Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:15, 19 July 2022

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

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 [1]. 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 ([2]) 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 [3]. 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 [4]. 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. [5]), 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]

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,[6] and claimed they have no further interest in the topic yet returned to make similar edits shortly thereafter.[7][8] Thepharoah17 has edited tendentiously in the topic area by seeking to erase Kurdish names and mentions of Kurdistan,[9][10][11], pushing an anti-Kurd POV,[12][13][14][15] and drawing equivalencies between Kurdish groups and the Islamic State.[16]
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 [17] 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]

Ghazaalch

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 Ghazaalch

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Iraniangal777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics

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

WP:CRP: Ghazaalch has been edit-warring their preferred version into this article non-stop: Content 1: ([18]-[19]-[20]-[21]-[22]) and Content 2: ([23]-[24]-[25]-[26])

WP:NPOV. Ghazaalch does this while removing other content (from the same sources) without proper explanation: ([27]-[28]-[29]-[30]-[31]-[32])

Many warnings (at first they appear to have self-reverted, but now they seem to have lost any regard for policy): ([33]-[34]-[35]-[36])

Ghazaalch's other disruption: tampering RFCs ([37]-[38]-[39]), not giving explanations in the talk page when asked to explain reverts ([40]-[41]), making false narratives ([42]), stonewalling ([43]-[44]), and other forms of WP:GAMING (such as WP:BADFAITHNEG [45]). There is also WP:Tag-teaming, all of which can be discussed if anybody wants, but the above may be the worst of it since at this point Ghazaalch seems to have lost any regard for policy (particularly WP:CRP). Even today they edit-warred this again using a trumped-up edit summary.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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

CASE from a month ago.
Their Talk page also shows a couple of alerts about discretionary sanctions in this are of conflict.
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 22:49, 25 July 2021.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Done.

Discussion concerning Ghazaalch

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 Ghazaalch

I won't need to defend myself if the administrators had enough time to go through the discussions in the talk-page, since as I said in a previous Arbitration the main problem with this page is that there is no admin to watch it, so pro-MeK users feel free to do what they like. Here is the summary of the discussion that made Iraniangal777 to bring the case here:

Revert of names's discussion starts with Vice regent's objection that TheDreamBoat shouldn't have deleted the English versions of Mojahedin-e-Khalq i.e. People Strugglers& Holy Warriors
TheDreamBoat's response is that the translation is not among the most common names used for MeK
VR asks that How many sources do you require to show you that "People's Strugglers" has been a commonly used name for the organization? and provides 25 sources that uses the "People Strugglers" and "Holy Warriors"
TheDreamBoat's answer starts with Hi Tia, Could you please click on this link, and add the following there (at the bottom) which shows he is editing on behalf of a blocked pro-MeK user.(see Stefka Bulgaria, BarcrMac and Idealigic for the pro-MeK users who were topic-banned before the new ones Fad Ariff, TheDreamBoat, Hogo-2020 and Iraniangal777 emerged) However the reasons that was copy-pasted into the talk page by the proxy was that the 25 sources provided by VR used "MeK" as a common name other than "People Strugglers" and "Holy Warriors"
VR's response is that no one is disputed the "MEK" name for the organization, I'm only saying that alternative names are also commonly used
TheDreamBoat was topic-banned by then, so another pro-MeK user (Ypatch) continued the discussion but provided no reason other than the section doesn't need more name variations
Then it became obvious that Ypatch himself was topic-banned, so another pro-Mek user (Hogo-2020) continued discussion but gave no reason independent of those given by previous users. Because, as I said in a previous arbitration pro-MeK users don't want to reach consensus. They just discuss, or better say, write something, no matter what it is, to show that they are not convinced, and that there is no consensus yet; meaning you cannot add anything to the article; and since there is no moderator to implement the consensus, they are not worried about the way discussions goes on. So I gave up the discussion.
Three months later I happened to read a comment by Apaugasma, so I came to know that per WP:BLOCKEVASION I could revert the deletion by TheDreamBoat, because he had been editing on behalf of a blocked user
So I reverted TheDreamBoat's deletion, then the edit war started. Now I know that I should have brought the case here instead of involving in edit war.

Being reported by a did-nothing-but-reverting-account, I would also like to summarize another discussion in which pro-MeK users are Gaming the system, deliberately using Wikipedia:Consensus required policy to remove a well sourced content, if you let me exceed 500 words limit.

Statement by Vice regent

Fyi, I'm an involved party. Iraniangal777 you need to engage constructively with Ghazaalch on the topic of names. As Ghazaalch points out, almost all your edits at the article are reverts. You've made three comments on this issue ([46][47][48]) and none of them gave any substantial reason for your revert. You seem to be using WP:CRP to Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, and this report comes across an attempt to weaponize WP:AE to resolve a content dispute in your favor.VR _talk 04:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarioGom

I think Ghazaalch's interpretation of WP:BLOCKEVASION and WP:BLOCKREVERT is fair. The page in question has been subject to edits by a proxy (TheDreamBoat) who eventually got caught and topic-banned.

The initial accusation by Iraniangal777 about tag teaming is interesting, because the behavior by Hogo-2020 [49] and Iraniangal777 [50][51] looks pretty much the same like the tag teaming and gaming the system tactics that the previous cohort of sanctioned users used. And they were effectively proxying edits for a topic-banned user. MarioGom (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex-h Except Ghazaalch had a legitimate reason to revert a content removal that: 1) had obviously no consensus, and 2) should have not been done in the first place because it was proxying for a blocked user. 1RR or consensus required should have been no excuse to prevent Ghazaalch's revert. It should be the other way around: those seeking to enact TheDreamBoat's illegit content removal should seek consensus for it. MarioGom (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hogo-2020

Nobody has yet addressed the diffs by Iranigangal777. Instead this is being deflected to TheDreamBoat (an editor already blocked) or to the OP (Iraniangal777). Yet all that the OP has done is revert Ghazaalch's edit-warring, started a RFC about the disputed content, and reported Ghazaalch with evidence in the form of diffs. What is apparent in that article (and in the diffs provided by the OP) is that Ghazaalch has been persistently edit warring (despite the in-progress RFC about that content or the article's regulations, which I can only guess were put in place to prevent this kind of edit warring). Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alex-h

Accusing Iraniangal777 of "proxying" because she objected to Ghazaalch's edits (as a different editor who is now blocked also did) would be like saying Ghazaalch is "proxying" on behalf of blocked socks Expectant of Light [52], Kazemita1 [53], or Saff V. [54] because they tended to WP:POVPUSH that the MEK are "hypocrites" and a "cult" (matching Ghazaalch's additions to that article, which started after these other socks were blocked). Iraniangal777 or Hogo have not done anything wrong here. Alex-h (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ghazaalch

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

There are a lot of people edit warring on that page, should I just block all of them? I will say this, if you are adding material that describes a group as a "cult", and there is an ongoing RFC about what to add, you need to restore the article to the version that existed before the edit warring started, and hash it out on the talk page in the RFC. The RFC seems to be moving along in a reasonable fashion. If people will stop reverting (which it has slowed down or stopped), then I don't have to break out the ban hammer on everyone. The main point here is that there seems to be a lot of bad behavior going on, although it has slowed. It would be in everyone's best interest to just stop editing that portion and stick to the ongoing RFC BEFORE adding any of that material back. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above. If people will just let the RfC run its course, there's no need to start going crazy handing out sanctions; that would be preferable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:46, 18 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

[55] GoodDay posts "friendly advice" on Newimpartial's talk page, casting aspersions of them being a SPA
[56] Thirteen minutes later, on his talk page GoodDay pings Newimpartial.
[57] Newimpartial replies to the suggestion and the ping.
[58] GoodDay removes Newimpartial's reply with summary Don't ya just hate it. When someone 'reverts' you off their talkpage.
[59] GoodDay makes note of a one sided application of ds/alert notifications
[60] I comment on the aspersion in diff 5, to which GoodDay replies with a non-sequitur about misuse of MOS:GENDERID
[61] GoodDay returns to aspersions about an editor.
[62] GoodDay posts a brief forum style message that is only tangentially related to the current state of the discussion
[63] GoodDay pointedly states he has no intention to respond to posts by Newimpartial on any talk page.
[64] 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.
[65] 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)
[66] 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

[67] 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)

[68] Received the BLP sanctions alert on 21 June 2022
[69] Received the GENSEX sanctions alert on 12 July 2022
[70] 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

[71] 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 [72]. When it was clear they were not welcome [73] they continued [74]. Newimpartial also pinged Clicriffhard to NI's own talk page[75] after it was clear they were not welcome on Clicriffhard's own page . Eventually Acroterion told Newimpartial to knock if off [76].

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 [77]. Here is an example where they interjected themselves into a discussion on GoodDay's page [78]. When that edit was reverted [79], NI responded with a null edit and an edit summary which of course can't be removed [80]. Newimpartial decided one of GoodDay's comments was off topic and thus collapsed it [81]. 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 [82].

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 [83] but a number of editors have come to their talk page with behavioral concerns.[84], [85], [86],

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 [87].

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 [88] even after they state [89] 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 [90](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 [91]. 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[92], 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[93], 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]

Volunteer Marek

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 Volunteer Marek

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:BLPDS. The "pro-Putin" language might also bring this into WP:ARBEE.

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

Mar 20, 2022: This is Volunteer Marek's (VM) first edit to the article. It adds Her views have been described as far-left, pro-Assadist, and pro-Putin. The edit summary says "this was removed by IPs, reverted, removed again etc, until it got missed - restoring". This appears to be a reference to a content dispute from over three years ago in January 2019. A talk page discussion was started Jan 29, 2019 at Talk:Rania Khalek#This is shameful, and "Her views have been described as left-wing/far-left, pro-Syrian government, pro-Palestinian, and pro-Russia." was removed Jan 29, 2019 15:43. As far as I can tell, that content stayed out until Marek restored it on March 20, 2022.
The history shows four edits to the article between VM's edits to the article ending March 20 07:29, and July 5.
Jul 5 13:36: the edit is remove by Pinkville with edit summary removing a non-NPOV sentence from the first paragraph and adding it to the Talk page. Its contents can be reinserted in a more appropriate section (e.g. "Criticism". Pinkville also made this post to the talk page, in the same thread from 2019.
Jul 5 13:45: Philip Cross restores the content, but places it in the body, not the lead
Jul 5 18:53: VM moves the content from the body, and puts it back to the lead.
Jul 5 18:57: Burrobert removes the content, referencing WP:LABELS and the talk page discussion in the edit summary
Jul 5 20:02: VM restores the content
Jul 10 22:15: Huldra removes the content (and replaces it with a different description/source) with edit summary "see talk"; she starts another talk page discussion at Talk:Rania Khalek#The lead
Jul 10 23:01: VM restores the content
Jul 11 23:06: Huldra removes the content with edit summary "See talk, and pr WP:ONUS: start a WP:RfC if you want to include this stuff".
Jul 11 23:58: VM restores the content with edit summary "Nah, nah, nah. This “UNDUE” business is an obvious false excuse for reverting since you’re fine with her views being summarized in the first place. And with 9 RS in there (more can be easily added but don’t want to ref bomb) the “ONUS” argument is weak sauce too"
Jul 13 21:51: I remove the content, with edit summary "Disputed content stays out until there is consensus for inclusion, per ONUS. This is especially true of controversial statements about BLPs. Next person to reinstate this without consensus gets a trip to AE."
Jul 14 01:06: VM restores the content with edit summary "the material is well sourced, the purpose of the lede is precisely to summarize a person's views, there's 9 sources there, all reliable and trying to defend your WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT edits with threats and intimidation in edit summaries fails several Wikipedia policies"
Jul 14 01:26: VM posts to the article talk page asking me to "explain how you got here" and accusing me of edit warring, "trying to find an excuse to file another (spurious) WP:AE report against an editor that you have a contentious history with" and "stir it up with your ol' friends and pour some cans of gasoline on some fires that had nothing to do with you"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

I don't know about any BLPDS sanctions. Previously sanctioned in WP:EEML.

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

Previously sanctioned in the EE topic area
Alerted to EE DS June 27, 2022
Alerted to BLP DS July 14, 2022 00:31

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think the only AE report I've ever filed before, ironically, was 3 years ago against Huldra. I don't think I've ever taken VM to AE before; I did take him to COIN last year, where there was consensus he had a COI, but that was unrelated to this.

FYI, On July 5, the subject posted about this on Twitter, where she has 250k followers. [94] Levivich^[block] 02:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

he tried to drag me before ARBCOM and ANI numerous times before is not true. Maybe I'm forgetting something, but I've never tried to drag VM before Arbcom or ANI before. I remember this ANEW, this COIN, both from Nov 2021, and I think this is the third. Levivich^[block] 03:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1098074760

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Aside from linking to some edits, Levivich fails to explain exactly what is supposed to be wrong with any of these edits. The text was there going back to at least 2019 although it got bounced around the in the article. When I put it back in the lede there were 7 reliable sources supporting it. I added two more making it 9. Now there's 11 reliable sources supporting the summary (indeed, it's earned an "excessive citations" tag)

Couple notes:

1. As mentioned on talk, Levivich never edited the article before. As is well known we've had some very serious disputes before, in particular before WP:ARBCOM. His sudden appearance in a middle of my disagreement with another editor looks very much like WP:STALK and a lame attempt at getting payback/restarting old fights.

2. I've been trying not to make too much fuss about it, but one of the other editors who tried to remove the text from the article, User:Pinkville was canvassed off-wiki to perform that edit on someone else's behalf. As soon as an admin comments here I will send the evidence privately. Since they made only one revert though, personally I'd let it slide with a warning.

3. There's some substantial WP:COI editing on the article by one of the subject's co-workers/employees/co-authors, with a clear attempt at POVing the article. My edit was the first step to try to undo some of that. Since those edits were made under a username which is potentially identifiable to a real person I'll refrain from linking the specific edits here but will send the diffs to any admin who comments here.

Anyway, this report by Levivich is just petty and vindictive and about as spurious as they come. They know it too which is why they engage in this pre-emptive "I don't think I've ever taken VM to AE before" (no, but he tried to drag me before ARBCOM and ANI numerous times before and anyone who's been around for any amount of time knows the whole sorry Icewhiz-related story). Honestly, this deserves WP:BOOMERANG on account of the WP:STALKing and WP:BATTLEGROUND by Levivich. Volunteer Marek 02:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

he tried to drag me before ARBCOM and ANI numerous times before is not true. Oh my god Levivich, are you seriously going to pretend that there isn't some serious history here? Somehow you conveniently "forgot" your part in this little ArbCom fiasco (in which you played a HUGE role in agitating against me). I mean, for cow's sake, you wrote... let me check ... 2400 words (words, not characters) there demanding sanctions against me (was rejected), but now you're here with this little "Volunteer Who? Barely heard of them before!" act? Seriously? Volunteer Marek 03:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. "Disclosure unauthorised" has ... two edits. Anyone want to venture a guess who this is? I'd offer a bet but it's too easy. Volunteer Marek 06:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Levivich just broke the 1RR restriction imposed on the talk page, twice [95] [96] [97]. Since they just filed this report (which counts as notice of DS) and they've been editing in this area for a long time, they're fully aware that the 1RR restriction is in place. Volunteer Marek 18:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: User:Pinkville was canvassed to revert on that article off-wiki (if they had insisted on it, I would’ve reported them here). Another major contributor who disagreed here has a big ol’ COI (co worker). Those kind of comments/input *should* be ignored (or even sanctioned). That leaves pretty much you and Levivich, with Levivich jumping in at last second, for, you know, “his own reasons”. Volunteer Marek 00:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkville, I’m not sure why you insist on pretending like there’s nothing here. One person asked another person off wiki to “fix” the article for them (I.e. curate the article to their liking), that person then said their partner was an admin on Wiki and could take care of it, at which point you popped up and said you’d take care of it. Through out your involvement with article, even after I alluded to the behind the scenes stuff that you were engaged in, you failed to be upfront or even acknowledge the fact that you were contacted and asked off wiki to edit the article and were doing so, “as an admin”, at the behest of your partner. This is the “basis in reality” that you somehow are sitting here denying exists.

I’ve genuinely been trying to be cool about this since your involvement in the article was minor (perhaps because I indicated my awareness of the situation caused you to hold back) but broadly speaking that kind of off-wiki coordination and doing edits on behalf of other users (acting as their WP:MEATPUPPET) is sanction worthy and most certainly not conduct “becoming an administrator”.

Under the circumstances I believe the “scale of my accusations” was as mild as possible. I tried to only make you aware that I was aware of what was going on. I *could* have, and in retrospect perhaps *should* have, immediately brought this off wiki canvassing/meatpuppetry/coordination to a notice board and asked for your tools to be removed, which is what often happens in such cases. Volunteer Marek 04:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Rania Khalek is not in WP:ARBEE, it is however in ARBPIA (and ARBBLP). I dont see where he was notified of the ARBPIA sanctions however. His ARBBLP notification was made today and postdates all but the final two diffs. I also dont see where an explicit claim of a BLP violation was made here, just a nebulous claim that it is contentious material. I dont see how this merits AE at all, there are only two diff that postdate any relevant DS alert and neither of those two diffs on their own merit anything. As far as "pro-Putin" bringing it in to ARBEE, it might if that were in reference to say Ukraine, but it isnt, it is in reference to Syria, which makes it a WP:GS/SCW issue, but no, not an ARBEE one. Though VM should stop reverting and open an RFC or a thread at NPOV/N to gauge consensus. But there is nothing that merits AE here. nableezy - 02:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well hello obvious sock, but commenting in a talk page does not satisfy any awareness requirement, but that does show ARBPIA awareness. But there still is no explanation of what in ARBPIA was violated here. But really, do you feel like your argument is strengthened or diminished by the appearance of obvious bad hand accounts? nableezy - 06:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Largely agree with KoA after reading that diff, If you were really concerned about upholding BLP policy, as you claim to be, you'd have been satisfied when I added eight sources backing up a controversial claim about a living person. But no, you're not satisfied with that, because you don't care about BLP, you only care about getting Atsme in trouble, because you don't like Atsme, because she disagrees with you in content disputes. is actually, word for word, what happened here. I dont actually agree with VM's edit, and I think he should self-revert and open an RFC, but that quote could be featured on the old Daily Show skit of a person arguing against themselves. Seems more based on personal vendetta than anything AE worthy here, and that should merit a boomerang. The 1RR violation may be excusable, if and only if a BLP/N thread was opened after they claimed it to be a BLP violation. But they did not, and Levivich is aware of the discretionary sanctions for ARBPIA, the edit-notice is listed, and he should be sanctioned for violating the 1RR (again). nableezy - 20:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

So Levivich, you tracked VM to that article, then you made 1 edit (one), quickly followed by see you at AE comment of yours. But what do you have here? Nothing. Looks like it didn't work last time around for you, so you are trying again, don't you? This spurious report deserves a speedy WP:BOOMERANG and I hope you'll get one promptly. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again...Mr. 2 edits Disclosure unauthorized...(better fitting name would be Entrance denied) 3.5 hours? What took you so long? - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This should help - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pinkville - You're basically in a tense content disagreement with VM and PC. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

The article has been nominated for deletion (good idea) - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Disclosure unauthorised

I think not.

You can look at Twitter and see just how wrong this all is.

V. Marek knows about BLP because over here he warns about a BLP smear. V. Marek knows about Palestine because he commented here. He knows about Eastern Europe because he commented here.

The user is blocked.Xx236 (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

Based on this AE action brought by VM, I would think this is actionable as well, even if VM calls it petty, etc. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive224#Sir Joseph

Statement by KoA

I'll will admit this request does come across as Levivich out to get VM that I'm getting hints of WP:BOOMERANG, even before VM's responses on more background on the interaction. That's independent of if there are sanctionable issues with VM's actions, but right now, Levivich's tendency to pursue battleground behavior against editors they've been in disputes with seems to be inflaming the subject more noticeably right now.

It looks like Levivich has a pretty clear vendetta against VM based on even a quick perusal of their talk page. It's pretty clear this is a multi-editor dispute at the article itself, so for Levivich to come here singling out VM is really looking like they are not heeding their warning back at ANI about this kind of behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#User:Levivich_long-term_tendentious_editing battleground behavior and more at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1099#Levivich_and_personal_attacks. Given how often they're around AE, ANI, etc. and the history with VM, Levivich's comments about never taking VM to AE are bordering on purposely misleading with that kind of history going on in the background since it gives an appearance of being not quite as involved as they actually are, and don't really seem to take heed of the previous battleground cautions they've been getting.

I think what puts this over the top for me is that Levivich is using this interaction to jump into an edit war against VM at the article. I'm also seeing more heat/tendentiousness rather than clearly showing a BLP exception to edit warring. I'd be pretty apt to suggest at least a one-way interaction ban on Levivich towards VM because I would have concerns about gaming/wiki-lawyering from Levivich based on past admin discussions, but if practicality is an issue, making it two-way "no-fault" just to try to settle the topic down might be the best. I don't know the topic dynamics enough to know if that could cause gaming elsewhere, but this interaction at least does seem to be a problem as part of Levivich's wider issues. KoA (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Nableezy, I would have some issues with VM's content (albeit very workable) if I was involved in the topic, VM seems able to work with non-tendentious editors based on comments I've seen without the need for sanctions. I set that to the side once I saw how Levivich was antagonizing the situation even further, and I'm always extremely cautious when I see someone vaguely using BLP as an excuse to edit war and continue long-standing disputes against another.

This part of the Levivich's statement towards VM struck me the most though: If you were a teenager or in your early twenties, I'd chalk it up to still-developing executive functions, but unfortunately there is no such excuse for your behavior. Find a more productive hobby than fucking with people on the internet. May I suggest building an encyclopedia. That alone is already establishing the existing battleground invective toward VM, but speaks to the lack of self-awareness that seems to be permeating this most recent dispute. That kind of behavior is what DS are supposed to tamp down at least. KoA (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

Though I must say I am disappointed with Volunteer Marek's (VM) behaviour at the Khalek-page, I am not sure this report belongs here at AE. Two editors before me (Pinkville and Burrobert) object to the stuff VM is working so hard to insert in the Khalek article. VM's reaction is to double down and insert it, anyway.

And no-one has claimed that no source have called Khalek "pro-Assadist and pro-Kremlin", the objection is that this is one side of the story, also (as mentioned on the talk-page) many (most?) of those labelling her that are blogs and opinion-pieces.

User:Pinkville wrote on the talk-page 02:05, 6 July 2022 "This article doesn't provide information about Khalek's views, it provides almost exclusively views purported to be hers by people and institutions that are hostile to her and the positions she has actually taken, e.g. her pro-Palestinian stance. To be a fair article, her own views/work should be presented, and any worthwhile criticism of her views/work can be included as appropriate. This is going to take some collective effort, but we're going to make this a reasonable, fair article, which it is not at the moment. Sound good? " I think this was a pretty reasonable summary/reflection; too bad VM chose to ignore it and edit-war instead.

And for full disclosure (all "oldtimers" tend to have some common history) I believe this is the first time I have been "on the same side" in a dispute with Levivich. As for VM; at times I have been 100% supportive of him (as with the #$%&!@& User:I...); other times we have disagreed. Huldra (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Volunteer Marek: I don't know how Pinkville came to the Khalek-page; I do know that they are an admin, and that they wrote some (IMO, very sensible) advice on the talk-page, which you proceeded to ignore. I also know that you treated WP:ONUS and my request for a WP:RfC like it was a joke. Big thanks to GizzyCatBella for doing what should have been your job (pr ONUS); ie starting an RfC. Your behaviour on the Khalek-page leaves me seriously unimpressed, Huldra (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pinkville

I removed a non-NPOV sentence from the article and added it to the Talk Page with the open invitation to any editors to update the article to better conform to NPOV, including reinserting criticism or some version of the sentence in a more appropriate context and once content had been added to provide a neutral summary of Khalek's work and views. Later the same day I left a message [98] on the talk page of an editor (ImprovedWikiImprovment) who had worked on this article two+ years ago and who I thought had approached the subject and the discussion fairly. Not long after, VM left this reply [99] to me on the same user talk page. I was surprised by the tone and scale of VM's accusations against me - none of which have any basis in reality. Accordingly, I left a reminder of WP:Assume Good Faith [100], which was thrown back at me [101]. FYI, as far as I can recall, I had never crossed paths or even heard of VM before this incident. On this page, VM says: "As soon as an admin comments here I will send the evidence privately." Well, I'm an admin and I welcome him to furnish the evidence of my misdeeds. This sort of insinuation and secrecy is distasteful and inappropriate. How did I come to this article? I've been editing WP since 2002 (before 2005 using an anonymous account) and I've mainly been focused on expanding and improving the content. I've worked predominantly in two areas, 19th century photography (particularly in Asia), and various political subjects that I know well and have a particular interest in. Many of the latter have been articles with contentious edit histories - I've been involved in tense discussions over NPOV and related issues numerous times, and in those discussions I've had two goals in mind: to improve the content and render it NPOV and comprehensive, and to try to minimise the possibility of edit wars, painful arguments, and other counterproductive activity. I've made some mistakes, but overall I think I've been pretty successful. Because of my interests I've checked in on this article a few times in the last couple of years, though I don't believe I've made any edits on it. Recently I was made aware of the passage I subsequently removed and placed in the Talk Page with the declared aim of improving the article, making it better conform to NPOV, and reinserting the removed sentence if agreed by other editors. I was taken aback by VM's response to my actions and to VM's dogged intent to repeatedly return the passage that I think at the very least merited discussion before being used in the article. Instead of the project of improving the article being one of collaboration - certainly with disagreement - it risks becoming just another deflating, wasteful, unpleasant consumer of time, energy, and good will. Pinkville (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Volunteer Marek Let me remind you of the opening sentence in Wikipedia:Canvassing: ''In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.'' That is precisely what happened. Contrary to your much exaggerated claims, for instance: "you failed to be upfront or even acknowledge the fact that you were contacted", I stated above that "I was made aware" of a non-NPOV passage and moved it to the talk page. Another hyperbolic claim is that I agreed -- or was even asked -- to "curate the article to their liking" (your words, fantasizing)... your behaviour here is far more in keeping with that activity than mine, by insisting on inserting claims that are no more than hearsay or slander, while imposing obstacles to providing any counter narrative. From the start I have simply promised to make the article NPOV, which it is very much not right now, and my actions reflect that promise. Let me also remind you that it is your behaviour that is being discussed here, not mine. You are the editor who ignored calls for civil discussion on the talk page (to avoid edit warring and arguments), repeatedly inserting material that others find problematic, assuming bad faith, and being belligerent. On another user's page you used veiled threats and made false accusations against me: I’m gonna try to head off this nonsense before you do something unwise and lose your admin tools (I can see that you do good work in other areas of Wikipedia). What you’re doing here is a violation of WP:CANVAS. There’s also WP:COI, WP:INVOLVED and WP:OFFWIKI (see third paragraph) and WP:FORUMSHOP. Of course you are free to make your own opinions on the subject known on the talk page. Volunteer Marek 05:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)". That was after I'd made one, possibly two edits, and asked one other editor who had previously worked on the article if they were interested in looking at it again. If these are examples of you "trying to be cool" (in response to zero provocation) then maybe you should take a little Wikibreak. Pinkville (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

This is a valid content dispute, but everyone involved comes across looking bad. A statement that Her views have been described as far-left, pro-Assadist, and pro-Putin cited to a bunch of reasonably prominent, high-profile opinion pieces published in reputable publications saying as much is not a sufficiently clear-cut BLP violation to justify a 3RR exemption or require immediate sanctions; but it certainly may be WP:UNDUE, especially if the authors of those pieces are just talking heads with no relevant expertise, and BLP concerns are perhaps a reason to slow down and hold an RFC rather than restoring it repeatedly. If I read right this dispute has been going on for over three years, off again and on again; nothing is lost by waiting a bit longer for an RFC to resolve. --Aquillion (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Volunteer Marek

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

There are no rewards/points cards for being reported at AE, though 22 times might have earned you a free large soda. </sarcasm> — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvergreenFir (talk • contribs) 22:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without comment on the merits in this report, I blocked Levivich for 24 hours as a standard admin action (in spite of WP:ARBPIA sanctions being an option) for edit warring on a 1RR article, Rania Khalek. The block is being reviewed at WP:XRV. I won't comment on this report. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to the need to go through multiple lengthy processes to try to get a possible BLP vio addressed in areas where there is ongoing contention. This article/issue is currently being discussed in three places besides here. valereee (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Golden

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 Golden

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Golden (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

17 June 2022 - Golden removes Armenian name from the lead with insufficient explanation.
8 July 2022 - Golden decides to reply to the solid arguments presented on talk just a mere 20 days later, despite editing numerous times during those days. The reply is an irrelevant search result that isn’t pertaining to the arguments of including the alternative name in the lead, and there is more disturbing context to it, see my elaboration in the additional comments below. WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, WP:CIR
9 July 2022 - Golden reinstates their own problematic edit less than 12 hours later with “rv per talk”, referring to their subpar talk reply and ignoring consensus on talk. WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, WP:CIR
17 June 2022; [102], [103] (18 June 2022) - Golden rewrote articles while adding unsourced “forcing the Azerbaijani population to flee”. After I asked them to clarify on Talk:Mərzili#Unsourced and addressed their latest argument, also asking them to stop doing same sentence additions until the discussion is over and we have some sort of consensus, they still continued doing so now with “forcing the Kurdish and Azerbaijani population to flee”, without a source and without engaging/explanation to my last comment. WP:OR, WP:ONUS, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, WP:CIR

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

16 April 2020 - Blocked for sockpuppetry for 3 days
3 April 2021 - Blocked for sockpuppetry indefinitely
22 October 2021 - Put under AA topic ban as an unblock condition
23 April 2022 - AA topic ban lifted

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 9 May 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Golden was blocked for sockpuppeting and, on a condition to remove the block, put under an AA topic ban. Although the topic ban was appealed a few months ago on April 23rd, Golden has continued to display the same tendentious pattern that resulted in their block and topic ban, as much of their sockpuppeting focused on name changes for settlements in Azerbaijan. I did a courtesy warning about one of Golden's edits to their mentor, see User_talk:MJL#Monitoring_/_mentoring. Golden agreed to self-revert the tendentious edit per their mentor's advice. However, the problematic behavior of Golden in the AA area didn’t improve even after this.

They removed the Armenian name from the Zangilan lead with insufficient explanation, see the 1st diff. They were replied to with talk arguments that they didn’t address for 20 days. It gets very confusing and bad faith from here on; user Armatura who made the arguments was blocked on 8th of July (unrelated to Zangilan lead), only after which, hours later, Golden finally bothered to reply to a now blocked user. With what intentions when now Armatura can't reply back, I'm not sure. Golden’s reply itself was an irrelevant search result and didn't address the arguments of alternative name in the lead (wasn't a move discussion). But Golden didn't stop there; they restored their own edit less than 12 hours later after that 20 day delayed reply, with an edit summary "per talk". They reinstated their own edit based on that subpar talk comment when the opposing user has no means to reply. Even other opposing editors on talk (who formed consensus) didn’t have the chance to reply either (when I saw Golden’s reinstating edit, I reverted and commented myself).

In good faith, I asked about this on Golden’s talk first and wanted to understand their rationale. Surely there should’ve been one I thought given how serious this is, given their recent tban probation, and given that I just notified about their tendentious edit after the tban - all of these should’ve been enough reflection for Golden and I expected a well justified rationale for their behavior. Yet all I received were elusive justifications and reassurances that amount to nothing at this point, User_talk:Golden#I_want_to_understand_your_rationale_first.

Other examples include Golden adding unsourced content in articles without addressing the arguments in the latest talk reply, see the diffs in 4th point. I think this user didn't learn anything and their tban should be reinstated, clearly the length of their original probation wasn't enough to make them edit without tendentious pattern and problematic behavior in AA area. Perhaps at this point, an indef would be more suiting.

That's your opinion, to me it wasn't sufficient and I still haven't seen a sufficient explanation by Golden for repeatedly removing the Armenian name. Armatura's comment was largely on point and made substantial arguments, mostly addressing Golden's own points. As you even said yourself, you'd probably have taken Armatura's side if you participated in the content dispute. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[104]

Discussion concerning Golden

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 Golden

I explained my reasoning for the first three diffs (which are all part of the same dispute) here, and I don't have anything else to add at the moment. Regarding the last diff, I provided ZaniGiovanni with a reliable source for the change, which he did not find satisfactory and requested further detail from sources. I believe the source I've provided is sufficient enough and the level of detail he is expecting is unrealistic, which is why I haven't responded further. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 19:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MJL

This edit had sufficient explanation. These were not solid arguments and starts with a bold-face falsehood because Armatura pointed out Golden's revert 3 minutes after Golden had already self-reverted. This is the type of thing that made Armatura difficult to deal with, so understandably Golden decided to disengage for a while. Where Golden went wrong was re-instating their edits so soon after their reply (and waiting so long to reply in general). However, it is a stretch to say anything on that talk page was a "consensus" for either side. ZG claims there was, but that is doubtful with the amount of bad faith found in that thread.

Golden consistently expresses a willingness to listen to others and self-correct. ([105]) They have written content like Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan to GA status since the topic ban has been lifted. Golden has been almost entirely absent from the drama boards which I personally find incredibly commendable.

Does Golden still get into disputes? Of course, but they have kept their cool even during stressful situations. If most editors in AA2 were like Golden, then the project would be better off in my opinion.

That said, I am biased here. Golden is a wiki-friend of mine. The "mentor-mentee" aspect of our relationship is a bit overblown (it's mostly just me being supportive and pointing out any potential missteps as I see them). I was personally incredibly upset about these two edits since I was involved with Armatura's block and don't want anyone to think I did that to proxy for Golden or anything. Armatura's behavior had been bothering me for a while, but if I weighed in on the content dispute itself I would probably have taken his side.

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Golden

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

@ZaniGiovanni: Your statement, including addendum, is currently at 752 words. Please shorten it to at most 500. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gitz6666

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 Gitz6666

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Gitz6666 (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

[106] removal of well-sourced claims about forceful deportations of Ukrainian children because (edit summary) “no allegation of war crime”. Gitz6666 explains why he thinks this is not a war crime [107]: “…drafting a law on adoption is not a war crime… There are many different interests at stake here, and the interest of Ukraine in avoiding Russian naturalisations is only one (and relatively minor compared to the interests of the child)”. Surprisingly, but Gitz6666 considers this as a legitimate adoption. ??? No, that is a heinous war crime, possibly even a genocide – according to RS [108].
[109], [110], [111] [112]– removal of well sourced (NYT, BBC, etc. ) claims about rapes by Russian soldiers. Why? Because (edit summaries) “WP:EXCEPTIONAL”, “this text fails WP:V spectacularly” etc. No, this info does not fail WP:V.
[113] – including six "alleged" and negative info on Ukrainian ombudswoman that does not belong to the page. The “alleged” is not supported by sources. For example, there was no doubts that the bodies of civilians were burned by Russian soldiers (2nd “alleged” in the diff); there was no doubts that the mayor was abducted by armed men (3rd “alleged”), and so on. Note that the edit was revert over objections by other contributors.
[114], [115], [116], [117] edit warring to include the following: “The Russian military allegedly exposed the civilian population to unnecessary and disproportionate harm by using cluster munitions” instead of simply saying that “The Russian military attacked the civilian population using cluster munitions”. How come? There is no question they indeed attacked the civilian population and killed civilians using cluster munitions - as a matter of fact [118].
[119] a removal of reliably sourced claim that Russian forces used Ukrainian children as human shields.
[120] removal of reliably sourced allegations by the British ambassador to the United Nations of sexual violence against children by Russian troops.
[121] removing well sourced info about killing over 50 elderly persons in a Ukrainian care home by Russian soldiers and placing it to a section about war crimes ("human shields") committed by Ukrainian forces [122]. Here is the initial version of this section [123]. Well, according to the most recent sources [124], these people have been killed by Russian forces, but there are "both sides to blame". But even if "there are two sides to blame", this is not how Gitz666 frames this issue. He frames it as war crime exclusively by Ukrainian forces [125]. Actually, no RS say it was a "war crime" committed exclusively by Ukrainian forces.
[126],[127] - removal of well sourced info about torture and killing of Ukrainian POWs. Gitz6666 makes edit summary (1st diff): RS don't make allegations of war crimes here, plus there's a problem with WP:V as both Reuters and NPR say they couldn't verify what they are reporting. Well, if Reuters and NPR reported something (and the torture and killing of POWs is clearly a war crime), why can not we report the same, with proper attribution?
[128],[129],[130],[131],[132] - edit warring to include section on Missile attack in Donetsk as a war crime where "Russia and Ukraine blamed each other for the strike". Well, the best and most recent RS on this subject was article in WaPo [133] entitled " Inside "Russia’s propaganda bubble: Where a war isn’t a war". It tells that according to Ruslan Leviev, a leader and founder of Conflict Intelligence Team, an independent fact checking organization, all "photos from the incident suggest the missile flew from Russian-controlled territory and was not intercepted [as claimed by DPR representatives]". Meaning, that was a false flag attack by Russian forces.
[134] removal of sourced info that Denisova shared her database with reports by victims with other government officials and prosecutors. This is a misrepresentation by Gitz6666. No. that is exactly what the article in NYT says [135]. An article in Ukrainian Pravda discussed on talk page (mentioned in edit summary by Gitz) does not say anything about her database. Yes, a few Ukrainian members of Rada said that Denisova, an official Ukrainian ombundswomen at the time, made some statements that could not be supported by proofs, meaning that she only had the claims by victims, some of whom might be even anonymous, so basically this is classic "she said". This is all. No one found her promoting any lies. Hence her statements, as the top Ukrainian human rights official, must be included on such pages, with appropriate attribution. Arguing that they should not is a POV-pushing by Gitz666.

Gitz6666 so far responded only to diff #7. Based on their response [136], Gitz6666 insists that the killing of elderly patients by Russian forces should be described as a war crime committed exclusively by Ukrainian forces.My very best wishes (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): User is aware as noted at the top of their talk page: [137]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am reporting this because during a recent ANI discussion some contributors suggested that the matter should be considered at WP:AE [138]. Here is link to the whole ANI discussion. Gitz6666 has 2,000+ edits mostly related to war crimes in Ukraine.

Reply to Gitz6666

I am not saying that all edits by Gitz6666 were POV pushing. But ...

The last part of their response [139] is simply a nonsense, misrepresentation and casting "WP:ASPERSIONS". He say: "do they think that NATO will enter the war because Wikipedia reports that the mother of a Russian soldier gets sexually aroused when her son describes to her the way he tortures Ukrainians? [140] I'm afraid that the answer is "Yes", they believe so". What? Not only this has nothing to do with my edits or views, but this is yet another example of removing well sourced info by Gitz6666 based on his misinterpretation of sources. That was a widely published story. I listened to the original record of the conversation in Russian between the soldier and his mother here [141], but it has been deleted later by Facebook as "inappropriate content". Of course there was nothing about "sexual arousal" - Gitz6666 is making this up to discredit the story. The soldier was merely a sadist, not an uncommon case in Russian forces, but the actual significance of the case was sadism and torture becoming a system promoted by the FSB, just it became a system in Russian prisons.
Gitz6666 provides this diff ("correcting a gross misrepresentation in the lead section of 2014 Odessa clashes") as the best proof of his unbiased editing. The correction was: "a pro-Maidan mob attacked anti-Maidan activists" -> "a pro-Maidan demonstration was attacked by anti-Maidan activists". Yes, but Gitz6666 also made this edit [142] meaning that, no, these guys were actually not anti-Maidan activists, but agents-provocateurs presumably dispatched by pro-Maidan forces. My very best wishes (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: User notified [143]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Gitz6666

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 Gitz6666

Today and tomorrow I will be travelling; I'll do my best to address MVBW's concerns in the following days. In the meantime, as this is going to be time-consuming and not funny nor productive, and for the benefit of the ensuing discussion, I'd like to ask @My very best wishes:: could you please share a few diffs of yours showing that you are not always and constantly pushing an anti-Russian POV in the article War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? I'm not referring here to mere copy editing, obviously, but to any substantial contribution. Both edits to the article and comments in the talk page are fine so long as they show that you have tried, at least on some occasions, to comply with NPOV, DISRUPTIVE and TENDENTIOUS. Thank you, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also I'd like @Volunteer Marek: to stop canvassing against me by pinging all editors who have expressed negative views on me during the discussion at ANI. I think VM should be immediately blocked before they fuck up this procedure. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Alex Bakharev)

The article is on my Watchlist. As far as I can see it Glitz is a productive user and certainly not a pusher for the pro-Putin point of view. He is trying to weed the article out of questionable facts. Like for example Lyudmyla Denisova, the Ukrainian ombudsmen until 31 May 2022 was dismissed from her position for "making gratuitously detailed and unverified statements about sexual crimes allegedly committed by Russian soldiers" that makes any claims about those "sexual crimes" that are sourced to her to be unreliable even if reported by reliable sources before 31 May. There was a discussion Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Denisova's_declarations_on_child_rape about the matter and the apparent consensus was to remove this information. Similarly some allegations that appear in the fog of war may later be not proven or they can be used by both sides to accuse each other. I think it is important that we keep the balance and only include as fact the information that is proven, mark as "alleged" or "reportedly" the info that is not proven but highly probable and do not include the information that is most probably not true or is misinterpreted. I think Glitz is doing good job trying to achieve those goals. Maybe he is overzealous sometimes. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

While the Denisova stuff is debatable, I think there are at least two clear cut violations in the above diffs provided by MVBW. First problem is that Gitz6666 is using Denisova as an excuse to remove OTHER sources. Basically if Denisova said it, he’s removing it EVEN IF other, independent sources say the same thing. You can see that in this diff (in #2 above), where he removes text starting with “The existence of credible allegations…” which is cited to CBS news not Denisova. There’s other instances of this kind of WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:GAME editing.

2nd big problem is #7. Somehow “Russians shelled a home for the elderly” gets turned into “Ukrainians used elderly as human shields”. EVEN IF some sources speculate on presence of Ukrainian forces near the elderly home, NONE of them state that Ukrainians used these elderly as “human shields”. That’s original research at best and a gross misrepresentation of sources at worst.

I haven’t looked into all the diffs provided above so this is a non-exhaustive summary of potential problems here. Volunteer Marek 18:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but what the hey is this: Gitz6666 says/claims do they (MVBW and others) think that NATO will enter the war because Wikipedia reports that the mother of a Russian soldier gets sexually aroused when her son describes to her the way he tortures Ukrainians?. Where and when did "Wikipedia report that the mother of a Russian soldier got sexually aroused" by... well, anything??? This is the diff Gitz6666 gives. That's not what it says at all. In fact there's nothing in there about "sexual arousal". Of anyone.

If Gitz6666 is going to accuse other editors of hyperbole perhaps they shouldn't engage in it themselves? Volunteer Marek 21:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Gitz6666 but you're being disingenuous. You quote text from the Mirror which was never used in Wikipedia. Likewise NO ONE ever tried to put into Wikipedia that the mother was "sexually aroused" - but you are pretending that someone did. NO ONE even PROPOSED that such text be added. Certainly not in the discussion you link. But you are pretending that someone did. The actual text that you were trying to remove was much milder and supported by reliable sources (NPR etc). So again, you're trying to pull a switcheroo here - claiming that people want to include one piece of text (which they don't) and using that as a false excuse to try and remove text which says something different.

In that light, perhaps it's worthwhile to look at this ANI discussion which dealt with the same kind of problematic approach to editing these articles. Some comments from uninvolved users from that discussion:

I will not be surprised if this report (by Gitz6666) ends up in a WP:BOOMERANG - User:GizzyCatBella
I'm definitely concerned by Gitz's clear attempt to slide in content with weasel word caveats while sliding out reliably sourced content in Wikivoice - User:Iskandar323. This report here shows that you're still trying to do the exact same thing.
I am of the general opinion that that Gitz6666 is POV-pushing problematically here and I note they have had an ARBEE alert in April - User:Black Kite who is the one suggested taking this to WP:AE
Gitz purpose (in this area) is to edit in and promote Russian propaganda and excuse/deny war crimes, that is clear from their editing. Just broadly topic ban them from the Russian invasion of Ukraine - User:Only in death
on the article about war crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of the Ukraine, to the extent he pushed anything, it was *back* on Gitz6666’s extremely consistent advocacy of a Russian narrative on every single detail, minimization of sexual misconduct, and attempts to include vague Russian allegations of Ukrainian misconduct. Gitz is aware that he does (this) by User:Elinruby
Selective application of standards is a persistent issue with Gitz and Gitz (and another user) routinely ignore talk page discussions when editing, claim their edits are not disputed while there are talk page threads actively disputing their edits - User:Shadybabs (arguably involved)

This report here shows that you didn't take ANY of these multiple users' comments into consideration. Volunteer Marek 04:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PaulT2022

I was not involved as an editor, however as a reader I think the article in question would benefit from more rigorous application of WP:GRATUITOUS and WP:RSBREAKING. See also opinions of User:Cinderella157 and User:Masem expressed in the related ANI discussion referenced by VM above.

It appears that strongly held beliefs of editors on both sides result in different interpretation of the sources. For example, in the allegation No.9, investigator Ruslan Leviev says in the referenced interview (1:25) that CIT estimates that there's a 70% likelihood that the rocket was launched from the Russian side, and up to 30% chance that it was intercepted as claimed by DPR. This is interpreted as a statement of a proven fact by one editor, and as a 50-50 chance by another.

Life experiences and beliefs of editors would inevitably affect interpretation of the sources and it would be unfortunate if content discussions, much needed in this situation, would be constrained by mutual allegations of POV-pushing.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Gitz6666

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

Gitz6666, statements are limited to 500 words. Yours is currently more than four times that amount. Please do some substantial trimming. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Cross

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 Philip Cross

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Philip Cross (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:NEWBLPBAN

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

05:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC): violation of WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:BLPSPS, straight revert of what was a good faith claimed BLP violation (discussed here)
14:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC): violation of WP:BLPRESTORE, straight revert of a claimed in good faith as a BLP violation without affirmative consensus

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Relevant block related to editing on anti-Zionists/anti-Zionism in the area of his British politics ban

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

Notified of BLP DS 15:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I requested the user self-revert the blatant WP:BLPRESTORE violation, the user declined. The Jerusalem Post blogging platform is open to all, here is the application, and WP:BLPSPS is clear that only blogs that are subject to the editorial control of the newspaper may be considered for use. Regardless, there had been no attempt to engage in generating a consensus as is required by WP:BLPRESTORE. Additionally, Philip's editing of this article raises serious concerns that stretch back years. For example, he, in 2020, removed material about the SPLC apologizing to Khalek with the false claim that the material was located elsewhere. Nowhere else was that in the article. Taken as a whole, his editing at this page show a clear attempt to amplify any negative coverage and diminish any positive coverage. But even without that history, these two edits are blatant violations of WP:BLPRESTORE, the second following a DS alert, and a refusal to self-revert. Should result in a BLP ban.

And somebody should revert the violation, I just dont want to end up at XRV and do it myself. nableezy - 06:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aquillion I think that misses the point. It simply does not matter if it is actually UNDUE or if it is actually a BLP violation for our purposes. This is not that discussion. What is relevant here is that WP:BLPRESTORE requires consensus for the reinsertion of material that has been claimed to be, in good faith, a BLP violation. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Must be obtained first. Twice now Philip has re-reverted what have been called BLP violations without so much as a token attempt at gaining consensus. And then refused to self-revert, despite policy demanding consensus for his restoration. There is no affirmative consensus for the reverts, and as such Philip Cross has violated WP:BLP multiple times, unrepentantly at that. An editor that refuses to abide by WP:BLP should be banned from editing BLPs, full stop. He still has not self-reverted the blatant BLP violation. Also, if admins are waiting on PC before doing anything here, I would say that is a waste of time. Philip Cross has simply refused to engage in reports, see for example phis only edit to the ANI report on a past topic ban violation. He made no comment in the ANI thread. Its as if waiting out the report is the strategy, and it should not be allowed to continue. nableezy - 13:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Philip Cross

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 Philip Cross

Statement by Cullen 328

That blog post by Petra Marquardt-Bigman is a highly opinionated piece that shows no evidence of editorial control or review or fact checking. It is a diatribe and a screed, not journalism. It is so flagrantly biased that I cannot see how it can possibly used in a biography of a living person. Cullen328 (talk) 06:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Oh, good lord, is this the same dispute as the Volunteer Marek request above? Anyway, the answer is similar; the older diff is not the sort of clear-cut BLP violation that would justify sanctions for restoring it once - it's "this person has been described as X" citing a number of sources to reasonably high-quality non-SPS opinion pieces describing them that way. It's probably WP:UNDUE but not something so shocking that you can get people sanctioned simply for restoring it a single time. The newer diff is somewhat more serious - it is definitely inadequately sourced per WP:NEWSBLOG; even if the author is an expert (as Philip Cross has said), that doesn't solve the issue because the subject-matter expert exemption is for WP:SPSes and we cannot use a SPS, even an expert, for BLP-sensitive statements per WP:BLPSPS. (The particular problem is that, as I understand it, The Jerusalem Post's blogs are not subject to their editorial control, as BLPSPS requires.) But adding it once, and failing to realize that a sufficiently low-quality newsblog is effectively a WP:SPS, is an incredibly easy mistake to make - even very experienced editors make the same mistake with WP:FORBESCON, which is similar. Making that mistake once is not sufficient reason to ask for sanctions. --Aquillion (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Philip Cross

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

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 682: / Line 682: @@
 Today and tomorrow I will be travelling; I'll do my best to address MVBW's concerns in the following days.
 In the meantime, as this is going to be time-consuming and not funny nor productive, and for the benefit of the ensuing discussion, I'd like to ask {{Ping|My very best wishes}}: could you please share a few diffs of yours showing that you are not always and constantly pushing an anti-Russian POV in the article [[War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine]]? I'm not referring here to mere copy editing, obviously, but to any substantial contribution. Both edits to the article and comments in the talk page are fine so long as they show that you have tried, at least on some occasions, to comply with NPOV, DISRUPTIVE and TENDENTIOUS. Thank you, [[User:Gitz6666|Gitz]] ([[User talk:Gitz6666|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Gitz6666|contribs]]) 11:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
+:also I'd like {{Ping|Volunteer Marek}} to stop [[WP:canvass|canvassing]] against me by pinging all editors who have expressed negative views on me during the discussion at ANI. I think VM should be immediately blocked before they fuck up this procedure. [[User:Gitz6666|Gitz]] ([[User talk:Gitz6666|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Gitz6666|contribs]]) 12:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 ====Statement by (Alex Bakharev)====

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