article about the holocaust - is a serious WP:NPOV and WP:V problem. While Poeticbent's authorship goes back a while, the support (discussion, reversion, and in other articles - addition) of Poeticbent and GizzyCatBella for these sources (Kurek, Paul) is current.Icewhiz (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please recognize that this is not the first time Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is doing that [135] The same happened to another historian Marek Chodakiewicz - 19 mass removals, some in the repetition of 2 minutes of each other. Attempts of discrediting and removal of other historians under false pretexts are constant and against the view of the majority of other editors.[136] That is not genuine effort to build Wikipedia on the part of Icewhiz; this is a massive POV pushing and violation of precepts. Once again, I urge the evaluating administrator to take a sound look at Icewhiz editing record on Polish history articles (please). This user should be topic banned in my honest belief.GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let me state the obvious: GizzyCatBella is everywhere. I haven't seen a single ANI case where she didn't appear to contribute some comment or another, invited or not. She may seem well-mannered, but make no mistake: It's WP:HOUNDING.

The topic in question is subject to much abuse, not least by this editor. She adds questionable sources again and again - non-historian Leszek Pietrzak [137], borderline denialist Eva Kurek [138], self published Mark Paul [139], dated sources [140], political appointees [141], and even "light reading" books [142]; all the while questioning encyclopedias [143], respected scholars [144][145][146][147], the occasional paper of record [148] and other RS. This choice of sources seems to serve an agenda [149], and isn't helped by other editors' misconceptions of "what makes an RS" [150]. Problematic enough? It's happening in multiple articles at the same time.

I submit that while Icewhiz's changes may have been swift, his judgment of sources is excellent and should be understood in the context of what I just described: recurring insertions of tendentious non-RS material to multiple articles at a time, with what appears to be an intent to sway an entire topic area towards a particular POV. Taken like this, Icewhiz's edits seem not only beneficial, but efficient. François Robere (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aside on conduct: I understand Icewhiz's outrage with Poeticbent's comments. The latter seems to have taken an interest in him and in myself, moving from derogatory comments that one admin characterized as "[reeking of] bad faith and shade" [151], to accusations of "gang attack on a woman" [152]. Needless to say this isn't acceptable. François Robere (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: This seems to fall on whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. This would allow for eg. a published expert who also happens to write a blog, but not someone who only self-published. François Robere (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: Excuse me, but aren't our standards supposed to be higher then "her book is cited a number of times"? Especially in this topic area, where there's no shortage of good sources? And why should the removal of these sources be discussed, rather than their addition? If it's tendentious and poorly sourced, editors shouldn't add it to 50 articles simultaneously. Incidentally, it's the same editors who fought tooth and nail against having Gross, Grabowski, Bauer and other sources of impeccable scholarly reputation who are now pushing these sources every which way. François Robere (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: A possible conduct problem could be the mass removal of those references What about mass additions? Would a pattern of using low-quality sources to justify contentious claims constitute a "conduct problem"? François Robere (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy that all references to self-published sources must be automatically removed. According to the policy, Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. The self-published book by this author has been cited in several other books [153] and sources. The author may or may not be notable, but still be an expert. Therefore, I think the removal would need a WP:Consensus in this case. It was done without consensus.My very best wishes (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@François Robere. Her book was cited by others a number of times. Does she qualify as an expert on the subject of Polish people helping Jews during German occupation? This is something debatable. So it needs to be discussed and decided. Blanket removal of references without an appropriate discussion and consensus, even after the objections were raised by another contributor, was grossly inappropriate, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mass removal of sources from dozens of articles in a controversial area should not be done without gaining consensus. I don't understand why there was no RSN discussion about her first, as would seem prudent. I doubt there is anything actionable here (AfD is hardly bad faith, it is totally fine to test the notability some topics through an occasional AfD), however I'd hope in the future Icehwiz will not mass remove sources (SPS or not) in controversial area without RSN discussion first (one, I will add, that should ping, if possible, editors who added said source in to the Wiki in the first place). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I may or may not sympathize with perhaps deleting the Anna Poray article (if this is the result of the AfD), I don't think wholesale deletion of 60 Anna Poray refs before her own article has been decided is the best approach, unless perhaps there is strong evidence all 60 refs were insidiously added to the Wiki by one single editor, or a coordinated simultaneous cabal of editors. Absent that, each deletion would have to be well justified by its own merits and for just cause. I am not a fan of eliminating refs willy nilly, and there is usually room to qualify WP:QS in the text or otherwise deprecating such arguments w/o memory holing them. XavierItzm (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m only tangentially involved in these disputes, but I’m sympathetic to Icewhiz’s position when it comes to obscure / WP:QS sources, having taken part in a number of RSN / TP discussions: RSN: Discussion (Paul; Kurek), as well as here: "only occupied county with death penalty”. In this AE, Anna Poray was referred as a “notable historian”, which is not really the case, when it comes to the definition of ‘historian’ as being “a student or writer of history; especially : one who produces a scholarly synthesis”. The flowery language of “Poray-Wybranowska published a ground-breaking book entitled Those Who Risked Their Lives in 2007^[1]" is cited to the book itself.

Regarding the statement that this book is used in 60 Wikipedia articles – my general observation is that, with so much written about the Holocaust in Poland, better sources are surely available and there’s no need for non-peer-reviewed texts from WP:QS publishers. I’ve dealt with a situation in WW2 articles where many pages were citing the pulp writer Franz Kurowski; that’s not necessarily a sign of the reliability of an underlying source. In Poray's case, I would treat the book as a WP:QS source. There has to be a compelling reason to keep such sources in an article. And certainly not in situations when they are listed in "Further reading" or not used for citations. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took a close look at Poray after noticing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Poray. She is certainly a WP:FRINGE, revisionist whose work is cited only by an ideologically extreme group of like-minded FRINGE historical revisionists, and by enthusiasts of this sort of invented, partisan history editing Wikipedia. It is damaging to the project to mislead our readers by supporting pages with sources/authors of this calibre.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find the constant push to use rhetoric as very detrimental to the overall discussion on the topic of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Poray, user E.M.Gregory continues to write that Poray is a WP:FRINGE scholar. But, let me ask you... would the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum list one of Poray's books if she was a FRINGE or REVISIONIST author?? Pls see here: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum - Collections Search - Polish Righteous, those who risked their lives by Anna Poray.. --E-960 (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow up comment. If you don't agree with Poray, that's fine, there are many notable scholars who over/under estimate things, but to just keep repeating that Poray is a WP:FRINGE author, is absolutely baseless. What is it about the Second World War or the Holocaust, that Poray got SO wrong to be completely discredited. --E-960 (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'll just leave here the idea that the AfD mentioned seems to be populated with a number of people using CAPITAL LETTERS, as ... oddly, do some of the AE reports above this one. Examining the contrib history of some of said editors (not Poeticbent) may be interesting. Just an observation, like ... Black Kite (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Waiting on icewhiz's response but the two examples above don't appear to be violations of 1RR since Icewhiz appears to have stopped after one revert. --regentspark (comment) 01:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I was going to recommend closing this with no action but Sandstein's comment below and Poeticbent's post on sources [154] gives me pause. It appears that Poeticbent doesn't understand what constitutes a reliable source and is then conflating this lack of understanding with the idea that Icewhiz is a biased editor. That's not a good combination. Perhaps a short, timed, topic ban might allow Poeticbent to edit in areas they are less passionate about and gain a better understanding of the how to of Wikipedia.--regentspark (comment) 12:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I would argue that mass removal of a specific named source or academic/historian/whatever of this size should have some type of broader discussion before the removal is acted along, along the lines of WP:FAIT (but same can be said about inserting such a yet-validated source/academic in a mass number of articles for the same reason). That itself in this case I can't say is actionable, but its the type of behavior that doesn't help avoid battlefield behavior in these topic areas. --Masem (t) 04:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz, my only concern is that there's a balance between properly following BOLD/BRD to remove some SPS, and doing a mass wipe of them that would evoke issues related to FAIT. Even if the author's sources are all SPSs, the fact they were used across 60 some instances would have me check to see if it was a single editor that added them in the same time period (fully justifying a BRD removal), or if they have been used by many editors over a broad period of time and thus should be discussed better. SPSs are not automatically disqualified as RSes, but they should be reviewed carefully. As I said, on that aspect, there's nothing immediately actionable, but I do express the need for caution when doing such a large "change" even if one feels they are following BRD for that. --Masem (t) 06:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that per Icewhiz's diffs for Poeticbent and GizzyCatBella, reversion of removal of the sources that Icewhiz at least calls out as SPSs in the edit summary is problematic behavior in an area covered by an AE already. I'd definitely at least trout and caution both of them to restore/revert removal of sources that have been called out as a problem, and just a general call that when issues of a specific author or source are in question, it is generally better for cooperation/minimal disruption to seek consensus first. --Masem (t) 17:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether the work by Anna Poray should be used as a source, and for what, is a content issue which AE does not adjudicate. A possible conduct problem could be the mass removal of those references, but the request does not identify any conduct policy violated by this mass removal. The ArbCom principle in WP:FAIT applies only after the mass editor "is apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed", and it is not alleged here that the mass edits continued after such apprisal. Moreover, the removals seem to have been undertaken in good faith based on the opinion that the work is not an appropriate source for Wikipedia to cite (which I can prima facie understand, given that it is apparently self-published), and not with disruptive intent. I would therefore take no action here. Sandstein 14:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @François Robere: Mass edits (either removals or additions) can present conduct problems depending on the circumstances, but the hypothetical situation you describe is not before us and does not need to be decided here. Sandstein 17:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I've looked more closely at Icewhiz's counterallegations regarding Poeticbent. The charge of misusing SPS isn't something I'd act on, because it's close to a content dispute and it's not realistic to expect admins here to check the reliability of this number of sources; that would need an ArbCom case. But I think that Icewhiz's complaint regarding personal attacks by Poeticbent are actionable; one needs only to look at their most recent edit ("you are being manipulated by a POV pusher with a deep bias against Polish people in general") in addition to Icewhiz's examples to get the impression that this is somebody who operates in full WP:BATTLEGROUND mode. I think that a topic ban from the World War II history of Poland (the apparent topic of this set of disputes) would be appropriate here. Sandstein 20:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Discussion seems to have ceased. Unless admins object, I intend to close this by imposing the abovementioned topic ban against Poeticbent. Sandstein 07:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• E-960, there are 275,377 items in that collection, and at any rate being in a library collection doesn't mean very much. Having read over all this I agree with Sandstein, Masem, and Regentspark. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]