Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive280

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.

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

Wikipedia: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)
  • Just to follow up on alleged "examples of Buidhe violating the sourcing restriction themselves": in all of these cases, the sources are written by a notable historian (which I have been told is acceptable). Some of the examples VM cites aren't even in the topic area. Yes, I have occasionally misunderstood a source, but if you check you will notice that VM is misrepresenting some of these disputes, for instance on Jozef Franczak article I cited a news article written by a historian that *mentioned* a tweet by the Prime Minister of Poland about Franczak, which seems relevant to include. Contrary to VM's claim, I did not cite a tweet on that article.
  • As you might guess from my long list of good and featured content as well as over 100 DYKs, I much prefer creating content to arguing about it. If VM perceives my editing as jumping from one article to another when challenged, I perceive their editing as exercising a veto over content in a particular article and endlessly debating it until I give up and move on to a different article. (t · c) buidhe 16:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Of his latest complaints, all but one of them are not in the topic area at all, so I am not going to respond to them as they are completely irrelevant. As for Furth, please look at the version before the recent edits and search for his name, Hans G. Furth a psychologist with no expertise in Holocaust history. I am not sure why VM can't figure that out on his own, but there it is. (t · c) buidhe 19:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Just this morning he is defending "a publication that has arisen mainly to rehabilitate unconditionally the wartime activities of the Narodowe Siły Zbrojne (NSZ)". as a reliable source suitable for being cited in this topic area. (t · c) buidhe 19:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Having those people on the editorial board, considering their reputation, counts against the reliability of the publication. As I pointed out, claiming peer review is not a guarantee of reliability and WP:SCHOLARSHIP cautions against "journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view". VM also misrepresents my comment, I called the author of the review obscure, not the publication. I kindly request that he desist from misrepresenting me. (t · c) buidhe 21:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

• 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)

In this comment Levivich is trying disingenuously to pretend that I am claiming not have known about the sourcing requirement. Of course I knew about the sourcing requirement. The issue is that Buidhe REFUSED TO SPECIFY which sources they thought were not up to standard. For all but one of these there's a judgement call involved (that one being Mark Paul, which slipped through due to similarity in the name of the author and refname with Gunnar PAULsson). Indeed I was not the only one to think so. Slatersteven actually reverted me after I tried to remove the BBC because they thought the source was fine. As pointed out above in previous AE reports admins have said that popular "mainstream" sources were fine. Buidhe themselves has on numerous occasions used sources which have been at best borderline (in fact they are even now arguing for using an unpublished thesis as a source on the talk page, and using popular press magazines in other articles). These sources here were NOT "Daily Mail".

All it would have taken to resolve the dispute is for Buidhe to have posted the list they posted here

Indeed, after the list posted, I went and removed these sources .

Is anyone seriously gonna argue that posting this short list would have been a "time sink"? Seriously? More of a time sink than THIS RIGHT HERE? It takes ten times as long (easily) to write up a proper AE report than to simply say "the sources I object to are X, Y and Z". We all know this. We know this discussion right here is super time consuming and wasteful. So how about some people stop pretending that the reason Buidhe refused to specify what sources they were objecting to is because of "it would take time"? This is another disingenuous argument made by people who clearly have plenty of time to write long posts on this forum.

Buidhe was asked politely several times to specify what sources they had a problem with. But they refused to answer. This clearly indicates, as pretty much all the administrators commenting here have already noted, that Buidhe WANTED for this to wind up here at AE. They DID NOT WANT to resolve the dispute. They WANTED an excuse for a sanction. This is why a warning or a sanction for Buidhe is on the table, because this is clearly acting in bad faith (best case scenario is that Buidhe is just not a good communicator).

For anyone who thinks that this is some clear cut matter of "this source meets requirements, this one doesn't, it's all either Daily Mail or Greatest Scholarship ever here's a list of recent instances where Buidhe themselves used sources that don't meet the requirement. The difference is that I didn't immediately go running to AE, I actually tried to talk to them about it (or just let it go, because honestly, most of this drama is just not worth it):

• Buidhe uses a non-peer reviewed essay from an internet portal
• Buidhe uses a non-peer reviewed opinion essay from an internet portal
• Buidhe uses TWITTER !!!!!!!!!! as a source. You really can't get more fails to meet sourcing requirements imposed by ArbCom than that. And this is them edit warring to restore it AFTER it's already been pointed out to them that this particular source doesn't satisfy these (which is A LOT more than they have done in the present case)
• Buidhe uses an opinion piece from a highly partisan, though respectable, "popular press" source. This does not meet the requirements at all. Not even close.
• Same. Opinion pieces from non peer reviewed political commentary

These are just the instances of Buidhe failing to meet the sourcing requirement I could find quickly.

There are also several instances where Buidhe straight up misrepresents sources, claiming that they say something different than they actually do. With that track record, it's perfectly understandable that I'd ask them to BE SPECIFIC:

• The source says nothing like what Buidhe claims in the article text (this was subject of previous AE report but ya'll let it slide as a "content dispute". Misrepresentation of sources is NOT a "content dispute". This is just pure fabrication here.)
• Neither of the stated authors actually state what Buidhe claims they state.
• Here Buidhe omits crucial info from the source which explains that these "Ukrainian historians" that are mentioned weren't just any ol' mainstream Ukrainian historians, but were ones affiliated with the fascist Ukrainian organization OUN (User:Ymblanter might wanna take a look at this)
• First source here does not meet the sourcing requirement. The second source says NOTHING like what Buidhe claims. There is a discussion on talk. Note Buidhe's response there. First they claim it's ok to use twitter as a source because "the article doesn't have many other sources" !!! Show me where in the AbrCom restriction does it say "the sourcing requirements apply but only if there are already a lot of sources in the article, otherwise, it's cool if you use twitter as source". Note that after it's been conclusively pointed out that the source is being completely misrepresented Buidhe went silent and went off to some other article. People gave them a chance to explain themselves, but even when they failed at that nobody filed a WP:AE report.
• Look at my comment here. Again, Buidhe completely misrepresents a source. The author says nothing like what Budihe claims. Again, after being caught more or less red handed, Buidhe stops responding to the conversation, waits a day or two and then goes off to another article where this whole pattern repeats itself.

(break)

Maybe you're noticing a pattern here. Buidhe not only regularly fails to live up to the sourcing expectation, but, much worse, actually straight up misrepresents sources. When they do this, other editors, myself included, give them the benefit of the doubt. Let them try to explain their reasoning. Give a chance to correct themselves. Rather than running straight to WP:AE

And it's kind of common nature that we usually expect other people to extend the same courtesy that we extend to them. But as this situation here shows, that's pretty naive on Wikipedia. Report or be reported I guess.

(break over - here comes more)

• See this discussion Again Buidhe misrepresents a source, again it is pointed out to them (with no one running to WP:AE) and what's the response? "I was improving the wording"

And here is something no one's brought up yet. This very kind of behavior by Buidhe has already been a subject of warning from administrators User:El_C wrote: I also feel that there's an IDHT problem here, Buidhe (therefore I'm partially repeating myself), but it has to do with you having launched a move request 30 days ago, having failed to see it pass, then out of the blue going through with a unilateral move, anyway. It doesn't matter if that move wasn't to the title that was originally proposed by that aforementioned RM, it was still a markedly bad idea (...) how and why you thought that this would be uncontroversial is, frankly, beyond me." (Buidhe started an RfM, it failed, they waited a little bit then moved the article anyway against consensus, then when asked about it pretended that what they did was "uncontroversial" (sic))

Here Buidhe acknowledges that they were wrong and uses "I'm not good at working with others" as an excuse. Ok. Not all of us are social butterflies. BUT THIS RIGHT HERE is the exact same issue. Buidhe doesn't listen to others. Buidhe doesn't communicate with others. Buidhe, it seems, doesn't actually read the sources they use (as the saying goes "uses a lamppost for support not illumination"), Buidhe reverts and edit wars and when they don't get their way on one article they quickly move on to another related article and try again. If you know you have a problem with communication and battleground attitude and sincerely want to work on that then running to WP:AE without discussing is the LAST THING you want to do. Buidhe has been told that next time they would face sanctions for this kind of behavior.

Ok. I can post more. Believe me. Just recently for instance, Buidhe referenced a source by someone named "Furth" (sometimes referring to the source as "Smith and Furth") on the Holocaust in Poland page. Problem is... there is no "Furth" anywhere in the article or on the talk page. I've had to ask THREE TIMES who this "Furth" is. And they still have refused to reply. Or read this and this discussion on List of genocides by death toll (if you have time). It's the same thing. Buidhe claiming a source (Shamas) says the opposite of what it actually says (with regard to Srebrenica Massacre). Buidhe claiming that sources which "have already been presented" supported their position... but these sources they name don't actually exist. Buidhe claiming a source which does not even discuss the topic supports them. Buidhe claims a source which *I* provided to support my view was provided ... by them. Buidhe keeps referring to some source by "Morris" but again, no such source by any "Morris" actually exists.

It's pretty clear that Buidhe's approach to editing in this topic area is "sourcing requirements for thee but not for me. I get to use twitter! You get reported for borderline stuff!"

I'm sorry, but after experiencing this kind of interaction you better believe that I'm going to ask Buidhe to be more specific and state explicitly what exactly they have a problem with rather than go along with their "You have to read my mind or self revert and let me have my way or I report you" approach.

(and I still don't know who this "Furth" is). Volunteer Marek 22:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Reply to Buidhe's latest

Buidhe, you did indeed use twitter as a source , not just "an article that mentioned a tweet". And in the other instance, don't you think that if an opinion piece in popular press, not scholarly, relies on tweets for its content then... it probably doesn't meet the sourcing requirements??

Also, no, the discussions with you fail because you do things like repeatedly claim that nonexistent sources support you and when you're asked what these sources actually are you break off the discussion. These discussions fails because you fail to communicate basic info:

• Who is "Furth" (as in your claim that "As stated indeed in the methodology section of Furth's paper") ? This is the fourth time I'm asking. I shouldn't have to ask four times. You shouldn't keep refusing to provide this very basic information.
• Who is "Morris" ? First you falsely claim that you cited a source (Ellman) to support your position . Then when I point out, quite confused, that I was actually the one citing Ellman to support MY position you say "oh I meant Morris" . Still confused I ask "who is Morris?" since no "Morris" appears anywhere. You refuse to answer. I asked two more times and you refused to answer.

Look. When you say "source X supports me". And someone says "uh... there is no source X here, what are you talking about?" and then you refuse answer... I'm sorry but that's not good editing practice and when it happens repeatedly, it's a bit sus.

Oh, and in the same discussion when I asked for page numbers where the source supported the text, your reply was basically "the book has page numbers look it up" ... .... ... like seriously? I know a book has page numbers. It's up to you to tell me which pages are the relevant ones.

The whole problem here is not me trying to engage in "endlessly debating ". Asking what the (nonexistent) source you are referring to is pretty basic. Asking what page numbers you are using is pretty basic. Asking what sources you have in mind when you say it's unworthy, is pretty basic.

The whole problem here is YOU refusing to communicate even most rudimentary info (also misrepresenting sources, inventing apparently non existent sources and stuff like using tweets as sources). You've been warned about this by User:El_C. You promised to do better. This very incident here clearly shows that you are not trying to do better at all. Volunteer Marek 16:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. In their recent comments

Buidhe, in extremely rude and insulting language FINALLY explains who this "Furth" is that they kept referencing on talk page. Apparently it's some source that used to be in the article at some point. This is AFTER I've asked them four time to explain on talk. Buidhe only finally deigned it fitting to answer my query after the issue was brought up here at AE. I think the problem here is self-evident. Buidhe simply refuses to cooperate with other editors, in even the simplest matters. ("what is this source?" --- "I'm not gonna tell you you have to guess". "Which page numbers from the source are you using?" --- "I'm not gonna tell you you have to guess". "What's this source you claim supports your view?" === "I'm not gonna tell you you have to guess". Over and over and over and over and over again. I'm sorry but is simply impossible to communicate with such a person. And this isn't me. I'm not the only one who has these issue with Buidhe. El_C (no ping) noted that they have a VERY SERIOUS IDHT problem. Other editors have experienced the same. Volunteer Marek 20:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(They still haven't explained who "Morris" is (their excuse is that this wasn't in this topic area - which isn't really true)). Volunteer Marek 20:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I do have to reply to Buidhe's other comment. The journal Glaukopis is peer reviewed scholarly publication with an editorial board that consists of professional historians and scholars, including a few prominent ones like Wojciech Roszkowski, Peter Stachura, Jan Żaryn, Wojciech Muszyński. These are people notable enough to have Wikipedia pages not just on Polish Wiki but also on English one. Yet... Buidhe asserts that this journal is "too obscure" (is that a criteria?) and tries using a snide off hand comment by some other historian to remove it (guess what? historians disagree with each other and sometimes talk smack about each other). So we have a scholarly source by a PhD historian and Buidhe removes it - of course without any discussion or even brining it up on talk - while at the same time Buidhe is trying to use tweets, popular highly partisan political magazines and unpublished dissertations as sources themselves. This is just a straight up "Sourcing restrictions for thee but not for me, I do what I want!"'' approach which, along with the brazen hostility on display towards any kind of communication or compromise is at the root of the problem here. Volunteer Marek 20:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Context slightly different but same idea. User:El C wrote: "Dropping a talk page note prior to attempting anything of the sort is not at all a hindrance."

I.e. Communicating with others is not a "hinderance".22:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, has resumed edit warring on the article in question with a false edit summary which claims there's "talk page consensus" for their massive changes to the article (there isn't). There certainly is no consensus on the talk for removing sources like Yad Vashem as Buidhe is doing. They're edit warring this while discussion is still ongoing and while this case is still open. This is exactly the kind of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior that Buidhe has been warned about by admins previously where they promised to "do better". This is the opposite of "doing better".

Here are the sources that Buidhe is trying to remove from the article:

• Holocaust and Genocide Studies journal
• A scholarly book from Woodrow Wilson Center Press
• A journal published by Rice University
• Yad Vashem
• A scholarly book from Yale University Press
• A book review by a historian accessed from h-net

And possibly a few others. Buidhe removed these sources from the article with an edit summary which claimed "consensus on talk". No such consensus existed. In fact, these sources haven't even been discussed yet. The edit summary used to justify the edit warring by Buidhe was clearly false. An excuse.

The complaint about the supposedly unreliable sources listed in this report by AE Buidhe is ALSO an excuse. Most of the sources which Buidhe is reporting here were not even necessary as the text was cited to multiple sources. In other cases we're talking about removing literally a sentence or two. But Buidhe removed 21,000 bytes worth of text! The existence of a possibly borderline source citing a couple of sentences is being used to remove clearly reliable sources like Yad Vashem and academic journals. And Buidhe is continuing to use this excuse EVEN AFTER all the sources they've complained about have been removed! I'm sorry but this looks pretty bad to me. Volunteer Marek 17:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I consider this comment by User:SlimVirgin to be personal attack as well as violation of WP:ASPERSIONS. People on here have gotten blocked for less. In particular the statement, quote, " ignoring the damage they caused " is insulting and false. That's about as politely as I can characterize it. I haven't "caused any damage". My edits have always been done to improve the encyclopedia and the disputes I have been involved in all stem from the actions of one certain now indefinitely banned individual, who NOT ONLY got topic banned for making ethnic slurs, turning BLPs into attack pages and falsifying sources, but who then went on a many month long campaign of harassment against me and my family, which included contacting my employer, death rates, rape threats directed at my kids and worse. And that'd be your User:Icewhiz. ... ... ... The fact that some of you, SaraV, are still trying to fight this guy's battles and are MEATPUPPETING for him is frankly mind blowing. It really *does* show what the problem in this topic area is and explains why the toxicity hasn't gone away even after Icewhiz got indef banned. He's got too many fans on here it seems. Volunteer Marek 01:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

And seriously, trying to bully admins when they don't do what you want them to by accusing them of being WP:INVOLVED? Really? I mean, come on, that's like the oldest play in the book and everyone knows that trick so I don't think it will work. Volunteer Marek 01:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

User:In actu this request was being handled appropriately until some users, in particular François Robere decided to escalate it because they didn’t like where it was going. I don’t think anything substantial has changed in the meantime, just more noise (which is why you guys should go back to the usual practice of just ignoring what I think one AE admin once called “the peanut gallery”. Like yeah, I’m these controversial topic areas, involved partisans editors and such will always show to these AE reports but basically bring zero useful information to the table. Volunteer Marek 02:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

In response to User:Thryduulf's last comment here , let me offer a suggestion and take it for what it's worth. Yes, Buidhe does make meaningful contributions to this topic area (this is why I only partially reverted them to begin with). At same time, Buidhe responds to any kind of disagreement by edit warring, refusal to cooperate, and, as we see here, trying to use WP:AE to "win" disputes. The main problem, as El_C (not pinging per request), has highlighted several times is their refusal to communicate and the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Indeed, this is the context of this very report - Buidhe refusing to provide even the simplest explanation. You see same thing with their refusal to provide page numbers, properly cite sources, explain how their text actually matches sources, or even explain what sources they're referring to (and no, I do not consider doing these things to be a "waste of time").

The appropriate remedy in this situation is to restrict the user from reverting back any of their edits that have been challenged by reversion and to require them to use the talk page in disputes when challenged. That way Buidhe can still contribute to the topic area but will be on notice that they are are also required to make an effort at communicating and collaborating with others. It's my understanding that this restriction has been successful in other instances (at least when applied to individual editors rather than a blanket prescription on entire topic area).

I'll also add that I personally really don't like reporting people. I tolerate a lot of crap before it gets to that point. I'll complain about editors and such but I rarely ask for sanctions (which is how you know that yeah, it's a problem). So for my part I can promise that if Buidhe IS restricted as I describe above I'll be perfectly happy to give them the benefit of the doubt and if they violate the restriction once or twice I will try to resolve the issue in amicable manner, give them the benefit of doubt, and I am NOT gonna go running to WP:AE at first sign of trouble. If they make a mistake by reverting twice or something I'll be willing to let it slide and work it out without need for admin intervention. I'll do for Buidhe what Buidhe was unwilling to do for me. Volunteer Marek 12:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

• 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.

As Zero correctly noted, the ArbCom motion's text says "Editors repeatedly failing to meet this standard may be topic-banned...". If we assume that "repeatedly" refers to repeated addition of bad sources, not to one time addition of multiple bad sources, then this AE request was premature, although it can hardly be described as frivolous. However, I would draw you attention to the following. During the discussion about Antisemitism in Poland case, I made a post that had drawn attention of one professional historian, who is Associate Professor of history in one US university, and who is an expert in antisemitism. She wanted to hear my opinion on that matter, and we had a zoom meeting. During that conversation, I got an impression that an extreme bias of English Wikipedia articles about Polish-Jewish relations is something that is absolutely obvious to her and it seems she expressed not only her opinion, but the opinion of the whole historical community. My impression is that the main origin of that bias is usage of questionable sources, especially Polish nationalist sources, by some users. That is why the source restrictions applied by ArbCom are extremely important, and they must be applied in the same way as 3RR violation: if some user expressed a doubt about some source, it must be immediately removed (preferably by self-reverting), and re-added only after a consensus (desirably at RSN) unequivocally established its best quality. I think that should be explained to VM. For now, I would oppose to any actions against VM, but I think it would be correct to emphasize that the next violation will be severely punished. In connection to that, and keeping in mind that even some admins may not fully understand how these sourcing restriction work (I conclude that from Johnuniq's comment below), it would be fair to take all needed steps to clarify the meaning of those edit restrictions at every article covered by them. If even not every admin is aware of the mechanism of those restrictions, how can we expect other users to observe them?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:53, 3 February 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. 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)

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)

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)

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 ^harass/_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 ^harass/_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 ^harass/_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 ^harass/_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 ^harass/_hound 20:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

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 ^(talk) 20:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek has started editing Jan Grabowski again. Grabowski is a Holocaust historian who has written about the distortion of Holocaust articles on Wikipedia, and named Volunteer Marek in his article about it. VM made a lot of edits to Grabowski's BLP between March 2018 and April 2019, including negative edits; see list of edits. He was topic banned by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland in September 2019. For some reason the ban was lifted in December 2020, and he has started again. This has to be dealt with somehow. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, you can't regard yourself as uninvolved, especially not after this post. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, from my perspective you've been championing VM and GCB. You've helped them have their topic bans lifted, ignoring the damage they caused and the extra work for other editors. GCB has made 67 edits to your talk page since April 2020, making them the 11th highest poster there, although the page goes back to 2004. I've been meaning for some time to ask you not to comment as an uninvolved admin, and your recent post removes all doubt. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, I don't have time to look for the diffs, but you posted in enthusiastic terms about having one or both topic bans lifted, and similar posts. "Uninvolved" means just that. You've been getting down into the minutiae, the back-and-forth, the constant interaction and offers of help. But fundamentally, I'm not sure you understand that the issue is a Polish nationalist POV versus Holocaust scholarship, and you're siding with the former. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, I thought I knew you better too. But what you say doesn't even make sense. Why would someone's ban have to be lifted because of how someone else was reacting to it? Deal with the someone else; no need to lift the ban. I saw you say "come back in two years", then shortly after that, you said you were determined to have it lifted. What happened? And all GCB seems to do is follow VM and support him. The whole thing is a mess. We had a very poor ArbCom decision because of Framgate, then we had a dribbling away of the only remedies: the bans are gone, and the sourcing requirement can't be relied upon. It has to be discussed first with ... one of the formerly banned editors, who can't be assumed to know about it! SarahSV ^(talk) 01:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, I'm sorry, don't be sad. But this is very frustrating. Look at one of the things Buidhe wants to do at Holocaust in Poland. She wants to add this to background: "Antisemitism had been increasing in Poland before the outbreak of war. Anti-Jewish violence occurred in more than 150 localities between 1935 and 1937." This is bog-standard Holocaust history. VM and GCB remove it (and Buidhe's other edits). Do they really think Wikipedia should host an article on The Holocaust in Poland without mention of this? This is an example of the extra work caused by the lifting of the topic bans. Perhaps an admin could ask them why they keep removing it. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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.
• Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia). 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)
    • As for communication - it's been the norm in the TA for some time now that when you restore an edit, you take responsibility for it. When VM overrode several of Buidhe's edits that were clearly marked "article sourcing reqs", it became his business as much as hers to get to the bottom of the sourcing. In fact, he could've avoided reverting altogether and just taken it to talk himself, which is what we would usually do. Instead he sidestepped the issue in his edit summaries, then replied as he did when she approached him. Could she have been more patient? Sure, but it doesn't take away from his responsibility to be cooperative and follow the rules. François Robere (talk) 23:16, 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)

• @El C, SlimVirgin, Guerillero, and Bradv, as ArbCom clerk: Sarah put to words what many of us won't, mainly for fear of sanctions. I suggest this is directed to WP:ARCA, so we can all discuss more freely. François Robere (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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 "Poles and the Jews") and other presumably good references. This is all 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.

• @TFD. Such disputes about sources can never be fairly resolved. Consider your argument: a publication X is bad because the publishing house was named after person Y. What? Sanctioning someone on such grounds? One must have very clear and formal rules which sources are allowed. For example, WP:MEDRS tells: use scientific review articles. Yes, this is clear. But "academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions". No, this is not at all clear and simple. Who is "reputable"? People can debate this to nausea, and the discussion above and on many other pages is a living proof of that. Having "reputable" in a guideline is fine. But having it as a reason for sanctions is not. I think this sourcing restriction just must be removed to reduce the burden on participants and admins. But I have said this already to Arbcom. My very best wishes (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• And ultimately, does this sourcing restriction help to improve pages? Well, I do not really edit in this subject area, but speaking about several pages which I edited and which some participants of this discussion above claimed to be covered by this sourcing restriction, my answer is "no". The content was actually degraded (by removing important sourced information) because of such disputes, not mentioning a significant waste of time by everyone involved. My very best wishes (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

It appears to me that the unwieldy walls of text by VM were an attempt to setup Buidhe for an undeserved boomerang - on what grounds? Compliance with WP:PAG? How is the response by VM not a form of gaming or disruption to avoid scrutiny? I echo the sentiments expressed by Sarah, Levivich, TFD, and Ealdgyth. VM's longterm behavior on WP has been unyieldingly disruptive as evidenced by his long block record, POV pushing, and t-bans. It's difficult to consider his overall behavior on this project as a net positive if considering leniency in this case. The potential for being t-banned, and prior t-bans have not been a strong enough influence to change his behavior. Unfortunately, it appears stronger measures must be taken to stop the longterm disruption. Atsme 💬 📧 13:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The comments I'm reading about the use of sources are rather disconcerting but it may be my fault because I'm not quite understanding our policies, or am I? To begin, WP:RS is a content issue, a guideline, not a behaviorial policy. It has nothing to do with behavior which should be the only focus at AE. Unless I've overlooked something, even a deprecated source can be cited, and I say that with confidence for the following 2 reasons:

1. User talk:Atsme#IAR - see Jimbo's response
2. WP:RSCONTEXT - and please correct me if I'm wrong, but it is not the responsibility of AE or admins on this board to make any determination about context whatsoever. So what exactly is the disruptive behavior that initiated this case? Certainly not the filer because it cannot/should not be about context, or whether an editor properly discussed context, or the reliability of a source per context in this situation. Where is that coming from?? Behavioral issues are things like vandalism, edit warring, PAs, etc. - please, explain what I'm not seeing. Atsme 💬 📧 16:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned here, then I'll comment. I find your comment SarahSV inappropriate and insulting--> (...ignoring the damage they caused..., ...Polish nationalist POV...,"all GCB seems to do is follow VM and support him"...) Does the administrator's rank allow editors to go the extra mile in insinuations? What's this all about!? Are you suggesting that was me socking?? GET OFF ME, and next time you mention my name, mind letting me know about it! - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC) I’m sorry I lost my temper but this was too much for me.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Continuation of my response to SlimVirgin/SarahSV - - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

• Note on pings: multiple participants continue to ping me to this complaint, but this isn't needed at this time. Honestly, I'm a bit burned out from EE/APL, overall, right now, so I'm probably gonna let other admins pick up the slack, at least for the immediate moment. El_C 17:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe send some positive vibes into the stale-o-sphere by stating the following. When it comes to being scholars of the highest order, I consider both Buidhe (as of having recentlyish encountering her: example) and Volunteer Marek (for years and years) to both qualify, with each having made prodigious high-quality contributions to this most demanding, and important, topic area. They just happen to have very different outlooks. Hey, I have a view, too (you can probably easily guess which side I heavily lean toward in my own outlook), so I well know how sometime assumptions inadvertently lead to sources being tailored to fit "facts" instead of otherwise. Anyway, despite these sort of hiccups, it's my sincere hope to see more good faith collaboration by both sides, because everybody wins when that happens, the editors, enforcing admins, and not least the readership. //Break continues, but it won't last forever. Best wishes to all, El_C 21:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Sarah, how do mean? I've never hidden the fact that my own view is much closer to Buidhe's than it is to VM's. Not sure how being upfront about my biases, now or at any time in the past, really changes anything. I've been a fairly active admin in this topic area for years, I'm confident without blemish. I suppose you can always take me to WP:ARCA if you feel that strongly about it. If anything, I get the sense that both users wish for more of my attention as an uninvolved admin. I gotta say, you've made me feel a bit off-balanced with that terse assertion... El_C 23:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Well, Sarah, I can't really help about who posts on my talk page with requests, nor can I peer into the depths of a topic area that's just one amongst many I attend to on the AE front. As always, I approach matters by merit, as they are presented to me, when they are presented to me. There's no reason for me to "champion" either side, really. That makes no sense to me. Like, when Buidhe moved a page out of process even after her RM was declined, I think I was quite accommodating (un-logged warning only). Anyway, I want her to continue contributing to this topic area, because I value her contributions, so I hope however way this AE complaint is concluded, she will keep on keeping on. El_C 00:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Sarah, I don't know why but I think you have a rather distorted view of my EE/APL admin work, which is actually of quite a limited nature, overall. And which has been even-handed, I'd argue. Note that I am the one who originally declined GizzyCatBella's appeal, and recommended she'd not re-appeal for a full 2 years. Yes, I changed my mind after she had suffered reoccurring abuse pertaining to said ban. I also largely supported VM's appeal due to especially insidious doxxing he experienced. And I didn't close either successful appeals. GizzyCatBella's appeal was closed by another AE admin, while VM's ban was rescinded by the Committee itself. Anyway, I'm not sure this is the best forum to discuss this, but I will tell you that I'm finding this a bit hurtful, because I thought you knew me better. El_C 00:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Sarah, again, hurtful. Anyway, if I'm unable to change your mind, then it is what it is. But in answer to your question, multiple bogus AE complaints about GizzyCatBella is what changed my mind about expediting, because in each instance she has stayed within the parameters of her ban. I'm entitled to my view about how to approach that, as are you. I never SUPERVOTED anyone at any point. I really don't know what you want from me at this juncture. Anyway, I hope we are able to mend this, somehow. Because now I'm sad. El_C 01:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Sarah, thanks, but I can't help it. I think you know from our past conversations that my grandfather was an Auschwitz survivor. I grew up on his stories, which were traumatic for us both, but which I'd never trade for anything. I've never even read The Holocaust in Poland article. It is way too painful for me to attempt. You can't put whatever's happening there on me. That isn't fair. El_C 01:55, 9 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~ ^{sting} 05:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• I would decline here --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @El C, Swarm, Johnuniq, Thryduulf, Black Kite, and Zero0000: We bypassed the point that AE can be helpful. No matter what we do as AE admins it is responded to with aspersions, walls of text, etc. I have reached the point to suggest that arbcom needs to step in here. Israel-Palestine, India-Pakistan, American Politics, and Armenia-Azerbaijan are all less toxic of topic areas when they reach us. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 02:32, 9 February 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 Wikipedia 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)
• @In actu, El C, Swarm, Johnuniq, Black Kite, and Zero0000: this needs closing one way or another today. I still see no evidence for any sanction of VM and the need for at least a warning of Buidhe (their actions since this AE report was opened make the need for that even stronger, indeed I would support something stronger than just a warning). I wouldn't oppose sending it back to arbcom for them to look at again. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 9 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^talk 14:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thryduulf I agree that no good can come from keeping this open. I also don't see the point of sending it to ARCA unless there is a sound proposal for a "clarification or amendment" of the relevant resolutions. The only strengthening I can think of is that all sources have to be discussed before insertion or deletion, which would slow down the behavior that led to this report. Zero^talk 12:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is a topic area I try to avoid, on or off WP. . I do not like to talk about it even with people who share my point of view entirely, because it generally develops that we have some minor difference and the intrinsic nature of the topic is such that it causes feelings to escalate, no matter how minor the difference. The problem here is much more general,, so I will comment only in general: The fundamental fault is that of arb com in the year I was not on it, by passing so absurdly rigid a remedy as "only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers." This defies both comon sense, and actual responsible practice. It is one of the basic rules of librarians, historians scholars in generl, journalists, and sensible people of all backgrounds to gather information from everywhere, and to trust completely none of it. There is no source at all that is completely reliable for all purposes, and none that is completely useless--if only to show the persistence of common or even malignant error. Any history of a period must use sources from all orientations, and quote from them, in order to know wjhat the various parties thought and said about what tjey were doing. (There have been exceptions--Stalin managed to avoid quoting Trotsky even when discussing the evils of Trotskyism). All history--even collections of documents-- have biases of availability, selection, and quotation. Not all works from even the most reputable academic press are accurate and unbiased: the academic world lives by publishing in contradiction to each other, and presses publish books that will appeal to the readers, who read in order to see the views they disagree with contradicted. A study of a period involves studying the nature of the parties, and even when one side is utterly evil, we cannot understand or oppose it unless we know what it is. The first step in examining a work of history is seeing who the author is , and what they have published. (The second is examining the sources they use--only then is it possible to understand what they are writing) Needless to say, in writing an article, we do not do that--we must do our own selection from what is available and arrange it in a way that makes sense, and no two people will do it the same way, and there is not likely to be any real consensus, even in explaining the views of each side. Sometimes the best analyses of a period are the popularizing works , not the strictly academic. Sometimes a famous and notably fair academic will do an absurd piece of work. There is no absolute rule here. .

The error that WP is most likely to do is quoting sources out of context. When we cite newspaper articles, we normally cite the headlines--and emphasise them by linking to them--but they are not written by the reporters, but by editors aiming for effect, and can notoriously contradict the content of the article. (the most obvious examples here are in recent AP). Given the same source, it can be seen very differently, and the most likely way of doing this is to select hte part that supports one's position. I strongly doubt anyone comes to writing these articles without a preconceived idea, and even if they did --as I might , for example, in writing about the history of an ancient conflict between people of who I knew nothing--they will soon find themselves having more sympathy for one side than the other. One cannot even recount a sports game without rooting for one of the contestants, even if if chosen at random. as I found on arb com, not even an arb case between people who are strangers, working on topics one doesn't care about. For that matter, unlike some oft he people in discussion, I have almost never closed an AE case, for I know I will not be neutral. On arb com, at least I wasn't individually responsible for what the panel decided. (And in this case, I know very well whom I would sanction, but I knew that before I even read the case and was confirmed in my view by the first few examples, which I had known of before.) I simply do not believe anyone can be neutral in these matters unless they are totally insensible, and those who may think they are, need to have their work audited. I know looking back over my work, or even the statistics of my work, generally gives unexpectedd and unwelcome surprises. And this is why I usually wait till the end to comment, so I can comment on the discussion, not to reach a result. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tvx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Mclarenfan17 (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/Motorsports :

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

1. 7 February 2021 Mclarenfan17, while logged out, posted a direct reply to a post of mine at the talk page of 2021 Formula One World Championship

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

Not applicable

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On 30 March 2020 an indefinite interaction ban has been imposed on me and Mclarenfan17. About three months later the user stopped using their account for editing Wikipedia and has only edited while logged out since. They use IP addresses in the 1.100 range. Here is a recent example of Mclarenfan17 self-identifying from that range. They also regularly edited from that range in between using their original account, Prisonermonkeys, and creating their current one Mclarenfan17. Thus I believe the reply to my post came from Mclarenfan17 and that is a violation of the interaction ban.Tvx1 16:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: could we put the question on the why they edited logged aside and deal with the violation of the interaction ban, which is why I posted this requested?Tvx1 22:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

7 February 2021, 3:03 (UTC)

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.

There is a simple explanation and a straightforward solution.

The person who has been Prisonermonkeys and Mclarenfan17 may have lost their password for Mclarenfan17. They lost the password for Prisonermonkeys, and were editing logged out for a period of time. During that time, they had a formatting dispute with another editor, and I told them that they should create a new account if they wished to engage in dispute resolution, and then they did create Mclarenfan17. The current situation is almost the same as the previous situation, except that the person behind the accounts is the subject of the interaction ban. I recommend that the person be instructed to create a third account, and edit only from that account, and the account will be subject to the interaction ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

User:In actu - I know that bans apply to the person, and that is why all accounts are subject to the ban. I said that the person behind the accounts is subject to the ban.

As to how they lost the passwords, they say that they took a break for a few months, and then saw that the tables needed filling in and formatting. If you don't use a password in a few months, you can forget it. And what they have always quarreled about has been data in tables and the organization of tables. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

See Occam's razor. Use the simplest explanation. It seems like the simplest explanation, as well as the one that almost assumes good faith, when there is no entirely good-faith explanation. This is an editor who loses passwords, and who quarrels about the arrangement of data in tables. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Tvx1 asks me whether we can put aside the question of why they edit logged out, and deal with the violations of the interaction ban instead. That question should really be addressed to the administrators here, and I expect that the administrators will address it. I will comment that semi-protection is sometimes the least disruptive way for administrators to address disruptive editing logged out. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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

• They haven't edited logged-in since June for some reason. Not sure they'd even be aware of any recent notifications to that registered account's talk page. Seeing as the IP has edited yesterday, I've left them a notice to that effect, too. Anyway, clearly there are reoccurring problems here which are in need of addressing. El_C 17:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Guerillero, agreed. Closing. Will log. El_C 09:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• I would block them for IP socking and block the IP each time they reappear. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 02:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon: Bans are subject to the person not the account. further, it is hard to believe that they lost the passwords to 2 accounts in quick succession --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 03:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Srijanx22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

NomanPK44 (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:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan :

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

1. 24 January: Removes large content on Smuggling tunnel by falsely claiming that the content backed by reliable sources such as The Hindu, Hindustan Times, The Indian Express lacks "Reliable source". After getting reverted, he doubles down by shouting that " ALL ARE PRIMARY NO ONE IS RELIABLE".
2. 5 February: Restores an edit on Balochistan Liberation Army which replaced reliable news source ThePrint and replaced it with a blog, and used edit summary that: "How can an INDIAN WEBSITE become a reliable source? LOL"
3. 10 February: Modifies results on Battle of Chawinda by linking to a discussion and deliberately ignoring the more recent discussion which superseded the former.
4. 11 February: Added 24k bytes of content on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, and restored his edit after getting reverted without gaining consensus in violation of WP:BRD and basically reverting until 1RR limit of this page was over.

These diffs come after he was blocked by El C for 2 weeks from Insurgency in Balochistan for violating 1RR and misrepresenting sources.

His talk page history shows he is unresponsive to the concerns raised on his talk page, as such this disruption needs to be stopped. Srijanx22 (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• 2 weeks partial block from Insurgency in Balochistan from January 2021.
• 1 week block for sockpuppetry in May 2020.

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

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

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Mr DipakSingh (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:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

1. 18:33, 13 February 2021: Changed "militant" to "patriot" in Bajrang Dal, including in the titles of two cited sources, contradicting the cited academic sources
2. 18:36, 13 February 2021: Changed "militant" to "patriot" in Bajrang Dal, including in the title of a cited source, contradicting the cited academic sources
3. 18:49, 13 February 2021: Posted threat on User talk:Mr DipakSingh – "I just removed the militant word, okay. If you block me, I will destroy the entire Wikipedia system from India."
4. 13:38, 14 February 2021: Posted threat and personal attack on User talk:Mr DipakSingh – "This is not a idiotic childish threats, take it seriously i will public this discussion on microblogging portal, i think you are Islamic pro agent. Am i right?"
5. 19:48, 14 February 2021‎: Changed "militant" to "patriot" in Bajrang Dal, contradicting the cited academic sources

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Special:Diff/1006788332

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.

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

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Steverci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Solavirum (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:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 :

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

1. 17:04, 6 December 2020‎ adding a Category:People by genocide category, a label only given by an extremely small minority
2. 10:52, 9 December 2020 adding Category:Armenian war crimes, with no reliable sources calling this a war crime or of war crime charges
3. 20:08, 18 January 2021 Genocide denial of the Armenian Genocide: "a century-old genocide, which happened because of the Armenian revolts, which happened because of the rising Armenian nationalism"
4. 09:02, 1 February 2021 adding Category:Armenian war crimes, with no reliable sources calling this a war crime or of war crime charges
5. 09:02, 1 February 2021 adding Category:Armenian war crimes, with no reliable sources calling this a war crime or of war crime charges
6. 09:02, 1 February 2021 adding Category:Armenian war crimes, with no reliable sources calling this a war crime or of war crime charges
7. 10:24, 3 February 2021‎ removing cited info he doesn't like and then adding MOS:ALLEGED wording
8. 17:46, 5 February 2021 adding Category:Armenian war crimes, with no reliable sources calling this a war crime or of war crime charges
9. 16:25, 6 February 2021 removing sourced content he doesn't like because "asbarez is a bised armenian source" (Asbarez is not a perennial source and doesn't even have a criticism section)
10. 06:28, 10 February 2021 edit warring and removing large amounts of content because it comes from Armenian sources

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months on their own talk page, on 1 October 2020 and 21 December 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I previously made a discussion about just Solavirum's denial of the Armenian Genocide on the incidents noticeboard. The discussion was archived without any resolution, and practically no input from any administrators. Most of the above diff edits have been made after that discussion.

For anyone unfamiliar with the subject, here is a cited explanation on why what Solavirum said is genocide denial:

The "Armenian war crimes" category was created back in December by User:Saotura, who was recently indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for pushing Turkish nationalism and Armenian Genocide denial in articles. Solavirum made a comment in support of the edits that Saotura made: "when did someone's personal views became a basis for block?". 'Personal views' referring to genocide denial.

After creating the "Armenian war crimes" category, Saotura began padding it with several articles that had no sources describing them as war crimes, of war crimes being charged, and that couldn't even be described as "warfare between sovereign states". Solavirum has continued to stuff the category with articles that have no citations for being war crimes. In just two months after being created, the Armenian category already has been padded with the third largest amount of articles on Category:War crimes committed by country, behind only United States and Japan. It is quite clear that Solavirum is also WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and engages in the same WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POVPUSH edits that he defended. --Steverci (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

1. 17:22, 10 February 2021 recreating an article that had previously been deleted for having no reliable third-party sources. The article still contains no reliable third party sources and is padded with sources for unrelated background info. Also added Category:Massacres of women with no source for women being the primary target or targeted for their gender, as the category requires.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steverci (talk • contribs) 22:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: If genocide denial would be key, please review the quotes from historians that I posted. Blaming/justifying the Armenian Genocide on "revolts" is genocide denial. It's no mistake that someone with this mentality would rewrite a massacre to be a "battle", because Solavirum evidentially feels that way about a genocide.

The 1994 shootdown article does have a HRW source, but the source doesn't call it a war crime, it is just hypothetical (no proof they hadn't tried to identify the aircraft). And what about the other articles that have no source for a "war crime" whatsoever? Or recently adding Category:Massacres of women on an article he just created, that has no sources for "specifically targeted to be killed because of their gender", as the fairly small category clearly requires? Or repeatedly removing sources just because they are Armenian? I would appreciate if you would more than glance these edits before dismissing them as "occasional polemical excesses".

You are also talking about Solavirum as if he were a new user with a clean record that just made a mistake. But he has been editing for over 5 years now, has already had multiple AA2 warnings, and has been blocked twice within the past year because of AA2 edits. --Steverci (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I should also add that the article also has Category:Massacres of men despite no mention of males being killed for their gender. And I would really appreciate an explanation for why blaming the Armenian Genocide on "Armenian revolts" is not genocide denial. --Steverci (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Please take a look at the historian quotes I cited: "In the past ten years a more sophisticated neo-denialism has emerged, which elaborates the argument that the Armenians were involved in insurrectionary activity that necessitated a counterinsurgency response from the Young Turk government...". That is precisely what Solavirum said. Genocide denial isn't claiming no/few Armenians died being resettled. That was claimed for a couple decades after the genocide when it was hardly discussed and hardly researched, but obviously can't be substantiated now. Neo-denailism is redefining genocide. From the examination of claims section of the denial article: Other arguments include that there was a "civil war" or generalized Armenian uprising planned by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) in collusion with Russia. --Steverci (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Thank you for the compliment :) --Steverci (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

Steverci seems to failing WP: BATTLEGROUND and can't WP:DROPTHESTICK. A user with past long-running blocks, including a topic ban, he seems to wanting me outside of the Armenia–Azerbaijan topic. I can refer to the diffs one by one, but it will take a long time, and we've referred to some of the in the previous ANI report concerning me. I'm really just sick of these baseless reports filed against me by Steverci, the last being not even a month ago. If you have problems with these edits, refer to the talk page, and, let me remind you, without behaving like you did here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• El_C, might be my bad. Capture of Garadaghly uses the {{Infobox military conflict}} and X victory format. Both were massacres that happened during a military engagement. The same happened in Maragha, the article's text says so at least. So, I used the said infobox to be consistent. Sorry if I gave the wrong feeling. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • El_C, I had explained the reason behind the edit. Maragha and Garadaghly basically happened in the same context, but the latter makes it look like an Armenian victory. The sole reason behind my edit was the sake of consistensy, and I don't exclude the fact that it was wrong. Not like if I regarded a massacre of a civilian populace as some kind of a accomplishment. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 07:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    • You have the liberty to be in favour of my topic ban. But if its for this particular edit, then it is nothing more than a misunderstanding, and I don't want to be known as an editor who celebrates mass murder of civilians, when I'm clearly not. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 08:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
      • El_C, I understand why you think like that. However, it is not several edits of mine that are like this, it's just this particular one and I've explained above that it was a case of me trying to keep the consistency, yet unfortunately, without realising how it could be understood by others. I hope you can understand that this was a misunderstanding, and in no way an intentional way for me to minimize the severity of a mass murder. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
        • El_C, thanks for the input. I will take some time off from editing pages related to the controversial topics and focus on other stuff, as you have recommended. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
          • El_C, "a result of the massacre committed by Armenians, 39 people were killed with special cruelty. Among them, 8 people aged 90–100, 2 babies and 7 women were cremated alive, 12 people got severe bodily injuries and 2 went missing." That denialism topic has been long over and I don't want to touch it again. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 07:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
            • And Steverci, WP:DROPTHESTICK already. We've discussed the genocide topic in ANI and that's long over. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 07:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
              • • The articles from both of these categories (the ones that I looked at at least; see Khojaly massacre) also don't have a any specifications of gender-based mass murder. So, I just took it from there. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 08:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
              • El_C, it is a problem. I created the article before this report escalated, and further comments were made the additions of the said categories, so I didn't really realise that the article I had referenced could also be problematic. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 08:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
                • El_C, I had thoroughly explained myself in the ANI report against me. I had explained the comment, I had explained my intentions. I had stated that I don't deny the phenomenon, numerous times. I don't know how reasonable it is to just push the thought of me being a denier, like how Steverci does. I've already concluded the false allegations of me apparently being a denier, and still getting called a one is quite offensive. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 07:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
                  • El_C, I will take a stand and assume that you've thoroughly read the ANI report. Though, for this context, I'll summerize it. There, I've stated that I do not deny the genocide, and that statement was an example to show Steverci how unsourced, speculative additions are not a place for Wikipedia. With this, I also meant that I don't support the denialist narrative of "the Armenians rebelled, the government deported them", which in a way, justifies the genocide. By saying I don't deny it, I also mean the "neo-denialism" that this report seems to have turned into. You can protect your stance, if my own confession of thoughts and opinions (which, I'm uncomfortable to publicly voice, though in a way, forced to) are not good enough for you. If there is anything worrying about my editorial behavior apart from these false allegations, please make me aware of it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 08:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
                    • El_C, sometimes it feels like you're not reading my whole discussion and focus on just that one comment. If I have to state again, I'll do. That particular comment was rhetorical, Steverci made unsourced additions justifying bombing of a city with ballistic missiles and cluster warheads, without providing any sources that mention anything that could in any way justify the act. That is why, when explaining why his additions are wrong, I made an intentionally false example. If I denied the phenomenon, I'd confess it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
                  • El_C, I've thoroughly commented on every issue you've pointed out, but I'm still in the dark when it comes to why should I get indefinetely blocked. I'm also in favour of other admins commenting on the issue, as I think you're judging too quickly and too harshly for things that wouldn't normally get anyone banned, especially indefinetely. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Before this gets started, I should mention that I was the uninvolved editor who closed the topic/site ban discussion in the aforementioned discussion. As I told Armatura, when that user posted on my talk page, it involved a serious amount of offwiki material as its justification. When Laurel Lodged challenged my closure, I explained to him that the possibility of a topic or site ban getting implemented were still open (if based in onwiki behavoir). Either way, the end result of that thread was no action being taken against Solavirum as mentioned by Steverci. However, it is worth noting that Armatura received a one-way IBAN regarding Solavirum by TonyBallioni. That is not nothing.

Of the diffs presented in the opening statement, only numbers four through 8 have yet to be reviewed by the community. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Most of what I wanted to say I said at the AN/I. Since you pinged asking for further feedback, the Armenian war crime category thing was pretty bad but an informal warning should probably be enough of a remedy there. That kind of thing might accepted/acceptable on azwiki, but Solavirum just needs to be more careful while editing enwiki. We have higher standards of neutrality here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking through the given diffs, none of them suggests any serious behavioural issues and seems more like content disputes. And as User:MJL pointed out, 4 of them have already been reviewed and deemed as not serious enough in the previous ANI report. El_C also seems to think that the diffs don't constitute anything worthy of a sanction.

The main point of the report has since seems to have turned into Solavirum's edit on the Maraga Massacre article. While I agree that Solavirum's edit was definitely not appropriate, it only takes little WP:AGF to see that the user, as they explained, tried to follow a format they saw in another article about a massacre which happened during the same war (which should also probably be changed to the civilian attack infobox template). Solavirum also seems to regret the edit and has apologized for it in one of their comments.

I would say that that the user's single edit on the Maraga Massacre article does not warrant a sanction, especially considering that they understood what was wrong with it when told. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Want to comment on Steverci bringing up the alleged Armenian genocide denial again. This was discussed to great extent in the ANI report, with the conclusion that the user does not deny the genocide. So, the continuous bringing up of this and pushing the narrative that the user is denying the genocide when they clearly have stated that they don't seems quite disruptive to me. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 22:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

El_C Exactly that issue was discussed in the ANI report. All of the alleged "neo-denialism" stems from Solavirum's poor-taste intentional false comparison in a talk page. I, for one, find it inappropriate when others push the "genocide denier" tag onto someone when they've stated several times that they do not deny it (has happened to me before with the pusher getting a warn by the end; so I do have sensitivity about the topic), which is why I decided to engage about it. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 22:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Looking at this report, his recent edit on the Maraga massacre article and back at my own earlier experiences with Solavirum - and taking the ideological differences that there seems to be between us into account - if I would try to provide a fair assessment: I would perhaps recommend that it would be a good idea for Solavirum to cool off and take a break from editing articles/material regarding the Nagorno-Kababakh/Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict for a while, and instead contribute to other topics on Wikipedia in order to gain some more experience regarding other topic matters in order to learn a bit more in general, since it seems he can have a hard time seeing clearly on a more basic level, and has some serious skill-learning to do and understanding to gain when it comes to editing Wikipedia neutrally. I have found that he has the ability to follow somewhat reasonable lines of thinking and has reacted relatively reasonably in the past when we've interacted or come into conflict, so I can still see how he would be able to contribute constructively to Wikipedia in the future. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

As for Steverci's points about Armenian Genocide denial, they are spot on (it looks like he found them in the Wikipedia article, recently rewritten and brought to GA status by yours truly). There are multiple points of view as to how the "war crimes" category should be applied but a recent discussion concluded (before the cited edits by Solavirum) that it certainly should be avoided if there is no reliably sourced mention of "war crime" in the article, for basic WP:V reasons. (t · c) buidhe 23:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It isn't easy to edit in highly contentious areas, and it takes an especially high degree of competence to contribute neutrally you have strong personal opinions on the topic. It's even more challenging if you're surrounded by a highly partisan media landscape which prints jingoistic propaganda completely free of journalistic integrity or respect for the truth. This is the difficult situation which Azerbaijani editors face in A–A, and while I appreciate the efforts some have made to adhere to NPOV, there comes a point where a complete break from the topic is necessary to protect Wikipedia's (already flawed) articles on the area, and also offers the best opportunity for an editor to grow their experience and editing skills. Solavirum's tendency to push article narratives in favour of Azerbaijan at the expense of Armenia has been been raised repeatedly (I left a diplomatic message on their talk page myself just under a month ago, and they've had plenty of more explicit warnings elsewhere) and I still see a clear pattern of sustained bias. Their latest article, the twice-previously deleted Agdaban massacre illustrates all of the above. It relies on unsubstantiated claims from biased, unreliable media sources and wouldn't have been created by an editor who was capable of carefully weighing the available sources against the basic Wikpedia policies of notability, verifiability and reliable sources. Solavirum's beliefs in this topic area affect their judgement to the extent that they're unable to do this. Solavirum isn't a new user, and the lack of caution and self-awareness about the difficulty of editing neutrally, exemplified by the chain of edits to articles on A–A massacres (one of the most emotive subjects of all), give me little hope that things are likely to change in the short term. Although Solavirum has invested a lot of time and effort in the area, I unfortunately believe these contributions may represent a net negative because of the constant insertion of bias. I'm supportive of a topic ban, with the hope that Solavirum will hone their judgement and skills elsewhere. Jr8825 • Talk 16:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

• At a glance, I'm not seeing anything too egregious. There are occasional polemical excesses, but nothing I've seen thus far is actually giving me serious pause. No genocide denial, either (which would be pretty key). And the the one Armenian war crimes cat addition that I observed had a pertinent HRW ref. As it stands, I'd take no action. El_C 23:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• After having added the victory parameter to a massacre today, which full disclosure I just reverted (diff), I now support topic banning Solavirum. El_C 19:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Solavirum, might be? Comeon. I'm not buying it. A violent encounter between an armor column and civilians is not a victory-defeat scenerio. It is a massacre, always. That is why the article is titled Maraga massacre. That's such a bizarre edit that I really don't know what to say. El_C 23:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Look, Solavirum, I never implied that you "celebrate mass murder of civilians," I don't think that, but what I am saying is that these sort of edits signify a significant competence failure on your part, one which represents a liability for such a fraught topic area. Anyway, that is my assessment for the present moment. Certainly, I intend to consider carefully the views of other editors and other uninvolved admins on the matter. I've no intention to rush anything. El_C 11:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Steverci, Solavirum, MJL, TonyBallioni, and AntonSamuel: sorry for the ping spam, everyone. Just noting that it has been nearly 5 days since this report was filed, but I remain the only uninvolved admin to have even looked at the complaint here — with Tony, responding to MJL, both having discussed a recently-imposed one-way IBAN, which, while does not seem directly connected to this specific complaint, should probably still be taken into account here. Anyway, looking above and below on the noticeboard, these singular efforts on my part seem to be par for the course. I'd like to be cautiously optimistic that these are still being early(ish) days... so, sure, I'll do that. Anyway, hopefully, closing this report won't fall squarely on my shoulders, again. Patrolling editors and uninvolved admins, if you have a moment to spare, please take the time to review this complaint. I, for one, could definitely use any additional feedback. Thanks! El_C 18:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, CuriousGolden, I appreciate your feedback and am taking your thoughts on the matter into account. Possibly, I'm placing too much emphasis on that one edit...? Will reflect further. El_C 19:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, AntonSamuel, for the measured words. Myself, I've had the normally minimal-duration, 3-month topic ban in mind, anyway. But if Solavirum is willing to take a break (months rather than weeks), then I'm happy to log a warning, as MJL suggests, instead of imposing a sanction outright. El_C 20:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Added: Sorry, just realized that MJL actually suggested an informal warning. Striking to amend. El_C 20:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Solavirum, there's 2 things you can do right now. You can choose to have me close this complaint with immediate effect, log a warning, and you can be on your way to start your informal break from the topic area. Or, we can leave this report open for a while longer so that further input can be submitted. Whatever works for you. El_C 21:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Solavirum, I've rescinded my above offer per Steverci's latest, at the very least until you can clarify that Category:Massacres of women matter. Thanks everyone, for your collective patience. El_C 00:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Steverci, I get you. That is a classic Armenian Genocide denial trope. At the same time, Solavirum also specifically notes that the "genocide" (their word) did happen. The other key part of that canard advances the false narrative that the CUP intended to resettle Armenians rather than kill them. This Solavirum does not, to the best of my knowledge, maintain anywhere. El_C 00:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Solavirum, this would, actually, be the place to clear the air, but that's up to you. Anyway, what is the evidence showing that women or men were specifically targeted during that especially heinous massacre? As opposed to them just being murdered at random. Possibly I overlooked something...? El_C 07:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Steverci, what can I say? That was astutely put. I concede your cogently-argued, historically-grounded point. El_C 22:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• CuriousGolden, this report alleges that this "neo-denialism" is being promoted by Solavirum. The argument that it damages the project, both in reputation and verifiability, is a legitimate one to advance. Quoting WP:STICK at Steverci doesn't seem like an appropriate response. If you don't want to engage, don't engage. But please don't browbeat Steverci not to engage. They authored this complaint and they are entitled to make their case accordingly. El_C 22:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• CuriousGolden, please note that this isn't a forum like ANI. This is not a community decision matter. It is an WP:ACDS one (the d stands for discretionary), invoking the authority of WP:ARBAA2. You do not have the authority to tell Steverci what they can or cannot say. Leave that to me and other uninvolved AE admins, if you please. Now, you keep referencing that ANI discussion as if it is a vindication of Solavirum (and your) position. But I do not see it that way. What I am seeing is a fairly muddled discussion, that didn't resolve anything and just sorta burned itself out. The only comment of notable distinction that I was able to immediately glean from it was the one made by Buidhe on Jan 20 (diff), and she isn't at all arguing in favour of what Steverci terms "neo-denialism" as being some sort of a legitimate historical pursuit. El_C 22:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Solavirum, CuriousGolden, obviously the factual varsity of the Genocide as having actually occurred is such that arguing it simply didn't happen, like deniers used to do in years past, is unsustainable in respectable circles these days and no longer really a feature of those who now, instead, aim to further these ends by whitewashing or victim blaming. Again, I reiterate Buidhe's note at ANI (see diff above) on the matter. Anyway, my assessment at the present moment is that someone who continues to make these many in-favour-of-their-own-POV "mistakes" (including during this very AE proceeding itself), and adding to that the bluster about the rebellion's exaggerated moment through obvious ahistorical lenses — all of that isn't behaviour that I find to be compatible with this fraught topic area. I'm now leaning at an indefinite ban. El_C 08:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Solavirum, calling something false does not make it so. You say that you don't support the denialist narrative of "the Armenians rebelled, the government deported them" — but less than a month ago, you write, in part that: which happened because of a century-old genocide, which happened because of the Armenian revolts, which happened because of the rising Armenian nationalism, and so on (diff). Look, maybe there's greater nuance to that parallel, but I, for one, am having difficulties seeing it. Still, even regardless of that matter, as I mention directly above, several in-favour-of-own-POV errors have proven disconcerting enough to me that I feel the remedy ought to be of considerable severity. El_C 08:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Solavirum, you feel I'm being unresponsive, I feel like you're being unresponsive, what can I say? Anyway, I don't really have anything further to add at this time. So, unless another admin steps in soon, because this complaint has been open for nearly a week now, my thinking is that it should be closed soon(ish). But I'm happy to wait a while longer before doing so. El_C 09:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Solavirum, just because you're responding (tersely), doesn't mean you're also being responsive. I'm still in the dark when it comes to why should I get indefinitely blocked. Uh, a WP:BLOCK hasn't been on the table at any time. As mentioned, the sanction I have in mind is a WP:TBAN. El_C 14:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Responding to MJL’s ping: the one-way IBAN I imposed didn’t take into account anything other than conduct that existed in a grey area of the oversight policy. We’d to my knowledge never had a specific case like this before (public information on another project that would have been suppressed in an instant on en.wiki), and so the simplest solution was to issue an IBAN under DS since several oversighters agreed the content in question was a violation of our harassment policy, if not suppressable. Someone who is being harassed can be problematic at the same time. I’m not saying there is an issue here, just that my actions aren’t that relevant. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Uhhibi (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:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

Before alert

1. 17:51, 17 February 2021: Personal attack on Talk:Love Jihad – "Newslinger clearly has very biased views and obvious hatred towards a particular religion..."
2. 17:53, 17 February 2021: Personal attack on Talk:Love Jihad – "Newslinger clearly has very biased views and obvious hatred towards a particular religion..."
3. 17:55, 17 February 2021: Personal attack on Talk:Love Jihad – "I mean just look at newlinger's history and previous talks/discussions and its very clear that he/she has extremist, racist and discriminatory views!"

After alert

1. 18:43, 17 February 2021: Casting aspersions on Talk:Love Jihad – "You talk about neutrality and censorship, WHY DID YOU DELETE MY DISCUSSION AS SOON AS YOU'RE PROPAGANDA WAS BEING REVEALED? I wrote a lengthy answer citing academic sources and links to provide proof for my arguement, which you conveniently deleted, this is CYBERBULLYING!" A check of Special:Contributions/Uhhibi shows that Uhhibi has not added any "academic sources" or "links" to their comments, and a check of the page history of Talk:Love Jihad shows that I have never deleted any of Uhhibi's comments.
2. 18:45, 17 February 2021: Casting aspersions on Talk:Love Jihad – "The fact that you had to delete my discussion takes away my right to free speech! And that you were guilty conscious!" See #1.
3. 19:10, 17 February 2021: Casting aspersions on Talk:Love Jihad – "I listed numerous arguements, citations and links to show how you're sweing hatred and propaganda to hurt religious sentiments of a religion while spreading misinformation and a biased opinion, while i gave many examples for the same! Which obviously you deleted so you wouldn't have to face the consequences!" See #1.
4. 20:06, 17 February 2021: Personal attack and casting aspersions on Talk:Love Jihad – "Hey look, you're clearly not one person, an organization or bot of some kind, so I'm gonna stop arguing now since you're obviously paid to spread false propaganda and hatred, so please go ahead, but just for the record to any human who reads this, I had an entire another discussion that NEWSLINGER had removed. In which, i cited academic proofs, links, examples and arguments." See #1.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Special:Diff/1007374377

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.

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

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tartan357 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

KidAd (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 (1992 cutoff)

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

1. 30 December 2020 Accuses me of "scrubbing" the article Luke Letlow for switching the infobox template from {{Infobox officeholder}} to {{Infobox person}}.
2. 30 December 2020 Repeats the "scrubbing" accusation and argues I'm trying to declare the election void because Letlow died.
3. 30 December 2020 Doubles down when I call them out at Talk:Luke Letlow, and accuses me of condescending to them.
4. 31 January 2021 Accuses me of Wikilawyering for pushing back on their argument that readers don't care what year a picture was taken in an RfC at Talk:Joe Biden on whether to include a caption on the infobox image.
5. 2 February 2021 Calls me a stalker for commenting at User talk:KidAd/Archives/2021/April#Captions, which concerned a matter I was directly involved in.
6. 20 February 2021 KidAd agrees to self-revert after I inform them they have violated the 24-hour BRD cycle remedy at Hillary Clinton. However, they tell me they do not plan on engaging with me and intend to simply repeat their edit later.
7. 20 February 2021 After I inform them on their talk page that they are required to discuss content disputes on the article talk page per WP:DR, they respond to me at Talk:Hillary Clinton. The response, however, is uncivil (alleging that I don't know that the year 2020 came after 2013).
8. 20 February 2021 KidAd states that I'm arguing time passes non-linearly.
9. 20 February 2021 After I implore KidAd on their talk page to be nice, they once again claim that I'm arguing time runs non-linearly, and call me insane: It certainly is insane. Glad we can agree on that (twisting my description of the ridiculous claim that I don't know how time works as insane to repeat that I believe that and am therefore insane).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 29 November 2018 3-month AP2 topic ban (expired)
2. 30 November 2018 1-week block for violation of topic ban
3. 7 December 2018 1-month block for violation of topic ban
4. 25 January 2019 3-month block for violation of topic ban
5. 23 April 2019 talk page access revoked for 3 months for violation of topic ban

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

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

KidAd and I share an interest in AP2, and often run into each other. I've noticed a pattern of incivility from KidAd that often arises when they have disagreements with other editors, myself included. Often, it takes the form of rude and/or sarcastic responses to others' arguments. Additionally, KidAd often chooses, sometimes defiantly, not to engage in talk page discussion. I've remained collegial and civil, and had been hoping that KidAd and I would come to get along. After a tense discussion at User talk:KidAd/Archives/2021/April#Captions ended in KidAd agreeing to work together with me on an RfC, I'd hoped that this was behind us. Unfortunately, after interacting with them today regarding Hillary Clinton's infobox, that does not appear to be the case. They first flat-out told me they intended to force their change in without discussion, and when they did engage me in discussion, they responded to my argument by suggesting it reflects that I don't know how time works. I implored them to stop on their talk page. However, they repeated their insulting comment immediately after I did so. I'm at the point where I feel I can either give KidAd their way when I disagree with them, or ruin a fun day of editing by interacting with them. That just doesn't feel right to me. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

Especially when compiling a recent log of interactions between myself and Tartan, it becomes clear that our exchanges have been largely negative, though I object to the statement a pattern of incivility from KidAd that often arises when they have disagreements with other editors. When Tartan and I have disagreed, the topics have been formatting, not content-related. As for the recent dispute at Hillary Clinton, please note that I self-reverted my most recent edit as soon as Tartan made me aware of the WP:DS violation. This was an oversight on my part. My comment to Tartan, For issues like this, where there is no clear policy to support changes either way, a discussion will only provide unnecessary frustration was meant to prevent conflict, a decision directly based on our last negative interaction. Reviewing the Clinton discussion, I see no harsh language, only disagreement. The statement The current infobox structuring should remain in place when it is agreed upon that the date of January 2, 2020 occurred after the periods of 1993 to 2001, 2001 to 2009, and 2009 to 2013 was not written to convey sarcasm. It was written to convey my point that dates should go in linear order. Given that sarcasm is usually communicated using inflection, deriving a particular meaning from text is highly subjective. Responding to Tartan's 9th point in particular, this dif does not include a personal attack or accusation of insanity. I am fully willing to comply with an WP:IBAN between myself and Tartan. KidAd talk 06:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

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

• Just a quick observation. Though the article subjects are all clearly and unambiguously WP:AP2 ones, these series of disputes do not seem to involve AP2 so much as infoboxes, infoboxes and more infoboxes. My sense, then, is that this is an WP:ARBINFOBOX2 rather than AP2 matter. In any case, I have attached the relevant DS alert to both users, just to be on the safe side. El_C 09:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Krao212 (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:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

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

1. 18 February 2021 adds egregious original research. The cited source does not at any point state that the INC is responsible for "playing minority appeasement politics"; the attributed opinion in the source makes a related accusation, but does not relate it to freedom of religion; and the cited source, in any case, is an opinion piece, and therefore unreliable for statements of fact. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

No previous sanctions.

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

• alerted by Doug Weller in January. notified by Doug Weller in August 2020 (amended diff per Newslinger below). Vanamonde (Talk) 23:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

A lengthy string of warnings and notices on their talk page, including for original research. This editor has been on thin ice for some time. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Newslinger: Thanks for the correction; I don't think it changes the substance of my report, though. Indeed, it makes edits like this (use of partisan sources, some OR) more concerning. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff.

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.

@El C: I agree with the complaint that the content had nothing to do with "Freedom of religion" and that's why it was my bad that I added this WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. I am a new editor who happened to jump into controversial areas maybe this is why I had enough warnings on talk page but I have continuously improved my edits and will work on them further and avoid controversial topics unless I can totally justify the edit with highly reliable sources. Krao212 (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Actually, Krao212 was alerted at Special:Diff/970673229 on 1 August 2020 about the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan topic area. The 28 January 2021 warning at Special:Diff/1003325068 was for post–1992 American politics. — Newslinger talk 21:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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

• Hah, one diff! How spartan of you, Vanamonde93. Respect. Anyway, agreed, it looks bad. And then there's the nonsensical claims from right wing muslim supremacists edit summary provocation from 3 weeks ago (diff). Talk page littered with unheeded warnings. Recommend indef BROADLY IPA TBAN. El_C 01:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)