Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Important information Shortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,[a] or is no longer an administrator;[b] or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. ^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. ^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

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

Request concerning TrangaBellam

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Marcelus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

TrangaBellam (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 or whichever applies

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

1. 12:54, 2 March 2023 Changed the title of the section that was under ongoing discussion
2. 13:01, 2 March 2023 Restored the title of the section without engaging in discussion
3. 14:30, 2 March 2023 Made a major change to the text that was being discussed at the time, without engaging in the discussion
4. 14:47, 2 March 2023 Restored the same edition, ignoring offers to participate in the ongoing discussion on the talk page
5. 17:38, 2 March 2023 Not backed by anything accusation: "All I see is you engaging in a fair amount of acrobatics to push a particular ahistorical POV"
6. 20:15, 2 March 2023 "I plan to ignore your commentary on the meta-issues"
7. 20:35, 2 March 2023 Continued to edit the page ignoring requests to undo the edits and discuss them on the talk page

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 08:26, 15 February 2023

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I need to report TrangaBellam behavior regarding the Naliboki massacre article and its talk page. To keep it brief. There has been a discussion for some time about the content of one of the sections. TrangaBellam not engaging in the discussion did change the section title, I reverted it inviting user to join the discussion. Twice. Then the user made a much larger edition, which I also reverted, invoking the WP:BRD method and inviting to discussion. It started WP:EDITWARRING. Afraid of breaking the WP:3RR rule, I withdrew the last one, asking TrangaBellam to voluntarily withdraw from the changes and join the ongoing discussions. TrangaBellam ignored the ongoing discussions and started new ones, in which he acted as if they were new WP:CONSENSUS. He refused to revert the changes and continue to editing discussed section ingoring my pleas to stop doing so. TrangaBellam accused me of "engaging in a fair amount of acrobatics to push a particular ahistorical POV", without claryfing what he means about that. To me, this is an example of WP:DISRUPTIVE, as expressed on WP:CONSENSUS: Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. The way he acts and the way he addresses me leads me to believe that his actions are intended to make me break WP:3RR and receive sanctions as a result. I asked him nicely to start over on his talk page without any bad blood. But TrangaBellam and once he said on Talk:Naliboki massacre: "I plan to ignore your commentary on the meta-issues", I decided to aks admins for help.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

21:55, 2 March 2023

Discussion concerning TrangaBellam

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

Statement by TrangaBellam

Paging Levivich, Adoring nanny, K.e.coffman, Gitz6666, Horse Eye's Back and GizzyCatBella — the other participants in this discussion, article (today), and the ANI thread. I believe their opinion might be of aid. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, I do not plan to partake in this AE thread. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Making an exception for My Very Best Wishes. MVBW, who had reverted my bold edit at the first place for BRD to even come into play? Fwiw, as of now, there is clear consensus in my favor; none barring you — I believe, even VM — propose to restore the deleted section. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paging Adoring nanny because the previous ping failed due to a typo. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by K.e.coffman

I'm not sure that my voice was ignored, and all of my edits were removed diff is a sufficient reason to open ANI and AE threads. For the preceding ANI, pls see: thread. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that My very best wishes may be misinterpreting the discussion at Talk:Kielce pogrom, in their statement. TrangaBellam's bold edit removed a long-standing dubious theory diff, with the content mixing reliable and unreliable sources to advance a certain POV. I did not see editors suggesting that the section be restored in its entirety. Subsequent discussion also showed that some of the reliable sources were misrepresented: [4], starting with: With regard to the discussion on Anne Applebaum here above, note that she has been selectively quoted if not misunderstood in the article... --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

I noticed that TrangaBellam also made this large-scale removal of sourced text on another page, during an active discussion on article talk page, but without having any sign of WP:Consensus for such removal [5],[6]. This text was sourced to publications by Jan T. Gross, Ann Applebaum, Tadeusz Piotrowski and Aleksander Wat, among many others. None of these authors belong to fringe Polish nationalists. The views by authors were not misrepresented on the page, as far as I can see. I think such removal was unhelpful for building WP:Consensus on the page. But this does not rise to the level requiring any sanctions, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman. No, I believe the view by Applebaum was not misrepresented by not citing everything she said. If the contributor thought the citation was incomplete [7], nothing prevented them from expanding this citation to fix the problem. And what bias? "anti-NKVD"? My very best wishes (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gitz

Marcelus complains that [TrangaBellam] refused to revert the changes and continue to editing discussed section ingoring my pleas to stop doing so, but everyone who commented on the talk page agreed that TrangaBellam's edits were an improvement (Adoring nanny [8][9], K.e.coffman [10] and myself) and no one (apart from Marcelus) reverted them. They complain that TrangaBellam ignored the ongoing discussions and started new ones, but TrangaBellam engaged in extensive discussions with Marcelus and repeatedly asked them to explain their objections: no less than six times (!) from 13:50, 2 March 2023 to 17:55, 2 March 2023. Marcelus didn't want TrangaBellam to remove this text of theirs [11] mentioning Nowicki and Boradyn and lending some credibility to the fringe theory that the Jews perpetrated the Naliboki massacre. Most of Marcelus's editing is aimed at substantiating that theory. See e.g. this edit [12] reverting my revert [13] of his bold edit on Jewish partisans active in the Naliboki area; see their comment on t/p about that fringe theory being an accepted course of events in historical literature rather than some figment of the imagination of a few crazy nationalists from the Canadian Polish Congress [14].

This is not only a content dispute. First, it's a blatant case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, with Marcelus ignoring the arguments made by other editors. Secondly, Marcelus violated the 3RR (13:50, 2 March 2023; 13:37, 2 March 2023; 12:03, 2 March 2023; 11:56, 2 March 2023‎), engaged in disruptive/tendentious editing ([15], reverting my revert [16][17] of this text on Nowicki and Boradyn; [18], unexplained removal, not accounted for in the edit summary, of right-wing organisation ... wrongly claimed that), bludgeoned the talk page and was uncivil to me and others. My request to self-revert on their user talk page triggered an extensive discussion to no avail: Undoing your baseless revert is not edit warring (where do you see WP:UNDUE?). I find threatening me with a noticeboard report rather petty [19]. Their casting aspersion on article t/p ([20] [21]) was followed by my second thread on their user talk, again to no avail: Spare me the paternalistic tone [22]. Finally, the same behaviour is displayed at History of the Jews in Poland, where Marcelus builds walls of text to demonstrate that two high quality sources (academically focused books) are mistaken: I think I've convincingly shown the source to be wrong on this matter [23], I don't know why you insist on what is an obvious mistake by Rozenbaum, repeated by Prizel [24]; plus the usuala bit of incivility [25].

I believe WP:BOOMERANG is in order and badly needed in the delicate area of Antisemitism in Poland. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Marcelus

I am responding to the accusations made by Gitz. Gitz presents the situation in an extremely dishonest way. It all started with the removal of an entire section by Adoring nanny (22:03, 21 February 2023), which I reverted with comment (22:05, 21 February 2023): Such massive removal of content need to be discussed on a talk page. And at this point the discussion began. Meanwhile I was trying to complete the factography of the event itself by finding and citing sources (13:17, 26 February 2023).

At one point I did a major edit in which, based on sources, I described the fate of two Jewish partisan units that were based near Naliboki, to give context as to why the allegations in the case of one of them (Bielski) are unbelievable, and in the case of the other (Zorin) highly unlikely (13:45, 28 February 2023). Gitz started undoing my changes, I restored them with the encouragement to take up the discussion on the talk page. The response was to refer to the WP:BRD method on my talk page. Reluctantly, but I agreed to their terms and did not undo their edits, instead we started a discussion on the article's talk page. The situation basically repeated itself with my next major edit, in which following the sources provided information on when the allegations of Bielski partisans involvement in the massacre came about (11:27, 1 March 2022) - reference to Nowicki's memoirs.

Gitz now says that: Marcelus didn't want TrangaBellam to remove this text of theirs mentioning Nowicki and Boradyn and lending some credibility to the fringe theory that the Jews perpetrated the Naliboki massacre. Most of Marcelus's editing is aimed at substantiating that theory. See e.g. this edit reverting my revert of their bold edit on Jewish partisans active in the Naliboki area; see their comment on t/p about that fringe theory being an accepted course of events in historical literature rather than some figment of the imagination of a few crazy nationalists from the Canadian Polish Congress.

But they are ignoring the fact that after TrangaBellam's changes the mention of Nowicki remained (in conversation with me Gitz consistently demanded that it be hidden in a footnote) they didn't voice any concerns towards TrangaBellam. The implication is that if I make the change then I am promoting fringe theory and my changes must be reverted, but when TrangaBellam does it this is not happening. You can see a certain pattern of action here, that Gitz reacts allergically to my changes, demands their removal, which obviously causes me frustration. And Gitz reacts to TrangaBellam's changes, which are much more intrusive (TrangaBellam interfere with the text being discussed) in a completely different way, accepting them in principle without any major objections. My requests to use the WP:BRD method towards changes made by TrangaBellam (which was applied to my changes) have been consistently ignored by both users. In both users behaviour I see an intention to cause me frustration as a result of which I will break the WP:3RR rule and be punished for it (Gitz now counts all my reverts, ignoring the situation in which they occurred).

As for the accusation of promoting fringe theory, it is as unfounded as hurtful to me personally, because I put a lot of effort into finding sources and adding the best possible content to Wikipedia. Gitz's comment see their comment on t/p about that fringe theory being an accepted course of events in historical literature rather than some figment of the imagination of a few crazy nationalists from the Canadian Polish Congress is a manipulation of my statement. My point was that the allegations of Bielski partisans involvement appeared in 1993 and were basically accepted as correct until the IPN investigation in the 2000s that showed that this was in fact not even so much a fringe theory as simply untrue. The Polish Canadian Congress only picked it up and made huge deal out of it. I even added (15:15, 2 March 2023) information about how the Catholic-right-wing Nasz Dziennik used Naliboki in its narrative to counter the narrative about Jedwabne Pogrom. Why would I do this if my intention was to promote this fringe theory?

Gitz is also saying Finally, the same behaviour is displayed at History of the Jews in Poland, where Marcelus builds walls of text to demonstrate that two high quality sources (academically focused books) are mistaken; It's not true. I encourage you to read this long discussion. In short, using a number of high-quality sources, I proved that the original source of the information in the article made a mistake. (This discussion is a good example of bludgeoing and WP:NOTGETTINGIT on Gitz part btw). I have spent too much time on this and checked too many sources to allow myself to be maligned in this way.

At this point, Gitz accuses me of "ignoring the arguments made by other", but anyone who reads the discussion will see that before the changes made by TrangBellam, I was responding to all comments and trying to compromise. It was only after ignoring my requests to undo the invasive changes to the text that was being discussed (WP:BRD) made by TrangBellam and acting as their changes where the new arbitrary established WP:CONSENSUS I changed my attitude. And refused to participate in the new discussion TrangBellam was starting, ignoring the ongoing discussions. I wasn't perfect, but I acted in good faith all the time, I was open to the comments of other editors, I did everything to make the article as good as possible, based on the best sources.Marcelus (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

Without remarking on the already carried forward disturbing factors of TrangaBellam's behaviour, I would like to draw the attention of the reviewing administrators to the serious incivility issues..

• personal attacks + aspersions - Piotrus, if you find that there are reliable historians — though I doubt that you understand the term — who admire Glaukopis, feel free to add them. But otherwise, I take a dim view of your shenanigans

and refusal to refactor that personal attack with straight No When asked about the same, my appeal was reverted with the accusations of trolling [26] (see edit summary]

Here is the list of incivility - that is just from the last few days:

• accusation of bad faith
• accusation of bad faith and battleground edit summary
• battleground
• battleground and aspersions
• battleground and taunting
• two personal attacks and aspersions
  • Then they repost the same statement as a response rather than addressing concern [27] IDIDNTHEARTHAT
• WP:OWN
• battleground with intentional condescension
• aspersions See edit summary
• aspersions and battleground
• insinuates other user didn’t read sources
• incivility and battleground in response to a request to refactor personal attacks
• personal attack and accusation of “trolling”
  • warned by an administrator
  • more personal attacks
  • more personal attacks and aspersions even after being warned
  • battleground
• BLP
• canvassing
• battleground
• incivility and condescension
• battleground
• BLP violation
• either a BLP violation or personal attacks against editors (“fringe crackpots”)
• battleground
• battleground, WP:OWN, incivility
• incivility and battleground, discussing editors not content
• aspersions and assuming bad faith
• aspersions, discussing editors not content
• battleground - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning TrangaBellam

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

• The rules above read (in bold): Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs. I count +1,500 words by Marcelus and and 40+ diffs by GizzyCatBella. Both need to be trimmed accordingly. Also adding to the confusion, Marcelus has split sections for some reason. These need to be merged (at the top). Note: I'm unlikely to follow up on this, so no need to ping me. El_C 11:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]