Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive286

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

Request concerning François Robere

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 00:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :

Sanction under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision - interaction ban with GizzyCatBella
 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced:


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

1- Referred to me in their post on the Arbitration page --> (''...in June another one was blocked (the imposing admin, who was knee-deep in the TA, has since been desysopped... in August an I-ban was imposed between three editors...'') diff -

2 - Furnished within a new text and restored my prior removal  -  - please notice Szarek is affiliated with PiS.. - notice young historians changed to young missionaries, restoring the exact citations (see Behr Valentin 2017-01-02 Historical policy-making in post-1989 Poland), etc.

Explanation and additional information:

On August 9, 2020, a two-way interaction ban was imposed on François Robere and me. (important - please note that the two-way ban is of no fault of myself but François Robere and another participant ; the reason for imposing two-way interaction ban was the fact that one of the assessing administrator's didn't like one-way interaction bans One-way interaction ban have initially been proposed,,,)

On April 18, 2021, François Robere referred to me in their post on the Arbitration page and included link to my talk page despite the fact that interaction ban forbids to make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly.

This latest development prompted me to bring this to the administrative attention; however, I was also surprised to see that François Robere (after modifications) also commenced restoring my removals on one of the articles despite the precise instructions per WP:IBAN that editors under interaction ban can not - undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means.

François Robere restoration of my prior removal furnished within a new text -

My prior removals - - please notice Szarek is affiliated with PiS.. - notice young historians changed to young missionaries, restoring the exact citations (see Behr Valentin 2017-01-02 Historical policy-making in post-1989 Poland), etc.

Warnings:
 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
 * 1) edit war block
 * 2) personal attack block
 * 1) warning
 * 2) warning
 * 3) warning
 * 4) warning
 * 5) warning

I’m going to add BANEX rules for everyone to see easily with related underlined.

Exceptions to limited bans
An important note to all administrators for future actions

Failure to note in closing that results in two-way interaction bans and not mentioning the fact that one side is of no fault may result in denial of the guilty party of responsibility ( as we can see in the statement of user against whom this enforcement is requested ) or confusion. Just as I was worried about during my closing.,

Quote of one of the involved administrators involved in my case --> (they allowed me to quote them on that) -

@Nsk92 I appreciate your assistance here; Thank you. I have to point something out... You write -->"deletion nomination is the equivalent of starting a discussion on the talk" - That might make sense in the future, but as of today, this is not what is written in the WP:BANEX rules. The rules carry five particular points ( not examples but specifically spelled out details ).

Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to :
 * 1) - edit each other's user and user talk pages;
 * 2) - reply to each other in discussions;
 * 3) - make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;
 * 4) - undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
 * 5) - use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.

There is nothing about  deletion nomination being an equivalent of starting a discussion on the talk . I carefully memorized every point written. When I nominated that page for deletion, I didn't check for any contributors, only for the author and only shortly before posting the proposal. Please also keep in mind that the other party is also accountable for bringing this IB into the picture, not me, but I had to endure the consequences. But as I said, that actually makes sense to include an additional rule when I think about it; therefore, it should be included in Banex rules as point 6. As of today (May 1, 2021), according to the current Banex rules, I didn't break any; the other party did breach what's written. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  03:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Awilley - The falsehood of the disputant is astonishing, shamelessly making a completely false statement. They were the one who was hounding me not the other way around - despite my pleas to stop,  That included filing bogus AE reports, block shopping  among many, many other examples of hounding my edits (on articles they never edited before),,, (the diffs examples could go on) Their exact action (showing up  at yet another bogus report against me after THEM breaching the interaction promise ) led to this Interaction Ban. I would be ok with Iban lifted, but I'm very concerned that the other party will resume stalking me around again when this IB is lifted. Their comments on this very board show that disputants is not displaying any remorse for their past behavior and suggest that they are unwilling to change. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  14:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

(Below comments were made before the reported user re-wrote their narrative without striking the original - details at the bottom) GizzyCatBella  🍁  20:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Due to the unwillingness of the opponent to strive towards resolving this civilly, here is further proof of them hounding me and breaching an Interaction Ban.

@Nsk92 and Awilley - So if the opponent insists on escalation instead of trying to see if removal of restriction would work, then let's look at yet another case of them following me into the article they NEVER edited before me and later breaching an interaction ban by rewriting my prior removal into a new text.

- On May 26, 2020 I made this edit to Krasiński article 

- On February 15th, 2021, the opponent basically restored it (after IB was already in place) by modifying the text and section title (Antisemitism to Antisemitic themes), using the same references, etc. See below:

My removal before the interaction ban: A Polish nationalist, Krasiński's work in The Undivine Comedy positing a Jewish conspiracy against Christians was among the first or possible the first work in a string of modern antisemitic literary works in Europe leading to the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion -

Opponents added text on Feb.15, 2021 (after IB is in place): Some of Krasiński's work contains antisemitic motifs. His Undivine Comedy is cited as a predecessor of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion -

The opponent followed me to the article  they never edited before me  and restored the text (modified) with the same references (Stephen Eric Bronner, Abraham G. Duker and Adamiecka-Sitek) changing the title section from Antisemitism to Antisemitic themes.

My first comment to the talk page - May 26th, 2021

Opponent follows me to the article and comments on June 2nd, 2020 

My first edit to the article main space - May 26, 2020 -

Opponents first edit to the article Feb.15, 2021 (after IB was already in place) - -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  21:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

For a visual comparison of the last example of the Interaction violation, please click on Extend content beneath - GizzyCatBella  🍁  12:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC) Entire text

Below parts of the re-written sentences from the above and section title change

Section title change

This becomes this

This becomes this

This becomes this

The above demonstrates that the editor was conscious that they are restoring my edit with the same references (Stephen Eric Bronner, Abraham G. Duker and Agata Adamiecka-Sitek) so decided to conceal it by compressing it, re-writing using different words, and changing the section title.

As supporting evidence of constant stalking, I'll throw in a few examples where the reported user followed me to the articles they NEVER edited before and AFTER the I-ban has been imposed. (If you wish to see the diff's when I was followed before the Iban I may provide that but the list will be very long. Please also note that the reported user declared in the past that they are not hounding me but only "reviewing" and "policing" my edits.. The "policing" diff I can't find at the moment, but I'll if requested.)

a) - Axis Powers talk page - GizzyCatBella- Reported user four hours later-

b) - Historical policy of the Law and Justice party talk page - GizzyCatBella - Reported user two days later -

c) - Witold Pilecki talk page - GizzyCatBella - Reported user five days later -

d) - Hamas - GizzyCatBella - Reported user - 8 days later -  -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  00:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC) (Note - My comments (21:43, 6 May 2021 and 00:21, 7 May 2021) where in reaction to and addressed the reported user's post that has been since altered without striking the original - see below.)

Please note - the reported user just altered his comment AFTER it was already responded to ,,. I was reacting to the initial comment, NOT what's written now. They were warned in the past by one of the administrators not to do that (in issue of hounding different editor). But they did it yet again! They also did that in the past, even after administrative note. . This is very unfair to me, misleading to other readers and, if not carefully examined, also confusing for eventual records. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  19:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Awilley - if naming a party one holds interaction ban with is considered a minor issue solely because it was made on the Arbcom page, then that's fine. I believed that it was a significant breach, hence my reaction to it. I would NEVER refer to them regardless of where it is. I only hope that the other party will not take it as an encouragement to mention me in the future and will stop referring to me anywhere on Wikipedia, just as I do in regards to them. I also understand your desire to avoid unnecessary burdens, and I hope further reports will not be needed. Please extend a warning uniformly, so they don't run here carelessly; they already have a history of doing precisely that. (See links above of them filing and showing up at every bogus report against me and the latest report that lead to this Interaction Ban) GizzyCatBella  🍁  21:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Please note - François Robere has not been notified about this complaint since it's not clear to me if that's allowed - see WP:IBAN - Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to edit each other's user and user talk pages. Please advise if I can notify or let the user know. Thank you. I believe I can do that under the circumstances --->
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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

Statement by François Robere

 * Background:
 * 1) The ban between the OP and myself was imposed as part of an AE request filed by a third editor.
 * 2) It wasn't clear that I should be party to an I-ban, but one was enacted anyway; along with another between the OP and the filer. Both were "no fault" bans.
 * 3) During the discussion I've shown that the OP was following my activities on Wikipedia, including my "sandbox", mainspace edits, and correspondence with at least one admin.
 * 4) Soon after the ban was imposed I stated that it makes me uneasy, since it can be "weaponized" against me.


 * The diffs:
 * 1) Diff 1 complies with WP:BANEX, as well as the imposing admin's instruction that the ban isn't retroactive.
 * 2) Diff 2 is unrelated to the OP.
 * 3) I've edited Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) before, including on Szarek and the ref to Goddeeris.
 * 4) On March 3rd I mentioned the IPN in a comment.
 * 5) On March 4th I mentioned Szarek.
 * 6) On March 5th the OP made her first edit to Institute of National Remembrance since January the previous year. Later that day she removed a statement regarding Szarek.
 * 7) On the same day I posted a long analysis of the changes made to the article by other editors. I did not mention the OP nor her edits.
 * 8) Point #22 in the analysis refers to the IPN's budget. An hour and a half after it was posted the OP removed a mention of the IPN's budget.
 * 9) The discussion evolved throughtout March. On March 29th I collected quotes from several sources and posted them to Talk. This is my work, it has several new sources and perhaps 80-90% new content.
 * 10) On April 14th, seeing as no substantial objections have been raised, I added the content to the article.
 * 11) The edit was soon reverted, and we went back to Talk.
 * 12) After I replied to the reverting editor, another editor voiced their support for my edit.
 * 13) The OP then made an off-topic comment about an edit that editor made three weeks earlier. She then inserted an opinion that pertains to both our edits, potentially complicating the discussion for me.


 * Another incident:
 * 1) On February 3rd I commented on Talk:Bogdan Musiał.
 * 2) 2.5 hours later the OP made a large removal of content added by Buidhe.
 * 3) On February 4th I posted a question on Musiał, Israel and religion.
 * 4) Three minutes later the OP deleted the content on Musiał, Israel and religion.
 * 5) Prior to this the OP had last edited the page on June 2018.

François Robere (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I object to the change in the sanction as proposed, and would rather you didn't support it if, as you say, you're not familiar with the history that precipitated it. François Robere (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your analysis. Could you please opine on my own diffs, as well as on JzG and Nsk92's comments? I find it difficult to believe that the OP would edit a specific statement within three minutes of me mentioning it - in article she hasn't touched in 2.5 years - a sheer coincidence. François Robere (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're actually the first admin to address my diffs, so thanks. Do you mind looking at the others regarding the IPN ("Diff 2")? The OP hasn't touched that article in over a year, then suddenly makes three edits about stuff I'm discussing as I'm discussing it. That's a lot of coincidences. François Robere (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd definitely like to see it lifted on my side, but it's unlikely without a complete lift, so I'd rather it wasn't lifted at all. The OP has been "hounding" me since at least September 2019 (see diffs above), and one of my concerns is that removing the ban now instead of enforcing it would just legitimize her behavior, while exposing me to further harassment. François Robere (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The OP read my reply and brought back a bunch of diffs that were already discussed with Guerillero, El C et al. back in August; I have some of my own, but I don't see the point in rehashing any of them. We're not here to discuss the past.The reason I'm being cautious about a ban lift is given in the diffs throughout this thread: of the OP's two examples, Newslinger found just one violation on my end, and that one is "not significant enough to issue any type of sanction". Of my and Nsk92's five examples, however, Newslinger found two violations, one of which could potentially rise to "hounding" - and he only checked two. I'd like to see the other three looked at before the I-ban is lifted, and I'd like to see whether the OP takes responsibility for any of them. As long as the OP continues to insist - despite all the evidence - that she never "hounded" me and that I'm solely to blame, then I don't see how this can be done in good faith, and would rather the ban just stayed in place. François Robere (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not engaged with the OP and haven't been since the ban was set up nine months ago. This idea that "the sides need to disengage" etc. - it's just irrelevant AFAIC. If you think this is a bogus report and want to warn the OP, be my guest. François Robere (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Following on your comments: the OP's lengthy addendum to her report, while bearing little relevance to her claims against me, does show you some of the extent of WP:APL beyond "History of Poland during WWII", to both historical subjects (Zygmunt Krasiński) and current affairs (Historical policy of the Law and Justice party). The same editors, positions and editing patterns that make APL difficult recur there as well, which suggests lackluster enforcement and a too narrowly-defined TA.
 * Guerillero was actually the admin one enacted this I-ban, and the one I asked for help the first time it looked like it was violated. François Robere (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) RandomCanadian
"interaction ban forbids to make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly." - making a long-winded AE request about it seems about as clear cut of an infringement as I could imagine. Making an AE request is also very much against the purpose of an IBAN, which is to avoid confrontations between two editors - WP:BANEX also seems to suggest you'd have better done to ask an uninvolved editor about it before making a report here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As to the evidence presented, referring to the interaction ban itself (one amongst a chronicle of other sanctions imposed in the area) within an ArbCom request for clarification does seem to be a perfectly allowable course of action. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  00:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The history of Institute of National Remembrance seems more complicated; though I note that the removal of dead link source by GCB (apparently reverted by FR, along with a much larger change - not sure if this was just lack of attention and forgetfulness) appears to be incorrect per WP:LINKROT. Other changes seem much more minor; though they might be violations as understood under the guidelines. Of course, two editors under a mutual IBAN editing the same page is obviously recipe for disaster and the wiser recommendation to everyone would be to avoid it if possible. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Linking to the discussion announcing the IBAN (as part of a reply which does appear to contribute to the discussion, by arguing the case that there is still disruption and need for enforcement actions) can hardly be construed as violating said IBAN, unless we're in lawyering territory. Of course entirely ignoring this has gone to and been amended by ArbCom so many times the whole area seems to be irreparably prone to WP:DRAMA. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not see such a link in the evidence presented by GCB here. If there's something I'm missing point it out, but the supposed link to their talk page is a diff of an edit (block notice) by Rexxs, not by FR. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * On further look, agree with JzG and Paleo that this appears to be entrapment over what are, in essence, very minor details (a few words here and there, an incorrectly removed source, on an article FR edited first). As to VM's comment, the ArbCom discussion is clearly BANEX, I've also had a further look; so that's end of argument as far as I am concerned. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @VM: You seem to be arguing over technicalities. ArbCom IS, by default, an appropriate forum to talk about sanctions related to ArbCom cases and ArbCom enforcement actions. Everyone in this tense topic area could use more WP:AGF and less technicalities, me thinks (otherwise, the IBANs and other sanctions would not have needed to be imposed, ...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The more I read into this issue; the more I look at prior parts of ArbCom case; the more I look at all the WP:DRAMA (including the absurd quibbling over BANEX), the less inclined am I to think that there's any solution to this but a permanent topic ban for many of the involved participants - Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and if editors can't agree to collaborate on a topic and are instead perpetuating a long, entrenched, dispute, the solution would be to remove the problem (the editors) and hope that new faces bring new looks. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by PaleoNeonate
Since both users are involved in that amendment discussion, wouldn't this be somewhat unevitable? It also appears that Robere first participated before GizzyCatBella joined the discussion. One could argue that Bella should have avoided that thread to avoid involvement, but this is ARB related. Why not try to endure eachother, at least on that page (encouragement to both to avoid trying to trap the other)? — Paleo Neonate  – 02:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek
In this comment, aside from making personal attacks and false accusations against other users and administrators, FR gratuitiously referred to GCB ("in June another one was blocked") and linked to one of GCB edits. The comment in general adds nothing to discussion and is not even on topic - it does not address the use of sources in the topic area. It's just an unnecessary griping about other users, including one that he is interaction banned with - GCB. There was a hundred different ways that FR could've said the same thing without violating the IBAN, or, just not make the comment altogher. Yet, they chose to do that anyway. As such, that one is a clear cut IBAN violation.  Volunteer Marek  02:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

User:PaleoNeonate - GCB made a comment on a request for clarification and amendment concerning an area they're active in. In that comment GCB made no reference, direct or indirect, to FR. GCB was one of ... 29 (?) editors to comment at the request. It was a general discussion. This is completely, 100%, different from FR's comment, which specifically refers to GCB and links to one of their edits. It should also be noted that the IBAN was put in place due to FR following GCB around, not vice versa. Only reason it was made mutual is because admins believe that "one way interaction bans don't work" so they said "might as well make it mutual" even though it was FR who was at fault.  Volunteer Marek  02:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian - FR didn't just "link to a discussion announcing an IBAN" (there's two links related to GCB in their comment). He also linked to GCB's talk page. FR's comment is basically the standard griping and attacking of GCB, precisely what and why he was IBAN'd for.  Volunteer Marek  03:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @RC, there’s nothing “supposed” about FR linking to GCB’s talk page. It’s right there in FR’s comment at ARCA: it’s FR’s 18th line here in this diff . And yes it’s to a comment by Rexx (and that part of FR’s post is also problematic, especially since Rexx isn’t around anymore to defend himself against FR’s false accusation) but the point is that FR is clearly breaking his IBAN by commenting on GCB and making it clear their comment refers to GCB by linking to their talk page  Volunteer Marek   05:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

“Bob not Snob” account, the least you can do is remove the absurd “uninvolved” from your comment heading.  Volunteer Marek  04:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

User:JzG Item #1 is most certainly NOT covered by WP:BANEX. FR was NOT "reverting vandalism". FR was NOT "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum". There was nothing "legitimate" or "necessary" about FR's comment. If he hadn't made it, nothing would've happened. If he had made it but left GCB out of it, nothing would've happened. He could've also made it without all the personal attacks against several users. FR's comment has nothing to do with the I-Ban and it's in a forum where the subject of discussion is sourcing restrictions and NOT any I-BANS. To claim this qualifies under BANEX is frankly absurd (otoh, this request by GCB clearly DOES qualify under BANEX, contrary to Random Canadian's assertion, since it involves "asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another user").

As far as the IPN article goes, FR might have edited it before GCB, but the difference is that GCB's edits were to different parts of the article and did not revert or edit anything FR put in. However, FR DID revert (with some rewording) GCB's edits. Editors under an I-Ban are in fact allowed to edit and comment on the same article as long as they don't revert or edit each other's text. FR violated that.

And frankly Bob not snob's "evidence", which is stuff they already posted to the ARCA page where it was rightfully ignored, is just an attempt to deflect the discussion from Francois Robere's very obvious violation at ARCA to "other stuff".  Volunteer Marek  15:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

There was absolutely no reason for FR to mention GCB or link to GCB's edits or talk page on the ARCA discussion. NONE. It had nothing to do with the discussion. It had nothing to do with the proposal. It was just gratuitous sniping at an editor FR doesn't like. That he's under an IBAN with, for a good reason. BANEX simply does not apply. Not even remotely.  Volunteer Marek  17:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@User:RandomCanadian - these are not technicalities. This is a user under an IBAN bringing up (even attacking) the user he's not supposed to mention or interact with on a Wikipedia page. WP:IBAN explicitly says: Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly It's a pretty straight up violation honestly. The only Wikilawyering here is by the editors who want to pretend that it isn't by invoking WP:BANEX without bothering to explain why FR's comment was "necessary" or how it "referenced the IBAN itself" (because it wasn't, and it wasn't). IBANs are made for a reason. In this case it was imposed after a long history of warnings to FR to stop bothering GCB. Since FR hasn't bothered to heed these warnings, the part of the notification about IBANS that they received, the part that says "If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions." should be put into force.  Volunteer Marek  15:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

User:François Robere - you say: "Diff 1 complies with WP:BANEX, as well as the imposing admin's instruction that the ban isn't retroactive"
 * Can you explain how your comment at ARCA (Diff 1) was "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum"? Because that's what it takes for BANEX to apply. Did your comment even refer to the IBAN itself? Was it made in an "appropriate forum"?
 * Can you also explain what you mean by "retroactive"? Usually "retroactive" means you cannot get sanctioned for edits you've made before the ban was imposed . Are you saying your comment was actually made before August 10, 2020, even though the date says "April 18th 2021"? This is a strange claim to say the least.  Volunteer Marek   12:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:François Robere - in addition to explaining how your comment concerning GCB at ARCA supposedly falls under "BANEX", can you explain why you are claiming that GCB removing text inserted by a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT editor (indef banned Icewhiz) is supposed to be an iban violation with YOU? I know there's lots of Icewhiz socks around, but I'm pretty sure you are NOT one. So why are you claiming that a revert of Icewhiz, is an IBAN vio with you? You also didn't mention Szarek on the IPN article page until AFTER GCB's March 5 edit (your first mention of Szarek was March 23 ). It seems you're trying to flip or confuse the timeline here so let's get this one clear - Icewhiz adds stuff on Szarek before he was banned in 2019. In early March 2021 GCB removes it. In late March 2021 you bring up Szarek on talk. If there's an IBAN vio here (and personally I'd give this one a pass) it's you violating the ban not the other way around.   Volunteer Marek   19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Nsk92 and User:JzG - I don't know why you're bringing up a completely irrelevant AfD here, but it seems quite ridiculous to argue that someone should be sanctioned for disagreeing with you on an AfD. I voted to delete that article as well. Why? Because the subject is not notable!!! The article was started by indef banned Icewhiz, it's on a topic that was reported in the news briefly at the time but then hardly ever again and one which simply does not meet notability criteria. Trying to drag an AfD disagreement into this AE is... I'm not sure how to put this politely, but "bad faithed" and "disruptive" come to mind. Especially since this Whataboutism, as unbecoming as it is, is also combined with this bending over backwards to pretend that Francois' very clear and straight forward topic ban violation at ARCA qualifies under "BANEX". Neither of you, nor FR< has actually bothered to address how BANEX would apply here - what portion of FR's comment "addressed the IBAN itself"? What portion was "necessary"? You're just slinging Wikipedia acronyms around in a fairly transparently biased manner (you like one editor so they get a pass for harassing another). It's kind of depressing to see actual Wikipedia policies get thrown out the window so quickly under flimsiest pretexts.  Volunteer Marek  19:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

, I think that removing the IBAN is a bad idea. It was put in place after years of User:François Robere bothering and following around GCB as noted in the AE request which led to it. At one point FR even stated that he was "policing" GCB's edits for which he got, rightfully, reprimanded by admins (this was before the IBAN). Furthermore, removing the IBAN would also reward FR for violating it, just creating the wrong incentives (it would encourage the bothering to resume). Note that FR hasn't even managed to acknowledge that they violated the ban, but rather has tried to WP:WIKILAWYER it by claiming absurdly that their edits are okay under "BANEX" (they're not). That kind of shows that they haven't learned anything from this experience or from the fact the ban was imposed in the first place.  Volunteer Marek  14:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) Bob not snob
The indirect reference at ARCA falls under WP:BANEX, legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.

The second part of GCB's report is disingenuous, as GCB is the one who is in clear violation of the IBAN on Institute of National Remembrance:
 * On 19:57, 5 March 2021 FR made a long post on the talk page, challenging an edit by VM. GCB then jumped into the article less than two hours later (disingenuous edit summary, the IPN's budget has everything to do with the IPN) making large changes ( (another disingenuous edit summary, the IPN director's election campaign to directorship has everything to do with the IPN),,, , ). GCB generally removed scholarly sources on the IPN, replacing them with sources from the IPN itself. GCB did all this in parallel to the talk page discussion (and RSN) on the same type of edits and sources.
 * The IPN itself is an institution that "has spearheaded efforts to keep history on a narrow, patriotic path" (New York Times) and has a "history of ignoring or explaining away Polish complicity with the Nazis" and is known for employing a neo-Nazi historian in a major position (, Dallas Holocaust and Human Rights Museum). VM and GCB using IPN itself and removing reliable sources is not legit, this is a disgraced institution known for publishing garbage.
 * On 20:44, 9 March 2021 GCB jumps into the discussion between VM and FR.
 * After the long winded discussion above, initiated by FR challenging VM's edits, and after support by other editors FR made an edit on 14 April. This edit was promptly reverted by VM. FR then opened a talk page section.
 * On 15 April GCB jumped into the talk page discussion started by FR, replying to User:Mhorg. This post as in direct violation to the IBAN as Mhorg was discussing FR's edits ("The part added by François Robere was acceptable, written in a neutral, disinterested manner. It was clearly due"), and GCB was directly referencing those edits.

Further back, GCB also made this post (right under FR's ANEW notification, linking to the IBAN case, and responding to this ANEW report by FR against E-960. GGB went even further and posted to the ANEW complaint FR started.

I recommend admins read this statement by Dallas Holocaust and Human Rights Museum to understand how the IPN is viewed in the historical community and compare this to what GCB and VM are doing on the IPN's page.

GCB's complaint on Institute of National Remembrance is disingenuous, besides breaking the IBAN herself, she initially jumped into the article in March right after FR made a large a post challenging VM's edits, and has done the same now in April. She is complaining about Behr, but FR discussed Behr (points 18, 22) 2 hours before GCB jumped into the article.Bob not snob (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus
Whether there is a technical violation here or not, I don't have a strong opinion (as I don't feel like reviewing the diffs in detail). In general, I find such remedies to be producing more harm / noise than good, not to mention they can encourage battleground mentality (more diffs to save/report, sigh); vacating it may be a simple solution but I really don't have a strong feeling here. It would be interesting to hear from both parties (GCB and FR) whether they think the remedy was necessary and whether they think it still is. The main reason I am posting here, however, is to just comment than in one of the recent comment submitted as a diff here, FR incorrectly claimed I was blocked. I was not. Please WP:REFACTOR this. TIA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC) PS. The above error has now been fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I had the time to look at the diffs and read the comments here and I certainly think the i-ban should be removed. It does nothing but encourages battleground mentality on both sides. As for any new restrictions, there is no evidence that any party here is disruptive; their edits seem fine (not particularly controversial or edit warred by others) - the only problem is that they both share similar interests and occasionally overlap. It's really hard to judge whether it's intentional or not, reverting stuff from years ago, or making an edit in an article another one commented on not that long ago or whatever. I say unmuzzle both of them and see what happens, if they start edit warring and fighting, then we will have evidence to consider more restrictions. For now let's AGF and hope they can behave themselves, after the lesson of how annoying it is to operate under various half-way bans. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I certainly agree that if the i-ban were to be removed, François Robere should confirm they no longer are planning to "police GCB". My point is that this entire report seems to be making mountains out of molehills. Yes, he skirted the i-ban, maybe violated it once or twice (no, I don't think BANEX applies to his recent edit, there was no need to mention GCB, it's as simple as that) but I'd rather see a warning than any block. I never liked the use of excessive force to drive some point, American-police-style, although I do know that I am in a minority when it comes to this. That said, this would be helped if François acknowledged they got a bit zealous recently and apologized, instead of trying to counterattack. Blocks should not be needed if one acknowledges their mistake and promises to be better (yes, I know, another notion that is not very popular here). Call me naive, but I still believe that forviness, and building bridges, rather than blowing them up, would be a better mindset, given we want to reduce any WP:BATTLEGROUND.


 * Thinking about this a bit more, if there is no support for removing the i-ban (I don't think anyone else here besides me expressed support for this), how about this: perhaps a better remedy would be to change the full i-ban into a simple ban for both from reporting one another to AE/AN(I)? My point is that they should not be prevented from regular interaction with one another in the mainspace, particularly as when they edit the same articles, sometimes months apart, and perhaps innocently change content that another one added before, this creates a very technical i-ban violation that is really not a violation of the spirit (being arguably accidental, not intentional, but that's hard to verify). On the other hand, the existence of the i-ban encourages both to collects diffs on the other, and encourages borderline violations such as reports here, or worse, the usage of meatpuppets or worse (see Bob's section, now indef blocked). Also the "first mover" advantage, which i-bans encouage, is ridcolous. One edits an article, the other one is banned from it for life? And they are supposed to check edit history to make sure that sections they edit were not, by any chance, added by the other one? That's a nightmare. The fewer bear traps, aka "remedies", we have, the better for everyone. If our main concern is that those editors were making too much noise at AE/ANI about one another few years back, just prevent this from happening, no need to also prevent them from commenting in the same discussion or make them look for "gotcha's" in obsure edit history ("I edited this first 5 years ago, he violated the i-ban fixing a typo there now"). Love and peace, guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piotrus (talk • contribs) 03:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by JzG (GCB/FR)
Item 1 is clearly covered by WP:BANEX.

Item 2 invites us to look at in the context of an IBAN enacted on 9 August 2020. FR edited that article before GCB did, FR was also the first of the two to edit the article after the IBAN. GCB's first edit to the Talk page was both after the IBAN and after prior comments by FR. If an IBAN violation exists here, it is GCB. This looks like an attempt to abuse of Wikipedia process to remove an opponent, and is, at the very least, a vexatious filing.

As to the content matter, GCB's edits seem to me to be tendentious, adding WP:MISSION statements and uncritical discussion of figures identified by RS as controversial. Taken along with this vexatious filing I would argue that a TBAN may be indicated. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is reinforced by the prior TBAN, thanks, whic I had forgotten. This is textbook recidivism. The ban should be reinstated. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nsk92
Regarding JzG's TBAN comment, GCB was under a Poland-related TBAN in the past, but it was lifted here at AE in December 2020, see the relevant thread at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive276. The closing statement for that appeal request reads: "The appeal has been accepted, with the understanding that if the user resumes problematic editing, more severe sanctions will be swiftly imposed." Nsk92 (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This AfD, Articles for deletion/New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship (conference) (which somebody should really close by now, as it has been resisted three times already and has been open since March 7) may also be tangentially relevant here. The AfD, where CGB is the nominator, concerns a page about a Holocaust conference in France in 2019 that was disrupted by an anti-semitic attack by a group of Polish nationalists. Apart from !voting twice (as the nominator, and then again as a participant), there is nothing overtly disruptive about GCB's participation in this AfD but the choice of the topic is indicative and it does overlap with the topic of GCB's prior TBAN . The Institute of National Remembrance was one of the bodies that criticized the conference. The page New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship (conference) and its talk page had been actively edited by François Robere; the first edit by GCB appears to be the AfD nomination itself. Nsk92 (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Err, sorry, Guerillero, but I don't think it's an acceptable approach for the AE admins to declare that they have "no appetite" for enforcing WP:ACDS in an entire area for which discretionary sanctions have been authorized. And I don't think I've seen AE wash its hands off from dealing with an entire area of discretionary sanctions before, no matter how unpleasant. Develop some appetite. If necessary make a post at WP:AN and ask for extra admin participation. But do something. Nsk92 (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by BMK
How very exciting to see all the same names once again! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes
The comment by FR on ARCA (diff #1) seems to be an obvious IBAN violation by the letter. The comment was made when FR was already under the editing restriction, and this is not "a legitimate concern about the ban itself". However, I do not think his comments were such a big deal to deserve filing this AE request. I would suggest a closing without action or a warning. No need in Arbcom or anything else. My very best wishes (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning François Robere

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


 * I suggest that the people involved here take this to arbcom, because I don't see that there is much appetite among AE admins to get involved in this area -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 17:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Admins are volunteers and work on what they want. This has been open for more than a week and no other AE admins have commented on this issue despite a number of other threads getting a wide variety of comments. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 18:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Having briefly reviewed the report, I think I'm most sympathetic to Piotrus's view that the IBAN is counterproductive. I'm not particularly familiar with the history that precipitated the ban, but this report appears to have devolved into sniping at each other over technicalities, rather than providing a way for editors to continue to contribute constructively. signed,Rosguill talk 20:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I support a modified version of Piotrus's suggestion, which would rescind the two-way interaction ban and replace it with an editing restriction that disallows GizzyCatBella and François Robere from filing or participating in conduct disputes against each other on any noticeboard, while still allowing participation in conduct disputes involving each other. This change would hopefully encourage future interactions between GizzyCatBella and François Robere to be content-oriented, rather than conduct-oriented. —  Newslinger  talk   06:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Examining the presented evidence:
 * Special:Diff/1018499331 in
 * François Robere's comment includes two relevant links:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GizzyCatBella&diff=964681750&oldid=964628379&diffmode=source – which shows GizzyCatBella receiving an arbitration enforcement block (26 June 2020 AE discussion) for violating a topic ban that was issued as the result of a 25 June 2018 AE discussion
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=972053194#GizzyCatBella – which shows the 9 August 2020 AE discussion that resulted in two-way interaction bans between François Robere and GizzyCatBella, and between and GizzyCatBella
 * The clarification request is regarding article sourcing expectations that were implemented on 22 September 2019. Because neither the 26 June 2020 AE block nor the 9 August 2020 interaction bans is related to the article sourcing expectations, I consider this comment a violation of the interaction ban. However, the fact that the clarification request concerns a provision in a discretionary sanctions topic area (antisemitism in Poland) that is a subset of the topic area under which the 26 June 2020 AE block and the 9 August 2020 interaction bans were implemented (Eastern Europe or the Balkans) is a mitigating factor.
 * Special:Diff/1017768220 in Institute of National Remembrance
 * François Robere adds a large amount of content, including the text:
 * Idesbald Goddeeris writes that the law "changed the rules of the IPN administration council, abolishing the influence of academia and the judiciary. A week later, the Polish parliament elected four PiS candidates for the new kolegium, and in July, it voted Jarosław Szarek as the new IPN director. Szarek was affiliated with PiS... One of his first measures was to discharge Krzysztof Persak, the coauthor of the authoritative and two volume 2002 IPN study of Jedwabne."
 * GizzyCatBella had previously removed the text Szarek is affiliated with PiS, and in his campaign to be elected said that "Germans were the executors of the Jedwabne crime and that they had coerced a small group of Poles to become involved". in Special:Diff/1010514365. François Robere had participated extensively on Talk:Institute of National Remembrance prior to the edit, and had discussed the sourcing for their edit beforehand in Special:Diff/1014929504. Given the negligible overlap ("Szarek [...] affiliated with PiS" is four words in a 6,738-character addition) and the background of the content addition, I do not consider this edit a violation of the interaction ban.
 * The interaction ban violation in #1, in my opinion, is not significant enough to issue any type of sanction. The current AE request is not a very good use of editor resources, and it would be beneficial to direct the attention of editors in this topic area toward resolving content disputes and away from initiating conduct disputes. —  Newslinger  talk   16:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you please clarify whether is a sockpuppet of another user, or evading a ban or block? The ArbComBlock block log entry is unclear.  —  Newslinger   talk   16:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe you will find that both of your possibilities are in fact that same thing. I am also not entirely sure why the specifics regarding the block are relevant, as the entire point of an ArbCom block is to block a user based on private or otherwise confidential information. Primefac (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm interpreting that as a "yes" and will collapse the section. —  Newslinger  talk   18:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Many of the other diffs in the discussion were evaluated above, but I will take a closer look at two other incidents:
 * Special:Diff/1004836057 on Talk:Bogdan Musiał and Special:Diff/1004836571 on Bogdan Musiał
 * GizzyCatBella removes text regarding Bogdan Musiał's views regarding the Israeli reaction to the Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance that was cited to Commentary, wPolityce.pl, and Polonia Christiana. Three minutes prior, François Robere commented on the talk page regarding Musiał's views on the Israeli reaction, quoting an academic source that was published in the Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs. There is some overlap between the content that GizzyCatBella removed ("According to Musiał, the exaggerated complicity of Poles in the Holocaust has become part of this religion, and therefore Israelis are outraged over the Polish Amendment on a basis of emotion rather than of historical facts.") and the text quoted by François Robere ("According to Musiał, the Israeli reaction to the Polish law is a result of recognizing the memory of the Holocaust as a form of religion, in which emotions play a crucial role at the expense of facts.").GizzyCatBella's removal prevents François Robere from quoting the specified text from the academic source in the article, as doing so would be a violation of the interaction ban. While GizzyCatBella's removal by itself is not technically a violation of the interaction ban (since it prevents the implementation of a proposed edit instead of reverting a preexisting edit), GizzyCatBella's removal is against the spirit of the interaction ban and this type of edit, if repeated, would be a form of hounding.
 * Special:Diff/1010778379 on New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship (conference)
 * GizzyCatBella nominates the article for deletion. François Robere is the second-most prolific editor of the page, having written 10% of the article. The top editor, who GizzyCatBella named in the deletion nomination, wrote 64.5% of the article. The deletion discussion was closed two weeks later, resulting in no consensus. GizzyCatBella's deletion nomination is the equivalent of starting a discussion on the talk proposing the removal of a section that contains content that François Robere had added. I consider the deletion nomination a violation of the interaction ban, although the "no consensus" result of the deletion discussion is a mitigating factor.
 * Looking at the bigger picture, most of the edits reported in this discussion would be policy-compliant if it were not for the interaction ban. Interaction bans are intended to reduce the burden of handling conduct disputes between the affected editors. However, since GizzyCatBella and François Robere are highly-active editors who frequent the same pages, this particular two-way interaction ban has become a high-maintenance sanction that engenders conflict and encourages territorial behavior.Articles in this topic area would be better off if the effort put into the comments and the reviews of this AE report were redirected to resolving content disputes. That is why I would like to see the interaction ban rescinded. The proposed editing restriction (against conduct disputes) might not even be necessary, since removing the interaction ban would eliminate discussions such as the current AE report. However, this means any future conduct issues in this topic area will likely be responded to with full topic bans. —  Newslinger  talk   18:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * & Do I understand correctly that you do not want your current interaction ban lifted? ~Awilley (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, so with both parties ambivalent about the ban being lifted (GizzyCatBella slightly for, Francois Robere slightly against) I don't know if that's the right approach here. I am having a hard time wrapping my head around the TLDR report, but on the surface, the diffs of the violations don't seem terribly damning. Like making an edit that partially reverts an edit the other person made a year before. I think one of the reasons my colleagues are considering lifting the ban is because reports like this are a time sink for all involved. We want you two to continue avoiding each over, but we don't want to deal with squabbling over minor slip-ups here. I don't know how to best make that happen. Perhaps a warning that submitting a report here over minor issues will lead to a WP:BOOMERANG block. ~Awilley (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

TopGun1066
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning TopGun1066

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 10:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/The Troubles


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


 * 1) 09:29, 16 November 2020 Adds unattributed claim that a living person is a terrorist, in violation of MOS:TERRORIST
 * 2) 16:51, 24 November 2020 Claims that describing McMahon as a convicted terrorist is totally within Wikipedia's fair use policies, and also follows precedents of retroactive application of laws created by the Nuremberg trials. The whole discussion at Talk:Thomas McMahon (Irish republican) is worth reading
 * 3) 08:58, 10 March 2021 While I would agree with the majority of the edit, they obscured the fact that two members of the Scots Guards were convicted of murder for this specific incident. In particular note the changing of the reference, this is changed to one that was before the trial took place making it much more difficult for editors/readers to obtain the fuller picture.
 * 4) 09:20, 26 April 2021 Unexplained removal of my talk page post
 * 5) 09:33, 26 April 2021 Unexplained removal of the murder conviction information, instead thinking Scots Guards were involved in contentious shootings, including that of Peter McBride tells the full story
 * 6) 07:40, 26 April 2021 Adds unattributed claim that someone is a terrorist, in violation of MOS:TERRORIST. Considering two soldiers are presently on trial for his murder (trial started today), I believe that's wholly inappropriate
 * 7) 08:38, 26 April 2021 Repeat of previous edit (since self-reverted)


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

None

Notified
 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):

At User:TopGun1066 the editor admits to being a member of the British Armed Forces. The above edits are the totality of their edits in the Troubles area, there are no positive edits to mitigate the disruption.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * there was an attempt at discussion at Talk:Scots Guards by me here. Per diff#4 above, TopGun1066 simply removed my post at the same time as reverting the article without explanation. FDW777 (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Notified
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning TopGun1066
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by TopGun1066
1.	09:29, 16 November 2020 FDW777 is incorrect and their bias towards showing IRA members in a positive light is blatant. Living people are described as Terrorists on Wikipedia: Ted Kaczynski.

2.	16:51, 24 November 2020 Desribing McMahon as a convicted terrorist is totally within Wikipedia's fair use policies, as per Ted Kaczynski and Murder_of_Lee_Rigby, and also follows precedents of retroactive application of laws created by the Nuremberg trials. As stated, although McMahon was not convicted under any Terrorism Laws in the Republic of Ireland, the sources cited from the Guardian refer to him as a terrorist.

3.	08:58, 10 March 2021 The Scots Guards edit was tidying the text up. The fact that they were accused of murder was irrelevant as they were also re-admitted back into the Army.

4.	09:20, 26 April 2021 I didn’t remove this.

5.	09:33, 26 April 2021 The text describing the Scots Guards were involved in contentious shootings, including that of Peter McBride is an appropriate level of information to include. It doesn’t hide the incident.

6.	07:40, 26 April 2021 It is more inappropriate for FDW777 to slander people who have not been convicted of any crimes by describing them as ‘murderers’. Joe McCann was however, appointed commander of the Official IRA's Third Belfast Battalion. On 22 May 1971, the first British soldier to die at the hands of the Official IRA, Robert Bankier of the Royal Green Jackets was killed by a unit led by McCann. Describing McCann as a Terrorist is consistent with Wikipedia labelling other people (alive and dead) as terrorists. TopGun1066 (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by PaleoNeonate
This is not about the editors or this particular instance but I would like to mention that I opened a thread at. This is also the style guide, that sometimes can conflict with policies. This source for instance doesn't attribute it and it would be difficult to know who to attribute it to, yet it's obvious to that article's editor(s) and likely to many. — Paleo Neonate  – 11:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning TopGun1066

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


 * Having reviewed the provided diffs and the discussion at Talk:Thomas McMahon, I think that a logged warning to remind TopGun1066 to only add contentious labels about living subjects when widely supported by a consensus of reliable sources may suffice . Having reviewed the discussion at Talk:Thomas McMahon, I think both TopGun1066 and FDW777 derailed into arguing over legal technicalities; while the lack of a conviction for terrorism can be considered, it is not the be-all end all of arguments, and could be refuted by a demonstration that RS widely describe McMahon as a terrorist (n.b. such evidence has not yet been provided). I'm not terribly impressed with TopGun1066's justification for their edits at Scots Guard (both the explanation included in their response to this report and the one on the talk page; I would like to see a review of relevant RS, not just a bald assertion that something is or isn't a sufficient description), but as TopGun1066 has raised the issue on the talk page and there has as yet been no discussion, I think that AE is premature with respect to that dispute . signed,Rosguill talk 20:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC) Struck 16:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , oh my, thank you for bringing the reverted comment to my attention. That certainly changes my perspective, and I now think sanctions are warranted. Given TopGun1066's limited editing history thus far, I would recommend an indefinite topic ban, appealable after 1 month. signed,Rosguill talk 16:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I do want to note for the record that FDW777's reply (Special:Diff/1019938962) could have been phrased more constructively. Despite that, TopGun1066's response of reverting the comment was not appropriate, as the comment was relevant to the discussion and clear opposition to their edits. signed,Rosguill talk 16:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not impressed at all with TopGun's edits, their edit summaries, or their comments here. Addressing a concern about "terrorist" as if it's simply a matter of whether someone is alive or not shows either ignorance or incompetence, and neither are good at this forum--or a lack of care, possibly POV-driven. That recent Scots Guard edit, unexplained and pretty much inexplicable (their talk page post is just completely insufficient), suggests that POV may actually be the problem. I do not think that this editor should be editing in this still-contentious area. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)