Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive307

Mhorg

There are two components here. Please note, a consensus is NOT required for any of these actions as WP:AE is not a consensus board; it allows unilateral action. First. Mhorg is indefinitely topic banned from Lyudmyla Denisova, very broadly construed. There is a fairly clear consensus that BLP violations took place and there is too much bias for Mhorg to edit this topic in a neutral fashion. This means you need to completely avoid this person and any section of an article that even incidentally mentions her. This also means you may not discuss her, mention her, or refer to her, in any way. Breaching this will likely result in blocks and/or wider topic bans. Second, there will be a formal logged warning for the entire subject area "Eastern Europe". This is a bit against my better judgement, as I think an indef topic ban is the better way to go, but this formal warning should be seen as an absolute last chance. Any violations of policy in this area, no matter how minor, will be justification for any admin to indefinitely topic ban you from the entire area, without requiring a report at WP:AE. I would suggest you self-impose a 1RR restriction and use the talk page more before editing. It is my hope you will get the message and find a way to be less biased in your editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Mhorg

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mhorg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Eastern Europe

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

[1]– Mhorg inserts the following text: “Rada member Pavlo Frolov suggested that she "failed to gather enough evidence", which made it sound like the Rada determined that Denisova was lying or spreading misinformation about the nature of sexual violence, rather than simply diverting attention.” However, this is a misinterpretation of the in-line reference [2]. The source does not say “which made it sounds like the Rada determined that Denisova was lying or spreading misinformation”. Yes, her dismissal was controversial, and she was criticized, but she was not found in RS to promote any specific “lies” or misinformation.
[3] [4],[5] [6],[7] - placing negative claims about Denisova to multiple pages where such claims do not belong.
[8], [9], – Mhorg removes statements made by Denisova in her official capacity as Ukrainian Ombundswoman . Well, even if an official would be found to promote multiple falsehoods (she was not!), such blanket removals of all his statements just “because he is a liar” would not be appropriate.
(edit summary). This is an inventive approach. Mhorg combines “everything by Denisova” in her section “even if it contains content by other people” (!) to discredit all such claims altogether by discrediting Denisova. [10] - this is highly misleading because Mhorg incorrectly attributes some claim by other people (or claims made also by other people) to Denisova.
[11] [12]. A highly damaging claim (one in the beginning of this section [13]) was attributed to a Ukrainian politician. The politician publicly denied he ever said it; there is no documented proof he said it, and his multiple rebuttals are well sourced. Mhorg removes his rebuttals.
[14]. Mhorg implies that Ukrainian president Zelenskiy is associated with Neo-Nazi based on unreliable sources. He uses this ref: [15], but the link includes a reference to Russia RT on the bottom. Mhorg says he would rather not include such content, but still posts the suggestion on article talk page. Based on their response [16], that was not a WP:POINT, but rather a desire for this material to be included to the page.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them - see User_talk:Mhorg#Azov)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After talking with Mhorg, for example here, I believe that Mhorg should be topic banned from all BLP pages. If he does not like the person, he just selects the most damaging quotes about him or her from various sources and throws them on the page, and this is not only Denisova [17],[[18]]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment by Gitz6666. Indeed, I noticed that Gitz6666 and Ilenart626 were making edits similar to those by Mhorg (diff #2) [19], [20], edit on 22:33, 16 June 2022. Was not it a BLP violation as well? I did try to explain to Gitz this issue [21],[22], but apparently without much success based on their statement below. Of course I do not think that Gitz hates Denisova. The purpose of the edits, i.e. edit warring to include multiple "alleged" and the negative info on Denisova [23],[24],[25],[26],[27], is to sow doubts that the war crimes by Russian army did happen. My very best wishes (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments and responses

P.S. Speaking about the bias by Mhorg, I think this his posting is telling. Many sources he refers to (you can follow his links for #1,2,3,etc.) is WP:PRIMARY, and Mhorg interprets these sources according to his bias in this posting. My very best wishes (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. I would not file this request, but Mhorg push his own interpretations about living people not supported by sources [28] and behave confrontational not only with regard to me. To show the later, here are a couple of examples where I was not involved in editing:

[29],[30], [31], [32], [33] [34], [35] – sustained slow-motion edit war to remove sourced content about alleged neo-Nazi on page Sparta Battalion. Note that the removed content was included by at least four different contributors. The discussion was conducted on article talk page, and people probably came to an agreement (I am not sure [36]), but how much time and effort they have spent!
[37], [38],[39] edit-warring to restore an unsourced info without even any attempt of explanation, even in edit summary. No any explanation on talk page [40] Note that Third position is a set of neo-fascist ideologies, hence the meaning of reverts by M. is not at all clear. My very best wishes (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Siebert.

Seaking on my diff #1, no, Mhorg can not blame another contributor. Not only that was his edit, but he clearly made also other edits (#2-4) based on his personal conviction/bias that she is spreading lies about war crimes by Russian military forces in Ukraine. And he said just that himself [41].
Speaking about Bieletsky, yes, I also do not like the guy, but we have an obligation to provide his well sourced rebuttal per WP:BLP.
Yes, I do believe that sources like this [42] are self-published or at least not peer-reviewed. More important, no one objected to these removals. Yes, in one of the edits I removed whole para because it started from a phrase sourced to WP:SPS. I never meant other sources in the same para to be WP:SPS. Now fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pravega (talk · contribs) proposed making such changes [43],[44] on Page Alexei Navalny, but they have been rejected on an RfC as a BLP violation [45]. We did had a disagreement with Mhorg on this page who suggested such edit [46], which I thought would also be a BLP issue as a highly biased summary and repetitive content to disparage living person [47], but this seems to be resolved. My very best wishes (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did follow strong advise from El_C to avoid interacting with Mhorg for as much as possible. However, when Mhorg initiated a contact on my talk page [48], I asked El_C, and he responded that it is OK to interact with Mhorg [49]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to statement by Mhorg. Mhorg is making various accusations about me, but it would take a separate WP:AE request to respond. As about alleged wikistalking - no (in some of his diffs I do not change or modify his previous edits; in other cases I do, but this is not wikistalking). It was rather Mhorg who followed my edits. For example, he came to blindly revert several my edits on page Vladimir Zelenskiy in a matter of hours after my edits [50]. He never edited this page before. In edit summary he tells about Pandora papers, but reverts everything. He continued with other reverts [51],[52]. In edit summaries of the last 3 diff, Mhorg makes it clear that he specifically targets my edits. While doing this, Mhorg did not participate in discussions on article talk pages on the content he reverted although such discussions were ongoing [53],[54]. This is an example of confrontational editing by Mhorg. My very best wishes (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure there is a significant editing overlap for me and Mhorg, but one should look at every specific page (as I just did above). For example, a contributor A coming to a page X soon after B to fix something that B did not edit is not wikistalking. On the other hand, if user A tells in their edit summary, "Hey, I am reverting YOU [user B]!" (for example, [55], [56], [57],[58]), after consulting how to get that user B banned [[59], that is clearly a wikistalking, even if they both edited page X before. My very best wishes (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First diff in this series [60] is especially telling. In edit summary Mhorg say Reverting stealth deletion with deceiving edit summary by user My very best wishes, but what he actually does in his edit? In the end of the paragraph prior to the edit by Mhorg you can see :Another OHCHR report documented an instance of torture of a man with a mental disability [ref]. But Mhorg adds right after that second time (a repeat) the following: Another OHCHR report documented an instance of rape and torture, writing: .... Mhorg does not even check what he is doing, he is just making an unsubstantiated accusation in edit summary. My very best wishes (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a reaction to discussion of admins below, I agree with Dennis Brown. I think diffs in my request show a trouble on multiple pages. But it is difficult to judge if someone edited against the spirit of WP:BLP. For example, consider this edit by Mhorg on yet another page [61] and this discussion [62]. Was it a BLP violation by Mhorg? In my personal view, yes, it was a BLP violation. Was I wrong? I think there is bright line as outlined in WP:BLP, and I tried to explain it to Mhorg here, but apparently without any success. My very best wishes (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich. Speaking about diff #5 [63], I assume you and some other people misunderstood it. The text removed by Mhorg starts from Andriy Biletsky has repeatedly denied being the author of these texts. I do not know who inserted it, but it was misleading because Biletskiy did not deny "being the author of these texts" (including "White Leader", etc.; and of course he is a white supremacist, I do not like him). Biletskiy denied only one specific phrase as correctly described now in the first phrase of this section of the page. My point was that completely removing the rebuttal, rather than correcting it as needed, was a BLP violation (and based on the edit summary by Mhorg, he believed that completely removing the rebuttal was fine). However, I realize that all admins just ignored this diff based on their comments.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: User notified [64]

Discussion concerning Mhorg

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

Statement by Mhorg

Dear colleagues, unfortunately I have to defend myself against the slanders that are part of a WP:Battleground mentality that MVBW has never definitively abandoned, such as when years ago (he was called User:Biophys) was part of a political 'battle squad' that coordinated off-wiki[65] with a mailing list to fight his 'enemies'.

This AE request comes after MVBW:

Was warned by an admin for WP:WIKIHOUNDING against me[66] together with User:Nicoljaus, who was Tbanned instead.[67]
Made an absurd and inconcludent SPI against me and other 5 users (they were all users with whom he clashed in discussions).[68] Note that Nicoljaus, after 3 months of inactivity,[69] intervenes in the SPI against me (perhaps warned by MVBW off-wiki?).[70]
Was warned by an admin for massively removing sourced content[71], while he was trying to get M.Bitton sanctioned with his little games. My comment was crucial, and since that day he has become increasingly aggressive.[72].
From then on he started again to check my contributions daily, WP:FOLLOWING me from article to article (I make a list here of all the times he has recently intervened in articles, in which he never made a single contribution before, because I already deal with the user on dozens of articles):

[73],[74],[75],[76],[77],[78][79] and started to meddle in talk pages with other users again.[80] I would like to recall that he had been warned by @El C: precisely because he had intruded on my talk page by replying to users asking for things from me.[81] The user now writes I asked El_C, and he responded that it is OK to interact with Mhorg, does "interacting with users" mean checking their contributions daily and constantly intervening in the articles? Is it normal that this user is constantly breathing down my neck?

- "It was rather Mhorg who followed my edits." At this point I ask for the intervention of an administrator who maybe can check whether I searched the history of his contributions and then went directly to that edit. This user systematically lies, in fact, as I have already explained, I had gone to Zelensky's article precisely to ask the question.[82] Before asking that question I looked at the history of the article and found its usual removal with sources. As I wrote to El_C, I have no pleasure in interacting with MVBW, I have always tried to keep contact to a minimum. Please, some administrator check this out and save me from this hell of lies.[83]

Notice how the user tries to hide his previous comments in which he said "Mhorg makes it clear that he specifically targets my edits ~~(same on a number of other pages)~~".[84] Yes, the user can only talk about that Zelensky case, and I am sure that if an administrator can check how I arrived at that article, they will find that I did not do so by searching MVBW's contributions. I repeat: I am not that kind of user, the only times I check MVBW's history I do so to AVOID him, not to FOLLOW him.

Blatantly violated an RFC verdict (in which he himself participated) by removing one of my reverts (I was just trying to enforce the verdict on other users.[85]). I point this out to him,[86] and instead of apologising he lies:[87] "That change was made not by me, but by another contributor who edited just before. I started from editing his version.": FALSE.
"Mhorg say Reverting stealth deletion with deceiving edit summary by user My very best wishes ... Mhorg does not even check what he is doing, he is just making an unsubstantiated accusation in edit summary." this was his edit summary:[88] "fixing and removing the tag. These sources are good enough, except they do not say "war crimes"" instead he removed this part of text "A report from January 2015 stated that a Donetsk Republic supporter was detained and tortured with electricity and waterboarding and struck repeatedly on his genitals, which resulted in his confessing to spying for pro-Russian militants.". Shouldn't he have written that he was removing this part and summarising other parts of the text?

I ask you for the opportunity to exceed 500 words so that I can fully defend myself against this user, who has practically harassed me on every possible occasion in recent days:

Denisova - (list of the sourced accusations against her:[89])

1. That part was inserted by user Cononsense (with another source).[90] And MVBW knows it very well, because he deleted that part.[91] Unfortunately he has a habit of removing massive chunks of text, or heavily altering the content, to make it difficult for other users to edit. To see how I had organised that section (later disrupted by MVBW), read here the Frolov part.[92]

1a. Mhorg can not blame another contributor: Mystification, I did not accuse Cononsense (also read my edit summary[93]). Instead, I restored their stuff but the source was lost in the process, thanks to MVBW's mass removals and manipulations.

2. I opened a discussion to talk about this.[94] Perhaps the user intends to resolve it by means of an AE Request?

3. As I have shown in point #1 (all material removed from MVBW) Denisova has been accused by members of parliament, journalists, academics, of being highly unreliable with her rape reports. Somehow we will have to deal with her statements, either by deleting them, giving them less weight, or adding parts of text explaining to the reader what happened. MVBW, on the other hand, would like to minimise everything.

4. Yes, I still think that any statement she made should be grouped in a section to give the reader important information about the accusations made against her.

Other

5. MVBW speaks of 'A highly damaging claim', yet the same politician wrote: "the writer argued that human races are divided into higher and lower. He considered the White race to be the highest, and Neanderthals, N_gro_s, and Papuans to be the "lowest." Other races occupied an intermediate position. According to Frank, the "lower races" first differed from the monkeys. And from them ("lower races") stood out higher, more perfect forms. By the way, in modern science, this is one of the main hypotheses of anthropogenesis. [...] I would like to wish our "real" friends to read "uncircumcised" censored classics."?[95] But if you want to know more:[96]

6. Mystification. I was just saying that for both cases the importance was zero. I never included that part in Zelensky's article, and in fact for me that nonsense should be avoided for both presidents.

Additional comments

1. Resolved on talk page by consensus. Thank you for showing how mystifying you can be.[97]

2. They were all edits without source\motivation by anonymous users. What would you be insinuating? That I shouldn't have reverted them?[98]

Answer to TyrelBurden

1. Mhorg was a strong advocate of the Azov Regiment being described in Wikivoice as a ″Neo-Nazi″, defined in that way in a large and very participative RFC. At least 17 users voted as I did, many of whom cited my argument as valid.

2. They would use questionable at best tactics such as striking an RFC option, this is our discussion on that fact.[99] I simply did not know the rule.

3. Each of my contributions is supported by sources. As for the accusation of POV, I can say the exact opposite of you and MVBW, but that is not why I would have asked for a TBAN.

Answer to Dennis Brown

@Dennis Brown: may I ask you which part you think was manipulation? Maybe I can try to give you an explanation. Thank you.

I hope with all my heart that other users who have had a bad experience with MVBW will intervene in this AE request.

Dennis Brown Please, I have to ask you a second time, since you are requesting a ban on the topics on which I have the most expertise, can I ask you at least specifically which of my contributions seem problematic to you? I would like to remind you that I have participated assiduously in all democratic processes (I spent hours and hours in discussions, RFCs, so on) and always acted with the consensus of other users. I have always acted having (ALWAYS) sources behind me (maybe I need to learn to use the term "alleged" in discussions, as Drmies suggested, but be aware that English is not my first language). Is it possible that there is a need to ban me in this way when the user who opened this AE Request is even allowed to make unsourced, biased and forum comments like this[100]?--Mhorg (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul Siebert

First of all, let me quote these words

I think this is a typical pattern of someone providing a lot of diffs produced during tense discussions in a hope that at least some of them (or so many of them) will be viewed as incriminating.

Below, I am going to demonstrate that these MVBW's words perfectly describe his own behaviour.

Thus, the evidence #6 is the talk page post, where Mhorg says that this type information should NOT be added to the article. IMO the only idea this evidence demonstrates is that MVBW is following the above described tactics in an attempt to eat up the defendant's 500 words limit and to link his name with highly discredited "Russia Today".

Next, the evidence #5. The ostensibly "highly damaging claim" was supported by three reliable sources, the Guardian article and two books, each of which have been widely cited by peers ([101], [102]), so each of them are without any doubts RS. In contrast, the text removed by Mhorg was supported by Ulmand, who writes:

"Bilets’kyy asserted that he had not written the articles to which Hromadske referred, and admitted that only his video and audio statements, available on the world wide web, were genuine. The racist texts under his name were, according to Bilets’kyy, fabricated by Russian propaganda, in early summer 2014 when Azov was starting to take shape. However, it is inconceivable that Likhachev, as a highly experienced researcher of the post-Soviet far right, would have reproduced the above quotes on his blog, without being certain of their genuine nature. Bilets’skyy’s outspoken rejection of his racist statements and their association with Russia’s information either were an expression of cognitive dissonance or were designed to cover his pre-Euromaydan political biography." (the colored text was not included into the article).

In other words, the text removed by Mhorg contained a very selectively cited source (Umland), whose main idea was totally misinterpreted. That means, Mhorg just fixed a blatant misinterpretation of the good source (Umland), thereby improving the artilce.

I can perform the same analysis of other evidences, but the 500 word limit does not allow me to do that. I would like to to point out the following.

Dennis Brown, hasn't specified which sources he looked at, so it is hard to me to comment on concrete examples of misinterpretation. However, it is necessary to discriminate between the text written by Mhorg and the text that was written by others and restored by Mhorg. Clearly, it is a big difference between non-critical restoration of someone else's wrong text and writing misinterpretations by themselves. I suggest to look more carefully on the diffs and to verify who exactly wrote each piece of the problematic text, who deserves a real topic ban, and who needs just a warning.

Similarly, regarding the evidence #2, the statement added by Mhorg seems quite relevant. The style of each edit is uniform: to the text saying that Denisova made a clam X, Mhorg adds that some politicians criticized Denisova for that claim. This criticism refers to the claim made by Denisova, and that claim is the very same claim that is presented in each of those articles. How can that be seen as "irrelevant"?

Frankly, I strongly recommend admins to carefully examine other evidences presented by MVBW, for virtually every statement made by this user may be problematic. As an example, I can provide this recent diff: [103] this user has removed three good sources, that were added by Mhorg previously [104]. MVBW claims these sources were SPS, but that is a lie: one source is a conference paper authored by an expert in the field, another one is a peer-reviewed publication cited 33 times, and the last one is the book cited 108 times. By removing this text, MVBW removed information about murder of Jews and of gentile 3000 civilian during WWII. Denial of the participation of some nationals in the Holocaust is considered as one of the forms of the Holocaust denial. Ironically, that was represented as an attempt to improve the Holocaust related article.

In connection to that, I have a question: if relatively minor misinterpretations made (or ostensibly made) by Mhorg, deserve a topic ban, what should be an adequate reaction on MVBW's misleading statements and removal of the information about the Holocaust made under deceptive edit summaries?

I fully understand that accusations of misbehaviour that lack evidences may be considered as a personal attack, and I declare that I do have enough evidences that support my general claim about MVBW's behaviour. I am ready to present them upon a request, but I cannot do that here, for they do not fit the 500 word limit.

In summary, I strongly suggest BOOMERANG.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my intention to go into the details of the situation around modern Ukrainian Nazi (and I even cannot tell for sure if they are real or perceived Nazi). In my opinion, during the ongoing war this topic should be edited very carefully (I prefer to to edit it at all). However, two facts seems obvious and non-questionable.

1. Many WWII time Ukrainian nationalists had strong ties with German Nazism, and they were active Holocaust perpetrators. Some modern Ukrainian nationalists consider WWII time Nazi collaborators and Holocaust perpetrators as "founding fathers" of Ukrainian statehood, and they expressed racist ideas.

2. Currently, many Ukrainian nationalists are fighting for freedom and independence of their country against Putin's invasion, and it is unclear to which extent they still support ideas of Nazism (if support at all).

Clearly, any user who is editing in the Ukraine related area must do that very cautiously to avoid focusing too much on the first or the second aspect. And if we topic ban the users pushing just one of above described aspects (those who tries to emphasize the linkage of Ukrainian nationalists with Nazi collaboration, Holocaust ct=rimes and racism, or those who is trying to deemphasize such a linkage beyond any reasonable limits, thereby whitewashing real crimes and denying the Holocaust), we introduce a strong bias into this very controversial area.

It cannot rule out a possibility that Mhorg's editorial style is strongly biased. I myself think we all should minimize editing this topic during the war, and do that only if that is absolutely necessary (and that is why I stopped editing). However, I do not see any strong evidences of Mhorg's disruptive activity in the evidences provided by MVBW. --Paul Siebert (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TylerBurden

I have never commented on this page, but everything I have seen from Mhorg lines up with the concern that there is too much political motivation and bias at play with their edits. Mhorg was a strong advocate of the Azov Regiment being described in Wikivoice as a ″Neo-Nazi″ battalion(at the time, now called regiment) despite confliction amongst reliable sources which in my brief time on this site was the biggest and most blatant WP:NPOV mess I have seen. They would use questionable at best tactics such as striking an RFC option that unrelated people had voiced support for because the OP had been blocked afterwards to support this cause. They owed up to it on their talk page when it was called out, which is fair enough, but one only needs to take a look at their edit history to see that they spend most of their time on the site linking Ukranians with Nazism and other general anti-Ukranian POV edits. This would be one thing if they also made edits from the other perspective, but they don't. People who get in their way are accused of whitewashing 1 2. I agree that there is too much bias with this editor, and that they have an obvious POV that they are pushing above all others, Wikipedia is meant to be built on WP:NPOV and people like this are tearing that pillar down. Support topic ban. --TylerBurden (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Mhorg: Accusing me of being a POV pusher in response to me calling out your (obvious) WP:TENDENTIOUS editing is a rather weak retort. In that RfC, I voted for the option covering both Nazi past/allegations, but without stating it in Wikivoice. You voted for a WP:NPOV violation. I think that, along with our edit histories would show that I am nothing like you. My frank opinion is that you're not here to build an encyclopedia, maybe you were at some point, but your mission here now is to push agendas and you're willing to use dirty tactics to do it, as seen by your misrepresentations and other antics. That's all I have to say about this. TylerBurden (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

Normally I don't edit in this area, I accidentally ended up involved in the Azov battalion saga and interacting with some of the editors there. Mhorg has very forthright opinions but from my limited experience, he is not alone in that, there are those with equally strong opinions on the other side of the (Ukranian) fence, so to speak, things get heated from time to time. A warning to dial it back is certainly in order, any repetition, go to jail, do not pass go. Selfstudier (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should be clarified at this point that Michael Colborne, From the Fires of War: Ukraine's Azov Movement and the Global Far Right is not a self published book but is published by ibidem. In fact, I was taken to task over this issue myself. Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pravega

Tyler Burden's claim that Mhorg should be topic banned because he wanted to retain status quo on Azov Regiment by retaining "neo-nazi" in wikivoice is absurd. Even the RfC closure noted that such a view "received the most !votes, both in favor and against it".[105]

What I have seen until now is that Mhorg is in fact doing a great job with his editing and MVBW is causing disruption. I am describing all of that with proper diffs about the disputes where both MVBW and Mhorg were involved very recently.

1. A very good example of POV pushing, WP:IDHT and WP:STONEWALLING by MVBW is on display at Talk:Alexei Navalny#Proposed addition to "Political position" section where he is trying to reject reliably sourced content without citing a policy-based reason. After he failed to justify his content removal, he asks "Why discuss it now?"

2. MVBW made the above responses only after he failed to turn BLPN against his opponents at Talk:Alexei Navalny. On BLPN he brings the issue as if editors were committing BLP violation and he is misrepresenting me, mhorg, and other editors to be engaging in an "effort to misrepresent Navalny as a far-right ultranationalist." An uninvolved editor, Curbon7, noted there "I think you're misreading the room." Note that none of the participants were ever notified of the discussion as required by either informing in the existing talk page section or starting a new section to notify editors. This BLPN displays WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of MVBW.

3. MVBW's unnecessary edit warring to whitewash Alexie Navalny which is on 1RR.[106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114] MVBW is falsely claiming to have "consensus" by citing an RfC that was closed for being impractical with regards to the fate of the content. Only 2 users: MVBW and Alaexis are opposed to the content while 5 other editors (including this one) are in support and/or have no issue.[115]

4. Again, false claims of BLP violation on Alexei Navalny by MVBW. No users could find any "BLP violation" and MVBW after seeing lots of opposition himself tries to wiggle out by saying "If no one else thinks that was a BLP problem, let it stay."[116]

5. MVBW cites 100% correct edits by Mhorg above about Sparta Battalion (Mhorg was following WP:BRD to remove fake news promoting sources per consensus) but MVBW omits that he was violating WP:BLP by adding fake news sources (meawww) getting their information from WP:DAILYMAIL to Vladimir Zhoga on that same day by falsely claiming him to be a Nazi.[117]

6. Edit warring at Azov Regiment by trying a new edit every time.[118][119]

7. Back-to-back removal of highly acclaimed scholars such as Richard Sakwa, Stephen F. Cohen on Far-right politics in Ukraine and falsely claiming to have consensus on talk page to remove long-standing content.[120][121][122]

In all of the above disputes, Mhorg is the one complying with WP:BRD and WP:CON, while MVWB is engaging in clear misrepresentation of sources, rampant edit warring against consensus, false claims of gaining consensus, WP:IDHT and battleground mentality. I am also citing WP:CIR with regards to MVWB due to claims of BLP violation when none exists. So Dennis Brown, if anyone deserves a topic ban then that is MVWB for disruptive editing and making this report only to get rid of a far more sensible opponent in a content dispute.❯❯❯Pravega^g=9.8 15:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gitz6666

With regard to MVBW's point N° 2, "placing negative claims about Denisova to multiple pages where such claims do not belong", I beg to disagree. I think that here Mhorg was trying to address a real issue of verifiability which was not created by them.
Some editors, no doubt in good faith, have spread along multiple articles the information that 25 girls between the ages of 14 to 24 were held captive in a basement in Bucha, they were repeatedly raped by Russian soldiers and nine of them became pregnant. The only source of this information is Denisova, who said that she got it from a telephone helpline service (BBC). At the beginning of April, this information was reported by The New York Times and BBC, amongst others; with different wordings and more or less details, it was published in our articles War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Bucha massacre and Wartime sexual violence. I myself had to start a discussion at RSN to understand whether Denisova's declarations, as reported by Daily Beast and Yahoo News, constituted a reliable source with regard to the alleged raping and killing of a 1-year-old infant in Ukraine, two 10-year-old boys, triplets aged 9, a 2-year-old girl raped by two Russian soldiers, and a 9-month-old baby who was raped in front of his mother, according to Denisova.
The point I'd like to make is the following: Denisova is no longer, and probably has never been, a sufficiently reliable source for the purposes of inclusion of contents related to sex crimes involving minors in the context of the war in Ukraine. She had been accused of making […] unverifiable statements about alleged Russian sex crimes (Wall Street Journal) and some of these accounts [sexually motivated crimes described in gratuitous detail] had not been verified (Deutsche Welle). So I think that those statements and accounts by her do not pass the threshold of WP:V. However, the editor who opened this request for enforcement thinks differently, and until today they have been arguing tenaciously that Denisova's statements continue to be verifiable enough for the purposes of inclusion: e.g., 21:47, 21 June 2022, 00:37, 25 June 2022, 15:07, 25 June 2022.
My argument is: Mhorg was addressing a real issue there. If we keep Denisova's declarations, then we need to offer the reader some elements for assessing their (lack of) reliability. My preferred solution would be to remove Denisova's declarations entirely from articles dealing with war crimes, but that's a matter of contents; with regard to the case at hand, I think that MVBW's point N° 2 is not convincing at all and that Mhorg's edits can be seen as good-faith attempts to address a serious verifiability issue that other editors (MVBW included) had created.

Statement by François Robere

I'm not involved in the TA, but am familiar with the participants from a related one. A few days ago Mhorg approached me to evaluate a few sources that the filer claimed were SPS;[123] I determined that they were not. They similarly approached Paul Siebert, who came to the same conclusion.

Relying on Siebert's analysis and Mhorg's explanations, it does not seem to me that they have acted substantially different from many other opinionated editors who are not sanctioned by broad T-bans. I do not condone POV-pushing of any kind, but it should be said in Mhorg's defense that they have followed content guidelines, repeatedly sought outside input, have not broken 1RR or 3RR, and have not tried to circumvent consensus. If that's the new standard for banning editors, then I've a long list of them I'd like this panel to meet. François Robere (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

Sorry to be that guy again, guys, but...

@Drmies: I think you're WP:INVOLVED here due to edits like this (partially reverted by Mhorg) and !voting/commenting in an AFD. I don't think an admin can have a content dispute with an editor and then !vote to topic-ban that editor at AE. You should be commenting "above the line" here, in the involved section.

@Dennis Brown: I think you owe Mhorg an answer to their questions about what, exactly, is the basis for your wanting a topic ban. Saying, as you did below, I checked several sources, translated, and it does seem pretty clear that Mhorg is misrepresenting the sources, exaggerating the claims against Denisova., without specifying which sources you checked, and then saying Mhorg, I'm not going to give a blow by blow report on all your edits, that's not the goal here. We aren't a court, we aren't here to met out justice, we are here to find solutions. is unfair. We're not a court of law, but we still believe in transparency, so please be transparent about how you're arriving at your decision. After all, how does someone respond to an argument if they don't know what the argument is? I mean, it's possible that when you checked several sources, you made a mistake. We see here, for example, Drmies thought a particular source was self-published, but it wasn't, it's published by Ibidem--an error that was only caught because Drmies "showed his work". It's possible you, too, have made a mistake in your evaluation of sources, but we'll never know unless you "show us your work" and tell us exactly what sources were misrepresented and where.

I'm not saying this report doesn't have merit at all, by the way, but it should be processed fairly, and I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle, as usual. Levivich^[block] 16:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Not just involved with Mhorg, involved in the content area. Do I need to quote WP:INVOLVED and bold the relevant part?

In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

You've been involved in disputes on this topic. You can't edit articles in a topic area and then also comment as an uninvolved admin at AE -- and especially when the editor you're commenting on is on the "other side" of a content dispute (or multiple content disputes). You can have your say, of course, but come on up here and join us in the involved section. Levivich^[block] 17:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Reconsider. Mhorg's edits to Andriy Biletsky are #5 on the OP's list in this AE complaint. Here is Mhorg adding "Word of the White Leader" brochure to Andriy Biletsky's article. Here is you removing it from the article (based on the incorrect assertion that the source is unreliable; in fact it's published by a university press). Here is Mhorg partially restoring it. Here is you arguing (incorrectly) with Mhorg on the article talk page that the source for the content, "From the Fires of War" is self-published; in fact it's published by Ibidem, a Columbia University Press imprint. Finally, here is you, in the uninvolved admin section of this AE thread, mentioning this same content dispute about "The Word of the White Leader", and calling for a topic ban. This is involved; it's not even a close call. You are directly involved in the content dispute regarding Andriy Biletsky and "Word of the White Leader", and it's a content dispute you were involved in with Mhorg, not some other editor. You cannot participate as an uninvolved admin here, or any AE thread about Andriy Biletsky or "Word of the White Leader" (or anything else where you've been involved in a content dispute). And if you do, you're going to give Mhorg a reason to appeal any sanction that comes out of this AE. So save us all the trouble of having to deal with that later, and please move your comments up to a separate section here in the non-admin/involved section. Thanks, Levivich^[block] 00:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I noticed that when Drmies incorrectly claimed that a source was self-published when it wasn't, nobody accused Drmies of "misrepresenting a source", because it was an innocent mistake. Just food for thought. Levivich^[block] 01:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MVBW: As I said, I am not suggesting this report is without merit. I'm only suggesting Drmies is involved (and Dennis should specify what he's referring to when he says he checked and Mhorg misrepresented sources). I'm not suggesting that Mhorg didn't misrepresent sources... but there's a little bit of a mix here. For example, Drmies brought up using a self-published source, and it's not self-published, it's important we're clear that this is not an example of misrepresenting a source or being disruptive. Sure there are other examples (and, indeed, "#5" is just one among several examples), but the reviewing admin should be specific about why they're TBANing someone. (And they should do it without violating WP:INVOLVED.) Levivich^[block] 01:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Apparently this is something that needs to be pointed out explicitly: there's a HUUUGGGEEE difference between the statement "person X's comments have not been verified" (what the sources say in this case) and "person X is spreading lies" (what Mhorg kept writing [124] [125]) The latter one is a 100% crystal clear BLPVIO and it's noteworthy that Mhorg kept making these kinds of statements even after it was repeatedly pointed out to them these were BLPVBIOs [126]. That actually makes this even more than just WP:BLP vio but also WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:NOTHERE.

I hope that address Francois Robere's pretty strange assertion that, quote, "it should be said in Mhorg's defense that they have followed content guidelines". Obviously they DID NOT follow content guidelines or policies, particularly BLP, but willfully violated them despite multiple warnings.

BTW, if I'm not mistaken these two diffs of BLPvios [127] and [128] are NOT in MVBWs report and so are ADDITIONAL evidence of problems with Mhorg, on top of the evidence presented by MVBW. Volunteer Marek 23:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elinruby

I noticed this thread after someone suggested at the related complaint by Gitz6666 against Volunteer Marek that those matters should be brought here, and, if I understood correctly, as a boomerang. When I came here to see if they had, I found this thread, which is, as I mentioned, related. I have also edited some of these topics and while I am very preoccupied in real life, I have given a fair amount of thought to Mhorg.

I first encountered him at the very toxic Azov Battalion page, where I attempted to remedy the very misleading references for calling the group “neo-Nazi” in Wikivoice. [129] (also see Police in Belarus as an authority on Ukrainian military further down the same archive page).

I have carefully read the complaint above and these misleading references do not appear to have been mentioned here yet. Mhorg was, quite recently, reverting to reinstate a quite similar article in The Nation which also refers, once only, to the unit as Neo-Nazi, in an article about a line item in the US military budget.

Yes, there was an RfC about the appellation, about which much could be said, but my point is here and now is that I think that Mhorg sincerely believes that if a publication is on the list of Perennial Sources, and contains the words “Neo-Nazi” that this is proof of his point. This is my best attempt at AGF, and it may in fact be accurate. He frequently notes in his edit summaries that a source is on this list.

I gave up trying to improve the references at Azov Battalion after I featured in a lengthy thread at ANI in which I was accused of many things. I do not claim to have been altogether blameless —I should have translated off-wiki, for one thing, but I usually don’t. But then the topics of my translations are not usually so toxic. And yes I probably was a bit scathing. Let’s just say the ANI complaint came to nothing and I would prefer not to express my opinion of the idea that multiple posts at RSN about multiple bad references is “forum shopping”. I only mention this in fairness, because Mhorg did say things about me there that I believe to have been untrue. However, I am trying very hard here to be fair and factual.

I do not think that Mhorg sees his own bias, and it is true that he does seem to make an effort to be collaborative. Perhaps with the wrong people? I am unsure. He seems to sincerely believe in the correctness of his actions, and says above that he still believes that Denisova should have her own personal Controversies section.

He is here in part because of BLP concerns with his edit summaries, yet was counseled about this almost a year ago here Tomasz Greniuch at RSN and argued (tenaciously) with Girth Summit who was trying to explain that having been photographed in his youth doing a Nazi salute is not sufficient reason to remove everything the man has written as a source, and in particular that calling him a neo-Nazi in an edit summary is a BLP violation. And yet he persisted: “Based on what I read, the person would appear to be identified by several sources as a right-wing nationalist in the present day. If so, I am convinced that any work by him should be excluded from Wikipedia.”

In Roman Protasevich [130]* he argues (tenaciously) for inclusion of a YouTube source of a possibly forced confession “no, RSs didn't say that he was tortured. BBC said that "Human rights and opposition campaigners say he was tortured." and the BBC specifies this: "A close-up of Mr Protasevich showed marks on his wrists, possibly from handcuffs".[11] And the "fact" that they were "forced" confessions always remains a speculation and not a fact.”

Diff does not work for some reason, but the statement is still on the talk page, time stamped 14:28, 24 June 2021 -er

In [131] — another article I have never touched afaik —although it the article itself is not a BLP, MVBW raises legitimate BLP concerns.

Azov: Where to begin. The entire article needs massive admin attention. Perhaps they are all Neo-Nazis indeed. This should however be sourced. Mhorg has been part of the POV: [132] deleted link between neo-Nazi claim and its prominence in Russian disinformation. [133] “falsely justifying” -> “justifying” and “advertisement” -> “propaganda”.

I think Dennis Brown is correct in his assessment. I do not think a topic ban should be limited to Denisova however. Perhaps BLPs in general. I do not think he understands libel. Language issues are part of the problem but these problems are serious and he is not that new an editor. Elinruby (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

First of all, I've had some interactions with Mhorg, all friendly, I believe. I'll note that my very first paragraph contains diffs and points to discussions that I was involved in (though those mostly involve a question of sourcing, in a discussion with another editor).
I find #5 difficult particularly since the Colborne book was still the leading citation for the authorship of the "The Word of the White Leader" brochure--but that book is self-published and should not be used for such serious matters. But this was discussed on the talk page, and Mhorg seems to have accepted my removal of that text, so that's in the past as far as I am concerned.
#6, and the diff provided, are problematic too--linking Zelenskyy to some Nazi resembles a smear campaign. But then, this was last month, and I am unwilling to single that out as sufficiant cause for a topic ban.
If this was it, and since I've been involved in one of the articles, I think I'd just suggest some strong warning or something like that, particularly for the Zelenskyy test balloon. And as I mentioned I've interacted with Mhorg on this, and edited the article on Biletsky. But then there is the Denisova material, items #2 and #3, which I have not seen before AFAIK, and that's a(nother) BLP matter, but one where clearly Mhorg's very recent POV-guided edits smear someone's reputation across various articles. At the very least, Mhorg should, IMO, be topic banned from editing anything pertaining to Denisova. I'm sorry, Mhorg, but this cannot stand. Please note that I am sidestepping the issue of behavior toward other editors: that's too complicated for me to dive into now, and I prefer to focus more narrowly on the BLP aspects of this complaint. A topic ban from Denisova seems fair to me--plus something else: a strong, strong warning to NOT smear living people in edit summaries. Mhorg has a tendency to do that, dropping unnecessary commentary and references in the very edit summary, which makes it more difficult to clean up BLP violations--and I wonder if some of their edit summaries shouldn't be revdeleted. That tendency, to state things in Wikipedia's voice outside of article space, occurs on talk pages also. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Selfstudier, please see this--which is what I based my judgment on, reached through a title search in Google Books clearly indicating Books on Demand, published Jan. 2022. I see now that there are hits for "idibem", an imprint (?) of Columbia UP, March 2022--that changes things considerably for the editing of the article. Thank you for that. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Pravega, the purpose of this AE thread is to investigate one set of complaints. Yes, BOOMERANG and all that, but you would have to make a very impressive cause if you wish to undermine the evidence for this case by arguing the one who filed it shouldn't be editing here. Either there is evidence against Mhorg or there isn't--whatever your complaint is about MVBW's editing you may file as a separate AE request. You have not, in fact, defended Mhorg here, unfortunately. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Levivich, I am not aware that I could have a content dispute with someone if they revert part of my edit. That would put an entirely different spin on a lot of things. And if I, in that edit, undid something by Mhorg, then I am not aware of that. And I'm sorry, but claiming that I am involved with Mhorg because we both commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azov Special Purpose Regiment is just ridiculous. For the record, I voted to redirect, Mhorg voted to delete. I thought it was a poorly written and poorly referenced bit of material, and Mhorg thought that the sourcing was potentially highly problematic--so we agreed. Did Mhorg and I get in conflict there? Did we even speak directly to each other? Drmies (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Levivich, it says "disputes on topics...". You turned that into "You can't edit articles in a topic area and then also comment as an uninvolved admin at AE", which is ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I considered moving this up, to an "editor's section", just to stop Levivich from complaining (it's a euphemism), but since Dennis has commented here in "my" thread that seems improper. The closing admin will know what to do, and I have more faith in that closing admin's judgment. Drmies (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Mhorg

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

I checked several sources, translated, and it does seem pretty clear that Mhorg is misrepresenting the sources, exaggerating the claims against Denisova. Topic ban is likely the only solution. I can only guess, but my best guess is there is a serious bias at play here, one that Mhorg can't overcome and be neutral about in this topic area. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- My stance hasn't changed, but I will ping El_C who is likely familiar, for a different perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - As noted on my talk page, my interactions and actions wrt to these 2 disputants were over a year ago, events which I scarcely recollect (I've close literally tens and tens of AE reports during that time). As for the latest, I've reviewed little of anything, so am unable to opine at this time, one way or the other. El_C 20:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mhorg, I'm not going to give a blow by blow report on all your edits, that's not the goal here. We aren't a court, we aren't here to met out justice, we are here to find solutions. The fact that you "have the most expertise" in these areas might be part of the problem, as you tend to talk "at" other editors rather than "with" them, perhaps due to being convinced you think you already know all the right answers. The BLP violations alone are worthy of a topic ban of some sort, as it was more than a single instance. When contemplating a topic ban, the question I ask myself must be: is the area better with or without this individual participating? In this instance, I believe you are a net negative in the topic area. Unless another administrator changes my mind (which is always possible) in the next day or two, then that is the action I would take. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - [Dennis posted this as a response to my comments--Drmies] The Denisova posts were indeed core to why I believe a topic ban is required to restore neutrality to these articles, but I think a tban on just Denisova would be too narrow, as we are seeing questionable edits in the examples given that demonstrate an inability to stay neutral in discussion and edits. I would be more inclined to support a tban for "Ukrainian politics and wars since the year 2000". This would allow editing on history, geology, etc but keep them away from the problem areas where BLP violations are likely to keep happening. I can't really support anything less. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I will get to this later. I wanted to leave open to hear opinions of other editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To the person or persons who keeps emailing me about this case (I have not replied to any of these emails) — please stop. See my comment above. After one closes +50 AE reports in the course of a year, it isn't easy to remember individual cases. I don't have the time (or energy/stamina for that matter) to investigate this AE complaint, so I have nothing further to add atm, which is unlikely to change. Thanks. El_C 11:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Denisova material is definitely problematic; we don't mess about with BLP issues, so a topic-ban simply referring to her should be the minimum action here, whether it needs to be wider is another question. Black Kite (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armatura

Indef block as a standard admin action, with more info on their talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Armatura

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MJL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Armatura (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: Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

12 June 2022 Armatura makes the absurd claim that he can't be reverted and threatens to report another editor (Golden) for their previous history of disregarding Wikipedia policies. I am not exaggerating here. Armatura explicitly makes the claim that WP:DONTREVERT is a policy.
I got asked by Golden to help figure out how to respond to Armatura here and determine where Golden might've misstepped (at least that's how I read the message). Instead, I decide to jump in and explain that (A) Armatura seems to gravely misunderstand the basic nature of Wikipedia's policies (WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, etc.) (B) I don't like Armatura threatened to report a user over this incredibly minor content dispute (WP:BATTLEGROUND/WP:CIR).
13 June 2022 Armatura responds by saying I'm not fit to mediate conflicts in AA2 (which is an absurd claim and completely unrelated to anything I said or was trying to do) and proceeds to explain how I fall short of his criteria. Needless to say, Armatura completely misses the point. (WP:IDHT)
14 June 2022 Skipping forward a bit, after our conversation Armatura decides to vague post about me to the Teahouse where Armatura asks What does a third person do, if a mentor appears to be abusing their role and harassing a third person in order to protect their protege? (For context, I'm Golden's mentor of sorts.) (WP:HARASS/WP:BATTLEGROUND)
18-20 June 2022 Armatura comes to my talk page to complain about Golden. I explain I don't see any issues with Golden's response. Armatura offers me reading material about protegee-mentor relationships which I didn't ask for. I respond confronting Armatura with what he said about me at the Teahouse and Rosguill's talk page. Armatura denies he was talking about me (just blatantly lying at that point). (WP:CIV)
28 June 2022 A user (Abrvagl) brings forward pretty basic response to the concerns Armatura copy/pasted at WP:BLP/N and Talk:2020 Ghazanchetsots Cathedral shelling. There is so much going on with how Armatura replied in that diff. He questions how a user took only 6 months to learn Wikipedia's policies and improve their English. Then he responds by saying Abrvagl was being passive aggressive I-am-not-saying-anything-but-kind-of-openly-implying-things-nonetheless but says he won't respond that way (despite the fact he just did) while ignoring literally everything that user had to say to him. (WP:IDHT/WP:BATTLEGROUND)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

23 January 2021 A since-overturned IBAN with Solavirum (talk · contribs)

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

Placed a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page. [134] (It's not on the talk page, but WP:NOTBURO applies here folks.)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Armatura is the type of person to post about an Azeribaijani mailing list of more than 10 years ago on ruwiki and claim there are current enwiki editors still actively involved in offwiki coordination.
Armatura is the type of person to out a minor onwiki by stalking their social media ([135]).

My conclusion? Competence is required. Nothing less than a topic-ban for AA2 and a final warning about the copyvio or an indef block as an admin action would be sufficient for him here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: I absolutely considered adding the template, but it would've been incredibly WP:POINTy. The point of the template is to ensure the person knows about the sanctions. What would be the point for someone who has {{ds/aware}} on their user page? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: To be honest, I really just think an indef as a regular admin action is the right move here. I could have requested as much on AN or AN/I, but no one likes commenting on these kinds of reports over there (well, besides the people involved of course).
I mean, you'd think Armatura would be on his best behavior given this thread, but I mean look at this diff. In response to a user (Golden) asking them to provide a list of reliable sources that use his preferred term to describe a pretty sensitive topic, Armatura just says that's a logical fallacy (?), and it's on the Internet. That's just.. so far removed from how we do things here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Done.

Discussion concerning Armatura

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

Statement by Armatura

Thanks for opening this discussion, MJL. I will go one by one through the points you have raised.

Armatura claims he can't be reverted. You are referring to this. I didn't say I cannot be reverted, but I questioned why and based on what I was reverted, and I see a problem in using reverting as method of operation (I rarely use it).
Armatura claims that WP:DONTREVERT is a policy. I am yet to learn the pragamtic difference between policy, guidelines, and essays on Wikipedia by heart, that is true. I regard them as code of exemplary conduct, and if an (non humorous) essey says do not X,Y,Z, I sincerely try not doing X,Y, or Z. I was genuinely surprised that you put such a difference in between these terms, and I expressed by bewilderment on a neutral senior user's page.
I got asked by Golden, I decide to jump in. Your emotional jumping in felt to me that you had a go at me, you did not sound neutral to me, hence I asked a neutral user, who, while explaining my mistake in a peaceful manner (for which I was thankful), agreed that you did get more testy with me than would have been ideal. I did explain why I did not consider your intervention neutral, you may say these are my subjective feelings, but so are yours. You blamed me with threatening another user (I agree I could sound friendlier when I was questioning Golden's revert), but this felt like you were threatening me and putting an ultimatum in front of me (not a peaceful conflict resolution method, I hope you agree).
Armatura says I'm not fit to mediate conflicts in AA2 I explained above why I did not like the tone of your explanation, I believe mentorship should never work like that.
Vague post about me to the Teahouse - Armatura asks what to do if a mentor appears to be abusing their role? Not knowing what wiki mentorship is and the code of conduct of it, I asked in Teahouse those questions, and what I should do if I think boundaries are being stretched. I did not mention your name and did not report you anywhere, the question was for my own learning.
Armatura comes to my talk page... Armatura offers me reading material I came to your page following the advice given in Teahouse. After seeing you failed to see a problem when there is a problem with mentee's edits, I hoped you may reflect after reading academic material on well-described negative aspects of mentor-mentee relationship.
Armatura blatantly lying. Is this WP:CIV from you? My answer did not deny it was about you, I said "If you associate yourself with some of the things I asked about in TeaHouse, perhaps there has been some reflection after cooling down", meaning that I was talking about you and that I was happy you had some reflection on the points I made to you. You snapped at me again, hence I decided to leave the non-productive conversation peacefully, with a compliment in your address.
Compliment was genuine, by the way, I am aware of your contributions on Scots Wikipedia and things you say there on your userpage that you really love helping people and that you will not be afraid to stand-up to injustice deserve admiration. But, I don't think you are ideal, and I don't welcome your taking sides in AA2 debates, despite repeatedly declaring no bias. You defend problematic editors: One is blocked for sockpupetry, one is doing questionable edits (like this) while in probation after recent block for sockpuppetry]. Another on, recently warned for edit warring came to my talk page with seemingly reserved by stil unfriendly tone, "if I assume good faith" is never a good idea for starting conversation with a stranger, on Wiki or off Wiki, and wanted him to feel what it would sound like if I was him and he was me. The number of quoted policies sounded wikilawyering to me, for the pattern of English writing - we have previously seen disruptive coordinated editing from certain users and this language difference was quite striking, so it got my attention, check his previous posts and see for yourself.
claims there are current enwiki editors still actively involved in offwiki coordination This is not true. Everyone can read with their own eyes the memo on my page: A case of pro-Azerbaijani off-wiki coordination similar to WP:EEML have been revealed on Russian Wikipedia in 2010, with some of the current pro-Azerbaijani editors of English Wikipedia on the mailing list.
Outing I did not know anything about wikipolicis of outing at the time, and that such concerning behaviour should have been reported to Arbcom. I never crossed that boundarie again, once it was explained, hence the IBAN was rescinded and annulled in due course. --Armatura (talk)
Even though my account is 15 years old, I have not spent as much time on Wikipedia as much you think I do, and do not have experience you keep assuming I have - see my activity over years and that will be clear. I am grateful to all users who helped me to improve George Klein article I started, apologies for initial mistakes, I am yet to check what wiki copyvivo is and with what sauce it has to be eaten with. Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments

MJL and Dennis Brown, thank you for your comments. Have you looked into the behaviour of the users I mentioned I had disputes with, did you see me having problems with users who do not abuse Wikipedia policies? Both Golden and Solavirum intentionally abused Wikipedia, by edit warring, by using multiple accounts, by owning the AA articles I share an interest in, by hostile treatment towards me from the moment I re-started editing in 2020 after a long hiatus. Not knowing exactly where / how to complain, how to deal with subthreshold tendentious editing, the Wikipedia policies well enough to stand up against wikilawyering - these were things that made me sometimes irritated, to the point of sounding unfriendly. My 15 years is being brought repetitively as an argument against me - please have a look at the unequal spread of my activity since registration, have a look at my other interactions and you will see why I am not the the “established user who bullies others right and left”. --Armatura (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

The whole point of the aware template is to establish awareness. I think the user is clearly aware and the request for enforcement should be considered on its merits and not dismissed on the technicality that the template is on their user page and not their user talk page. I have not looked at and do not intend to look at those merits, but it shouldnt be ignored without examining the merits. nableezy - 03:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Szmenderowiecki

First, we are not a bureaucracy. Secondly, a cursory look at AE archives reveals that a report against the user was filed in January 2021 (withdrawn). Armatura additionally commented in WP:AA2-related AE reports in November 2021 and in June 2022. According to awareness rules, a user is aware if In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement (point 4). This clearly happened here. Please proceed with the analysis on the merits.

This comment does not endorse anyone's statements, it's just to make sure that the AE complaint is not dismissed on a technicality. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Armatura

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

Armatura had not been given a DS notice since Aug of 2020, so we kind of have to do that in order to consider sanctions for actions after this notice is given. That doesn't mean an admin can't sanction using standard admin authority for any general bad behavior, but we can't DS sanction if they haven't been notified in the last 12 months. They did add the notification, which is odd, but I stand by giving the template given the circumstances. I have not looked at the merits at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the merits either yet, but the user has had - since January 2021 - a notice on their userpage stating "This user is aware of the discretionary sanction topic area(s): Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. He should not be given alerts for those areas.". If a user with that template on their userpage was brought to AE and then actually tried to claim that the filing was invalid because they hadn't received an alert, they'd be told "No, because you specifically asked not to be given one", so that should be the case in all circumstances. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is looking like a WP:TE issue, broader than just AE issues. Not sure what to do here. Really, the only question is, is this a case for indef block, or is there some hope? After a lot of consideration, I'm of the mind to just assume they were aware by virtue of adding that notice to their page, and proceed, although I'm not sure we need AE authority to take action here anyway. Notification isn't a get out of jail free card. Again, is this person a net positive or net negative for the encyclopedia? I'm leaning net negative. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. If this was a new user, it would be easy to slap their wrist a bit and monitor, but the gaslighting (last example in the original report) and passive-aggressively complaining about people being passive-agressive, and other examples of behavior from an editor that has been here over a decade is hard to figure out a solution for, other than using the ban hammer. I don't see a clear line violation, but I do see a pattern of behavior that is incompatible with Wikipedia, or any collaborative project, so again, this may be a standard admin action thing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kurds and Kurdistan

As this is a sanction from a final decision, it is not eligible for appeal to AE. I have transferred it to the correct venue - WP:ARC. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Thepharoah17

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. 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 (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Thepharoah17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan#Thepharoah17 topic-banned

Administrator imposing the sanction: ArbCom (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Thepharoah17

I got a one year topic ban in this area and would like to appeal the ban. Apparently, my editing was disruptive and I pledge to change that. I never meant any harm with my edits. In any case, I just took a seven month break from Wikipedia and am ready to contribute positively. I was kind of busy in the past few months. If you let me back, I promise I will contribute positively. There was a sockpuppet that I was dealing with and things may have gotten a bit messy but I promise there will be no disruption from me. You can look at my talk page history and see that I have never been disruptive. By the way, I am not sure if I am appealing this the right way or if I have to appeal to the arbitration committee i.e. I did not know what to put for 'user imposing the sanction' so I just put ArbCom.

The only reason I am topic banned is because there was a sockpuppet and because Levivich did a witch hunt (and did not even get one of the diffs correct). Go through my talk page history and you will find almost no warnings. You want to extend the topic ban, go ahead. I fully swear 100% to god that I have NEVER been disruptive. That case was opened by a banned user. That one month block btw, I’m not sure what it was for i.e. I think it was supposed to be an arbitration block but it was because a user went forum shopping. I am telling you I am 100% innocent. The block on the French wiki was because I was reverting a sockpuppet's edits on that wiki. I am telling you, though, I am 100% innocent. If you do not believe me, that is your choice. The topic ban is not even possible. Banned users cannot open arb cases. Do whatever you want. Honestly, I don’t even know why I even came back. The whole thing is just weird but again do whatever you want. Banned users cannot open arb cases and users like Levivich cannot do (or are not supposed to be allowed to do witch hunts). Before that point, I had NEVER really had any warnings. He did a witch hunt and portrayed me as a disruptive editor. I am telling you, though, I am not a disruptive editor. Believe whoever you want. It is your choice. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really just a poor guy who was hoping to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. If you believe I am disruptive, then I don't know what to tell you. BTW the only reason I was topic banned was because I reverted a sockpuppet. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ArbCom

Statement by Levivich

Two things I'd like to raise: First, the last edit Thepharoah17 made prior to posting this request is this from Dec. 6, which I won't characterize, but I think reviewing admins should read. Second, I think it would help to see a few examples from the past year where Thepharoah17 has resolved a content dispute with another editor, or at least engaged in discussion of content with another editor, to demonstrate that their approach has indeed changed from the approach that led to the TBAN. Levivich^[block] 18:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience of those reviewing this and the next appeal, and maybe for Pharoah's benefit, let me quote WP:KURDS#Thepharoah17:

4) Thepharoah17 has shown a battleground mentality with respect to Kurds and Kurdistan topic area: they attempted to sidetrack concerns about their article-writing due to an unrelated bias from the other editor,[136] and claimed they have no further interest in the topic yet returned to make similar edits shortly thereafter.[137][138] Thepharoah17 has edited tendentiously in the topic area by seeking to erase Kurdish names and mentions of Kurdistan,[139][140][141], pushing an anti-Kurd POV,[142][143][144][145] and drawing equivalencies between Kurdish groups and the Islamic State.[146]
Passed 12 to 0 at 14:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Since then, we've seen the same behavior on the French Wikipedia (where he was blocked for erasing Kurdish names in favor of Arabic ones), in the Dec. 6 posting linked above ("I really do not care about all about Kurdistan nor do I really know anything about it" yet here he is seeking to edit the topic area again), and in this AE appeal (sidetracking concerns about their article-writing: "The only reason I am topic banned is because there was a sockpuppet and because Levivich did a witch hunt..."). Levivich^[block] 19:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Thepharoah17

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

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Thepharoah17

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

The topic ban was placed in February 2021 with a note that it can be appealed after 12 months. They were blocked for a week by El_C for violating the topic ban in March 2021 [147] which they unsuccessfully appealed here. They were block again in May 2021, this time for 1 month, following this AE thread. This clearly shows the claim that they have never been disruptive to be incorrect. Looking at their talk page, it seems there have been several issues relating to deletion since then but none have been in the area of the topic ban. However, this appeal is their first (and so far only) contribution to the project since December when they were indefinitely blocked on the French Wikipedia for Kurdistan-related disruption. All this together, and particularly the last two points, mean I'm leaning towards not accepting the appeal now - I'd prefer to see another 6 months of clearly good editing in other topic areas first. Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really just a poor guy who was hoping to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. you are free to make positive contributions to Wikipedia about every other subject you can think of.

If you believe I am disruptive, then I don't know what to tell you. It's not about telling us things, the evidence of your contributions shows that you very much were disruptive. You need to show us, through your edits, that you no longer are.

BTW the only reason I was topic banned was because I reverted a sockpuppet. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan#Thepharoah17 makes it clear that the basis for your topic ban was not just "reverting a sock puppet".
In order for your topic ban to be lifted you need to demonstrate three things:
1. That you understand why your past behaviour was disruptive
2. That you are now able to make positive contributions to the encyclopaedia without being disruptive
3. That if the topic ban is lifted you wont return to the behaviour that resulted in the topic ban in the first place.
Regarding point 1, not only have you not demonstrated this, it's becoming clear that you don't (or possibly don't want to) understand this; with no recent edits we have no evidence on which to evaluate point 2, but your edits from December do not make a good case for you. The lack of recent edits also make point 3 hard to judge, but your actions on the French Wikipedia after being topic banned here and your lack of understanding of why your actions were disruptive don't fill me with confidence. I'm now a firm decline. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose removing the tban at this time. Our first obligation is to the reader, then the editors contributing to those articles in a positive way. I don't see lifting the tban as helping either group, given the statements, prior blocks and insufficient time actually contributing in a constructive manner. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZaniGiovanni

There is no bright line violation that justifies AE sanctions at this time. ZaniGiovanni does exhibit some problems with WP:CIVIL that need to be reined in, but they haven't risen to the point of sanction. Yet. As the core of this dispute is about content, I suggest all parties return to editing, read WP:BRD, use the talk page, and POLITELY and PATIENTLY find consensus on these pages. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning ZaniGiovanni

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Abrvagl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

20 June 2022‎ - Zani restores POV/nationalistic wording with the logic of 'wartime ethnic retribution', despite the fact that the cited source makes no mention of "because". Zani continues to push his point of view even after I pointed him that this is nearly the exact wording that got another user in AA2 topic banned recently [148]. WP:BATTLE,WP:TE
25 April 2022 - ZaniGiovanni adds the following sentence as part of his rewrite of a mosque article: "Agdam was used by Azerbaijani forces to fire BM-21 Grad long-range missiles at the Armenian populace of Stepanakert". This sentence is not only completely irrelevant to the article, but it again creates a logic of justification for the destruction of a whole city and a mosque. WP:BATTLE,WP:TE
30 April 2022 - Zani reinstates a statement synthesized from a number of controversial sources and once again brings wartime retribution logic into an article. Zani says that the shelling of the city of Ganja, which resulted in over 130 casualties was "in response to the Stepanakert shelling". Even after I point out that the majority of reliable sources do not share same viewpoint and that Wikipedia isn't a basis for justifying war crimes, he accuses me of sealioning.
22 June 2022‎ - Zani ignores common sense logic explained to him by the user Golden. He reinstates his own version without reaching a consensus on the talk page discussion and then rejects the opinion of a 3O invited by Golden not once, but twice. WP:IDHT
20 January 2022 - When asked by the user Nunuxxx to be more polite, Zani replies with "Please stop asking me to do stuff, this is a last warning from me". WP:CIVIL
24 April 2022 - A user rewrote the Agdam Mosque article, removing some information and explaining why after another user asked. Zani then jumps into the middle of the conversation and makes a snarky comment towards the user: "I see you appealed your topic-ban with promises to not be disruptive in any topic area, but there's already a problematic edit", quickly turning a polite discussion into a battleground. WP:HARASS, WP:BATTLEGROUND
26 May 2022 - Zani again enters another user discussion in an article he has never edited before and immediately starts bringing dirt on another user, by bringing up eight diffs from two years ago that have no relevance on the specific content dispute. WP:CIVIL, WP:HOUNDING

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

14 March 2021 A one-week block for personal attacks
29 November 2021 72-hour arbitration block from Uzundara article for edit warring
2 February 2022 Formally warned against edit warring with the expectation to be more diligent in pages covered by AA2 DS

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Based on his repeated behaviour and prior engagements with users, it would seem Zani is uninterested in cooperating with their fellow co-editors, especially in such a contentious topic area as AA2. He also frequently complains to admins about users he disagrees with in order to discredit and block them (here he misquotes a user in order to convince an admin that there was a personal attack, and here he brings a content dispute to an admin without first talking to the other user, trying to convince the admin that the user was edit warring). Zani's disruptive behaviour has been pointed out to him by several different users on numerous occasions (March 2021, March 2021, March 2021, January 2022, May 2022, May 2022, June 2022), yet he keeps continuing down the same path.

Reply 2

Here are a few more recent diffs:

20 June 2022‎ - Zani rephrases the article content to bring more weight to the Armenian version while casting doubt on the Azerbaijani version
3 July 2022 - Zani, who is not picky at all with the reliability of sources when it favours him (for example, he added 2 low-quality sources about a living person's biography, one of which is results from a search engine), now removes properly sourced material with appropriate attribution by falsely citing WP:UNDUE (which he does very often).

@Dennis Brown: ZaniGiovanni was only recently formally warned for the same problematic behaviour he continues to display today. At first glance, it may be easy to classify the diffs I've provided as content disputes, however, all of these "disputes" show the patterns of disruptive behaviour this user displays and so should be reviewed in more detail. For example, the first 3 diffs (20 June 2022‎, 30 April 2022, 25 April 2022) clearly shows patterns where the user tries to insert logic of wartime ethnic retribution and war crime justifications into Wikipedia, which is exactly what another admin (Future Perfect at Sunrise) at AE recently topic banned a similar editor in AA2 for. Closing the report with no action, despite all the evidence of tendentious editing, would set a dangerous precedent that this kind of editing goes without any consequences.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

10 July 2022‎.

Discussion concerning ZaniGiovanni

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

Statement by ZaniGiovanni

I'm not sure why I'm being reported all of a sudden, my recent interaction with this user was in Talk:Imarat_cemetery#Reza, where I explained how the source they wanted to keep is WP:UNDUE. Regardless, I'll address the diffs point by point;

1) It was in the article before you removed it. I made a single revert of you (the diff you present) after and explained my rationale on talk, as it's a direct quote paraphrased from the source, see Talk:Lachin#An_Armenian_sergeant. I don't have strong objections for removing it, in fact, I haven't made more than a single revert of you and I stop disengaging from the discussion. If you wanted to restore your edit, you should've done so instead of bringing my single diff here.
2) Irrelevant old diff and you didn't even confront me at the time, even though it's well sourced. If you had any objections, you should've done so instead of piling as many old diffs as possible and opening this insufficient report.
3) You're literally linking a talk comment, that's not a supporting evidence for whatever you're requesting, it's a standard reply. And you were reported for your own changes in 2020 Ganja missile attacks article already, and the commenting admin Rosguill clearly told me; "As far as the continued discussion regarding the Ganja strikes, you have no obligation to continue responding to Abrvagl's arguments; it appears that the stable status quo is your preferred version, so the ball is in Abrvagl's court to call for an RfC, since a third party has already weighed in and you're clearly not interested in taking it to DRN." I think this 3rd "diff" Abrvagl brought up against me raises huge WP:CIR issues of Abrvagl and his battleground mentality.
4) I don't "ignore" anything, I opened a discussion, made my arguments and stated my final opinion to the third party. Whatever happens after that I'm not going to revert. Are you just looking for my contributions and searching any discussion I'm involved in to add to your report? Because clearly you've never edited in that article and I don't see you commenting on talk either.
5) Go back even further, that's not enough.
6) I didn't "jump" into the discussion, I have that page wathclisted and edited a number of times in that article. And I did make valid points that I wanted to make. What are you trying to say with this old April diffs exactly? 2 (this including) are just discussion comments of mine, and legitimate ones at that.
7) You already brought up this in the previous AE case against you. I already explained to you what happened, I'll say again; You probably found that discussion on my talk page User_talk:ZaniGiovanni#Golden, so you should've seen just below that I, in good faith, also asked about it in the TeaHouse User_talk:ZaniGiovanni#Your_thread_has_been_archived ([149]) because it was still unclear to me whether discussing user conduct on article talk pages should always be prohibited. I'm certainly more careful about this now, and I make sure just for good measure to raise complex conduct issues on user pages instead or appropriate noticeboards. I already acknowledged this, and I took the criticism for this as seen by my previous explanation. But what does this have to do with you, and why are you bringing this up here for the second time?

Rosguill as the previous admin commenting on cases regarding Abrvagl and me, I'm asking you if I have to address anything else. I personally find this report subpar for whatever Abrvagl tries to achieve. I just noticed that in their "additional comments", Abrvagl goes as far as my registration month and links old comments from 2 users from March 2021, my block from 2021 again (I guess it wasn't enough linking once), a random part of article disagreement with another user that I solved already from January (same diff as their 5th point), MJL's comment on my talk (regarding the same 7th point), a Teahouse good faith answer to my question from an admin lol (what does this have to do in AE?), and last one his own comment. I'm so confused at the incompetence of this report. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown I admit being snarky in some of the comments I addressed, because honestly, I was dumbfounded by a number of "diffs" against me. This isn't the first time this user tries to gish gallop me with as much stuff possible, with disregard to how old the diffs are, relevancy, accuracy, etc. They linked my March 2021 block (when I just registered) for the 2nd time for christ's sake, with comment; "Zani's disruptive behaviour has been pointed out to him by several different users on numerous occasions". It's just a standard block notice. If this isn't browbeating me with random inaccurately described stuff to embellish their report, I don't know what is. Unfortunately this is the reality of battleground topic area that AA2 is. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El C can you please clarify that this is not a "sanction" but a warning you gave me back in February? There is a pretty big difference as far as I know, and shouldn't this user be more diligent given the insufficient report that they already posted and wrongly characterized a bunch of things, including ancient diffs when I just registered? See my comment above for examples. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) Actually my edit was similar to the status quo version which was changed, see [150]. But I didn't make any edits after that, I didn't even make a single revert even though my change was modified. Why are you commenting this now, and where do you find these diffs that you weren't even part of? Why didn't you discuss this with me anywhere if you somehow saw this despite never editing in the article? Are you just going through my random contributions now because an admin noted that your added diffs were not sanctionable?

2) That's literally something that I opened up in my first comment here, see Talk:Imarat_cemetery#Reza. I already told you what I think and very clearly justified my edit. I don't plan discussing content with you here, if you still have objections, comment on article talk like a normal bloody process instead of dragging everything here.

Dennis Brown That's was not a sanction btw like Abrvagl claimed here and added in the sanctions section, that's a warning from February by El_C and I kindly asked them to clarify this. The last 3 diffs Abrvagl links in their 2nd comment are literally the same things from their 1st comment, already addressed, including a standart talk page reply of mine in an article regarding which Rosguill clearly told me; "As far as the continued discussion regarding the Ganja strikes, you have no obligation to continue responding to Abrvagl's arguments; it appears that the stable status quo is your preferred version,...". This same repeated "diff" (a standard talk reply from an article, an article where Abrvagl yet has to gain consensus per admin comment as well) that Abrvagl links for the second time now is what constitutes "wartime ethnic retribution" according to them. I'm not going to tolerate personal attacks like this again.

I believe this user should be WP:BOOMERANGed because of the continued sheer incompetence and insufficient diffs against me, characterized with bad faith and outright false accusations. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, Abrvagl showed my diff from Talk:Imarat_cemetery#Reza as an evidence of "now removes properly sourced material with appropriate attribution by falsely citing WP:UNDUE". I asked Abrvagl to reply on talk instead of bringing several content issues here. I also asked them to stop making false accusations. Hours later, they replied. After some comments, we reached an impasse and I thought a third opinion was needed.

I requested a third opinion from Morbidthoughts and notified Abrvagl. I specifically choose someone who's an established third-party, who agreed both with me and Abrvagl in the past depending on the situation not the user. Clear examples when Abrvagl wanted to remove something and took it to BLP just not so recently; Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive339#Saadat_Kadyrova ([2], [3]), and when Morbidthoughts replied to my thread in BLP Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Hidayat_Orujov.

Today, Abrvagl accuses me of canvassing. I honestly don't know if this user legitimately has short memory problems, because it shouldn't have been hard to remember that Morbidthoughts agreed with them not so recently in two separate occasions. How is this canvassing? I barely know Morbidthoughts and only from BLP noticeboards and I specifically choose someone established, third-party, impartial. This is just another bad faith passive-aggressive accusation. For the record, I could've taken this to WP:THIRD, but then it would take too long to get picked up and in some instances, not to be picked up at all (as seen by Abrvagl himself who had to add a separate issue twice), and I personally thought this was a simple matter that Abrvagl refused to see. I made the request itself as impartial as possible. I honestly don't know when enough is enough of this user's continued bad faith accusations. I feel attacked even though I tried my best and took good faith measures to solve our issues. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hut 8.5 thanks for the comment. While I agree that I could've used better tone in that particular example, in all fairness, it's a diff from half a year ago. And it was a content issue at core, which I solved with the user (Abrvagl wasn't even in the discussion) a long time ago. For context, the authorities were added back by the user themselves after the talk discussion [151]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ZaniGiovanni

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

The 3O was by someone that had been here 2 or 3 weeks with 200 edits, so it's hard for me to even understand why they are giving 3rd opinions, making ignoring it utterly forgivable. The other stuff seems to be backed with diffs and falls under "content dispute", which I have no comment on. Adding a sentence once isn't an example of battleground or WP:TE. Commenting on someone having their topic ban lifted and making huge edits as problematic isn't harassing them. It might be snarky, but that is about it. I haven't looked deeper than the diffs you provided, as I assume you have provided the worst offenses, yet I don't see any bright line violations. Some heat is expected when editing in controversial topic area. Based on this, I would recommend no action, and just remind ZaniGiovanni that being snarky isn't helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at the headline diffs and I agree with Dennis Brown - while the tone of some of the comments isn't very good (e.g. [152]), these are largely content disputes. Discretionary sanctions are mainly intended for behavioural problems, and the bar for applying them for content edits is very high. Hut 8.5 18:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay

GoodDay is topic banned from the subject matter covered under WP:GENSEX, broadly construed, for an indefinitely period of time. This includes talk pages, personal talk pages, WP space and all other areas of the English Wikipedia. I considered instituting a one way interaction ban with Sideswipe9th & Newimpartial, but these are so easy to game and are so otherwise problematic, I would instead offer this REQUEST that all three parties simply avoid each other, so we don't have to visit further sanction. Failure to do so may result in one/two way bans and/or other sanctions. Let's move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning GoodDay

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sideswipe9th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: GoodDay (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

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

[153] GoodDay posts "friendly advice" on Newimpartial's talk page, casting aspersions of them being a SPA
[154] Thirteen minutes later, on his talk page GoodDay pings Newimpartial.
[155] Newimpartial replies to the suggestion and the ping.
[156] GoodDay removes Newimpartial's reply with summary Don't ya just hate it. When someone 'reverts' you off their talkpage.
[157] GoodDay makes note of a one sided application of ds/alert notifications
[158] I comment on the aspersion in diff 5, to which GoodDay replies with a non-sequitur about misuse of MOS:GENDERID
[159] GoodDay returns to aspersions about an editor.
[160] GoodDay posts a brief forum style message that is only tangentially related to the current state of the discussion
[161] GoodDay pointedly states he has no intention to respond to posts by Newimpartial on any talk page.
[162] GoodDay comments on the hatting at Talk:Jordan Peterson, misgendering Newimpartial despite being aware of their pronouns and having made a oblique comment on it on 10 July.
[163] In response to the forum comment being hatted, GoodDay refers to the editor who hatted it as "it" on another user's talk page (Springee)
[164] After a request from Newimpartial relating to diff 11, GoodDay amends the comment with an edit summary We must always be 'PC', of course.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[165] GoodDay warned by El C on 1 July 2022 saying Your comments on this matter on various pages are skirting the line.

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

[166] Received the BLP sanctions alert on 21 June 2022
[167] Received the GENSEX sanctions alert on 12 July 2022
[168] Formally warned by El C on 1 July 2022 relating to conduct in GENSEX content area
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive299#Statement_by_GoodDay Contributed to the Maneesh GENSEX enforcement request in December 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

With the diffs above, I've focused on a protracted back and forth between GoodDay and Newimpartial over the last 7 days. However GoodDay's conduct in these topic areas has been disruptive for some time. As noted by El C on 1 July, GoodDay has been making many frequent short disruptive comments relating to the GENSEX content area, across many talk pages for a substantial amount of time. I can present diffs of examples, but to do so I'd need a word and diff limit extension. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like clarity on the directionality of the one-way IBAN. Would it be that I and Newimpartial cannot do any of the five bullet points listed at WP:IBAN towards GoodDay? Or would it be that GoodDay cannot do any of the five points listed towards Newimpartial and myself?

I don't think GoodDay has the scope correct however because show up at any page discussions I'm in would be tantamount to a rolling ABAN depending on who got to a discussion first. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[169] Notification of this request.

Discussion concerning GoodDay

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

Statement by GoodDay

I request a topic-ban from discussions about the LGBTQ (Gensex) topic and any form of an interaction ban, between myself, Sideswipe9th & Newimpartial. Note: I haven't & don't, add or remove material from LGBTQ (Gensex) pages, directly concerning LGBTQ issues. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've learned a few things in the last few hours & so I've rescinded my t-ban request. I wish only for the aforementioned 'interaction' bans. GoodDay (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is all about 'pronouns'? It would help to know exactly 'what' pronouns are being requested. Otherwise, I don't know what I can & can't use. Overall, my preference is to use an editor's name, to avoid the apparent minefield. GoodDay (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if this is about something I posted way back in Dec 2020? on an BLP? I've no intentions of doing so again, as I don't need reaction(s) that would come with it. GoodDay (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back to pronouns. I shall never call you 'it' again & I apologise, as I didn't realise it was a 'hurtful' term. Where I live, the word is used often, even among my own family, towards each other. GoodDay (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to use editors' "names", rather then pronouns. At this point Newimpartial, I'm going to ask you to stop & let us 'walk away' from each other. GoodDay (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What EXACTLY is it that you want from me, Newimpartial? GoodDay (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee:, @Crossroads:, @Masterhatch: & @Dennis Brown:, perhaps you all can help me out, on this. I don't know what else, Newimpartial wants from me. GoodDay (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be casting aspersions & misgendering editors or articles of people. GoodDay (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: & @Dennis Brown: I am competent & I'm also a member of Generation X (I'm in my early 50's), though I'm not certain if this is a generational thing, as I don't know what generation Sideswipe & Newimpartial are a part of. Today, I reviewed the user pages of Sideswipe & Newimpartial & learned that they 'both' have interests in LGBTQ issues and/or identify with the LGBTQ community. I've also read up a bit on WP:GENSEX & why related pages are under Discretionary Sanctions. I said it before & I'll repeat it again. I apologies to anyone who I may have offended with my posts. Indeed, I've started to watch Facebook videos on the topic of gender identity, to catch up on things. I've made mistakes & I'm not perfect. GoodDay (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell:, will an interaction ban mean that neither Sideswipe or Newimpartial can contact me or show up at any page discussions I'm in? GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: & @Newimpartial:, these last roughly two weeks, have made me quite disinterested in the general topic area-in-question. I don't know if I'll be topic-banned or not, nor do I know if any other editors have been t-banned from the area-in-question. For all I know? I might become the first. I'm a practical person & as such, whether or not I believe GenSex pages/talkpages should be under Discretionary Sanctions, is irrelevant. They are under DS & that's the way it is. Arbcom made their decision - objections denied. I'll leave you both alone & hope you'll both leave me alone. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A request to administrators. If there's to be any t-ban? please make it 'only' the talkpages. Any edits I've made to LGBTQ-related pages, weren't (to my memory) related to LGBTQ issues. I'm a gnome editor, so any such edits by me would've been things like date corrections, image sizes, etc. It's the same as I don't look to see if the page is about a carpenter, politician, tree grower, etc. I'm a gnome & I edit articles, via the 'random' button. Examples: If there had been a birthdate error in the Jordan Peterson or Elliot Page (which I did edit on July 7, 2022) articles? That would be my concern. My edits on these articles aren't deemed problematic. Only my participation in discussions & talkpages, have been questioned. PS - Check my edit pie chart & you'll see that over 78% of my edits are to main space. I'm rarely on talkpages (7.5%), to be sure. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

I've been watching Newimpartial and to a lesser extent Sideswipe9th. I've been concerned that Newimpartial engages in behavior that tends to provoke editors. This is especially true when it appear the other editor is starting to lose their cool. Consider just a few weeks back when Clicriffhard was reported for edit warring. The editor was given a 24hr block for violating a 3RR on a talk page. Newimpartial continued to prod Clicriffhard after the block was in place [170]. When it was clear they were not welcome [171] they continued [172]. Newimpartial also pinged Clicriffhard to NI's own talk page[173] after it was clear they were not welcome on Clicriffhard's own page . Eventually Acroterion told Newimpartial to knock if off [174].

Newimpartial's behavior towards GoodDay was similar. They followed GoodDay to another editor's talk page where they offered what appears to be an unwelcome interjection [175]. Here is an example where they interjected themselves into a discussion on GoodDay's page [176]. When that edit was reverted [177], NI responded with a null edit and an edit summary which of course can't be removed [178]. Newimpartial decided one of GoodDay's comments was off topic and thus collapsed it [179]. Collapsing the article talk page comments of someone you are arguing with certainly is not a great way to calm things down. While the comment wasn't strictly on point I don't think it violated FORUM and certainly no more than Newimpartial's own comment just a few edits later [180].

I don't think Newimpartial and to a lesser extent Sideswipe9th should be rewarded for needling editors to the point where they cross a line in frustration/exasperation. Newimpartial has only one block for edit warring [181] but a number of editors have come to their talk page with behavioral concerns.[182], [183], [184],

I will admit, accusations != actual violations but it does appear Newimpartial is rubbing a lot of editors the wrong way.

A. C. Santacruz warned Newimpartial about civility just a few months back [185].

This doesn't mean GoodDay didn't (or did) violate a behavior guideline, only that I think looking only at GoodDay without considering the Newimpartial's behavior is a mistake. I would suggest nothing more than a clear warning for all involved. Springee (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newimparital, your highlighted comments illustrate one of the issues with your editing. You have taken a disagreement related to content and tried to turn it into a morality dispute. You are trying to contrast disagreements related to the quality of sources, a discussion that is absolutely allowed, with trying to needle an editor with whom you disagree thus creating an opportunity to use behavioral sanctions to achieve victory in what should be a basic content dispute. It is also important to note you are falsely presenting my arguments. Springee (talk) 04:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a further example of Newimpartial needling GoodDay, after this ARE was opened Newimpartial again injected themselves into a discussion on GoodDay's talk page [186] even after they state [187] they assume GoodDay doesn't want to talk with them (something I believe GoodDay said on one of the article talk pages). [Edit/correction], my time sequence was out, the comments were 8 minutes apart. Newimpartial injected themselves into a discussion then 8 minutes later said they realized GoodDay doesn't want to hear from them. Why they didn't realize that 8 minutes earlier is not clear. /Edit Springee (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC) I understand the desire to get in the last word. Excusable when the debate is content related. When it seems to be little more than continuing the fight it becomes very easy to understand how the other party might slip and break a rule. Springee (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Potential resolutions. I understand misgendering can be very sensitive to some editors. However, without being able to see what other editors look like it's also very easy to simply assume the gender of another editor. If we assume that 90% of Wikipedia editors are male [188](yes, old data) and one might infer gender from some behavior clues. Net result editors will say "he/him" out of nature rather than ill intent. I've personally adopted they/them almost universally simply because it prevents me from having to know or get it wrong (I know a few cases where my guess would have been wrong). However, it does take a bit of a conative leap since in school I, like many students, learned that "they/them" were plural words applied to groups not individuals. It is UNCIVIL to repeatedly misgender someone but it's not clear that is where we are at. I think if GoodDay clearly states they will not deliberately misgender editors that should address one of Newimpartial's concerns. As for editor interaction, GoodDay is certainly welcome to say they will not try to interact with NI or Side. No formal structure is required to make that happen. However, I think it would be best if those two editors also agree to leave GoodDay alone. I point this out because Newimpartial has shown that they are happy to continue to prod at editors long after their actions have no corrective utility [189]. Finally, as for casting aspersions, it's always best to not do that. I think GoodDay should agree to avoid such behavior. I think Newimpartial should as well. Frequently suggesting CIR to editors based on content disagreements is not helpful. Springee (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newimpartial

Springee - if you are suggesting a clear warning for all involved, are you including yourself in that? Because you are as involved in the antagonism on Talk:Jordan Peterson as is any other editor. You have:

minimized the incident that got Peterson removed from Twitter, as though it were about "altering common speech to placate revisionist language", rather than the site's policy against hateful speech
recommended that the article rely on editors' own assessments of the impact of Peterson's primary sources because you found the peer-reviewed SECONDARY piece I cited "less than impressive"
suggested that LGBTQ Nation "would not be impartial enough" to lend WEIGHT to a quote you wanted kept out of article text
argued that "the substance of Peterson's reply" to the Twitter ban should be given a prominence in the article it lacks in the available independent RS
insisted that the higher bar for the inclusion of deadnames in quotations (established in a widely participated RfC) was "a bar of (my) own invention", after receiving my explanation, doubled down with "So this is a bar of (my) own making" - dismissing my comment without responding to its actual basis in policy- and tripled down with a bar that I was setting, rather than a decision made in a community process.

This is a very clear pattern of POV engagement on your part, on a culture war topic that is part of the GENSEX sanctions area, and your drawing attention to encounters I've had months and years before - while not acknowledging your own provocative participation in the very same Talk discussions where you are accusing me of provoking GoodDay - is, ahem, somewhat inconsistent. (And certainly my "Woke Moralists" band name comment[190], which you cited above, has not contributed to aggravating the tone of discussion on that Talk page the way your consistent choice to let your POV outweigh policy considerations in your comments has done.) Newimpartial (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, you say here that I have presented your arguments falsely. If so, I have never done so intentionally, and I am unaware of any explanation you have given that would clarify that anything in my presentation above was misleading.

Concerning trying to needle an editor with whom you disagree thus creating an opportunity to use behavioral sanctions to achieve victory in what should be a basic content dispute - I have never done this, and it seems like a rather serious, unfounded accusation to which both WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS apply. Why are you accusing me of this? I am not trying to achieve victory at Jordan Peterson (or anywhere else); I have shown flexibility with respect to article text and have adhered carefully to the need to align sources with policy considerations in that domain. You, on the other hand, have chosen not to acknowledge policies that mitigate against preferences dictated by what you would like to see in the article text, whether that has to do with sourcing requirements, MOS:DEADNAME and WP:BLP policies, or whatever, and have dismissed sources with which you disagree as "partisan" while simply ignoring sources (such as the National Post) that you cannot dismiss in this way.

Your accusation that I have taken a disagreement related to content and tried to turn it into a morality dispute is quite absurd, as the only piece of argumentation where I can even imagine that charge being made was my response to your attempt to minimize the seriousness of the events that got Peterson removed from Twitter, and even then, my statement that you don't seem to be taking this incident as seriously as Twitter, or the RS, are taking it is far from establishing me a woke moralist, I suspect. Newimpartial (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Springee, in this comment you seem to have missed the order of the two edits you offer as diffs, thus reversing the sequence and the signification. It was the edit summary by GoodDay in response to the earlier one that told me I was unwelcome on his Talk, which he had never communicated to me before. Newimpartial (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On proposed remedies

For my part, any remedy that prevents GoodDay from (1) misgendering me and (2) casting ASPERSIONS on my conduct and my editing, going forward, would be much appreciated.

The one other comment I have about the 1-way IBAN approach is that, because these can only cover editors named in the ban, there is nothing in that sanction to discourage GoodDay from engaging in misgendering with other editors not named in the ban. Because my negative interaction with GoodDay began when he gratuitously misgendered a BLP subject on Talk - the reaction to which he has frequently referred to as censorship, presumably by "woke moralists" - I would like to know, at a minimum, that he has no current intention of doing that to anyone else on-wiki. Newimpartial (talk) 04:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, you referred to me as "it" less than 24 hours ago[191], for which you have not apologized. The idea that you would not do it again because it isn't worth the aggro is not really the expected or desired consequence, in terms of WP:CIVIL. Newimpartial (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, GoodDay, while I see this as a step forward, your statement is still very narrowly circumscribed. In the context of a possible IBAN, my concern is that you may feel moved to misgender *other* editors, possibly by using terms other than "it". Newimpartial (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This statement by GoodDay leaves me concerned that he is likely to engage in further disruption in the GENSEX topic area, since he apparently does not underhand why misgendering is understood by the WP community as disruptive. Newimpartial (talk) 05:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this - and trying to be a good restorative justice person - I just want to know that you understand that mosgendering on-wiki is disruptive and that you won't do it again, even if you feel justified in doing so, for whatever reason. Newimpartial (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also appreciate you ceasing to needle me with "friendly advice" and comments about my editing - whether directed at me or at others - but I AGF that a one-way IBAN on your part would resolve that. Newimpartial (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, concerning this: if you receive a logged one-way IBAN I intend to follow the best practice of treating it as though it were a 2-way IBAN: not mentioning you or having dialogue with you on Talk, not responding to your comments in RfCs, etc.

On the other hand, after my previous experience with another editor gaming a 2-way IBAN, I would not welcome a proposal for a formal 2-way IBAN between us. Also, if you are topic-banned from the GENSEX area, I can't imagine we would be editing the same pages to any significant extent. Newimpartial (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning GoodDay's proposal about mainspace edits, I recognize that these have not to date been problematic, but I'm not sure that a "TBAN on GENSEX but only for Talk pages" is really a sensible thing to enact. I would prefer simply to note that, since the GENSEX discretionary sanctions apply to the subject matter and not to a defined set of pages as such, gnoming edits would not be understood to violate the TBAN (I imagine that any attempt to GAME this would be incredibly obvious, and as I say, GoodDay has been consistently careful in article space). Newimpartial (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Crossroads

Keeping this on topic: Having read through the above, I believe a logged topic-related warning and especially the IBANs which GoodDay has voluntarily offered to do is sufficient. If the issues continue, then a topic ban can easily be done, but as it is this should be fitting. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EvergreenFir

I tried commenting last night but edit conflicted 2 times and gave up. I just want to comment that this has been brewing for a long time but until recently it seemed that GoodDay would just state something indicating an objection to the topic and that was all. Recently, it appears that GoodDay has been doing more, like commenting and then it striking out, making more loaded statements, etc.

I must say that the use of "it" is particularly egregious and I finding implausible that "the word is used often, even among my own family, towards each other". I am unaware of any Canadian vernacular where this is the case.

I find this all very unfortunate because GoodDay, like Crossroads and Tewdar, is an editor with a different viewpoint than my own but who would constructively challenge content with the intent to improve it. GoodDay always seemed willing to discuss, provide sources, and compromise. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tewdar

You can't refer to another human being on here as 'it'. Separately from this issue, perhaps cutting back on the insinuations, accusations, and sarcastic links to WP:CIR at every opportunity might help to calm the waters of this volatile topic area a little and encourage more friendly dialogue. Tewdar 09:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

I think GoodDay's editing outside of mainspace regarding gender and sexuality has been disruptive enough to merit a TBAN. If the admins are trying to narrowly tailor the TBAN per GD's request, I urge an "everything other than Article space" TBAN, not quite the "only the talkpages" restriction GD mentions in his statement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning GoodDay

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

Sounds like a topic ban from GENSEX, broadly construed and a one way iban from Sideswipe9th & Newimpartial would solve the problems, which are a problem. As a bonus, it fits your criteria, although that isn't the primary concern. I could agree to that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; that would sort the problem, I think. I note that I would probably have blocked Good Day if I had seen the "it" edit at the time, coming after the other comments. Despite the conversation above, some of the diffs do almost push me towards a moderate CIR problem; if you can't see that some of those comments were completely out of line, I'd be concerned about your judgement. Black Kite (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Dennis and BlackKite. The edit in which GoodDay referred to another editor as "it" was blockworthy, all the more so in the context of GoodDay's subsequent "explanation". In the interest of preventing further such displays, a topic ban for GoodDay seems most appropriate, particularly in the context of previous issues with their editing in this topic area. The one-way interaction ban is also justified, although as a general principle I'm agnostic about the utility of interaction bans. MastCell ^Talk 15:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

חוקרת

חוקרת is hereby formally warned that their behavior is on the cusp of sanction, and any future issues in the ARBPIA area will likely result in swift, strong action by an administrator, likely without the benefit of an WP:AE report. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning חוקרת

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: חוקרת (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 - discretionary sanctions

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

19 July 2022 attempting to coordinate against an editor: "I suggest we examine here Onceinawhile's edits, discuss how to prevent future attacks, and what steps to take here now."
19 July 2022 Continued

o not strictly in scope as it took place on the Hebrew project but I dont see why that cant inform action here:

written to Tombah's Hebrew WP talk page: האשמות חסרות בסיס צריכות לבוא עם תג מחיר - "Baseless accusations should come with a price tag", using תג מחיר. What makes that particularly outrageous is Price tag policy, see the Hebrew page under that title.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

Alerted on 6 April 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Ill say, and said, the SPI by Onceinawhile was baseless and if they have a poor success rate in filing SPIs maybe they should take that as an indication that they shouldnt do that. But the response by חוקרת is outrageous, it is nothing but battlefield mentality (eg Eladkarmel on his Hebrew talk page responded to חוקרת's message with The anti-Semitism in the English Wikipedia is simply unbelievable, did I claim racism when people have made false accusations against me?), and it is an abuse of WikiProject Israel to attempt to coordinate against an editor.

Sorry Dennis, fixed second diff. As far as premature, I wasnt under the impression that plotting against editors was an acceptable practice, or claiming it to be a "price tag" was either, but ymmv. It wasnt so much that he asked that Once be blocked on the Hebrew Wikipedia, it was calling the attempt to strike back at him a "price tag" that drew my concern. nableezy - 14:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning חוקרת

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

Statement by חוקרת

User:Dennis Brown, I did not know where to discuss Onceinawhile's SPI, WikiProject Israel is the first place I go for discussions about Israel, and I suggested there we discuss what to do, because I did not know what to do. I did it in the open, I pinged Onceinawhile. After realizing that consensus in Wikiproject Israel was against any examination, I withdrew and closed the section I opened. I did this five minutes before Nableezy posted on my talk page.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dennis Brown I wrote the second diff because the SPI report said "timecards suggestive of the Israel timezone". How is Israel timezone different from Turkish, German, or French timezone? It is about the same. I did not mean to suggest racism, I addressed the fact that the SPI was giving "Israel timezone". I realize that I should cool things down, and I stepped away from this before this report. I am much cooler headed today, I am sorry.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

1. Israeli editors have been accused at SPI for quite some time, sometimes merely for sharing a timezone, as in this case. 2. This was a baseless accusation.

Statement by Iskandar323

The original calls for editors on a WikiProject to bandy together to hound another editor were bad; the Hebrew Wiki calls for a 'price tag' of retributive action is worse. Talk about doubling down on a battleground mindset. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Drsmoo: Once did not imply that they might start off-wiki canvassing; you may have inferred this (though I don't see how), but don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS.~~ Iskandar323 (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, removed Drsmoo (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

I have interacted with this editor at Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2022 and recently, at ANI. This is not an entirely unexpected escalation in behavior and in the matter at hand, ample opportunity was given to step back. Having a strong POV is one thing, this is on another level. Selfstudier (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drsmoo: Onceinawhile's alleged misbehavior is not the subject of this complaint? Selfstudier (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding background/context, if that is not appropriate I will remove it. Drsmoo (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

This doesn't look good indeed .. and to Sr. Joseph - the notorious SPI offenders (Yaniv and Icewhiz) share Israeli timezone unfortunately. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drsmoo

חוקרת's request was not acceptable, and I'm glad he withdrew it, that is not what Wikipedia should be. Background/Context: What prompted it (but does not excuse it) was Onceinawhile's baseless SPI. After posting an inaccurate table at the Move Review, and ignoring the direct request (for two days) from the excluded user to be added, he added another column to try to re-bolster his argument, and then started the baseless SP:I and hounding (1, 2, 3) in what seems to me to be an attempt to get a user in the oppose camp removed/disrupt the move review (presumably to bring the balance of the voting back into favor). Now he is musing on whether off-wiki canvassing is acceptable. ARBPIA is fraught enough as it is, and this tendentious editing is very much unhelpful, and definitely shouldn't be reciprocated by anyone. Drsmoo (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC) edited 18:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning חוקרת

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

I'm lost as what what the second diff has to do with anything. Also, asking that an editor be blocked on another language wiki is difficult to really sanction for here. This leaves us with only the first diff. While the tone of that first diff isn't promising, I don't see it as immediately actionable, unless it was part of a larger pattern, which isn't really established as this is over a single incident, a really bad report at SPI that wasn't filed by חוקרת, but by Onceinawhile. I don't see enough meat on the bone to do anything under Arbitration Enforcement authority. This seems premature. That said, חוקרת probably needs to cool their jets before this does turn into something actionable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a bit more sense. The second diff is definitely a problem, חוקרת. You are making a claim that is bordering on (if not breaching) a personal attack, a claim of racism. That isn't something we are going to tolerate without clear and convincing evidence, which isn't present because you can't see inside the mind of Onceinawhile, and he hasn't said as much. This is how you get topic banned or blocked. Again, you need to cool your jets. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards a formal, logged warning. In case you aren't familiar, חוקרת, that would mean that it would be in the logs like any other sanction, and on your talk page, like any other sanction, but would not be a "limiting" sanction like a block or topic ban. It would mean that the next time you even got close to an ARBPIA violation, any 2RR, any personal attacks, you will be blocked on the spot without the benefit of a report at AE. Some hate the essay WP:ROPE, but it applies. You could either pull yourself to safety with it, or hang yourself with it. I'm going to leave this report open a little while and see if any other admins have input, as I value the opinions of my peers. I'm actually not opposed to stronger sanctions, but I think that the SPI is partially responsible for starting this mess, and I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster

No violation --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Grandmaster

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: LouisAragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

[192] Edited an article that makes mention of a general of Azerbaijani origin
[193] Made another edit to the same article afterwards

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[194] Received an indefinite topic AA2 ban in February 2022
[195] Previous 10 blocks in English Wikipedia, mostly in AA topic
[196] 6-month ban on Russian Wikipedia for leading the meatpuppetry Anti-Armenian group of a dozen Azerbaijani editors] (copied this from the previous AE case)

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on [197] by Rosguill (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In February 2022 admin Rosguill issued user:Grandmaster an indefinite WP:AA2 topic ban,[198] following this WP:AE case. In May 2022 Grandmaster created this article from scratch[199] which includes this sentence: "After the February Revolution in 1917, Keller was one of the two Russian generals, along with Huseyn Khan Nakhchivanski, who supported the Czar." Per the eponymous article of Huseyn Khan Nakhchivanski: "was a Russian Cavalry General of Azerbaijani origin". The words "Huseyn Khan Nakchivanski" were conveniently added inbetween Grandmaster's expansion of the article by user Brandmeister,[200] a long-time editor of WP:AA2 who has often supported Grandmaster in the past during disputes (one of many recent examples[201]). After Brandmeister inserted these words, Grandmaster immediately edited the article the next day.[202]-[203] The convenience facilitated by Brandmeister is questionable by itself to say the least; however, the fact that they edited the article after Brandmeister's edit knowing that they are topic banned is probably even more problematic in nature. For the record; they were already once given lenience by admin Rosguill right after they were topic banned.[204]

"... and then someone else added the name of a person of Azerbaijani origin. Then because Grandmaster edited the article after someone else had added that material, you think this is a violation?"

@Black Kite: With all due respect, but are you insinuating Brandmeister is a random new Wikipedia editor with zero evidence of close-knit editing in the past with Grandmaster in WP:AA2? I.e. do you mean its a "coincidence" that they inserted those words into Grandmaster's article, and they are just a random editor passing by? If so, then I'd sincerely advise closing this report straight away. IMO, had user:Brandmeister for instance been a veteran editor with close to zero edits within WP:AA2 and no interaction with Grandmaster, I would definitely agree it not being anywhere near the realm of a possible WP:AA2 violation. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the record, per admin Rosguill: "Given that this involves Azerbaijan but does not clearly involve the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, I think this is a glancing enough violation that I would rather see it brought to AE rather than unilaterally issuing a block on the spot."[205] I.e. 1) It was an admin who recommended bringing this to WP:AE for further evaluation. 2) I don't think anyone would dispute it not being a blunt direct violation. However given said user's vast experience on Wikipedia, including WP:AA2 and WP:AE, IMO it minimalizes any sort of a possible misstep through sheer unlucky coincidence. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[206]

Discussion concerning Grandmaster

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

Statement by Grandmaster

This is a frivolous and bad faith report. I observed my topic ban and did not edit any AA related articles. In the meantime, I created an article about WWI era Russian general Fyodor Arturovich Keller, and it became a DYK article, featured on Wikipedia main page. After DYK nomination, it was edited by other users, and one of them added a link to another Russian general, who happened to be of Azerbaijani descent, but I cannot be responsible for edits by other users. I think admins should discourage users from filing such baseless reports. Grandmaster 09:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Statement by Abrvagl

This page has been on my watch list since my involvement in the few AE reports, and I chose to respond here since I saw mention of the issue that was addressed by me. (As a consequence, the BLP violation and the inadequately referenced statements were deleted from the article). Cant see anything problematic with example brought to claim that Brandmeister supports Grandmaster. I believe we should assume the good faith of other editors, particularly in the case where mentioned editor highlighted the genuine BLP problem.

Rossguill was given inaccurate information, implying that Grandmaster wrote an article where he referenced Azerbaijani related information without indicating that it was contributed by another editor. I sure that if Rossquill was given complete facts, he would not make such a statement, hence his response where Rossquill literally suggested to take it to the AE for clarification cannot be used as an argument here.

The mentioned Fyodor Arturovich Keller article is a good and well sourced article created by Grandmaster, which I believe brings value to the Wikipedia, and, to my knowledge, it is not related to AA2. The statement about Huseyn Khan Nakhchivanski was added to the article on June 10, 2022 by the user Brandmeister, and the next two edits from Grandmaster were not even related to it. I'm not sure if adding that one phrase automatically guarantees that the article now belongs to the AA2 area, or not, but even if so we, considering good faith, should have at least notified Grandmaster with something like "Hey, article on which you working from now on belongs to AA2 area, please retire from it". Having said that, I don't see anything problematic in the indicated diffs and find this report unnecessary. --Abrvagl (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Grandmaster

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

So to be clear, Grandmaster created an article that did not violate his TBAN, and then someone else added the name of a person of Azerbaijani origin. Then because Grandmaster edited the article after someone else had added that material, you think this is a violation? Because I think that's pushing the boundaries of a TBAN violation so far into the distance that it's invisible. Imagine the nonsense that could occur (by someone deliberately sneaking in material to an article that a TBANNED editor regularly edits) if we sanctioned for this. Black Kite (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with BlackKite here - if Grandmaster had edited mentioning the person of Azerbaijani origin - that would be a violation. Merely editing another part of an article that has a mention (elsewhere and not where the t-banned person edited) of someone that is of Azerbaijani origin (which isn't even mentioned on that page, I'll note) ... is not a violation. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with BK and Ealdgyth. The suggestion of foul play would need a ton of supporting material to make this a violation on Grandmaster's part. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]