Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:33, 2 February 2021

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 informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against an editor 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 an editor who engages 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 fewer 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. Reports are limited to two individuals: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so. 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, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Spartan7W

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by WEBDuB

Ihardlythinkso

Armatura

Philip Cross

Volunteer Marek

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 Volunteer Marek

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Buidhe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Volunteer Marek (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

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations :

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

1. 01:21, 29 January 2021 In a series of 14 edits, VM restores content that violates article sourcing requirements
2. 11:47, 29 January 2021 I reverted, pointing out the sourcing issue among others. VM reverts again in this diff.

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

VM was previously topic-banned from this area as a result of the arbcase

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There's a lot going on in the diff so I will specify the sources added by VM and how they show up in the diff:

• Zajączkowski, Wacław (June 1988). Christian Martyrs of Charity (PDF). Washington, D.C.: S.M. Kolbe Foundation. pp. 152–178 (<ref name="WZaj:152–201"/>) —also, this source doesn't appear to back up the claim cited to it, namely that "Polish rescuers of Jews were sometimes exposed by those very Jews if the Jews were found by the Germans, resulting in the murder of entire helper networks in the General Government."
• Żarski-Zajdler, Władysław (1968). Martyrologia ludności żydowskiej i pomoc społeczeństwa polskiego . Warsaw: ZBoWiD. (<ref name="Żarski">)
• Caryn Mirriam-Goldberg (2012). Needle in the Bone: How a Holocaust Survivor and a Polish Resistance Fighter Beat the Odds and Found Each Other. p. 6. ISBN 978-1612345680. Approximately 3 million Poles rescued, hid, or otherwise helped Jews during the war, and fewer than a thousand denounced Jews to the Nazis. -> Memoir being cited for this WP:REDFLAG claim
• 2009 self-published book by Mark Paul: ({{harvp|Paul|2009|pp=16, 63–71, 98, 185.) discussion about Paul
• deathcamps.org a self-published website
• Xlibris (self-published) book by Richard Kwiatkowski
• BBC article that does not cite any historians, experts, or scholarly sources

None of these sources meet the article sourcing requirements. I asked VM to remove the citations to unreliable sources that he added, but he refused to do so: In the same edit, he removes content sourced to up-to-date scholarly sources discussing prewar antisemitism and stating: "Some Jews were denounced or killed by erstwhile rescuers. Motivations of rescuers differed; some were motivated by compassion and altruism while others did so for money or sex." (t · c) buidhe 18:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• As I pointed out on VM's talk page, he assumes full responsibility for all edits he makes. It is 100% HIS responsibility to avoid citing any unreliable sources. It is not MY responsibility to prevent him from doing so or specify exactly where he has done so. All my edits were all explained with edit summaries; if he chooses to restore content that was removed for other reasons, it is his responsibility to ensure that in so doing, no unreliable sources are cited. That condition was not met. (t · c) buidhe 19:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek

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 Volunteer Marek

• In this edit Buidhe did a BLINDREVERT of FIFTEEN of my edits. They did not raise any of the issues on talk, start a discussion or engage in any form.
• In their edit summary Buidhe claimed that they were undoing restoration of "content that fails article sourcing requirement". They never explained, enumerated, articulated or stated which sources were supposedly violating the sourcing requirement. This spurious AE report is the first time that they've actually bothered to provide this information.
• In that same revert Buidhe obviously removed material and sources which CLEARLY satisfy sourcing requirement. For example Yad Vashem as well as several academic sources, for example "Paradise Lost? Postwar Memory of Polish Jewish Survival in the Soviet Union” from scholars at Hebrew University and University of Basel, published in the journal Holocaust and Genocide Studies. Put simply, their edit summary was false. The content being restored was based on sources which clearly meet sourcing requirement.
• Buidhe then left this threatening message on my page, once again, falsely claiming that I restored content which didn't meet sourcing requirements. Once again, I asked them to please state WHICH sources supposedly violated the sourcing requirement since they hadn't bothered to do so (here is article talk page , note the ABSENCE of any kind of explanation from Buidhe).
• Rather than simply saying something like "this source and this source and this source violates sourcing requirements" Buidhe chose to proceed with the filing of this report. This is clearly WP:BATTLEGROUND and trying to use this board as an intimidation tactic.

Note: this AE report right here is the FIRST TIME Buidhe actually stated which sources supposedly violate the sourcing requirement. It seems Buidhe expects me to read their mind. I can't do that. They need to explain what it is they want. Or possibly this impossible demand - "read my mind and make edits I want or I will report you" - is simply a WP:GAME approach to editing which this spurious report AE illustrates. Now I can't avoid the impression that this whole "I'm gonna accuse you of doing wrong but not tell you what it is you have to guess" game is basically a set up, a feeble justification to just come running to WP:AE. WP:BOOMERANG please. (Note also that I'll be happy to remove any sources which do in fact violate sourcing requirements - of course once they're identified) Volunteer Marek 18:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh and I also asked Buidhe to explain WHICH sources violated the sourcing requirement here on talk as well. So that's TWO instances where I asked Buidhe to explain, they refused, and instead proceeded to file this report. Sorry, but as the target of this attack it very much looks to me like an attempt to artificially generate a "violation" so they could go running to WP:AE. Which is bad faith'ed. Funny thing is, they decided to do it even in the absence of any such violation. Volunteer Marek 18:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe YOU ONLY "POINTED OUT" on my talk page ... just now . Look at that time stamp. You posted that AFTER you filed the report. You posted that AFTER I had already responded here. Come on! And I'm sorry but I can't read your mind. If you say there are "unreliable sources" and I ask "ok, which ones", you DO INDEED need to explain? Not try to play these silly "gotcha games". (and even the question of whether these sources are really unreliable or not is open).

Likewise, you can't be all like "oh there is like one maybe questionable source in this huge paragraph (but I'm not gonna tell you what it is, you have to guess or I will report you) that also has a dozen obviously reliable sources like Yad Vashem and various scholars but I'm going to remove the entire thing anyway because I don't like it but use that one possibly unreliable source as an excuse". That's just. Not. Good. Faith. Editing. Especially since in all these cases there's MULTIPLE citations to the text itself. WP:BOOMERANG Volunteer Marek 20:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C:, the source you mention is not actually the memoir itself by the introduction to it. It cites several historians (Norman Davies, Raul Hillberg) and the Holocaust Encyclopedia of the US Holocaust Museum. Normally this would be a reliable source, although with the more stringent sourcing requirements here, you're right it's borderline. Still, there were four citations there for the same text so this did not appear to be a significant issue. If Buidhe had just said "I don't like THIS source" I would've been happy to discuss and remove it.

Note also that this is material that's been in the article for long time (long standing, you know?) and I did not add it myself, I restored it after Buidhe removed it, asking them to discuss it on talk (this also addresses Paul Siebert's question). Buidhe, in what is basically their standard MO, came to the article, made massive and controversial changes the reasons for which are often hard to parse, used edit summaries which did not always make sense or were inaccurate and failed to discuss any of their changes, even when asked to do so. Note that I did not blind revert them or undo ALL their edits - I spent considerable time going through them one by one but given the the sheer magnitude of how much the article was changed in a brief period of time without discussion, it's entirely possible that I missed a few things (the Paul source, as the other Paul points out is probably one of these). This is exactly why discussion or at least an explanation from Buidhe would have been helpful. Volunteer Marek 05:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: I'm sorry but this isn't about whether or not there should be discussion about whether some particular source meets the sourcing requirement. It's more basic than that. It's simply about having Buidhe just STATE which source they're objecting to. Giving them several chances to do so. Them refusing. Repeatedly. Threatening instead.

They removed a TON of content. They removed sources like Yad Vashem and Holocaust and Genocide Studies and several works from academic presses. Given how much they removed and that they removed clearly reliable sources, me asking them to just be clear on what sources they're talking about is perfectly reasonable. Pretending that this is somehow a "waste of time" is ... strange.

If Bhuidhe had the time to

1. remove massive amounts of content from the article including numerous clearly reliable sources
2. Post on my talk page
3. Make threats
4. Post on my talk page
5. File a complicated AE report (which is very time consuming)

then... how in the world did they not have the time to simply write "I object to source X"??? Especially since they clearly did have this time since they included that info in this very report AFTER the fact. Please. Volunteer Marek 01:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: and @Thryduulf: - I am extremely busy today and I won't be able to respond to the latest comments until much later today. For now I just quickly want to say that I usually try to refrain from responding to comments by outside involved non-admin commentators (and both Levivich and Francois Robere have been involved in this drama ever since the whole Icewhiz saga began) because in my experience that only leads to bickering and is a waste of time. All I want to say is please don't take their "analysis" at face value. For all but one of these sources (that one being Mark Paul, which is indeed unreliable), the situation is far more ambiguous (for example in the past AE has "ruled" that popular media - as long as it was "mainstream" and prominent, is ok , which would apply to BBC etc). That ambiguity is why Buidhe should have done me the common courtesy of explaining which sources they were objecting to rather than demanding that I employ my psychic powers and read their minds (my psychic powers have been a bit off lately, too much static in the air or something). Volunteer Marek 14:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by GRuban

If you need to spell out the evidence to Arbitration Enforcement, it should be worth a try to spell out the same evidence to your fellow editor first, and see if they'll just say "yeah, I agree", or at least "I don't completely agree, but can meet you half way by doing this and this". You can always come to AE afterwards if that doesn't happen. --GRuban (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Paul Siebert

• First, although some specific sourcing restrictions are applied to this topic, I was not able to find this information at the article (and/or its talk page). Instead, the talk page informs the article is just under ARBEE. I think it would be correct to make the information about sourcing restriction more easily visible to users.

• Second, if sourcing expectations is an additional restriction, it is natural to expect that they are supposed to be strictly observed. For example, how we deal with 3RR violation in articles that are under DS? If a user made more that 3 reverts, they may be warned at the talk page, but that is optional: such a violation can be directly reported at AE. Yes, it would be better to warn the user at their talk page, but a normal reaction at that warning is self-revert, and then a discussion may continue. Imagine a situation when a user is warned about 3RR violation, and, instead of self-reverting they starts to argue: "Are you sure? Please explain what you are talking about?" etc. I think, addition of poor sources that violate sourcing restrictions is not less severe violation than edit warring.

• Third, I tried to analyse evidences, and I find them difficult to understand. The only clear case is an addition of a source (Paul) that was recognized as unreliable at RSN. In my opinion, it would be better to minimize the number of cases, and use the space to a more detailed analysis of which concrete statements were added by VM, and why these statements are not supported by sources cited, and/or why these sources are of poor quality.

Statement by Aquillion

As I pointed out on VM's talk page, he assumes full responsibility for all edits he makes. It is 100% HIS responsibility to avoid citing any unreliable sources. It is not MY responsibility to prevent him from doing so or specify exactly where he has done so. The last part isn't true, at least not if you intend to escalate immediately to WP:AE like this - in a dispute, both editors have responsibilities to meet a bare minimum of communication, especially if they intend to escalate so rapidly like this. While all edits require sourcing, once an editor has made a good-faith effort to source something, you have to be at least reasonably specific if you want to dispute that - WP:REVEXP says that A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. When you revert a massive number of changes at once, simply saying "there are sourcing issues with this" or the like without saying where isn't remotely substantive. --Aquillion (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by The Four Deuces

I would like to discuss one of the edits made by Volunteer Marek: "Polish rescuers of Jews were sometimes exposed by those very Jews if the Jews were found by the Germans, resulting in the murder of entire helper networks in the General Government." {Zajączkowski, Wacław (June 1988). Christian Martyrs of Charity. Washington, D.C.: S.M. Kolbe Foundation. pp. 152–178.)

First, the Kolbe Foundation is not a reputable publisher. It is named after, according to its website, Maximilian Kolbe, who founded the Militia Immaculatae in order "to battle Communism and Freemasonry." While the site doesn't mention it, Kolbe saw the Freemasons as "as an organized clique of fanatical Jews, who want to destroy the church." (Joyce Wadlerm Washington Post, December 5, 1982. In other words, he was an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist. The Foundation's course of study and published books seem highly biased and questionable.

The text violates both Synthesis of published material and Unsupported attributions. It doesn't say how often this occurred or how many Polish rescuers were killed as a result, but implies it was significant. In fact the footnote mentions six people who betrayed their captors and 30 people plus a family who were murdered. (See "Polish death camp" controversy#Historical context, footnote 27. This would represent a small number of the 450,000 Jews that the Polish rescuers hid or the 1 to 3 million they helped, if the numbers in the article are accurate.

I noticed also that although the text says that a Jewish woman betrayed her helpers to German military police in Grzegorzówka, according to an article on the International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation website, "There is no way of knowing how the hideout was discovered, but it is thought that they were betrayed by the policeman, Włodzimierz Leś." I don't know if that was an error in the Kolbe Foundation source or if the source was misrepresented.

Editors should not use dubious sources, draw conclusions and implicitly misrepresent the situation. I can understand when novice editors do that, but Volunteer Marek has been contributing to articles about Poland for I believe 10 years. It is unreasonable to expect that editors should devote the time required to analyze each edit. I notice too that despite buidhe drawing attention to this edit, Volunteer Marek has let it in the article.

TFD (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes, in the ARBCOM case in "Antisemitism in Poland" in which you participated as an uninvolved editor and Volunteer Marek was topic-banned, it was decided that, "Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions." Disagreeing with an ARBCOM decision is not a good reason to disobey it. The correct approach is to ask ARBCOM to change it.

I was in fact unaware of the strict regulations and pointed out why at least in one case a source used by Volunteer Marek clearly failed rs for any article.

TFD (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Ealdgyth

I’d like to endorse TFDs statement above...I’m on the road or I’d elaborate more, but warning Buidhe at without even trying to see if VM violated the sourcing restrictions in place shows that no one is ever going to actually enforce these sourcing restrictions and thus it’s not worth the bother of involving myself in this subject area at all. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

the problem with requiring Buidhe to specify which sources were bad and then discuss if challenged makes the sourcing restrictions useless. The Paul source was discussed to death and consensus was that it wasn’t even reliable, much less meeting the sourcing restriction. The BBC isn’t an academic source, it’s a news organization. Both of those shouldn’t need discussion, they should be easily removable under the Arbcom restriction and consensus should be required to even consider re-adding it. However, no admin has really bothered to enforce violations of the sourcing restriction and here it’s clear not only won’t they, but they will warn editors who attempt to get it enforced or require extra hoops ...it’s not worth it for other editors to even try to clean up this area, honestly. I should not have to argue on the talk page that the BBC source does not fit the restrictions, but this is what is being required. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

Volunteer Marek was a party to an arbcom case involving (among other things) the use of substandard sources. Arbcom TBANed VM and put in a source restriction . Within a month of successfully appealing the TBAN , VM is using sources that violate the source restriction (see OP and TFD's analysis above).

Buidhe brings this up at VM's talk page , and VM's response includes At the same time you clearly removed sources which easily meet the requirement like Yad Vashem. Please don't do that. So, VM is well aware of the source restriction and uses it to support his argument, and even asks Buidhe not to violate the source restriction. But VM cannot evaluate his own sources under the restriction? I don't buy that.

I see some want to decline this report or even boomerang it because there wasn't enough discussion prior to the filing. Seriously? The whole point of the arbcom case was that these discussions were disruptive, a timesink. That's why there's a source restriction: so we don't waste time arguing about crap sources. It's not reasonable to ask volunteer editors to spend an inordinate amount of time discussing source-restriction-violating-sources with the editor who was TBAN'd in the very case where the source restriction was put in place. Buidhe started a discussion; we shouldn't ask more of Buidhe's time as a prerequisite to enforcing the source restriction, especially when the person violating the restriction was a party to the case and is coming off a recently-appealed TBAN.

I agree with Ealdyth's comment above. This kind of frustrating nonsense—a source restriction put in place, an editor who very well knows about it violating it, talk of a boomerang at AE when it's reported—drives editors away from these topic areas.

@Buidhe and everyone else: I suggest ARCA is a better venue than AE for enforcement requests these days. At least when reporting a veteran editor. Levivich /_hound 17:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

One example:

1. The source restriction is Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. That excludes the press. A huge part of this arbcom case was about the use of academic sources v. news media.
2. Buidhe removes a BBC article with the edit summary article sourcing requirements. This is a straightforward and correct application of the source restriction.
3. VM restores the BBC source, and the claim of 150,000 killed by Soviets, with the edit summary restore original - please don't remove well sourced content and discuss controversial changes on talk . This is a straightforward violation of the source restriction. "Well sourced content" is exactly what this isn't. And VM knows it, because he was a party to that case.

Nobody should have to take their time to discuss this; the whole purpose of the source restriction is that edits like VM's don't happen, period. And this is just one example. When an editor is TBANed, appeals, and quickly returns to the conduct for which they were TBANed, the typical result is not a boomerang, it's at least a warning if not reinstatement of the TBAN. Levivich /_hound 17:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Buidhe's edit summaries were clear, and in addition, there was a specific discussion started by Buidhe on VM's talk page. What I'm hearing is: that (A) Buidhe should have donated more time in being more specific about VM's source restriction violations, and (B) we're going to not action VM's source restriction violation because the person who complained about it didn't complain about it in the right way. Aside from being bureaucratic, that's a very counterproductive approach. What is the most important thing here? That Buidhe raise complaints in the right way? I say no! (With an exclamation point!) The most important thing here is that the source restriction doesn't get violated. The most important thing is that our articles meet V and NPOV. How Buidhe handles complaints is important but a distant second to core content policies.So: Was the source restriction violated? Yes. (Does anyone disagree?) Will it be violated again? I don't see any reason to think it won't be given that there doesn't appear to have been any acknowledgment of the initial violations. The two basic questions: Did VM do anything wrong? If so, is there anything in VM's response here that makes you think it won't happen again?To not action this because the person who complained didn't go about it the right way actually harms readers and other editors... it hurts the encyclopedia to let someone "get away" with a source restriction violation because of how the complaint was raised. It's like we're allowing readers to read content that doesn't comply with V because Buidhe didn't volunteer to spend more time trying to convince VM that VM violated the source restriction—that's counterproductive. If the source restriction has been violated and there has been no acknowledgment of that, we shouldn't just let that slide, not from an editor who is just coming off a TBAN.Anyway, I said my two cents and used up more than my 500 words again so I won't keep pressing this, but I hope the reviewing admins reconsider. Levivich /_hound 18:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I'm saying even conceding that Buidhe's message was just "going through the motions", that still leaves the two basic questions: Did VM do anything wrong? If so, is there anything in VM's response here that makes you think it won't happen again?

Do I have to go and discuss removal of this BBC source? Or can I just go remove it from the article right now? Because, as Ealdgyth point out above, VM hasn't removed it yet. That makes me think VM thinks it's an appropriate source under the source restriction. Please don't leave that hanging, just because Buidhe didn't bring the complaint up the right way. Please resolve the dispute, the actual dispute, the dispute about whether the source restriction is being followed or not. Don't just address the meta-dispute about how the complaint was raised.

I'm saying what's important here is the time of editors and the state of the article. Neither I nor anyone else should have to volunteer our time to discuss whether that BBC source (and the others) stays or goes. That's the point of the source restriction: that it can just be removed. I don't have to spend my time trying to get consensus to remove it, even if it's "longstanding". As I understand it, this is the outcome of that arbcom case. Yet VM appears to believe that "take it to the talk page" is OK, and that it should be discussed at the talk page. I disagree with that: I think it can just be removed from the article, no discussion is necessary.

The disputed content and substandard sources are still in the article right now. So if this closes with just a logged warning against Buidhe, that leaves the question: Can I go revert VM? Or do I need to get consensus on the talk page first? (Because I think if the answer is the latter, that means the source restriction is not being enforced.) Levivich /_hound 18:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Here is Marek arguing against the source restriction at the Arbcom case PD talk page:
• Here is Marek on Dec. 21 making an edit with an edit summary noting "... the source may not meet sourcing requirements"
• Here is Marek on Dec. 24 restoring content (that Buidhe removed ) and talking about the "sourcing requirement" in an edit summary (The source BTW is an interview with a historian published at TotallyJewish.com)
• Here are Marek's edits from December enforcing another Arbcom restriction and also casting (probably correct) aspersions about socking

Forgive me, but I don't think it's FR who is failing to get the point here. Levivich /_hound 20:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by SarahSV

I'm having health issues at the moment and can't respond in detail. But I have to express my shock at the suggestion that Buidhe be admonished for trying to uphold ArbCom-mandated sourcing expectations at that article. The sources Marek added or restored violate those expectations. Marek was topic-banned during the same case, so he is fully aware of it. SarahSV 20:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by François Robere

I'd like to echo Ealdgyth and TFD's comments on sourcing, and add the following:

• "Mark Paul" is the pseudonym of an unknown writer affiliated with the Canadian Polish Congress in Toronto (KPK-Toronto) and the revisionist publication Glaukopis (see Żbikowski, A. The Dispute over the Status of a Witness to the Holocaust. 2018). They've been associated with anti-Jewish writing (Levine, A. Fugitives of the Forest. 2010) and spreading a myth that's prejudicial against Jews (Michlic, J. "I will never forget what you did for me during the war". 2011), and have no authorship or editorships credits that I'm aware of in any notable publishing house or journal. Their de-facto deprecation at RSN followed several loud discussions, including an RfC.
• ArbCom's sourcing restrictions were specially formulated to exclude popular media sources, regardless of whether they're considered reliable in any other context. The phrase "reputable institutions" was meant to allow research and education institutions only, not popular media publishers.
• Misplaced Pages has already garnered its fair share of bad publicity because of bad sourcing, and every time an admin dismisses such a case for process reasons, we get a step closer to another wave of bad publicity. I share the admins' concerns regarding process, but process alone does not a Misplaced Pages make. François Robere (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Martyrologia ludności żydowskiej i pomoc społeczeństwa polskiego is a dated source (1968) published by a non-scholarly, state-controlled publisher in the Communist Polish People's Republic.
• Xlibris is indeed a "self-publishing" house, neither the book nor the author can be found on Google Scholar (assuming an historian, not a psychologist or geochemist), and the marketing blurb suggests a non-academic book. The homepage of Xlibris is actually blacklisted by the system, so I got a warning trying to post it.
• Perhaps needless to point out that the cited website is self published, and looks unmaintained. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Needle in the Bone was authored by poet Caryn Mirriam-Goldberg. The sources cited for the introduction include two memoirs (one of which I can't find), an about.com page, and a USHMM page that doesn't support the statement to which it is attached (same statement that was brought to Misplaced Pages). Historians Norman Davies and Raul Hilberg are merely name-dropped, not referenced, and in a different place. The book has one citation on Google Scholar. François Robere (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Thryduulf and Black Kite: A bit of an old case: the complaint there was insignificant compared to this one, yet despite the waste of AE's time no WP:BOOMERANG was suggested. François Robere (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Thryduulf: This case has three risks as far as the community is concerned: the first is driving away editors, which is already happening and has been happening for awhile; the second is the "weaponization" of AE; and the third is an appearance of preference towards the respondent. If you dismiss the complaint with a warning to the OP, then perhaps you would've addressed the second risk (which one could argue is already addressed by this discussion), but you certainly would've reinforced the first and the third. François Robere (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @Thryduulf: I'm not missing the point, I just don't think it's enough to justify dismissing Buidhe's complaint with nothing, especially when so many TA regulars repeatedly state how important it is to uphold ArbCom's decision. François Robere (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Johnuniq: You commented that you haven't seen "anything like the Daily Mail being used as a source", but that was before TFD and myself had reviewed the sources. If I may suggest that you read through our comments, if for no other reason than to acquaint yourself with what is considered Daily Mail-level within the TA. François Robere (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Noticed Swarm made a similar comment, so pinging to suggest the same. François Robere (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Volunteer Marek, Johnuniq, and Thryduulf: (Pinging you, since VM pinged you on the subject) The phrase "reliable institutions" was added by PMC (in response, among others, to VM) in order to allow publications from independent research institutions such as the USHMM and Yad Vashem to be used. Sandstein, who was not involved in the ArbCom case, may not have been aware of this when he made his comment. After Sandstein's decision WTT weighed in and clarified that news sources weren't what was intended, since using news sources has been a big part of the problem, even if they are reliable. François Robere (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• @El C: Regarding your fear of a "slippery slope" - my experience with the sourcing restriction has generally been positive. Editors are usually either friendly and amenable to compromise, or "repeat offenders" with whom Talk has been exhausted. The first you usually call to Talk to work it out, but for the second you rarely have recourse outside the Boards. I suspect if VM's reply had been more cordial, then Buidhe might've considered him the first; but since this was how he replied, and his reply came after reversing her justified edits with comments that seemed to ignore her justification, she considered him the second, and so we arrived here. François Robere (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes

I agree with all comments by admins below. I did not follow this conflict, and I am not an expert on the subject, but simply looking at the edits... For example, here Buidhe tells in edit summary "Restoration of content that fails article sourcing requirements..." and removes referencing to ... Yad Vashem (section "The poles and the Jews") and other presumably good references. Hence all of that does appear to me as a "wikibattle".

I think that additional specific sourcing restrictions (beyond WP:RS) are not helpful for collaborative editing because they lead to countless disputes about sources. Only WP:MEDRS restrictions are probably good, but those were vetted by the community, unlike these rather arbitrary sourcing restrictions introduced by Arbcom for Holocaust in Poland. My very best wishes (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Volunteer Marek

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

• Prefacing that I haven't looked closely at the contested edits (and otherwise evidence) provided here, my immediate impulse it to echo what GRuban said above. The conversation at User_talk:Volunteer_Marek#Article_sourcing_requirements is extremely sparse. El_C 21:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Paul Siebert, no, I'm taking the Committee's cue, per this ARBPIA ARCA to longer play anymore WP:AWARE games. All parties are regulars and are deemed aware. And that's that. Volunteer Marek, I'm struggling a bit on how to cautiously articulate this (because I could be wrong), but the veracity of your wartime historiography concerning Polish rescuers is coming across as rather sketchy to me. I mean, Needle in the Bone? In what universe does this come close to meeting the sourcing requirements? I'm trying to make sense of that, for example, and it's just not coming together for me. Anyway, while you may get off lightly here regardless, because Buidhe really should have made more than a half-hearted attempt to engage you —the AE noticeboard is the last resort, Buidhe, it is for when matters become truly intractable— but (speaking to VM again) I don't understand why you would risk your APL status. I, for one, still have a fresh enough memory of supporting (strongly) the Committee's motion to rescind your ban. Now I'm starting to feel uneasy. So, please, put at me at ease. I would like that. El_C 00:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Johnuniq, using a memoir for APL edits is like using the Daily Mail — that's the point. But, indeed, Buidhe's note on VM's talk page was wholly inadequate, there's no disputing that. El_C 01:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Volunteer Marek, okay, I sorta figured as much (that the memoir is not just fabricating wartime data), but it's those historians that need to be cited for something as important as a claim of 3 million rescuers (failure to do so is a slippery slope). But I take your and Swarm's points and realize now that my language was too hyperbolic, so, so struck. Anyway, I don't think longstanding ought to be clinged to when the reliability of sources are in serious question (especially for a page that falls under the stringent APL sourcing requirements). But that's a general principle that doesn't really apply here. Buidhe should have specified then, not here at AE. That the discussion failed to materialize is on Buidhe, who seemed to have mistook this noticeboard for a blunt instrument. I'm not sure they ought to exit this ordeal without some lasting consequences, especially considering my last warning to them (diff), in which they admitted that they do have difficulties collaborating with others (diff). Anyway, I'm open to suggestions on how to proceed. And, I also apologize to VM for my excesses above. It was partially due to myself having misread the timeline, and that is on me. I'll try to be more attentive in the future. El_C 06:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Levivich, Volunteer Marek is not under any sort of probation, so a specific discussion about him falling short of the APL sourcing requirements (which I agree, isn't great) is still absolutely expected on Buidhe's part. Now, if the same problems repeat again for that page (or occurs elsewhere) after that, then sure, an AE complaint would be due, as would likely subsequent sanctions. Maybe that already happened before, even, but in that instance, that would be something which Buidhe should have already recorded in this very complaint (I wouldn't rely on my own memory for that, at least). Anyway, a logged warning to Buidhe works for me. Otherwise, they are encouraged to continue monitoring APL edits with the aim of ensuring that they meet the sourcing requirements, but any perceived failures on that front (by VM or anyone) ought to be addressed the right way, including the final step in which violations are reported to admins, here at AE. El_C 18:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Levivich, see my first comment in this thread. It was an extremely half-hearted attempt at discussion on Buidhe's part. I'm not sure exactly how to translate the idiom לצאת ידי חובה — but that's basically what it was. El_C 18:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Levivich, right, "going through the motions" — that's a close enough translation (probably the best one). Anyway, you are not subject to Consensus required for that page, and even if you were, I doubt that it would apply to sourcing requirements challenges. Yes, you are entitled to remove any content which you deem as failing to meet said requirements — so long as a genuine, meaningful effort at engagement is undertaken when objections are raised or you are otherwise queried about it. El_C 19:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Ealdgyth, my main concern with allowing discussion to be circumvented is with it turning into a slippery slope which is likely to lead to chaotic editorial conflicts. Certainly, as I already note above, once such discussion is undertaken, and fails, then escalating to filing an AE complaint would make sense (and would, in fact, be encouraged). El_C 19:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• El C I think the phrase you are looking for is "paid lip service to". RolandR (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• RolandR, indeed, that's an even better translation. El_C 16:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• I do not know who is "right" about the article content and sourcing but discretionary sanctions are not available as a gotcha to remove opponents. Perhaps Volunteer Marek was wrong on the issue (I don't know) but I don't see anything like the Daily Mail being used as a source so Buidhe's request at User talk:Volunteer Marek#Article sourcing requirements was entirely inadequate—it is necessary to at least pretend to assume good faith, particularly when the topic is under discretionary sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I recommend this be closed with no action. @Buidhe: You may be correct about the edits and the sources—I do not know. If a situation like this arises in the future, please use a different approach. First, post on article talk with a brief explanation why the edit or sources were inappropriate. Wait and engage with any arguments made in response. You might think that is a waste of time but you must appear to be assuming good faith. Also, your comments and the response to them will be evidence in any future noticeboard report. If dissatisfied and after at least 24 hours (24 hours if outrageous, a week if merely bad), post on the editor's talk briefly outlining your concern and mention that you think a report at AE should be made. Wait and engage with any arguments made in response. Only then should you make a request here. Johnuniq (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Comments above, particularly those by TFD and Levivich and François Robere have educated me. I had previously read Arbcom's sourcing expectations but missed their significance as I've never seen anything like that before. As Levivich explained, Volunteer Marek's reported edits came soon after VM's topic ban was rescinded and VM was a party to WP:APL and should have been aware of the strict sourcing requirements. Even if VM had forgotten, Buidhe's post at User talk:Volunteer Marek#Article sourcing requirements must be regarded as an adequate reminder. In any other topic, VM's rejoinder "How about you first point out which sources you're referring to?" would have been fine but as explained above, the whole point of WP:APL's sourcing requirements is to put the onus on the person adding them. Someone new to the article would need a clear explanation, but not VM. Unless someone can justify VM's sources, I now regard VM as having clearly breached WP:APL and I recommend no action regarding Buidhe, other than the informal comments made here. However, Volunteer Marek should be topic banned for six months due to ignorance of, or disregard for, the strict sourcing requirements (although "published by reputable institutions" is a loophole). Johnuniq (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• GRuban sums it up. It's quite simply inappropriate to try to win a content dispute in an admin report after repeatedly refusing to explain your position in the content space. In fact, it's a good way to get boomeranged. Communication is required. Refusing to explain your edits when necessary is disruptive. Buidhe claims they explained in edit summaries, but they really didn't, most of their edit summaries just said "article sourcing requirements", meaningless words, no better than leaving no edit summary. Instead of discussing, Buidhe simply threatened VM with an AE report, and when asked what exactly the problem was, Buidhe flat out refused to answer, saying nothing but that it was VM's responsibility to automatically know why the sources were unreliable. That's just not how things work, and it's disruptive behavior. Even giving Buidhe the full benefit of the doubt that they're right about the sources, that still doesn't excuse their behavior. This is a collaborative project, and you can't reject collaboration in favor of threats and intimidation via admins. Looking at El_C's example, I don't see how that's akin to Daily Mail, it may be a memoir but it's one written by an apparently-credible academic, published by a major university press which claims on its website that it is rooted in historical research, contains a works cited section, and while I can't access that for free, you can access the page in the book where that content is pulled from and see that it's apparently written as a fact in the author's voice and it has a footnote marker. I'm not saying it's definitively a reliable source because of that, but to me it certainly seems plausible to think that it would be one, and if one is being told that it's "obviously unreliable", I would at least expect an explanation. ~Swarm~ 05:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• I would decline here --Guerillero 06:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think "no action" is the right outcome for this, given the experience and history of all the parties involved. No action is needed against VM, but a formal, logged, warning to Buidhe that communication is not optional and that AE is not a the first or even second step in a content dispute seems both justified and needed. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @François Robere: I'm guessing you're advocating against warning Buidhe for his actions, but I don't get why you think it is at all relevant? There are a huge number of examples of people jumping multiple steps up the dispute resolution ladder before even attempting the things that should come first, some of them result in boomerangs, some of them don't. I believe that the circumstances of this incident merit a warning for Buidhe regardless of whether one was or was not justified in an entirely unrelated incident in 2018. Thryduulf (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @François Robere: I'm not certain how one can avoid showing a preference for a respondent who has been dragged to AE completely unnecessarily by a complainant who has fallen significantly below the standards of editing behaviour? If there is a perception that VM is getting preferential treatment at AE (I don't know) there are three possibilities - (1) they are behaving better than others in the topic area, in which case there is no issue with unequal treatment, (2) there isn't actually any preferential treatment seen from the perspective of a neutral observer, in which case there is no need to change anything, or (3) they do get off more lightly than they should, which is something that needs sorting out but does not the fact that on this occasion the other party has behaved sufficiently badly towards them that they merit a warning (this is similar to a stopped clock moment. As an aside, do we have any content on Misplaced Pages about this?). As I don't follow every AE action in this topic area I don't know which is correct, but none of them would justify not giving a warning they would otherwise be merited - indeed the best way to ensure fairness in dealing with the topic area is to treat each cases fairly on its own merits. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
      • @François Robere: You are still missing the point that communicating this is essential and editors cannot be expected to read minds. Zero0000 puts it well "If VM had been told which sources were questioned and had still insisted on using them without a consensus that they passed the test" then we would be legitimately discussing whether VM should receive a sanction, but not in the absence of that. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Johnuniq: I completely disagree. The sourcing requirements do not remove the need for communication and when asked in good faith "which sources are you challenging and why?" the correct response is to list the source(s) you are challenging and why you are challenging them. That does not mean clearly inappropriate sources always need to be discussed, but they do need to be identified. Anything else would lead to any one editor being able to unilaterally prohibit the inclusion of a source for any or no reason, with no method of challenge and would prevent an editor from learning what was wrong about the sources they presented. This is doubly important for cases like this one where multiple sources were provided. It doesn't matter whether the sources VM presented were or were not acceptable, that is a matter for the article talk page at this point, what matters is that the rules regarding sources are not used to justify lack of communication. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• I am in agreement with Thryduulf. Regardless of the actual intricacies of the sourcing, the editing was as follows (1) Buidhe makes a lot of edits, with edit-summaries (2) VM undoes some (by no means all) of those edits, with edit summaries. WP:BRD has now reached "D", but Buidhe just reverts all of VM's edits, stating surcing issues. You would have expected the next step to be an explanation of those sourcing issues on the talkpage, but in fact Buidhe reported VM to here. No information about what the problem was with those sources was posted on the talk page either before or after that revert, nor before posting this AE report. Buidhe has posted a list of their issues with the sources now, but that's irrelevant to this report. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Levivich The "discussion" that Buidhe started on VM's talkpage was basically "I don't think your sources are any good, though I'm not going to tell you which ones and why, but if you don't remove them I'm going to report you to AE". That's simply not good enough, is it? If Buidhe had instead, at that time, given VM the list that they have now posted on the article talkpage, they could at least said that they were being completely transparent about why they were reverting. Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• There is no doubt that some (but not all) of the sources that VM reinserted into the article fail the sourcing requirements. VM should have been more diligent. However, I read the ArbCom motion "Editors repeatedly failing to meet this standard may be topic-banned as an arbitration enforcement action." as requiring more than that. If VM had been told which sources were questioned and had still insisted on using them without a consensus that they passed the test, then topic-ban land would have been reached. But, instead of that, Buidhe thought it was ok to skip the discussion part. Well, it wasn't ok. VM should be cautioned that even lack of diligence can be fatal if egregious and repeated, and Buidhe should be cautioned that discussion during an editing dispute is not optional. Zero 14:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Raymond3023

MBlaze Lightning

Zvikorn

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 Zvikorn

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Zvikorn (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

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions :

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

1. 31 January 2021 Reverted material and added material already in article without any edit summary.
2. 1 February 2021 Repeated above edit with an incomprehensible edit summary without prior discussion in talk as requested.
3. Date Explanation
4. Date Explanation

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 1 February 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have had a discussion with this user about this sort of behavior previously. On that occasion, I did not report him because another editor fixed the problem. I see that this user has been warned and blocked for similar behavior in a different topic area. On this occasion, when I explained the problem here, the response was to falsely accuse me of lying (twice) and invited me to "Take it to neutral administrators if you have a problem."

@Shrike: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." WP:EW (this sentence is on editor Zvikorn's talk page).Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: If the revert definition above is not correct then I will happily withdraw this request. It is not at all helpful to revert a revert without any prior discussion when I had specifically requested that (BRD, I know it's not a policy). I also wish to note for the record that I do not appreciate being falsely accused of lying. It is 100% clear that that is not the case. The content, although it is an issue, is not the issue here and I am already dealing with that.Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Zvikorn

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 Zvikorn

To whom it may concern I will work my reply line by line to what I have been falsely accused of: (1 The 31st of January Edit was indeed without an edit summary however it was explained in the edit summary of a future edit and on the talk page of the article (2 Reverted the edit and went to talk unlike what SelfStudier says. Edit summary was not unclear and I explained it better on the talk page.

All 4 off the difflinks give me unable to load messages so I am unable to reply to them at this time. The next thing I will address is the discretionary sanctions I received on the talk page from the user who is the other participating in this conflict. I did not edit any other articles after the notice. In my opinion, it should be noted that another user who participates in the conflit should not be able to give users who he is in a conflict with the notice. I have sent Self Studier the same notice now.

Next, I'll address the comments to user left. The usr falsely states that I falsely accused him of lying twice. However, that is nothing father from, the truth. I stated in the talk page of the contested article my reasoning for each edit twice and provided the explanation for my reasoning. Self Studier did in fact lie twice and anyone who reads the talk page can see that. I apologize if my explanations and edit summaries or even this response is a bit tangled as I still have not mastered the art of formating here on wikipedia. I suggest and even gave advice to the editor who falsely accuses me here today to take it to administrators so they can see how hard he is to deal with and that I am in the right.

Finally, I will address the false accusations the editor made on my talk page. (1 The editor falsely said that I have breached the one revert rule. I did not breach the rule as I only reverted once and don't plan on reverting again. The admins should watch the accuser to see if he intends to break such rule even just outside of the 24 hours as the rule states. (2 The editor falsely accuses me of pushing POV. As I said in my talk page and the talk page of the contested article, this once again, could not be farther than the truth. I explained my edits and gave reasoning behind them unlike the accuser who himself is pushing POV. In addition, I stated on the article that I did not remove information regarding the vaccines and only added an important legal document. The vaccine section is due for expansion as stated in the talk section on the page above ours. Lastly, I removed the settler line (without an edit summary and I apologize) however I later explained twice that I see it to fit better on the Israeli article and not the Palestinian one.

In conclusion, I state the full truth and I expect the admins to see that and decline this report. I am happy to answer and explain any more questions you have. In addition, I kindly ask to admins to format this answer correctly, if I haven't done so. Thank You

Edit 1: I tried giving SS the discretionary sanctions alert but he has already received one for this topic in the last twelve months.

Statement by Shrike

Selfstudier to what version he was reverting in his first edit? --Shrike (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Its shame that you can't answer a question.The first edit was not a revert but an edit.If was established already that removal of long standing material is not a revert but an edit (e.g ) Shrike (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Also the DS notification was given after the second edit so even if consider that there was a violation(and it was not) the user did not know that the area was under the DS sanctions regime --Shrike (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Wikieditor19920

WP:BOOMERANG. This is a malformed report and Selfstudier is a user who has engaged in persistent heavy and obvious POV-pushing in the PIA area, most recently at Talk:Palestinian enclaves where he repeatedly invoked offensive Holocaust analogies in defending a prior title of that article that clearly failed to satisfy WP:POVNAME, per consensus at that page. I reported Selfstudier for similar behavior a while back, and it was brushed aside then. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

On the technicality, I think a definitive clarification from admins would be helpful, since I have seen decisions all over the place on this. When I reported a similar violation recently (wholly unrelated), I noted that a user violated 1RR with reversions to content recently added in two separate sections of the article within 24 hours. Two reviewing admins refused to call that a violation. Here, at least one of the reversions was to recent content, while another was at an unrelated section of the article that had been untouched for some time. It'd be a good idea on these noticeboards to either decide on an expansive or narrow interpretation of what a revert and then be consistent about it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

The first edit was a revert of this edit of 32 days earlier. I have no opinion on whether one month makes the initial edit stale enough.

In this case, Selfstudier added a sentence and a source for it, and Zvikorn removed that sentence and source. It was a revert for sure. Zvikorn knew it, too, see the edit summary "Reverted". Whether the edit was excusable for some other reason, I have no opinion, and I'm not going to comment on what the outcome of this case should be.

To editor El C: I really don't understand what you wrote about the meaning of "revert". As far as I know, the defining policy is WP:Edit warring. That policy does not say either that a previous page version must be recovered nor that a previous edit must be undone entirely (I don't understand "encompassed within"). Actually it says that partially undoing a previous edit counts as a revert and so does the text at the start of WP:AN3. Zero 02:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

To editor El C: I stand corrected on the edit summary and apologise for that misdirection. On the definition of a revert, I don't agree that a help page can overrule the plain text of a policy. The policy says "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert" (my emphasis). It says the same again a few lines later. The instructions at the start of WP:AN3 have no weight as policy but anyway they also say "Undoing another editor's work whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." I assume you don't think an edit-warrior can escape sanction by being careful to only delete parts of previous edits.

Having said that, you are quite right that there should be some limit to which deletions count as reverts. If you want to judge that being in the article for a month is long enough for removal to not be called a revert, I'm fine with that. Personally I think there should be a legislated maximum time between the original edit and its (whole or partial) undoing before the latter is called a revert. That would be consistent with the intention of rules like 1RR to slow down disputes. Would you support that? Zero 06:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Zvikorn

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

• Selfstudier, without addressing the content of the edits themselves, Shrike is indeed right: you gotta connect Zvikorn's first edit to an earlier edit which it is said to have purportedly reverted. That is, not just plain removal, but specific edit added→ specific edit undone (or encompassed therein). That is why we have the Previous version reverted to parameter at WP:AN3 — a parameter which, I note, is nearly always left blank, thereby often becoming a chore to parse and untangle. But that is a rant for another time and place! El_C 16:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Zero0000, that's explained with greater detail at WP:REVERT, which WP:EW links to, including partial reverts (i.e. "encompassed therein"). The point is to allow someone to remove a portion of an article, without having that always automatically count as revert — since anything on a page was added by someone at some point. El_C 03:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Zero0000, that is incorrect. Zvi's first edit, which had no edit summary, got reverted by Selfstudier (diff), a revert which then automatically tagged Zvi's aforementioned previous edit with the "reverted" tag (mw-reverted). El_C 04:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Zero0000, I didn't imply H:RV is overruling WP:EW, just that it clarifies it. Anyway, I wouldn't really put a clock on it, but the reason I would decline enforcement here is because the OP didn't say something like: 'a portion of an edit I added at time-and-date was reverted with that removal.' Had they made that clear to the user being reported (from the outset), yet with them still following that with a 2nd revert, then I would definitely apply enforcement action. Other admins' mileage may vary, though. El_C 07:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Guitarguy2323