Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive314

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MBlaze Lightning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

PreserveOurHistory (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

• 1RR editnotice on the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 page
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

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

1. 03:17, 29 December 2022; Reverts another editor's removal of a bunch of images, with an outrageous edit summary, "restored vandalized content", implying that the editor had vandalized the disputed content. I then reminded them of the DS notice they had recieved, that they need to avoid such insouciant use of the expression to undo g.f edits, assume good faith, and discuss the matter on the talk page without reverting.
2. 16:43, 30 December 2022; Made a second revert, reinstating the disputed content, asking rhetorically on thier talk, "should I stop restoring content others remove without an explanation?",[1] despite the other editor clearly having said that they were removing the images because of NPOV issues.[2]
3. 03:55, 31 December 2022 Reinstates the disputed content for the third time without any edit summary, contravening the 1RR restriction on the page, and after I categorically enjoined them to "stop reverting, period"...discuss the matter on talk page. The reversion came against the backdrop of an ongoing talk page discussion over the matter, after I spelled out the issues with their images to them, and momentarily after their terse response on the talk page that beat around the bush without even touching on the said issues (of non-compliance with MOS etc).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. October, 2022 blocked for a day for disruptive editing, for he "refuses to acknowledge they’ve been harassing and insulting an editor and that sources are required".

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on September of this year by Doug Weller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• I reminded them again of the discretionary sanctions being in effect in the topic domain of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan on 30th of December 2022.
• Alerted about 1RR being in effect on conflict articles in September, 2022 by Doug Weller.
• Extant editnotice on the page about 1RR restriction in place.[3]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notwithstanding the efforts to get this editor to appreciate and observe policies of the site, they have shown they are more interested in wikilawyering. The foregoing context also shows that their approach to the matter has been domineering, and that neither the policies or other people's words seem to matter to them.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Duly notified

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

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

• Support sanctions, probably an indef WP:TBAN from WP:ARBIPA. This user exhibits consistent WP:BATTLEGROUND and for some reason believes WP:RS do not apply to them. See for example several excerpts documented by Doug Weller @User talk:PreserveOurHistory#October 2022 (permalink). El_C 19:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The October block unfortunately didn't lead to any change in behavior. Agree with an indef TBAN given the earlier recent disruptive conduct and the 1RR violation (1 2). Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with indef TBAN. I see no evidence the editor will change their behaviour. Doug Weller talk 14:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ronar~enwiki (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:ARBGENDER, WP:ARBPS

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

1. [4] 2 January 2023 — restoring ::Different people can inject meaning into a text, but the text has the meaning its author intended to convey. Writing is a form of communication, and that which the author had in mind is what they were attempting to communicate, not what some person injects into the text to suit their own agenda. Writing is NOT an abstract painting that people can just give meaning to willy-nilly. The bible is quite clear on the subject of homosexuality, and only those who wish to ignore the clearly stated truth of scripture would conclude otherwise. The God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament, as the bible says God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The old testament says homosexuality is an abomination to God(a hated thing). As God does not change, homosexuality as an act or tendency one indulges in is an abomination. If God hates something and has clearly said so, it is a sin to do that thing. Those who hate God will try any kind of nonsense to deny the truth and hope that nobody will take the time to study the issue for themselves. This article IS non-NPOV--its point of view is clearly skewed towards lying to support the false view that homosexuality isn't hated by God. As the article is about what the bible says rather than what humans think it should say, it should be rewritten to actually reflect the truth of God's word.Ronar~enwiki (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. [5] same as above
3. [6] same as above
4. Many more edits WP:SOAPBOXING that their own religion is objectively true, see recent warnings at their own talk page, e.g. [7], 2 January 2023, which seems like a big WP:CIR WP:REDFLAG
5. [8] 29 December 2022 (not covered by sanctions) There is plenty of evidence that Jesus not only existed but died and came back, along with doing many miracles. All of Muhammad's miracles were invented years later.
6. [9] 31 December 2022 (covered by ARBPS) Pretending that Catholics and liberal Protestants don't believe in the bible or the true God. Insisting that intelligent design is true, despite being advised against it immediately above their answer. According to them mainstream scientists are still full of nonsense and promote doctrines of demons. Try arguing with someone who believes that the National Academy of Sciences and Nature (journal) promote doctrines of demons and see how that goes.

• To sum up: if they aren't awarely trolling, their actions are indistinguishable from trolling. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [10]

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

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

• Ronar~enwiki's fairly short editing history mostly consists of attempting to make sure Wikipedia reflects their particular version of conservative Christianity. Given this I think a WP:NOTHERE indef block is better than trying to use discretionary sanctions. Hut 8.5 18:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, I was going to use WP:CIR but both work. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• And I was actually thinking about blocking under WP:DE, but no matter. I'm going to block under NOTHERE as a normal admin action and close this request. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)}}[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

BilletsMauves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Maitrey M. Telang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

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

1. 28 October 2022 Unsourced addition
2. 29 October 2022 Unsourced change
3. 21 December 2022 Same
4. 30 December 2022 Unexplained deletion of sourced content

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.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[11]

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

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

• Maitrey M. Telang seems to making some good edits but they aren't adding sources to the majority of their edits. Given that some of them are good it suggests that the changes to numbers they're making might be accurate but based on sources they haven't added. The edits also extend beyond the India-Pakistan area so I don't necessarily think that a TBAN would be effective. I suggest a logged warning stating that they need to ensure that the content they add or modify needs to be cited to something reliable that supports their change (effectively verifiability, not truth). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Abrvagl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

ZaniGiovanni (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 enforcement log/2021#Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

1. 20 December Removes a source from a reliable website because the article was published in Baku (Azerbaijan).
2. 21 December Reverts the restoration of the source again for being a Baku based article
3. 19 December Restores incorrectly attributed information from a local Armenian newsletter without verifying (3rd point) the source.
4. 20 December Making 6 reverts within a day on the same article (diffs provided within the linked report)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 2 February 2022 warned against edit warring and is expected to be more diligent in pages covered by the AA2 DS
2. 15 September 2022 banned from the topic area for 2 months for battleground behavior, including highlighting the ethnicity of users they were in a dispute with

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 15 September 2022 by Tamzin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On the 2022 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh article, ZaniGiovanni repeatedly removed (diff #1 & #2) an article from JAMnews, a reliable third-party source. ZaniGiovanni asserts that the article is unreliable because it was published in Baku (Azerbaijan) and refers to it as a Baku-based article. Aside from the problematic nature ZaniGiovanni assuming an article is unreliable solely because it was published by someone from Azerbaijan, another red flag here is that ZaniGiovanni doesn't apply the same standards when it is advantageous to their position. Here is ZaniGiovanni using a similar article from the same JAMnews, this time published in Yerevan (Armenia) to add a statement in wiki voice.

ZaniGiovanni was also recently engaged in edit wars on the same article (diff #4). The administrator confirmed that ZaniGiovanni's was edit warring and issued verbal warnings before closing the report as Stale. This is a direct violation of ZaniGiovanni's February warning by El C.

Reply 1

@Rosguill and El C: ZaniGiovanni is not a new user who made a single mistake and was reported, nor is this the first time they have been informed of their problematic behavior. ZaniGiovanni's behavior not only on the pages I've linked to, but also on this page, is a clear violation of WP:TE.

ZaniGiovanni made more than three reverts within 24 hours on the 2022 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh article, as the closing administrator informed them. However, they insist, even here, that their edits weren't edit warring. A textbook example of WP:TE.

Rosguill, your point about the validity of questioning sources would be correct if the actions weren't so blatantly one-sided, which reveals that this questioning isn't done to obtain reliable sources, but rather to protect one viewpoint over another. As evidenced by ZaniGiovanni using the same source when it supported their position ([12]) but questioning it when it did not (diff #1 & #2). (WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH; WP:CPP: They argue that reliable sources are biased while their own preferred sources are neutral.).

Furthermore, in another discussion, ZaniGiovanni was unconcerned with reliability when they referred to the propagandistic website panarmenian.net [13] or pre-election advertisement article by Rachael Rose Luckey on citywatchla.com[14]. A quote from the citywatchla.com:

Los Angeles now has a renewed opportunity to stand with the Armenian-American community of Little Armenia to pressure Los Angeles’ City Hall and the Biden Administration to declare the Republic of Azerbaijan a terrorist state.

When I challenged[15] the sources, ZaniGiovanni told me to familiarise yourself with WP:SEALION [16] and Your "explanation" is just a collection of original remarks with which nobody concurs here[17].

ZaniGiovanni has been warned or sanctioned in this topic area at least 3 times this year alone ([18], [19], [20]). Their topic ban expired a month ago, and they've already been reported for 3RR and at AE in that time. It is perplexing to see how ZaniGiovanni manages to avoid adequate punishment for their infractions repeatedly, despite the fact that no other editor in AA2 has received such leniency in the past. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 11:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El C, Tamzin, Rosguill before filing this report, I gave the matter thoughtful consideration - I can assure you that the topic is entirely non-personal; rather, it is a plea for admin involvement in a pattern of behaviour that is incompatible with Wikipedia. I have something to add and feel compelled to add it, therefore I'm requesting an additional response, promising to be concise. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 07:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last Reply

The below diffs isn't to debate whether ZaniGiovanni was right, but to demonstrate how exhausting it is when they repeatedly revert without thinking, and after search for sources to justify revert, resulting in them tossing irrelevant or low quality sources without examination. This frequently leads to absurd scenarios in which they reject your concerns and demand you to take the blatantly low quality sources (like pre-election advertisement article on citywatchla.com), which were brought up by them, to the RSN ([21]).

For instance: On 19 December 2022 ZaniGiovanni, without any comment or talk, manually undid ([22]) number of the edits. Including edit ([23]), which replaced partisan source with eurasianet.org and added missing attribution. When I protested that ([24]), ZaniGiovanni barely addressed any of their reverts: What's the exact disagreement here? BBC is pretty clear and casts alot of doubt on the so-called activists ([25]) and undid edits again ([26]). Then, while trying to justify their revert, ZaniGiovanni twice referred headlines of BBC article ([27]; [28]), then an unrelated tweet ([29]), then an opinion piece ([30]), and each time I had to explain that the source was either irrelevant or didn't support their claim ([31]; [32]; [33]; [34]). Finally, ZaniGiovanni brought up two sources ([35]; this I didn't comment on talk yet), one of which is Kommersant, which generally should not be used without attribution in controversial areas where Russia involved. ([36]). Should not we expect that user with over 7000 edits has enough competency and will to evaluate sources before bringing them up? It doesn't look like WP:CIR since it is evident that ZaniGiovanni is quite skilled at examining sources when they are not advantageous to their viewpoint, rather it is the pattern of tendentious editing. (WP:CPP; WP:TE) A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 11:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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.

1) [20 December] Removes a source from a reliable website because the article was published in Baku (Azerbaijan). – Since you haven't discussed this on the article talk page, let me explain that the content in question was making extraordinary claims (based on a single Baku edition article from "JamNews") that humanitarian aid passed through the blockade, which even to this day is highly doubted and at the time, wasn't reported to be true by any other sources. In fact, WP:RS clearly stated that supplies are running low or either are entirely lost due to the blockade. HRW, referring to some media reports, said trucks allegedly containing humanitarian goods were allowed to pass. So to say something like this at the time in Wikivoice no less using a single Baku edition article needed additional third-party to confirm per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:UNDUE, especially when multiple third-parties didn't confirm this at all and stated that supplies are lost or running low, and HRW reporting more than a week after blockade with "alleged" wording.

2) [21 December] Reverts the restoration of the source again for being a Baku based article – Explained above, it's the same edit which was restored with complete disregard to WP:ONUS, WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:UNDUE. I think my removal was well justified based on the above explanation, and you should first consider discussing content before reporting here.

3) [19 December] Restores incorrectly attributed information from a local Armenian newsletter without verifying (3rd point) the source. – The source was already cited in the article (not by me) and actually you added a source that's no better. But this is something that has been extensively discussed in the talk, which you haven't replied to for a week now. So why are you bringing up random content snippet from a discussion to AE? Also, a third-party source for Az soldiers blocking the road [37], just in case.

4) [20 December] Making 6 reverts within a day on the same article (diffs provided within the linked report) – Didn't make "6 reverts" and the report is closed for a week now btw, in case you haven't noticed. This looks like WP:FORUMSHOPPING with a closed report.

5) [Here] is ZaniGiovanni using a similar article from the same JAMnews, this time published in Yerevan (Armenia) – This is neither extraordinary nor undue, it literally describes events from the blockade article so you're comparing apples to oranges here. Also, if you had a problem with that source (which I replaced btw just in case), why again am I learning about something like this first on Tamzin's talk page today and now in AE? I don't see any discussion on Lachin corridor or my talk.

Abrvagl still comments on the stale report from a week ago and Lachin Corridor where they haven't even opened a discussion. They also bring up a snippet from discussion regarding stamp section on different article. The summary; I found additional 3 third-party sources that supported the current wording and presented on talk, Abrvagl raised issues regarding the sources, they later asked me to take to RSN, to which I replied if they think there are issues with third-party sources, they should take to RSN themselves. That's it. I haven't even used these sources in the article as I generally try to get consensus before adding something that'll possibly be contested. Abrvagl didn't reply for a week now (my comment being latest) neither they took to RSN.

The stamp being rejected by Postal Union I show here with a source. Summary; it was part of the discussion and my reply to Abrvagl's "online hysteria" comment, I didn't suggest adding it to the article nor (again) I ever did.

[I can assure you that the topic is entirely non-personal] - I don't think this is the case as evident by Abrvagl's repeated plea to sanction me. They've done a similar report on another user not so long ago, bringing up content issue to AE while neglecting to reply in the discussion for over a month. In the diffs here, most they didn't even discuss on talk, in one didn't reply for over a week now, and the other was a week-old stale report that they kept bringing up. In their 2nd comment, they don't provide an edit diff of mine and just take out-of-context snippet from random discussion they didn't even include in the initial report. At this point, I believe a WP:BOOMERANG should be applied for battleground behavior @Rosguill:, @El C:, @Tamzin:.

How does one keep choosing out of context snippets from the same discussion where we’re long past the point, didn’t reply to the discussion for over a week, and think they’d present said snippets in AE as diffs? Especially when they claimed they have “something to add”. I just don’t get this repeated behavior, they’re showing the same things which they either didn’t reply for over a week now or didn’t discuss at all. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how has Zani "returned to the same problematic behaviour that resulted in their original Tban" if they have not mentioned another user’s ethnicity since? And if the 3RR was deemed stale a week ago, why would that be any different now? It also appears that Abrvagl did not attempt any discussion first for any of these sources; instead they came straight to AE to request sanctions for the user they are disagreeing with. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As someone that moderated their DRN thread some months ago and have reached out to both on their talk pages at different points to attempt and convince them to avoid conflict, it seems that ZaniGiovanni and Abravgl will continue to find themselves unable to collaborate on here productively. I'm not placing blame on either or both of them, but I do think if the arbs or other admins find this report deeply insufficient to consider placing some kind of temporary restriction on Abravgl's filing of requests and/or ANI threads. They are a relatively newer editor that was shown the drama backrooms of Wikipedia too early due to their focus on armenia/azerbaijan and so didn't really learn how to resolve conflicts without external punitive measures or when to file requests/threads. I remember my own ban from ANI (3 months, 2021) as a crucial guardrail that has helped me immensely and think Abravgl could benefit similarly. Additionally, their statement I can assure you that the topic is entirely non-personal is suspect to me due to their and ZG's history of conflict. As always, ZaniGiovanni you really need to work on being nicer when editing with others. Getting dragged here distracts you and others from editing constructively and we both know if you didn't WL essays like SEALION or assumed bad faith from someone who is clearly trying to improve our coverage of such a contentious topic (even if they are wrong from time to time), you wouldn't be wasting so much of everyone's time and find yourself being able to contribute much more productively. Take a week off and edit some non-contentious azeri/armenian articles (e.g. sports clubs, music artists, important art and architecture). Useful reading for ZG: Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade and for both: Wikipedia:Advice for hotheads. If either of you don't learn to be more collaborative I don't expect to see y'all editing in a few years and that would make me quite sad. P.S. Happy New Year everyone! Hope you've had plenty of rest and appreciated how nice winter clouds look this time of year ^u^ — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ZaniGiovanni twice removed a reference to Jamnews, claiming it was a "Baku based source", which it is not. [38] [39] Jamnews is an international news outlet with reporters in all 3 South Caucasus states. It is the same as saying that Reuters is "Baku based", because it has reporters in Azerbaijan, and thus unreliable. I could understand if ZaniGiovanni made a case for attribution of the information to a particular source, but I don't find it to be acceptable to simply delete information claiming it is unreliable because of the reporter's nationality, especially considering that the reporter represents an international news outlet. Grandmaster 17:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This report seems unripe in the absence of prior talk page discussion of the edits exhibiting BATTLEGROUND or other inappropriate behaviors, particularly considering that both parties have been able to make significant constructive edits to the article at-issue since the first disputed diffs were made, and with nearly 100 edits to the page since the most recent diff listed here. Questioning sources for AA2-related topics on the basis of their country of operations is valid given the nature of press coverage of the conflict, and is distinct from the genuinely-problematic behavior of highlighting the ethnicity of editors or source-authors that has occurred in the past. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with El C below that it is time for AA3. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I'm mentioned as the admin who'd previously logged ZG's warning, I agree with Rosguill above. Complaints on this board should be the last step in the WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION process, not the first. Please at least attempt to WP:ENGAGE the matter prior to filing reports here. Thanks. @Abrvagl, ZaniGiovanni, and Rosguill: courtesy pings. El_C 08:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Abrvagl: there's a 500-word limit on this board, which you've now more than doubled. Now, I don't really mind that as far as breaking that rule, but if you'd like for me, at least, to review your comments, you'll need to condense better. If not, I'll leave this to other reviewers who can spare the time for that excess (if such reviewers exist, which they may or may not). Thanks. El_C 12:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @ZaniGiovanni: as I've noted on Rosguill's talk page, you, for your part, should not be circumventing AE's word limit by splitting the discussion on the talk pages of reviewing admins. El_C 13:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't sure if Abrvagl posted their query to Tamzin before or after filing this report, because they failed to sign + timestamp their OP here, so I had to look it up in respective revision histories. And they're not the only ones. For whatever reason, several OPs on this board are not signed + timestamp, which is a bit annoying. Anyway, my sense (from memory, mind you) is that Abrvagl and ZaniGiovanni report one another on various instances in various venues, with some regularity. When it will end, no one knows.

What, however, is clear from the log is that each have received a logged warning this year, ZaniGiovanni as mentioned by myself (in Feb), and Abrvagl by Rosguill (in June). Then, there's ZaniGiovanni 2-month TBAN in Sept, more on that... notion below. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I get the sense that Abrvagl may well have been similarly sanctioned, and that it's sort of luck and circumstances that ZaniGiovanni was and they were not (neither one is better or worse from the other is what I'm getting at). Still, it does give Abrvagl somewhat of an edge (a lead) in this perennial dispute.

Anyway, much of this back and forth seems unfocused, with both seemingly determined to have the other removed from the topic area. Honestly, I've been feeling less and less inclined to look into these, in general, for some time now. As I've mentioned on number of occasions, I think WP:AA2 needs a full AA3 WP:RFAR case refresher, with wider evidence submission and parties. That said, if someone has the time to give this (these) in-depth attention, that'd be good (big if, though). BTW @Tamzin and Callanecc: it's my and many others' view that timed TBANS, which used to be the prevailing practice, nearly always fall short. Because we nearly always end up back here, but as a new report rather than through an appeal (one could still recommend to appeal in no less than 2 months, 6 months, a year, whatever). Just putting it out there. El_C 02:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Abrvagl and ZaniGiovanni: since you're both saying the same thing, that it isn't personal, I'll answer both of you at once: give us some credit, no one here thinks this is primarily personal. Rather, we know it is ideological. As mentioned, an arb intervention, rather than an admin one, is due (overdue). I'll emphasize again that the overarching dispute goes beyond just the two of you, limited to narrow incident/s. Each of you seem to be expecting (hoping) that we'll side with respective you. But short of something truly and obviously egregious, that's unlikely to happen.

So, whether or not either one of you are able to detach yourselves, even for a moment, so as to see this from this broader perspective — the reality is what it is, regardless. And what it is that going for piecemeal, with just the two of you, again barring a major slip up, is unlikely to go anywhere. Best to be blunt about this so as to avoid repeated time sinks, here and elsewhere.

Abrvagl, I doubt you have some major revelation to add, because why wouldn't you have added it already, if it were to significantly bolster your case? You want an extra couple hundred words to say whatever, sure, okay. But I doubt it'll get us anywhere. Because, as noted several times above, mine and others' view is that anything short of a full AA3 arbitration case would be a waste of time for all involved, parties and reviewers alike. El_C 15:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I referred Abrvagl here from my talk page because what they were alleging was not the sort of blatant disruption I felt suited to resolution by a single admin (unlike the past behavior that Rosguill alludes to above). I don't have a strong feeling at this time about whether admin action is necessary. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Having looked through some of the information here but not all of it I think the only way to 'resolve' this short of the full arbitration case suggested above would be to topic ban both ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl. Now I'm not suggesting that that is something we should do in this circumstance. The best solution is that you both see the bigger picture per El C's comment above and recognise the situation you're in and try to engage constructively with each other, or short of being able to do that, avoid each other as best you can. It's likely that if issues with either of the two of you end up back at AE you'll be facing an indefinite topic ban as a first-step response remembering that the goal of admins in arbitration enforcement create an acceptable collaborative editing environment by responding flexibly and proportionately not necessarily to search through piles and piles of discussion to pick an editor to be removed from a topic area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Callanecc/El C: If you think this needs a case, under the new CT procedure you can refer a subject to the committee -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 13:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Guerillero: Is the Committee's intention behind that provision that there'd be a willingness to open new cases by motion at ARCA? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Callanecc: I think there is a willingness. If the AE admins thinks it rises to this level, I will accept, but I can't speak for others -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 11:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have read none of this discussion except this thread with you Callanecc but speaking only for myself I think the intent of that new option was to take seriously when there's a rough consensus of AE admins that Arbcom proper needs to do something. If that something is a case I would take that quite seriously as I do at ARC when admins who've tried to address a problem tell us to accept. Barkeep49 (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I tend to agree that this is the type of situation where referral to ArbCom makes sense. This area is a perennial problem, and clearly sanctioning one bad actor here or there is not sufficient to stem the disruption. I can't say I know what the solution would look like, but at least a full case would be much more likely to allow crafting something than the discussion at an AE request. Since this would be the first instance where such a referral would be made, I think we need to figure out what exactly doing that looks like. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Seraphimblade: Not necessarily the first, that's effectively how Falun Gong 2 started just with an AE admin filing it. It looks like the process now is that we just open a request for amendment asking the Committee to open a full case to examine the topic area based on the consensus here. The reason in this instance is that the consensus here believes that ArbCom is best placed to resolve the perennial problems in this topic area due to the number of editors involved and that problematic edits aren't necessarily obvious and need the process of a full case (evidence and workshop) to determine and to come to a solution. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Seraphimblade @Callanecc Yeah, I don't think we need to make it more complex than it needs to be. If consensus exists to refer a matter, same as how one would assess consensus in a sanction appeal, someone closes it here and 'files' it with the Committee. Neat and tidy. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll file a request at ARCA tomorrow. Before I do though, @Seraphimblade, did you have something in particular in mind re what specifically to ask for? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Callanecc, I think primarily for an AA3 case, to essentially examine the entire area and the editors who are active in it, especially those who like to show up here a lot. It should not be considered a case about just the two editors involved here; that's what brought it to a head, but that's by no means the entire scope of the problem. I think one challenge will be determining who does need to be a party; maybe ArbCom can help with the best way of going about that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TheRealDiogoFaro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Eta Carinae (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/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?redirect=no&title=Wikipedia:PBAN

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

1. 6/1/2023 11:24 am TheRealDiogoFaro updated the ideology section of the Portuguese Communist Party's page in the portuguese language to match the english language version
2. 6/1/2023 11:40 am Eta Carinae again reverts the portuguese language page to the old version that so many users have complained to be ideologically biased and that lacks any source to support what is stated

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user clearly abuses his power and has ideological bias, so much so that he blatantly refuses to update the portuguese language page to the same standarts as the english page, instead he repeatedly posts the same misinformation without any sources. Several other users have already complained about this issue on the talk page but nothing has been done to change the situation.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

• This noticeboard has no power outside of the English Wikipeedia --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 12:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Michael60634 (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

• 1.5 October 2022 Referring to other editors' good faithed edits as "vandalism"

I asked Michael60634 not to do that here. Accusing others of "vandalism" is a straight up personal attack. Nonetheless, Michael has continued to use such edit summaries, with some other personal attacks thrown in for good measure:

• 2. [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]

Since Michael has not edited most (any?) of these articles before, these reverts appear to be revenge edits in retaliation for the dispute we had at Erich Honecker where Michael has also been edit warring against several users as well as consensus achieved at WP:NPOVN [52]. In late December they made three reverts in less than 24 hours [53] [54] [55]. They were warned [56] and then removed the warning with an edit summary full of personal attacks [57] (Providing a warning for 3RR is obligatory. Removing it is fine but the personal attacks are not)

Only a few days later Michael directly broke 3RR on the Honecker article [58] [59] [60] [61]

Note that in that edit war (against another user) he also refers to their edits as "vandalism" [62]. I would've reported them then but it was right after New Years and I was busy.

• 3. Then, after performing the mass reversion of my edits with the personal attacks in the edit summary, Michael went to the talk page of another user whom I've had disputes with (and who's... "outlook on things" is well known) and WP:CANVASSED them to help them in their edit war [63]. This is a straight up request to help in an edit war. I warned them about that too, they also removed that message with personal attacks in edit summaries (I'm happy not to post on their page, but again, notifications of this type are obligatory).

Then, apparently as response to my warning about CANVASSing, Michael decided to double down and went to another user's talk page [64] and made a similar request for help in their edit warring. This is a user that pretty much everyone knows I've been involved in disputes with so going to them is another blatant attempt at coordinating a response/edit war.

Note that until late October the Michael account was technically not allowed to edit articles related to Russian-Ukrainian war because they were not autoconfirmed. They were informed of this fact by another user here. See also the user's comments to Michael on the POV nature of their edits [65]. These warnings too were removed [66] and Michael continued editing these articles despite their awareness that they weren't supposed to. I guess sometime between late October and late December they got autoconfirmed and that's when they decided to go on a revert spree on these articles.

This case bears strong similarity to the case of User:Anonimu, who was also topic banned at AE [67] (failed appeal [68]) for similar WP:TENDentiousness and calling other users "vandals" despite repeated requests not to do so. Volunteer Marek 22:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None AFAIK, fairly new account only recently autoconfirmed.

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

[69]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Response to Mellk - this is really outside the scope of this request, as it gets into content issues. Basically there's users, including Mellk who insist on listing Ukrainian cities as "de facto Russia" (sic) and who consistently remove as many mentions of "Ukraine" from these cities as possible as well as the fact that these cities/areas are occupied by Russia. Which is of course what sources say "occupied by Russia" not this strange invention of "de facto Russia". Anyway. Mellk is one of the users WP:CANVASSed by Michael to help him edit war as noted in diffs above. Shall I go and notify go and notify all the users that most likely agree with me about this dispute and report? Volunteer Marek 01:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the accusations that Michael levies against me in their attempt to deflect are also instructive. For example he claims I called edits “garbage”. No, I actually called a source/text garbage [70]. What was that source? Oh, it was somebody’s personal YouTube channel full of conspiracy theory nonsense that YouTube itself removed a couple days later and banned the uploader [71]. In other words, garbage. The inability to distinguish legitimate sources from stuff like this is a serious problem as is confusing discussing content (calling a source garbage) and discussing editors (calling someone a vandal). Volunteer Marek 08:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and the account that Michael accuses me of unfairly calling a sock puppet? Yup, it was banned for… sock puppetry [72]. I mean, come on! Volunteer Marek 08:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gitz6666 is of course the other user, in addition to Mellk, that Michael was WP:CANVASSing to help him edit war [73]. The fact that Michael knew exactly whom to go to to ask for help kind of illustrates what the POV of these users is, and the fact that it is pretty transparent. And now both responded to the WP:CANVASS by coming here.(snipped for length) Volunteer Marek 18:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem:, you know what? You're right. About that particular diff. That was uncalled for and I should not have used that edit summary. Can't remember specifically but I must've lost my cool due to frustration with the general situation on these articles. Like you said, it's a contentious area. Could have made the same point but with better language. The other diffs from Michael reference content not editors (contrary to occasional assertions there's nothing "insulting" about calling text "POV" or "trash" - like when it's a youtube video that youtube itself removed for TOS violations) but in that one I screwed up. All I can say is that I agree with your criticism here and I'll try to be more careful in the future. Volunteer Marek 08:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Yes I can agree to a civility restriction (as long as it doesn't include that "thin skin provision" which was silly and which Awilley realized was silly and retracted ;)). Also just to note - I am not even going to respond to FR's accusations as they're old, they misrepresent stuff or present it out of context and they're opportunistic and unrelated to this dispute. It would basically take a whole another AE report to deal with FR's problematic behavior and their skirting of their IBAN. Volunteer Marek 04:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Yeah that's fine and I do in fact try to follow that anyway, even if there's an occasional slip up. Volunteer Marek 07:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[74]

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.

I did not edit these articles previously because doing so would require being extended confirmed as I was told per this comment on my talk page. Before this comment was left on my talk page, I was not aware of the restrictions on editing these pages. Just because I later cleaned up my talk page doesn't mean that I didn't acknowledge the message, as VM seems to be implying. At the time I was not extended confirmed, so I stopped editing the articles that had the extended confirmed restrictions. Despite not being able to edit, I continued paying attention to articles related to Crimea and I did see that VM was removing content about the places referenced in these articles being disputed or saying that these places are only in Ukraine even though, once again, they are disputed territories. Once I did get enough edits to become extended confirmed, I tried to improve the neutrality of the articles in question. I did not remove any mention of Ukraine or include only information about Russia. I did my best to include both Ukrainian and Russian info to maintain article neutrality. And I tried to avoid pointed language. However, VM seems to consider all of my edits to anything Russia/Ukraine/Crimea related, and apparently anything opposing their viewpoint on these topics, as "POV pushing" or "original research".

Furthermore, claiming I'm "revenge editing" is both blatantly false and a personal attack against myself. I hold no negative sentiments against any editors.

Claiming I was editing against consensus is also false. The consensus seemed to be that the article for Erich Honecker should not call him a dictator in the first line. Where did I edit against consensus?

I also did not ask anyone to edit war. That's also false. I was asking for help editing articles. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my comment, but again here I was trying to ask for help with neutrality from an editor who I have had experience with on Sevastopol.

Sure, my changeset comments need to be improved, and I do apologize for misuse of the word "vandalism", but I think this complaint seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black, as seen in the changeset comments found below:

Changesets by VM calling edits "Russian nationalism", "Russian irrendentism", "Russian disinformation", or "Russian propaganda": [75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92]

Changesets by VM calling edits "POV pushing" or "POV": [93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104]

Changesets by VM accusing editors of legitimizing aggression: [105][106]

Changesets by VM accusing editors of trying to "conquer" places: [107]

Changeset by VM accusing an editor of being a sockpuppet: [108]

Changesets by VM labelling an edit as "garbage" or "bs": [109][110][111]

Changesets by VM labelling edits as "weaseling": [112][113][114][115][116]

My account is not "fairly new". I've had it since early 2019. I don't edit much as I don't believe I have much to add to existing articles, but I do make changes or updates when I see incorrect information, out of date information, or grammar and capitalisation errors. I have been editing articles related to Russia and Ukraine because I have an interest in this region. I have close friends and family members from both countries, so naturally I became interested in learning more about Russian and Ukraine. Accusations of editing to push a Russian nationalist POV are dishonest and false. Michael60634 (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response to @GizzyCatBella's statement:

Your statement about myself canvassing other editors to participate in this AE discussion is false and misleading. I never did any such thing. What I did do is ask @Mellk to help with some articles, and I made a remark to @Gitz6666 about the editing behaviour of another editor. Nowhere did I ask for help defending myself here. And as Mellk pointed out, "Michael left that message before this request."[117] As your statement is entirely misleading, I request you withdraw it, or modify it so it accurately reflects what happened. Michael60634 (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response to @My very best wishes's statement:

Your accusation that I am following VM with the intention to perform revenge edits is false. Perhaps I just have an interest in the EE region? And consider that VM happens to edit almost exclusively in this area.

I also think you are blowing the "what angers me" quote way out of proportion. I'm not angry. I used poor wording as a reaction to various editors blanking an infobox because they thought it was "POV". That's all it was and there's nothing more to it.

I'm not going to go into the part where you say I'm probably editing with Russian nationalism in mind. Partially because you keep changing your response to reword it, and partially because such an accusation is entirely baseless and unprovable. Of course I'm going to deny accusations of editing with the intent to push a Russian POV. Why wouldn't I? It's not a "good sign"? What is that supposed to mean? Michael60634 (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response to @Lord Roem:

Hello. I read your comment when you posted it, but I wasn't sure if you wanted a response. I've only been responding to outright falsehoods, such as being accused of canvassing editors to come here, or attacks on my character or motivations. This is to keep things brief.

I agree that my edit warring was wrong. I won't do that again in the future. Instead I'll discuss in talk or post to the dispute resolution or NPOV noticeboards. At the time I was editing the article you mentioned, I was not aware that these noticeboards existed.

I also agree that I had a poor response to Volunteer Marek. For context, my changeset comments were written after months of being accused of pushing a POV and having my edits reverted by Volunteer Marek. While the context doesn't justify the words I used, it does help to understand exactly why I wrote what I wrote.

I do disagree that I am participating in tendentious editing. I'm trying to keep things neutral. If I were editing with a pro-Russian point of view, as some other editors here have claimed, wouldn't it make sense for me to remove all mentions of any Ukrainian claims to Crimea? Because if I were a Russian nationalist, I'd be saying Crimea is only Russia's and that Ukraine has no legitimate claim to it. But I'm not doing that. I've just been trying to maintain the status quo of listing Crimea (and places within) as de jure Ukraine and de facto Russia. This was how the political status of places in Crimea had been represented for about 8 years, until Volunteer Marek and a group of other editors that work closely together started changing it to "part of Ukraine, illegally occupied by Russia" or something like that, and reverting and edit warring with anyone that changed the terminology back to the status quo version. I'm not trying to push a POV. I'm simply trying to avoid pointed language in articles meant to inform people. And it's not Wikipedia's job to take a stance on any political issues, no matter how troubling they may be. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a repository of information, and not a journal. At least that's my view on the situation. Michael60634 (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response to @Callanecc:

I admit my edit warring and behaviour was unacceptable. But I do question what Erich Honecker, the last leader of the German Democratic Republic, has to do with Crimea. I don't see a connection.

I also question why you believe a TBAN is appropriate for me, but that it would not be appropriate for Volunteer Marek, despite Volunteer Marek doing the same thing as me, but to a greater extent and over a much longer period of time. This can be seen through the many diffs shared here by other editors, showing that Volunteer Marek has a long, long history in AE. I do not. This is my first, and hopefully last, time here.

And I question why you are willing to brush off Volunteer Marek's past behaviour as "[getting] frustrated and [saying] something they sometimes/usually later reflect on, regret and retract." I did the same thing. I did something wrong in frustration, reflected on it, and apologised. I didn't retract it because I cannot retract changset comments, but if I could, I'd do it. And you accepted Volunteer Marek's commitment to end their poor behaviour, but not mine. Again, I don't have a long and repeated history of personal attacks, but Volunteer Marek does.

Finally, to address the accusations of canvassing. What GizzyCatBella claims in her AE comment is a blatant lie. I've avoided using that terminology before, as I gave her a chance to strike it. But she didn't, so here we are. I never canvassed people to come here to support me. That is the fact about this situation. The complaints about canvassing come from my asking of one editor for help with some articles, and a complaint I made about Volunteer Marek's editing to another editor. I can see how the first can be considered canvassing, but a complaint is not a canvass to edit on my behalf.

So why do you treat Volunteer Marek and me differently, when he has a longer and more extensive history of the same violations I was reported for? Michael60634 (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute here over what wording should be used in Crimea-related articles but Volunteer Marek has engaged in long-term edit warring to push his preferred POV in these articles (he does not like it being called disputed territory or even annexed) and displaying a battleground mentality when his edits are challenged. Not that long ago with the Simferopol article where it all started, he made a series of edits which get reverted[118], he then reverts that user[119] and proceeds to edit war against a few other users within a span of a couple of days.[120][121][122][123][124] Here in this edit summary he accuses me of "trying to 'conquer' Ukrainian cities on Wikipedia for Russia".[125] Few days later, more edit warring[126][127][128]. This is 9 reverts already. Then inappropriately uses the disputed template to write "Russian disinformation" in the what parameter[129] and restores it despite being told what the paramerer is for[130]. Several days later returns out of nowhere to try and restore his version again[131]. The talk page of course is a shitshow (of course accuses someone else of being a sleeper account[132]) but he claims there was no consensus on the wording he tried to change[133] and repeating that it was just all snuck in (even though the articles were like this for the previous 8 years before he tried to make mass changes to these articles and despite being reverted by multiple editors across multiple articles and no one supporting his changes). This behaviour remained the same, for example in Sevastopol he started another edit war and accused me of being "in pursuit of irredentist POV"[134] over the same issue. Again he misrepresents the version he doesn't like as "Russian nationalist irredentist POV" even though the wording is nothing like it.

Now I see that he is still continuing with this in the same articles, for example today in Autonomous Republic of Crimea changing "annexed" to "occupied" and calling the annexation label "Russian nationalist fantasies"[135] in the edit summary even though it literally links to Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. When I reverted this, for some reason he decided to use a deceptive edit summary "correct spelling" to restore his edit.[136] Mellk (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella also forgot to mention that the messages Michael left were before this request was added (I also did not involve myself in their edit war) and I was already dealing with Volunteer Marek's edits on Autonomous Republic of Crimea before he left those messages. Mellk (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the first glance, edits by Michael60634 (and especially in diff #2 by filer, such as [137]) seem to push Russian propaganda narrative known as Krymnash, i.e. all occupied territories are our Russia (this narrative was originally used only for Crimea, but Putin recently ordered formal annexation of several Ukrainian territories to promote it). Yes, it is about proper wording, but the wording is important: it must be neutral (like the "occupied territories") rather than "de facto Russia" (placing cities at the map of Russia implies just that).

However, I doubt these edits are of purely irredentist nature because Michael60634 was saying that they "Reverted politically motivated vandalism" by VM in the multiple edit summaries. Based on that and their comments above, it seems he indeed disliked VM so much as to follow and target him with "revenge edits". Michael60634 says that he is "not pushing POV", that he is angry ("What angers me"), and that he only wants "get information that they [readers] are looking for" [138]. Well, I think the latter is difficult to buy in terms of content (several proper links to maps are already provided in the infobox), but especially given the repeated vandalism accusations, and indeed the anger. Hence, in the end, this does look to me as a serious behavior issue, either a nationalistic POV or vengeance. The denials by Michael60634 in their statement above are not a good sign. My very best wishes (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think RonaldR below nailed it. Here is a typical edit by Michael60634 where he replaces "occupied" by "de facto". My very best wishes (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lord Roem. I can only re-iterate the comment by RonaldR who, unlike all other contributors, is completely uninvolved and edit in other subject areas. Saying that the occupied territories are "de facto" Russia implies that the "occupation is just and should continue". Furthermore, unlike for Israel, this is also a factually incorrect statement because of the ongoing large-scale war that leads to the lack of stable borders for these territories. The active warfare is also happening at the territory of Crimea, see 2022 Crimea attacks. I have no idea why exactly some contributors are making such edits or claim such edits to be good. Is it a behavior issue? This is something for uninvolved admins to decide. In my personal opinion, a contributor insisting that such edits are "neutral" even on this noticeboard should not edit in this subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to note that our buddy Mellk is none other than a reinforcement called by Michael here yesterday to help him write down Crimea as Russian territory on Wikipedia. In an amazing turn of situation, he is now eloquently taking his side! Marvellous – if I ever need a lawyer, I know where to go. --Synotia (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you've bent over, now cough! cough! and cough! Wow, you've got a real treasure up there. I can continue making you cough but I have better things to do.

Let's put aside strip searching metaphors: What I personally see is someone making it his task of trying to clean Russia and the Soviet Union of wrongdoing as much as is possible within the extent Wikipedia's framework can handle it. Any other way of serving his motherland would have been more dangerous to his physical health. I personally will not cloud myself in hypocrisy pretending like I don't know what is going on, especially considering the geopolitical context we are in. I won't call you Misha or Vovochka or anything similar, if that makes you this uncomfortable, i'll leave the task to your mamka. Synotia (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mellk tries to intimidate me into removing what I've written above, calling it egregious personal attacks. Fine – I might have wandered into the terrains of inappropriateness when I called him a keyboard warrior, I'll remove that one. However, there is no way I will remove the rest – I am still absolutely convinced we are not dealing with someone of good faith, rather someone who tries to use Wikipedia as a tool to whitewash all the evil committed by Russia and its predecessors away from public discourse. I am certain that in his profilic history I can dig even more pearls, but that was already enough for today – otherwise I'll vomit. If that is a personal attack – alright, go to ANI and see what happens, I'll go with you even. Synotia (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Volunteer Marek a "vandal" is wrong: he doesn't deliberately disrupt the project and he is no WP:VANDAL. However, after having spent hours interacting with him, I often wonder whether VM deliberately disrupts the editors. When he perceives that users don't share his POV, he provokes them to the point that either they run away from the EE area or go berserk and soon get banned. This may not be intentional, but it is systematic enough to be worrying.

VM mentioned user:Anonimu, who is actually a good case in point. Anonimu also started repeatedly calling VM a "vandal" and were rightly topic banned. But it all began from this exemplary entry of VM [139] into the delicate t/p discussions on war crimes in Ukraine, which made a complete pig's breakfast of collaborative editing there. I wonder if AdrianHObradors and Ilenart626, who were very active in the area, left it also because working there had become too unpleasant and time-consuming.

As for Michael60634, I'm sorry that he reacted so badly to the treatment he was subjected to. Since until late October he was not autoconfirmed, I guess he is not used to the toxic environment of the EE area (but does it really have to be that toxic?). Perhaps WP:IJME applies here, as he might have understood "vandal" as a generic synonym of disruptive editing and incivil behaviour. In fact, looking at the diffs he shared, I have the impression that he had to deal with quite a bit of incivility. The continuous flow of edit summaries might give you an idea of what editors active in the area have to put up with every day:

A final note, which applies to both VM and Michael. I find it surprising that such a surge of hostility was provoked by the question of whether the status of Crimea should be described as "de jure" Ukrainian and "de facto" Russian, or as annexed by Russia and internationally recognised as Ukrainian, or as Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory. These three formulations look pretty much equivalent to me and the difference in connotation, if any, is very slight, which makes me think that aggressivness and hostility here may not be means to the end of writing the encyclopaedia, but rather that writing the encyclopaedia is a means to the end of expressing aggression and hostility, which would be a sign of Wikipedia:NOTHERE.

I suggest a formal warning to both users and strict scrutiny on their future behaviour. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella I think you're wrong because this is not a community discussion and the final decision will be taken by admins. If you're right, however, then VM would have made the most blatant canvass in his statement at AE when he selectively pinged six editors who had criticised me during a previous discussion at AN/I: [149] Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been following this closely, but feel obliged to respond to Gitz's comment above that there is merely a terminological distinction between "occupied by Russia" and "de facto Russian". Anyone reading, writing or working around the Palestine-Israel issue would recognise instantly that there is indeed a huge difference between saying that East Jerusalem is "occupied by Israel" and saying that it is "de facto Israeli". The first formulation is a simple statement of fact; the second, whatever the declared intention of the speaker, is a highly contentious and loaded claim, implying that the current situation is just and should continue. I see no reason to believe that the situation in Ukraine is any different, nor that those working in this area are indifferent to the political implications of such phraseology. RolandR (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Gitz and Mellk arrived at this board because Michael60634 solicited help at their talk pages (see WP:CANVASSING)

Here are the diffs:

• User Mellk being canvassed by Michael60634 (January 7, 2023)

Quote: Hello! I need your help..

• User Gitz6666 being canvassed by Michael60634 (January 7, 2023)

Quote: And now they (VM) are POV pushing in articles about administrative entities..

This is considered to be disruptive (see WP:INAPPNOTE).

Both Gitz6666 and Mellik responed to the canvass most likely with the statements here. This is also an issue that needs to be addressed.

Do we have an additional history of disruptive canvassing by Michael60634? (.. to be continued on hold as a consequence of this remark. Word count at the time of the remark - 107 ) GizzyCatBella🍁 00:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Could Ealdgyth please explain how the length of a comment can be the basis for a topic ban? 🧐 - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not editing the topics that relate to recent political events (Poisoning of Alexei Navalny was the only exception), and I am watchlisting this page. Therefore, noone can claim that I was canvassed. If we remove all water from the filer's statement, we will see that some newbie managed to violate 3RR once, and that they were persistently characterizing legitimate edits made by other users as "vandalism", and that their edits reflect some minority POV. Obviously, that behaviour is by no means commendable. However, this account is pretty recent, and I would like to remind all of you that at least three participants of this discussions (I mean those who support sanctions against Michael60634) started their Wikipedia carrier with much more severe violations, and were sanctioned for that. It is quite likely that Michael60634 may continue to edit in a non-neutral way, and that the situation will become worse, so they eventually will be topic banned (or site banned). However, I cannot rule out a possibility that they will learn how to edit in a more neutral way and avoid personal attacks. I think, a warning would be sufficient for now.

With regard to "occupation/annexation" etc., let me add my 2 cents. Many users (including participants of this discussion) believe that "occupation" is a bad word, and "annexation" is a good word, so any illegal annexation should be called "occupation". In the context of Crimea, that is supposed to mean that by saying "occupation" you support Ukraine, and by saying "annexation" you support Putin (ironically, afaik, if you publicly say "annexation of Crimea" in Russia, you may have legal problems). But, in reality, that dichotomy is wrong. "Annexation" implies incorporation of some territory into the annexing party's legal space: thus, if all people in the annexed territory are considered full scale citizens of the annexing state, and all laws are acting on the new territory at the same scale as in the occupying state's mainland, then we should speak about "annexation". In contrast, an occupied territory has a different legal status. In that sense, Crimea was occupied AND then annexed, and it IS de facto Russia. Of course, it is not Russia de jure, in the same sense as Baltic states were not de jure parts of the USSR, but I myself saw a map of pre-1991 Europe, which was printed in the US before dissolution of the USSR, and all three Baltic states were shown as parts of Soviet Union.

Another example (which people usually forget): annexation of Moldavia by Romania in 1918. It was illegal (actually, it occurred by exactly the same scenario as annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2013), and, it was not recognized by the USSR AND by majority of Western states. History teaches us that these illegally annexed territories may exist for decades until some game changer event happens. For the Baltic states, that was dissolution of the USSR, for Moldavia, it was re-capture by the USSR in 1940. I think, for Crimea, the game changer event is the war started by Putin in 2022. Therefore, I don't think we should be too focused on terminology in this case: it is quite possible that all Crimea related articles will be rewritten soon in light of new political changes. BTW, WP:NOR does not apply to the non-artilce space. And I agree that VM has a tendency to make highly inflammatory edit summaries. Not only that is a personal attack that cannot be undone, that is just silly and unproductive: a POV-pusher cannot be stopped by that. If you believe a person is a nationalist POV pusher, come here and say that openly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem and Callanecc: You wrote that VM does have a history of personal attacks and/or casting aspersions; I think it's worth looking at that history to try and understand what's going on here:

2017-2019:

1. 22:20, 5 August 2017 Warned against making "unsubstantiated accusations" / James J. Lambden
2. 20:33, 12 November 2017 Asked to discuss content instead of editors / Slatersteven
3. 12:37, 15 November 2017 T-banned and warned to edit collegially / GoldenRing (admin)
4. 11:20, 10 January 2018 Warned against PAs / GoldenRing (admin)
5. 15:21, 28 January 2018 Asked to observe civility restrictions / Coffee
6. 22:05, 18 March 2018 Asked for civility / me
7. 18:41, 8 June 2018 Asked to watch his language / MelanieN
8. 18:49, 20 June 2018 Warned against personal comments / Awilley (admin)
9. 15:04, 21 June 2018 T-banned and warned against ASPERSIONS / NeilN (admin)
10. 12:58, 24 June 2018 Asked for "decorum" / K.e.coffman
11. 23:22, 7 July 2018 T-banned for BATTLEGROUND / Sandstein (admin)
12. 12:08, 14 March 2019 Asked to avoid aggressive comments / K.e.coffman
13. 22:01, 22 September 2019 T-banned by ArbCom for incivility, inflammatory rhetoric, assumption of bad faith, BATTLEGROUND and "hounding"

2020-2022:

14. 20:21, 3 April 2020, 20:28, 3 April 2020 Asked to leave Ermenrich alone; posts again
15. 22:11, 17 May 2020 Cautioned against aggressive headers / El C (admin)
16. 20:26, 2 June 2020 Warned against PAs / El C (admin)
17. 15:09, 23 December 2020 Asked to avoid personal comments / me
18. 02:58, 26 January 2021, 03:14, 26 January 2021 Warned against PAs and asked to AGF / Paul Siebert
19. 01:12, 2 February 2021 Asked to avoid personalising discussions and assuming bad faith / K.e.coffman
20. 21:19, 4 February 2021 Criticized for "[profoundly] misunderstanding" WP:CIV (Generalrelative)
21. 13:29, 9 February 2021 Asked to ping editors against whom he makes threats and "baseless accusations" / Boynamedsue
22. 04:48, 10 February 2021 Asked for civility by K.e.coffman; bans her from his TP
23. 09:12, 11 February 2021 Warned against "using [Icewhiz's] specter as a blunt instrument" / El C (admin)
24. 20:39, 23 February 2021 Warned against complaining about editors on RSN / El C (admin)
25. 19:13, 15 March 2021 Attack page against me taken down / El C (admin)
26. 17:43, 22 March 2021 Warned against "imminent" sanctions / El C (admin)
27. 01:04, 19 June 2021 Asked to avoid accusations in edit summaries / K.e.coffman
28. 14:17, 19 June 2021 Asked to AGF / Brigade Piron
29. 20:24, 8 July 2021 Asked to avoid bad faith accusations / Girth Summit (admin)
30. 00:32, 6 October 2021 Warned against disruptive behavior / Wugapodes (admin)
31. 05:35, 14 July 2022 EvergreenFir (admin) notes that VM has been taken to AE 22 times
32. 03:09, 23 August 2022 Asked to "keep cool" / L'Origine du monde
33. 19:02, 23 August 2022 Asked to avoid edit-warring by WikiHannibal; accuses them of trying to "intimidate" him

That's ArbCom, 14 editors and 7 admins all saying basically the same thing. What this tells us is that VM's behavior isn't limited to 1-2 editors or a single disagreement, but is a persistent, long-lasting pattern of behavior that spans topic areas, and which he is unwilling to change no matter how many people he hurts.

François Robere (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC) (Added explanation and better numbering. 14:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]

@Piotrus: This isn't about "old grudges", it's about making the encyclopedia a safe environment for collaborative editing for everyone. Seeing VM treat Michael, Gitz and so many others like this, and knowing what effect it has on discussions and on the training of new editors, it's hard to stay indifferent. Someone has to say something.

Regarding the rest of your comment - remember this is a public noticeboard, and admins have repeatedly stated that participating in the same discussions - even voting on each other's RfCs - is allowed.[150][151][152] But of course, you already know that - we've been in similar situations before, and you didn't seem to mind. François Robere (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not enjoy stopping by AE. But a 5-year-long list of diffs (above, by Francois) popping up on my WL, is not what I want to see in the morning. Francois, it's long past time to let old grudges go. And commenting in the same AE thread that does not involve you, after an editor with whom you have an IBAN with commented, is hardly good practices. There are many more constructive ways to contribute to Wikipedia than compiling a list of diffs (many mostly irrelevant) about someone you don't like, spanning 5(!) years. And similar thing (you commenting in a discussion that does not involve you and where VM and GCB previously commented, expressing a point of view opposite to theirs) happened just few days ago [153]. And here. I certainly don't have a will to look for 5 years or whatever on your commenting negatively about VM (as you did here), or coming to discussions that do not involve you and disagreeing with them, directly or indirectly (as in the two diffs from last ~2 weeks I cited above), but doing so for GCB led to said interaction ban. Do we need another one? Or enforce the existing one? Just give up and avoid people you don't have best relations with, it's not that hard. Going to AN(I)/AE and disagreeing with them is. Not. Best. Practices. To say the least --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to share my experience with Volunteer Marek just now:

• VM and I are involved in a discussion at Talk:Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Quotes from individual soldiers' phone calls
• In that discussion, I advocated for including information about Russian war crimes in wikivoice and not by using a particular quote, here (It's better to just say that sexual violence by Russian troops is widespread, in wikivoice (which there is ample RS support for), rather than include one or two particularly-incendiary quote), here (we should describe in wikivoice, not by quotations), and here (We should describe the atrocities in Wikivoice, and not by using quotations.)
• But in a related discussion at BLPN, VM writes: Levivich thinks that we cannot include info on Russian forces committing rape, despite the fact that this is covered in hundreds of reliable sources...
• And also: Levivich can ... spare us all the embarrassment of having to take this query seriously.
• And at ANI: And are you seriously trying to argue that including the well sourced info that Russian soldiers committed rape (which is extensively documented) is a.... "BLPVIO"?

The first and third quotes are obvious willful misrepresentations of my position intended to discredit me. All three were hostile. I shouldn't have to put up with this. Levivich (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Note that Synotia was blocked for their comments in this request.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Folks... there are word limits and you should stick to them. Why do you think that admins want to read through walls-of-text and lots of back-and-forth-name-calling? In my opinion, none of the above commenters are doing anything other than making me want to borrow from a Crusade ..."Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." (even though I'm not a monotheist, there are times when it would be nice to have one omnipotent god to deal with this sort of thing...) .. at this point, the distruption is approaching the territory where topic-banning everyone is sounding like a good solution. Ealdgyth (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Good lord, people. As the kids say, this isn't a good look. You do yourself no favors when you come to AE and throw everything at the wall. That said... I've tried to trudge through the mess of statements and have these initial thoughts. Here's what sticks out to me:
  • Michael60634: The edit warring on Erich Honecker is unacceptable. They nearly broke 3RR on December 28 and responded to a warning with this response. It appears they then did break it on January 2nd. Their attitude is unhelpful and there are legitimate concerns of tendentious editing. On the other hand, they're a fairly new account (600+ total edits, vast majority in the last few months). While I know the trend these days is towards indef topic bans, I think this may be a good use-case for a time-limited one, or perhaps a 1RR restriction when Michael edits in this topic area. My general thinking is that edit warring, especially on repeat occasions, demonstrates precisely the sort of disruption DS is designed to mitigate.
  • Volunteer Marek: Seriously? C'mon, you should know the drill by now. These edit summaries aren't helpful. Editing in contentious areas necessitates civility and this ain't it. I'm tempted to pull the lever Ealdgyth's building in the corner. Either that, or a "No personal attacks" restriction, as unusual as that is, since that's the crux of my concern.

Open to hearing colleagues' thoughts. Let me know if I missed anything trying to parse all this. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael60634 @Volunteer Marek Tagging both just in case you didn't see. Feel free to respond if you have any thoughts/feedback/critique of my initial impressions here. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc I agree with your suggestion related to the structuring of the "No personal attacks" sanction for VM, re: across the topic area and not just article talk pages. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Michael60634: The more I look at this the more I think a TBAN from anything related to Crimea is the appropriate response to their editing behaviour. The edit warring is unacceptable, the canvassing is problematic and the personal attacks and aspersions being cast are unacceptable. That's without getting too far into the more content-related editing behaviour. I would consider 1RR if it were just the edit warring but it's not. My thinking on whether to do a time-limited or indef TBAN is around the nature and seriousness of the issues we're considering, how new Michael60634 is to the project and if there is evidence of good editing as well as problematic edits, particularly in other topic areas. I'm actually leaning towards an indef TBAN with an encouragement to appeal after 6 months of editing with no problems. However, I wouldn't object to an extended time-limited TBAN. This is primarily due to the number of issues involved here - edit warring, canvassing, personal attacks, casting aspersions, etc. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael60634: You're being treated differently because your conduct is different. Lord Roem's reference to Erich Honecker is demonstrating that you have a pattern of behaviour. The fact that the behaviour has occurred outside the Eastern Europe topic area actually suggests that something broader is needed but I'm willing to try a time-limited TBAN to see if that is enough. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Volunteer Marek: Looking at what's in this AE request I was going to suggest a logged warning but VM does have a history of personal attacks and/or casting aspersions - 2022 (which resulted in TPA being revoked) and 2018 are the most recent I found that resulted in some sort of sanction that wasn't overturned. I don't believe that a TBAN or block would be appropriate at this stage. I'm hoping VM will agree with this but I feel what happens is that VM gets frustrated and says something they sometimes/usually later reflect on, regret and retract. That's a difficult behaviour to deal with on Wikipedia because of the nature of the project but I think Awilley's sanction is likely appropriate, effectively as an 'enhanced warning' if you will. It also requires VM to make a commitment to stop doing it which they have done here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Regarding the wording of the sanction, Lord Roem may want to weigh in too, but I was thinking the first two paragraphs but applying to everywhere the ARBEE DS apply not just article talk pages. I'm not keen on the third paragraph around the use of "must" but I think the intention of it is good so could be included as a suggestion rather than a direction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @GizzyCatBella: Word counts are 500 words and 50 diffs so you can absolutely have more space. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Brandmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Dallavid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Enforcement

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

1. 4 January 2023 revert with no explanation
2. 12 January 2023‎ revert with the "see talk" edit summary, while the related talk comment was placed simultaneously with the revert, and not before it

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 24 March 2021 temporarily blocked for personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy
2. 19 September 2022 temporarily blocked for edit warring

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Dallavid is no stranger to the AA2 topic area, he was blocked twice in the past and was reported here before. Yet his editing still appears combative and unhelpful. In the recent talkpage discussion he decided to disregard the uninvolved opinion requested by me at NPOV noticeboard, which is a listed instrument of dispute resolution, and proceed with reverts. I think now such behavior should be re-examined at admin's discretion. Brandmeister^talk 20:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[154]

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.

Both of the diffs that Brandmeister provided are very disingenuous.

4 January 2023 revert with no explanation

I had made a talk page reply at the same time, and it was Brandmeister who was edit warring at this point by continuing to add the disputed content while the discussion was ongoing.

12 January 2023‎ revert with the "see talk" edit summary, while the related talk comment was placed simultaneously with the revert, and not before it

Uh, yeah? Because I was trying to contain the discussion on the talk page instead of in editing diffs?

24 March 2021 temporarily blocked for personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy

That was a mistake I'm embarrassed about, but it was also two years ago and I had only been editing Wikipedia for less than two months. Why is this relevant to bring up? Did I personally attack someone since?

and was reported here before

You mean that report that went ignored because it was such an obvious WP:WITCHHUNT by the user that was the one actually being disruptive, as confirmed in the statements of the other users involved?

In the recent talkpage discussion he decided to disregard the uninvolved opinion requested by me at NPOV noticeboard

The uninvolved opinion was "Information about the most prominent criticisms is generally due", and I proceeded to explain why the criticism is not prominent. Instead of joining in the discussion, Brandmeister continued edit warring and disregarded that WP:3O isn't a vote but a means of helping find a consensus. Someone please correct me if I've misunderstood, but disagreeing with the third opinion means further discussion, correct? I did exactly as this essay requires by further clarifying my viewpoint and summarizing the situation. --Dallavid (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc Concerning the previous edit warring block for a single page, it's worth pointing out that the user who filed it was also blocked. They seemed to believe that the article belonged to them because they had created it and reverted every edit they didn't like. Most of the diffs they provided for me weren't even reverts. I'm still confused why the report wasn't immediately rejected because that user gamed the system by dropping the edit warring notice on my talk and then making the report almost immediately after. I hadn't reverted anything in the ~10 minute meantime; on the contrary I asked them to please participate in the ongoing talk page discussion that they were ignoring.[155][156] --Dallavid (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc The statement by Olympian is a completely dishonest summary of his Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia article. From the beginning there were numerous instances of unreliable sources and sources that didn't verify what Olympian attributed them to. Olympian used many genocide denialist sources, even replacing one with another. Yes the AFD result was keep, but that was with the understanding that the article was in a poor state currently and would need to be improved,[157][158] hence why I started clearing all the disputed portions where to WP:ONUS was on Olympian. There were numerous replies in the AFD and talk page that agreed with the issues I raised about the sources used.[159][160][161] Olympian nominated the article for GA after creating it, but it was deemed to not even be B-level by an AfC reviewer.[162] There is also a growing consensus to merge it into another article,[163][164] which I had been to first to point out the new article is a mirror of in the AFD.

Olympian flat out lied to you by calling their AE report a witch hunt. Two admins agreed that a logged warning for using genocide denial sources was needed, which was something that upset Olympian. Olympian calling that a witch hunt shows a huge amount of disrespect to those admins and also shows that Olympian learned absolutely nothing from the warning.

And please be aware that Olympian had just made an aspersions personal attack against me just before coming here, which I decided to assume good faith for and only request they not do that.

Three editors did indeed arrive in the AFD at around the same time making identical comments that all personally attacked me, and an admin even warned one of those editors for personal attacks. I wouldn't have reported them if an admin hadn't given that warning. Seems this is yet another admin decision Olympian disputes.

You should also know that the first time I ever had an interaction with Olympian was them trying to get me sanctioned in a real witch hunt (as evidenced by it getting no result and the statements of other users). Olympian was the only user who was not involved in the article discussion that made a statement, and also the only one who made a statement in support of the OP's accusations. He claimed "Dallavid didn't adhere to talk page consensus at all", yet 3 editors who actually participated in the consensus disagreed with that! Olympian has been pushing to get me sanctioned for as long as I've known them, yet they're accusing me of not assuming good faith?! I still wonder what could've possibly led Olympian to that AE discussion when they were completely uninvolved and had been given no notification of it on Wikipedia. --Dallavid (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc and any other admin(s) reviewing this report, I think it's worth pointing out in the past couple weeks, Dallavid has engaged in a tendentious editing campaign by deprecating and dismantling this newly-created Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia article. Immediately after this article was created, instead of initiating a talk page discussion, Dallavid nominated it for AfD (during which they made numerous misrepresentations as expounded in my replies to them in the thread) [165], which resulted in a solid consensus to keep the article [166]. Not getting the AfD outcome Dallavid had hoped for, they proceeded to delete a third of the article's content (over 10K bytes) [167], vaguely citing two Wikipedia policies, without gaining consensus in the talk page, or at least explaining their massive content removal in the talk page (until directly asked). Dallavid's reasoning for deleting content (that cited 14 different authors) referred non-existent consensuses and unfounded genocide-denialism claims – WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH; Dallavid also added multiple unexplained tags to the article and another article I recently authored in an act of disruptive editing per WP:TAGBOMB: [168] [169]. It's clear that Dallavid is trying to maximally deprecate the Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia article in order to get it and its content removed.

In an example of Dallavid's attitude, they engaged in a WP:WITCHHUNT against dissenting editors on the same AfD. Firstly, Dallavid filed an AE report against me for using problematic sources (which I had already deleted immediately after they were pointed out), only 4 days after opening the AfD [170]. Later, after Rəcəb Yaxşı, RadomirZinovyev, and Manchou, made “Keep” comments on the Dallavid’s AfD [171] [172] [173], Dallavid reported the trio and accused them of casting aspersions and canvassing so as to invalidate their input in the AfD [174]. After reporting a number of editors who made “Keep” comments in the AfD, it's hard to believe that Dallavid is assuming good faith. – Olympian ^loquere 10:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Given that there is a history of edit warring from Dallavid which has continued following a previous block and on a range of AA2-related pages I believe that some sanction is justified. I'm not convinced based on the evidence above that a TBAN is justified (yet), although if there are further concerns not evidenced above I'm open to considering them. At this stage, I'm leaning towards a logged warning about edit warring, in particular long-term edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that, based on Olympian's evidence, I'm considering whether a logged warning or a TBAN would be most appropriate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Brandmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Spotted in Warsaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

1. 16 January 2023 "Why is everyone polishing the penis of De Wall?"
2. 16 January 2023 "It takes common sense, why are you hiding under a German username"
3. 16 January 2023 "It takes common sense"

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

A fresh account created yesterday that jumped immediately to reverts in the AA area. I think the totality of at least three abovementioned reverts and their edit summaries warrant a straightforward block. Brandmeister^talk 21:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[175]

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.

I think the Turkic vandalism gang including Brandmeister should be blocked immediately. Look at their history, erasing all information. Q*hbebaycan!Spotted in Warsaw (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This probably would've been better suited at ANI, imo. I've also made Spotted in Warsaw aware of contentious topics. That being said, a case for a WP:NOTHERE block could be made based on the few edits + edit summaries Spotted in Warsaw have made. SkyWarrior 21:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Decodingw (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#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

On 16 January, Decodingw at Featured article J. K. Rowling:

1. 21:40 begins editing the lead of JKR to alter content about critical reception (a lead that was deliberatively rewritten at the widely attended Spring 2022 FAR)

   21:49 reverted by Silver seren

2. 21:51 reinserts changes to critical reception

   21:52 reverted by Czello

3. 21:55 reinserts changes to critical reception

   21:57 reverted by Czello

   Warning about disruptive editing from LancedSoul

   22:06 did engage talk, but did not gain consensus.

4. 22:14 edits the lead to make uncited adjustments regarding gender and social division

   22:17 reverted by Vanamonde93, with a reminder to gain consensus on talk

5. 22:21 reinserts same content about gender and social division to the lead

   22:27 reverted by SandyGeorgia

   22:31 contentious topic alert from SandyGeorgia

6. 22:46 reinserts for the third time content about gender and social division, adding two marginal sources

   22:48 reverted by Sideswipe9th

   22:48 edit warring notice from Sideswipe9th

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)

• 22:31 16 January alert

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

While a specific edit warring warning was not issued until after the sixth revert, this edit notice is in place at the article, and Decodingw re-inserted the same gender-related edit for the third time after the contentious topic alert. A review of Decodingw's talk page does not inspire confidence that the message will be received by the usual measures. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Roem, re there's been no further edits to the page since the warning Sandy placed, I think you meant there's been no edits after Sideswipe9th's edit warring notice. There was one edit after my contentious topics notice. Not that I'm disagreeing with your overall take on the situation, but just making sure there's no misunderstanding. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc, after that alert, I discovered and saved the whole new template, as I have to use it frequently with Rowling. Thanks for the reminder ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

04:14 17 January

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

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

• The behavior on the J. K. Rowling article is clearly edit warring, but it's been something like 6 hours as of writing and there's been no further edits to the page since the warning Sideswipe9th placed. If it continues, a block as a normal admin action would be appropriate. As for DS (or, I guess it's now "CT"), I'm not seeing a topic-wide editing pattern from a quick comb of their recent edits, outside of the Rowling article, which has me leaning towards a formal logged warning, with a TBAN from the Rowling article if this conduct continues. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sandy, now corrected. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc That's a fair point. Given the lack of a disruptive pattern across the topic area, a formal warning may be overkill. We can always re-assess in the event of future shenanigans. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that the notice placed on Decodingw's talk page should have been {{Contentious topics/alert/first}} since they weren't previously alerted to DS or CT. Leaving that aside, I agree that since they appear to have stopped edit warring we don't need to worry about this element. Given that this is one-off edit warring (so far) I don't necessarily think that a logged warning is worth doing, but I won't stand in the way if you'd like to Lord Roem. This just appears to be a relatively new editor edit warring until being told that they can't do that and so the edit warring warning is likely enough to do the job. If they continue edit warring they can be sanctioned as normal at that point. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• July 2022 enforcement

• Dennis Brown

• here

Not sure if this is the correct place to come or WP:ARCA. But on the advice of an administrator, I've chosen to come here, as this was the board I was brought to in July 2022. I'm requesting that my topic-ban on gender and sexuality pages, be lifted. I've no burning desire to edit or post in the topic area-in-question, but would rather not have any topic ban over my head. In six months (indeed in the first few minutes or so), I learned, realised & acknowledge that a pronoun I used about another editor was quite inappropriate. I also acknowledge that I wasn't helpful in the discussions of that area of Wikipedia. I will duly observe & abide by the discretionary sanctions of the topic area. Though again, I've no desire to venture into such discussions. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS - If editors, administrators or arbitrators have any questions for me? Please do give me a ping, on this board. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Took me a little while @Dennis Brown: & @Floquenbeam:, But I found & linked to the July 2022 report. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalrelative:'s, I realise we're not emotionless editors, but rather human beings who deserve respect from our colleagues. I should've been mindful of this. My being frustrated wasn't/isn't an excuse for forgetting that fact. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalrelative: I do acknowledge the ramifications, which is all the more reason for my feeling like an idiot, since July 2022. I am aware that members of the LGBTQ community, have been & still are victims of hate crimes. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: I made mistakes via errors in judgement around the discussions related to "Gender and sexuality" pages. Instead of arguing, I should've walk away. Getting into a -don't hat my post- spat, at the talkpage of Jordan Peterson was one of those mistakes. Losing my temper over it & using a wrongful pronoun about the editor who was hatting my post, was another stupid mistake by me. I've had six months to read over the Discretionary sanctions concerning the general topic & learned what 'not' to post, be it a bio talkpage or an editor's talkpage. Indeed, it's best to not have a combative approach or attitude, in the area of the topic-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th:, would you clarify? Are you suggestion a talkpage ban, sorta on a probationary basis? GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: & {{ping|FloquenI too am curious about a part of Sideswipe9th's comments. I don't recall (in the last six months) being reported 'here', WP:ANI, WP:AN or any other such board. GoodDay (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To Sideswipes' five examples. I agree that #3 & #5 could've been handled better. As for #1, 2 & 4? Those don't seem overly terrible. GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: & @Floquenbeam:, do I have the option of withdrawing my appeal request? GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking that my appeal request be withdrawn. Perhaps in another six months time, I'll return with another appeal request. During that time, I'll try to avoid (as much as possible) any talk pages. If my posts are going to be monitored or semi-monitored (which makes me feel uncomfortable) in other areas of this project, by an editor or editors? then it's best between now & July 2023, to post very little. I'm realistic enough to see, that my current request for appeal, will be rejected. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if GoodDay would add a link to the original discussion where the sanction was imposed. I expect to stay out of the discussion as I'm very busy in real life, no time for properly researching the recent history, so it wouldn't be fair to anyone if I jumped in. I don't have strong feelings one way or another at this time, and I'm confident that a fair resolution can be had without my input. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the scope of the issues that resulted in the topic ban was considerably broader than a pronoun, I do not support a revocation of the ban at this time. I believe the most likely result of any such action would be a time sink for the project with no compensating benefit. Newimpartial (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since GoodDay's topic ban, for the most part I have avoided interacting directly with him, however contributions from him have appeared on my watchlist from time to time. Of the contributions I have seen, GoodDay is continuing to make the same style of short, terse, and at best tangentially related borderline forum style comments on other article talk pages, including in other contentious topic areas. I am concerned that, despite his lack of burning desire to edit or post in the topic area-in-question, GoodDay would nonetheless fall into his familiar pattern of commentary in this topic.

That being said, I would be open to being convinced with relation to Firefangledfeathers proposal back in July 2022, and that GoodDay's topic ban is modified into an "everything but the article space" TBAN, as GoodDay's article space contributions are not as disruptive as his talk and project space contributions. However if this were to be accepted, I would hope that GoodDay agrees that edit summaries like this and this would not be helpful. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To Callanecc:

1. Comment on Hunter Biden laptop controversy that read I recommend we just wait & see what happens (starting in January 2023) when the Republicans take over the US House of Representatives. If we're lucking? they'll not bother with Hunter Biden & his laptop or former laptap.
2. An almost identical comment to #1 made 11 days later, again asking that editor's PLEASE wait until after the Republicans have taken over the House & completed their investigations of Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden & whoever else. (emphasis and capitalisation from original text)
3. Generic battleground comment on Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy
4. Accusations that a local consensus at Talk:Donald Trump is keeping any (paraphrasing) "remotely positive content off the article"
5. Shortly after an RfC was closed on Talk:Kamala Harris, GoodDay recommended ignoring its outcome in favour of a similar one that had closed with the opposite consensus at Talk:Joe Biden
6. Two comments at Talk:Democratic Party (United States) ([176], [177]), that were reverted by Orangemike, leading to a warning and this exchange on GoodDay's talk page. The brief discussion with Orangemike was then reverted with the edit summary Enough.

I've only got a few diffs for you right now due to the time (4am where I am) and as I wasn't planning on making an AE action in relation to these I've not kept these particularly organised, but I'll check for more that I've written down when I'm more awake tomorrow. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've had positive interactions with GoodDay in the past, and was surprised to learn that they'd been topic banned in the first case. For curiosity's sake, I took a look at the original AE case (here), and I have to say, GoodDay, I don't think your opening statement conveys sufficient understanding of how and why referring to another human being as "it" is so harmful. Perhaps you could elaborate more on what you've come to understand in the intervening six months? I frankly don't find it plausible that you understood in the first few minutes or so how deeply inappropriate this was, given the contentious nature of the back-and-forth witnessed in that original AE thread. I say this out of a genuine desire to see this resolved: could you please say more? Generalrelative (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, GoodDay, but I was looking for something more like an acknowledgement that dehumanizing rhetoric is associated with the fact that trans people are disproportionately targeted for violence (this is backed by data, if you weren't yet aware, e.g. [178], [179]). I certainly don't think that you were intending to threaten violence by calling another editor "it", but I'd like to see you acknowledge that the reason this kind of language is harmful goes well beyond mere hurt feelings. Generalrelative (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, GoodDay, I appreciate your most recent reply. Generalrelative (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like the bare minimum of an AE appeal would be linking to the enforcement being appealed. To save others time, it is here. Now that I know what this is about, I oppose lifting the topic ban. While I recognize that this was about more than the "use of a pronoun", I'm still exceptionally disappointed that GoodDay does not seem to understand the minimum expectations about how humans are expected to address other humans. I suppose it's better than nothing that GoodDay says he realized he shouldn't call other humans "it" after only a few days, but I'd prefer that GoodDay be sanctioned for a topic ban violation if he ever does so again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @GoodDay:, yes, you can withdraw if you want to. Just say that's what you want, and someone will come along and close this. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If this were just a matter of misusing a pronoun to other editors I can see a strong justification for modifying the TBAN into something that more specifically covers that issue. However, looking at the diffs presented in the original AE request that wasn't the only concern raised. Given that GoodDay hasn't addressed the other issues brought up in the original AE request I am minded to decline but I'll allow GoodDay a chance to respond in more detail before !voting that way. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sideswipe9th: please include evidence to support the statement in your second sentence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]