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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
FleurDeOdile Off-wiki Canvassing & Cross-wiki Edit Warring		8 March 2023	0/8/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	(t) (ev / t) (pd / t)	04 Apr 2023	09 May 2023

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Armenia-Azerbaijan 3	18 March 2023

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: American politics 2	none	(orig. case)	15 March 2023

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Shortcuts

Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

This page is for statements, not discussion.

If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (more information).
Your section must not contain more than 500 words (Word Count Tool; internal gadget). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, email the clerks at clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, eg off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

FleurDeOdile Off-wiki Canvassing & Cross-wiki Edit Warring

Initiated by Noah^Talk at 04:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

Hurricane Noah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
FleurDeOdile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jasper Deng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MarioJump83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Hurricane Noah

An outcome was reached at WikiProject Weather within the last couple of weeks for a new track map color scheme in order to provide MOS:ACCESSibility for the color blind users at Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Color RfC after having a long discussion that took multiple months. FleurDeOdile did not like the outcome of the discussion and tried multiple tactics to subvert the consensus. FleurDeOdile reverted image changes three times on Wikipedia [1] [2] and [3]. After being warned that he was at 3RR by Jasper Deng [4] and given a followup reminder by MarioJump83 [5], he then proceeded to take it to commons to avoid breaking the 3RR here. He continued edit warring by nominating three maps with the new scheme for deletion with no valid rationale. Here [6] [7] [8], he simply called the images "useless duplicates". Further attesting to the bad faith in these nominations is the fact that he openly accused two WPWX participants of canvassing in the discussion on commons and in the priorly linked discussion on WP for the colors here while there is no evidence of canvassing having taken place. Someone else even mentioned that they were notified via the automatic bot notice at Cyclone Freddy's talk page. I was attempting to have this resolved at AN/I until I discovered that stealth canvassing took place. I have off-wiki evidence (which has been emailed to the Arbitration Committee) that FleurDeOdile discussed ongoing discussions, attempted to "rig" them by asking others to participate in discussions that he started, and asked people to revert an editor on his behalf to avoid breaking 3RR. Given WikiProject Tropical Cyclone/Weather's history of canvassing as well as the fact that the evidence is confidential in nature and can't be posted publicly, I have decided to bring this to the attention of the Arbitration Committee. Noah^Talk 04:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WaltCip, what I proposed two years ago was a ban from editing image-related parameters and participating in image-related discussions. Said discussion was discussed off-wiki and was part of the prior ARBCOM case. I did not propose anything in the current AN/I thread. Additionally, AN/I is unable to handle the evidence of the canvassing due to its confidential nature. Fleur is not named in the decision of the WPTC case which was why I filed a new case rather than an AE request (the lack of naming in the case led me to believe that he was not subject to AE for that case). There have been other instances of canvassing within the weather project as of late, however, those people did not know what they were doing was canvassing and admins handled the situation appropriately. That isn't the case for Fleur, who made remarks off-wiki about the prior case and discussed canvassing all while doing it himself both before and after said case. Noah^Talk 14:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by FleurDeOdile

Statement by Jasper Deng

Statement by MarioJump83

It is important to remember that WikiProject Tropical Cyclones/Weather has been hostile to FleurDeOdile for years on and off wiki (confidential), and I for one had been involved by calling for a topic ban in tropical cyclone or weather-related topics for FleurDeOdile two years ago. But in all honesty, I do not want FleurDeOdile to be treated so harshly - I believe that a topic ban could get FleurDeOdile off from getting blocked again - and I could have tried to get FleurDeOdile a mentorship if I had not faced with significant stress at that time. Two days ago, I got stumbled into this case because I just happened to remind FleurDeOdile to stop taking input from off-wiki stuff and called for a topic ban again to prevent FleurDeOdile for, once again, getting blocked. My choice of words have been very harsh and I apologize for that, and during that time when I reminded FleurDeOdile, I thought I was no longer member of WPTC and reminded FleurDeOdile as a member of general Wikipedia community which led me to quickly realize what was going on.

That being said, I have a full regrets and feel shameful that I got involved with this WikiProject almost three years ago. I reconsidered my membership from time to time, but at this point I just don't want to be involved again in the cases involving WPTC, including the WikiProject itself. Despite all of this, I never condoned FleurDeOdile's actions nor I even assisted them on or off wiki. MarioJump83 (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, I feel this should have been put on WP:AE than WP:ARC, for where WP:ARBWPTC could apply. MarioJump83 (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with the WaltCip that this should not be a full case, I would rather that this should be resolved through a motion. I could see that Weather-related topics may be considered contentious as well. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With the FleurDeOdile being indeffed this case can safely be dismissed, however I won't count out a motion regarding making weather a contentious topic right now at this case request. Something has to be done. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by SolarisPenguin

I have seen FleurDeOdile misbehaving on wiki for a very long time. He's refused to take criticism, and continues to make edits and deletion nominations in bad faith. I've also seen him attempt to canvass people off-wiki to revert the Judy/Kevin tracks once he had passed 2 reverts already, and also to participate in his deletion discussions. In my opinion, it is quite concerning. SolarisPenguin (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by WaltCip

We don't need a full case for this. Not only is the relevant ANI thread still not closed, even if it ended in a deadlock, WP:AE would still be the better route. Also, the concerns I outlined in the ANI thread are still valid.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you once again to Robert McClenon for articulating my concerns far more eloquently than I with my pea-sized brain could ever hope to do.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by LindsayH

I do not believe the time is right for a case here, and i urge the Committee not to accept one. I will point out, however, that there has been at least one other ANI episode (here), and it was not mentioned above; in it, i believe, it is clear that there was general animosity towards FleurDeOdile which was stimulating the attempts to act against him. Like WaltCip, i note that the current ANI is still open and still, i second his concerns, as i did there. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 16:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (FleurDeOdile)

Not again!? This is another dispute about weather and the Weather Project. I haven't tried to count the number of disputes about weather articles, but they are really more about editors of weather articles, but we have had one full arbitration case, and other disputes. Weather is not designated currently as a contentious topic, and I am not sure whether it should be designated as such, but it seems to be a topic that attracts contentious editors. My suggestion is that ArbCom decline this case as a matter that the community should be able to resolve if the community is willing to impose a community-mandated sanctions procedure, such as former community general sanctions. The problem isn't the topic, but that the topic seems to be a magnet for fanatical or troublesome editors. Maybe there should be a sarcastic rule that editors are not allowed to behave like tornadoes or tropical storms. This is a troublesome area, and ArbCom should see if the community can handle it. If there is another weather filing in the next few months, ArbCom may need to impose contentious topics, because the editors bring the contentiousness with them. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This appears to have been a case request about misconduct by one editor, and the editor has now been blocked, so that this case can presumably be dismissed. However, it still illustrates that the weather area has a problem with contentious editors, although it doesn't involve nationalistic editing. This case may have blown out to sea, but further action by either the community or the ArbCom will probably unfortunately be necessary in the future. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

FleurDeOdile Off-wiki Canvassing & Cross-wiki Edit Warring: Clerk notes

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

FleurDeOdile Off-wiki Canvassing & Cross-wiki Edit Warring: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

While AE is generally the place for reports related to past cases, there is the aspect of private evidence which does not make it wholly inappropriate to post here. That being said, I am not sure whether a full case is necessary. Will wait for further comment by the community and my fellow Arbitrators. Primefac (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Decline. Primefac (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just can't see how AE could enforce the Recommended practices for off-wiki chat platforms remedy here. At the same time, I think we have a limited number of options here. We can't control what happens on other Wikimedia projects, yet alone non-Wikimedia projects. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 12:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Decline -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 09:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Guerillero that AE can't enforce Recommended practices. In fact I don't think ArbCom can enforce them either, hence the "recommended practices" rather than 'required practices" name. But what ArbCom can enforce is when people violate behavioral policies and guidelines onwiki. The idea behind the recommended practices is that if a server does those things its user are less likely to then end up in trouble for violating policies and guidelines, and certain kind of off-wiki coordination that lead to onwiki edits are a violation. For me the substance of this request is largely off-wiki evidence that has been sent to the committee. It's going to take me a bit to go through that in a way to determine if I think there's anything for us to do. If there is I suspect we can do it through motion rather than a full case. That said if there's an uninvolved admin who would like to close the ANI thread, I don't think this case request should stop them from closing it in whatever way they think appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have, as an individual checkuser, blocked FluerDeOdile based on evidence of off-wiki conduct violations in accordance with previous ArbCom guidance. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Decline. I think this could have been an email to a user with sufficient wiki-trust (meaning a CU or ArbCom) to make a block based on offwiki material, and Barkeep has actioned the private evidence that we did receive. Izno (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Decline SilkTork (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Decline. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Decline — Wug·a·po·des 19:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Decline CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Decline FDO is blocked and the block does not need the embellishment of being an ArbCom block. Cabayi (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement sanction issued by an administrator, such as through discretionary sanctions).
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123

Amendment request: American politics 2

Initiated by Interstellarity at 17:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case or decision affected: American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Contentious_topic_designation

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

Interstellarity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Valereee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[9]

Information about amendment request

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Contentious_topic_designation

American politics of the past X years and closely related people, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic.

Statement by Interstellarity

In 2021, I proposed that the AP2 dates were changed from post-1932 to post-1992. One idea that hasn't got a lot of attention is Valereee's idea that the years that American politics be sanctioned to be the last 25 years which would mean that the starting year that AP would be sanctioned would automatically change year after year. I'm not saying whether we should or should not use 25 years as a basis of at what point the sanctions start. I'd be open to other possibilities such as 30 years and 20 years, maybe 10 years. I think that with the idea of having the year automatically change from year to year, we won't have to revisit what should be covered in the current CT procedure. To give you an idea of what I am talking about, right now it is 2023. 25 years ago would be 1998. This means that when 2024 rolls around, the starting year that the CT would be 1999 and so on. Of course, if something falls out of the range we choose, it can be sanctioned if need be. I hope that the community will be willing to consider whether this will be a good idea. The other case that has it which is Iranian politics has a starting year of 1978 so we potentially talk about adjusting the dates there if need be.

@Valereee: I think in present times, Clinton, Obama, and Trump will likely remain contentious topics. I believe there will likely be a point in time where these three people will no longer have to be contentious topics since we are inherently biased towards current events. There will be a time when no new information about these three people will occur especially in the years or decades following their deaths. I think if Wikipedia were around during the 1970s, Richard Nixon would likely be a contentious topic. I don't think it needs to be one since we are a reasonable distance away from the event that disruption is at a minimum. I think it is unlikely that we will still need the 1992 cutoff when we get to years of 2050 and 2100, assuming Wikipedia is still around by then since it will be a reasonable distance away from current times and that disruption will likely remain minimal. I hope this clarifies my points. Interstellarity (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Valereee

I'm open to the general concept but I'm not sure this is as much about years as it is about what was happening. It might be good to be able to eliminate 99% of the politics of 1998 from inclusion, but we'd certainly have to immediately make the Clintons a contentious topic. I suspect that in ~2033 we'd have to add Obama and in ~2041, Trump. Valereee (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Clarity in terms of what articles fall under a topic area is one of the most important aspects to consider when defining it (probably the most important aspect.) Having one that changes automatically year after year therefore seems exceptionally undesirable. Would it tick over based on the new year? Based on the date of the AP2 arbcom case? How do we define the year when something occurs? This is in theory already an issue, but it's much less of one when the threshold is not a moving target - the question only has to be answered once, and only for things right on the edge, whereas a moving threshold would ensure that it is a constant issue. Would we use a bot to automatically remove templates for restrictions placed on AP2 articles that tick over the limit? And would the bot even be able to accurately determine when to remove such templates?

On top of this, I see no benefits whatsoever to doing this. The relevance of something to current AP2 focus is not directly a function of time; it's a function of the current way politics breaks down and which issues are hot-button within it. I don't think any automated system will be able to tell us when the Clintons (clearly one of the main things keeping us at the 1992 threshold) are no longer controversial enough to require AP2 restrictions - that will have to be done the old-fashioned way, by having humans consider it with their human brains via an amendment request, looking over the logs for which articles attract disruption, etc. Finally, the amendment request before was not that onerous; the next one will be even more lightweight because it's been done before and therefore won't attract as much conversation and because we have precedent for what sort of data and arguments to consider when setting a new threshold. I feel like the complexities of an automatically-moving window are going to waste far more editor time and energy than a simple amendment request that is likely to only come up once a decade or so. --Aquillion (talk) 08:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

American politics 2: Clerk notes

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

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

I'm going to be fairly skeptical that a rolling X year restriction is the right way to curb disruption. When we set the AP date to 1992 it was about the fact that the disruption that was happening was after that date following an extensive analysis of the enforcement log. It's also a significant date in American political history - Clinton was elected. You could maybe convince me that it's more appropriate to go 1994, the year of the Republican Revolution, but without much effort I saw last year's protection of Federal Assault Weapons Ban demonstrating continued disruption within that general timeframe. Similarly in Iranian politics 1978 is a significant non-arbitrary year. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think this is a good idea. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sanctions that require this level of attention and maintaining tend not to work out so well. If we arrive at a point where it is clear that 20th century American politics are no longer a contentious topic, we can adjust accordingly then. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm of the opinion that the date was chosen to include a specific event (i.e. Clinton's election). While I may be open to arguments to change the date, I don't agree that a rolling period is a good idea. Worm^TT(talk) 09:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like new ideas, so I'm in favour of this being proposed for consideration as the notion that recent events tend to get more of the disruptive attention so articles covering older events need less protection is one I agree with; however, I think it could be too problematic to monitor a constantly shifting area. I pondered some form of talkpage template on AP2 pages that kept track of dates and could be reset by disruption, but nothing easy came to mind. It all sort of involves more work for those monitoring the area, so I'm a decline, but a reluctant decline. SilkTork (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is a reasonable question to ask / proposal to make, but I concur with the above that the date was chosen not because it was X years ago but because it is a demonstrable cutoff point for when the topic seems to become controversial. If the cutoff gets changed, it should be to a specific date and with intention, not just arbitrarily. Primefac (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur that a crisp cutoff is needed. For the most part that would be a presidential transition. 9/11 would also be a break point. An ever shifting cutoff of {{Months before now|300}} is an insecure basis for a policy. Cabayi (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Motions

Shortcuts

This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions.

Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives.

Make a motion (Arbitrators only)

You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion". Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

Requests for enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

If you participate on this page you should be prepared to mete out potentially long term bans and you should expect reactive behavior from those banned.
Administrators who consistently make questionable enforcement administrative actions, or whose actions are consistently overturned by community or Arbitration Committee discussions may be asked to cease performing such activities or be formally restricted from taking such activities.
The enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally in order to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Not all enforcement requests will show behavior restricted by ArbCom. It may, however, violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines which you may use administrative discretion to deal with.
More than one side in a dispute may have Arbitration Committee conduct rulings applicable to them.
Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags, after which a bot should archive it in 7 days.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted under Result concerning X.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140	141	142	143	144
145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160	161	162
163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198
199	200	201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216
217	218	219	220	221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234
235	236	237	238	239	240	241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252
253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260	261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270
271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280	281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288
289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300	301	302	303	304	305	306
307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316

Springee

No action, but Courcelles' wise words are a good reminder to everyone. Don't flood a talk page with comments and regulate your tone. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 Springee

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FormalDude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Springee (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:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons

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

19:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Springee removes a contradictory and significant portion of a sentence, misrepresenting what the source says in a flagrant NPOV violation.
02:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Immediately challenges my revert of their edit on the talk page by claiming that "police found no damage to the door" does not mean the same thing as "police did not observe any visible damage to the front door".
05:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Continues to make objections with no substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines, or conventions.
06:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Tries WP:STONEWALLING by using the dispute they created as a reason to support their version.
06:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Finally comes up with a policy based justification: half a sentence is apparently undue weight.
11:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC) "We cherrypick all the time."
12:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC) To back up their undue weight claim, they make a list of sources that don't mention the portion of the sentence they want removed because they only listed sources that were published before the relevant information was made public.
12:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Continues to imply that their list of sources from the first initial days when the story broke, before the disputed content was made public, is a reason to not include said content. Also casts doubt on a greenlit RS with no reasoning.

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

Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I realize some may see this as primarily a content dispute, but the diffs I provide show Springee's editing is textbook disruptive POV pushing. I can't see how it is possible for an editor as experienced as Springee to make these edits in good faith.

I propose Springee be, at a minimum, indefinitely blocked from editing Tucker Carlson and its talk page. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To those saying it was too early for me to start this request, I would have waited in most other scenarios, but this is a hotbed article with a longtime experienced editor who should clearly know better than to make the arguments they did. I wanted to draw attention to what the experience is like when one tries to make a simple, policy-based edit supported by 1 2 3 4 reliable sources at Tucker Carlson. This is not the only time Springee has used less than impartial tactics, as Dlthewave pointed out below. Springee has over 500 combined edits to Tucker Carlson and its talk page over the past 3 years–nobody else involved in the discussion has anywhere near that amount in the same timespan. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With their statement below, Springee is still arguing that the first page of reliable sources that appear in a Google search result is sufficient for establishing due weight. Not only should any editor who has spent as much time here as Springee know that there are various reasons why using the first results from a Google search is misleading, but they still refuse to acknowledge that the sources they provided from that search are all irrelevant because they were published before the content under dispute (police announcement of finding no damage to Carlson's door and a journalist corroboration of that) had even taken place. Does Springee think we are naive enough to believe he doesn't understand that there will not be news coverage about something that hasn't yet occurred?

They also implied Ad Fontes is more important than Wikipedia's own long established RS consensus forming process at WP:RSP.

Attempting to water down language, arguing that reliable sources are biased while their own preferred sources are neutral, prolonging frivolous arguments that aren't backed by any policy–these are all behaviors explicitly spelled out at WP:Civil POV pushing#Behaviors. I don't see any explanation of how these actions are compatible with editing in this topic area. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I'm not sure how any of those comments of mine that you listed can be considered impolite, aside from maybe my sarcastic "Crazy how that works". Statements are not automatically impolite simply because they discuss negative information. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

14:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion concerning Springee

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 Springee

FormalDude, this is a content dispute that should have been handled via BLPN, NPOVN etc rather than here. There are no claims of edit warring and the diffs just show that we don't agree. I was planning on taking the question to BLPN when I had access to a computer but this was launched first.

As a general note about the Carlson page, I, along with others [10] feels it suffers from being excessively long with too many details and not enough summary hence why I'm frequently concerned about how content is added. Much of the content in the article is outrange of the week content rather than an IMPARTIAL/encyclopedic tone summaries. Talk page suggestions to trim frequently get pushback with a view that much as been written about Carlson thus we are obligated to include it. Uninvolved editors at BLPN noted the same issues. Sometimes a group of good intentioned but like minded editors can fail to see the forest for the trees. That doesn't mean the person who disagrees is disruptive. Having different, civil perspectives (without edit warring) is a good thing for the overall quality of articles.

As a note, I think IMPARTIAL and encyclopedic tone are important and I will argue the same way when the shoe is on the other foot [11], [12], [13], [14].

FormalDude's argument boils down to I'm ignoring due content. In making that claim they present 4 sources. To establish if the content is due I did a broad search for the topic and presented the first page of results. The idea being if this content is due I would expect reasonable coverage in that first page of RSs. When this search result didn't support inclusion FormalDude argued it was some sort of deliberate misrepresentation on my part to not filter for only later articles (they didn't indicate they did that filtering when posting their own sources). FormalDude certainly is welcome to argue my list isn't representative but it seems quite a stretch to claim my posting of sources (NBC, CBS, The Hill, Business Insider, CNN, Politico, AP News) was somehow disruptive.

Dlthewave and Aquillion are both are trying to turn old content disputes into evidence of a problem. While CONSENSUS clearly is policy, I was unaware that we were not allowed to CIVILLY disagree on talk pages. Both argue the proposal to use Reason at various times is evidence of a problem. They cite RSP as proof Reason shouldn't be used. That ignores that RSP is only a guide, and per RS sources are reliable on a case by case basis. While not a Wikipedia RS, Adfonts media bias chart[15] shows that Reason's bias and reliability scores (7.81, 36.73) are on average less biased than sources like the Washington Post (-8.96, 38.16), The Atlantic (-9.42, 38.42), MSNBC (-14.15, 35.14), Vanity (-14.45, 32.35) and DB (-12.70, 35.65). But more to the point, in the cited cases Reason is doing a deeper dive into the claims about the BLP subject in question and comparing those to the facts available. These sort of detail dive articles are often very good sources to use when evaluating claims against a BLP. Note the Reason article was not sympathetic to Carlson. The arguments against use are not based on the merits/content of the Reason articles. Rather they are based on an appeal to authority to dismiss the source outright. Dlthewave argued Reason a poor source yet they added it ("Add RS") to the section in question[16].

"POV pushing" is often a way to say, "I don't agree so they must be wrong". This is trying to solve content disputes via ARE rather than the proper dispute resolution forums. Springee (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isabelle Belato, I would suggest diving into the details before assuming the selective edits highlighted why Dlthewave and Aquillion are examples of trying to replace sources with a highly biased source. I'm not proposing we replace one set of sources with another. Instead, I'm suggesting we add a source that, in those particular cases, looked at the specific claims and evidence at hand and offered an assessment. In particular I think this is important when dealing with BLP articles where assessments in the media are often subjective. Consider these recent BLPN comments related to splitting vs reducing the Carlson article (not my comments) [17], [18]. I think they get to some of my concerns that ultimately boil down to trying to stick to IMPARTIAL even when covering controversial people. Springee (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Springee (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dlthewave is misrepresenting my comments. For example, the 19:48 11 March 2023 edit describes the bias/not IMPARTIAL in the wiki article, not the cited sources. Springee (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (slatersteven)

I could argue (and will do so) that both parties can be argued to be at fault. "did not observe" doesn't quite mean the same as "did not find", as one can be seen as a classic plausible deniability as it implies there might have been some, just not seen. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (Bookku)

Uninvolved opinion. (Sorry for totally unaware of topic area)
Brief check of difs and talk page seem to indicate above complaint largely seems to be content dispute brought here before completing protocol mentioned @ WP:DDE
IMO content disputes are best resolved through regular WP:DR IMO people need to have more patience and WP:Goodfaith about fruitfulness of WP:DR. Always think over giving best chance to WP:DDE andWP:DR before coming to ARE.

Bookku (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Peter Gulutzan

I noticed an earlier case where FormalDude reverted Springee in order to re-insert contentious material in the Tucker Carlson BLP article, on 23:54 5 March 2023, despite two other editors having indicated on the talk page that they were not in favour of the contentious material (later it was removed). FormalDude joined the talk page discussion 3 minutes after the edit, and I had previously -- in an unrelated matter -- asked FormalDude to look at WP:BLPUNDEL so there shouldn't be doubt here about awareness. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Thebiguglyalien

Involved. I believe that Springee and FormalDude have both been engaging inappropriately in this discussion. I'm sure that they both believe their position would improve the article, but neither seems willing to engage in dispute resolution or to assume good faith (evidenced in one case by the fact that we escalated straight to AE), and the end result is that they're both disrupting any meaningful collaboration on this article. They're not the only ones to do so in recent days, but they're the ones we're talking about here. We haven't reached the point where I'd recommend restrictions against one or both editors, but I wouldn't object to it either. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm challenging some of Dlthewave's statement. Dlthewave has been engaging tendentiously by attempting to enforce a negative POV on the article:

They insisted that it was required by policy to call Carlson racist in wikivoice and implied I had ulterior motives for disagreeing (diff), saying that we had to use the exact word choice of a source even after WP:LABEL and WP:CLOP were explained to them (diff).
They deleted a talk page discussion (diff) against the poster's wishes (diff).
They twice restored WP:SYNTH content that had been removed (diff and diff) and refused to meaningfully address concerns about the sourcing when asked (diff)

There are more before this, these are the ones since I became involved a few days ago. Dlthewave's statement, particularly points 3 and 4, is trying to litigate talk page arguments where they were out of step with policy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Dlthewave

Involved. Like most disputes, this does involve content, however I would encourage folks to look at the bigger picture as this is part of a larger ongoing pattern of tendentious editing by Springee at the Tucker Carlson article. This editor continually invokes made-up rules and unusual interpretations of policy and I think that editors are getting tired of humoring these fallacious arguments. Here are a few recent ones:

17:12 20 Feb 2023 - Arguing that content shouldn't be added because the article is already too long and editors don't trim material when making additions (why on earth would they be expected to do that?)
20:32 7 March 2023 - Proposing that we predict the subject's significance in "50 or 100 years" (this is absurb, we usually use the 5-year test) and invoking a bizarre standard that compares the subject's significance and article length to a random historical figure.
02:46 11 March 2023 - Referring to "racist" and "anti-Islamic" as "subjective claims" and violations of IMPARTIAL, despite being used verbatim by multiple reliable sources.
19:48 11 March 2023 - Proposing that Reason (a biased source whose opinions must be attributed) be used to provide a more "balanced" and "impartial" POV than the existing MSNBC source.
20:06 11 March 2023 - Same thread as above, again saying that reliable sources go "too far" and the biased source (Reason) should be used as a middle ground between Carlson's version of the events and what RS reported.

Although Springee's arguments apppear superficially polite and policy-based, they all too often misrepresent sources, P&G and common practices. Editors shouldn't be expected to "resolve disputes" with an experienced editor who behaves this way. –dlthewave ☎ 17:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I need to address a few of the points made by Thebiguglyalien. I'm open to feedback about my editing, however some of this seems like an attempt to discredit me in order to obviate my concerns about Springee:

- I did not "delete" a talk page discussion against anyone's wishes, I moved it to the relevant user's talk page. I pinged the two participants with a "I hope this is okay" note; this is the first objection that anyone's raised.
- The editor who challenged the content refused to elaborate when I asked them to explain the SYNTH concern. The best answers I got were "I suggest using your eyes" [19] and the nonensical "adding additional sources to support specific parts of the content violates WP:SYNTH" [20]. I gave my rationale for inclusion (after I once again asked for clarification [21] and editors insisted that I first make a case for inclusion [22]. Please either provide diffs where a viable SYNTH concern was expressed (I generally disregard content challenges that do not have a valid explanation) or strike the accusation. I do apologise for not seeing the SYNTH issue when I looked with my eyes, I will now go flagellate myself with the CIR stick. –dlthewave ☎ 20:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by GoodDay

Content disputes should be worked out at the talkpage of where the dispute is occuring. If a stalemate of sorts occurs, then one should begin an RFC there or go to the Dispute Resolution board. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Spy-cicle

I have not been involved in this specific discussion on the talk page, but I have previously edited the Carlson talk page 6 times over a year ago. After reading this discussion, I do not see this as "textbook POV pushing" to me it just appears to be a content dispute in already contentious topic area. WP:BLPRESTORE is worth considering as well. If so clear consensus can be found it can be resolved via an RfC or DR. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 18:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Atsme

I will state upfront that I do not watch Tucker Carlson because I find his laugh extremely irritating, but that's my opinion. Our job is to include the facts and far less opinion. We are obligated to dredge objectively through the material so that we are publishing all relative points of view in a neutral dispassionate tone. What I'm seeing here now is another episode of "let's get Springee" which crops up every now and then because Springee dares to maintain an objective and neutral POV. Neutrality is quickly becoming a thing of the past because of mainstream media's bias – on all sides...globally, not to mention the omission of important events. The Columbia Journalism Review brought some serious issues to our attention in their 4 part report, which included a quote by Matt Taibbi about how the more neutral approach to reporting has gone completely out the window. We are seeing it here now because we are nothing more than a mirror of mainstream media. Springee simply removed suggestive language that leaves readers with the wrong impression because information that belongs in the article was omitted. He's a good editor doing his job as a good editor. So the OP brings us all these innocuous diffs under the pretense Springee is being disruptive. The only disruption I'm seeing is the OP wasting our time here now. Another issue that we're seeing in recent years is omissions which have become the norm in mainstream media. Is it a new style of writing that our editors have picked up on? Some journalists are actually demanding that their personal truths be published and to hell with NPOV. The mere fact that Springee's appropriate responses and edits have raised such a stir speaks volumes to the OP's approach, not to Springee's, especially after you examine the innocuous diffs used as evidence. Smells alot like a WP:POV railroad to me. For as long as I can remember, Springee has been the most composed, polite, neutral and objective editor we have in this highly volatile topic area. We need more like him, not fewer, and we also need to put an end to these vexatious filings. Atsme 💬 📧 19:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Objectiive3000

Just a few side comments:

I don’t think WP:DR is an effective solution for highly contentious articles. I’ve not seen it work. Most of the editors involved are experienced, the issues are complex, the number of involved editors is generally larger, the contentious topics procedure is helpful on the TP, and the less formal TP discussion format is far quicker.

I believe FormalDude did abide by the relevant parts of WP:DDE and don’t think the need for a time consuming RfC was reached. Having said that, it was likely premature to come here.

I do believe some of Springee’s discussion was tendentious. When FormalDude presented four sources, Springee responded “If we have to stoop to Vanity or Daily Beast perhaps it's not due.“ Three of the four sources are green-lit at WP:RS/PS. Yet, Springee continued to point to the sources they presented, all of which were dated before the claim under debate, and therefore completely irrelevant. Sorry, for not including diffs, but the thread must be read in toto to understand – and I’m not suggesting sanctions anyhow.

Atsme stepped in again to make yet another general complaint about mainstream media (and editors), and then ironically states: “The Columbia Journalism Review brought some serious issues to our attention in their 4 part report, which included a quote by Matt Taibbi about how the more neutral approach to reporting has gone completely out the window.“ Ironically because that CJR article was widely panned as being heavily biased and Mike Taibbi, IMO, has defenestrated all manner of objectivity. In any case, none of this is relevant to this filing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, supporters keep saying that Springee is polite. FormalDude provided four diffs.[23] Springee responded: If we have to stoop to Vanity or Daily Beast perhaps it's not due leaving out two greenlit RS.[24] When I responded that this was cherry picking, Springee's response started with BS.[25] I don't know about other folk, but "bullshit" is not considered a polite response in my household. This is not in itself a reason for sanctions. Just tired of the repetition. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: thank you for saying no one is covered in glory in the discussion. My point was only that there have been repeated statements here that Springee is polite, as if he is an exception. Besides, his blanket dismissal of greenlit RS and insistence on using RS to show no mention of the doubt about damage to Tucker's door when those sources predate the claim that the door was damaged (the subject of the thread) is less polite than language use. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Adoring nanny

(Not involved in the dispute, but involved in the underlying politics). In Springee's explanation[26] of his edit, Springee mentions that the CNN source[27] says "It's still possible the door was cracked." This hedging by CNN was missing from the version of the article prior to Springee's edit. To me, this looks like Springee made a good explanation of his edit. Springee has further shown restraint by not re-reverting. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Currently, of the roughly 200 comments on Talk:Tucker Carlson, nearly a third of them (about 60) are by Springee. This is not a new problem; it goes back months, if not further. This is clearly suggestive of WP:OWN / WP:BLUDGEON behavior.

And while Atsme is correct to call these comments composed and polite, I don't think they can be called neutral or objective; Springee's comments and edits overwhelmingly take positions functionally supportive or defensive of Carlson. Obviously, he's hardly unique in that regard - most editors in the AP2 topic area have strong priors that inevitably affect their interpretation and weighting of the sources - but Springee's perspectives are unusually stark. For instance, he has been repeatedly skeptical of green-quality WP:RSes whose opinions he disagrees with (such as Mother Jones[28] and MSNBC[29]) been perhaps one of the most consistent and vocal advocates for using Reason (magazine) as a source on Wikipedia, describing its coverage as eg. balanced and impartial.[30][31] and generally advocating for framing that straightforwardly reflects Reason's coverage. See also this discussion and the one below it on Andy Ngo, where Springee argues for using Reason as a central source (also here where he hammers that one piece repeatedly as something that should define our entire coverage) while arguing, in the section below, that Bellingcat should be excluded based on his own disagreement with its conclusions. While it is true that Reason is (like most of the listed sources Springee objected to) a green-quality source on WP:RSP, it is also a source whose entire stated purpose is advocacy for a particular perspective; Springee's insistence on hewing to it and trying to push it as a neutral source that we should use to inform vital facts, while aggressively pushing to minimize and exclude sources from comparably high-quality sources with potential biases that he disagrees with, shows, at best, inability to separate his biases from his interpretation of sources, and WP:TENDENTIOUS / WP:CIVILPOV behavior at worst.

These two issues individually might not cause such severe problems; it's not uncommon for editors to have strong feelings about the topics they edit. But the combination of a consistently tendentious interpretation of the reliability of sources coupled with WP:OWN / WP:BLUDGEON tendencies towards this article shows WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior; editors with strong views about these things should recognize their biases and know when to back down, rather than hammering an article this thoroughly. --Aquillion (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by North8000

I've watched Springee edit and discuss and IMO they are one of the most polite, reasoning, cautious, policy-compliant editors that is involved in contentious articles. This is the kind of editor that we need more of on those types of articles. I've not taken the deep dive on this particular one, but in the past multiple times I've seen folks improperly using / weaponizing Wikipedia mechanisms to try to get rid of or deprecate Springee, including spinning up issues. I consider that to be harmful to Wikipedia.

As an aside, if an article is non-neutral in a certain direction, then neutral-oriented behavior in that particular article will tend to be in one (the other) direction. A few folks here are saying that such is per se a problem; that is not correct. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Responding to one post, the pretty rare and mild "BS" was referring to an accusation just made against the editor. And milder than converting to the spelled out version as the post did. Just like the term "SNAFU" is. :-) North8000 (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Loki's statement about what I posted at that article is flatly wrong and a careful read at the link will bear that out. It was nothing about the existence of the the strategy, denying it's existence would be absurd. It was about claiming that PragerU denied its existence. PragerU did not deny it's existence, and so the statement that said that it did was wrong and not reliably sourced. What PragerU did dissect and dispute was that it was the cause for the shift in voters that occurred. I'm only mentioning it here because something flatly wrong was said about me here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Levivich (Springee)

100% agree with N8k's comment above. As I read Talk:Tucker Carlson#Broken door?, I see FD being hostile throughout, from the very first post ("Are you trolling me?"). Note also that in that discussion, FD is bringing forward four sources: The Atlantic, The Daily Beast, Vanity Fair, and Snopes. Two of those are pretty poor choices. Springee, on the other hand, brings NBC, CBS, The Hill, Business Insider, CNN, Politico, AP, and USA Today. Springee's bringing good sources, albeit I think they might all have been stale for the content at issue. Either way, it's a content dispute.

FD appears to have started this case because Springee is disagreeing. Disagreeing is not sanctionable. Also, it bears emphasizing again what N8k said in his last line: when an article is POV-pushed to one direction, bringing it back to NPOV inevitably means moving it in the other direction. That is not, in and of itself, a problem.

You can't sanction somebody for politely arguing content with quality sources. Levivich (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Eruditess

Springee's editing appears polite and reasonable to me. Sourcing is good. I think his interpretation of some of the other sources is right on to be honest. I have to agree with North8000's point, this kind of action seems harmful to Wikipedia. Eruditess (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Loki

I'm not involved in the current dispute about Tucker Carlson specifically, but after interacting with him several times on multiple articles I've concluded strongly that Springee is a civil POV pusher in the area of American politics. The discussion I would point to is not the ones Aquillion linked to but instead this one where Springee edit wars against content sourced to Bellingcat, a green RSP source, over the objections of everyone on the page, all while arguing at length on the talk page over months, using exclusively WP:OR arguments like the Bellingcat article is misrepresenting some of Ngo's earlier tweets. (Edit: Springee even took this to RSP, where consensus was strongly against him. Loki (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC))Reply[reply]

You can see something similar, though admittedly less extreme, in this dispute on Prager U's page. (There's several similar ones, I picked this one because it was the first one I could find.) In it, Springee (and North8000) argue strenuously that we shouldn't say Prager U was wrong to state that the Southern Strategy happened, despite sourcing that directly says that and the wealth of sourcing over at our Southern Strategy page that it did indeed happen, based on again entirely WP:OR-based arguments.

I agree with people who say that Springee is polite. They're one of the editors I've met who's least likely to resort to personal attacks, in fact. However, WP:NPA is not the only policy on Wikipedia, and being "polite" is in fact one of the defining qualities of a civil POV pusher. Springee is not good about WP:V, WP:OR or WP:NPOV when it doesn't suit their personal preferences and those are all arguably more important policies than WP:NPA. Loki (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Sideswipe9th

I disagree completely that this is a content dispute. Loki, Aquillion, and FormalDude have all correctly identified that it's a WP:CPUSH problem. My current interactions with Springee are on a different article, Chloe Cole where I'm also seeing examples of this same problem. For brevity's sake, I'm going to focus on two discussions.

Dawn Ennis' September 2022 LA Blade article

[32] Advocates for removal of a reliable source, based on a banner in an archived copy of the Twitter profile of the source author (Ennis), taken 5 days after publication
[33] Interprets the archived banner as Ennis "suggesting violence against Cole"
[34] I clarify that the banner in question is Ennis quoting from Cole, from where Cole misspoke in an interview with Ennis
[35] Casts doubt on Ennis' statement that she was quoting Cole. And that we should retroactively treat Ennis' article with "great suspicion"
For more context on the timeline of the article and Twitter banner, see this reply by me to Slywriter.

Discussion on sourcing

[36] Makes that sources instead of engaging in Cole's arguments, reliable sources are often attack her via ad hominem, guilt by association etc
[37] TheTranarchist asks for examples of sources that have done this, adding that it's Cole's actions and not arguments that are causing hurt hurt to trans people
[38] Instead of listing any sources, Springee tries to dismiss TT's request and point as a motte-and-bailey argument
[39] I reiterate the question, asking Springee to prove his assertion that sources are not engaging with Cole's points and are attacking her
[40] Springee answers with a non-answer saying we have a range of sources. He does provide one, the LA Times column on Cole's lawsuit we were discussing.
[41] I again ask Springee to clarify which specific sources he is objecting to, by giving a link to the source and why he was objecting to it
[42] Springee again answers with a non-answer, focusing on the LA Times column about Cole's lawsuit.
At this point, I decided not to continue that discussion as it felt unproductive and that Springee was unlikely to support his assertion that sources often attacked Cole

What I can't tell, from my interactions with Springee, and from the other diffs provided above is if the problems at Cole's BLP are because of a CPUSH involving GENSEX, or CPUSH involving AP2, or CPUSH involving both, because Cole is at an intersection between GENSEX and AP2. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Filiforme1312

I want to echo sideswipe9th's concerns and say I also see similar issues in the Cole article, as they have outlined. I'm new to this process and have a lot of IRL work to get to so I'll leave it there. For disclosure, I've been involved in the conversations referenced in the Cole article. Filiforme1312 (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Maddy from Celeste

I agree that there is a GENSEX problem here. In addition to Sideswipe9th's diffs, I wish to present a few more here, just off the top of my head.

On the matter of Chloe Cole, Springee misapplies policy in unlikely ways:

Special:Diff/1142620450 – here they argue that WP:FRINGE does not apply to a topic because no source uses the word "fringe" about the topic.
Special:Diff/1144569908, Special:Diff/1144575377 – Springee argues that an author who allegedly has a negative opinion of Cole should be discounted per WP:COI and WP:INDY, both of which are plainly inapplicable here. INDY explicitly states that strong opinions about a topic are not the same thing as nonindependence.

Here they do a weird goalpost-shift, which I have a hard time reading as anything but a bizarre attempt to score a win against their interlocutor in some way:

Special:Diff/1142090658 – You are making a bunch of claims but not supporting them. Your opinion is fine but this is why we have NPOV policies.
Special:Diff/1142143022 – I asked for the research papers (in particular review papers).

In the wake of TheTranarchist's topic ban, they made a series of accusations on the closer's talk page, which I feel serve more to hurt the affected editor than to actually address problematic editing:

User_talk:CaptainEek#ANI_closure_request

While compiling these, I found this AP2-related user-talk-post, which I feel is highly relevant here:

Special:Diff/1144093278 – they're overtly encouraging a blocked editor to a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, accusing unnamed editors of being "out to get" Tucker Carlson.

■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My point is not that any of these diffs is in itself a disruptive argument so beyond the pale it entails sanctions, but these and Sidesqipe9th's diffs are examples of how Springee's contributions in total are unhelpful and disruptive. Such is WP:CPUSH. I don't understand Crossroads's argument about my fourth and fifth diffs. In my view, it is mainly behaviour that is sanctionable on Wikipedia, and viewpoints usually not. That comments cannot be examples of disruption because they are aimed at someone who agrees with another editor who later was topic-banned, is a completely absurd argument.

All in all, this seems to be an attempt to remove Springee from certain topic areas. – that is indeed what topic bans are for. Disagreement is disruption when you disagree disruptively. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 07:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Crossroads

I read the OP's diffs, and it's clear this is a content dispute. If anything OP should be WP:TROUTed for wasting so much time over excessive detail like Tucker Carlson's front door (seriously...), the exact kind of cruft nobody will care about even a month from now that articles on some people tend to get bloated with. It's also obvious the point in including this cruft was to imply that Carlson lied, even though the very source used acknowledges it's still possible the door was cracked. This diff was also misquoted as "We cherrypick all the time" and out of context; there Springee's point is that we don't "include every fact/claim in our sources", which is indisputably true - see WP:NOTNEWS.

Maddy from Celeste cited this diff as supposedly problematic, but - though some good faith editors may disagree - it is in no way a disruptive argument so beyond the pale it entails sanctions to say that a BLP should not be labeled as fringe unless sources specifically say so. Maddy's fourth and fifth diffs are Springee arguing against an editor who wanted to label that BLP as "anti-trans", a position which did not get into the article, and was also being argued by a different editor (as seen on that talk page) who was recently topic banned for their behavior on BLPs of this nature. It's thus clear which side of that matter the community actually considers disruptive and POV pushing.

All in all, this seems to be an attempt to remove Springee from certain topic areas. I echo Levivich's comments as well. Disagreement is not disruption. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Springee

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

Just noting that at least this admin has seen this request. No substantive comment as yet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll write more later, but so far, after reading the report and the relevant discussion at the talk page, I have to agree with Thebiguglyalien's take, in that neither users come out looking good from that dispute. @Dlthewave: I think you meant to link to WP:RSP in your diff #5. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at the diffs provided by Dlthewave and Aquillion (some of which overlap) it seems to me that Springee has a clear point of view they want to push into the articles. That, by itself, is not entirely wrong, as sometimes an article might not be adhering to our WP:NPOV policies and be in need of differing views that are reported by reliable sources (cf. WP:YESPOV). The problems arise when an editor continuously pushes for a highly biased source in lieu of better ones, raising false balance issues; or when every other editor in the discussion has agreed that the events are undue and would be better for the quality of the article for its mentions to be removed, but this one editor refuses to budge. I'm still not sure about a sanction, but would like to hear from other administrators. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dlthewave and Springee: you two are above the word limits for this noticeboard. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Springee: In response to your post at my talk page, I'm extending your limit to 700 words for now, which means you will need to slightly trim your current text. Since it was already replied to, please strike or hat wherever necessary. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 17:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Dlthewave: 100 extra words should be sufficient if you reduce the usage of quotes from your initial response. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not seeing anything terribly damning in the evidence presented here. I do see content disputes, and disagreements on how biased sources in both directions should be handled in contentious articles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Objective3000, in that same discussion where Springee said BS, there was also Are you trolling me?, You don't get to pick and choose which parts of a reliable source to include based on your personal preference., Note that an objection to an edit that gives no substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines, or conventions is not a valid objection., multiple accusations of cherry picking, Crazy how that works.. No one is covered in glory in that discussion. Picking out a use of BS as the example of lack of politeness isn't convincing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not seeing anything sanctionable here. I see two editors in a content dispute. Springee would do well to make their comments more concise and perhaps comment less frequently (it's not necessary for any one editor to reply to every comment). FormalDude would do equally well not to assign motives to other editors and not let their frustrations show through in their comments. But fundamentally, if it wasn't these two editors in this topic area, we wouldn't be here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My opinion is that both Springee and the filer deserve a gentle reminder to respectively not flood a talk page with comments and to regulate their tone and that otherwise this is a no action close. Courcelles (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BleedingKansas

Indef blocked as a normal admin action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 BleedingKansas

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MrOllie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: BleedingKansas (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/COVID-19#Contentious_topic_designation

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

01:41, 13 March 2023 BLP / Point violation on Jay Bhattacharya 1
01:43, 13 March 2023 BLP / Point violation on Jay Bhattacharya 2
01:45, 13 March 2023 BLP / Point violation on Jay Bhattacharya 3

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 08:23, 25 February 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

BleedingKansas has been editing the articles about the Great Barrington Declaration and its authors, generally in a way that is supportive of the declaration. Since that is largely against the mainstream medical position, their editing attempts have not met with a great deal of success. Today, in an apparent effort to make some kind of WP:POINT, they have switched to adding straight up attacks on one of the declaration's authors to their biography. I think something needs to be done about this. MrOllie (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[43]

Discussion concerning BleedingKansas

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 BleedingKansas

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

BleedingKansas responded on their user talk page. A partial quote (I'm leaving out their self-outing and some personal info):

"those of you managing Wikipedia have allowed it to become a joke, a mouthpiece for the "socially approved" among us. It is a shame that I must say this - you have let down the potential of Wikipedia by allowing it to become captured by the intellectual forces of our "new aristocracy", who lord over the rest of us, declaring things acceptable or unacceptable, true or false. Know this - a backlash is brewing up against you. Those of you who secretly sympathetic to my complaint - now is the time to take the unpopular actions to restore true collaboration to this platform. If not, it will die a death of irrelevance."

I don't know if there's a part of the project they'd be a good fit in, but I highly recommend a COVID TBAN at the least. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Levivich

Bleeding Kansas led to the US Civil War. Not surprising that someone who chooses this as a username would have a pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND editing and say things like "now is the time to take the unpopular actions". Levivich (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by WaltCip

It can be argued that this user with insurrectionist invective does not possess much interest in participating in a collaborative fashion. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning BleedingKansas

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

Based on the pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND editing I see, a COVID topic ban is definitely warranted. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've indef'd as WP:NOTHERE as a normal admin action. A COVID topic ban is the bare minimum necessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur with the tban on COVID-19, which appears to be this user's main focus of editing. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good indef. Bishonen | tålk 17:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Concur with the indef. Short of a dramatic change of attitude, there doesn't seem any likelihood they'll be unblocked so I think this can be safely closed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michael Pocalyko

Both extended confirmed protected for between 2 and 4 weeks as normal admin actions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In advance, I apologise for the very nonstandard request. Can we please get a template for requests that are seeking page-level sanctions instead of sanctions against specific users?

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022), WP:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: I cannot provide diffs as the situation is such that they are being revision-deleted on discovery.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: N/A; seeking page-level sanctions

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): N/A; seeking page-level sanctions

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am seeking extended-confirmed protection under the provisions of WP:GENSEX and WP:ARBBLP on Michael Pocalyko and The Navigator (Pocalyko novel). Yesterday an explosive Twitter post was made by a transgender woman which essentially accused him of provoking their suicide by forcing her into a position where she would need to de-transition; since then the article has been targeted by angry users calling him a murderer as a result. As far as I can determine the only sources for this accusation aside from her twitter post are extremely sketchy websites which seem to have no editorial oversight. Once the BLP was protected, the edits moved to the article on the novel, hence why I am adding it to this request.

The articles were semi'd yesterday and, at the time of this post, Pocalyko is under an hour-long XCP. As I am fairly certain this is going to be a major issue from experience even when and if reliable outlets start to corroborate the claim, I am seeking XCP as an enforcement measure for at least two weeks on The Navigator and one month on Pocalyko. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 21:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EDIT: Per the IPv4 below, and looking at that page's history, I'm thinking they're right and that Fahad Almubarak should also get an XCP of at least a month. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 21:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: N/A, seeking page-level sanctions

Discussion concerning Michael Pocalyko

Statement by LilianaUwU

It's a touchy situation to say the least. I agree that both the novel and BLP pages should be ECP'd for the mentioned lengths of time, or at least until actual reliable sources start to be published. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by 199.208.172.35

It would be helpful to add Fahad Almubarak to the list of articles being considered for upped protection in this case. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Michael Pocalyko

Michael Pocalyko had already been extended-confirmed protected and I've increased the protection of The Navigator (Pocalyko novel) to ECP based on the editing at Michael Pocalyko. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CozyandDozy

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 CozyandDozy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Burrobert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: CozyandDozy (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) and Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons

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

24 February 2023 Repeated insertion of unreferenced and challenged content in Aaron Maté's bio. This is the first insertion.
24 February 2023 My reverting of the first insertion.
25 February 2023 Cozyand Dozy reinserted the text.
25 February 2023 I started a talk page discussion in which CozyandDozy did not participate.
5 March 2023 Insertion of the same disputed text into the body of the article.
9 March 2023 The disputed text is removed by another editor because the "strong allegations not found in the given citation".
16 March 2023 Cozyand Dozy reinserts the disputed text which they say was "apparently deleted by Mate meat puppets".
06:48, 27 February 2023 and 19:28, 27 February 2023‎ Two reverts within 24 hours in a page with 1RR restrictions.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Arbitration decision CozyandDozy retired two years ago but recently returned to editing. Prior to their retirement, Arbitration decided that "If they return to editing, broad AP2 and BLP restrictions should be immediately imposed, referencing this report". The reason for the previous decision relates to inserting unreferenced material in a BLP and edit warring.

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 2 June 2020 (see the system log linked to above).
There is a WP:1RR notice on Aaron Maté's talk page: [44]
Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 1 January 2021.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning CozyandDozy

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 CozyandDozy

Hey.

The stuff I was sanctioned for (or about to be sanctioned for) a couple years ago was a real violation of policy: I kept adding accurate information that, while supported by a source, was not supported by an RS, to a BLP. I am not going to defend myself there.

Given that this was so long ago, I did not even remember the details of it until just now, when I read the original complaint by Gorillawarfare and refreshed my recollection.

I will say that two years later, I have grown up and would not so glibly violate WP policy as I had before. Whether this sanction should still be imposed two years later (after a two-year "exile" from the encyclopedia) is up to the administrators, I imagine.

This newest complaint is completely erroneous. All my edits on Mate are supported by reliable sources and various other editors at the page, two of which have reverted my edits back in since this report was made. The reporting editor is apparently biased in favor of Mate, and is using my two-year old policy violation as an excuse to try to get his way on the Mate page. CozyandDozy (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Doubletiberius

Judging by the user's edit history on the Mate page, a reasonable person would doubt that their previous violations are not still indicative of their behavior, e.g, the edit summary of "re-adding well sourced material that was apparently deleted by Mate meat puppets" on the 16th, which is just one of 41 edits to the page from the same user within the last 23 days, with the first page edit from them happening on the 23rd of Feb. At initial glance none of their edits meet consensus, and they haven't used the talk page from what I can see. Doubletiberius (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Cambial Yellowing

The phrase you do appear to have engaged in discussions in good faith on the talk page is an interesting response, given the facts: [45], [46], [47]. Pinging Tamzin as the initiating admin for the page sanctions. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning CozyandDozy

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

@CozyandDozy: Had it not been for your response here, I could very easily have formed the opinion that you are a disruptive editor and that Wikipedia would be better off without you. Your acknowledgement of the concerns that got you blocked previously suggests that perhaps that's not the case. Nonetheless, reinstating challenged edits is disruptive, especially when the topic is controversial and the material concerns a living person. There are stricter rules about how we write about living people because of Wikipedia's visibility in search results and the impact that can have on people. However, you do appear to have engaged in discussions in good faith on the talk page. I'm inclined to close this request as premature but if you get into another edit war, it's very likely that you will face sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marcelus

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 Marcelus

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Pofka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Marcelus (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/Enforcement/Archive316#TrangaBellam (administrator explanation regarding the most recent sanctioning (in Poland-related topic): It "applies in the mainspace and relates to all articles related to Eastern Europe. (...) This restriction is indefinite, but I will be willing to reconsider after three months with no violations and no edit warring in other topic areas." (diff).

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

23:52, 12 March 2023. A proposal discussion was started by user Amakuru regarding my request to change article name of a Lithuanian noble Paweł Holszański (member of Lithuanian Alšėniškiai noble family) from a Polish language version (Paweł Holszański) to a Lithuanian language version (Povilas Alšėniškis) because per Google search it is WP:COMMONNAME (see: screenshots) and he was a Lithuanian noble.
09:00, 13 March 2023. Soon the proposal was opposed by user Marcelus who provided links to the Google searches by purposefully selecting "Search pages in English only" and this way excluding all Lithuanian language sources (which use Povilas Alšėniškis). This, of course, dramatically affected numbers and Lithuanian version was presented as allegedly not the most common version (this is clearly very important for other voters and movers). Since Google Scholar (and Google books) have too few sources about this Lithuanian noble, I think such action was not Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
09:02, 13 March 2023. He clarified: "Strong oppose", so likely unwilling to WP:COMPROMISE.
18:11, 13 March 2023. Following my additional explanation why the renaming is necessary, Marcelus replied and inserted statement that "Paweł Holszański was a Polish-speaking Lithuanian noble". This is very strong argument how his name should be written, right? Nevertheless, I found no such information in WP:RS (that he was a Polish, not Lithuanian language speaker) and requested Marcelus to provide WP:VERIFIABLE WP:RS supporting his claims to prove that it is not his own WP:OR or to cross that out.
20:28, 14 March 2023. Marcelus replied, but ignored my request about WP:RS, so it began looking like WP:IDONTHEARYOU, non-WP:NPOV WP:POVPUSH WP:NATIONALISM (one of its examples: "Famous person is or is not a member of group").
20:59, 14 March 2023: again ignored my request.
19:20, 15 March 2023: again ignored my request.
18:44, 16 March 2023: again ignored my request.
19:59, 16 March 2023: again ignored my request.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

22:08, 11 February 2023 for WP:EW in Lithuania, Poland topics.
01:21, 17 July 2022 for WP:EW in Lithuania, Poland topics.

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on Date (see the system log linked to above).
Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on Date
Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on Date.
Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict, on Date.
Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There also was a report two months ago regarding Marcelus's editing of content in Lithuania, Poland topics (see: archived discussion). Multiple users agreed that Marcelus violated WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:POVPUSH, WP:GRUDGE, WP:ICANTHEARYOU, WP:NOTHERE by trying to insert claims to the article that Zigmas Zinkevičius (personally described by Marcelus as "chauvinistic pig": 1, 2) is described as "anti-Polish", but Marcelus did not provide WP:RS describing him exactly as such. The report was flooded with text and eventually archived without a clear decision. For understanding what happened back then, I recommend reading statements by Cukrakalnis (reporter) and Turaids (initially uninvolved editor).

Since limited scope, time sanctions don't stop Marcelus, I think indefinite WP:TOPICBAN should be applied in Poland, Lithuania, Eastern Europe topics.

(moved; reply to Volunteer Marek) Hello, I lately discussed about the situation with an administrator at his talk page (diff) and I was suggested to file WP:AE. I think that persistently not providing WP:RS is not disagreement. Similar situation occurred to Cukrakalnis and Turaids as well (described above). -- Pofka (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Isabelle Belato: Hello, being recognized as one of only two finest editors in "Lithuania" topic myself and Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia, I think it is unacceptable to use personal interpretations to prove POV/insert content and it raises concern about Reliability of Wikipedia.

As described in Cukrakalnis and Turaids situation recently, this is not the first time Marcelus act without providing WP:RS to support his actions in Lithuania, Poland, Eastern Europe topics. I did not participate in Cukrakalnis-Turaids-Marcelus dispute and only saw evidence provided about it at WP:AN, so I cannot describe these users statements here as well by having only 500 words. I pinged them with wiki links, so I think they could explain what happened back then themselves if it is necessary, but I think evidence provided at WP:AN also describe it well. WP:EV for which Marcelus was sanctioned was in the same topics as these concerns about his content-related actions are being made.

Usage of WP:EV, personal interpretations and ignoring good faith requests to WP:VERIFY them in the same topics seems like WP:NOTHERE to me and WP:IDONTHEARYOU is related with this. Or are we going to freely allow Marcelus to describe any Lithuanians as Polish-speakers, "chauvinistic pig" and anti-Polish without WP:RS/WP:VERIFY? -- Pofka (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marcelus: Your expansion of the article do not prove that Povilas Alšėniškis was a Polish-speaking Lithuanian noble as you claimed (and by the way it was performed with offline sources when at talk page you persistently refused to WP:VERIFY your claim). Your sanction related with Zigmas Zinkevičius was applied after a later report when you continued your actions in the same article (see: HERE), so the initial report was really left without a clear decision. It is easy to check. Request to evaluate activity is not negative commenting. -- Pofka (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[48]

Discussion concerning Marcelus

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 Marcelus

Pofka created WP:RMT ([49]) regarding the Paweł Holszański page, undoubtedly knowing that this is a controversial move that needs to be discussed, as it is not the first discussion about what name should be used in article about historical figure of similar background. I protested againt RMT by checking the results from Google Search and Scholar in English (per WP:COMMONNAME, in short: we use English sources) which were radically different ([50], [51]). When this was moved to WP:RM#C I reiterated this argument ([52]), I also gave a brief historical context as to why I think the Polish-sounding version of PH's name is so popular, then a bit later I also added results from Google Books ([53]). In the meantime, I expanded the article on the basis of the sources available to me ([54]) and told Pofka that he would find the answer to his question about the sources there ([55]).

On March 11, 2022, Pofka received a total ban for Lithuania and Poland for attacks on me ([56]), but also for previous offenses (similar situation as now, I explain why the "Polish" name is popular Pofka attacks me for Polish nationalism, etc.) Pofka since October 12, 2022 is also blocked completely on lt.wiki for personal attacks ([57]). The ban on en.wiki was lifted on January 5, 2023, which I supported ([58]), Pofka declared: I learned from it, and I'll not negatively comment about other fellow editors.

Contrary to what Pofka says the Zinkevičius case did not end "without a clear decision." - ~~I and Cukrakalnis were blocked for EW~~ [edit: ok, I confused the timeline, we were blocked after another report on me, link, nonetheless I wasn't sanctioned]. And it was flooded mainly by WP:EXHAUST by the other side (mainly the issue of the 'chauvinist pig', an epithet I used on the talk page and admitted I shouldn't have; in no version of the article was ZZ referred to as anti-Polish which I clarified: yes and he isn't called that in the article, only his policies are described as "nationalist" and "anti-Polish"). This the reason for my 0RR after the last AE. Pofka wants me to be penalized 3 times for the same thing.

Pofka also used my 0RR to get the upper hand in content discussions (1, 2,3. When I asked him to stop doing this, he simply deleted my question from his talk page). There were also some occassional WP:HOAX accusations ([59]), but these are thigns I used to when interacting with Pofka.

I reported this to HJ_Mitchell without asking for any sanctions on Pofka, because I think there is no problem for both of us to edit on Wikipedia, even more so in a topic where there are not many active users. I still hope so.

Pofka was an active participant in the discussion, which is easy to verify, moreover he incited other users against me (possible WP:CANVASS)Marcelus (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Is there a revert here? The restriction on Marcelus is 0RR. But all the diffs provided by Pofka are ... talk page comments. This is just a complaint that Marcelus dares to disagree with Pofka (on talk pages, civilly). Pofka also, when referencing the restriction, quotes only irrelevant portions (that it's indefinite etc) but manages to omit what the restriction actually is. Maybe a WP:BOOMERANG is in order. Volunteer Marek 01:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The exact comment from the admin on their talk page [60], made on March 14, was: " Your two posts between them are over a thousand words. If you want me to take any action, please make your point concisely. Preferably a tenth of that length. Otherwise you can file at WP:AE but note that walls of text are not accepted there either.". Volunteer Marek 01:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by TB

There is nothing to see here. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That section is not really evidence of "battleground mentality", a word thrown around too carelessly these days. Editors are humans — not androids — and tempers flare; as long as things resolve, all's fair and fine. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Shadow of the Starlit Sky

Hello, I am an editor who in uninvolved with these interactions between Marcelus and Pofka. However, I have collaborated with Pofka once before while WP:NPOV-ing Gediminas.

I would like to say that I have looked through Pofka's edit history, block log and global account log. It seems as if Pofka has been indef banned in other wikis in the past including Lithuanian Wikipedia for incivility and ad hominem attacks ([61]).

And, Marcelus isn't immune to blame, either. This interaction (https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=User_talk:Marcelus#Your_evidence) seems like an indication of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to me. Not to mention his past conflicts regarding Polonization of Lithuanian names somewhat suggests a WP:NATIONALIST mentality regarding this user too.

I think that an interaction ban between Pofka and Marcelus may be necessary at this point.

Shadow of the Starlit Sky (Talk) 03:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now that I look at the other Admins' responses, I think that maybe a one-way IBAN from preventing Pofka from interacting with Marcelus may be necessary. Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just read what Pofka posted on @HJ Mitchell's talk page. I kinda agree with his claim about Pofka having a WP:BATTLE mentality now. I will have to look closer into what Pofka said to be 100% sure, though. I just skimmed over his post on HJ Mitchell's talk page for now. Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But then, the thing I'm concerned about is that Pofka's made tons of constructive edits to Lithuania-related articles in the past, so banning him might greatly affect WikiProject Lithuania and all Lithuania-related articles (he's gotten a Precious nomination in the past). I mean, there are other editors such as Cukrakalnis and Mindaur who have made many constructive edits to Lithuania-related articles, but I believe that Pofka's probably one of the major editors regarding that subject.

I still want Pofka to stop some of his WP:TENDENTIOUS editing at times, though, judging from the other admins' responses.

--Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Marcelus

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

This report is, quite frankly, hard to follow and rather a mess at the moment. We need diffs that show actual problems, and right now I’m not seeing it in this filing. Also, ever as the filer, please comment only in your own section. Courcelles (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After a longer, rested look, I think this needs a boomerang, either a logged warning or a little stronger response to Pofka for WP:TEND issues in their editing and conduct in this RM and this AE filing. No actual evidence of current wrongdoing has been issued agains Marcelus. Courcelles (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The provided diffs appear to show a content dispute over a single page move nothing more. In addition, as Volunteer Marek pointed our, the sanction Pofka is seeking to enforce is one of WP:0RR, and not of a specific contentius topic violation. Pofka, I'd recommend you take HJ Mitchell's advice, here, to heart. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 01:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pofka: The only problematic thing I see in your report of Marcelus is their refusal to provide the sources you asked for. I see Marcelus has now clarified why he didn't do so, but I'd like to remind them that, if you do have the source, and it's easy to post it (apparently it was one of the sources they added to the article), then you should present them when requested, especially in a MR. On the other hand, it worries me that Pofka continuously use past sanctions against Marcelus as arguments to push during content discussion, the same battleground behaviour they were topic-banned for. Those supporting the removal of your topic ban were very clear that, if this behaviour repeated, sanctions would likely be imposed again. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marcelus: you are slightly over the word limit count. Please trim your response, and a reminder you'll need to request an extension for further replies. Thanks. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm concerned that Pofka's reaction to my clarification of Marcelus's restriction, and my request to stop bringing it up where it wasn't relevant, was to dump 1,000 words of accusations on my talk page relating to a content dispute on one article, and then to file this request, where no uninvolved admin has seen any sanctionable misconduct by Marcelus. This is, in my opinion, suggestive of a battleground mentality. I would support a boomerang. I'm tempted by the idea of an interaction ban but I don't want to impede constructive discussion on article talk pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]