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 Mhorg

Discussion concerning Mhorg

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 Mhorg

Dear colleagues, unfortunately I have to defend myself against the slanders that are part of a WP:Battleground mentality that MVBW has never definitively abandoned, such as when years ago (he was called User:Biophys) was part of a political 'battle squad' that coordinated off-wiki[65] with a mailing list to fight his 'enemies'.

This AE request comes after MVBW:

• Was warned by an admin for WP:WIKIHOUNDING against me[66] together with User:Nicoljaus, who was Tbanned instead.[67]
• Made an absurd and inconcludent SPI against me and other 5 users (they were all users with whom he clashed in discussions).[68] Note that Nicoljaus, after 3 months of inactivity,[69] intervenes in the SPI against me (perhaps warned by MVBW off-wiki?).[70]
• Was warned by an admin for massively removing sourced content[71], while he was trying to get M.Bitton sanctioned with his little games. My comment was crucial, and since that day he has become increasingly aggressive.[72].
• From then on he started again to check my contributions daily, WP:FOLLOWING me from article to article (I make a list here of all the times he has recently intervened in articles, in which he never made a single contribution before, because I already deal with the user on dozens of articles):

[73],[74],[75],[76],[77],[78][79] and started to meddle in talk pages with other users again.[80] I would like to recall that he had been warned by @El C: precisely because he had intruded on my talk page by replying to users asking for things from me.[81] The user now writes I asked El_C, and he responded that it is OK to interact with Mhorg, does "interacting with users" mean checking their contributions daily and constantly intervening in the articles? Is it normal that this user is constantly breathing down my neck?

- "It was rather Mhorg who followed my edits." At this point I ask for the intervention of an administrator who maybe can check whether I searched the history of his contributions and then went directly to that edit. This user systematically lies, in fact, as I have already explained, I had gone to Zelensky's article precisely to ask the question.[82] Before asking that question I looked at the history of the article and found its usual removal with sources. As I wrote to El_C, I have no pleasure in interacting with MVBW, I have always tried to keep contact to a minimum. Please, some administrator check this out and save me from this hell of lies.[83]

Notice how the user tries to hide his previous comments in which he said "Mhorg makes it clear that he specifically targets my edits (same on a number of other pages)".[84] Yes, the user can only talk about that Zelensky case, and I am sure that if an administrator can check how I arrived at that article, they will find that I did not do so by searching MVBW's contributions. I repeat: I am not that kind of user, the only times I check MVBW's history I do so to AVOID him, not to FOLLOW him.

• Blatantly violated an RFC verdict (in which he himself participated) by removing one of my reverts (I was just trying to enforce the verdict on other users.[85]). I point this out to him,[86] and instead of apologising he lies:[87] "That change was made not by me, but by another contributor who edited just before. I started from editing his version.": FALSE.
• "Mhorg say Reverting stealth deletion with deceiving edit summary by user My very best wishes ... Mhorg does not even check what he is doing, he is just making an unsubstantiated accusation in edit summary." this was his edit summary:[88] "fixing and removing the tag. These sources are good enough, except they do not say "war crimes"" instead he removed this part of text "A report from January 2015 stated that a Donetsk Republic supporter was detained and tortured with electricity and waterboarding and struck repeatedly on his genitals, which resulted in his confessing to spying for pro-Russian militants.". Shouldn't he have written that he was removing this part and summarising other parts of the text?

I ask you for the opportunity to exceed 500 words so that I can fully defend myself against this user, who has practically harassed me on every possible occasion in recent days:

Denisova - (list of the sourced accusations against her:[89])

1. That part was inserted by user Cononsense (with another source).[90] And MVBW knows it very well, because he deleted that part.[91] Unfortunately he has a habit of removing massive chunks of text, or heavily altering the content, to make it difficult for other users to edit. To see how I had organised that section (later disrupted by MVBW), read here the Frolov part.[92]

1a. Mhorg can not blame another contributor: Mystification, I did not accuse Cononsense (also read my edit summary[93]). Instead, I restored their stuff but the source was lost in the process, thanks to MVBW's mass removals and manipulations.

2. I opened a discussion to talk about this.[94] Perhaps the user intends to resolve it by means of an AE Request?

3. As I have shown in point #1 (all material removed from MVBW) Denisova has been accused by members of parliament, journalists, academics, of being highly unreliable with her rape reports. Somehow we will have to deal with her statements, either by deleting them, giving them less weight, or adding parts of text explaining to the reader what happened. MVBW, on the other hand, would like to minimise everything.

4. Yes, I still think that any statement she made should be grouped in a section to give the reader important information about the accusations made against her.

Other

5. MVBW speaks of 'A highly damaging claim', yet the same politician wrote: "the writer argued that human races are divided into higher and lower. He considered the White race to be the highest, and Neanderthals, N_gro_s, and Papuans to be the "lowest." Other races occupied an intermediate position. According to Frank, the "lower races" first differed from the monkeys. And from them ("lower races") stood out higher, more perfect forms. By the way, in modern science, this is one of the main hypotheses of anthropogenesis. [...] I would like to wish our "real" friends to read "uncircumcised" censored classics."?[95] But if you want to know more:[96]

6. Mystification. I was just saying that for both cases the importance was zero. I never included that part in Zelensky's article, and in fact for me that nonsense should be avoided for both presidents.

Additional comments

1. Resolved on talk page by consensus. Thank you for showing how mystifying you can be.[97]

2. They were all edits without source\motivation by anonymous users. What would you be insinuating? That I shouldn't have reverted them?[98]

Answer to TyrelBurden

1. Mhorg was a strong advocate of the Azov Regiment being described in Wikivoice as a ″Neo-Nazi″, defined in that way in a large and very participative RFC. At least 17 users voted as I did, many of whom cited my argument as valid.

2. They would use questionable at best tactics such as striking an RFC option, this is our discussion on that fact.[99] I simply did not know the rule.

3. Each of my contributions is supported by sources. As for the accusation of POV, I can say the exact opposite of you and MVBW, but that is not why I would have asked for a TBAN.

Answer to Dennis Brown

@Dennis Brown: may I ask you which part you think was manipulation? Maybe I can try to give you an explanation. Thank you.

I hope with all my heart that other users who have had a bad experience with MVBW will intervene in this AE request.

Dennis Brown Please, I have to ask you a second time, since you are requesting a ban on the topics on which I have the most expertise, can I ask you at least specifically which of my contributions seem problematic to you? I would like to remind you that I have participated assiduously in all democratic processes (I spent hours and hours in discussions, RFCs, so on) and always acted with the consensus of other users. I have always acted having (ALWAYS) sources behind me (maybe I need to learn to use the term "alleged" in discussions, as Drmies suggested, but be aware that English is not my first language). Is it possible that there is a need to ban me in this way when the user who opened this AE Request is even allowed to make unsourced, biased and forum comments like this[100]?--Mhorg (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul Siebert

First of all, let me quote these words

I think this is a typical pattern of someone providing a lot of diffs produced during tense discussions in a hope that at least some of them (or so many of them) will be viewed as incriminating.

Below, I am going to demonstrate that these MVBW's words perfectly describe his own behaviour.

Thus, the evidence #6 is the talk page post, where Mhorg says that this type information should NOT be added to the article. IMO the only idea this evidence demonstrates is that MVBW is following the above described tactics in an attempt to eat up the defendant's 500 words limit and to link his name with highly discredited "Russia Today".

Next, the evidence #5. The ostensibly "highly damaging claim" was supported by three reliable sources, the Guardian article and two books, each of which have been widely cited by peers ([101], [102]), so each of them are without any doubts RS. In contrast, the text removed by Mhorg was supported by Ulmand, who writes:

"Bilets’kyy asserted that he had not written the articles to which Hromadske referred, and admitted that only his video and audio statements, available on the world wide web, were genuine. The racist texts under his name were, according to Bilets’kyy, fabricated by Russian propaganda, in early summer 2014 when Azov was starting to take shape. However, it is inconceivable that Likhachev, as a highly experienced researcher of the post-Soviet far right, would have reproduced the above quotes on his blog, without being certain of their genuine nature. Bilets’skyy’s outspoken rejection of his racist statements and their association with Russia’s information either were an expression of cognitive dissonance or were designed to cover his pre-Euromaydan political biography." (the colored text was not included into the article).

In other words, the text removed by Mhorg contained a very selectively cited source (Umland), whose main idea was totally misinterpreted. That means, Mhorg just fixed a blatant misinterpretation of the good source (Umland), thereby improving the artilce.

I can perform the same analysis of other evidences, but the 500 word limit does not allow me to do that. I would like to to point out the following.

Dennis Brown, hasn't specified which sources he looked at, so it is hard to me to comment on concrete examples of misinterpretation. However, it is necessary to discriminate between the text written by Mhorg and the text that was written by others and restored by Mhorg. Clearly, it is a big difference between non-critical restoration of someone else's wrong text and writing misinterpretations by themselves. I suggest to look more carefully on the diffs and to verify who exactly wrote each piece of the problematic text, who deserves a real topic ban, and who needs just a warning.

Similarly, regarding the evidence #2, the statement added by Mhorg seems quite relevant. The style of each edit is uniform: to the text saying that Denisova made a clam X, Mhorg adds that some politicians criticized Denisova for that claim. This criticism refers to the claim made by Denisova, and that claim is the very same claim that is presented in each of those articles. How can that be seen as "irrelevant"?

Frankly, I strongly recommend admins to carefully examine other evidences presented by MVBW, for virtually every statement made by this user may be problematic. As an example, I can provide this recent diff: [103] this user has removed three good sources, that were added by Mhorg previously [104]. MVBW claims these sources were SPS, but that is a lie: one source is a conference paper authored by an expert in the field, another one is a peer-reviewed publication cited 33 times, and the last one is the book cited 108 times. By removing this text, MVBW removed information about murder of Jews and of gentile 3000 civilian during WWII. Denial of the participation of some nationals in the Holocaust is considered as one of the forms of the Holocaust denial. Ironically, that was represented as an attempt to improve the Holocaust related article.

In connection to that, I have a question: if relatively minor misinterpretations made (or ostensibly made) by Mhorg, deserve a topic ban, what should be an adequate reaction on MVBW's misleading statements and removal of the information about the Holocaust made under deceptive edit summaries?

I fully understand that accusations of misbehaviour that lack evidences may be considered as a personal attack, and I declare that I do have enough evidences that support my general claim about MVBW's behaviour. I am ready to present them upon a request, but I cannot do that here, for they do not fit the 500 word limit.

In summary, I strongly suggest BOOMERANG.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my intention to go into the details of the situation around modern Ukrainian Nazi (and I even cannot tell for sure if they are real or perceived Nazi). In my opinion, during the ongoing war this topic should be edited very carefully (I prefer to to edit it at all). However, two facts seems obvious and non-questionable.

1. Many WWII time Ukrainian nationalists had strong ties with German Nazism, and they were active Holocaust perpetrators. Some modern Ukrainian nationalists consider WWII time Nazi collaborators and Holocaust perpetrators as "founding fathers" of Ukrainian statehood, and they expressed racist ideas.

2. Currently, many Ukrainian nationalists are fighting for freedom and independence of their country against Putin's invasion, and it is unclear to which extent they still support ideas of Nazism (if support at all).

Clearly, any user who is editing in the Ukraine related area must do that very cautiously to avoid focusing too much on the first or the second aspect. And if we topic ban the users pushing just one of above described aspects (those who tries to emphasize the linkage of Ukrainian nationalists with Nazi collaboration, Holocaust ct=rimes and racism, or those who is trying to deemphasize such a linkage beyond any reasonable limits, thereby whitewashing real crimes and denying the Holocaust), we introduce a strong bias into this very controversial area.

It cannot rule out a possibility that Mhorg's editorial style is strongly biased. I myself think we all should minimize editing this topic during the war, and do that only if that is absolutely necessary (and that is why I stopped editing). However, I do not see any strong evidences of Mhorg's disruptive activity in the evidences provided by MVBW. --Paul Siebert (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TylerBurden

I have never commented on this page, but everything I have seen from Mhorg lines up with the concern that there is too much political motivation and bias at play with their edits. Mhorg was a strong advocate of the Azov Regiment being described in Wikivoice as a ″Neo-Nazi″ battalion(at the time, now called regiment) despite confliction amongst reliable sources which in my brief time on this site was the biggest and most blatant WP:NPOV mess I have seen. They would use questionable at best tactics such as striking an RFC option that unrelated people had voiced support for because the OP had been blocked afterwards to support this cause. They owed up to it on their talk page when it was called out, which is fair enough, but one only needs to take a look at their edit history to see that they spend most of their time on the site linking Ukranians with Nazism and other general anti-Ukranian POV edits. This would be one thing if they also made edits from the other perspective, but they don't. People who get in their way are accused of whitewashing 1 2. I agree that there is too much bias with this editor, and that they have an obvious POV that they are pushing above all others, Wikipedia is meant to be built on WP:NPOV and people like this are tearing that pillar down. Support topic ban. --TylerBurden (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Mhorg: Accusing me of being a POV pusher in response to me calling out your (obvious) WP:TENDENTIOUS editing is a rather weak retort. In that RfC, I voted for the option covering both Nazi past/allegations, but without stating it in Wikivoice. You voted for a WP:NPOV violation. I think that, along with our edit histories would show that I am nothing like you. My frank opinion is that you're not here to build an encyclopedia, maybe you were at some point, but your mission here now is to push agendas and you're willing to use dirty tactics to do it, as seen by your misrepresentations and other antics. That's all I have to say about this. TylerBurden (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

Normally I don't edit in this area, I accidentally ended up involved in the Azov battalion saga and interacting with some of the editors there. Mhorg has very forthright opinions but from my limited experience, he is not alone in that, there are those with equally strong opinions on the other side of the (Ukranian) fence, so to speak, things get heated from time to time. A warning to dial it back is certainly in order, any repetition, go to jail, do not pass go. Selfstudier (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should be clarified at this point that Michael Colborne, From the Fires of War: Ukraine's Azov Movement and the Global Far Right is not a self published book but is published by ibidem. In fact, I was taken to task over this issue myself. Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pravega

Tyler Burden's claim that Mhorg should be topic banned because he wanted to retain status quo on Azov Regiment by retaining "neo-nazi" in wikivoice is absurd. Even the RfC closure noted that such a view "received the most !votes, both in favor and against it".[105]

What I have seen until now is that Mhorg is in fact doing a great job with his editing and MVBW is causing disruption. I am describing all of that with proper diffs about the disputes where both MVBW and Mhorg were involved very recently.

1. A very good example of POV pushing, WP:IDHT and WP:STONEWALLING by MVBW is on display at Talk:Alexei Navalny#Proposed addition to "Political position" section where he is trying to reject reliably sourced content without citing a policy-based reason. After he failed to justify his content removal, he asks "Why discuss it now?"

2. MVBW made the above responses only after he failed to turn BLPN against his opponents at Talk:Alexei Navalny. On BLPN he brings the issue as if editors were committing BLP violation and he is misrepresenting me, mhorg, and other editors to be engaging in an "effort to misrepresent Navalny as a far-right ultranationalist." An uninvolved editor, Curbon7, noted there "I think you're misreading the room." Note that none of the participants were ever notified of the discussion as required by either informing in the existing talk page section or starting a new section to notify editors. This BLPN displays WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of MVBW.

3. MVBW's unnecessary edit warring to whitewash Alexie Navalny which is on 1RR.[106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114] MVBW is falsely claiming to have "consensus" by citing an RfC that was closed for being impractical with regards to the fate of the content. Only 2 users: MVBW and Alaexis are opposed to the content while 5 other editors (including this one) are in support and/or have no issue.[115]

4. Again, false claims of BLP violation on Alexei Navalny by MVBW. No users could find any "BLP violation" and MVBW after seeing lots of opposition himself tries to wiggle out by saying "If no one else thinks that was a BLP problem, let it stay."[116]

5. MVBW cites 100% correct edits by Mhorg above about Sparta Battalion (Mhorg was following WP:BRD to remove fake news promoting sources per consensus) but MVBW omits that he was violating WP:BLP by adding fake news sources (meawww) getting their information from WP:DAILYMAIL to Vladimir Zhoga on that same day by falsely claiming him to be a Nazi.[117]

6. Edit warring at Azov Regiment by trying a new edit every time.[118][119]

7. Back-to-back removal of highly acclaimed scholars such as Richard Sakwa, Stephen F. Cohen on Far-right politics in Ukraine and falsely claiming to have consensus on talk page to remove long-standing content.[120][121][122]

In all of the above disputes, Mhorg is the one complying with WP:BRD and WP:CON, while MVWB is engaging in clear misrepresentation of sources, rampant edit warring against consensus, false claims of gaining consensus, WP:IDHT and battleground mentality. I am also citing WP:CIR with regards to MVWB due to claims of BLP violation when none exists. So Dennis Brown, if anyone deserves a topic ban then that is MVWB for disruptive editing and making this report only to get rid of a far more sensible opponent in a content dispute.❯❯❯Pravega ^g=9.8 15:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gitz6666

With regard to MVBW's point N° 2, "placing negative claims about Denisova to multiple pages where such claims do not belong", I beg to disagree. I think that here Mhorg was trying to address a real issue of verifiability which was not created by them.
Some editors, no doubt in good faith, have spread along multiple articles the information that 25 girls between the ages of 14 to 24 were held captive in a basement in Bucha, they were repeatedly raped by Russian soldiers and nine of them became pregnant. The only source of this information is Denisova, who said that she got it from a telephone helpline service (BBC). At the beginning of April, this information was reported by The New York Times and BBC, amongst others; with different wordings and more or less details, it was published in our articles War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Bucha massacre and Wartime sexual violence. I myself had to start a discussion at RSN to understand whether Denisova's declarations, as reported by Daily Beast and Yahoo News, constituted a reliable source with regard to the alleged raping and killing of a 1-year-old infant in Ukraine, two 10-year-old boys, triplets aged 9, a 2-year-old girl raped by two Russian soldiers, and a 9-month-old baby who was raped in front of his mother, according to Denisova.
The point I'd like to make is the following: Denisova is no longer, and probably has never been, a sufficiently reliable source for the purposes of inclusion of contents related to sex crimes involving minors in the context of the war in Ukraine. She had been accused of making […] unverifiable statements about alleged Russian sex crimes (Wall Street Journal) and some of these accounts [sexually motivated crimes described in gratuitous detail] had not been verified (Deutsche Welle). So I think that those statements and accounts by her do not pass the threshold of WP:V. However, the editor who opened this request for enforcement thinks differently, and until today they have been arguing tenaciously that Denisova's statements continue to be verifiable enough for the purposes of inclusion: e.g., 21:47, 21 June 2022, 00:37, 25 June 2022, 15:07, 25 June 2022.
My argument is: Mhorg was addressing a real issue there. If we keep Denisova's declarations, then we need to offer the reader some elements for assessing their (lack of) reliability. My preferred solution would be to remove Denisova's declarations entirely from articles dealing with war crimes, but that's a matter of contents; with regard to the case at hand, I think that MVBW's point N° 2 is not convincing at all and that Mhorg's edits can be seen as good-faith attempts to address a serious verifiability issue that other editors (MVBW included) had created.

Statement by François Robere

I'm not involved in the TA, but am familiar with the participants from a related one. A few days ago Mhorg approached me to evaluate a few sources that the filer claimed were SPS;[123] I determined that they were not. They similarly approached Paul Siebert, who came to the same conclusion.

Relying on Siebert's analysis and Mhorg's explanations, it does not seem to me that they have acted substantially different from many other opinionated editors who are not sanctioned by broad T-bans. I do not condone POV-pushing of any kind, but it should be said in Mhorg's defense that they have followed content guidelines, repeatedly sought outside input, have not broken 1RR or 3RR, and have not tried to circumvent consensus. If that's the new standard for banning editors, then I've a long list of them I'd like this panel to meet. François Robere (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

Sorry to be that guy again, guys, but...

@Drmies: I think you're WP:INVOLVED here due to edits like this (partially reverted by Mhorg) and !voting/commenting in an AFD. I don't think an admin can have a content dispute with an editor and then !vote to topic-ban that editor at AE. You should be commenting "above the line" here, in the involved section.

@Dennis Brown: I think you owe Mhorg an answer to their questions about what, exactly, is the basis for your wanting a topic ban. Saying, as you did below, I checked several sources, translated, and it does seem pretty clear that Mhorg is misrepresenting the sources, exaggerating the claims against Denisova., without specifying which sources you checked, and then saying Mhorg, I'm not going to give a blow by blow report on all your edits, that's not the goal here. We aren't a court, we aren't here to met out justice, we are here to find solutions. is unfair. We're not a court of law, but we still believe in transparency, so please be transparent about how you're arriving at your decision. After all, how does someone respond to an argument if they don't know what the argument is? I mean, it's possible that when you checked several sources, you made a mistake. We see here, for example, Drmies thought a particular source was self-published, but it wasn't, it's published by Ibidem--an error that was only caught because Drmies "showed his work". It's possible you, too, have made a mistake in your evaluation of sources, but we'll never know unless you "show us your work" and tell us exactly what sources were misrepresented and where.

I'm not saying this report doesn't have merit at all, by the way, but it should be processed fairly, and I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle, as usual. Levivich^[block] 16:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Not just involved with Mhorg, involved in the content area. Do I need to quote WP:INVOLVED and bold the relevant part?

In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

You've been involved in disputes on this topic. You can't edit articles in a topic area and then also comment as an uninvolved admin at AE -- and especially when the editor you're commenting on is on the "other side" of a content dispute (or multiple content disputes). You can have your say, of course, but come on up here and join us in the involved section. Levivich^[block] 17:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Reconsider. Mhorg's edits to Andriy Biletsky are #5 on the OP's list in this AE complaint. Here is Mhorg adding "Word of the White Leader" brochure to Andriy Biletsky's article. Here is you removing it from the article (based on the incorrect assertion that the source is unreliable; in fact it's published by a university press). Here is Mhorg partially restoring it. Here is you arguing (incorrectly) with Mhorg on the article talk page that the source for the content, "From the Fires of War" is self-published; in fact it's published by Ibidem, a Columbia University Press imprint. Finally, here is you, in the uninvolved admin section of this AE thread, mentioning this same content dispute about "The Word of the White Leader", and calling for a topic ban. This is involved; it's not even a close call. You are directly involved in the content dispute regarding Andriy Biletsky and "Word of the White Leader", and it's a content dispute you were involved in with Mhorg, not some other editor. You cannot participate as an uninvolved admin here, or any AE thread about Andriy Biletsky or "Word of the White Leader" (or anything else where you've been involved in a content dispute). And if you do, you're going to give Mhorg a reason to appeal any sanction that comes out of this AE. So save us all the trouble of having to deal with that later, and please move your comments up to a separate section here in the non-admin/involved section. Thanks, Levivich^[block] 00:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I noticed that when Drmies incorrectly claimed that a source was self-published when it wasn't, nobody accused Drmies of "misrepresenting a source", because it was an innocent mistake. Just food for thought. Levivich^[block] 01:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MVBW: As I said, I am not suggesting this report is without merit. I'm only suggesting Drmies is involved (and Dennis should specify what he's referring to when he says he checked and Mhorg misrepresented sources). I'm not suggesting that Mhorg didn't misrepresent sources... but there's a little bit of a mix here. For example, Drmies brought up using a self-published source, and it's not self-published, it's important we're clear that this is not an example of misrepresenting a source or being disruptive. Sure there are other examples (and, indeed, "#5" is just one among several examples), but the reviewing admin should be specific about why they're TBANing someone. (And they should do it without violating WP:INVOLVED.) Levivich^[block] 01:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Apparently this is something that needs to be pointed out explicitly: there's a HUUUGGGEEE difference between the statement "person X's comments have not been verified" (what the sources say in this case) and "person X is spreading lies" (what Mhorg kept writing [124] [125]) The latter one is a 100% crystal clear BLPVIO and it's noteworthy that Mhorg kept making these kinds of statements even after it was repeatedly pointed out to them these were BLPVBIOs [126]. That actually makes this even more than just WP:BLP vio but also WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:NOTHERE.

I hope that address Francois Robere's pretty strange assertion that, quote, "it should be said in Mhorg's defense that they have followed content guidelines". Obviously they DID NOT follow content guidelines or policies, particularly BLP, but willfully violated them despite multiple warnings.

BTW, if I'm not mistaken these two diffs of BLPvios [127] and [128] are NOT in MVBWs report and so are ADDITIONAL evidence of problems with Mhorg, on top of the evidence presented by MVBW. Volunteer Marek 23:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elinruby

I noticed this thread after someone suggested at the related complaint by Gitz6666 against Volunteer Marek that those matters should be brought here, and, if I understood correctly, as a boomerang. When I came here to see if they had, I found this thread, which is, as I mentioned, related. I have also edited some of these topics and while I am very preoccupied in real life, I have given a fair amount of thought to Mhorg.

I first encountered him at the very toxic Azov Battalion page, where I attempted to remedy the very misleading references for calling the group “neo-Nazi” in Wikivoice. [129] (also see Police in Belarus as an authority on Ukrainian military further down the same archive page).

I have carefully read the complaint above and these misleading references do not appear to have been mentioned here yet. Mhorg was, quite recently, reverting to reinstate a quite similar article in The Nation which also refers, once only, to the unit as Neo-Nazi, in an article about a line item in the US military budget.

Yes, there was an RfC about the appellation, about which much could be said, but my point is here and now is that I think that Mhorg sincerely believes that if a publication is on the list of Perennial Sources, and contains the words “Neo-Nazi” that this is proof of his point. This is my best attempt at AGF, and it may in fact be accurate. He frequently notes in his edit summaries that a source is on this list.

I gave up trying to improve the references at Azov Battalion after I featured in a lengthy thread at ANI in which I was accused of many things. I do not claim to have been altogether blameless —I should have translated off-wiki, for one thing, but I usually don’t. But then the topics of my translations are not usually so toxic. And yes I probably was a bit scathing. Let’s just say the ANI complaint came to nothing and I would prefer not to express my opinion of the idea that multiple posts at RSN about multiple bad references is “forum shopping”. I only mention this in fairness, because Mhorg did say things about me there that I believe to have been untrue. However, I am trying very hard here to be fair and factual.

I do not think that Mhorg sees his own bias, and it is true that he does seem to make an effort to be collaborative. Perhaps with the wrong people? I am unsure. He seems to sincerely believe in the correctness of his actions, and says above that he still believes that Denisova should have her own personal Controversies section.

He is here in part because of BLP concerns with his edit summaries, yet was counseled about this almost a year ago here Tomasz Greniuch at RSN and argued (tenaciously) with Girth Summit who was trying to explain that having been photographed in his youth doing a Nazi salute is not sufficient reason to remove everything the man has written as a source, and in particular that calling him a neo-Nazi in an edit summary is a BLP violation. And yet he persisted: “Based on what I read, the person would appear to be identified by several sources as a right-wing nationalist in the present day. If so, I am convinced that any work by him should be excluded from Wikipedia.”

In Roman Protasevich [130]* he argues (tenaciously) for inclusion of a YouTube source of a possibly forced confession “no, RSs didn't say that he was tortured. BBC said that "Human rights and opposition campaigners say he was tortured." and the BBC specifies this: "A close-up of Mr Protasevich showed marks on his wrists, possibly from handcuffs".[11] And the "fact" that they were "forced" confessions always remains a speculation and not a fact.”

• Diff does not work for some reason, but the statement is still on the talk page, time stamped 14:28, 24 June 2021 -er

In [131] — another article I have never touched afaik —although it the article itself is not a BLP, MVBW raises legitimate BLP concerns.

Azov: Where to begin. The entire article needs massive admin attention. Perhaps they are all Neo-Nazis indeed. This should however be sourced. Mhorg has been part of the POV: [132] deleted link between neo-Nazi claim and its prominence in Russian disinformation. [133] “falsely justifying” -> “justifying” and “advertisement” -> “propaganda”.

I think Dennis Brown is correct in his assessment. I do not think a topic ban should be limited to Denisova however. Perhaps BLPs in general. I do not think he understands libel. Language issues are part of the problem but these problems are serious and he is not that new an editor. Elinruby (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

• First of all, I've had some interactions with Mhorg, all friendly, I believe. I'll note that my very first paragraph contains diffs and points to discussions that I was involved in (though those mostly involve a question of sourcing, in a discussion with another editor).
  I find #5 difficult particularly since the Colborne book was still the leading citation for the authorship of the "The Word of the White Leader" brochure--but that book is self-published and should not be used for such serious matters. But this was discussed on the talk page, and Mhorg seems to have accepted my removal of that text, so that's in the past as far as I am concerned.
  #6, and the diff provided, are problematic too--linking Zelenskyy to some Nazi resembles a smear campaign. But then, this was last month, and I am unwilling to single that out as sufficiant cause for a topic ban.
  If this was it, and since I've been involved in one of the articles, I think I'd just suggest some strong warning or something like that, particularly for the Zelenskyy test balloon. And as I mentioned I've interacted with Mhorg on this, and edited the article on Biletsky. But then there is the Denisova material, items #2 and #3, which I have not seen before AFAIK, and that's a(nother) BLP matter, but one where clearly Mhorg's very recent POV-guided edits smear someone's reputation across various articles. At the very least, Mhorg should, IMO, be topic banned from editing anything pertaining to Denisova. I'm sorry, Mhorg, but this cannot stand. Please note that I am sidestepping the issue of behavior toward other editors: that's too complicated for me to dive into now, and I prefer to focus more narrowly on the BLP aspects of this complaint. A topic ban from Denisova seems fair to me--plus something else: a strong, strong warning to NOT smear living people in edit summaries. Mhorg has a tendency to do that, dropping unnecessary commentary and references in the very edit summary, which makes it more difficult to clean up BLP violations--and I wonder if some of their edit summaries shouldn't be revdeleted. That tendency, to state things in Wikipedia's voice outside of article space, occurs on talk pages also. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selfstudier, please see this--which is what I based my judgment on, reached through a title search in Google Books clearly indicating Books on Demand, published Jan. 2022. I see now that there are hits for "idibem", an imprint (?) of Columbia UP, March 2022--that changes things considerably for the editing of the article. Thank you for that. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Pravega, the purpose of this AE thread is to investigate one set of complaints. Yes, BOOMERANG and all that, but you would have to make a very impressive cause if you wish to undermine the evidence for this case by arguing the one who filed it shouldn't be editing here. Either there is evidence against Mhorg or there isn't--whatever your complaint is about MVBW's editing you may file as a separate AE request. You have not, in fact, defended Mhorg here, unfortunately. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Levivich, I am not aware that I could have a content dispute with someone if they revert part of my edit. That would put an entirely different spin on a lot of things. And if I, in that edit, undid something by Mhorg, then I am not aware of that. And I'm sorry, but claiming that I am involved with Mhorg because we both commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azov Special Purpose Regiment is just ridiculous. For the record, I voted to redirect, Mhorg voted to delete. I thought it was a poorly written and poorly referenced bit of material, and Mhorg thought that the sourcing was potentially highly problematic--so we agreed. Did Mhorg and I get in conflict there? Did we even speak directly to each other? Drmies (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Levivich, it says "disputes on topics...". You turned that into "You can't edit articles in a topic area and then also comment as an uninvolved admin at AE", which is ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I considered moving this up, to an "editor's section", just to stop Levivich from complaining (it's a euphemism), but since Dennis has commented here in "my" thread that seems improper. The closing admin will know what to do, and I have more faith in that closing admin's judgment. Drmies (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Mhorg

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

• I checked several sources, translated, and it does seem pretty clear that Mhorg is misrepresenting the sources, exaggerating the claims against Denisova. Topic ban is likely the only solution. I can only guess, but my best guess is there is a serious bias at play here, one that Mhorg can't overcome and be neutral about in this topic area. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My stance hasn't changed, but I will ping El_C who is likely familiar, for a different perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted on my talk page, my interactions and actions wrt to these 2 disputants were over a year ago, events which I scarcely recollect (I've close literally tens and tens of AE reports during that time). As for the latest, I've reviewed little of anything, so am unable to opine at this time, one way or the other. El_C 20:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mhorg, I'm not going to give a blow by blow report on all your edits, that's not the goal here. We aren't a court, we aren't here to met out justice, we are here to find solutions. The fact that you "have the most expertise" in these areas might be part of the problem, as you tend to talk "at" other editors rather than "with" them, perhaps due to being convinced you think you already know all the right answers. The BLP violations alone are worthy of a topic ban of some sort, as it was more than a single instance. When contemplating a topic ban, the question I ask myself must be: is the area better with or without this individual participating? In this instance, I believe you are a net negative in the topic area. Unless another administrator changes my mind (which is always possible) in the next day or two, then that is the action I would take. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • [Dennis posted this as a response to my comments--Drmies] The Denisova posts were indeed core to why I believe a topic ban is required to restore neutrality to these articles, but I think a tban on just Denisova would be too narrow, as we are seeing questionable edits in the examples given that demonstrate an inability to stay neutral in discussion and edits. I would be more inclined to support a tban for "Ukrainian politics and wars since the year 2000". This would allow editing on history, geology, etc but keep them away from the problem areas where BLP violations are likely to keep happening. I can't really support anything less. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will get to this later. I wanted to leave open to hear opinions of other editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• To the person or persons who keeps emailing me about this case (I have not replied to any of these emails) — please stop. See my comment above. After one closes +50 AE reports in the course of a year, it isn't easy to remember individual cases. I don't have the time (or energy/stamina for that matter) to investigate this AE complaint, so I have nothing further to add atm, which is unlikely to change. Thanks. El_C 11:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The Denisova material is definitely problematic; we don't mess about with BLP issues, so a topic-ban simply referring to her should be the minimum action here, whether it needs to be wider is another question. Black Kite (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2022 (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.

Request concerning GizzyCatBella

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

GizzyCatBella (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:APLRS

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

1. 15 June 2022 - attempt to relitigate a previous APLRS-related closure;
2. 15 June 2022 - further insisting on overturning that closure;
3. 23 June 2022 - threat to remove + further insistence on non-reliability of previously-considered reliable source;
4. 23 June 2022 - more of the same; likely misunderstanding of underlying APLRS remedy;
5. 23 June 2022 - going again;
6. 23 June 2022 - and again;

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

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above: [134] - two blocks (both self-reverted, one technical) in August 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The Warsaw concentration camp returns again to the Arbitration Committee.

On 2 November 2021, GizzyCatBella challenged the usage of this source. GizzyCatBella properly challenged that article since it was non-scholarly and the user provided some sort of rationale other than the point of non-scholarship (in that case, the participation of banned Icewhiz). Acting on this challenge and given my interest in making that article as comprehensive as possible, I started what proved to be an acrimonious RfC three days later that later escalated to ArbCom. The RfC ultimately was closed with the following relevant point, that there is consensus that the Haaretz article used as a source for the footnote is reliable and, as such, WP:APLRS is satisfied.

In June, Jens Lallensack, who was not involved into any of the prior discussions, started the GA article review. GizzyCatBella stated in diff 1 that they don't want the reference to appear in there, without any qualifiers, if that was to be a GA, but ignored the request to refer the RfC to review. No policy I am aware of allows some sources for inferior articles but disallows for the others. The user repeatedly showed their will to challenge the closure and threatened to disregard it by removing the source in question (diff 3). They claim that the RfC closure said that since it is reliable as used in a footnote, it is not reliable anywhere else (likely due to the user's own opinion on it as unreliable), and suggested to go with an ArbCom clarification, or else challenge it again, which would be very likely burdensome for the community. [Another usage of that source is quoting from Jan Grabowski and Havi Dreifuss, both subject-matter scholars]. The user repeatedly said that multiple other sources available for the same content, but provided none to back up their point. The user seems generally to believe that whatever was not written by a historian is unreliable for the topic, which is not what APLRS says.

GizzyCatBella additionally threatened to challenge two videos from YouTube, one being a France24 report, and the other being an Israeli TV interview with Gideon Greif, a subject-matter expert on the Holocaust, without stating any problem other than being YouTube videos (WP:SQSAVOID obliges the reverts have a "clear substantive explanation", which the user avoided to share so far despite being asked to do so).

I ask the admins to instruct the user to comply with the closure, order the editor to stop abusing APLRS as a way to automatically remove any reference without explanation, and otherwise stop the uncooperative and combattive behaviour.

I request 200 more words for replies. TonyBallioni is pinged as the administrator imposing discretionary sanctions. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella, this board is in the category of "dispute resolution" boards for a reason.

Also, given the very long discussion about that source (and several others you have engaged in, i.a. over the meaning of the word "hoax" in Wikipedia), obviously I've had enough of that once I've been that shitshow, and I struggle to understand why others haven't and want to remind us of that waste of editor resources over and over again.

My very best wishes, exclude a source for what reason? Reliability? The RfC said we were over it. DUEness? Also over it. Narrative of a banned Wikipedian? Well, it is there, no denial, but that objection was also overruled anyway as we don't cite it. I have no complaints about civility here, but repeating the same arguments in different venues, when the editor knows that these were overruled, and then trying to argue the RfC closure is not what (most) people think it is due to a grammatical/technical quirk, is disruptive. And even if we disregard all that, the editor knows that most people agreed to disagree anyway, so why raise this issue again? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella, the problem here is not the source itself, it is your behaviour with relation to that close, which was clarified to mean what it means by plain reading of that source (thanks for confirming that, Isabelle). The enforcement request is about compliance with the RfC, it is not about the source, for which this venue is not appropriate. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella, I used this one. I downloaded the audio track of that YouTube video and then split it into 1-min intervals. Then I pasted whatever Hebrew text was generated into Google Translate and saw the English translation (YouTube does not automatically generate captions for Hebrew). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[135]

Discussion concerning GizzyCatBella

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

Statement by GizzyCatBella

I'll address the issue as soon as I can (busy for most of the day) as there are numerous inaccuracies here such as number 3 (just a quick example for now) - a threat to remove --> Where do I say that I'll remove or where is the threat of me removing anything from the article Szmenderowiecki?

Meantime, please read the entire conversation and (among other things) notice this comment --> [136] were the filer disrespectfully insinuated that my good faith involvement in GA review is to overturn the RfC, which is untrue, that is not my intension at all. Also Szmederowiecki, why didn't you ask for a wider input from our community, as I suggested, instead of accusing me of acting in bad faith? You came here to resolve the disagreement? You know that this might be a tremendous unnecessary time sink, right? You are requesting the AE to resolve that debate instead of asking the community for consensus? What's up with that Szmenderowiecki? - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes - Sorry, I’m still busy, just scanning here. So the article with such troubled history could be freely used directly, anywhere in such uneasy toopic area? I understood the closing of RfC completaly different. (Use ok as a source for a footnote - only in this particular article) I’m not arguing with your evaluation, looks like you're skilled in Linguistics (judging by your front page also), and English is my second language, but I'm a little stunned.. Should we ask the closing editor for clarification or study the RfC and clarify it ourselves elsewhere? GizzyCatBella🍁 22:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Szmenderowiecki - So if you (quoting you) had enough of that once I've been that shits how why on earth it’s so important to you to maintain that particular source in the body of the article, to the point that you came here with this dishonest (not only my opinion) report? What it’s more important to you Szmenderowiecki? Maintaining the potentially troubled source in the body (instead of the footnote - no objections here) that has a prospect to destabilize the article in the future or passing the article into the GA status? Explain that to me, please? GizzyCatBella🍁 23:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Isabelle Belato Thank you for clarification Isabelle - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent conversation with the filer on the talk page of user Deborahjay preserved here for the record -->[137] (Initial Diff in case it gets archived) - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is to be uncovered in the conversation linked above:

• A) - On November 14, 2021 Szmenderowiecki enters the video TV interview with Gideon Greif, in Hebrew language, and uses it to reference information in Warsaw Concentration Camp article.
• B) - Two days after this filing, on June 25, 2022, Szmenderowiecki asks for translation of the mentioned video declaring they don't speak Hebrew.

Findings:

Szmenderowiecki enters the source (video) into the article, they later argue (numerous times) to keep They used the source as an example while writing this report (quote from his above filing):

GizzyCatBella additionally threatened to challenge two videos from YouTube, one being a France24 report, and the other being an Israeli TV interview with Gideon Greif, a subject-matter expert on the Holocaust, without stating any problem other than being YouTube videos.

• Conclusion (related to this particular AE report only):

Szmenderowiecki enters unverified YouTube video, they later state they don't understand, into the article and uses it to reference information. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the subtitles/closed captions button in the above discussed video -->[138] Click CC button below the video - it says Subtitles/closed captions unavailable.

• Question. What voice recognition software are you referring to in your remark here Szmenderowiecki? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Szmenderowiecki this should work just fine. I’ll confirm later if necessary. For now, that’s all from me. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Let me get this straight. User:Szmenderowiecki filed a WP:AE report because… someone disagreed with them (civility, politely) in a discussion??? Every single one of these diffs is a comment. Not article edits, not anything even resembling incivility, nothing. I don’t even understand what policy these are supposed to violate. This seems to boil down to “how dare you have an opinion different from mine!!!!”

I mean, I’ve seen some ridiculously spurious WP:AE reports over the years but this has got to be some kind of record for spuriousness..es..esses(?)

Just ban Szmenderowiecki from WP:AE and tell them to quit wasting people’s time. Volunteer Marek 19:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

A contributor (GizzyCatBella) can reasonably believe that a source should be removed from a page if we want this page to become a Good Article, regardless to any previous RfCs. This is not an unreasonable opinion because during the RfC a number of other contributors argued that the page would be better off without this reference. If we simply remove the disputed ref, the article will remain just as good (GA), as it is. End of story. Why bring this here? Perhaps there are some reasons, but I do not understand them. My very best wishes (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes​. Yes, I see it: Requests to enforce the discretionary sanctions or sourcing restrictions should be posted to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE) for evaluation by uninvolved administrators. However, I do not see how anyone (like GizzyCatBella) arguing to exclude a source (an article in Haaretz) from a page to make it a Good Article might be viewed by anyone as a violator of sourcing requirements. Even if it was a reference satisfying the requirements by Arbcom, one can always argue to exclude it for whatever good reason. This is not a violation of any remedy by Arbcom. Only someone arguing to include an insufficiently good reference on talk (like Szmenderowiecki) might be viewed as a potential rather than an actual violator. My very best wishes (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Isabelle

It seems like my poor domain of the English language has finally come to haunt me. Firstly, I have no opinion on this particular matter as it relates to GizzyCatBella, and am here just to clarify any misunderstandings related to this close. Wugapodes is correct in their assessment that my findings were that the article is reliable, generally speaking. While the discussion was focused entirely on the source as it related to the information found as a footnote, participants agreed that it was reliable, meaning that if that same information was to be added to the body of an article, it would still be reliable and usable (although I find it hard the community would find that WP:DUE). I hope this answers any questions. Feel free to ping me if any further comments are necessary. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 01:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

I think that the RFC was clear, but that bringing up objections again in a WP:GA is fair (though I wouldn't have gone on as long as GizzyCatBella did for risk of BLUDGEONING an already-settled point.) WP:CCC applies - people are allowed to dissent from or disagree with previous RFCs, and even suggest that they be overturned or ignored - and contrary to what was said in that discussion it's not really required to request a close review. Doing so too often would be WP:BLUDGEON / WP:DEADHORSE behavior, but a GA nomination is a specific one-time thing where every significant concern over the article is supposed to be gone over, so I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to note, in that context, that they still think it's a problem, regardless of the previous RFC... even if such an objection is unlikely to go anywhere. And it's also at least not unreasonable to suggest that the standard for a GA is higher, which can lead to previous discussions being reconsidered (even if I think it was vanishingly unlikely in this case.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning GizzyCatBella

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

• It's pretty clear to me that the RfC found the source was generally reliable. It says explicitly the argument against the source's reliability is not a strong one, so with that context I struggle to see why the Haaretz article used as a source for the footnote is reliable and, as such, WP:APLRS is satisfied should be read to mean it's only reliable for that footnote and nothing else like GizzyCatBella claims in the third diff. I think the phrase "used as a source for the footnote" is a restrictive relative clause that is used to specify which source is being discussed specifically. The ambiguity comes from the omission of the relative pronoun (common for restrictive clauses in English). So there are two potential readings depending on what relative pronoun you use to fill in that gap: "the Haaretz article [which is] used as a source..." or "the Haaretz article [when] used as a source...". Given that we list the source as "generally reliable in its areas of expertise" and the closer said the argument against the source's reliability is not a strong one, I think the interpretation is clearly "which" not "when". I can see how an editor could, in good faith, misunderstand that given the ambiguity, so I don't think there's any need for AE to do anything beyond clarify that. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @My very best wishes: The arbitration committee explicitly told editors to bring issues like this to AE. See clause 4 of that motion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GizzyCatBella: Sure, I've asked the closer for her comment. I think it's ambiguous even if your first language were English, so it's probably best we get some clarity to avoid future misunderstandings. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Pace Wugapodes I think this is swatting at a fly with a table saw. No, I do not believe that this is what arbitration is for--first of all because it is a relatively small content matter, and second because IMO arbitration should be reserved for disputes that cannot be handled in any other matter, and I do not see that that stage has been reached already. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]