Trichome

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
El C (talk | contribs)
Autopatrolled, Administrators
182,686 edits
→‎Result concerning GizzyCatBella: also concerned about this report
Line 441: Line 441:
:::::*No, {{u|Notrium}}, I doubt you and {{u|François Robere}} are the alpha and omega of the auditing of {{u|GizzyCatBella}}'s adherence to the terms and scope of her topic ban. If you both fail to convince admins your ''own'' auditing of GizzyCatBella's edits is a productive undertaking which is in the interest of the project, then expect to be given a [[WP:ACDS|DS]] directive to cease. It's not complicated. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 15:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
:::::*No, {{u|Notrium}}, I doubt you and {{u|François Robere}} are the alpha and omega of the auditing of {{u|GizzyCatBella}}'s adherence to the terms and scope of her topic ban. If you both fail to convince admins your ''own'' auditing of GizzyCatBella's edits is a productive undertaking which is in the interest of the project, then expect to be given a [[WP:ACDS|DS]] directive to cease. It's not complicated. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 15:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
* I agree {{U|Piotrus}} that something is weird here. My first thought was also Icewhiz related. I also agree with {{u|El_C}} that this isn't a topic ban violation and an I-Ban might be helpful here. --[[User:Guerillero|<span style="color: #0b0080">Guerillero</span>]] &#124; [[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]] 14:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
* I agree {{U|Piotrus}} that something is weird here. My first thought was also Icewhiz related. I also agree with {{u|El_C}} that this isn't a topic ban violation and an I-Ban might be helpful here. --[[User:Guerillero|<span style="color: #0b0080">Guerillero</span>]] &#124; [[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]] 14:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
* I'm also concerned about this report. GizzyCatBella was topic-banned two years ago for causing problems with articles about the history of Poland in WWII. Since then she hasn't caused problems with any articles that I'm aware of and has generally successfully skirted around the TB, even though her principal interest is in Eastern European topics, where she is clearly an asset to the encyclopedia. She does sometimes make mistakes and I reluctantly gave her a short block recently for a violation of her TB. {{pb}} Nevertheless, none of the diffs above would raise any concerns were it not for the TB: they are absolutely harmless and it takes a considerable stretch to make an association between them and Poland in WWII. It's like playing seven degrees of separation and I am now suspicious about how Notrium came across them. {{pb}} I gain the impression that this report resembles an attempt to weaponise AE, and I'm not keen to see a repeat. I can only see two ways of avoiding this issue coming back here: either a broad I-Ban between the principle players or vacating GizzyCatBella's topic ban. It's a pity in some ways that she didn't take up Sandstein's concession to hear an appeal after six months, but I can understand that she may have felt the TB protected her from editing in an area where she had become too involved. I'd like to hear from other AE admins if they agree with my assessment. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 15:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:28, 31 July 2020

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.
    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332

    Kautilya3

    Erik-the-red is topic banned from all pages related to India's borders, broadly construed. They may appeal the ban after a period of not less than six months.--RegentsPark (comment) 15:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Kautilya3

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Erik-the-red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Kautilya3 (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
    ARBIPA :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    WP:3RR
    1. 19:47, 7 July 2020 1
    2. 15:40, 8 July 2020 +3=4 reverts of the same article in less than 24 hours after being warned on 20:01, 7 July 2020.
    WP:BULLY
    1. In an AE report, Kautilya3 accused the reported user of WP:VOTESTACK without evidence, which is WP:BULLY#False accusations.
    2. In a follow-up to the same AE report, Kautilya3 again provided no evidence of WP:VOTESTACK and instead claimed that a lot of behind-the-scenes canvassing happens in this space of which the regular editors are aware, which is WP:ASPERSIONS.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    • 11:57, 29 July 2016 "Placed on a 'casting aspersions' restriction...to all articles in the India-Pakistan area, broadly construed."
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    The user has placed a template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I believe the WP:BULLY diffs above best demonstrates the problems with engaging in WP:DR (such as RfC) with Kautilya3, and why I am requesting WP:ACDS. At 18:17, 13 July 2020, I opened an RfC following the suggestion from a closed AE report which Kautilya3 filed against me. Subsequently,

    • At 20:08, 20 July 2020, Kautilya3 clarified that they were not suggesting that I had done something, but they continued to speculate that behind-the-scenes canvassing had taken place and maintained that USaamo's appearance there is entirely inexplicable.

    How can RfC work with an editor who doesn't accept other survey responses as valid?

    @Bishonen:

    Is this report your idea of dispute resolution, User:Erik-the-red?

    No, as I wrote in this report, my idea of dispute resolution was to open an RfC at 18:17, 13 July 2020 following the suggestion from a closed AE report which Kautilya3 filed against me. I filed this AE report when I saw that Kautilya3 was attempting to invalidate another editor's RfC survey response based on allegations (without evidence) of WP:VOTESTACK and "behind-the-scenes canvassing". Erik-the-red (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Number 57: @Kautilya3: Apparently my "+3" reference in the report was not clear. I am referring to Kautilya3's own description of their reverts at 15:40, 8 July 2020: (Reverted 3 edits by Erik-the-red (talk): Unsourced WP:OR and WP:POV edits, no WP:CONSENSUS for them (TW))
    As for the "quite a related" ANI, did we read the same ANI? An admin remarked that it really looks like you are preventing article improvement for the sake of process (or because you just don't like it, or you just don't like Mark) without argument. I appreciate your edits on India articles but this is looks like the warnings from Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. Incidentally, I share the filing editor's opinion that it's fascinating trying to discuss WP:ARBIPA topics with a sanctioned editor who dismisses a British historian as "racist" and then relies upon the same British historian at an RfC. Erik-the-red (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Diff @SerChevalerie: As I stated in this report, I followed the admins' suggestion and at 18:17, 13 July 2020, I opened an RfC.
    I only filed this AE report when I saw that Kautilya3 was attempting to invalidate another editor's RfC survey response based on allegations (without evidence) of WP:VOTESTACK and "behind-the-scenes canvassing". Or to put it more directly, my concern is that dispute resolution doesn't work when an editor tries to invalidate RfC survey responses. Erik-the-red (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Erik-the-red (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guerillero:

    without any DR taking place

    As I said in the report, at 18:17, 13 July 2020, I opened an RfC. As I understand it, an RfC is a type of DR.
    If the RfC ends up with a majority of votes against what I voted for, while I would obviously personally disagree, I must accept it. However, if Kautilya3 is attempting to get certain votes invalidated based on allegations (without evidence) of WP:VOTESTACK and "behind-the-scenes canvassing", then I don't see how the RfC DR can work.
    That's why I filed this report: I opened an RfC; I gave my RfC response; Kautilya3 gave their RfC response; and then 6 days later when a third user gave their RfC response, Kautilya3 accused the third user (without evidence) of WP:VOTESTACK. Erik-the-red (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @RegentsPark: So apparently all of you are going to keep ignoring that I opened an RfC, keep ignoring that Kautilya3 made a false accusation with no evidence of WP:VOTESTACK, and keep lying that I did not make any attempt to follow the WP:DR process. This experience has taught me that the problem with Wikipedia is not that "anyone can edit," as may be commonly believed. The problem is that admins like you three play favo(u)rites and don't enforce the rules even handedly.
    Oh well, enjoy your ARBIPA articles dominated by a person who thinks that "the McMahon Line" and "McMahon's line" don't mean the same thing because of an apostrophe and capitalization. Apparently your only response to tendentious editing like that is "hurr go to durr." Erik-the-red (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Diff Erik-the-red (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    Discussion concerning Kautilya3

    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 Kautilya3

    Thanks to Number 57 for checking the reverts made. I actually count two reverts in 24 hours, not even three.

    As for the allegation of "BULLY", obviously evidence is presented to admins when a case is made against an editor. Whether those allegations make sense or not is for the admins to assess. I find it hard to see how this can count as "BULLY".

    As to "how can the RfC work?", the answer is that an independent closer assesses the input provided by various users.

    Meanwhile, I would like the admins to consider if this editor is being given too much WP:ROPE. I brought a genuine 3RR violation report, for which no sanction was applied. In response to this substantive ARE report, the user was let off with a light sanction. Is this emboldening the user (and perhaps others) to try more extreme measures to take out the "opposition"? Notice also this very long ANI report on quite a related topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by SerChevalerie

    This ARE looks like an extension of the content dispute that the editors are having. The diffs provided prove the same. K3 has been invaluable in India-related articles; I hardly think sanctions are necessary. As has been previously pointed out by the admins, a dispute resolution would be ideal before entertaining stricter requests such as this ARE. SerChevalerie (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by USaamo

    I replied to User:Kautilya3's allegation against my comment which he stated in his statement in my case above, I'm posting it here again to clarify my position.

    "As to my comment on Dhola Post RfC, he's(Kautilya3) wrongfully alleged me and the other editor(Erik-the-red) involved. I commented in that RfC with having a background over McMahon Line since the history of India Pakistan before of 1947 was common history under British India and the said discussion is of a 1914 event which is taught to us in history. I came across this discussion while looking through different RfCs and here I commented on another I found during that[1] and I came across this as well and as I have read the case involving User:Erik-the-red below(my case) so having a background on it I went on to comment in that RfC. And my comment there is backed by sources and is not merely a comment. He is just showing up the same attitude he is showing on other side (In edit dispute with me) and tending to stonewall sourced content."

    An admin here didn't understood my comment in that RfC at all interestingly. Perhaps I have a very bad grip on language's syntax. I tried clarifying it for him as well in this respnose I added there. [2] Hope it clears my stance. Also I wanted to know whether a user can be questioned for his response to RfC like that or not? USaamo (t@lk) 22:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by BirdValiant

    I've just popped in after seeing the RfC going on for Talk:Ayurveda, where I noticed that one of the users in that discussion, User:Siddsg has been both blocked and indefinitely topic banned on the topic of pseudoscience. I scrolled up and happened to notice that User:Kautilya3 was the subject of arbitration enforcement. This very much surprised me, because I had come to know Kautilya3 while being involved with the Indigenous Aryans RfC. I remember Kautilya3 being a level-headed voice of reason during these typically emotion-ridden debates.

    Looking the differences in Dhola Post, it seems to me that Kautilya3 made the right decision to revert; it seems like a case of POV pushing to me. One might as well change the map on the Arunachal Pradesh article to be a map of China and say that it's southern portion is claimed by India. These kinds of major changes require a consensus to be achieved first, which User:Erik-the-red did not achieve.

    I would like to point out the language in one of Erik-the-red's edit summaries: "Believe it or not, it is possible for someone other than you to write in a way that abides by WP:NPOV and WP:NOR." That sounds pretty passive-aggressive to me; not something one would expect out of a collaborative project. Also, Erik-the-red accuses Khautilya3 of "blatant hypocrisy" in the Dhola Post content dispute.

    Finally, I would hope that there is more discussion on Talk:Dhola Post from disinterested parties. BirdValiant (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Kautilya3

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Comment As a starting point, it doesn't look like Kautilya3 broke 3RR on this article. Their reverts were 10:47, 7 July 2020, 20:47, 7 July 2020‎, 16:40, 8 July 2020‎ and 12:23, 9 July 2020‎. Only three are within 24 hours of each other. Number 57 20:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This report, with its scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel diffs supposedly illustrating WP:BULLY and WP:ASPERSIONS, looks like a not very successful "duel" with another report still on this page, above.[3] Most of the admins commenting in that earlier report recommended dispute resolution. Is this report your idea of dispute resolution, User:Erik-the-red? The diffs against Kautilya that you present may not show him at his most polite, but they are both minor problems, if problems at all, and I'm certainly not prepared to invoke discretionary sanctions against them. If anything, I'd suggest a boomerang.
    As for Usaamoo's post here, which Kautilya characterised as "vote-stacking", my problem isn't so much that it's superficial, as that I can't understand it. Can somebody explain what "Yes, most of the sources presented asserts on a map along with exchange of notes in 1914 Simla Conference" means? Perhaps I'd get it if I read the whole talkpage it appears on, but life is short. Bishonen | tålk 21:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    • The return to AE after being asked to solve this via dispute resolution, without any DR taking place, makes me thing that topic ban or two may be in order --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I concur with your suggestion, RegentsPark. While, RtR claims to have retired, I would rather this be around for their return --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Bishonen and Guerillero that some sort of topic ban is necessary. We have to discourage this tendency to drag Kautilya3 to AE or ANI in lieu of following the DR process. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Erik-the-red:, AE doesn't handle content disputes so your bringing up apostrophes is not helpful (I'll ignore your hurr durr slur(r) for the moment). The more useful question is "why are you here"? In your initial statement, you bring up a vote stacking accusation that Kautilya apologized for before you brought this complaint. So, all we're left with is apparently that you take umbrage at Kautilya's statement about "behind the scenes canvassing". Not only is that a general enough statement that I don't see as rising to the level of requiring enforcement, it is also something that we, sadly, see all to often in heavily disputed areas on Wikipedia. So, all we're left with is that you were advised to resort to DR, did open an RfC, but, convinced as you are about the "rightness" of your position, would rather just see your content opposition removed from the scene and therefore have opened this, rather meagre, complaint. That, unfortunately, is not a tenable way to edit on Wikipedia. I'm proposing now that you be banned from any pages that relate to India's borders, broadly construed. Will wait a bit for comments from other admins (too much? too little?) before implementing the ban. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Urgal

    Urgal is siteblocked for one year for repeated violations of their WP:ARBAP2 topic ban. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:34, 24 July 2020‎
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Urgal

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Urgal (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/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    The following edits are all topic ban violations:

    1. 5 July 2020: Various changes on It's okay to be white article, including a page move and a change from "The slogan was spread by Fox News host Tucker Carlson and white supremacists including neo-Nazis." to "The slogan has been spread by white supremacists including neo-Nazis. Fox News host Tucker Carlson defended the slogan, stating that 'being white [...] is not something you can control'."
    2. 11 July 2020: Minor change in Chuck Norris § Political views
    3. 11 July 2020: Addition of "Paul in 2007" image caption to Ron Paul article
    4. 12 July 2020: Addition of "Bush in 2003" image caption to George W. Bush article
    5. 13 July 2020: Addition of {{Citation needed}} tag to Donald Trump Jr. article
    6. 13–14 July 2020 (#1, #2–4): Minor changes in Donald Trump Jr. article
    7. 14 July 2020: Removal of "when she was twenty-five years old" and "who was forty years old. He was" from Phyllis Schlafly article
    8. 14 July 2020: Minor change on Kellyanne Conway article
    9. 14 July 2020: Addition of "Clinton in 1993" image caption to Bill Clinton article
    10. 14 July 2020: Addition of "Bush c. 1989" image caption to George H. W. Bush article
    11. 14 July 2020: Addition of "Ford in 1974" image caption to Gerald Ford article
    12. 14 July 2020: Addition of "Johnson in 1964" image caption to Lyndon B. Johnson article
    13. 14 July 2020: Addition of "Eisenhower in 1959" image caption to Dwight D. Eisenhower article
    14. 14 July 2020: Addition of "Wallace in 1940" image caption to Henry A. Wallace article
    15. 21 July 2020: Minor changes in Phil Davison article
    16. 23 July 2020: Removal of Category:Conservatism in the United States and Category:American conservative websites from InfoWars article
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. 30 June 2020: Indefinite topic ban from post-1932 American politics, issued as a result of the arbitration enforcement request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive268 § Urgal
    2. 1 June 2020: 2-week block extension for block evasion and sockpuppetry using Machr123 (talk · contribs) and SmooveMike (talk · contribs)
    3. 31 May 2020: 72-hour block for edit warring on InfoWars article
    4. 30 May 2020: 31-hour block for 1RR violation on Donald Trump article
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 30 June 2020 by Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    The inital topic ban notice was removed by Urgal on 30 June 2020 with the edit summary "Lol".

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    • Special:Diff/969233247


    Discussion concerning Urgal

    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 Urgal

    Statement by Ian.thomson

    It looks like the pre-ban edit war at InfoWars was to claim that it's a news site. Not just a fake news site, but a news site. Now, they weren't removing the "Fake news" label, but I must admit that whenever I see a new user questioning why we call InfoWars "fake news," I might give them a single warning shot before indefinitely blocking them under WP:CIR. Oh, wait, here they are arguing that the fake news was in the past and that they shouldn't be called a fake news site. Their actions in the above report show that they won't respect the their ban, and frankly the only reason I can imagine for not indeffing them are their prolific editing combined with their history of sockpuppetry: by letting them continue to edit in other topics, we're (hopefully) reducing the risk of producing an LTA case. I'm only saying I can see that reason, not saying I agree with it. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by MrX

    There is a clear pattern of flaunting the rules here, so Urgal is probably about to be indef blocked. This is probably worth looking into as well: [4] - MrX 🖋 11:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting for the record that I have filed an SPI: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/WhatsUpWorld. - MrX 🖋 13:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Ivanvector

    I saw Newslinger's revert this morning on Infowars which referenced the topic ban, and started to do an investigation of their last few weeks of edits since being banned, but I see it's here already; thanks for doing the work, Newslinger. I only got as far back as a series of boundary-pushing edits to Clint Eastwood (e.g. this edit about Eastwood's political positions, though Urgal later self-reverted). My analysis was an indef partial block from InfoWars was in order, and was on my way to their talk page to begin the process when I saw the note there referring to this discussion. Given Newslinger's evidence of multiple ongoing violations and evidently no willingness to abide by the sanction, a sitewide block is clearly in order, the only question is for how long. Taking everything here into account and including the recent abuse of multiple accounts, I suggest the answer is indefinite. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Urgal

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • We cannot impose indefinite blocks as an AE action. We are limited to one year. I have blocked Urgal for that duration. Unless there are objections, I will close this report shortly. El_C 13:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Symphony Regalia

    Symphony Regalia is indefinitely topic banned from gender-related disputes, controversies, or social movements. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Symphony Regalia

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Symphony Regalia (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. 00:33, 26 July 2020 Removal of well-sourced descriptor from Men Going Their Own Way
    2. 01:33, 26 July 2020 Revert #1 to above
    3. 01:49, 26 July 2020 Revert #2 to above
    4. 01:31, 26 July 2020‎ Talk page post to Talk:Men Going Their Own Way, where the editor tries to pass off a self-published book titled Men Going Their Own Way: The Red Pill Anti-Feminism Survival Guide as a reliable source to contradict the "misogynist" descriptor
    5. 01:50, 26 July 2020 Again tries to describe the above book as a reliable source, also claims The Anti-Mary Exposed: Rescuing the Culture from Toxic Femininity and The Manipulated Man, two other shoddy sources, are somehow reliable and contradict the well-sourced claim.
    6. 02:47, 26 July 2020 Removal of quotes around "female privilege" with the edit summary "not necessary"
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    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

    This editor has provided three poor-quality sources to try to claim that reliable sources do not agree that MGTOW is a misogynist movement. I didn't even know that members of MGTOW themselves disputed that MGTOW is a misogynist movement—after all, the core belief is that women are so terrible they must be avoided completely. They have yet to provide any quotes from these sources that actually refute the descriptor, and continue to maintain the sources are somehow usable without providing any evidence the authors are "field experts" as they claim. For clarity, the sources they have produced are:

    • Men Going Their Own Way: The Red Pill Anti-Feminism Survival Guide self-published by Charles Rivers, a self-described "Relationship Communication Expert" with no actual credentials I could find, who doesn't appear to have been published by reliable sources (per WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."). Book description includes, "I came to view feminism as little more than a new form of indentured servitude for men with the tacit approval of the governments in the countries where it had been allowed to fester and grow. That’s when I decided to no longer help women enslave men but to reveal all their secrets, which I had learned during my two decades of counseling."
    • The Anti-Mary Exposed: Rescuing the Culture from Toxic Femininity by Carrie Gress. Published by a traditional Catholic publisher, TAN Books. Appears to be an extremely religious book that compares feminists to the anti-Christ. No indication that I can find that it mentions MGTOW at all, or contradicts it being misogynist.
    • The Manipulated Man by Esther Vilar. Published by a small publisher that seems to mostly publish about pregnancy topics: Pinter and Martin. Pull quote on the cover reads "Men have been trained and conditioned by women, not unlike the way Pavlov conditioned his dogs, into becoming their slaves." Same as Gress's book, I can see no indication this book mentions MGTOW at all. Given that it was published in 1971, and MGTOW emerged sometime in the early 2000s, I somewhat doubt it does.

    A topic ban from the subject area strikes me as appropriate, as well as a reminder that not every "book" you can find on Amazon is a reliable source.

    They have stopped replying to the talk page discussion (Talk:Men Going Their Own Way#Not all RS describe MGTOW as misogynistic) and have moved on to POV-pushing elsewhere in the article: just now they've removed the quotes around "female privilege" in the sentence Finally, the ideology holds that the women will divorce their husbands, and that courts favor the women in divorce proceedings due to "female privilege"., which inaccurately implies that the sources are themselves describing the phenomenon as "female privilege" rather than the MGTOW men.

    It appears based on their talk page that this user has also been troublesome in other topic areas, including pushing for COVID-19 to be called the "Chinese virus" or "Wuhan virus".

    Note that SR's claim that they were "restoring the contribution of another editor who is also currently in disagreement with her" is referring to a week-old edit that was, by the editor's own admission, original research: to me the overarching aspects of MGTOW dosent seem misogynist though just like feminism certain sects can practice it. Therefor it dosent seem appropriate to me to label the whole movement as such. As for the accusation that this report is based in "ideological disagreements", I'm not sure if we disagree ideologically or not. But we certainly disagree over whether is MGTOW is misogynist, and only one of us seems to be basing our opinion in what the reliable sourcing has to say. Regarding "female privilege" being jargon, it is not a widely-recognized concept like male privilege—in fact, you'll see female privilege redirects to men's rights movement because it is really only that group that believes it to be an actual phenomenon. Removing the quotes or attribution is misleading and contrary to sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If all SR has taken away from the concerns I have raised with the sourcing is that one of the publishers is Catholic, I'm not sure if this is a bad-faith editing problem or a competence problem. Either way, it's clear they can't edit productively here. I don't think the username discussion is particularly useful, the behavior speaks for itself anyway. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for not including the previous sanctions in this report, I think I forgot to fill out that section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notification


    Discussion concerning Symphony Regalia

    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 Symphony Regalia

    GorillaWarfare is directly involved and what you are witnessing is an attempt by her to weaponize sanctions against someone she holds ideological disagreements with. I haven't violated any sanctions, there is currently no ongoing conflict, and I've engaged on the talk page every step of the way. Her diff explanations are also misleading. Diff 1 was not a removal, it was me restoring the contribution of another editor who is also currently in disagreement with her. In the spirit of collaboration my edit summary also suggested using a qualifier, but this was of course left out of her account of the events. Diffs 4 and 5 are talk page edits. Diff 6 isn't related to any of the other diffs. The quotes in diff 6 were removed to remain consistent with the rest of the article, as the term is not jargon, and because they are completely redundant in a sentence that begins with the ideology holds. This arbitrary quotation usage is sometimes used by editors to push inappropriate POVs.

    A quick look at the edit history for the article will directly demonstrate the clear WP:OWNBEHAVIOR that GorillaWarfare consistently engages in. This report appears to be backlash for violating that sense of ownership. You will also notice that she is the one who requested sources that were not self-published, so I gave her two published by reliable independent publications, and stopped editing the line. Now she is attempting to improperly weaponize sanctions against me because she apparently does not personally like that one publisher has Catholic affiliations, which I did not know, and of course should not matter anyhow. I have nothing more to say and will not be engaging with any of the ad hominems from her acquaintances, or her new attempt to modify the original report to "refute" this statement. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Jorm

    This is pretty open-and-shut. Symphony Regalia has been rolling deep in "I didn't hear that" territory and edit warring to delete sourced writing. A topic ban feels like the right path.--Jorm (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    AlmostFrancis

    For what its worth their username comes from an obscure Japanese anime in which the main rebel faction is called nudist beach, for which Regalia is a member. It seems likely given their username and area of interest that they are here to push a POV and annoy everyone and not build the encyclopedia.AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC) @Ian.thomson:, I am content with your disagreement. With your crudity, and pedantry about anime, I suspect we would disagree about much. I see little difference between choosing a name after the character or after an article of clothing the character wears. AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ian.thomson:, I don't see any value in continuing your derailing of this report. If you want to ignore the sexualization in Kill la Kill and the sexualization and questionable racial choices in Panty & Stocking with Garterbelt due to some higher purpose that is your business. I don't think noting the junction between sexualized anime and sexism is out of line.AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Ian.thomson

    Since I locked the Men Going Their Own Way article, I wasn't gonna comment but @AlmostFrancis: your reasoning is... Honestly awful. Like, really, really bad. I'm saying this as someone who thinks GorillaWarfare has built a solid case that Symphony Regalia needs to be topic banned from gender-related disputes (and opened the door for a case regarding politics) and as someone who has not watched Kill la Kill. The show is not obscure (it was on Adult Swim and so pretty popular with the western anime fandom and there's still plenty of merch floating around here in Japan), and there are fans of the series on every part of the political spectrum (whether they get that the series's creators intended it to be anti-fascist or ignore that to interpret it as libertarian individualism, whether they think the message is troubled by the sexualization of its female character or that Hiroyuki Imaishi is satirizing fan service as he did in Panty & Stocking with Garterbelt, or whether they just pretend that media couldn't possibly have deeper meanings). And Symphony Regalia isn't even a character, it's an article of clothing worn by a character. And I really hate myself for being this pedantic about an anime I've never even watched right now but my God, your argument is so bad that it risks derailing the case against Symphony Regalia (possibly with the help of childless single men who masturbate to anime) with a red herring of "why does Wikipedia hate anime fans?" Your argument is ignorant and unhelpful, please strike it and do not make similar ones in the future. (The links are not meant to imply that anyone currently present is a member of the alt-right but there's no informed and good-faith argument that an alt-right editor would not want to take a particular side on this case). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @AlmostFrancis: Your argument boils down to "they like anime and so must be WP:NOTHERE," which is not an attitude compatible with WP:AGF. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @AlmostFrancis: Again, your argument boils down to "they like anime and so must be WP:NOTHERE," which goes against WP:AGF. Stop grabbing into tangents and ignoring the main point. Your ignorant and highly dubious initial argument that liking anime means someone is here in bad faith is what derailed the discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Symphony Regalia

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I think we ought to stop the digression into discussing anime; that is...unhelpful, to put it mildly. Many editors have chosen user names based on fictional characters (my own is based on a mythological one), and that is not cause for sanction. It is the edits that are cause for concern, and I agree that the edit warring and apparent inability to discern the reliability of sourcing is a substantial cause for such concern. Given that the editor apparently sees no problem with their edits, I think they may need to be restricted from this topic area. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I'd rather not see anime or usernames discussed further. Looking at their edits and behavior, I think a topic ban is called for. Doug Weller talk 13:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recommend topic ban, probably of an indefinite duration, with an appeal in no less than six months. El_C 13:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur that a topic ban is necessary here. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic ban. User:Symphony Regalia was previously blocked one week on 1 May per the AN3 noticeboard. This was their second block since March. In the closure I stated:
    User:Symphony Regalia is blocked one week for abuse of process and wasting others' time. He has been blocked previously for edit warring. On 7 March he filed an unjustified 3RR complaint against another editor and was warned.
    As another editor said in response to Symphony Regalia's AN3 complaint, "this is nonsense". As an alternative to a topic ban, an indefinite block might considered. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mr Miles

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

    Request concerning Mr Miles

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Rab V (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Mr_Miles (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. [5] 3RR violations on the trans woman article
    2. [6] more 3RR violations
    3. [7]
    4. [8]
    5. [9]
    6. [10]
    7. [11]
    8. [12]
    9. [13] WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTFORUM derogatory references to trans women in the talk page
    10. [14] more WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTFORUM violations


    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. [15] Temporary ban for 3RR violation where admin suggested also seeking topic ban.


    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see [16].


    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    [17]

    Discussion concerning Mr_Miles

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

    Statement by Mr_Miles

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Mr_Miles

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

    GizzyCatBella

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

    Request concerning GizzyCatBella

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

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

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

    Because of the volume and degree of repetition (after warnings) of GizzyCatBella's TBAN violations, I think it's fair to say (assuming good faith) they either have trouble discerning what is and what is not covered by the ban or have no respect for Wikipedia policy. Thus it might be beneficial (by preventing misunderstanding, and thus further violations) to widen the scope of the topic ban to encompass, e.g., Eastern Europe in the 20th century and Jewish history and individuals in the 20th century; in addition to writers, historians and other persons connected to the former. Notrium (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:El C have you read WP:TBAN, especially "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic"? Apart form that, I think the Roma diffs are especially obviously violations. Notrium (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see what the proposed sanctions against me or François Robere are supposed to accomplish except making GizzyCatBella's ban effectively void. That's not the motivation, right? Notrium (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    2020-07-31T03:04:54


    Discussion concerning GizzyCatBella

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

    Statement by GizzyCatBella

    Unbelievable battleground attitude! I can't believe it!! This is a continuation of this! [18] And this report [19] already reported by Notrium earlier following my prior disagreement with that user. There is no word "Poland" or any subject related to Poland from my edits presented above. They just can't stop until they get their way. See this discussion too [20] on RexxS talk page. I'm carefully avoiding any word POLAND in WW2. Article about Roma people?! Because of what?! Because some Roma communities lived in Poland during WW2 and Poland is mentioned somewhere else in the article!? What an ill-disposed report! This is absurd. I even state it clearly in the edits summary when I'm correcting ANYTHING where there was a mention of Poland somewhere else in the article, like here [[21]] when I was repairing Slovakia section. Notrium please get it over with and move on. I have nothing to do with your latest block [22] Just move on. I can't take it anymore. Dear administrators, PLEASE. Please, remove or alter my topic ban, so this kind of malicious reports don't happen anymore. I understand what I have done that resulted in my topic ban OVER two years ago already. [23] I know that I have to be careful with references, and I'm already. VERY CAREFUL. The topic ban doesn't serve any purpose whatsoever anymore, causes me significant distress and only attracts battleground oriented editors. They file insanely bad faithed reports and use it as a weapon to get back at me for God to know what. GizzyCatBella🍁 05:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Notrium OMG. Pushing for diff [24], which is very clearly related to pre-war Germany (the Romani situation in Nazi Germany) and trying to pass them off as topic ban violations when they're not, just further shows how bad-faithed this report is.GizzyCatBella🍁 05:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    or this one about Roma community they presented [25] it’s about communist governments policies against Roma community way after the war. I can’t believe they have the nerve to continue claiming a TP violation.GizzyCatBella🍁 05:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note - Also, please note because this is VERY interesting. All the diffs the user Notrium presented above are related to the Roma community, Germany, Soviet Union and Slovakia. User Notrium, however, advocates for the expansion of sanctions to include - quote - widen the scope of the topic ban to encompass, e.g., Eastern Europe in the 20th century and Jewish history and individuals in the 20th century; in addition to writers, historians and other persons connected to the former. WHY Jewish History? There is nothing about Jewish history in the above diffs. I wonder if this report has anything to do with a now permanently banned user Icewhiz [26] because of whos complain the sanctions were imposed in the first place.[27], who charged against me on later occasions [28] [29]. His sockpuppets were involved in a recent slander campaign against me and other editors (TonyBallioni is aware of that) Tony could you please take a look at it when you get a chance? Can user Notrium please explain the "Jewish history" thing? GizzyCatBella🍁 11:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Statement by Piotrus

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

    Statement by François Robere

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

    @Piotrus: You don't have to be close friends with someone to report them (you probably shouldn't if you are :-P). Her T-ban appeal drew comments from several editors who follow the TA but don't interact with her personally.[35] You shouldn't be surprised that other editors notice her as well. François Robere (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2020 (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.
    • Actually, from those diffs, I'm seeing GizzyCatBella being quite careful not to contravene her sanction. Is it ideal she's flying this close to the sun? Probably not, but that remains her prerogative. El_C 03:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Notrium, I have read WP:TBAN, having imposed and enforced it on multiple occasions. El_C 03:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • François Robere, to say the USSR-related diff constitutes a topic ban violation is a bit of a stretch. Like Notrium, this approach widens WP:BROADLY beyond its conventional usage in determining WP:TBAN violations. To reiterate, this report should be closed as not actionable due to there being No violation. El_C 14:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • GizzyCatBella, I agree that François Robere has not been following the advise of RexxS. Perhaps formalizing that advise as a one-way WP:IBAN sanction toward François Robere is due. Or at least a final warning that it is imminent. I would welcome further input on that question. El_C 14:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, Notrium, I doubt you and François Robere are the alpha and omega of the auditing of GizzyCatBella's adherence to the terms and scope of her topic ban. If you both fail to convince admins your own auditing of GizzyCatBella's edits is a productive undertaking which is in the interest of the project, then expect to be given a DS directive to cease. It's not complicated. El_C 15:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree Piotrus that something is weird here. My first thought was also Icewhiz related. I also agree with El_C that this isn't a topic ban violation and an I-Ban might be helpful here. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm also concerned about this report. GizzyCatBella was topic-banned two years ago for causing problems with articles about the history of Poland in WWII. Since then she hasn't caused problems with any articles that I'm aware of and has generally successfully skirted around the TB, even though her principal interest is in Eastern European topics, where she is clearly an asset to the encyclopedia. She does sometimes make mistakes and I reluctantly gave her a short block recently for a violation of her TB.
      Nevertheless, none of the diffs above would raise any concerns were it not for the TB: they are absolutely harmless and it takes a considerable stretch to make an association between them and Poland in WWII. It's like playing seven degrees of separation and I am now suspicious about how Notrium came across them.
      I gain the impression that this report resembles an attempt to weaponise AE, and I'm not keen to see a repeat. I can only see two ways of avoiding this issue coming back here: either a broad I-Ban between the principle players or vacating GizzyCatBella's topic ban. It's a pity in some ways that she didn't take up Sandstein's concession to hear an appeal after six months, but I can understand that she may have felt the TB protected her from editing in an area where she had become too involved. I'd like to hear from other AE admins if they agree with my assessment. --RexxS (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=970483051&oldid=970482737&diffmode=source

    Leave a Reply