Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344

Shirshore

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 Shirshore

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kzl55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Shirshore (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/Horn_of_Africa#Final_decision

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

14:26, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sanaag.
14:38, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sanaag.
15:35, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sanaag.
15:06, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sool.
15:36, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sool.
19:05, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sool.
20:34, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sool.
15:19, 24 March 2022 POV edit in which Shirshore removed almost 20% of the article by blanking a sourced section wholly with the summary: Removed derogatory content which belittles group concerned. This demeaning content should not be allowed on Wikipedia.
20:05, 24 March 2022 Shirshore removed an entire sourced section of the article with the edit summary: Removed derogatory and degrading text not suitable for Wikipedia. This is abhorrent and can’t be allowed on Wikipedia". This appears to have been an edit they've made from a mobile device.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

15:42, 16 April 2021 Shirshore was reported for engaging in the same kind of disruptive POV edit warring behaviour on some of the same articles included in this report (e.g. [1]), as a result of the report they were blocked.

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 on 20:12, 15 April 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor has been engaging in disruptive editing for sometime within the Horn of Africa space, particularly within Somaliland/Somalia articles. Their edit summaries indicate they are only interested in pushing a specific viewpoint and are more than willing to erase sourced content they dont like using "derogatory" as justification (e.g. from 2019: Removed derogatory and inflammatory material on the Derivsh period. This material, although sourced cannot be allowed on Wikipedia. [2], vs 2022: Removed derogatory content which belittles group concerned. This demeaning content should not be allowed on Wikipedia [3]. Please see User_talk:Kzl55#Dhulbahante_-_Dervish_Period. for a discussion in which this behaviour was discussed and Wikipedia guidelines were explained to them. They've been sanctioned last year for the the same disruptive edit warring behaviour [4]#User:Shirshore_reported_by_User:Dabaqabad_(Result:_Blocked).

They do not seem to care all that much for edit-warring warnings as they have gone back to edit warring within minutes of the notice [[5]], [6].They are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. As such I request a WP:NOTHERE ban, failing that I think a permanent topic ban from Horn-related articles is the minimum necessary sanction. Kind regards -- Kzl55 (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the discussion was automatically archived by a bot, as such I've restored it pending a decision from admins. Best regards --Kzl55 (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[[7]]

Discussion concerning Shirshore

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 Shirshore

The content removed is derogatory and inflammatory towards the group concerned. I don’t believe such content should be on Wikipedia, it can be deemed abusive should be removed off the platform. However, if other editors believe it to be constructive I will cease editing. Regards

I don’t think there is need for a topic ban or a block. Since my editing has been received as disruptive I can simply cease editing controversial issues to avoid conflict before consensus is reached with other editors. I think my contribution to the project overall has been constructive and I have helped improve the quality of articles concerning the Horn of Africa in general. I have a lot of knowledge on the region and ultimately I seek to dispense that in a neutral and balanced manner for readers. Unfortunately, I see that many articles have evolved to form a bias towards one entity over another, and my endeavours to correct that has been misconstrued by editors who consent to that bias, hence this engagement here. Nevertheless, I’m more familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and I intend to observe them in all my edits in the future. I’m not here to be disruptive, I’m here to contribute to the platform in a meaningful way. Kind regards!

Statement by Freetrashbox

I don't disagree with TBAN because I have several problems with Shirshore's edits, especially this one. However, the same goes for Kzl55 and Jacob300 for joining in the editing battle. It is clear from the BBC and VOA articles that these areas are disputed areas. Kzl55 and Jacob300 are clearly violating WP:POV and there is no doubt that their edits are frustrating their opponents. I have had several dialogues with Jacob300, but they simply repeat their arguments with the latest version fixed to their preferred edit (and their logic is that "as long as no consensus has been formed, the current version should be adopted,") and I rarely feel that a consensus can be formed in a dialogue with them. It would induce hasty and emotional editing. If their editorial attitude is not changed, it seems likely that similar examples will follow. I have been a long-time participant in the Japanese Wikipedia, but the situation in this topic on the English Wikipedia is extraordinary.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment @El C: I re-read my post above, and I apologize for the content that could be taken to suggest that the English Wikipedia is inferior to the Japanese version. I mainly translate English Wikipedia articles into Japanese version, and I browse in a wide range of fields, including science, culture, geography, and history. Compared to those, there are many editorial battles in this field to rewrite A into B (and B into A), and the articles are not being enriched in spite of this. Editorial battles are generally caused by both sides. I think it is good idea that both be mentioned jointly, but it seems to me that this is being rejected by both sides participating in this field in the Somaliland/Somalia(Puntland) capacity.--Freetrashbox (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Shirshore

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

Recommend an indef WP:BROADLY WP:TBAN. Even though editing WP:HORN pages is all Shirshore appears to do on the project, so I'm not sure how open they'd be to that, still, at a minimum, I believe this is what's required to curb the disruption. If they are able to edit productively elsewhere for, say, 6 months, appealing this sanction would have a fair chance of success. El_C 11:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a June AN3 report (warned) and I think their talk page speaks for itself. They have made 7 edits between Aug 2021 and Jan 2022. Anyway, there needs to be strong assurances, at this point, I think (I've yet to see any at any point), which a TBAN is the ultimate test of. I still think it's due. El_C 14:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Freetrashbox, excuse me if I take long-time participant in the Japanese Wikipedia with an extra grain of salT, knowing what I know about the alarming extent of historical revisionism on that language project. Anyway, the general convention on the English Wikipedia is to refer to de facto independent (self-declared) states by their own names rather than the countries from which they had separated from.

Somalia vs Somaliland naming conventions disruption had been a perennial problem on Wikipedia for as long as I can remember. Now, wrt the Puntland–Somaliland dispute, maybe Somalia and Somaliland could both be mentioned jointly in the Sanaag and Sool infoboxes, as a compromise. It doesn't necessarily need to be either or, all or nothing, etc. But that discussion needs to, well, exist. It needs to have the foundation to exist. A foundation which WP:BATTLEGROUND editing work very much against. El_C 01:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is two cases of edit warring on two article in a couple of days. Not sure I would jump to a topic ban just yet, although I understand if that is how it goes. Their last (and only) block was by EdJohnston in August of last year for 72 hours for similar. Being that this is in such a short period of time, and I think their intentions are good (although their execution is horrible), I would be more inclined to issue a strong block, one week, standard admin action, then go to a topic ban if this continues (3rd strike). I don't think this is a matter of someone who is inclined to be disruptive, but rather, someone who gets something in their mind and won't let it go; a habit they need to break. They also need to read WP:BRD, ie: if you are the one trying to introduce new material, YOU are the one that needs to go to the talk page after you are reverted, then build consensus. Or accept you don't have consensus. In other words, take your own advice.[8] Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are two very valid points, I had missed the prior warning. I have to admit, I'm a bit warmer to the idea of a topic ban now, particularly give the limited scope. The warning was appropriate in that episode was not the most egregious violation of edit warring, but the same problem was going on, a fundamental misunderstanding (or flat out ignoring) of WP:BRD. Again, I'm not against the topic ban so much I like trying to be less aggressive, but you do make a strong case for a tban. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to admit it, but I'm coming down on the side of a TBAN. The chronic edit warring is pretty clearly disruptive, and it's gone on for long enough. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoned Inquiry

No AE-enforcement action needed at this time, though Reasoned Inquiry is cautioned that dominating talk page conversations, per WP:BLUDGEON, is frowned upon, and may lead to behavioral sanctions in the future. --Jayron 32 12:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Reasoned Inquiry

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Reasoned Inquiry (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/CASENAME#SECTION

WP:ARBPS and WP:ARBCAM

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

[9] 3 April 2022 Does not heed WP:DROPTHESTICK
[10] 3 April 2022 Does not heed hint of WP:AE
[11] 3 April 2022 Does not heed hint of WP:AE

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)

[12] 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

@Reasoned Inquiry: You were not uncivil. You were just doing WP:PUSH. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[13] tgeorgescu (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Reasoned Inquiry

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 Reasoned Inquiry

I'll try to keep this statement as lean as possible. I see a big misunderstanding of my conduct in the electromagnetic hypersensitivity talk page surrounding this AE action.

My intention was certainly not to indulge in argumentation. I used the talk page solely for the purpose of engaging discussion about the substance of my position. My position was entirely misrepresented over the course of the discussion and my activity in the talk page represents my failed attempts to correct this view with my interlocutors. I use reason/logic to clarify misunderstandings generally because it seems to be the ideal way of making that happen. I intend no antagonism with this; I simply have a style that relies on it, hence my handle name.

Blatant misrepresentations are demonstrated with invocations of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. This standard is unclear outside the implication that "EHS has a scientific basis" is a part of my claim. It is not a part of my claim and I further rule it out specifically here:

[14]

Here are the responses from @tgeorgescu and @Alexbrn that appeared after this comment, implying my claim meets criteria as an exceptional claim in some way:

[15] [16] [17] [18]

My position is that science has not cast a judgment against EHS[19] [20] and that's the only basis for my proposed edit. So I do not understand why my position was not considered as such.

This brings me to the subject of consensus, which I felt was far from clear cut due to these circumstances. This was the spirit of the message I intended to convey to @Meters, (albeit I did not express it well). I did not mean to dismiss @Meters' point, although I see how I might have accidentally allowed that to happen. Generally, I agree with the points they made.

I hope this message helps. Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to add my views on WP:TALKDONTREVERT: "Editors with good social skills and good negotiation skills are more likely to be successful than those who are less than civil to others." I have poor social and negotiation skills since this essentially comes with the territory of having autism spectrum disorder. Having been put in opposition to being "less than civil" tells me Wikipedia might understand my nature as being uncivil. I try very hard to be fair with representing other views accurately and respond in kind. None of this is challenged by the specifics of the AE action (with the possible exception of my response to @Meters, partly because my message was poorly expressed, and partly because I thought their first-time appearance very late into the discussion meant they might not have been aware of certain details, which does not convey in a standalone diff). By all appearances, I communicate in a style editors do not want since the minor mistakes I make as a newcomer to Wikipedia take the spotlight over the clear misrepresentations from @Tgeorgescu and @Alexbrn. I write long messages -while rooted in concise language- so that I am not misunderstood; but it happens anyway. I have no idea what I'm supposed to learn from this AE action outside the basic instruction not to pursue this anymore, as though there were some general assumption I want to violate the policies/guidelines/etcetera (and would attempt this in the future by reopening discussion). I do not have this intent and I would like to know why my conduct is being seen as a potential problem. There is more I could discuss; but I do not want to bother the admins with additional long messages. I hope this message helps me. Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu This is the first anyone in that discussion has mentioned WP:PUSH, which I've never seen before now. Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Reasoned Inquiry

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

Reasoned Inquiry has not edited the article Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. (They are autoconfirmed, so not prevented from editing it.) They're certainly argumentative on the talkpage, and the sheer mass of their posts is more of a problem than Tgeorgescu's three diffs above, in my opinion. Being unimpressed by hints of AE is no wikicrime. (Just brushing off Meters's very reasonable point[21] is not a good look, though). But I don't see any of it as rising to a discretionary sanction. Why doesn't one of you guys just close the thread with a note about the (obvious) consensus? If RI then starts another long argument about a similar wording change, WP:BLUDGEON may come into play. Bishonen | tålk 21:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]
I agree with Bishonen's analysis. The talkpage discussion has been closed, so hopefully the matter is now resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard

Not a violation. Everyone seems to be on the same page now, so closing without action. I do recommend discussing the source's suitability (reliability) at the proper venue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning David Gerard

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: David Gerard (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/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions

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

17:45, 4 April 2022‎ previously removed this source here and reverted here making this the first revert
19:18, 4 April 2022 Second reflexive revert within 2 hours of the first
Refused to self-revert

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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, here

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I know David is a popular person around these parts, I know his crusade against sources he finds subpar to have varying levels of support. But Benny Morris is very obviously among the five best sources for Palestinian right of return and calling him "extremist" or "fringe" is either over the line or nudging up against the line of a BLP violation. Im sure he will say things like "white nationalist blog", but Morris was responding to somebody else in the same forum his views were attacked, and if Morris were to write his views on a soiled piece of toilet paper and sign his name to it that would still be a usable source here. Regardless, that is a question for the talk page or RSN, neither of which Mr Gerard has seen fit to consult. Instead, as per the usual MO, edit warring to WP:RGW without paying even the tiniest bit of attention to what it is he is removing. This is a clear 1RR violation, one in which the editor has refused to self-revert, and it should be met with a block or topic ban

Dennis, I call it a revert because it was David who previously removed it and had it restored. I dont know how one can claim they can repeat an edit they've previously made and had reverted anything other than a revert. nableezy - 14:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the record, and for why the removal of the is improper, there is now in our article a direct quote to Morris, "who had just attacked the Jewish community", which is not in what is now the only source cited (this interview in Haaretz). The quote is from the now expunged source, making David's edit an issue of source falsification in which we claim a quote is available in a source which does not contain it. Making this just the latest example of this editor recklessly and carelessly removing things they have not even pretended to look at. nableezy - 15:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dont intend to engage in the silliness about arguing whether or not Benny Morris is a reliable source, since that is an abjectly absurd argument to have, but this is a simple issue of counting. Can David remove something, be reverted, and then come back some months later to remove it again and that not be a revert? Or is an editor periodically returning to make the same edit that has previously been contested a revert? I think it obvious given his removal in October that the first removal yesterday was a revert and his second removal yesterday his second revert. nableezy - 15:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad could you please explain how this repetition of this previous removal is not a revert? Genuinely curious as to how that is possible, because there are a number of edits Ive made 6 months ago I could repeat if they are no longer reverts. nableezy - 16:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad normally I would agree with you 6 months is plenty long to ignore, except for the fact that it is David repeating his own edit. If this had been removed by some other person back in October then sure calling it a revert would be a stretch. But when David repeats his own edit, an edit that was reverted, I dont see how one can claim that is not a revert. You are essentially, if this is to be carried out with any consistency, allowing users to periodically return with a new first-movers advantage to push their view through edit-warring. As far as a "better source", there is no better source for Morris' own views than Morris himself, even if he is writing in a less than reputable publication. I agree it should be discussed on the talk page, a place David has never found himself. nableezy - 16:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um the two reverts I am listing here are two hours apart, not 6 months apart. I feel like I am in crazy town here. nableezy - 16:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32 if that is the definition decided here then fine, but then expect any repeated edit I make 6 months after the last time it was attempted to be claimed to be an "edit" and not a "revert". You are opening things up to all sorts of gaming here by restoring a first-movers advantage to somebody who just waits some period of time to return their contested edits. As far as the claim of "hunting through someone's editing history, trying to play "gotcha" over edits half a year apart", a the edit in question from October is in the last fifteen edits of that page, and b. I saw it at the time and raised it here then, with David at the time seeming to acknowledge his error in removing it here and here. I didnt have to hunt through anything, I just had to remember the last time he pulled this crap. nableezy - 17:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight, "After a 6 month difference, I think we can consider this a normal edit." only applies in this specific instance with this specific editor? That isnt a definition of anything, it is just how the interpretation this one specific instance, never to be referenced again as though it applies in any other situation with the exact same sequence? nableezy - 17:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No Jayron, I am not twisting anything at all by quoting you. By saying I will accept the precedent established that an edit repeated after six months is not a revert I am not announcing an intent to game the system. Odd for somebody to write WP:AGF as often as it appears in your comments to then repeatedly assume my bad faith. If an edit six months apart is not a revert by an admin then I will expect that same determination for edits six months apart by anybody else. Unless you really would like to more formally declare that admins are indeed covered by a "rules for thee but not for me" policy. nableezy - 17:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not this one admin said this one time, it would be if a consensus here finds that an edit repeated after 6 months is not a revert, then I would expect that consensus to stand for future such edits. Here we have David making an edit, being reverted, then re-doing his edit 6 months later. With multiple admins claiming that the intervening six months makes it so that this restoring of his preferred version is not a revert. If that is the case for David it should be the case for everybody else. This game of we dont establish precedents and I wont be held accountable for my positions in the future very obviously leads to an unfair and unjust system in which different users are treated in different ways for objectively the same actions. Do you really feel that is acceptable? I do not. So yes, if the consensus of this discussion is that 6 months time wipes away the status of revert for repeating ones edit then I will expect that same treatment. Obviously since I am not one of the anointed ones with the bit I may not get that treatment, but I sure as hell will be referencing the hypocrisy of such a decision if it does not hold. You cant just say for David returning after six months negates any status of a revert but for me it would be gaming. That is unfair and unjust and it is not sealioning to say so. We are all supposed to follow the same rules of the road here. You cant say well David didnt blow a red light for six months so this first rolling stop is not going to be counted against him, but for others (me) no such deference will be given. nableezy - 18:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dennis, I appreciate your kind tone (and Floqs and NYB for that matter), and I am fine with that honestly, I just find it to be opening things up to game-playing, but so long as there is consistency in that definition of a revert for all of us then Im cool with it. nableezy - 19:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning David Gerard

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 David Gerard

This appears from the diffs provided to be a second revert within six months, not within 24 hours. Literally the ARBPIA ruling that Nableezy links says: Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours. There is no case to answer here.

The source removed was from the white nationalist blog American Thinker. Although it hasn't been formally deprecated, I think it's jawdroppingly obvious that it's the sort of source that absolutely shouldn't be used in Wikipedia. Here's an RSN discussion from 2018 setting out its issues, for example. This shouldn't even be a difficult call.

Even if Morris is a great source, that doesn't mean every instance of him saying things is a suitable source for Wikipedia use.

I note also that Nableezy is already constructing a conspiracy theory as to why his action here will fail, in the course of raising the action.

In any case, we have the RS. If the quote isn't in that, remove the quote, don't put back the obviously terrible source - David Gerard (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kyohyi

Completely uninvolved in terms of this dispute. I'm just seeing some rather confounding comments by admins. What is a revert is defined in policy, policy says to revert is to undo another editor's actions. It does not give a time frame in which this has to happen. If enforcing admins wish to include a time frame then they should be modifying the existing sanction, or seek to change policy language. But to characterize the first revert on April 4th as a non-revert has no standing in policy. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The policy language is clear, to revert is to undo another editor's actions. Period. That's policy, as documented in WP: EW. Do these removals undo someone else's actions? Obviously they do, since wikipedia articles and content are non-existant until someone creates them. So someone added this, and David Gerard removed it. That's a revert. It doesn't get much more explicit than this. (Using the undo button is obviously more explicit than this)--Kyohyi (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point I am making is that the look back time is irrelevant to how policy defines a revert. That content exists on Wikipedia indicative of someone having added it. Removing that content is always going to be a revert regardless of when the content was added. That is because any removal is always an undoing of what someone else added. And a revert is an undo of another editor's actions. Policy is clear on this. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you choose to block the editor, or issue a warning, or do something else is your prerogative. Whether or not something is a revert is documented in policy. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is playing word games. What is a revert, as well as it's exceptions are spelled out in our edit warring policy. Whether or not a violation is worthy of a sanction is different from whether or not something was a violation in the first place. Something that is a minor violation, but doesn't warrant a sanction, can come to warrant a sanction if continued over a prolonged period of time. Something that isn't a violation at all should not.--Kyohyi (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning David Gerard

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

Not sure I would call the first diff a "revert", since it was added Oct of 2021 [22]. David first removed the source just before that latest addition, also in October [23]. David does seem to have an obvious problem with https://www.americanthinker.com, although I'm not sure if that is withing the remit of WP:AE. I think it all boils down to whether you call that first edit a "revert" or not, and (again) since the edit was removing material that was inserted many months ago, I'm not sure. At the very least, it does seem against the spirit of 1RR. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration nableezy, hence why I said it felt like it was against the spirit of the policy, but it is within policy. Floquenbeam sums it up better than I did, below. The first "reinstatement" (if we call it that) really wasn't a revert. There isn't a specific time that must pass before reinstating a prior edit isn't really a revert, but I'm pretty sure 6 months qualifies. That means, from a technical perspective, we have one edit and 2 hours later, one revert, even if he does gain first mover advantage via 1RR. But in the end, there is no violation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a comment on David's actions but it is important to remember that RSOPINION exists and thus regardless of the quality of the source, as long as it is not on a BLP, there is a potential to use that otherwise nonRS, but editors should discuss the expertness of the writer and whether the view merits DUE inclusion. Which is all stuff to debate on talk pages. --Masem (t) 15:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No violation. In lieu of further reverts, please discuss use of this source on the talkpage. If this person's point of view is notable enough to include, shouldn't there be a better source for what his view is? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nableezy:Thank you for your question. It may not be entirely clear how far back in an article-history one needs to look in evaluating whether an edit constitutes a "revert" in wiki-speak, but a look-back period of six months seems excessive to me. Even if others disagree and consider that there was a technical violation here, its borderline nature would still militate against enforcement action on this report. As I mentioned above, the substantive issue here should be resolved by finding one or more additional sources of better quality, if available. This should be discussed on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with NYB here. No violation. The text of the arbitration sanction says "Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict." While I would think that reverts that were close to, but slightly outside of 24 hours, might be "gaming the system", and could warrant something, reverts made 6 months apart in no way represents a violation here. I'm much more concerned that someone is hunting through someone's editing history, trying to play "gotcha" over edits half a year apart... --Jayron 32 16:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: What I am saying is that your characterization of two edits separated by 6 months do not constitute a revert. The 17:45 edit is not a revert under any normal understanding of the term. After a 6 month difference, I think we can consider this a normal edit. The only revert is then the 19:18 edit. That is the first edit I would consider a revert for the purposes of XRR. --Jayron 32 16:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "defining" anything for any other purpose, nor establishing any rules here. Rules get decided only by community consensus, and if you want to start a discussion elsewhere to establish consensus to establish parameters (up to and including no time limit), then feel free to have that discussion elsewhere. We have no guidance on the matter, so we're left with assessing the situation on our own, and deciding what is the best way forward, with only WP:AGF and other similar rules as our guidance. With the lens of "we have no rules on this" and "I don't see evidence of bad-faith acting here", I'm considering his first edit on the day in question a normal edit. This is not a rule, and if you came in here tomorrow with another person in a different situation, the evidence may point in a different direction. That would include statements that the person intended ahead of time to test the limits of admins patience by deliberately making two such edits 6 months apart, knowing ahead of time that this conversation had occurred. Every situation is unique, and needs to be assessed on its own merits. If you want a rule, do the work of establishing a new rule. Don't make claims that "one time this one decision was made, so it's now a rule". That's not how rules get made. --Jayron 32 17:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, and I must say Nableezy, this is becoming a sealion level of WP:BLUDGEON, but I will try one last time to avert your deliberate twisting of my words. A facile description of a situation, absence of context, is not a good way of solving problems. Context matters, and simply saying there are two hypothetical situations where edits were made 6 months apart does not make the rest of the context around those situations the same. It rarely is. If faced with another case of such a situation, maybe the decision would go differently. For example, if the person in question announced ahead of time they had intended to "make 6 months after the last time it was attempted to be claimed to be an "edit" and not a "revert"." that is context for making a decision that would make that case different from this case. See, in this case, we have no such intent to game the system. We merely have these edits, and have to make sense of what to do about them. In this case, we have nothing more than these edits, and your characterization of them. With all due respect, I tend to ignore anyone's characterization. I look at the diffs. The dates and times of the diffs lead me to the conclusion that this is not a violation. If you have other diffs that act as evidence to change my opinion on the matter, please provide them, if you just have more assertions and your own characterizations, I've seen enough of those, TYVM, and I consider this my final analysis of the situation. --Jayron 32 17:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a court of law, we don't establish precedent. We apply the principles of behavior at Wikipedia the best we can to allow smooth operation of the encyclopedia. Don't try to read rules from these discussions. I'm not a king. I am not more important than you, or David, or anyone else. I am providing my opinion on this matter. My opinion, insofar as any decision is made on this matter based on it, only counts for this discussion here. If you want to make a rule, there are ways to do that at Wikipedia, but "This one admin said this one time..." is not rulemaking. --Jayron 32 17:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyohyi Let me reiterate what NYB said, "It may not be entirely clear how far back in an article-history one needs to look in evaluating whether an edit constitutes a "revert" in wiki-speak, but a look-back period of six months seems excessive to me. Even if others disagree and consider that there was a technical violation here, its borderline nature would still militate against enforcement action on this report." If other admins clearly disagree with us, I'm perfectly willing to abide by consensus here, and if there is consensus that NYB and I are out of order, I will abide by that consensus. What we have is, in my perspective, a lack of guidance from the rules, which is to say that the rules are silent on the matter. What you interpret as "the rules don't say there's a limit, so the limit must go back forever", I interpret as "the rules don't say there's a limit, so we have no guidance and are working blind here". When I don't have such clear rules, I fall back on more core principles, including WP:AGF. When I see a borderline or ambiguous case, as long as there is no evidence to the contrary, I lean towards AGF. That's my statement on the matter. --Jayron 32 17:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Context is always relevant, the notion that a "revert" in the spirit of "enabling a good editing environment" needs to be assessed, in context. Under your limitless revert, an edit could have been made in 2006, undone in 2014, reinstated in 2019, and undone again in 2022, and now we're supposed to block that editor? I'm going to be honest with you, and this is just me, I can't remember anything I was doing 6 months ago; much less any specific edits I may have made to one Wikipedia article. Is this a revert? I don't know. So I need to go with WP:AGF here. --Jayron 32 17:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a place to play games with language. This is a place to decide whether or not to block someone for something they did. If the language I used gets in your way of understanding that, simply rewrite everything I already said, but replace any time I made you think I said "this isn't a revert" instead with the language "this revert is not worth counting for 1RR in this case". The end result is exactly the same, and if that doesn't get you hung up on the language here, Kyohyi, it's all the same to me. --Jayron 32 18:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't think I'd actually actively do anything different than Dennis, Brad, or Jayron here, because it's a little fuzzy, I do understand Nableezy's frustration. I've noticed for a while - with no suggested resolution - that there is a tension between BRD and 1RR. If we assume David's first removal of the link was bold, then he violated BRD when he reverted Nableezy's revert. But there's currently no sanction for doing that. 1RR in fact incentivizes breaking BRD. So no matter how we define David's first edit to the page today - bold or revert - the second edit broke either 1RR or BRD, but Nableezy is trapped and has to accept the edit as the new status quo while discussion goes on. And if the discussion results in no consensus, David's edit somehow becomes the de facto new default. 1RR definitely creates a first-mover advantage, which in most other areas of WP we tend to try to avoid. This is reason #46 I seldom get involved in AE, because so often it relies on gamesmanship, and rewarding the person who plays the game better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Veverve

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 Veverve

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Veverve (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: Eastern_Europe#General_restriction

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

23:40, 29 March 2022, 14:05, 30 March 2022, 04:21, 2 April 2022, 21:31, 3 April 2022, 17:17, 5 April 2022, 02:22, 6 April 2022 - sustained edit-warring on page Russian_fascism_(ideology), immediately after coming from a block for edit-warring on the same page. In last edit summaries user claims consensus to delete this page by making it a redirect. I do not see an obvious consensus anywhere. An AfD about this page was closed as "no consensus" on March 18 [24].
[25],[26] (please check their edit summaries) - the user repeatedly removes Category:Russian fascism from a page about Neo-fascist essay What Russia should do with Ukraine. This essay advocates extermination of Ukrainian people in context of the ongoing War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. And it is described as such on the page: "The article calls for the full destruction of Ukraine as a state and the Ukrainian national identity ref" in the lead. It also say that "According to Euractiv, Sergeitsev [author of the essay] is "one of the ideologists of modern Russian fascism" ref". The irony of this? The category was already there, I inserted it by mistake. But such edits show the bias of Veverve and their readiness to edit war even about categorization of pages as belonging to Category:Russian fascism when they obviously belong to such category.
[27] - Veverve objects to using Category:Russian fascism on a number of pages (such as page in the previous diff #2), and instead of discussing why the category would be applicable to specific pages (as I suggested [28]), demands that I must self-revert on all such pages or he will submit an ANI request about me. This is a highly confrontational approach.
[29] - misleading edit summary by Veverve. No, Z symbol removed by Veverve is very much relevant to the subject, this is like removing swastika from a page about Nazi. But he removes it again: [30], and again [31]. This is modus operandi of Veverve: just declare something to be unrelated to the subject and remove over the objections by other multiple contributors.
[32] - misleading edit summary. Veverve removes not just views by Dzhokhar Dudayev (which are relevant), but views by well known academic historian Timothy D. Snyder
(edit summary) - is that an adequate explanation for removal?

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[33] block for edit-warring on page Russian_fascism_(ideology)

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

DS alert

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As a note of order, I now restored the page based on comments by admins below. I also commented on article talk page about it: [34] My very best wishes (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to categories (diff #3), my typical response would be that Black Hundreds, for example, should be included to the category based on their description in book Russian Fascism: Traditions, Tendencies, Movements or in another book, but this is beyond the point. The point is the confrontational approach by Veverve to resolving content disputes: the refusal to discuss the essence of disagreements and demanding to self-revert immediately on all pages or "I will report you to ANI". The report to ANI would result only in wasting time by contributors in this case.

If a TBAN to be issued here, I think this should be a TBAN from anything related to Russian nationalism or fascism or any wider topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User notified

Discussion concerning Veverve

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 Veverve

1. What you call edit-warring is either: a) enforcing the consensus at Talk:Russian fascism (ideology)#Scope of the article, and I was not the only one doing it by revertingyour edits as HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith reverted you; or b) disagreeing on the content of the page which does not constitute edit-warring. I told you on the article's talk page that there was a consensus and that another uninvolved user had seen there was a consensus. The consensus was also seen by a second uninvolved user at ANM.

My article-ban was from 17 March 2022 to 24 March 2022. All your examples are from more than 5 days after the end of the ban, so I do not see how you can say I had contend disputes immediately after coming from a block for edit-warring on the same page.

I opened an ANI on 1 April 2022 concerning this page and a dispute with another user, Tsans2. On 2 April the user was topic-banned, and I received no sanction or accusation for edit-warring at this ANI, meaning I was not considered by anyone as edit-warring (i.e. no WP:BOOMERANG as should have happened if I was doing what you are accusing me of). This topic-ban was supported by Deepfriedokra, who had previously imposed a one-week article-ban of this article to both me and Tsans2.

2. and 3. As for the second and third point, you are emphasising the content dispute aspect, while I was protesting against you trying to make controversial changes. As I stated on you talk page, most of your additions did not meet WP:CATDEF. And some (probably most if I remember correctly) of the articles to which you added those tags make no mention of fascism; I gave you two examples at your talk page (Russian world, Third Rome). Another example is adding this category to Category:Antisemitism in the Soviet Union which is highly contestable. I have the right to ask you to follow WP:BRD and WP:QUO when a policy is not respected; I feel in no way can this behaviour be considered a highly confrontational approach.

Veverve (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: since there was no consensus at the AfD, as I told My very best wishes, my reasoning was that there was no WP:CONLEVEL, as WP:NOCONSENSUS seems treated differently in the same policy page (I pointed out WP:CCC and WP:BUREAUCRACY in my comment). Veverve (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: that I may have misinterpreted one or more policies, I admit. However, what POV are you accusing me of pushing? Veverve (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown: I would like to point out that my argument about CCC and CONLEVEL were made 6 April 2022, 1 month after the AfD; and they were not made after you gave an explanation on them.

While I was previously given the argument that the soft deletion was not to be done due to the AfD result, other users have also been given this argument and have also changed the article into a redirect, in good faith, in the name of what they perceived as enforcing a legitimate consensus from the talk page. Besides, I am not the one who turned this article into a redirect in the first place. I am not invoking a WP:SHEEP editing on my part, but the user My very best wishes wants to make those actions as if they were outlandish and especially made by me.

While those elements do not make my actions automatically excusable, I hope they provide a bigger picture of the situation. Veverve (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that My very best wishes (MVBW) has changed their complaint to try, even here, to POV-push adding the Z (military symbol) and the Ribbon of Saint George as symbols of fascism in Russia without any source; this is despite having accepted the letter "Z" was not a fascist symbol according to the only sources once given in the article supposedly supporting this claim. MVBW is also trying to blame me for not agreeing on their scope of the article at the time, which by a 2 vs 1 was not following MVBW's opinion; MVBW's view being that the article should be a collection of claims of Russia under Vladimir Putin being fascist or compared to fascists. I have justified myself concerning Danilov's opinion on the article's talk page; the opinion to me is not DUE and the statement it supports is half a FICTREF. Dudayev's opinion is from an interview and therefore is a primary source and given weight arbitrarily. Those new accusations are either once again content dispute material, or an user trying to justify WP:OR. Veverve (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dhawangupta

@Dennis Brown: I think you should take WP:ATD into consideration. There is no need of another AfD to overturn a previous AfD. The discussion on talk page happened for weeks and it was concluded that Wikipedia is better off without this article. The clear consensus was also noted by arbitrator+admin Xeno on WP:AN.[35]

Since this report largely depend on that particular point that has been already resolved, I don't consider this report as anything more than WP:FORUMSHOPPING to find another resolution instead of describing on talk page that why this POV cruft is needed or if there is any academic coverage about it. Dhawangupta (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: With that logic, the whole issue is now moot because "Russian fascism (ideology)" was redirected and "Fascism in Russia" became article after Vevere requested on RM/TR.[36] I believe his efforts were sincere and he was being helpful. Dhawangupta (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

Just want to note Veverve's recent editing in this topic area, including a group of RfDs, plus their retirement message, plus more editing afterwards. Sorry I'm on mobile and don't have time for diffs, but it's all in their contribs from today. I would suggest the scope of the tban include fascism and EE, not just "Russian fascism" as that's too narrow IMO. Levivich 17:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Veverve

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

Veverve, why exactly are you (and Czello and HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith) trying to soft delete an article that went to AFD and was closed as "no consensus".[37]. AFD is considered a global consensus, unlike a talk page which is a local consensus, as it attracts input from all over the Wiki. It would seem to be that if you want it to be deleted, you would take it to AFD again. I mean, you didn't even bother to have a well advertised RFC, you just got a few people together on a talk page and decided the AFD was "wrong". There are plenty of issues with the article (as the AFD pointed out), but you can't overturn global consensus with local consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing textbook tendentious editing from Veverve here. You can't just quote BRD or only give it lip service, then point your finger at the other guy. I will look around more, but seriously, this may warrant a topic ban. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus defaults to KEEP under all circumstances at AFD, and always has, as that is the default state of an article. The only real difference between a no consensus and keep decision is that it is considered acceptable to bring a no consensus article back to AFD after a period of time, 3 to 6 months. For all intent and purposes, the status quo was "keep", and the AFD showed there was NO consensus to delete it. Been that way since I started in 2006. And please stay in your own section. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add, your quoting CCC (consensus can change) two weeks after the AFD is making the case that you need to be topic banned. You seem blinded by your POV here and reaching for any straw to grab onto. You're quoting policy you don't understand, and instead of learning policy, you are trying to find some policy that fits your preconceived ideas. I don't think you need to be editing in EE areas, your POV is overriding good judgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dhawangupta ATD has no bearing here. The Arbitrator didn't take action as an admin, and their opinions don't carry more weight anyway. Local discussions don't override a recent AFD. Had it been a well advertised RFC (thus global) or actual advertised and tagged merge discussion, that might be different, but it wasn't. Your arguments here are moot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Deepfriedokra who made the last block and is more familiar with the case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown's observations reflect my own. This is straying into WP:CIR territory. El_C 11:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, just trying to be nice, because incompetence might happen in good faith, unlike agenda, uh, servitude. But that's right, we don't have special insight into someone's soul. In that sense, mitigating factors for DE can only go so far, with the effectiveness of the enforcement action serving as the driving imperative. El_C 13:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Veverve I see my block did not deter you from further disruption. Not sure if we need just a TBAN enforced by a partial block on Russian_fascism_(ideology) or a TBAN on Eastern Europe entire. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: is it WP:CIR or is it in the service of some agenda? Quien sabe. Or some other reason? There's a Roger Zelazny quote I won't bother to look up that would apply. The reason is irrelevant. Stopping the disruption is what we seek. (noting "retired" on user page) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wot Firefly sed --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK with any broader than the one article topic ban. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My instinct would be a partial block + TBAN from Russian fascism (ideology), with a clear warning that should the same disruption "leak" elsewhere in any way, broader sanctions will be swiftly imposed. firefly ( t · c ) 13:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm clear, a topic ban only on Russian Facism specifically, broadly construed, as well as a partial block from the single article/talk? That is a lot narrower than all of EE but does make sense and I could support that. Not sure how necessary the partial block would be if there is a tban in place, but it can't hurt. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking on it just a minute more, this would have to be a little broader, covering Russism, Russian nationalism and more. If making it that narrow, might be better to just make it all of Russia, or Russian politics and philosophy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could happily support something along those lines - "Russian politics/political philosophy, broadly construed"? firefly ( t · c ) 14:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I think about it, I'm still a bit worried the narrowness will cause him to trip up unintentionally, or perhaps intentionally thinking there was plausible deniability, ie: editing the current Russian war, which is getting close. I think if we are going to narrow it smaller than EE, it may need to just be "Russia", broadly construed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goliath74

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 Goliath74

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Goliath74 (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/Eastern Europe

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

16:35, 08 April 2022 Restores content with unreliable reference without explanation
16:35, 08 April 2022 Again restores content with unreliable reference without explanation, despite my very clear edit summary of "rv. See previous edit summary. The discussion has been had regarding that website. It isn't reliable. Per WP:BURDEN, anyone restoring the information needs to cite a proper reference, not an unreliable blog

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/a

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

Notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Given the ongoing propaganda war surrounding the actual war, the last thing relevant articles needs is editors who persist in restoring information by a blog deemend unreliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 320#defence-blog.com. FDW777 (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Goliath74

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 Goliath74

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Goliath74

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

Extended confirmed protected for the duration. FDW777, while Goliath74's edits to the page might be subpar, it's only 2 reverts and this article isn't subject to WP:1RR right now. El_C 11:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if @Goliath74: can agree to not make further edits with that source, and to discuss contents and sourcing going forward, we can call it a day-o --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14Jenna7Caesura

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 14Jenna7Caesura

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Funcrunch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 14Jenna7Caesura (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/Gender and sexuality

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

00:34, 10 April 2022 Page move without discussion
23:14, 29 March 2022 Page move without discussion
04:03, 20 March 2022 Page move without discussion
17:40, 11 November 2021 Page move without discussion

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

User has a number of DS alerts in other areas as well, but my reason for filing is the number of page moves without discussion on pages subject to gender and sexuality sanctions. Funcrunch (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning 14Jenna7Caesura

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 14Jenna7Caesura

Please review Talk:Causes_of_transsexuality#Changing_the_title.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does DS mean a 0 revert policy? If so, every single time, I reverted even once, I got a DS notice. Let me know is DS means 0-revert policy or no discussion allowed.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Deepfriedokra is one of the editors who backed blocking me in 2021; I was asked to create an account and reveal personal information even though I was okay with IP editing.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I may have more DS's on my talk page that I probably deleted.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Crossroads

See this about BLP-violating gender-related content being added to an article after getting the gender DS, and the attacks in the reply here to another editor.

14Jenna7Caesura made this edit to Equality Act (United States), which added a source but also subsumed sex and sexual orientation as part of gender even though none of the sources support that, not even the one she added. After being reverted, she edit warred by restoring the same edit with a non sequitur edit summary about sex and gender being related (true, but they are distinct, as is sexual orientation).

The discussion she points to in the comment here contains personal attacks against Funcrunch, found in this diff. Odd to point to it. Whether someone is right or not, editors must be collaborative and civil. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 14Jenna7Caesura

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

Well, it looks like 14Jenna7Caesura goes and does as she wishes without attaining a consensus. @14Jenna7Caesura: you must not do this. I leave it to those with stronger reading skills to look further. Not sure what the provenance of four (4) DS alerts is or should be. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4 different alerts for 4 edits in different areas. Doug Weller talk 15:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at Azov Battalion

Declined malformed. Elinruby, this is inadequate and malformed. It doesn't look like you've put that much effort into this report, like much of a summary, the users involved, key diffs, and so on. I've given you a logged warning due to spillover from this dispute just yesterday, and I'm sorry to say, but this does not inspire confidence. Worse still, when the careless (not just inexperience) nature of this report was brought up, your responses had been just confounding (diff). And also just plain wrong, because not only is Redrose64 an admin, but her knowledge of these editorial procedures is unrivalled. Please do better because a WP:TBAN is pretty much imminent for anything else. Newcomers can only be given allowances to a point. Competence is required, most especially for WP:ACDS matters. El_C 23:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning RfC at Azov Battalion

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Elinruby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: [[User:RfC at Azov Battalion|RfC at Azov Battalion]] ([[User talk:RfC at Azov Battalion|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/RfC at Azov Battalion|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/RfC at Azov Battalion|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/RfC at Azov Battalion|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/RfC at Azov Battalion|block user]] · block log)
Search CT alerts: [{{fullurl:User talk:RfC at Azov Battalion|action=history&tagfilter=contentious+topics+alert}} in user talk history] • in system log

RfC close as no consensus

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

Section as it stands: [38]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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

.

Not seeking sanctions, just closure

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Not seeking sanctions at the moment but there has been a revert war on an RfC as people were voting on it. This may be due to a previous refusal to discuss but the bigger point right now is that everyone involved seems to agree.that the RfC needs to be closed and started over.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Not seeking sanctions, just closure

Discussion concerning RfC at Azov Battalion

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 RfC at Azov Battalion

Statement by Aquillion

Explanation (sort of) here. I don't think AE lets administrators close RFCs as an arbcom enforcement action, so it's unclear what is being requested here. See the list of things you can request via AE at the top of the page. If you're requesting action against a user you need to specify the user and why. I would assume that this page falls under the Eastern Europe DS, though. --Aquillion (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning RfC at Azov Battalion

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

EnlightenmentNow1792

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 EnlightenmentNow1792

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vladimir.copic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: EnlightenmentNow1792 (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: WP:ARBEE

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

10 April Disruption/vandalism of an RfC
10 April Disruption/vandalism of an RfC
10 April Disruption/vandalism of an RfC
10 April Disruption/vandalism of an RfC
10 April Disruptively editing away from the status quo (the result of an RfC) while a new RfC is in progress. They cite votes in the ongoing RfC as justification.
8 April Accusing an editor (myself) of being an SPA on Jimbo Wales' talk page.
9 April Uncivil behaviour after receiving an AE warning
9 April Uncivil behaviour at AN/I
9 April Battleground/uncivil behaviour
9 April Declined report at edit war noticeboard
8 April Baseless accusations of edit warring
8 April Baseless accusations of edit warring
8 April Repeated re-adding of POV tag
8 April Repeated re-adding of POV tag
8 April Repeated re-adding of POV tag
9 April Repeated re-adding of POV tag
8 April Bludgeoning

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

19 February 2022 1 week block for disruptive editing

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

DS alert sent on 8 April [39]
AE warning logged on 9 April [40]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is just a snapshot of this editor's disruptive behaviour over the past few days at the Azov Battalion page encompassing more than 100 edits on the talk page since 30 March.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[41]

Discussion concerning EnlightenmentNow1792

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 EnlightenmentNow1792

My contributions to the attempt to improve the article:

1. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azov_Battalion#Is_Azov_still_neo-nazi? (over a dozen of the most eminently RSs)

2. Many hours spent trying to help finish the malformed RfC (I didn't want to), only for the initiator to then take back control of the RfC, which I acquiesed to:

3. For the RfC, an "Alternative Draft #2:"

The Azov Special Operations Detachment is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine, based in Mariupol, southeastern Ukraine. It was founded as the Azov Battalion in Kyiv in 2014, a small paramilitary group of extremist Far Right and neo-Nazi political activists under the political leadership of Andriy Biletsky.^[1] "Irregular Militias and Radical Nationalism in Post-Euromaydan Ukraine: The Prehistory and Emergence of the “Azov” Battalion in 2014." Terrorism and Political Violence, 31(1).^[2] Active participants in the Revolution of Dignity, the militia became notorious in Western and Russian media for its tech-savvy online presence,^[3] relatively unfettered use of neo-Nazi symbolism,^[4] and its successful efforts in recruiting international volunteers.^[5] However, after its forced absorption into the National Guard and the subsequent purging of its extremist political element - most especially Andriy Biletsky and his circle - the scholarly consensus is that the unit has for long now been largely "de-politicized".^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]</ref>^[13]^[14]

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply regarding GizzyCatBella:

I believe this editor's activities to be WP:BATTLEGROUND to the point of being disruptive. Would I be correct in surmising that these diffs below (are they diffs?) are indicative of someone who is not, at this moment, here to build an encyclopedia? WP:NOTHERE

[42] - demonstrates she hasn't read the Talk Page discussion.

[43] - "After thinking about it - here is the issue with the above version. Do we have any source that says includes Neo-nazi elements. Do we? If not, I don’t think that can be used unfortunately. see WP:OR" - there are dozens. Demonstrating she hasn't read the Talk Page discussion, but is nevertheless commenting, voting, insulting, warning, other users that don't share her POV.

[44] - Comment - Same here, do we have any source that says which used to be neo-Nazi ? - there are dozens. Demonstrating she hasn't read the Talk Page discussion, but is nevertheless commenting, voting, insulting, warning, other users that don't share her POV.

[45] - invited her to withdraw a personal attack, she clearly declined

[46] - Comment - After thinking about it - here is the issue with the above version. Do we have any source that says includes Neo-nazi elements. Do we? If not, I don’t think that can be used unfortunately. see WP:OR - demonstrating again she hasn't read the discussion

[47] - Yay, I would go with this one, perhaps modifying it to defined as neo-Nazi - votes, despite not reading sources, and ends choosing the least supported of all the options. The sources in fact actively refute this allegation. But she votes that way all the same.

[48] - "Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic." - accuses a new user that doesn't share her POV of being a SPA

[49] - adds "insignia used by the Nazi SS divisions" to the text of the article lead! Very helpful!

[50] - replaces TWO BBC sources (2018 and 2022) about the Wolfsangel symbol, with a 2015 RBC (Russian state-controlled media) one specifically linking it to Andrei Biletsky, who, of course, was booted from the modern Azov unit way back in 2016. Demonstrating again, she is not familiar at all with subject or the the source material (8 years out of date).

[51] - "@ Bbb23 - Battleground mentality of Aquillion? I feel users who arrive here with such an obvious absurdity to safeguard their POV partner need to be cautioned. I'm referring to the remark left EnlightenmentNow1792." Tries to goad an admin to "caution" me because I am supposedly there to "safeguard my POV partner", who, as it happens, kept rv my edits as much as she did! lol

[52] - this whole Talk Page exchange is bizarre. She has repeatedly, point-blank refused to even take a look at, let alone read, any sources. She has added no content herself. No sources. Well, except for the RBC one! What is the point of even being on Wikipedia if you're not prepared to look at sources or contribute any content?

When I provided her with a list of recent high quality sources on her Talk page, her response was this...

[53]

Apparently she's been blocked multiple times for edit-warring and WP:BATTLEGROUND. This hasn't stopped her from spending much her time on Wikipedia trying to get others blocked for supposedly edit warring... only if of course they have the temerity to not share her POV.

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding and replying to El_C:

This admin is not uninvolved. He has repeatedly threatened me with a TBAN on my talk page since he was first made aware of my presence in the topic area, in which I possess a high level of professional expertise and unusual level of access to sources (books, academic journals, Russian language sources, can speak/read Russian, etc). It's impossible not to respond to WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior with retaliatory combative edits in this topic area, as editors who have a special interest POV are constantly pushing for new users - who don't share their nationalist/ethnic special interest - to be Topic Banned, blocked, etc. Admin who aren't familiar with the source material, the scholarship, and the political disputes in the region, then are often successfully goaded into banning new users, who don't know how to properly defend themselves (the the required competence WP:CIR El_C) refers to. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Umland, A. (2019)
^ Shekhovtsov, A., & Umland, A. (2014). The maidan and beyond: Ukraine's radical right. Journal of Democracy, 25(3), 58-63.
^ Saressalo, T., & Huhtinen, A.-M. (2018). The Information Blitzkrieg — “Hybrid” Operations Azov Style. The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 31(4), 423–443.
^ Chossudovsky, M. (2015). Ukraine’s neo-Nazi summer camp. Guardian (Sydney), (1701), 7.
^ Fedorenko, K., & Umland, A. (2022). Between Frontline and Parliament: Ukrainian Political Parties and Irregular Armed Groups in 2014–2019. Nationalities Papers, 50(2), 237-261.
^ Umland, A. (2019). Irregular militias and radical nationalism in post-euromaydan Ukraine: The prehistory and emergence of the “Azov” Battalion in 2014. Terrorism and Political Violence, 31(1), 105-131.
^ Fedorenko, K., & Umland, A. (2022). Between Frontline and Parliament: Ukrainian Political Parties and Irregular Armed Groups in 2014–2019. Nationalities Papers, 50(2), 237-261.
^ Bezruk, T., Umland, A., & Weichsel, V. (2015). Der Fall" Azov": Freiwilligenbataillone in der Ukraine. Osteuropa, 33-41.
^ https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2017-08-01/how-ukraine-reined-its-militias
^ AFP in https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war
^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/06/ukraine-military-right-wing-militias/
^ https://www.ft.com/content/7191ec30-9677-423d-873c-e72b64725c2d
^ https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-60853404
^ https://www.dw.com/en/the-azov-battalion-extremists-defending-mariupol/a-61151151

Statement by BSMRD

In addition to what has been provided above, EnlightenmentNow1792 seems to be reverting any messages regarding their behavior off their talk page as "personal attacks" (that's just a small sample, more can be seen here). Now, by itself there is nothing wrong with that however, in addition, they have shown nothing but contempt for Wikipedia's administrative processes and ruling, shown both in the above posting, this comment and their response to this warning. They clearly have no desire to change their behavior or regard any other editors or administrators encouragement to do so. In fact, they don't seem to have changed their behavior at all since the last time they were blocked, and I doubt anything short of a broader/longer block or TBAN will do anything. BSMRD (talk) 07:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

I always advocate against sanctioning editors unless it's absolutely necessary and justified but this case requires administrative intervention, unfortunately. Edit warring [54], [55], [56], [57] and WP:BLUDGEON on the Azov Battalion talk page including "hijacking" RFCs [58] (modifying other people's text to their liking [59] see the complaint that followed -->[60]), the repeated removal of other people's comments [61], [62], [63] are just samples that are outside criteria that must be followed. (I could go on with more examples of disruptive behaviour but I believe these already presented are enough) - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page needs a clerk intervention please. Everything written below this message is not mine - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BLUDGEON at the Azov talk page continues (as I write this). Here is just a recent sample of it:

March 31 list of sources eg. Umland, A. (2019) etc - [64]
April 9 again Umland, A. (2019) etc - [65]
April 11 yet again (just a few minutes before coming here) Umland (2019) - [66]

It's very challenging to navigate through that talk page as it is. We don't need to hear repeated argumentation, over and over and over. Sadly, I'll have to support a topic ban at least from that talk page, please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On top of the bizarre accusation of misconduct against our finest administrators [67] and here too [68] I believe it's worth noting the strange remark posted here [69] that has been copy-pasted from talk page of ToBeFree [70] where EnlightenmentNow1792 went on a block shopping journey just a day earlier. The editor exhibits clear battleground behaviour. I'm not sure 🤔 but perhaps they require also a break to recognize it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And now this [71] .. contesting another fine admin. Oh Lord.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

I'll likely have more to say later, but I'd like to call attention to prior conduct issues raised at ANI in December and February. Both involved disruptive conduct in other topic areas. WP:TEXTWALL is a recurring issue with this editor. EnlightenmentNow1792, are you aware that there is a 500 word limit here? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

The battleground attitude of this user is obvious, but if a topic ban to be issued, I would propose it to be only for 2-4 months as their first sanction. The user seems to be agitated and profoundly disturbed because of the ongoing Ukrainian war, and especially the Siege of Mariupol. When these events end, and there will be more certainty on this subject as reflected in sources, perhaps she/he will be able to edit in a more reasonable and collaborative manner? My very best wishes (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen. Yes, I agree with you after checking their earlier edits, and not only in the EE area. This user seems to be non-cooperative in general, but the problem is becoming bigger in contentious subject areas. My very best wishes (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning EnlightenmentNow1792

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

Recommend TBAN. This user is needlessly combative (WP:BATTLEGROUND) and they lack the required competence (WP:CIR) to edit the topic area at this time. Little if any reflection or introspection were ever shown (perhaps because they fail to realize that there is a problem), so it's probably for the best. El_C 17:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user does not understand WP:INVOLVED. I've interacted with them in an administrative capacity only, and of course, I made no threats. That they call my warning that is further proof of intractable BATTLEGREOUND. El_C 18:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, I pretty much stopped setting TBANS to automatically expire a while ago. Been burned too many times before. Also, obviously, we can't tell when Russian atrocities are going to end in the Ukraine, so how do we set any kind of a clock on the ban? How can any duration not be arbitrary, in that sense? El_C 00:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with El C. I'm particularly interested in the user's editing after they were warned by El C, and quite a lot of the diffs offered indeed postdate that warning. This is a very obvious case of disruptive battleground/steamroller editing, and a topic ban seems necessary. Indeed, I thought of simply issuing one myself, per my sole admin discretion, but it would perhaps be a pity not to reinforce it by having it come from multiple admins here at AE. I note and appreciate My very best wishes's recommendation of a 2-4 months' ban only, but I can't agree. Time-limited bans can be simply waited out, and then users can return with their bad habits intact, without having had to show they can otherwise edit constructively. Topic bans should normally be indefinite, IMO. In this case, an appeal in three months' time could be entertained. EnlightenmentNow1792, if you are indeed topic banned indefinitely with a three-month wait to appeal, as I recommend, you can make that appeal more credible by showing good editing in other areas, and also in the EE area on our sister projects. (You would only be banned from the English Wikipedia.) Bishonen | tålk 22:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Anonimu

Indef TBAN from ARBEE. Thanks, My very best wishes for the summary. Volunteer Marek, triage, please! El_C 01:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Anonimu

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Anonimu (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: Eastern Europe

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

User:Anonimu has both been extremely WP:TENDENTIOUS in their edits to articles related to the Russia-Ukraine war, and extremely uncivil, uncooperative and insulting as well.

For the record, Anonimu is still under a 1RR restriction, a civility parole and an admonition to "behave impeccably" [72]; although this restriction was imposed quite some time ago as a condition of removal of their indefinite ban from Wikipedia, it was never lifted and still applies. Anonimu acknowledges that it still applies in this edit summary although they claim that these restriction only apply to "Balkans" and not "Russia". There is no indication anywhere that this is the case. The original restrictions apply to ALL of their editing.

Anonimu has violated all three of these restrictions, and even if one regards these restrictions as "stale" on account of their vintage, their behavior is still sanction worthy. Indeed, this seems to be a reversion to exactly the same kind of behavior (both in terms of civility and POV/WP:TEND) that led them to get indefinitely blocked back then.

The most vexatious issue is Anonimu repeatedly referring to my edits as vandalism:

First instance
and then more seriously here - also accuses me of using "fake descriptions". To be clear, there are two photos there and I did mislabel label one as from Bucha instead of Mariupol. Anonimu could have simply corrected that or pointed it out. But this wasn't the gist of the dispute - they wished to remove that both of these are attributed to Russia by RS. --- I then asked Anonimu not to refer to my edits as vandalism [73]. First time.
He ignores my query, doubles down referring to me as a "vandal" personally --- I again ask him to stop [74]. Second time.
In response he starts a talk page section with header which again calls me a vandal. It's becoming obvious that he's purposefully using "vandal" as a way to antagonize and insult (WP:BATTLEGROUND) --- I again ask him to stop accusing me of vandalism, and point him to the relevant policy about it, WP:NORESVAND. Third time.
Anonimu doubles down on the accusation (edit summary is straight up personal attack) --- I ask them again [75]. Fourth time
They respond by repeating the attack. --- I removed their attack from header [76] and ask them (again!) to stop [77]. Fifth time. Someone else chimes in [78] also telling Anonimu to cut it out.
Does it again and accuses the other user of being my sockpuppet (lol)
Anonimu restores section header. Yet another user collapses the section and then informs them [79] as to how their offensive headings violate policy. This is at least Sixth time Anonimu was told their comments are inappropriate.
They respond with more! User:Mathglot also explains to Anonimu what is and isn't vandalism [80]: "these four edits constitute repeated accusations of vandalism against another editor, at the wrong venue, and without supporting evidence." and asks them to "most especially, please refrain from accusations of vandalism at the article Talk page. A pattern of unfounded accusations may be seen as WP:DISRUPTIVE, or a personal attack". Seventh time Anonimu was told to cut it out. We're wayyyy past WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory here. See also this assessment by Mathglot. The previous user, User:Chuckstablers complains to Anonimu about the accusations of sockpuppetry [81] [82] and [83]
Anonimu responds by repeating the personal attacks --- it's explained to them again - Eight time - why these are problematic [84] [85]
Also Anonimu continues to refer to my edits as "vandalism", and restores the personal attacks to the section header [86] that Mathglot changed to remove them. --- I also ask for the Ninth time for him to stop calling my edits vandalism [87]
Yup, he responds by doing it again. it's pretty clear that this isn't just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT but just straight up TAUNTing.
And more. Repeats false accusations. It's almost like he wants to make sure that I see him insulting me. --- TENTH warning from me here (and here
Yup, he does it again and even uncollapses the section [88]

And here we are. I've been about as patient as it is humanely possible here with Anonimu. Ten warnings, from myself and other users. Each one seems to only embolden him.

Anonimu's edits to article space have likewise been problematic. On War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine their edits generally try to deny, whitewash or minimize Russian war crimes reported on in reliable sources:

Removing well sourced info [89] (more of the same [90], [91] [92])
Typical edits [93] where he adds "according to Ukrainian authorities" to anything that makes Russia look bad, EVEN IF sources report it at face value (CNN in this case). More of the same [94] [95] [96] (replaces "human rights groups", which is what source says, with "Ukrainian authorities"), [97] [98] [99]
Restores text to lede against consensus [100] (trying to "bothsides it"). Then edit wars about it (violating 1RR which he is subject to) [101]. And again [102]. And again [103]. And again [104]
More 1RR violations [105], [106] with new flimsy pretext [107] (text not backed by source)
WP:TEND [108] because apparently because Russian soldiers killed NOT JUST civilians but also some soldiers, then it wasn't a war crime.
Removes well sourced text because "it fails verification", meaning, he didn't check it himself [109]. Inserts whitewashing language such as "apparently dead bodies". Yeah, "apparently" they were dead. This is a subtle pushing of the conspiracy theory being pushed on pro-Putin social media that the massacre was staged by Ukrainians with crisis actors. He re-inserts the conspiracy theory here (although attributed)
[110] (not actually "per source"), [111] (more conspiracy theory insinuations), [112] (false pretext - source mentions two beheadings, it's just that one was "partially beheaded", so he changes it to singular)

Note that's there's likely a dozen or so 1RR violations in the above, in addition to WP:TEND and WP:NPA violations.

There's even more at Kramatorsk railway station attack

Inserting the conspiracy theory that Ukraine bombed its own station [113]. And again [114]
Pretends that who the attacker is is disputed out there among reliable sources [115]

Volunteer Marek 00:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[116] Indef ban
[117] ArbCom ban on top of 1 year ban.

Yes, both of these are very old. But these were the reasons he was placed under 1RR restriction and civility parole as conditions of removing the indef ban [118]. The restrictions were never removed.

As mentioned above Anonimu recognizes the restrictions are still in place but likes to pretend they only apply to the Balkans. This is not true. And in fact, their original indef ban was over edits to the topic area of Balkans AND Russia.

Volunteer Marek 00:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[119]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Like I said above, I'm out of patience here. Four different editors have tried to explain to him why their behavior is problematic. The response is just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and escalation in incivility and battleground. And that's NOT EVEN considering the WP:TEND content of their edits. While I don't think their indefinite ban should be restored (although it's exactly the same problem that led to it) a topic ban from anything Eastern Europe and especially Russia related is a minimum here.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[120]

Discussion concerning Anonimu

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 Anonimu

Statement by My very best wishes

I also noticed that recent editing by Anonimu in this subject area was very problematic. Some diffs:

[121] - Anonimu believes that bombing pregnant women in a hospital was not a war crime
[122] - Anonimu believes that mass bombing of civilians in Mariupol was not a war crime, even though it was described a "humanitarian catastrophe" by International Committee of the Red Cross in text he removes
[123] (edit summary by Anonimu: "source mentions not reports, but rumors heard by locals") - This is a misrepresentation of the source by Anonimu. The article in Haaretz [124] tells about reports by eyewitnesses, not rumors.
[125] (edit summary by Anonimu: "rv vandalism ..."). Here, Anonimu includes to the lead of the page that "Ukrainian authorities have been accused of ... indiscriminate shelling on civilian areas" with a reference to this. No, the body of page (and the source) do not include any credible claims that Ukrainian authorities indiscriminately shell their own civilians. My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[126] - Anonimu believes that use of cluster munitions is legal, even though Human Rights Watch found that it was not (in the text Anonimu deleted in this diff)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Anonimu

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

Volunteer Marek, you are well over the 500-word limit (over 1,600), please trim with that baseline in mind. Also, please sign + timestamp at the end of your statement. Thanks. El_C 00:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[3] Umland, A. (2019)

[4] Shekhovtsov, A., & Umland, A. (2014). The maidan and beyond: Ukraine's radical right. Journal of Democracy, 25(3), 58-63.

[5] Saressalo, T., & Huhtinen, A.-M. (2018). The Information Blitzkrieg — “Hybrid” Operations Azov Style. The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 31(4), 423–443.

[6] Chossudovsky, M. (2015). Ukraine’s neo-Nazi summer camp. Guardian (Sydney), (1701), 7.

[7] Fedorenko, K., & Umland, A. (2022). Between Frontline and Parliament: Ukrainian Political Parties and Irregular Armed Groups in 2014–2019. Nationalities Papers, 50(2), 237-261.

[8] Umland, A. (2019). Irregular militias and radical nationalism in post-euromaydan Ukraine: The prehistory and emergence of the “Azov” Battalion in 2014. Terrorism and Political Violence, 31(1), 105-131.

[9] Fedorenko, K., & Umland, A. (2022). Between Frontline and Parliament: Ukrainian Political Parties and Irregular Armed Groups in 2014–2019. Nationalities Papers, 50(2), 237-261.

[10] Bezruk, T., Umland, A., & Weichsel, V. (2015). Der Fall" Azov": Freiwilligenbataillone in der Ukraine. Osteuropa, 33-41.

[11] ttps://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2017-08-01/how-ukraine-reined-its-militias

[12] AFP in https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war

[13] ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/06/ukraine-military-right-wing-militias/

[14] ttps://www.ft.com/content/7191ec30-9677-423d-873c-e72b64725c2d

[15] ttps://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-60853404

[16] ttps://www.dw.com/en/the-azov-battalion-extremists-defending-mariupol/a-61151151

[a]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards