Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.

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

Michael60634

Michael60634 topic banned from Crimea for 6 months and warned for edit warring generally. Volunteer Marek given an indefinite civility restriction in the ARBEE topic area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
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 Michael60634 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Michael60634 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Eastern Europe Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 1.5 October 2022 Referring to other editors' good faithed edits as "vandalism" I asked Michael60634 not to do that here. Accusing others of "vandalism" is a straight up personal attack. Nonetheless, Michael has continued to use such edit summaries, with some other personal attacks thrown in for good measure: 2. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Since Michael has not edited most (any?) of these articles before, these reverts appear to be revenge edits in retaliation for the dispute we had at Erich Honecker where Michael has also been edit warring against several users as well as consensus achieved at WP:NPOVN [13]. In late December they made three reverts in less than 24 hours [14] [15] [16]. They were warned [17] and then removed the warning with an edit summary full of personal attacks [18] (Providing a warning for 3RR is obligatory. Removing it is fine but the personal attacks are not) Only a few days later Michael directly broke 3RR on the Honecker article [19] [20] [21] [22] Note that in that edit war (against another user) he also refers to their edits as "vandalism" [23]. I would've reported them then but it was right after New Years and I was busy. 3. Then, after performing the mass reversion of my edits with the personal attacks in the edit summary, Michael went to the talk page of another user whom I've had disputes with (and who's... "outlook on things" is well known) and WP:CANVASSED them to help them in their edit war [24]. This is a straight up request to help in an edit war. I warned them about that too, they also removed that message with personal attacks in edit summaries (I'm happy not to post on their page, but again, notifications of this type are obligatory). Then, apparently as response to my warning about CANVASSing, Michael decided to double down and went to another user's talk page [25] and made a similar request for help in their edit warring. This is a user that pretty much everyone knows I've been involved in disputes with so going to them is another blatant attempt at coordinating a response/edit war. Note that until late October the Michael account was technically not allowed to edit articles related to Russian-Ukrainian war because they were not autoconfirmed. They were informed of this fact by another user here. See also the user's comments to Michael on the POV nature of their edits [26]. These warnings too were removed [27] and Michael continued editing these articles despite their awareness that they weren't supposed to. I guess sometime between late October and late December they got autoconfirmed and that's when they decided to go on a revert spree on these articles. This case bears strong similarity to the case of User:Anonimu, who was also topic banned at AE [28] (failed appeal [29]) for similar WP:TENDentiousness and calling other users "vandals" despite repeated requests not to do so. Volunteer Marek 22:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC) Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any None AFAIK, fairly new account only recently autoconfirmed. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) [30] Additional comments by editor filing complaint Response to Mellk - this is really outside the scope of this request, as it gets into content issues. Basically there's users, including Mellk who insist on listing Ukrainian cities as "de facto Russia" (sic) and who consistently remove as many mentions of "Ukraine" from these cities as possible as well as the fact that these cities/areas are occupied by Russia. Which is of course what sources say "occupied by Russia" not this strange invention of "de facto Russia". Anyway. Mellk is one of the users WP:CANVASSed by Michael to help him edit war as noted in diffs above. Shall I go and notify go and notify all the users that most likely agree with me about this dispute and report? Volunteer Marek 01:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC) I think the accusations that Michael levies against me in their attempt to deflect are also instructive. For example he claims I called edits “garbage”. No, I actually called a source/text garbage [31]. What was that source? Oh, it was somebody’s personal YouTube channel full of conspiracy theory nonsense that YouTube itself removed a couple days later and banned the uploader [32]. In other words, garbage. The inability to distinguish legitimate sources from stuff like this is a serious problem as is confusing discussing content (calling a source garbage) and discussing editors (calling someone a vandal). Volunteer Marek 08:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC) Oh and the account that Michael accuses me of unfairly calling a sock puppet? Yup, it was banned for… sock puppetry [33]. I mean, come on! Volunteer Marek 08:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC) Gitz6666 is of course the other user, in addition to Mellk, that Michael was WP:CANVASSing to help him edit war [34]. The fact that Michael knew exactly whom to go to to ask for help kind of illustrates what the POV of these users is, and the fact that it is pretty transparent. And now both responded to the WP:CANVASS by coming here.(snipped for length) Volunteer Marek 18:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC) @Lord Roem:, you know what? You're right. About that particular diff. That was uncalled for and I should not have used that edit summary. Can't remember specifically but I must've lost my cool due to frustration with the general situation on these articles. Like you said, it's a contentious area. Could have made the same point but with better language. The other diffs from Michael reference content not editors (contrary to occasional assertions there's nothing "insulting" about calling text "POV" or "trash" - like when it's a youtube video that youtube itself removed for TOS violations) but in that one I screwed up. All I can say is that I agree with your criticism here and I'll try to be more careful in the future. Volunteer Marek 08:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC) @Callanecc: Yes I can agree to a civility restriction (as long as it doesn't include that "thin skin provision" which was silly and which Awilley realized was silly and retracted ;)). Also just to note - I am not even going to respond to FR's accusations as they're old, they misrepresent stuff or present it out of context and they're opportunistic and unrelated to this dispute. It would basically take a whole another AE report to deal with FR's problematic behavior and their skirting of their IBAN. Volunteer Marek 04:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC) @Callanecc: Yeah that's fine and I do in fact try to follow that anyway, even if there's an occasional slip up. Volunteer Marek 07:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [35] Discussion concerning Michael60634 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 Michael60634 I did not edit these articles previously because doing so would require being extended confirmed as I was told per this comment on my talk page. Before this comment was left on my talk page, I was not aware of the restrictions on editing these pages. Just because I later cleaned up my talk page doesn't mean that I didn't acknowledge the message, as VM seems to be implying. At the time I was not extended confirmed, so I stopped editing the articles that had the extended confirmed restrictions. Despite not being able to edit, I continued paying attention to articles related to Crimea and I did see that VM was removing content about the places referenced in these articles being disputed or saying that these places are only in Ukraine even though, once again, they are disputed territories. Once I did get enough edits to become extended confirmed, I tried to improve the neutrality of the articles in question. I did not remove any mention of Ukraine or include only information about Russia. I did my best to include both Ukrainian and Russian info to maintain article neutrality. And I tried to avoid pointed language. However, VM seems to consider all of my edits to anything Russia/Ukraine/Crimea related, and apparently anything opposing their viewpoint on these topics, as "POV pushing" or "original research". Furthermore, claiming I'm "revenge editing" is both blatantly false and a personal attack against myself. I hold no negative sentiments against any editors. Claiming I was editing against consensus is also false. The consensus seemed to be that the article for Erich Honecker should not call him a dictator in the first line. Where did I edit against consensus? I also did not ask anyone to edit war. That's also false. I was asking for help editing articles. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my comment, but again here I was trying to ask for help with neutrality from an editor who I have had experience with on Sevastopol. Sure, my changeset comments need to be improved, and I do apologize for misuse of the word "vandalism", but I think this complaint seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black, as seen in the changeset comments found below: Changesets by VM calling edits "Russian nationalism", "Russian irrendentism", "Russian disinformation", or "Russian propaganda": [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] Changesets by VM calling edits "POV pushing" or "POV": [54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] Changesets by VM accusing editors of legitimizing aggression: [66][67] Changesets by VM accusing editors of trying to "conquer" places: [68] Changeset by VM accusing an editor of being a sockpuppet: [69] Changesets by VM labelling an edit as "garbage" or "bs": [70][71][72] Changesets by VM labelling edits as "weaseling": [73][74][75][76][77] My account is not "fairly new". I've had it since early 2019. I don't edit much as I don't believe I have much to add to existing articles, but I do make changes or updates when I see incorrect information, out of date information, or grammar and capitalisation errors. I have been editing articles related to Russia and Ukraine because I have an interest in this region. I have close friends and family members from both countries, so naturally I became interested in learning more about Russian and Ukraine. Accusations of editing to push a Russian nationalist POV are dishonest and false. Michael60634 (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC) Response to @GizzyCatBella's statement: Your statement about myself canvassing other editors to participate in this AE discussion is false and misleading. I never did any such thing. What I did do is ask @Mellk to help with some articles, and I made a remark to @Gitz6666 about the editing behaviour of another editor. Nowhere did I ask for help defending myself here. And as Mellk pointed out, "Michael left that message before this request."[78] As your statement is entirely misleading, I request you withdraw it, or modify it so it accurately reflects what happened. Michael60634 (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Response to @My very best wishes's statement: Your accusation that I am following VM with the intention to perform revenge edits is false. Perhaps I just have an interest in the EE region? And consider that VM happens to edit almost exclusively in this area. I also think you are blowing the "what angers me" quote way out of proportion. I'm not angry. I used poor wording as a reaction to various editors blanking an infobox because they thought it was "POV". That's all it was and there's nothing more to it. I'm not going to go into the part where you say I'm probably editing with Russian nationalism in mind. Partially because you keep changing your response to reword it, and partially because such an accusation is entirely baseless and unprovable. Of course I'm going to deny accusations of editing with the intent to push a Russian POV. Why wouldn't I? It's not a "good sign"? What is that supposed to mean? Michael60634 (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Response to @Lord Roem: Hello. I read your comment when you posted it, but I wasn't sure if you wanted a response. I've only been responding to outright falsehoods, such as being accused of canvassing editors to come here, or attacks on my character or motivations. This is to keep things brief. I agree that my edit warring was wrong. I won't do that again in the future. Instead I'll discuss in talk or post to the dispute resolution or NPOV noticeboards. At the time I was editing the article you mentioned, I was not aware that these noticeboards existed. I also agree that I had a poor response to Volunteer Marek. For context, my changeset comments were written after months of being accused of pushing a POV and having my edits reverted by Volunteer Marek. While the context doesn't justify the words I used, it does help to understand exactly why I wrote what I wrote. I do disagree that I am participating in tendentious editing. I'm trying to keep things neutral. If I were editing with a pro-Russian point of view, as some other editors here have claimed, wouldn't it make sense for me to remove all mentions of any Ukrainian claims to Crimea? Because if I were a Russian nationalist, I'd be saying Crimea is only Russia's and that Ukraine has no legitimate claim to it. But I'm not doing that. I've just been trying to maintain the status quo of listing Crimea (and places within) as de jure Ukraine and de facto Russia. This was how the political status of places in Crimea had been represented for about 8 years, until Volunteer Marek and a group of other editors that work closely together started changing it to "part of Ukraine, illegally occupied by Russia" or something like that, and reverting and edit warring with anyone that changed the terminology back to the status quo version. I'm not trying to push a POV. I'm simply trying to avoid pointed language in articles meant to inform people. And it's not Wikipedia's job to take a stance on any political issues, no matter how troubling they may be. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a repository of information, and not a journal. At least that's my view on the situation. Michael60634 (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Response to @Callanecc: I admit my edit warring and behaviour was unacceptable. But I do question what Erich Honecker, the last leader of the German Democratic Republic, has to do with Crimea. I don't see a connection. I also question why you believe a TBAN is appropriate for me, but that it would not be appropriate for Volunteer Marek, despite Volunteer Marek doing the same thing as me, but to a greater extent and over a much longer period of time. This can be seen through the many diffs shared here by other editors, showing that Volunteer Marek has a long, long history in AE. I do not. This is my first, and hopefully last, time here. And I question why you are willing to brush off Volunteer Marek's past behaviour as "[getting] frustrated and [saying] something they sometimes/usually later reflect on, regret and retract." I did the same thing. I did something wrong in frustration, reflected on it, and apologised. I didn't retract it because I cannot retract changset comments, but if I could, I'd do it. And you accepted Volunteer Marek's commitment to end their poor behaviour, but not mine. Again, I don't have a long and repeated history of personal attacks, but Volunteer Marek does. Finally, to address the accusations of canvassing. What GizzyCatBella claims in her AE comment is a blatant lie. I've avoided using that terminology before, as I gave her a chance to strike it. But she didn't, so here we are. I never canvassed people to come here to support me. That is the fact about this situation. The complaints about canvassing come from my asking of one editor for help with some articles, and a complaint I made about Volunteer Marek's editing to another editor. I can see how the first can be considered canvassing, but a complaint is not a canvass to edit on my behalf. So why do you treat Volunteer Marek and me differently, when he has a longer and more extensive history of the same violations I was reported for? Michael60634 (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Statement by Mellk There is a dispute here over what wording should be used in Crimea-related articles but Volunteer Marek has engaged in long-term edit warring to push his preferred POV in these articles (he does not like it being called disputed territory or even annexed) and displaying a battleground mentality when his edits are challenged. Not that long ago with the Simferopol article where it all started, he made a series of edits which get reverted[79], he then reverts that user[80] and proceeds to edit war against a few other users within a span of a couple of days.[81][82][83][84][85] Here in this edit summary he accuses me of "trying to 'conquer' Ukrainian cities on Wikipedia for Russia".[86] Few days later, more edit warring[87][88][89]. This is 9 reverts already. Then inappropriately uses the disputed template to write "Russian disinformation" in the what parameter[90] and restores it despite being told what the paramerer is for[91]. Several days later returns out of nowhere to try and restore his version again[92]. The talk page of course is a shitshow (of course accuses someone else of being a sleeper account[93]) but he claims there was no consensus on the wording he tried to change[94] and repeating that it was just all snuck in (even though the articles were like this for the previous 8 years before he tried to make mass changes to these articles and despite being reverted by multiple editors across multiple articles and no one supporting his changes). This behaviour remained the same, for example in Sevastopol he started another edit war and accused me of being "in pursuit of irredentist POV"[95] over the same issue. Again he misrepresents the version he doesn't like as "Russian nationalist irredentist POV" even though the wording is nothing like it. Now I see that he is still continuing with this in the same articles, for example today in Autonomous Republic of Crimea changing "annexed" to "occupied" and calling the annexation label "Russian nationalist fantasies"[96] in the edit summary even though it literally links to Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. When I reverted this, for some reason he decided to use a deceptive edit summary "correct spelling" to restore his edit.[97] Mellk (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC) GizzyCatBella also forgot to mention that the messages Michael left were before this request was added (I also did not involve myself in their edit war) and I was already dealing with Volunteer Marek's edits on Autonomous Republic of Crimea before he left those messages. Mellk (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishes At the first glance, edits by Michael60634 (and especially in diff #2 by filer, such as [98]) seem to push Russian propaganda narrative known as Krymnash, i.e. all occupied territories are our Russia (this narrative was originally used only for Crimea, but Putin recently ordered formal annexation of several Ukrainian territories to promote it). Yes, it is about proper wording, but the wording is important: it must be neutral (like the "occupied territories") rather than "de facto Russia" (placing cities at the map of Russia implies just that). However, I doubt these edits are of purely irredentist nature because Michael60634 was saying that they "Reverted politically motivated vandalism" by VM in the multiple edit summaries. Based on that and their comments above, it seems he indeed disliked VM so much as to follow and target him with "revenge edits". Michael60634 says that he is "not pushing POV", that he is angry ("What angers me"), and that he only wants "get information that they [readers] are looking for" [99]. Well, I think the latter is difficult to buy in terms of content (several proper links to maps are already provided in the infobox), but especially given the repeated vandalism accusations, and indeed the anger. Hence, in the end, this does look to me as a serious behavior issue, either a nationalistic POV or vengeance. The denials by Michael60634 in their statement above are not a good sign. My very best wishes (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC) I think RonaldR below nailed it. Here is a typical edit by Michael60634 where he replaces "occupied" by "de facto". My very best wishes (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC) @Lord Roem. I can only re-iterate the comment by RonaldR who, unlike all other contributors, is completely uninvolved and edit in other subject areas. Saying that the occupied territories are "de facto" Russia implies that the "occupation is just and should continue". Furthermore, unlike for Israel, this is also a factually incorrect statement because of the ongoing large-scale war that leads to the lack of stable borders for these territories. The active warfare is also happening at the territory of Crimea, see 2022 Crimea attacks. I have no idea why exactly some contributors are making such edits or claim such edits to be good. Is it a behavior issue? This is something for uninvolved admins to decide. In my personal opinion, a contributor insisting that such edits are "neutral" even on this noticeboard should not edit in this subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Statement by Synotia It is important to note that our buddy Mellk is none other than a reinforcement called by Michael here yesterday to help him write down Crimea as Russian territory on Wikipedia. In an amazing turn of situation, he is now eloquently taking his side! Marvellous – if I ever need a lawyer, I know where to go. --Synotia (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC) Yep, you've bent over, now cough! cough! and cough! Wow, you've got a real treasure up there. I can continue making you cough but I have better things to do. Let's put aside strip searching metaphors: What I personally see is someone making it his task of trying to clean Russia and the Soviet Union of wrongdoing as much as is possible within the extent Wikipedia's framework can handle it. Any other way of serving his motherland would have been more dangerous to his physical health. I personally will not cloud myself in hypocrisy pretending like I don't know what is going on, especially considering the geopolitical context we are in. I won't call you Misha or Vovochka or anything similar, if that makes you this uncomfortable, i'll leave the task to your mamka. Synotia (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC) Mellk tries to intimidate me into removing what I've written above, calling it egregious personal attacks. Fine – I might have wandered into the terrains of inappropriateness when I called him a keyboard warrior, I'll remove that one. However, there is no way I will remove the rest – I am still absolutely convinced we are not dealing with someone of good faith, rather someone who tries to use Wikipedia as a tool to whitewash all the evil committed by Russia and its predecessors away from public discourse. I am certain that in his profilic history I can dig even more pearls, but that was already enough for today – otherwise I'll vomit. If that is a personal attack – alright, go to ANI and see what happens, I'll go with you even. Synotia (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC) Statement by Gitz6666 Calling Volunteer Marek a "vandal" is wrong: he doesn't deliberately disrupt the project and he is no WP:VANDAL. However, after having spent hours interacting with him, I often wonder whether VM deliberately disrupts the editors. When he perceives that users don't share his POV, he provokes them to the point that either they run away from the EE area or go berserk and soon get banned. This may not be intentional, but it is systematic enough to be worrying. VM mentioned user:Anonimu, who is actually a good case in point. Anonimu also started repeatedly calling VM a "vandal" and were rightly topic banned. But it all began from this exemplary entry of VM [100] into the delicate t/p discussions on war crimes in Ukraine, which made a complete pig's breakfast of collaborative editing there. I wonder if AdrianHObradors and Ilenart626, who were very active in the area, left it also because working there had become too unpleasant and time-consuming. As for Michael60634, I'm sorry that he reacted so badly to the treatment he was subjected to. Since until late October he was not autoconfirmed, I guess he is not used to the toxic environment of the EE area (but does it really have to be that toxic?). Perhaps WP:IJME applies here, as he might have understood "vandal" as a generic synonym of disruptive editing and incivil behaviour. In fact, looking at the diffs he shared, I have the impression that he had to deal with quite a bit of incivility. The continuous flow of edit summaries might give you an idea of what editors active in the area have to put up with every day: selection of VM's edit summaries Please stop trying to territory mark these places with nationalist Russian propaganda [101], Rmv Russian nationalist fantasies [102], Please stop rewriting section headings to pronounce Russian propaganda. ALL sources references fake surrender and perfidy. There’s no consensus for YOUR ridiculously slanted POV version [103], Stop trying to legitimize brutal aggression and illegal land grabs [104], Sources use “occupied” not “de facto Russia” which is obnoxious nationalist Russian POV invented by some editor (original research) [105], please stop removing the word "Ukraine" from the article in pursuit of irredentist POV [106], restore NPOV version based on sources rather than original research, and Russian nationalism and irredentism [107], restore NPOV with actual source rather than some nonsense irredentist original research some wikipedia editor just pulled out of their ... air [108], No, you’re not putting that this city is in Russia in the infobox. Please stop it with the irredentist nationalist propaganda [109]. For many users being called a Russian irredentist is an insult and a slander. No one who decides to freely volunteer their time and energy to a collaborative project should be subjected to this kind of treatment. A final note, which applies to both VM and Michael. I find it surprising that such a surge of hostility was provoked by the question of whether the status of Crimea should be described as "de jure" Ukrainian and "de facto" Russian, or as annexed by Russia and internationally recognised as Ukrainian, or as Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory. These three formulations look pretty much equivalent to me and the difference in connotation, if any, is very slight, which makes me think that aggressivness and hostility here may not be means to the end of writing the encyclopaedia, but rather that writing the encyclopaedia is a means to the end of expressing aggression and hostility, which would be a sign of Wikipedia:NOTHERE. I suggest a formal warning to both users and strict scrutiny on their future behaviour. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC) @GizzyCatBella I think you're wrong because this is not a community discussion and the final decision will be taken by admins. If you're right, however, then VM would have made the most blatant canvass in his statement at AE when he selectively pinged six editors who had criticised me during a previous discussion at AN/I: [110] Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Statement by RolandR I have not been following this closely, but feel obliged to respond to Gitz's comment above that there is merely a terminological distinction between "occupied by Russia" and "de facto Russian". Anyone reading, writing or working around the Palestine-Israel issue would recognise instantly that there is indeed a huge difference between saying that East Jerusalem is "occupied by Israel" and saying that it is "de facto Israeli". The first formulation is a simple statement of fact; the second, whatever the declared intention of the speaker, is a highly contentious and loaded claim, implying that the current situation is just and should continue. I see no reason to believe that the situation in Ukraine is any different, nor that those working in this area are indifferent to the political implications of such phraseology. RolandR (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC) Statement by GizzyCatBella Please note that Gitz and Mellk arrived at this board because Michael60634 solicited help at their talk pages (see WP:CANVASSING) Here are the diffs: User Mellk being canvassed by Michael60634 (January 7, 2023) Quote: Hello! I need your help.. User Gitz6666 being canvassed by Michael60634 (January 7, 2023) Quote: And now they (VM) are POV pushing in articles about administrative entities.. This is considered to be disruptive (see WP:INAPPNOTE). Both Gitz6666 and Mellik responed to the canvass most likely with the statements here. This is also an issue that needs to be addressed. Do we have an additional history of disruptive canvassing by Michael60634? (.. to be continued on hold as a consequence of this remark. Word count at the time of the remark - 107 ) GizzyCatBella🍁 00:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Could Ealdgyth please explain how the length of a comment can be the basis for a topic ban? 🧐 - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Statement by Paul Siebert I am not editing the topics that relate to recent political events (Poisoning of Alexei Navalny was the only exception), and I am watchlisting this page. Therefore, noone can claim that I was canvassed. If we remove all water from the filer's statement, we will see that some newbie managed to violate 3RR once, and that they were persistently characterizing legitimate edits made by other users as "vandalism", and that their edits reflect some minority POV. Obviously, that behaviour is by no means commendable. However, this account is pretty recent, and I would like to remind all of you that at least three participants of this discussions (I mean those who support sanctions against Michael60634) started their Wikipedia carrier with much more severe violations, and were sanctioned for that. It is quite likely that Michael60634 may continue to edit in a non-neutral way, and that the situation will become worse, so they eventually will be topic banned (or site banned). However, I cannot rule out a possibility that they will learn how to edit in a more neutral way and avoid personal attacks. I think, a warning would be sufficient for now. With regard to "occupation/annexation" etc., let me add my 2 cents. Many users (including participants of this discussion) believe that "occupation" is a bad word, and "annexation" is a good word, so any illegal annexation should be called "occupation". In the context of Crimea, that is supposed to mean that by saying "occupation" you support Ukraine, and by saying "annexation" you support Putin (ironically, afaik, if you publicly say "annexation of Crimea" in Russia, you may have legal problems). But, in reality, that dichotomy is wrong. "Annexation" implies incorporation of some territory into the annexing party's legal space: thus, if all people in the annexed territory are considered full scale citizens of the annexing state, and all laws are acting on the new territory at the same scale as in the occupying state's mainland, then we should speak about "annexation". In contrast, an occupied territory has a different legal status. In that sense, Crimea was occupied AND then annexed, and it IS de facto Russia. Of course, it is not Russia de jure, in the same sense as Baltic states were not de jure parts of the USSR, but I myself saw a map of pre-1991 Europe, which was printed in the US before dissolution of the USSR, and all three Baltic states were shown as parts of Soviet Union. Another example (which people usually forget): annexation of Moldavia by Romania in 1918. It was illegal (actually, it occurred by exactly the same scenario as annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2013), and, it was not recognized by the USSR AND by majority of Western states. History teaches us that these illegally annexed territories may exist for decades until some game changer event happens. For the Baltic states, that was dissolution of the USSR, for Moldavia, it was re-capture by the USSR in 1940. I think, for Crimea, the game changer event is the war started by Putin in 2022. Therefore, I don't think we should be too focused on terminology in this case: it is quite possible that all Crimea related articles will be rewritten soon in light of new political changes. BTW, WP:NOR does not apply to the non-artilce space. And I agree that VM has a tendency to make highly inflammatory edit summaries. Not only that is a personal attack that cannot be undone, that is just silly and unproductive: a POV-pusher cannot be stopped by that. If you believe a person is a nationalist POV pusher, come here and say that openly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC) Statement by François Robere @Lord Roem and Callanecc: You wrote that VM does have a history of personal attacks and/or casting aspersions; I think it's worth looking at that history to try and understand what's going on here: 2017-2019: 22:20, 5 August 2017 Warned against making "unsubstantiated accusations" / James J. Lambden 20:33, 12 November 2017 Asked to discuss content instead of editors / Slatersteven 12:37, 15 November 2017 T-banned and warned to edit collegially / GoldenRing (admin) 11:20, 10 January 2018 Warned against PAs / GoldenRing (admin) 15:21, 28 January 2018 Asked to observe civility restrictions / Coffee 22:05, 18 March 2018 Asked for civility / me 18:41, 8 June 2018 Asked to watch his language / MelanieN 18:49, 20 June 2018 Warned against personal comments / Awilley (admin) 15:04, 21 June 2018 T-banned and warned against ASPERSIONS / NeilN (admin) 12:58, 24 June 2018 Asked for "decorum" / K.e.coffman 23:22, 7 July 2018 T-banned for BATTLEGROUND / Sandstein (admin) 12:08, 14 March 2019 Asked to avoid aggressive comments / K.e.coffman 22:01, 22 September 2019 T-banned by ArbCom for incivility, inflammatory rhetoric, assumption of bad faith, BATTLEGROUND and "hounding" 2020-2022: 20:21, 3 April 2020, 20:28, 3 April 2020 Asked to leave Ermenrich alone; posts again 22:11, 17 May 2020 Cautioned against aggressive headers / El C (admin) 20:26, 2 June 2020 Warned against PAs / El C (admin) 15:09, 23 December 2020 Asked to avoid personal comments / me 02:58, 26 January 2021, 03:14, 26 January 2021 Warned against PAs and asked to AGF / Paul Siebert 01:12, 2 February 2021 Asked to avoid personalising discussions and assuming bad faith / K.e.coffman 21:19, 4 February 2021 Criticized for "[profoundly] misunderstanding" WP:CIV (Generalrelative) 13:29, 9 February 2021 Asked to ping editors against whom he makes threats and "baseless accusations" / Boynamedsue 04:48, 10 February 2021 Asked for civility by K.e.coffman; bans her from his TP 09:12, 11 February 2021 Warned against "using [Icewhiz's] specter as a blunt instrument" / El C (admin) 20:39, 23 February 2021 Warned against complaining about editors on RSN / El C (admin) 19:13, 15 March 2021 Attack page against me taken down / El C (admin) 17:43, 22 March 2021 Warned against "imminent" sanctions / El C (admin) 01:04, 19 June 2021 Asked to avoid accusations in edit summaries / K.e.coffman 14:17, 19 June 2021 Asked to AGF / Brigade Piron 20:24, 8 July 2021 Asked to avoid bad faith accusations / Girth Summit (admin) 00:32, 6 October 2021 Warned against disruptive behavior / Wugapodes (admin) 05:35, 14 July 2022 EvergreenFir (admin) notes that VM has been taken to AE 22 times 03:09, 23 August 2022 Asked to "keep cool" / L'Origine du monde 19:02, 23 August 2022 Asked to avoid edit-warring by WikiHannibal; accuses them of trying to "intimidate" him That's ArbCom, 14 editors and 7 admins all saying basically the same thing. What this tells us is that VM's behavior isn't limited to 1-2 editors or a single disagreement, but is a persistent, long-lasting pattern of behavior that spans topic areas, and which he is unwilling to change no matter how many people he hurts. François Robere (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC) (Added explanation and better numbering. 14:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)) @Piotrus: This isn't about "old grudges", it's about making the encyclopedia a safe environment for collaborative editing for everyone. Seeing VM treat Michael, Gitz and so many others like this, and knowing what effect it has on discussions and on the training of new editors, it's hard to stay indifferent. Someone has to say something. Regarding the rest of your comment - remember this is a public noticeboard, and admins have repeatedly stated that participating in the same discussions - even voting on each other's RfCs - is allowed.[111][112][113] But of course, you already know that - we've been in similar situations before, and you didn't seem to mind. François Robere (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Statement by Piotrus I really do not enjoy stopping by AE. But a 5-year-long list of diffs (above, by Francois) popping up on my WL, is not what I want to see in the morning. Francois, it's long past time to let old grudges go. And commenting in the same AE thread that does not involve you, after an editor with whom you have an IBAN with commented, is hardly good practices. There are many more constructive ways to contribute to Wikipedia than compiling a list of diffs (many mostly irrelevant) about someone you don't like, spanning 5(!) years. And similar thing (you commenting in a discussion that does not involve you and where VM and GCB previously commented, expressing a point of view opposite to theirs) happened just few days ago [114]. And here. I certainly don't have a will to look for 5 years or whatever on your commenting negatively about VM (as you did here), or coming to discussions that do not involve you and disagreeing with them, directly or indirectly (as in the two diffs from last ~2 weeks I cited above), but doing so for GCB led to said interaction ban. Do we need another one? Or enforce the existing one? Just give up and avoid people you don't have best relations with, it's not that hard. Going to AN(I)/AE and disagreeing with them is. Not. Best. Practices. To say the least --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Statement by Levivich I'd like to share my experience with Volunteer Marek just now: VM and I are involved in a discussion at Talk:Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Quotes from individual soldiers' phone calls In that discussion, I advocated for including information about Russian war crimes in wikivoice and not by using a particular quote, here (It's better to just say that sexual violence by Russian troops is widespread, in wikivoice (which there is ample RS support for), rather than include one or two particularly-incendiary quote), here (we should describe in wikivoice, not by quotations), and here (We should describe the atrocities in Wikivoice, and not by using quotations.) But in a related discussion at BLPN, VM writes: Levivich thinks that we cannot include info on Russian forces committing rape, despite the fact that this is covered in hundreds of reliable sources... And also: Levivich can ... spare us all the embarrassment of having to take this query seriously. And at ANI: And are you seriously trying to argue that including the well sourced info that Russian soldiers committed rape (which is extensively documented) is a.... "BLPVIO"? The first and third quotes are obvious willful misrepresentations of my position intended to discredit me. All three were hostile. I shouldn't have to put up with this. Levivich (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Michael60634 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Note that Synotia was blocked for their comments in this request.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC) Folks... there are word limits and you should stick to them. Why do you think that admins want to read through walls-of-text and lots of back-and-forth-name-calling? In my opinion, none of the above commenters are doing anything other than making me want to borrow from a Crusade ..."Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." (even though I'm not a monotheist, there are times when it would be nice to have one omnipotent god to deal with this sort of thing...) .. at this point, the distruption is approaching the territory where topic-banning everyone is sounding like a good solution. Ealdgyth (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Good lord, people. As the kids say, this isn't a good look. You do yourself no favors when you come to AE and throw everything at the wall. That said... I've tried to trudge through the mess of statements and have these initial thoughts. Here's what sticks out to me: Michael60634: The edit warring on Erich Honecker is unacceptable. They nearly broke 3RR on December 28 and responded to a warning with this response. It appears they then did break it on January 2nd. Their attitude is unhelpful and there are legitimate concerns of tendentious editing. On the other hand, they're a fairly new account (600+ total edits, vast majority in the last few months). While I know the trend these days is towards indef topic bans, I think this may be a good use-case for a time-limited one, or perhaps a 1RR restriction when Michael edits in this topic area. My general thinking is that edit warring, especially on repeat occasions, demonstrates precisely the sort of disruption DS is designed to mitigate. Volunteer Marek: Seriously? C'mon, you should know the drill by now. These edit summaries aren't helpful. Editing in contentious areas necessitates civility and this ain't it. I'm tempted to pull the lever Ealdgyth's building in the corner. Either that, or a "No personal attacks" restriction, as unusual as that is, since that's the crux of my concern. Open to hearing colleagues' thoughts. Let me know if I missed anything trying to parse all this. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC) @Michael60634 @Volunteer Marek Tagging both just in case you didn't see. Feel free to respond if you have any thoughts/feedback/critique of my initial impressions here. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC) @Callanecc I agree with your suggestion related to the structuring of the "No personal attacks" sanction for VM, re: across the topic area and not just article talk pages. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Michael60634: The more I look at this the more I think a TBAN from anything related to Crimea is the appropriate response to their editing behaviour. The edit warring is unacceptable, the canvassing is problematic and the personal attacks and aspersions being cast are unacceptable. That's without getting too far into the more content-related editing behaviour. I would consider 1RR if it were just the edit warring but it's not. My thinking on whether to do a time-limited or indef TBAN is around the nature and seriousness of the issues we're considering, how new Michael60634 is to the project and if there is evidence of good editing as well as problematic edits, particularly in other topic areas. I'm actually leaning towards an indef TBAN with an encouragement to appeal after 6 months of editing with no problems. However, I wouldn't object to an extended time-limited TBAN. This is primarily due to the number of issues involved here - edit warring, canvassing, personal attacks, casting aspersions, etc. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC) @Michael60634: You're being treated differently because your conduct is different. Lord Roem's reference to Erich Honecker is demonstrating that you have a pattern of behaviour. The fact that the behaviour has occurred outside the Eastern Europe topic area actually suggests that something broader is needed but I'm willing to try a time-limited TBAN to see if that is enough. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Volunteer Marek: Looking at what's in this AE request I was going to suggest a logged warning but VM does have a history of personal attacks and/or casting aspersions - 2022 (which resulted in TPA being revoked) and 2018 are the most recent I found that resulted in some sort of sanction that wasn't overturned. I don't believe that a TBAN or block would be appropriate at this stage. I'm hoping VM will agree with this but I feel what happens is that VM gets frustrated and says something they sometimes/usually later reflect on, regret and retract. That's a difficult behaviour to deal with on Wikipedia because of the nature of the project but I think Awilley's sanction is likely appropriate, effectively as an 'enhanced warning' if you will. It also requires VM to make a commitment to stop doing it which they have done here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC) @Volunteer Marek: Regarding the wording of the sanction, Lord Roem may want to weigh in too, but I was thinking the first two paragraphs but applying to everywhere the ARBEE DS apply not just article talk pages. I'm not keen on the third paragraph around the use of "must" but I think the intention of it is good so could be included as a suggestion rather than a direction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC) @GizzyCatBella: Word counts are 500 words and 50 diffs so you can absolutely have more space. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Dallavid

Dallavid warned for edit warring and battleground behaviour. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
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 Dallavid User who is submitting this request for enforcement Brandmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Dallavid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Enforcement Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 4 January 2023 revert with no explanation 12 January 2023‎ revert with the "see talk" edit summary, while the related talk comment was placed simultaneously with the revert, and not before it Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 24 March 2021 temporarily blocked for personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy 19 September 2022 temporarily blocked for edit warring Additional comments by editor filing complaint Dallavid is no stranger to the AA2 topic area, he was blocked twice in the past and was reported here before. Yet his editing still appears combative and unhelpful. In the recent talkpage discussion he decided to disregard the uninvolved opinion requested by me at NPOV noticeboard, which is a listed instrument of dispute resolution, and proceed with reverts. I think now such behavior should be re-examined at admin's discretion. Brandmeistertalk 20:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [115] Discussion concerning Dallavid 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 Dallavid Both of the diffs that Brandmeister provided are very disingenuous. 4 January 2023 revert with no explanation I had made a talk page reply at the same time, and it was Brandmeister who was edit warring at this point by continuing to add the disputed content while the discussion was ongoing. 12 January 2023‎ revert with the "see talk" edit summary, while the related talk comment was placed simultaneously with the revert, and not before it Uh, yeah? Because I was trying to contain the discussion on the talk page instead of in editing diffs? 24 March 2021 temporarily blocked for personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy That was a mistake I'm embarrassed about, but it was also two years ago and I had only been editing Wikipedia for less than two months. Why is this relevant to bring up? Did I personally attack someone since? and was reported here before You mean that report that went ignored because it was such an obvious WP:WITCHHUNT by the user that was the one actually being disruptive, as confirmed in the statements of the other users involved? In the recent talkpage discussion he decided to disregard the uninvolved opinion requested by me at NPOV noticeboard The uninvolved opinion was "Information about the most prominent criticisms is generally due", and I proceeded to explain why the criticism is not prominent. Instead of joining in the discussion, Brandmeister continued edit warring and disregarded that WP:3O isn't a vote but a means of helping find a consensus. Someone please correct me if I've misunderstood, but disagreeing with the third opinion means further discussion, correct? I did exactly as this essay requires by further clarifying my viewpoint and summarizing the situation. --Dallavid (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Callanecc Concerning the previous edit warring block for a single page, it's worth pointing out that the user who filed it was also blocked. They seemed to believe that the article belonged to them because they had created it and reverted every edit they didn't like. Most of the diffs they provided for me weren't even reverts. I'm still confused why the report wasn't immediately rejected because that user gamed the system by dropping the edit warring notice on my talk and then making the report almost immediately after. I hadn't reverted anything in the ~10 minute meantime; on the contrary I asked them to please participate in the ongoing talk page discussion that they were ignoring.[116][117] --Dallavid (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Callanecc The statement by Olympian is a completely dishonest summary of his Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia article. From the beginning there were numerous instances of unreliable sources and sources that didn't verify what Olympian attributed them to. Olympian used many genocide denialist sources, even replacing one with another. Yes the AFD result was keep, but that was with the understanding that the article was in a poor state currently and would need to be improved,[118][119] hence why I started clearing all the disputed portions where to WP:ONUS was on Olympian. There were numerous replies in the AFD and talk page that agreed with the issues I raised about the sources used.[120][121][122] Olympian nominated the article for GA after creating it, but it was deemed to not even be B-level by an AfC reviewer.[123] There is also a growing consensus to merge it into another article,[124][125] which I had been to first to point out the new article is a mirror of in the AFD. Olympian flat out lied to you by calling their AE report a witch hunt. Two admins agreed that a logged warning for using genocide denial sources was needed, which was something that upset Olympian. Olympian calling that a witch hunt shows a huge amount of disrespect to those admins and also shows that Olympian learned absolutely nothing from the warning. And please be aware that Olympian had just made an aspersions personal attack against me just before coming here, which I decided to assume good faith for and only request they not do that. Three editors did indeed arrive in the AFD at around the same time making identical comments that all personally attacked me, and an admin even warned one of those editors for personal attacks. I wouldn't have reported them if an admin hadn't given that warning. Seems this is yet another admin decision Olympian disputes. You should also know that the first time I ever had an interaction with Olympian was them trying to get me sanctioned in a real witch hunt (as evidenced by it getting no result and the statements of other users). Olympian was the only user who was not involved in the article discussion that made a statement, and also the only one who made a statement in support of the OP's accusations. He claimed "Dallavid didn't adhere to talk page consensus at all", yet 3 editors who actually participated in the consensus disagreed with that! Olympian has been pushing to get me sanctioned for as long as I've known them, yet they're accusing me of not assuming good faith?! I still wonder what could've possibly led Olympian to that AE discussion when they were completely uninvolved and had been given no notification of it on Wikipedia. --Dallavid (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Statement by Olympian Callanecc and any other admin(s) reviewing this report, I think it's worth pointing out in the past couple weeks, Dallavid has engaged in a tendentious editing campaign by deprecating and dismantling this newly-created Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia article. Immediately after this article was created, instead of initiating a talk page discussion, Dallavid nominated it for AfD (during which they made numerous misrepresentations as expounded in my replies to them in the thread) [126], which resulted in a solid consensus to keep the article [127]. Not getting the AfD outcome Dallavid had hoped for, they proceeded to delete a third of the article's content (over 10K bytes) [128], vaguely citing two Wikipedia policies, without gaining consensus in the talk page, or at least explaining their massive content removal in the talk page (until directly asked). Dallavid's reasoning for deleting content (that cited 14 different authors) referred non-existent consensuses and unfounded genocide-denialism claims – WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH; Dallavid also added multiple unexplained tags to the article and another article I recently authored in an act of disruptive editing per WP:TAGBOMB: [129] [130]. It's clear that Dallavid is trying to maximally deprecate the Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia article in order to get it and its content removed. In an example of Dallavid's attitude, they engaged in a WP:WITCHHUNT against dissenting editors on the same AfD. Firstly, Dallavid filed an AE report against me for using problematic sources (which I had already deleted immediately after they were pointed out), only 4 days after opening the AfD [131]. Later, after Rəcəb Yaxşı, RadomirZinovyev, and Manchou, made “Keep” comments on the Dallavid’s AfD [132] [133] [134], Dallavid reported the trio and accused them of casting aspersions and canvassing so as to invalidate their input in the AfD [135]. After reporting a number of editors who made “Keep” comments in the AfD, it's hard to believe that Dallavid is assuming good faith. – Olympian loquere 10:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Dallavid This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Given that there is a history of edit warring from Dallavid which has continued following a previous block and on a range of AA2-related pages I believe that some sanction is justified. I'm not convinced based on the evidence above that a TBAN is justified (yet), although if there are further concerns not evidenced above I'm open to considering them. At this stage, I'm leaning towards a logged warning about edit warring, in particular long-term edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Just noting that, based on Olympian's evidence, I'm considering whether a logged warning or a TBAN would be most appropriate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)