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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

FDW777 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)16:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Goliath74 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe

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

1. 16:35, 08 April 2022 Restores content with unreliable reference without explanation
2. 16:35, 08 April 2022 Again restores content with unreliable reference without explanation, despite my very clear edit summary of"rv. See previous edit summary. The discussion has been had regarding that website. It isn't reliable. Per WP:BURDEN, anyone restoring the information needs to cite a proper reference, not an unreliable blog

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/a

Ifdiscretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (seeWP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words 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.

• Extended confirmed protected for the duration.FDW777, whileGoliath74's edits to the page might be subpar, it's only 2 reverts and this article isn't subject toWP:1RR right now.El_C11:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I guess if@Goliath74: can agree to not make further edits with that source, and todiscuss contents and sourcing going forward, we can call it aday-o --Deepfriedokra(talk)15:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• ECP should work. I note that Goliath74 rarely edits, with months between edits, and wouldn't be surprised if he's not going to again for a while.Doug Wellertalk10:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I propose that this be closed as "article ECP protected" (thanks El_C). FDW777 was correct to bring this here but the discretionary sanctions notice was only a minute before Goliath74's second revert and that user is a very infrequent editor and can be excused for not being aware of how DS works.Goliath74 should be aware that any future issues of a similar nature would be likely to result in a sanction (block or topic ban).Johnuniq (talk)03:20, 13 April 2022 (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 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Vladimir.copic (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)03:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBEE

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

1. 10 April Disruption/vandalism of an RfC
2. 10 April Disruption/vandalism of an RfC
3. 10 April Disruption/vandalism of an RfC
4. 10 April Disruption/vandalism of an RfC
5. 10 April Disruptively editing away from the status quo (the result of an RfC) while a new RfC is in progress. They cite votes in the ongoing RfC as justification.
6. 8 April Accusing an editor (myself) of being an SPA on Jimbo Wales' talk page.
7. 9 April Uncivil behaviour after receiving an AE warning
8. 9 April Uncivil behaviour at AN/I
9. 9 April Battleground/uncivil behaviour
10. 9 April Declined report at edit war noticeboard
11. 8 April Baseless accusations of edit warring
12. 8 April Baseless accusations of edit warring
13. 8 April Repeated re-adding of POV tag
14. 8 April Repeated re-adding of POV tag
15. 8 April Repeated re-adding of POV tag
16. 9 April Repeated re-adding of POV tag
17. 8 April Bludgeoning

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 19 February 2022 1 week block for disruptive editing

Ifdiscretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (seeWP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• DS alert sent on 8 April[1]
• AE warning logged on 9 April[2]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[3]

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

My contributions to the attempt to improve the article:

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

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

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

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

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

Reply regarding GizzyCatBella:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[11] - adds "insignia used by the NaziSS divisions" to the text of the article lead! Very helpful!

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

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

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

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

[15]

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

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

Comment regarding and replying toEl_C:

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

Rebuttal toBSMRD

How is it that you are accusing me of exhibiting unhelpful, battleground behavior/editing, when your edit count[16] shows that you have made 28 edits to the Azov Battalion article proper, at least 6 of which are outright reverts:

1 -[17]

2 -[18]

3 -[19]

4 -[20]

5 -[21] - (including this deliberately deceptive edit calling the op-ed author published a highlyWP:PARTISAN and outdated source, American memoirist Lev Golinkin, as a "Ukrainian affairs writer" and aUkrainian!?! The piece is clearly not fact-checked of course, being published in 2019 yet calling Biletsky Azov's leader, attributing to him a long-discredited quote, claiming he's a member of theRada... all untrue as of 2016, when he was was booted out of Azov and founded his own political party which was preciselyzero parliamentary representation, himself included)

6 -[22] - (and this telling edit summary: "(They are neo-Nazis, IDK how that is "overkill per their articles" when we call the orgs neo-Nazi in their articles)" as nonsensical as it is disrespectful to all the scholarship and respective news orgs who have said otherwise)

...and including at least one edit[23] edit,which simply amplifies Kremlin disinfo. (without qualification, by explicating Moscow's use of the existence of the Azov unit, an outfit of 1,500 max nationwide, as justification for it's Siege ofMariupol',a city of half a million largely Russian-speaking people, nearly half of which identify asethnic Russians).

Incidentally, the Avoz unit itself is comprised of a majority of Russian-speakers, but, again, as with so much other sourced information in the article that doesn't suit the simplistic Kremlin narrative, a mere 2min look at the recent edit history of the article will uncover the slow-motion tag-team edit-warring that keeps this kinda info out of the article. I'm referring of course to not justBSMRD, butVladimir.copic (Russian),[24](removal of multiple RS)GizzyCatBella,[25]Mhorg (Russian),[26] andAquillion[27] not only managing to keep the "neo-Nazi" label intact by appealing to sources such asYouTube,The Telegraph (2014),Al Jazeera,RT (Kremlin-run), andRBC (Kremlin-run) - but they've even managed to delete any evidence that there is actually on ongoing dispute over theNPOV of the article, by repeatedly deleting even theNPOV-Disputed tag![28],[29],[30], and countless more diffs.

You have contributed no sources, nor engaged in any meaningful discussion on Talk, and yet somehow you have well over 30 edits on Wikipedia's Admin and Arbitration requests regarding this very article! If that is not an indication ofWP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, I don't know what is....EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk)12:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what has been provided above, EnlightenmentNow1792seemstoberevertingany messages regarding their behavior off their talk page as "personal attacks" (that's just a small sample, more can be seenhere). Now, by itself there is nothing wrong with that however, in addition, they have shown nothing but contempt for Wikipedia's administrative processes and ruling, shown both in the above posting,this comment and their response tothis warning. They clearly have no desire to change their behavior or regard any other editors or administrators encouragement to do so. In fact, they don't seem to have changed their behavior at all since the last time they were blocked, and I doubt anything short of a broader/longer block or TBAN will do anything.BSMRD (talk)07:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ialways advocate against sanctioning editors unless it's absolutely necessary and justified but this case requires administrative intervention, unfortunately. Edit warring[31],[32],[33],[34] andWP:BLUDGEON on theAzov Battalion talk page including "hijacking" RFCs[35] (modifying other people's text to their liking[36] see the complaint that followed -->[37]), the repeated removal of other people's comments[38],[39],[40] are just samples that are outside criteria that must be followed.(I could go on with more examples of disruptive behaviour but I believe these already presented are enough) -GizzyCatBella🍁12:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• March 31 list of sources eg. Umland, A. (2019) etc -[41]
• April 9again Umland, A. (2019) etc -[42]
• April 11yet again (just a few minutes before coming here) Umland (2019) -[43]

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

On top of the bizarre accusation of misconduct against our finest administrators[44] and here too[45]I believe it's worth noting the strange remark posted here[46] that has been copy-pasted from talk page of ToBeFree[47] where EnlightenmentNow1792 went on a block shopping journey just a day earlier. The editor exhibits clear battleground behaviour. I'm not sure 🤔 but perhaps they require also a break to recognize it. -GizzyCatBella🍁19:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And now this[48] .. contesting another fine admin. Oh Lord.. -GizzyCatBella🍁20:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also share the view of Firefangledfeathers -->[49]EnlightenmentNow1792 has the potential to be a positive acquisition to our project if they only understood how to act accordingly to our standards. Theonly issue is their conduct which might be happening because of a lack of experience. I hope they learn from this incident and revise their behaviour. I really hope so and I would welcome rather soft sanctions. -GizzyCatBella🍁03:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since it seems some sanction is likely, I won't add to the pile of diffs, but if admins feel more are needed I've got them. For the record, EN1792 has a great strength in compiling and sharing quality source lists. They present themselves, convincingly, as someone with an extensive library and source access and the willingness to spend hours digging out the relevant info. I hope they get a chance to show off their more civil, collaborative side.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)02:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Recommend TBAN. This user is needlessly combative (WP:BATTLEGROUND)and they lack the required competence (WP:CIR) to edit the topic area at this time. Little if any reflection or introspection were ever shown (perhaps because they fail to realize that thereis a problem), so it's probably for the best.El_C17:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This user does not understandWP:INVOLVED. I've interacted with them in an administrative capacity only, and of course, I made nothreats. That they call my warning that is further proof of intractable BATTLEGREOUND.El_C18:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That's right, I pretty much stopped setting TBANS to automatically expire a while ago. Been burned too many times before. Also, obviously, we can't tell when Russian atrocities are going to end in the Ukraine, so how do we set any kind of a clock on the ban? How can any duration not be arbitrary, in that sense?El_C00:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with El C. I'm particularly interested in the user's editing after they were warned by El C, and quite a lot of the diffs offered indeed postdate that warning. This is a very obvious case of disruptive battleground/steamroller editing, and a topic ban seems necessary. Indeed, I thought of simply issuing one myself, per my sole admin discretion, but it would perhaps be a pity not to reinforce it by having it come from multiple admins here at AE. I note and appreciateMy very best wishes's recommendation of a 2-4 months' ban only, but I can't agree. Time-limited bans can be simply waited out, and then users can return with their bad habits intact, without having had to show they can otherwise edit constructively. Topic bans should normally be indefinite, IMO. In this case, an appeal in three months' time could be entertained. EnlightenmentNow1792, if you are indeed topic banned indefinitely with a three-month wait to appeal, as I recommend, you can make that appeal more credible by showing good editing in other areas, and also in the EE area on oursister projects. (You would only be banned from the English Wikipedia.)Bishonen |tålk22:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• I support an indefinite topic ban.Doug Wellertalk10:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• An indefinite topic ban for EnlightenmentNow1792 is required. I have seen credible claims (although of course nothing is really credible in the fog of war) that a lot of fighters have joined theAzov Battalion because of its effectiveness, and the new fighters have no Nazi leanings. It might therefore be unfortunate to label the whole of the current organization as neo-Nazi (that'smight—I have no reliable sources). Even if that and more were true, EnlightenmentNow1792's approach is not compatible with a topic under discretionary sanctions.Johnuniq (talk)03:53, 13 April 2022 (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 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Fram (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)10:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

MbIam9416 (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:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies

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

1. [50] Creation ofXiasi Inu (cryptocurrency) three times: 4 March 2022 (moved to draft), 4 March again (deleted atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xiasi Inu (cryptocurrency)), 14 April 2022 (tagged for G4)
2. 5 March 2022 Vandalizing Dogecoin to promote Xiasi
3. 4 March 2022 Adding link to Xiasi to completely unrelated page (self-reverted one huor later)
4. Xiasi Inu 6 April 2022 Creation of same page at different title
5. Inbetween warnings and a block for disruptive behaviour (including the removal of AfD templates), see their talk page

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

Ifdiscretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (seeWP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Warned about the GS on 4 March2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [51]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words 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.

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are foundhere. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (seeWP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Anonimu (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) –Anonimu (talk)14:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Indefinite topic ban from Eastern European topics, imposed atWP:AE#Anonimu, logged atWikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2022#Eastern_Europe

Administrator imposing the sanction

El C (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA)

Notification of that administrator

dif

I did not have the occasion to make a statement on the original AE request, since it was closed in just 2 hours. Since enforcing admin said the ban was applied for supposed "tendentious editing", I'll just go through the "offending" diffs and show that they were just strict application ofWP:5P2 (more specificallyWP:V,WP:NPOV, andWP:ATT). Do note that this is a current topic, thus should be judged according to data available at the time of edit, not info which appeared later:

• [52] and[53] add a neutral description to photos published by a non-independent, non-reliable source (the Ukrainian government); the first diff also fixes a obviously wrong caption (a photo the Ukrainian gvt says was taken in Mariupol is presented as taken in Bucha), and introduces text fromBBC: "accused Russia of using its Iskander short-range ballistic missile with a cluster munitions warhead. But he later corrected himself, "Russia's defence ministry also said that Tochka-U rockets were used in the Kramatorsk strike, blaming Ukraine's armed forces for the attack." "The ministry insisted it did not use the type of Tochka-U missile that was fired, whereas the Ukrainian military did."
• [54] Moves source to the supported text and clarifies info fromBBC source: "analysts point to images and videos on social media that appear to show the Russian military using the Tochka-U."
• [55] and[56] removes text that violatesWP:ONUS. While sourced, the text does not indicated how exactly is relevant to the article, and none of the sources warrant its inclusion in a page about "war crimes". The same for[57], which moreover misrepresentsHaaretz, which says about the subject "Abrazhevich recounted, adding that she had also heard reports of looting"
• [58] This is simply fake sourcing,Euronews does not support one word of the article text.
• [59] is attributing text, as theWashington Post says "About 400 women, children and elderly people had taken refuge inside Art School No. 12 in the Left Bank district of eastern Mariupol before it was bombed by Russia on Sunday,according to Mayor Vadym Boychenko and the city council. The Washington Post could not independently verify the claim.".[60] is also attribution, asCNN states "according to local authorities, as hundreds of thousands of people remain trapped in the coastal Ukrainian city that has been encircled for weeks by Russian forces.", whileSky News says "People are buried under rubble after a theatre in Mariupol - where hundreds of people are reported to have been sheltering - was bombed by Russian forces,local officials have said". So is[61], asCBS news says "Ukraine documents alleged atrocities by retreating Russians" and "Ukraine's troops found brutalized bodies with bound hands, gunshot wounds to the head and signs of torture after Russian soldiers withdrew from the outskirts of Kyiv,authorities said Sunday"."Authorities said they were documenting evidence ofalleged atrocities". TheTimes never calls the massacre "war crimes".
• [62] is also attribution. PerAl Jazeera, "Thomas-Greenfield said the United Stateshad not yet confirmed the allegations made on Saturdayby the Mariupol city council", "Kallas saidthe allegations of Ukrainians deported to Russia", whileThe Guardian says "Russian forces are sending Ukrainian citizens to “filtration camps” before forcibly relocating them to Russia,according to the accounts of two women".

[63] completes attribution presented in source, perthe Guardian "Ukraine’s attorney general is gathering a dossier of claims about the Russian use of local children to avoid fire when in retreat from around Ukraine’s capital and elsewhere. Coaches of childrenwere said...It was further alleged that children had been taken as hostages"

• [64] restores consensus version as indicated by talk pagehere; there was no consensus for removal, as evident from the discussionhere. Consensus for inclusion is also proven by the fact the phrase, reformulated and more clearly attributed, iscurrently] still in the lede.
• [65] fixes misrepresentation of sources, and violation ofWP:V andWP:NPOV, asWashignton Post says "showed at least nine people, including one child, lying in the street of a residential area in the town of Bucha, north of Kyiv, after Russian forces retreated.They appear to be dead." Words such as "evidence" and "atrocities" are not used at all. The type of source presented by The Kyiv Independent (probably non-RS in this context) is qualified, and text is presented as allegation, asKyiv Independent attributes it to a photographer: "According to the photographer Mikhail Palinchak, under the blanket are the bodies of one man and two or three naked women that Russians attempted to burn down".BBC does not mention executions, so I corrected the article text.
• [66] restored text sourced toCNN.[67] restores text sourced toUN Human rights watch (page 8, section D). As evidence of consensus for inclusion, they are still in the article and have not been removed in the past week.
• [68] adds information fromBBC: "two are wearing recognisable Ukrainian military uniforms".
• [69] introduces information fromWashington Post: "Russia’s Defense Ministry [...] claimed some of the footage of bodies in Bucha was “fake” and accused Ukrainian forces of killing people by shelling Bucha." "Kyiv’s mayor, Vitali Klitschko, said the discovery of the graves could “only be described as genocide.”", "Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, [...] accusing Russia of carrying out a “massacre,” requested that the ICC visit the scene “to collect all the evidence of these war crimes” "
• [70] fixes misrepresentation of theNew York Times: "the town’s hospital was shelled.It is not entirely clear who hit the building, but local residents accuse the Russians of firing into the structure" "In the morgue, beside the three dead Russian soldiers, Dr. Volkova pointed toa body bag in the corner of the room. “This person was tortured to death,” she said." "war crimes" are never mentioned.
• [71] add lack of information as explicit fromCBC "It was not clear who the people were or under what circumstances they were killed."

[72] adds Russian claims, as reported by several RS, includingCNN "At least 50 people [...] were killed after Russian forces carried out a missile strike [...]Ukrainian officials said", "Zelensky said that the "Russian military hit the railway terminal"", "On April 8, the Russian armed forces did not conduct or plan any artillery fires in the city of Kramatorsk. We emphasize that the Tochka-U tactical missiles, the wreckage of which was found near the Kramatorsk railway station and published by eyewitnesses, are used only by the Ukrainian armed forces."[73] removes fake attribution to this same CNN source.

• [74] restores info reported by theUN High Commissioner for Human rights: "We are also looking intoallegations of indiscriminate shelling by the Ukrainian armed forces in Donetsk and in other territory controlled by the self-proclaimed ‘republics’."

I fail to see how adding info from sources such as BBC, CNN, The Guardian, The New York Times, Euronews, CBS News, and the UN High Commissioner for Human rights and reporting the original attribution (explicit in these RSs) instead of presenting Ukrainian claims inWP:WIKIVOICE can be consideredWP:Tendentious editing.Anonimu (talk)15:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am able to provide "clear evidence" of"malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia" by Volunteer Marek. Therefore, perWP:SPADE andWP:GOODFAITH, I think adequately describing his actions does not qualify as incivility. I will only list diffs if requested to do by administrators (just collecting the ones from last month will take three or four times as much as my original statement).Anonimu (talk)15:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE toUser:Jayron32:WP:GOODFAITH says explicitly "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). " I restate that I'm open to list such "obvious evidence" if requested to do so.Anonimu (talk)16:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, maybe I was wrong in my interpretation of policy and calling Volunteer Marek directly a vandal was unnecessary, I can admit to that. How about the diffs related to content, could you point out exactly which ones are in violation of what policy? Please also read my statement relate to diffs presented by MVBW (I left them out initially for the sake of brevity). I can only improve if I'm told what I'm doing wrong.Anonimu (talk)17:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I politely ask you again to indicate effective bias in my mainspace edits. Anyway, if I were to accept a temporary topic ban (which I don't find warranted), topic area is too broad, letting me very little space to contribute (if you check my edit history, it is mostly related to Eastern Europe, all articlesI have created created would be covered by it). I already haveabout 6 articles in the pipeline, but all are about Romania, which will fall within the scope and thus I won't be able to move them out of userspace. Basically, the point I'm taking home right now is that I'm indefed for calling another user a vandal.Anonimu (talk)17:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE toUser:El C: I do agree that every person's death is tragic and cannot be justified unless done in immediate self defence. However, that does not mean WP editors canmake a judgement call and declare that one specific death qualifies as a war crime, considering that even legal experts fail to agree what exactly constitutes a war crime. Unless, of course, there's a RS saying that, and,at that moment, there were none.Anonimu (talk)18:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering it's a highly contentious issue regarding an ongoing event, it was my belief that such a conjecture can only be made if backed by a RS, otherwise it would amount toWP:SYNTH.Anonimu (talk)18:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My original statement had 150 words of original contribution and the rest was just piecewise explaining the diffs from the original enforcement with quotes from the sources (some are paywalled, some have a count limit per IP, some require registration, some times readers fail to check them at all). If a list is made of what particular diffs are problematic and resulted in the original enforcement, I will trim the others from the original statement.Anonimu (talk)06:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE toUser:Seraphimblade: Regarding the diff you mention: it was actually a revert of thisedit, which happened while adiscussion was still ongoing and apparent consensus, was, despite the claim of the editor, for the inclusion of the text. Since the torture part did appear to summarize thesection, as also indicated in the linked discussion, while the second part was explicitly supported by the source, I though at the moment it was the right thing to do. As you are well aware, refs in the lede are generally discouraged on WP, and I didn't consider it necessary to add the other source (namelyThe Guardian), as it was already cited in the article text.Anonimu (talk)06:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE toUser:Johnuniq: I fail to see how exactly that edit is an issue of competence or twisting the situation.Washington Post literally says "Ukrainian officials on Sunday accused Russia of bombing an art school in Mariupol where hundreds of people had been sheltering in recent days", and further below "About 400 women, children and elderly people had taken refuge inside Art School No. 12 in the Left Bank district of eastern Mariupol before it was bombed by Russia on Sunday,according to Mayor Vadym Boychenko and the city council.The Washington Post could not independently verify the claim.", whileCNN says "the city council said the building was acting as a shelter for an estimated 400 people." I fail to see how "Ukrainian officials", and "mayor" and "city council" of a Ukrainian city cannot be summarized as "Ukrainian authorities".Anonimu (talk)06:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE to@Swarm:. As I notedbelow, edits shown by MVBW are justified byWP:V,WP:NOR andWP:ATT, while their description by MVBW does constitute egregious violations ofWP:NPA. Regarding "evidence" by Biruitorul (which has in the past has brought repeated spurious accusations against me and has engaged and still engaging in personal attacks), I note that considering thediscussion of the misuse of sources and failure to verify text as evidence for wrongful editing will defeat the very objective of having talk pages at all. The rest of Biruitorul's comment is just yet another personal attack (the claim that I'm both "pro-Putinist" and pro-Communist is particularly laughable, considering Putin is notably anti-communist and has justified the invasion of Ukraine by claiming "Ukraine is an artificial state created by the Bolsheviks"). Regarding Turgidson's comments:[75] indicatesdiscussion of unreliable sources and[76] showsWP:ATTRIBUTION ofWP:EXTRAORDINARY claims made by the subject of the article. ([77] is Turgidson's own edit, he probably added it by error). I fail to see how any of these constitutes improper editing.Anonimu (talk)08:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What we see above is a classic case ofWP:ICANTHEARYOU. Instead of reflecting on the series of errors that has brought him to this dire situation, and wondering why an unbiased community is revolted by his conduct, he attempts to shift blame onto productive, disinterested editors, meanwhile launching tendentious allegations of personal attacks, and presenting his own drain of resources as mere disinterested promotion of impartiality. Given that he has been editing Wikipedia since 2005, this can only be interpreted as bad faith. Apply the full range of the topic ban, and let him return to the Eastern Europe area only after expressing sufficient understanding of his errors. --Biruitorul^Talk08:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect process and add your comments to the appropriate section.Anonimu (talk)09:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MVBW's statement is actually a list of personal attacks, at it attributes to me beliefs I do not hold. Do note that perWP:V andWP:NOTTRUTH, one editor's personal beliefs are irrelevant as long as he edits according toWP:NPOV. So here we go:

• [78]. This was removed perWP:ONUS andWP:DUEWEIGHT.BBC does not use the expression "war crimes" anywhere in the article.
• [79] This was removed perWP:ONUS andWP:DUEWEIGHT. "war crimes" are not mentioned bySpace.com,Al Jazeera,Associated Press orThe New Voice of Ukraine. Note that the refs to Maxar link to the company's home page and its presentation of its general work, thus we have a case of fake referencing.
• [80] I already discussed above:Haaretz says about the subject "Abrazhevich [a young student in Kharkov] recounted, adding that shehad also heard reports of looting". That's a rumour, not a witness account.
• [81] This is restoration of content perapparent consensus on talk page. The source is theUN High Commissioner for Human Rights: "We are also looking intoallegations of indiscriminate shelling by the Ukrainian armed forces in Donetsk and in other territory controlled by the self-proclaimed ‘republics’. "
• [82] I don't have an opinion since I'm not a legal expert. However the word "illegal" is used neither byAmnestyInternational, nor byHumanRights Watch. HRW does say "An international treaty banning cluster munitions has been adopted because of their widespread indiscriminate effect and long-lasting danger to civilians. Cluster munitions typically explode in the air and send dozens, even hundreds, of small bomblets over an area the size of a football field. Cluster submunitions often fail to explode on initial impact, leaving duds that act like landmines.Neither Russia nor Ukraine is among the ban treaty’s 110 states parties." Thus, while it is undoubtedly immoral, we have no source saying the use of cluster munitions is illegal. My edit removedWP:OR.Anonimu (talk)16:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly request that MVBW's statement that I am "trying to whitewash crimes" be removed as a gross violation ofWP:NPA andWP:CIVILAnonimu (talk)18:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear, VM's report was terrible. So long, needlessly so. Which then unsurprisingly reflects in this appeal. And the weird thing is that VM actually knows better. He has argued multiple times, on this very noticeboard, about how a responding party needsmore space than the complaining one. And yet here we are.

I looked at a couple of other examples from VM's lengthy complaint that were questionable. Like, claims of 1RR vios for pages not subject to 1RR. Also, RE:Euronews source, I'm not sure what happened there, but "terror" is mentioned in the aforementioned titled "Ukraine war: Distress and destruction as Russia continues its assault," which can be foundhere.

Anyway, I digress. What I was getting at is that the evidence submitted by MVBW was what prompted me to act so decisively. Otherwise, the report from VM seemed pretty TLDR-impenetrable. So I would advise the appellant to focus on those diffs rather than on those submitted by VM. Personally, I believe that that evidence is rather damning, but if the general feel is that this was too hard too fast on my part, I'll definitely take note.El_C15:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, point taken and understood.El_C16:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE:AdrianHObradors' defense of the appellant, let's just look at thefirst diff they list. It concerns mention of a pregnant woman who, after Russians bombed a maternity and children's hospital in Mariupol, was seriously injured and her infant stillborn, and who later succumbed to her wounds. This was the appellant's edit summary upon removal of this mention (in full):the hospital air strike has been described as a war crime. The death of that woman has not been. Am I the only one confounded by this... (I don't even have words)?El_C17:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anonimu, if the hospital bombing was, as you yourself had said,described as a war crime, and that woman was killed by that bombing, then... (I can't believe I even need to write this).El_C18:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RandomCanadian, yes, they are over the word limit, but so was VM in the original report. And while, regardless, I don't feel comfortable clerking an appeal that concerns myself, I did ask VM to trim his own material (which he sorta did). I'd recommend the appellant do the same (but less sort of).El_C03:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El_C imposed the topic ban on Anonimu for tendentious editing (well deserved, even if not ALL of Anonimu's edits were problematic). I'm guessing from El_C's statement (replying to MVBW) that the tendentious editing by itself was enough to merit a topic ban. My initial AE report in good deal also focused on persistent incivility by Anonimu, refusal to tone down attacks, and generalWP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude. Anonimu is also still under 1RR restriction (which they've broken numerous times) and a civility parole (see original report). Here are the diffs which show Anonimu making repeated and escalating personal attacks and refusing to stop calling my good faithed edits 'vandalism' despite being asked/instructed to do so by several editors:

1. First instance
2. 2nd instance --- me requesting he stop:[83].
3. 3rd time --- I again ask him to stop[84].
4. Escalates, 4th time --- I again ask him to stop[85]
5. Again, 5th time --- I ask them again[86].
6. And again, 6th time --- I ask them to stop[87]. Someone else asks them to stop[88]
7. Does it again, 7th time and accuses the other user of being my sockpuppet (lol)
8. And again, 8th time restores section header. Yet another usercollapses and then informs them[89] as to how their offensive headings violate policy.
9. And again, 9th time.User:Mathglot also explains to Anonimu what is and isn't vandalism[90].See also[91]. The previous user,User:Chuckstablers complains to Anonimu about the accusations of sockpuppetry[92][93] and[94]
10. Anonimu does it again, 10th time --- again is asked to stop[95][96]
11. And again, 11th time and12th time --- I ask again for him to stop[97]
12. Responds doing it again, 13th time
13. And14th time. --- Again ask him to stop[98] (andhere
14. Chooses to do it again immediately, 15th time

I've been extremely patient, but dealing with someone who does this over and over again is simply impossible. Volunteer Marek15:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not even read any diffs and comments by VM in his request. However, I provided 5 diffs which clearly demonstrate that Anonimu should not be editing in this subject area. And yes,that diff (see comments by RandomCanadian) shows exactly the same. It does not matter why exactly Anonimu does it. Hence, I would definitely endorse the topic ban by El_C.My very best wishes (talk)16:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I copy paste these diffs with my comments for convenience:

1. [99] - Anonimu believes that bombing pregnant women in a hospital was not a war crime
2. [100] - Anonimu believes that mass bombing of civilians in Mariupol was not a war crime, even though it was described a "humanitarian catastrophe" by International Committee of the Red Cross in text he removes
3. [101] (edit summary by Anonimu: "source mentions not reports, but rumors heard by locals") - This is a misrepresentation of the source by Anonimu. The article in Haaretz[102] tells about reports by eyewitnesses, not rumors.
4. [103] (edit summary by Anonimu: "rv vandalism ..."). Here, Anonimu includes to thelead of the page that "Ukrainian authorities have been accused of ... indiscriminate shelling on civilian areas" with a reference tothis. No, the body of page (and the source) do not include any credible claims that Ukrainian authorities indiscriminately shell their own civilians.My very best wishes (talk)01:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. [104] - Anonimu believes that use of cluster munitions is legal, even thoughHuman Rights Watch found that it was not (in the text Anonimu deleted in this diff)

Based on these andthis diffs, I think Anonimu is trying to whitewash war crimes committed by Russian military.

Diffs #1, #2 and #5. The large-scale bombings of civilians, including pregnant women and hospitls are awar crime essentially as a matter of fact. Removing such info with such justification by Anonimu is a textbook example of POV-pushing I believe.

Diffs #3 and #4. I leave it to admins to decide if it was a manipulation and misinterpretation of sources by Anonumu, but I think it clearly was.My very best wishes (talk)18:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One can easily find more diffs. For example,[105] (edit summary:rm fake sourcing, which IS vandalism (none of the RS include or talk about this photo)). What? The sources (such as[106]) do include very graphic photos and video of civilians killed in Bucha. Perhaps these sources include not exactly same photo, but something shot from a different angle, but does it matter? Calling this "fake sourcing" and vandalism...My very best wishes (talk)19:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

additional comments

• Looking at other edits by Anonumu, I would support a wide EE ban by El_C because there are same problems in other areas. Some diffs:

1. edit summary: "failed verification, no mass rapes, just "problems of rape and pillage" (this is about removal of text starting from "At the beginning of the occupation, mass rapes of Romanian women by Soviet soldiers") - so, according to Anonimu, those were just rapes of many women, but not mass rapes. That's why he removed that sourced content. Also note him changing a redirect fromRomanian prisoners of war in the Soviet Union to justprisoner of war. Why? Same revert again[107].
2. edit summary:none of these are characterized as mass killings by sources - The numbers of victims in the removed text vary from 6,000 to 20,000. Not a mass killing?
3. [108] - Note removed categories and edit summary: "just one claim". What? His poisoning by NKVD is actually well known. The page tells "the biochemistIlya Zbarsky revealed that the unexpected death of Koltsov was a result of his poisoning by the NKVD" [reference to Nature Genetics].My very best wishes (talk)22:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While some of their edits have merit (especially when confronting extreme Romanian nationalists), their POV is too much pro-Putin in order to be allowed to edit in ARBEE topics.

Also, they might be right about some dubious use of sources, but according toWP:PRESERVE fact-based content should be preserved and if better sources are needed, they should ask nicely and wait till those get provided.tgeorgescu (talk)16:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Some of the edits mentioned above are clear instances ofWP:FALSEBALANCE, and, unfortunately for the OP who does not seem to agree with the wider community, it is indeed tendentious to insist otherwise (for example[109]).RandomCanadian (talk /contribs)15:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs by Marek could on their own (IMHO) be enough for aWP:CIVIL/WP:NPA block...RandomCanadian (talk /contribs)15:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonimu:Stop digging! Calling edits by others "malicious" and accusing them of vandalism is well beyond the usual norms here. You disagreeing with someone does not make it vandalism. Even if it were actually disruptive editing (as in edit-warring), it would still not be vandalism. On the other hand, as I was saying, the evidence presented so far in regards to your edits is rather damning, and you're not helping your case.RandomCanadian (talk /contribs)15:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Reviewing admins (@El C:, but anybody else if you see this first): Is it just me or Anonimu is well over the word limit? Some clerking might be in order: I'd venture forth but maybe better to leave that to you. Cheers,RandomCanadian (talk /contribs)02:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this, and I am not sure if I am doing this correctly, is my first time on a discussion about an appeal. Also don't know how uninvolved I am as I have been keeping an eye over the subject and have been seeing the edits made by both Anonimu and Volunteer Marek, and sometimes trying to reach a compromise between them. I think they are both a bit biased, but they did find a bit of an equilibrium between each other. And I don't think Anonimu deserves the block (in regards of his edits of the article). The articles involving Ukraine are very hard to keep NPOV, and his contributions actually help balance it a little bit. Sometimes it is balanced a bit too much, but still helps.

I want to go over the statements made by My very best wishes:

1. [110] - The edit isn't about what Anonimu believes, source makes no mention of war crimes. It is probably a war crime, but either a better source should be found or he did well removing it. (SeeWP:SYNTH)
2. [111] - Again, this shouldn't be about what Anonimu believes, but his edits. And a humanitarian catastrophe is not the same as a war crime. War crimes cause humanitarian catastrophes, but so does war by itself.
3. [112] - The source is about local reports, which by themselves are not very reliable, and it is something that is often talked about on the talk page. Reports by locals or by the Ukrainian government that hasn't been verified by third parties are very unreliable.
4. [113] - I disagree with the call of vandalism, but what MVBW said is untrue. Source says "We are also looking into allegations of indiscriminate shelling by the Ukrainian armed forces in Donetsk and in other territory controlled by the self-proclaimed ‘republics’".
5. [114] - SeeCluster_munition#International_legislation. Neither Ukraine nor Russia (or the USA) subscribe to the Wellington Declaration, so calling it illegal is a bit confusing.

I do think Anonimu should stop claiming vandalism everywhere, but I do understand it is a very sensible thread and many get a bit heated up over it. In short, I think removing Anonimu from editing would actually be more negative than positive and make it harder to keep those articles with a neutral point of view.AdrianHObradors (talk)16:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anonimu's involvementhere, where he recently filibustered and distorted a non-controversial DYK for weeks on end, merely because it made the Romanian Communist regime appear in a negative light, is further proof that whatever productive contributions he may make, these are far outweighed by his tendentious battleground mentality. His new hobbyhorse, seeking to cast the Kremlin's latest aggression in a positive light, further cements this assertion. He wastes the time of productive editors, injects pro-Communist, pro-Putinist bias into articles, and is generally a nuisance. Thus, the wide-ranging topic ban is fully in order. --Biruitorul^Talk12:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Istrongly endorse the broad topic ban (including all areas of EE) imposed on Anonimu. He displays the same pattern of "vandal" accusations against established editors[115][116], tendentious and at times disruptive editing[117][118], etc, etc when editing articles about Romania and its relations with neighboring countries. In my experience of having to endure this painful pattern of behavior for many years, I would say at most 10% of his edits are constructive, no matter what the EE-related subject is.Turgidson (talk)20:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of what Anonimu was attempting is clear, and they shouldn't be allowed to edit pages of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The attitude that they had had has also been clearly excessive, I find it ridiculous to have to argue what constitutes vandalism to be able to call established editors vandals instead of... just not calling them vandals and have a more kind collaboration. So the topic ban regarding the invasion is appropriate.

I'm a bit less convinced that the ban should apply to all of Eastern Europe, but from my part, I've also had inexplicably disruptive cases with Anonimu. In the article Obște, I was continuously reverted by this user for my edits being "unsourced" and to "restore status quo" when it was either maintenance and good uncontroversial edits or the removal of an exonym for the Romanians that had been added for no apparent reason (nor sources)[119]. More on the history of the page[120]. I attempted discussion with this issue while this supposed dispute was still ongoing but I was ignored[121], as if this was some kind of test or lazy attempt by them to get their point through by making me give up or something.

Another example of their strange modus operandi, in the page Bender, Moldova (which is a Moldovan city under unrecognized Transnistrian occupation), I had a conflict with this user while trying to add the official name that the Moldovan government gives to the city (Tighina) to the lead[122]. They cited policies[123] that contradicted their stances[124] (some explanation needed: that policy they cited allows names to be kept if they are used in 10% of English-language sources, and I searched the names of both cities in Google and Google Scholar to prove this was the case). After this, they dropped citing policies and started mindless reverts[125][126] (their claim here is wrong, the official Moldovan name is Tighina, see this random document from the Moldovan government[127]), but they eventually gave up.

A third example, in Unification of Romania and Moldova, I added two polls on this issue[128] within a table in the article. One was actually not from the organization the table was for, and it also made a different question than the one this organization made for the poll. So, they decided to revert me, also removing the second poll which had no problem (???)[129]. I hadn't understood yet what was I wrong in so I reverted back[130], they did the same this time explaining it more precisely[131], so I re-added the second poll that had no problems at all[132]. This user cared enough to go and check the source of the first poll (and if they did that, it's obvious they also did for the second one) and noticed the error, but instead of fixing it themselves or at least noticing me in a nicer way, Anonimu reverted me also removing the second poll which I suspect they checked and saw had no problem. Once again, lazily trying to get their point through.

Anonimu has recurrently been, to put it simply, annoying, and that's clearly a strategy of them, a bad-faithed one. I'm still not entirely convinced that the topic ban should be this broad, because yes they have made some good edits, but cases like the ones I've cited abound with Anonimu, and I'm sure it would be a relief in general for Romania-related editors if these petty conflicts with them were over.SuperΨDro09:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I was a bit taken aback, as well, by the speed of the initial close by El_C, but their response, and especially the diffs by VM provided above, which outline clear tendencies towardsWP:TE in this topic area, including repeated mischaracterization of good-faith editing by others as "vandalism" (a pervasive and almostsine qua non hallmark of TE in my experience) and the mis-representation of source material presented by MVBW in the initial report leads me to believe, as an uninvolved admin, that the prior close was the correct one. IEndorse El_C's initial sanction. A few points in both directions 1) To Anonium: there is no requirement that any report be open for any particular length of time. While borderline cases can be left longer, when something is a very clear-cut violation of existing Arbitration-enforced sanctions, then quick responses are not uncommon here. This is not a court-of-law, this is a place to get admin's attention. 2) To El_C: the initial close was impenetrable from an outside reader, to say the least. I had a hard time following your rationale for closing, it consisted mostly of an admonishment of VM for exceeding word/diff counts, and very little explanation as to why you were issuing the sanctions. In the vein of "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"; having a clear rationale for a sanction would have helped immensely. It doesn't need to be verbose, but it should leave little doubt in anyone's mind that the correct action was taken. --Jayron3215:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anonimu: Please spare me the talking-down to. I've been an active admin for 14 years and an editor for several years longer than that. I am not discussing the fineries of what is and is not vandalism and bad-faith editing. I amtelling you that you are wrong. Straight up. The edits noted by VM above arenot vandalism in any way, despite your calling them such, and disagreements can exist between two people editing in good faith. Every word you type denying that is not going to convince anyone that the sanctions imposed by El_C above are unjust, indeed, your continued stance on your indefensible position is likely to convince people that theydidn't go far enough. Don't try to defend yourself, because you're so obviously in the wrong here, it is basically indefensible. Convince us you intend to change. I haven't seen any of that yet. --Jayron3216:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anonimu: Thank you for your change in tone here. This board does not deal with content issues, only behavior. As admins, our role is in making sure that editor behavior does not interfere with smooth operation of the encyclopedia, and that conflicts are handled thecorrect way (by using article talk pages, by building consensus, by seekingWP:DR and outside opinions when there is a disagreement) and NOT the wrong way, such as using reverts, or characterizing other editors as malicious or their edits as vandalism, or whatever. My concern here is with the behavior, not with the content itself. Your behavior has been a problem, and it is for that you were rightly sanctioned by El_C. My recommendation is that you ride out the sanction and edit collegially in other areas of Wikipedia for a while. 6 months is usually the standard amount of time between appeals; if you can show 6 months of improved behavior while editing outside of theWP:ARBEE area of concern, then you stand a better chance of succeeding with your appeal. --Jayron3217:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The original request was closed too soon, but the result was reasonable. If nothing else the repeated unfounded accusations of vandalism - which continued after several explanations of what "vandalism" means here, and which were even repeated in this appeal - are enough to justify a sanction IMO. And while some of the edits cited are at least justifiable,this strikes me as a textbook example offalse balance.Hut 8.518:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Also I think the topic ban should be narrowed to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and related topics, I don't think there's a need for a topic ban from the whole of Eastern Europe.Hut 8.519:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll disagree with the "too soon" assertions here. Arbitration enforcement is meant to facilitate quick resolution, and indeed can be done without any request made here at all. There's no minimum length of time for a request to stay open. That said, I think an excellent example of the problem (which the individual requesting the appeal actually showed on their own accord in the appeal, indicating they're rather unaware of the problem) is this edit:[133], which changes "abusing" to "torturing" in the article, while the cited reference ([134]) contains no assertion or even mention of torture whatsoever. Misrepresentation of source material is a very serious issue which entirely supports a topic ban, and so I would decline this appeal.Seraphimblade^{Talk to me}19:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Istrongly disagree with the general statement that closing a report in 2 hours is "too soon", which implies it was in error. AE does not require a consensus, and some cases are obvious. Prolonging an obvious case of disruption isn't helpful to the good faith editors in that area. In fact, we don't even need WP:AE to issue discretionary sanctions, it is just handy for filing reports. Two hours isn't common, but was reasonable given the evidence. More often than not, report stay open too long here.Endorse sanction. As to narrowing it (per Hut8.5), I have no opinion.Dennis Brown -2¢19:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline appeal, endorse sanction. Re the fast close, in addition to Dennis Brown's point about helping good faith editors, I would argue that fast resolutions also do the sanctioned user a favor by letting them know how out-of-step they are. On that point, I offer[135] from Anonimu's statement which justifies the edit on the basis that the source wrote "according to Mayor ...". However, the edit inserted "the Ukrainian authorities claimed"—that is either a severe competence issue regarding the implication of the chosen language, or a blatant twisting of the situation. Re the scope of the topic ban, I endorse the broad EE scope. It would be up to Anonimu to request a narrowing based on an explanation of what edits they would like to make in the EE area.Johnuniq (talk)03:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The appeal does argue the sanction is too broad and gives examples of other edits Anonimu has made which relate to Eastern Europe. That is an extremely broad area and all the evidence of disruption presented relates to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.Hut 8.507:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not implacably opposed to narrowing the scope of a topic ban. It's just that at the time of my first comment above I had not seen any explanation of what EE edits were contemplated. I now see "topic area is too broad" with a brief explanation (after 1400 other words). I don't have time to investigate that at the moment but it would be helpful if someone independent from the dispute were to comment on why or why not the topic ban should be narrowed. That is, I would like to see someone say they have briefly investigated the material and support reducing the topic ban from all of Eastern Europe because the other material is neutral and beneficial.Johnuniq (talk)07:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse TBAN on anything and everything to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And I meananything. Broadly construed. And not just that one article! Having said that, a brief skim through tells me itmight be possible for Anonimu to edit constructively in other areas of EE. So it would be reasonable to reduce the scope of the TBAN. Looking at Anonimu's contribs, that's a huge subject area in and of itself.--Deepfriedokra(talk)11:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Endorse TBAN Eastern Europe Per MVBW, El C and Swarm, per Biruitorul and Turgidson --Deepfriedokra(talk)15:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am going to close this in 24 hours because I see a rough consensus forming --Guerillero^{Parlez Moi}12:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse TBAN, I totally agree with El C that MVBW's evidence alone renders this an open-and-shut case. The scope shouldnot be narrowed, per Biruitorul and Turgidson's evidence.~Swarm~^{sting}03:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the broad EE topic ban because of the evidence provided that the disruptive editing is not restricted to Russia/Ukraine but also has affected Romanian topics as well.Cullen328 (talk)16:46, 14 April 2022 (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 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Funcrunch (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)01:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

14Jenna7Caesura (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality

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

1. 00:34, 10 April 2022 Page move without discussion
2. 23:14, 29 March 2022 Page move without discussion
3. 04:03, 20 March 2022 Page move without discussion
4. 17:40, 11 November 2021 Page move without discussion

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Ifdiscretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (seeWP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

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

• Please reviewTalk:Causes_of_transsexuality#Changing_the_title.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk)01:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Does DS mean a 0 revert policy? If so, every single time, I reverted even once, I got a DS notice. Let me know is DS means 0-revert policy or no discussion allowed.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk)16:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Deepfriedokra is one of the editors who backed blocking me in 2021; I was asked to create an account and reveal personal information even though I was okay with IP editing.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk)16:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe I may have more DS's on my talk page that I probably deleted.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk)17:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• When I move the pages, I let them know that reversion of my page moves are okay. There were either discussions there as inTalk:Causes_of_transsexuality or I discussed when asked about my rationale.
• The main advocates ofCauses_of_transsexuality have refrained from casting a single vote atTalk:Causes_of_transsexuality#Requested_move_10_April_2022 to explain the selection of the "transsexuality" term.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk)15:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe users can be allowed to state that they believe another user's edits are transphobic, sexist, racist, and so on for example. I am not sure why a user has been be so thin-skinned. By the current standards, 98% of guests on broadcast and cable news would have to be cut off in the middle of the their interviews. I understand group think and admins wanting to form a coalition. However, is a personal vendetta more important that a positive contribution? Even after I yielded on edits, some users want to overdo by beating down on me. If the goal was proper naming of the article, then why hasn't one editor after 3 days made an argument in favor of the current title atTalk:Causes_of_transsexuality#Requested_move_10_April_2022? --14Jenna7Caesura (talk)05:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I express my judgment that Wikipedia is deteriorating badly. I studied the 3RR rule. I learned about 1RR rule. I now learn 0 RR rule. I use commonsense understanding of personal attacks. I now learn expressing an opinion that a person is transphobic, sexist, misogynist, man-hating, racist, and so on is itself an attack that you most of you say merit sanctions. What I see in mainstream media I don't dare to add here. I see some editors delete hundreds of reliable sources in this examplehttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_people_killed_for_being_transgender&diff=1079610221&oldid=1079461882 (with the deletion ofMuhlaysia Booker's name that numerous news outlets cited as an anti-trans murder) I am being told this is a good edit. I don't think that anyone from the left or right side of the political spectrum can make valuable contributions in this way; thus, Al Sharpton, Joy Reid, Tucker Carlson, and hundreds of mainstream journalists would be suppressed. Even Joe Biden would be sidelined when he called Putin a "killer" a couple of years ago. There are established editors who have don't dare to wade into controversy for fear of being targeted. I know that most of you don't listen to my rational voice, but I hope to sway some who can see atyranny of the majority here grasping at straws to cite arcane rules that even trial lawyer will have a hard time grasping.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk)19:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I am against personal attacks. At the same time, I am against weaponizing the no personal attacks rule to violate neutral editing. I am also against using the no personal attacks rule to attack me and target me.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk)20:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• RemovingMuhlaysia Booker from the article is an example of discrimination against a dead t girl. I am learning that on this platform if I as an editor write a complaint, then the said complaint is equated with a personal attack. Thus, of course, I am against personal attacks. Nevertheless, because of the way that a good rule of "no personal attacks" is exploited improperly, it suits me best to self-censor and disengage mostly.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk)19:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seethis about BLP-violating gender-related content being added to an article after getting the gender DS, and the attacks in the replyhere to another editor.

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

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

@14Jenna7Caesura: The community enforces theno personal attacks and other policies in an attempt to create a welcoming environment in which editors may work collaboratively to produce a quality on-line encyclopedia. If those policies restrict your ability to express yourself, maybe you would be more comfortable editing on some other platform. -Donald Albury19:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• 4 different alerts for 4 edits in different areas.Doug Wellertalk15:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• And that's all that I can see. I think either a page move ban or a topic ban would be appropriate here.Doug Wellertalk10:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Page move ban might be sufficient, and given the topic is an Arb DS area, I think that a total page move ban is within our authority to implement.Dennis Brown -2¢15:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me be the one dissenting voice to put the brakes on sanctions at this point, or indeed to at least consider lesser sanctions than the ones proposed above. The difs above show me a little overly aggressive application ofWP:BOLD, but 14Jenna7Caesura is also showing restraint as time has gone on... For example, in the April 10 move,WP:BRD was clearly followed, as the initial contested move has now resulted in a discussion. 14Jenna7Caesura has been made aware of DS in the past, but as far as I can tell,WP:ARBGSDS has no provisionrequiring a move discussion. I'm sure 14Jenna7Caesura isnow aware that such moves as they have been making have been unilaterally controversial, and that such moves in the future, especially those in the ARBGSDS remit, should ALWAYS be preceded by a consensus building discussion (which is to say, no moreWP:BOLD moves in the GS topic area). I don't think we need a ban to accomplish this as long as 14Jenna7Caesura agrees to common sense self-moderation including 1) refraining from enacting likely-to-be-controversial moves unilaterally 2) participate collegially in discussions about suchproposed moves before they happen, and refrain from accusations of bad faith orWP:BLUDGEONy-type responses from those that disagree with them. While the others above note that people have applied DS notices from multiple topic areas, while strictly true, this all relates to GS-related editing, even if the notices come from other sensitive topic areas. I think if we have some assurances that they intend to work more cautiously, I would be willing to forstall formal sanctions at this point, underWP:LASTCHANCE principles. I am but one voice here, so don't let my dissent overrule any consensus that may develop in another direction, but this is at least my feelings on the matter. --Jayron3215:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could back down to a formal warning, which at a minimum is warranted. WP:BOLD is the cornerstone of Wikipedia, as is WP:AGF, but the judgement is questionable in these moves and I would feel better if they simply offered (and stuck to) a voluntary refrain from moving pages for at least 6 months. That is all the AGF I have.Dennis Brown -2¢18:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I recommend an indefinite topic ban from gender and sexuality topics, broadly construed (WP:ARBGS). Notification of the discretionary sanctions was given on3 December 2021. The diffs in Crossroad's statement show an approach that is incompatible with editing in a contentious topic. Another example ishere (permalink) where 14Jenna7Caesura answers a good-faith (and good) comment about standard procedures with "You want to discriminate against t girls" and more. Regarding the reported four page moves, the first couple might be excused asbold but more than that shows a need to be separated from this topic.Johnuniq (talk)03:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I see a rough consensus for a topic ban forming. I am going to leave this open for 24 more hours to give admins time to react to Jayron32's comments --Guerillero^{Parlez Moi}12:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Per the reasoning given by Johnuniq, I support an indefinite topic ban from gender and sexuality topics, broadly construed (WP:ARBGS). -Donald Albury20:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I very largely come down on the side of Jayron, most of the diffs are benign, in good faith, and don't rise to the level of sanctions, the editor generally seems communicative and willing to improve, and IMO most of the rationales for implementing sanctions here are not good. However, Jenna's own comment above articulates that they don't support the NPA policy being "weaponized" against "neutral editing". This statement shows that the user's mindset is fundamentally incompatible with editing in a contentious topic area in which they have a strong bias, and to me there is no other option than a TBAN for that reason alone. I do think the user is here in good faith but once you resort to the whole Kafkaesque "accusing someone of personal attacks is a personal attack" argument, we cannot reasonably ask or expect our volunteers to continue to engage with you. Competent rational behavior and communication are required as a prerequisite to participate on this project.~Swarm~^{sting}03:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @14Jenna7Caesura: The editor removed it because it was unsourced, which they rationally explained on the talk page, as they did with all of their removals. You have ZERO reason not toassume good faith, ZERO reason to accuse them of transphobia when they are simply trying to maintain the scope that was decided by a formal consensus. It's an extreme, egregious accusation, and one you're throwing around as if it isn't completely nonsensical. You're saying this aboutSoWhy, literally one of the Arbitrators whosename is on the sanctions we're working under. I'm not going to play these games, if I see you repeat that or any other personal attack, I will be blocking you indefinitely without further warning.~Swarm~^{sting}21:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I now support a TBAN rather than just a page move ban.Doug Wellertalk16:22, 14 April 2022 (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 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

FDW777 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)07:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

108.34.231.7 (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/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

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

1. 14:35, 5 April 2022 Adds text to the Patrisse Cullors readingIn 2022, she was involved in purchasing another Southern California home for nearly $6 million using donation cash. At best highly misleading, since it wasn't purchased by her.
2. 02:34, 18 April 2022 ClaimsThe culprit, from the documents unearthed, is Mrs. Patrisse Cullors and she is being directly accused as the beneficiary of over $6 million dollar homes with misused BLM funds.
3. 00:28, 8 April 2022 Using Reddit for negative claims about a living person
4. 06:15, 18 April 2022 Claims leaving standard DS warnings are harassment
5. 06:11, 18 April 2022 Curiously, despite the above sees fit to edit war to retain their unwarranted comments on my talk page
6. 06:17, 18 April 2022 More edit warring on my talk page
7. 01:13, 19 April 2022 More edit warring on my talk page

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/a

Ifdiscretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (seeWP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I will explain the problem as simply as I can, summarising whatSnopes say (it's already covered atBlack Lives Matter Global Network Foundation#Real estate and salary dispute).

In April 2021Patrisse Cullors, founder ofBlack Lives Matter was accused of purchasing several properties using money donated to Black Lives Matter. These accusations were false, as she has significant indepdent sources of incom (this is already covered in her article). In April 2022 it was revealed the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation had spent $6million on a property. There is no direct suggestion in any reliable reference of wrongdoing by Patrisse Cullors in relation to the latter. Despite this being explained repeatedly and at length (I haven't included any Patrisse Cullors talk page posts as diffs, since it's pretty much every post that shows they don't get it), the IP editor still maintains their position (see diff#2) that an accusation of wrongdoing must go in the Patrisse Cullors article.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words 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.

• Not so sure DS is useful for an IP, even if allowed (WP:NOTHUMAN). I blocked the dynamic but seemingly stable IP for three months for DE/BLP issues, as a standard admin action.Dennis Brown -2¢11:00, 19 April 2022 (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 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MrOllie (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)12:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Stix1776 (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 -Talk:Circumcision has carried a Ds/talk notice template for this case for some time.

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

• First of all, I can't link directly to diffs of some of these because much of the talk page history was deleted because of an attempted outing of KlayCax by Stix1776. Please see the history ofTalk:Circumcision starting on 3 Feburary for deleted edits, as well asWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KlayCax for more deleted material. I'll supply the timestamp on the comment where I cannot supply a diff.

1. "But, you know, I can quote Wiki policy and discuss sources all day, and it won't change your opinion because you're not here to build an encyclopedia. At some point, you'll be blocked from Wikipedia for these behaviors." 02:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Gratuitous personal attack on KlayCax
2. "I'm going to come out and say it. You're editing and language style is too similar to KlayCax, and I'm officially reporting this as a sockpuppet account. Your editing history is incredible suspicious." 01:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Baseless accusation of OntologicalTree, Battleground mindset
3. 5:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC) "This is clearly has nothing to do with "trimming the lead" and everything to do with KlayCax's clear POV with circumcision. I've seen too many edits where KlayCax unabashedly lies and misrepresents the sources to portray circumcision positively to believe that they genuinely care about the quality of this article. Why insist on removing every small source fact critical for circumcision unless you have a serious POV problem??" - more personal attacks on KlayCax
4. 11:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC) " I've asked you multiple times where the OR word salad ... Clearly this is POV pushing. ... That this is regularly ignored speaks volumes of the confidence of KlayCax and defenders." More personal attacks on KlayCax

Ifdiscretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (seeWP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on16:32, 14 April 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There has been a lot ofWP:BATTLEGROUNDing onTalk:Circumcision over the last few months. Full disclosure, I've been the target of a bit of this (I would not consider myself a neutral party), but KlayCax has been the target most often. The personal attacks, attempted outing, and the reverting on vague or nonexistent grounds (seeTalk:Circumcision#Edits_warring_and_WP:BOLD for example) has been getting worse and worse. I think we need a sternly worded warning, if not a topic ban for Stix1776.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification

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

It should be noted thatI'm not the only one saying that KlayCax's behavior could merit a block. He's someone who's 49% of edits are circumcision related (I did some analysis in Excel), and 18% are reverts or reverted. The article just lost good article status, and the dispute tag I put up is mostly filled with his OR. Multiple editors have agreed with my concerns and have rolled back some of his edits, only for KlayCax to revert restore himself[136][137]. I counted KlayCax adding 146 word additions to the lead, mostly regarding religious justification for circumcision (I use the Who Wrote That app), but he wants to remove a few literally remaining words ethics and non-American disagreement with the procedure to "trim the lead".

I think it's fair that MrOllie's quotes are put in context:

"I've asked you multiple times where the OR word salad of in these situations, questions surrounding prophylactics, bioethics, group rights, and religious freedom have been brought up" comes up in the source, and you refuse to answer." Perhaps I lost my cool and I apologize. But am I wrong that repeatedly not answering good faith questions isWP:TENDENTIOUS editing? Would someone mind actually looking at that source?

"Please can we have some mediation for all the controversy in this article.That this is regularly ignored speaks volumes of the confidence of KlayCax and defenders}"

Again, I apologize if I lost my cool. But I would really like some way for this article to move on past obvious content problems that's spelled out inTalk:Circumcision#Community_reassessment and my dispute tag, and I've often requested alternative dispute measures (not that I'm knowledgeable about them). I don't really want to stay on this article, and frankly I really liked it in November.

" I've seen too many edits where KlayCax unabashedly lies and misrepresents the sources". Why not actually add the sources I put in?[138]

"I'm going to come out and say it. You're editing and language style is too similar to KlayCax, and I'm officially reporting this as a sockpuppet account. Your editing history is incredible suspicious".I don't see why me actually reporting suspected sockpuppetry is much different to KlayCax, who just reverts against multiple editors while claiming sockpuppetry. Also I'd just take the topic ban if someone could please check Cblackbu1, because the deleted social media account and KlayCax had literally the same link in edits just a few days apart, several times. (Sorry is thisWP:OUTING?)

I'm not going to blame anyone if they stop reading after this, but I have a collection of diffs where KlayCax removes sourced information that he doesn't like, with no explanation: literally he doesn't like the CDC as source[139], "throughout society..."[140], the quote in the reference[141]. His handful of recent edits that I reverted inCircumcision and law are worrying.

Again, I apologize if I was too direct. I'm not saying it's an excuse, but I got a similar treatment from an older editor while an admin watched[142], so I assumed this was OK.

Sorry I'm definitely pushing past 500 words now. I earlier readWP:WIAPA and it doesn't seem to mention mentioning POV issues. If that's the case and I'm wrong, and sorry and I'll not do this anymore.

Sorry again to rope this editor in. I disagree with him a lot but I respect him. This is the language I see that makes me think that it's OK to call out obvious POV issues[143].

Lastly regarding the Outing, it wasn't intentional. It's not obvious that linking an anonymous social media account (similar to 4Chan but not 4Chan) to another editor would be outing. I apologized before and I'll apologize again. But frankly it obviously wasn't malicious.

Last last (really sorry), only points 3-4 of MrOllie's points happened after I was made aware of discretionary sanctions.

Saying you are going to report someone for being a sock puppet does not necessarily seem like a personal attack. As Stix1776 noted, most of the incidents in this report occurred before they were warned about discretionary sanctions. Consequently, this report may be premature. Finally, I would hope that if Stix1776’s actions are being scrutinized, that we also look into other problematic edits on the article and talk page by other users: edit warring, unexplained edits/reverts, personal attacks/incivility, etc. This would help put things into perspective.Prcc27 (talk)20:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I've asked you multiple times where the OR word salad" of in these situations, questions surrounding prophylactics, bioethics, group rights, and religious freedom have been brought up" comes up in the source, and you refuse to answer."

I'm still not sure why you're blanketly reverting that sentence. I've repeatedly stated (for the past four months) thatprophylactics refers to the debate within the science community over its efficacy in the prevention of pathologies,religious freedom andgroup rights refer to its intersection with those subjects, andbioethics refers to the debate over whether it is ethical to perform (usually routine) in given situations. All of which are repeatedly and extensively sourced throughout the article. SeeCagaanan, 2011; Pinto, 2012; Cohen-Almagor, 2020 in thecircumcision article for just a few examples.

There's absolutely and clearly nothing problematic about the sentence. I'm perplexed about what you're even contesting. Are you stating that there the debateisn't about disputes over its prophylactic efficacy? That it hasnothing to do with questions surrounding religious freedom, group rights, consent, and therefore ethics?

"His handful of recent edits that I reverted in Circumcision and law are worrying."

What part of my edits were specifically concerning?

" Why not actually add the sources I put in? I'm not going to blame anyone if they stop reading after this, but I have a collection of diffs where KlayCax removes sourced information that he doesn't like, with no explanation: literally he doesn't like the CDC as source, "throughout society..." , the quote in the reference. His handful of recent edits that I reverted in Circumcision and law are worrying. "

First of all, all of those changeswere extensively explained in the edit summary:

Added a section for Samaritanism 2.) Flipped evidence/side effects and positions in the lead for better flow. 3.) The CDC recommended universal (although with consent) circumcision amongst American males in 2014 due to HIV/AIDS. So I removed an outdated reference in the lead saying "none" recommended it. 4.) Made a few other minor changes.

It wasn't a removal of sourced material "that I didn't like." Both theWorld Health Organization andCenters for Disease Control and Prevention have come out in favor ofcircumcising all males (mainly due to the belief that circumcision acts as a partial prophylaxis against HIV/AIDS transmission and seroconversion) afterClayden and Lissauer, 2011 was published. Because of this fact, it should be profoundly obvious why I removed that quotation from the article: the information had been indisputably renderedoutdated.

Multiple editors have agreed with my concerns and have rolled back some of his edits

In what context?

"But he wants to remove a few literally remaining words ethics and non-American disagreement with the procedure to [supposedly] trim the lead."

That's not at allwhat the edit you reverted does. (Editors can see more information about the changes madehere.)

"Also I'd just take the topic ban if someone could please check Cblackbu1, because the deleted social media account and KlayCax had literally the same link in edits just a few days apart, several times."

Like the other people you have repeatedly and without evidence accused me of being,I am not Cblackbu1 andcan verify myself if requested. In fact — if he wants it to be done — I'd be okay with havinganother checkuser request performed against me and that account to verify that it is not mine. I would respond more on the matter and examples he gave, but I'm unfortunately aware that my response to him can't be over 500 words. However, I'll finish off by stating that Stix1776's repeatedad hominem claims that I have an "overwhelming pro-circumcision" bias are easily disproven through a simple look at my edit history. Seehere andhere for just two examples of edits of mine showcasing anti-routine circumcision perspectives.

His repeated insults and attacks on me are completely out of hand.KlayCax (talk)22:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be perfectly okay undergoing another CheckUser request, if requested, and can verify my identity if needed.

I am not Cblackbu1.KlayCax (talk)22:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Agreed that an indef ban from circumcision is at minimum necessary. What a mess that talkpage is.The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)16:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry for the delay, RL hit me in ways I wasn't expecting today. Should be able to deal with this in a couple hours.The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)18:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Without comment on the merits (because I can't), I would note this is pretty much impossible to determine unless you have the Oversight bit, which Blade has, but most admin do not. This is due to so much being suppressed rather than RevDeled.Dennis Brown -2¢22:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  (asked to comment by Blade) - it was suppressed because they were attempting to link KlayCax to off-wiki individuals and accounts; I did check but there's nothing that could have simply been RD'd.(pleaseping on reply)Primefac (talk)08:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Dennis.@The Blade of the Northern Lights: if you've got enough evidence based on what you can see feel free to do the ban.Callanecc (talk •contribs •logs)00:50, 22 April 2022 (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 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ymblanter (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)07:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Black Future (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Discretionary sanctions motion (2011)

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

Whitewashing the article on the Nazi collaboratorStepan Bandera

1. 20 April Removing mention of Bandera as Nazi collaborator; says "debated"; the mention is well sourced in the artyicle
2. 20 April Idem, "shouldn't be in the intro"
3. 20 April Trying to portray the situation as if only one scolar calls Vandera a Nazi collaborator
4. 27 April Removal again, no edit summary; this happened after the user read the DS alert

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• None

Ifdiscretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (seeWP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict onDate byUsername (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, onDate
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, onDate.
• Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, onDate.
• Placed a{{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

DS alert on 21 April[144]; the user subsequently blanked the talk page[145]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

A user with 1500 edits; probably too many for an indef perWP:NOTTHERE but should be good enough for a topic ban.

Indeed, instead of responding here the user has chosen to go for the fifth revert[146] and issues me a template warning for suprise! the edit-warring atStepan Bandera[147].--Ymblanter (talk)15:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now calling me an "anti-Ukraine troll"[148]--Ymblanter (talk)14:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Diff

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

Transferred by me from the user's talk page--Ymblanter (talk)06:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay first off, let me just emphasize how utterly vindictive this user report is.

  Based on the diffs presented by the user, there is no clear reason to even request moderation since this all could have been settled directly or through consensus building. These are good faith edits that were reverted by edit-warring users who want toWP:OWN the page, from what I can see. That goes against the entire purpose of this site. Also, my edits were in line with the recommended "Be Bold" strategy: I remove, and when contested, try different means to find a better solution. The only person who is holistically enforcing 1 version of the page is Ymblanter.

  Diffs in question:

  Yes, in Diff #1 I removed a descriptor from the intro because it was a highly controversial statement, and that requires appropriate sourcing (see:WP:REDFLAG), or more importantly, neutral balance in presentation so as to not push an angle on readers. Nothing wrong with that, or the other edits associated on 20 April. First, "Mhorg" reverted me, he then reverted me a second time. Then "Ploni" tag teamed in and called me a "Nazi-collaboration apologist" - utterly uncivil, and I did not break any rules or conduct codes in the process.

  I took some time off, came back a week later, and made an edit in line with the reasoning I already presented - bad sourcing and neutrality. That's when Ymblanter imposed this edit war on me. I then engaged him on the talk pagehere, where he was already arguing withanother user who made the exact same edit as me, belowanother user who was also complaining about the page's lack of neutrality. There is a pattern going on - users edit & complain, "owners" revert, and NPOV templatesget deleted as if there is no problem with the page. He was fully aware of the issue on the page before I even showed up.

  Diff #3 he cited as a violation was an entirely different matter. The article has 1 source: a social scientist writing a forward for a newsletter. That's horrible sourcing for something like this, and so, (as mentioned,WP:REDFLAG) "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Instead of removing, Iapplied attribution - the author's name and full quote. This was immediately reverted (diff). If there are other scholars or authorities out there, add more! But don't delete attribution.

  Diff #4 is a bad faith citation, with a false description: "Removal again, no edit summary" - it was part of a couple edits (diff), which had summaries, which did not remove the content, but moved it to another part of the intro as a good faith compromise. My summary was "moving claim to appropriate section." This is part of consensus building, and if I can't be bold, try different edits or even touch other parts of the article without being reverted, what is going on?

  Ymblanter has engaged in an identical pattern of tendentious editing and warring with users on this very page:

  Not counting the other users involved, Ymblanter alone has shoe-horned this into the intro a number of times that I can see, reverting the intro on multiple users this month:1 14 April;2;3;4. He also did this exact same thing last year, only he was bent on adding "terrorist" to the intro rather than "nazi":12.3,4

  "Topic Ban": Ymblanter first started calling for me to be "banned" on 27 April before he made this report on mehere. This is after I first show up on the page. I'm in no way a single-topic editor here, so to kick me off a topic at first sight seems incredibly reactionary give his past history.

  He then called for it again above, then mocked me in the summaries that "once you get TBanned, we will remove the template" an hour later, whiletrolling the page to include "One user thanks that" in the template comments to gaslight me. Is this not trolling? Come on, guys.

  Regarding Mhorg's statement:

  As mentioned, Mhorg is involved in this edit war, so his inclusion of other articles I've tried to help needs scrutiny. The first diff he provided said I removed mention of a topic, but this is a lie, as the previous sentence already mentioned it. In the second diff, shows me removing something contradicted from the body of the article - a good faith edit that was reverted by GizzyCatBella (surprise). He then cites a bunch of diffs from Azov Battalion where I was trying to fix the article (which to no surprise, is still a contested issue even today), says I ignored an RFC (which I didnt know existed, then engaged ingood faith enforcement of it after someone told me). It was all over that talk page and compliant with the rules. This is dog piling with a clear motive.

  Comments:

  Look, I dont think I did anything wrong here, and I'm clearly not the only one editing the page, nor the only one gettingtag teamed here. This all could have been handled directly, or on the talk page, but instead I'm being attacked under a clear motive to silence others. "Revert and if they come back, try to get them banned" is not how things should be done.

  If I'm going to be suspended here, fine, but Ymblanter should have the same done to him.BLKFTR(tlk2meh)01:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What a joke this site has become.BLKFTR(tlk2meh)13:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the behaviour demonstrates that the user is intending to continue reverting repeatedly despite prior warnings given -->[149] -GizzyCatBella🍁07:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that’s what I thought..they continue -->[150] -GizzyCatBella🍁 14:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)(Please note thatthe data they are trying to erase appears to contradict historical facts (🌍 thanksBishonen that was my ESL talking🙂) their erasure contradicts historical facts - here is some quick news read about the subjectStephan Bandera -->[151]) -GizzyCatBella🍁15:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The user appears to be conducting the same actions here:

• Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists: removes parts on the anti-Polish massacres[152]
• Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists: removes the "antisemitism" ideology.[153]
• Ukrainian Insurgent Army: removes parts on the anti-Polish massacres.[154]
• Azov Battalion: removes the definition of "neo-Nazi"[155] ignoring the 2021 RFC.[156] (and again[157] again[158])--Mhorg (talk)07:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Before I noticed this report, I was all set to block Black Future for a week for tendentious editing and edit warring atStepan Bandera and harassment atUser talk:Ymblanter (abuse of warning template). I think I'll just go ahead and do that, as a regular admin action. No prejudice to continued discussion of a T-ban or a longer block here, especially in view ofMhorg's diffs.Bishonen |tålk21:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• Looking atMhorg's diffs, a topic ban may well be required given the edit warring sans use of the talk page. --RegentsPark(comment)22:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be good with an indefinite T-ban from Eastern Europe.Bishonen |tålk15:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

• Should we just indef? Based on their response to the block there’s clearly going to be no reasoning with them.~Swarm~^{sting}23:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That is also acceptable to me. Note, we'd have to do the usual little dance to accommodate the red tape of DS, which allow a year's block maximum (why??): either a year-long block per DS followed by an indef as a regular admin action, or simply the whole indef as a regular admin action. I'd prefer the first-mentioned, to show that several admins are behind the block.Bishonen |tålk08:27, 1 May 2022 (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 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kzl55 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)18:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn_of_Africa#Final_decision

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

1. 13 April 2022 Shirshore circumventing previous topic ban onHorn of Africa articles using confirmed sock JohnnyPilger the day after TBAN was confirmed. In this example by blanking a section on an article.
2. 15 April 2022 Confirmed Shireshore sock JohnnyPilger continues to edit onHorn of Africa articles evading their TBAN.
3. 21 April 2022 More blanking of sections using confirmed sock JohnnyPilger.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 12 April 2022 Shirshore indefinitely topic banned fromHorn of Africa.

Ifdiscretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (seeWP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on12 April 2022 byYmblanter (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Following the topic ban of Shirshore last month due to disruptive editing. They have activated sleeper socking account JohnnyPilger (first registered June 2021) to evade the TBAN and continue editing onHorn of Africa articles, including disruptive blanking of sections as seen in the examples linked above. I have filed an SPI which confirmed their socking, but the closing admin gave a lenient 1 week sanctions. And although the closing admin gave a justification for leniency that would be completely understandable in normal circumstances, in my opinion their decision was limited to the socking activity and did not address the evasion of TBAN and general sanctions, which is why I'm filing this report. Shirshore is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, they immediately attempted to circumvent their topic ban using a sleeper account that they've already prepared a year ago. As such I believe aWP:NOTHERE ban justified in this case. More information can be found in the SPI filingWikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shirshore. Best regards --Kzl55 (talk)18:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[159]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words 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.

• I don't think there's anything in particular that we need to do here: the sock has been indef blocked and the master blocked for the socking.Callanecc (talk •contribs •logs)04:07, 10 May 2022 (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 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sideswipe9th (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)23:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Dyldyl9 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2 andWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_and_sexuality

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

1. [160] Dyldyl9 refers to teachers in Florida, teaching age appropriate gender and sexuality lessons, as groomers.
2. [161] Dyldyl9 refers to people reposted onLibs of TikTok as paedophiles, and teachers as groomers.
3. [162] Dyldyl9 calls into question the2021 United States Capitol attack, and downplays the severity of it by likening it toprotests that occured during the 2017 inauguration.
4. [163] Dyldyl9 adds unsourced information, alleging a journalist released the home and business address of the creator of Libs of TikTok.
5. [164] Dyldyl9 removes content that has discussed repeatedly on the Libs of TikTok talk page, and has strong consensus based on what sources say about the account.
6. [165] Dyldyl9 engages in a mild personal attack against either myself orPraxidicae.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [166] Dyldyl9 was blocked for 72 hours, for an edit war involving diffs 4 and 5.

Ifdiscretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (seeWP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• GENSEX notice
• AP2 notice

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There are two more diffs I'd like to include, as they demonstrate this behaviour over a substantial period of time, unfortunately they occurred prior to receiving the d/s notices. Although the editor is currently blocked for 72 hours for edit warring, their conduct is below that expected of in a discretionary sanctions topic area, and I suspect this behaviour will continue once the block expires. I don't know if this conduct has reached a level requiring a topic ban, if it has not would a formal warning be appropriate? Also if it's inappropriate to file while the editor is currently blocked for edit warring, I'll happily withdraw it and refile once the block expires.Sideswipe9th (talk)23:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• notification of this request

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words 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.

• Looking at the editing so far I'm leaning more towards an indef NOTHERE block rather than a topic ban. Thoughts from others?Callanecc (talk •contribs •logs)04:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the NOTHERE recommendation. I took a look at Dyldyl9's contributions and they are largely accusations of bias in various articles. Not helpful and not here. --RegentsPark(comment)14:10, 10 May 2022 (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 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)19:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

בר (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/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions (1RR rule)

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

1. 18:04, 11 May 2022 revert ofthis addition
2. 18:28, 11 May 2022 revert ofthis

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

Ifdiscretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (seeWP: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.Here, though the 1RR is a general sanction that does not require awareness

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user directs others to discuss this material on the talk page despite it already being discussed on the talk page by all users involved except this one (seehere for current state). User was asked to self-revert, anddeclined to do so.

I dont think it needs a sanction if the user will self-revert. As of now there is a 1RR violation and a refusal to self-revert. Self-revert and then no issues.nableezy -19:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moot at this point, should just be closed with a reminder imo.nableezy -14:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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

• HeyUser:RegentsPark,

  What is a 1RR reminder?

  As an administrator, I trust your word. I agree that you will restore my edit. But I can't find any earlier discussion about that on the talk page.ℬ𝒜ℛ (talk)19:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay I'm very sorry, I was not aware of it. In the Hebrew Wikipedia it works differently. To prove I did not mean to harm, I will simply stop writing in this article. Returning to the previous version is totally fine with me. Sorry again!ℬ𝒜ℛ (talk)20:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A third editor has now restored the material. Ordinarily for this sort of situation, slap on the wrist, don't do it again would not be out of order. I am a bit unhappy with the tenor of the responses at the user talk page, the edit summaries that were given for the reverts and the user's failure to self revert.Selfstudier (talk)22:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Yeah, violation. But,... meh... does this really need a sanction? I'd say just remind the editor that 1RR be the rule and move on. --RegentsPark(comment)19:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nableezy:, understood.@בר: Would you please self revert? If you do, we can close this with the 1RR reminder, and you can always make your case on the talk page. If you don't, this will definitely begin to be trouble!--RegentsPark(comment)19:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @בר:When you edit the article, a big yellow box pops up that clearly says you cannot make more than 1 revert in a 24 hour period. Violations of this can lead to topic bans and/or blocks. Apparently, you made 2 of them. If you revert your removal of the content, we won't treat it as a violation. And, no, I won't restore your content. Instead, you should make your case on the talk page for the removal of the content and try to get consensus (readWP:CONSENSUS). (BTW, you need to reply in your own section, not here) --RegentsPark(comment)20:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @בר: You are going to need to self-revert your edit. Nableezy cannot because then it will look like they are violating 1RR. In the interests of ending this, I would do it, but I'm more likely than not to just mess it up. My suggestion is that you do it quickly. Also, please note where I'm moving your comments and make any further comments (unnecessary if you self-revert) there.--RegentsPark(comment)20:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]