Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:21, 20 February 2021

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	332

Solavirum

Solavirum has been indefinitely topic banned from the WP:ARBAA2 topic area, broadly construed. El_C 22:48, 14 February 2021 (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 Solavirum

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Steverci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Solavirum (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

17:04, 6 December 2020‎ adding a Category:People by genocide category, a label only given by an extremely small minority
10:52, 9 December 2020 adding Category:Armenian war crimes, with no reliable sources calling this a war crime or of war crime charges
20:08, 18 January 2021 Genocide denial of the Armenian Genocide: "a century-old genocide, which happened because of the Armenian revolts, which happened because of the rising Armenian nationalism"
09:02, 1 February 2021 adding Category:Armenian war crimes, with no reliable sources calling this a war crime or of war crime charges
09:02, 1 February 2021 adding Category:Armenian war crimes, with no reliable sources calling this a war crime or of war crime charges
09:02, 1 February 2021 adding Category:Armenian war crimes, with no reliable sources calling this a war crime or of war crime charges
10:24, 3 February 2021‎ removing cited info he doesn't like and then adding MOS:ALLEGED wording
17:46, 5 February 2021 adding Category:Armenian war crimes, with no reliable sources calling this a war crime or of war crime charges
16:25, 6 February 2021 removing sourced content he doesn't like because "asbarez is a bised armenian source" (Asbarez is not a perennial source and doesn't even have a criticism section)
06:28, 10 February 2021 edit warring and removing large amounts of content because it comes from Armenian sources

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 their own talk page, on 1 October 2020 and 21 December 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I previously made a discussion about just Solavirum's denial of the Armenian Genocide on the incidents noticeboard. The discussion was archived without any resolution, and practically no input from any administrators. Most of the above diff edits have been made after that discussion.

For anyone unfamiliar with the subject, here is a cited explanation on why what Solavirum said is genocide denial:

“

One of the key arguments made by genocide deniers is that the deportations, and whatever “unfortunate excesses” occurred during them, were not part of a plan of extermination but rather a response to an Armenian rebellion in the eastern provinces in collaboration with Russia.^[1]

This officially distributed educational material reconstructs the history in line with the denial policies of the government portraying the Armenians as backstabbers and betrayers, who are portrayed as a threat to the sovereignty and identity of modern Turkey. The demonization of the Armenians in Turkish education is a prevailing occurrence that is underwritten by the government to reinforce the denial discourse.^[2]

The Turkish state and those few historians who reject the notion of genocide have argued that the tragedy was the result of a reasonable and understandable response of a government to a rebellious and seditious population in time of war and mortal danger to the state’s survival... There was no genocide, and the Armenians were to blame for it. They were rebellious, seditious subjects who presented a danger to the empire and got what they deserved... Still—the denialists claim—despite the existential threat posed by the Armenians and their Russian allies to the survival of the empire, there was no intention or effort by the Young Turk regime to eliminate the Armenians as a people.^[3]

In the past ten years a more sophisticated neo-denialism has emerged, which elaborates the argument that the Armenians were involved in insurrectionary activity that necessitated a counterinsurgency response from the Young Turk government. A number of authors have worked with Professor M. Hakan Yavuz and published works with the University of Utah Press. While there are differences in emphasis and interpretation among their works, these writers are to a large degree sympathetic to the defensive attitudes of Turkish government and military officials, favor evidence and accounts exculpatory of the Young Turk policies, and emphatically reject the notion of genocidal intention.^[4]

”

The "Armenian war crimes" category was created back in December by User:Saotura, who was recently indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for pushing Turkish nationalism and Armenian Genocide denial in articles. Solavirum made a comment in support of the edits that Saotura made: "when did someone's personal views became a basis for block?". 'Personal views' referring to genocide denial.

After creating the "Armenian war crimes" category, Saotura began padding it with several articles that had no sources describing them as war crimes, of war crimes being charged, and that couldn't even be described as "warfare between sovereign states". Solavirum has continued to stuff the category with articles that have no citations for being war crimes. In just two months after being created, the Armenian category already has been padded with the third largest amount of articles on Category:War crimes committed by country, behind only United States and Japan. It is quite clear that Solavirum is also WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and engages in the same WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POVPUSH edits that he defended. --Steverci (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kaligian, Dikran (2014). "Anatomy of Denial: Manipulating Sources and Manufacturing a Rebellion". Genocide Studies International. 8 (2): 9. doi:10.3138/gsi.8.2.06.
^ Aybak, Tunç (2016). "Geopolitics of Denial: Turkish State's 'Armenian Problem'". Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies. 18 (2): 13. doi:10.1080/19448953.2016.1141582.
^ Suny, Ronald Grigor (2015). "They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else": A History of the Armenian Genocide. Princeton University Press. pp. xii–xiii. ISBN 978-1-4008-6558-1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)
^ Suny 2015, p. 375.

17:22, 10 February 2021 recreating an article that had previously been deleted for having no reliable third-party sources. The article still contains no reliable third party sources and is padded with sources for unrelated background info. Also added Category:Massacres of women with no source for women being the primary target or targeted for their gender, as the category requires.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steverci (talk • contribs) 22:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: If genocide denial would be key, please review the quotes from historians that I posted. Blaming/justifying the Armenian Genocide on "revolts" is genocide denial. It's no mistake that someone with this mentality would rewrite a massacre to be a "battle", because Solavirum evidentially feels that way about a genocide.

The 1994 shootdown article does have a HRW source, but the source doesn't call it a war crime, it is just hypothetical (no proof they hadn't tried to identify the aircraft). And what about the other articles that have no source for a "war crime" whatsoever? Or recently adding Category:Massacres of women on an article he just created, that has no sources for "specifically targeted to be killed because of their gender", as the fairly small category clearly requires? Or repeatedly removing sources just because they are Armenian? I would appreciate if you would more than glance these edits before dismissing them as "occasional polemical excesses".

You are also talking about Solavirum as if he were a new user with a clean record that just made a mistake. But he has been editing for over 5 years now, has already had multiple AA2 warnings, and has been blocked twice within the past year because of AA2 edits. --Steverci (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I should also add that the article also has Category:Massacres of men despite no mention of males being killed for their gender. And I would really appreciate an explanation for why blaming the Armenian Genocide on "Armenian revolts" is not genocide denial. --Steverci (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Please take a look at the historian quotes I cited: "In the past ten years a more sophisticated neo-denialism has emerged, which elaborates the argument that the Armenians were involved in insurrectionary activity that necessitated a counterinsurgency response from the Young Turk government...". That is precisely what Solavirum said. Genocide denial isn't claiming no/few Armenians died being resettled. That was claimed for a couple decades after the genocide when it was hardly discussed and hardly researched, but obviously can't be substantiated now. Neo-denailism is redefining genocide. From the examination of claims section of the denial article: Other arguments include that there was a "civil war" or generalized Armenian uprising planned by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) in collusion with Russia. --Steverci (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Thank you for the compliment :) --Steverci (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

Discussion concerning Solavirum

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 Solavirum

Steverci seems to failing WP: BATTLEGROUND and can't WP:DROPTHESTICK. A user with past long-running blocks, including a topic ban, he seems to wanting me outside of the Armenia–Azerbaijan topic. I can refer to the diffs one by one, but it will take a long time, and we've referred to some of the in the previous ANI report concerning me. I'm really just sick of these baseless reports filed against me by Steverci, the last being not even a month ago. If you have problems with these edits, refer to the talk page, and, let me remind you, without behaving like you did here. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 09:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, might be my bad. Capture of Garadaghly uses the {{Infobox military conflict}} and X victory format. Both were massacres that happened during a military engagement. The same happened in Maragha, the article's text says so at least. So, I used the said infobox to be consistent. Sorry if I gave the wrong feeling. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 19:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- El_C, I had explained the reason behind the edit. Maragha and Garadaghly basically happened in the same context, but the latter makes it look like an Armenian victory. The sole reason behind my edit was the sake of consistensy, and I don't exclude the fact that it was wrong. Not like if I regarded a massacre of a civilian populace as some kind of a accomplishment. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 07:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have the liberty to be in favour of my topic ban. But if its for this particular edit, then it is nothing more than a misunderstanding, and I don't want to be known as an editor who celebrates mass murder of civilians, when I'm clearly not. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 08:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - El_C, I understand why you think like that. However, it is not several edits of mine that are like this, it's just this particular one and I've explained above that it was a case of me trying to keep the consistency, yet unfortunately, without realising how it could be understood by others. I hope you can understand that this was a misunderstanding, and in no way an intentional way for me to minimize the severity of a mass murder. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 12:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - El_C, thanks for the input. I will take some time off from editing pages related to the controversial topics and focus on other stuff, as you have recommended. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 20:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        El_C, "a result of the massacre committed by Armenians, 39 people were killed with special cruelty. Among them, 8 people aged 90–100, 2 babies and 7 women were cremated alive, 12 people got severe bodily injuries and 2 went missing." That denialism topic has been long over and I don't want to touch it again. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 07:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        And Steverci, WP:DROPTHESTICK already. We've discussed the genocide topic in ANI and that's long over. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 07:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The articles from both of these categories (the ones that I looked at at least; see Khojaly massacre) also don't have a any specifications of gender-based mass murder. So, I just took it from there. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 08:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        El_C, it is a problem. I created the article before this report escalated, and further comments were made the additions of the said categories, so I didn't really realise that the article I had referenced could also be problematic. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 08:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        El_C, I had thoroughly explained myself in the ANI report against me. I had explained the comment, I had explained my intentions. I had stated that I don't deny the phenomenon, numerous times. I don't know how reasonable it is to just push the thought of me being a denier, like how Steverci does. I've already concluded the false allegations of me apparently being a denier, and still getting called a one is quite offensive. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 07:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        El_C, I will take a stand and assume that you've thoroughly read the ANI report. Though, for this context, I'll summerize it. There, I've stated that I do not deny the genocide, and that statement was an example to show Steverci how unsourced, speculative additions are not a place for Wikipedia. With this, I also meant that I don't support the denialist narrative of "the Armenians rebelled, the government deported them", which in a way, justifies the genocide. By saying I don't deny it, I also mean the "neo-denialism" that this report seems to have turned into. You can protect your stance, if my own confession of thoughts and opinions (which, I'm uncomfortable to publicly voice, though in a way, forced to) are not good enough for you. If there is anything worrying about my editorial behavior apart from these false allegations, please make me aware of it. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 08:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        El_C, sometimes it feels like you're not reading my whole discussion and focus on just that one comment. If I have to state again, I'll do. That particular comment was rhetorical, Steverci made unsourced additions justifying bombing of a city with ballistic missiles and cluster warheads, without providing any sources that mention anything that could in any way justify the act. That is why, when explaining why his additions are wrong, I made an intentionally false example. If I denied the phenomenon, I'd confess it. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 09:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        El_C, I've thoroughly commented on every issue you've pointed out, but I'm still in the dark when it comes to why should I get indefinetely blocked. I'm also in favour of other admins commenting on the issue, as I think you're judging too quickly and too harshly for things that wouldn't normally get anyone banned, especially indefinetely. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 10:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MJL

Before this gets started, I should mention that I was the uninvolved editor who closed the topic/site ban discussion in the aforementioned discussion. As I told Armatura, when that user posted on my talk page, it involved a serious amount of offwiki material as its justification. When Laurel Lodged challenged my closure, I explained to him that the possibility of a topic or site ban getting implemented were still open (if based in onwiki behavoir). Either way, the end result of that thread was no action being taken against Solavirum as mentioned by Steverci. However, it is worth noting that Armatura received a one-way IBAN regarding Solavirum by TonyBallioni. That is not nothing.

Of the diffs presented in the opening statement, only numbers four through 8 have yet to be reviewed by the community. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Most of what I wanted to say I said at the AN/I. Since you pinged asking for further feedback, the Armenian war crime category thing was pretty bad but an informal warning should probably be enough of a remedy there. That kind of thing might accepted/acceptable on azwiki, but Solavirum just needs to be more careful while editing enwiki. We have higher standards of neutrality here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CuriousGolden

Looking through the given diffs, none of them suggests any serious behavioural issues and seems more like content disputes. And as User:MJL pointed out, 4 of them have already been reviewed and deemed as not serious enough in the previous ANI report. El_C also seems to think that the diffs don't constitute anything worthy of a sanction.

The main point of the report has since seems to have turned into Solavirum's edit on the Maraga Massacre article. While I agree that Solavirum's edit was definitely not appropriate, it only takes little WP:AGF to see that the user, as they explained, tried to follow a format they saw in another article about a massacre which happened during the same war (which should also probably be changed to the civilian attack infobox template). Solavirum also seems to regret the edit and has apologized for it in one of their comments.

I would say that that the user's single edit on the Maraga Massacre article does not warrant a sanction, especially considering that they understood what was wrong with it when told. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Want to comment on Steverci bringing up the alleged Armenian genocide denial again. This was discussed to great extent in the ANI report, with the conclusion that the user does not deny the genocide. So, the continuous bringing up of this and pushing the narrative that the user is denying the genocide when they clearly have stated that they don't seems quite disruptive to me. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 22:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C Exactly that issue was discussed in the ANI report. All of the alleged "neo-denialism" stems from Solavirum's poor-taste intentional false comparison in a talk page. I, for one, find it inappropriate when others push the "genocide denier" tag onto someone when they've stated several times that they do not deny it (has happened to me before with the pusher getting a warn by the end; so I do have sensitivity about the topic), which is why I decided to engage about it. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 22:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AntonSamuel

@El C: Looking at this report, his recent edit on the Maraga massacre article and back at my own earlier experiences with Solavirum - and taking the ideological differences that there seems to be between us into account - if I would try to provide a fair assessment: I would perhaps recommend that it would be a good idea for Solavirum to cool off and take a break from editing articles/material regarding the Nagorno-Kababakh/Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict for a while, and instead contribute to other topics on Wikipedia in order to gain some more experience regarding other topic matters in order to learn a bit more in general, since it seems he can have a hard time seeing clearly on a more basic level, and has some serious skill-learning to do and understanding to gain when it comes to editing Wikipedia neutrally. I have found that he has the ability to follow somewhat reasonable lines of thinking and has reacted relatively reasonably in the past when we've interacted or come into conflict, so I can still see how he would be able to contribute constructively to Wikipedia in the future. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buidhe

As for Steverci's points about Armenian Genocide denial, they are spot on (it looks like he found them in the Wikipedia article, recently rewritten and brought to GA status by yours truly). There are multiple points of view as to how the "war crimes" category should be applied but a recent discussion concluded (before the cited edits by Solavirum) that it certainly should be avoided if there is no reliably sourced mention of "war crime" in the article, for basic WP:V reasons. (t · c) buidhe 23:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jr8825

It isn't easy to edit in highly contentious areas, and it takes an especially high degree of competence to contribute neutrally you have strong personal opinions on the topic. It's even more challenging if you're surrounded by a highly partisan media landscape which prints jingoistic propaganda completely free of journalistic integrity or respect for the truth. This is the difficult situation which Azerbaijani editors face in A–A, and while I appreciate the efforts some have made to adhere to NPOV, there comes a point where a complete break from the topic is necessary to protect Wikipedia's (already flawed) articles on the area, and also offers the best opportunity for an editor to grow their experience and editing skills. Solavirum's tendency to push article narratives in favour of Azerbaijan at the expense of Armenia has been been raised repeatedly (I left a diplomatic message on their talk page myself just under a month ago, and they've had plenty of more explicit warnings elsewhere) and I still see a clear pattern of sustained bias. Their latest article, the twice-previously deleted Agdaban massacre illustrates all of the above. It relies on unsubstantiated claims from biased, unreliable media sources and wouldn't have been created by an editor who was capable of carefully weighing the available sources against the basic Wikpedia policies of notability, verifiability and reliable sources. Solavirum's beliefs in this topic area affect their judgement to the extent that they're unable to do this. Solavirum isn't a new user, and the lack of caution and self-awareness about the difficulty of editing neutrally, exemplified by the chain of edits to articles on A–A massacres (one of the most emotive subjects of all), give me little hope that things are likely to change in the short term. Although Solavirum has invested a lot of time and effort in the area, I unfortunately believe these contributions may represent a net negative because of the constant insertion of bias. I'm supportive of a topic ban, with the hope that Solavirum will hone their judgement and skills elsewhere. Jr8825 • Talk 16:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Solavirum

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

At a glance, I'm not seeing anything too egregious. There are occasional polemical excesses, but nothing I've seen thus far is actually giving me serious pause. No genocide denial, either (which would be pretty key). And the the one Armenian war crimes cat addition that I observed had a pertinent HRW ref. As it stands, I'd take no action. El_C 23:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After having added the victory parameter to a massacre today, which full disclosure I just reverted (diff), I now support topic banning Solavirum. El_C 19:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solavirum, might be? Comeon. I'm not buying it. A violent encounter between an armor column and civilians is not a victory-defeat scenerio. It is a massacre, always. That is why the article is titled Maraga massacre. That's such a bizarre edit that I really don't know what to say. El_C 23:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Solavirum, I never implied that you "celebrate mass murder of civilians," I don't think that, but what I am saying is that these sort of edits signify a significant competence failure on your part, one which represents a liability for such a fraught topic area. Anyway, that is my assessment for the present moment. Certainly, I intend to consider carefully the views of other editors and other uninvolved admins on the matter. I've no intention to rush anything. El_C 11:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Steverci, Solavirum, MJL, TonyBallioni, and AntonSamuel: sorry for the ping spam, everyone. Just noting that it has been nearly 5 days since this report was filed, but I remain the only uninvolved admin to have even looked at the complaint here — with Tony, responding to MJL, both having discussed a recently-imposed one-way IBAN, which, while does not seem directly connected to this specific complaint, should probably still be taken into account here. Anyway, looking above and below on the noticeboard, these singular efforts on my part seem to be par for the course. I'd like to be cautiously optimistic that these are still being early(ish) days... so, sure, I'll do that. Anyway, hopefully, closing this report won't fall squarely on my shoulders, again. Patrolling editors and uninvolved admins, if you have a moment to spare, please take the time to review this complaint. I, for one, could definitely use any additional feedback. Thanks! El_C 18:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, CuriousGolden, I appreciate your feedback and am taking your thoughts on the matter into account. Possibly, I'm placing too much emphasis on that one edit...? Will reflect further. El_C 19:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, AntonSamuel, for the measured words. Myself, I've had the normally minimal-duration, 3-month topic ban in mind, anyway. But if Solavirum is willing to take a break (months rather than weeks), then I'm happy to log a warning, ~~as MJL suggests~~, instead of imposing a sanction outright. El_C 20:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Added: Sorry, just realized that MJL actually suggested an informal warning. Striking to amend. El_C 20:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solavirum, there's 2 things you can do right now. You can choose to have me close this complaint with immediate effect, log a warning, and you can be on your way to start your informal break from the topic area. Or, we can leave this report open for a while longer so that further input can be submitted. Whatever works for you. El_C 21:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solavirum, I've rescinded my above offer per Steverci's latest, at the very least until you can clarify that Category:Massacres of women matter. Thanks everyone, for your collective patience. El_C 00:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steverci, I get you. That is a classic Armenian Genocide denial trope. At the same time, Solavirum also specifically notes that the "genocide" (their word) did happen. The other key part of that canard advances the false narrative that the CUP intended to resettle Armenians rather than kill them. This Solavirum does not, to the best of my knowledge, maintain anywhere. El_C 00:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solavirum, this would, actually, be the place to clear the air, but that's up to you. Anyway, what is the evidence showing that women or men were specifically targeted during that especially heinous massacre? As opposed to them just being murdered at random. Possibly I overlooked something...? El_C 07:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Solavirum, probably best not to use AA pages as examples. Especially for placing cats somewhat randomly. For example, I just glanced at a few pages listed on Category:Massacres of women, and guess what? Only two of them didn't belong: Khojaly massacre and your restored Agdaban massacre articles. That's a problem, wouldn't you say? El_C 08:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steverci, what can I say? That was astutely put. I concede your cogently-argued, historically-grounded point. El_C 22:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CuriousGolden, this report alleges that this "neo-denialism" is being promoted by Solavirum. The argument that it damages the project, both in reputation and verifiability, is a legitimate one to advance. Quoting WP:STICK at Steverci doesn't seem like an appropriate response. If you don't want to engage, don't engage. But please don't browbeat Steverci not to engage. They authored this complaint and they are entitled to make their case accordingly. El_C 22:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CuriousGolden, please note that this isn't a forum like ANI. This is not a community decision matter. It is an WP:ACDS one (the d stands for discretionary), invoking the authority of WP:ARBAA2. You do not have the authority to tell Steverci what they can or cannot say. Leave that to me and other uninvolved AE admins, if you please. Now, you keep referencing that ANI discussion as if it is a vindication of Solavirum (and your) position. But I do not see it that way. What I am seeing is a fairly muddled discussion, that didn't resolve anything and just sorta burned itself out. The only comment of notable distinction that I was able to immediately glean from it was the one made by Buidhe on Jan 20 (diff), and she isn't at all arguing in favour of what Steverci terms "neo-denialism" as being some sort of a legitimate historical pursuit. El_C 22:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solavirum, CuriousGolden, obviously the factual varsity of the Genocide as having actually occurred is such that arguing it simply didn't happen, like deniers used to do in years past, is unsustainable in respectable circles these days and no longer really a feature of those who now, instead, aim to further these ends by whitewashing or victim blaming. Again, I reiterate Buidhe's note at ANI (see diff above) on the matter. Anyway, my assessment at the present moment is that someone who continues to make these many in-favour-of-their-own-POV "mistakes" (including during this very AE proceeding itself), and adding to that the bluster about the rebellion's exaggerated moment through obvious ahistorical lenses — all of that isn't behaviour that I find to be compatible with this fraught topic area. I'm now leaning at an indefinite ban. El_C 08:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solavirum, calling something false does not make it so. You say that you don't support the denialist narrative of "the Armenians rebelled, the government deported them" — but less than a month ago, you write, in part that: which happened because of a century-old genocide, which happened because of the Armenian revolts, which happened because of the rising Armenian nationalism, and so on (diff). Look, maybe there's greater nuance to that parallel, but I, for one, am having difficulties seeing it. Still, even regardless of that matter, as I mention directly above, several in-favour-of-own-POV errors have proven disconcerting enough to me that I feel the remedy ought to be of considerable severity. El_C 08:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solavirum, you feel I'm being unresponsive, I feel like you're being unresponsive, what can I say? Anyway, I don't really have anything further to add at this time. So, unless another admin steps in soon, because this complaint has been open for nearly a week now, my thinking is that it should be closed soon(ish). But I'm happy to wait a while longer before doing so. El_C 09:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solavirum, just because you're responding (tersely), doesn't mean you're also being responsive. I'm still in the dark when it comes to why should I get indefinitely blocked. Uh, a WP:BLOCK hasn't been on the table at any time. As mentioned, the sanction I have in mind is a WP:TBAN. El_C 14:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to MJL’s ping: the one-way IBAN I imposed didn’t take into account anything other than conduct that existed in a grey area of the oversight policy. We’d to my knowledge never had a specific case like this before (public information on another project that would have been suppressed in an instant on en.wiki), and so the simplest solution was to issue an IBAN under DS since several oversighters agreed the content in question was a violation of our harassment policy, if not suppressable. Someone who is being harassed can be problematic at the same time. I’m not saying there is an issue here, just that my actions aren’t that relevant. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by NomanPK44

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: NomanPK44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – NomanPK44 (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

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

Notification of that administrator: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&diff=1006403252&oldid=1006403185

Statement by NomanPK44

I removed the edit from here [2] because ThePrint is not a reliable source for Balochistan Liberation Army as it has been speculated that it has been supported by India so only third party sources are considered reliable after that I also added a reliable source on that page for the correct size of them[3]. Now if you look to Smuggling tunnel edit I removed the text because it was added using only INDIAN SOURCES no other media source was present there it clearly looks like to be against Pakistan. Because the section was about India-Pakistan so a third-party source should be reliable in this matter rather than all INDIAN SOURCES. Now if you look into the third one [4] I modified it by linking an closed WP:RFC Talk:Battle_of_Chawinda/Archive_1#DID_the_battle_lead_to_Major_Pakistani_victory? while the other discussion here is not closed yet. Now on the last edit [5] another user already told me to go to the talk page and also told me that it is a friendly warning and I already have opened a discussion on the talk page after that [6]NomanPK44 (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

The diff that I cite in the sanction notice as an example reads (in full): Undid revision 1004538012 by Georgethedragonslayer (talk) How can an INDIAN WEBSITE become a reliable source? LOL (diff). Need I really say more? It doesn't matter about NomanPK44's contention in this appeal of there needing to be 3rd-party sources. Placing that argument aside, how difficult would it be to just say that, dispassionately? All that bluster about an INDIAN WEBSITE in all-caps and the LOL, that's simply too much for this fraught topic area. And that's just one example among several.

Not sure if other AE admins are with me on this (hopefully!), but I am at the point now of just not wanting to let IPA misconduct be overlooked any longer, for whatever reason, and generally am interested in setting a higher standard in this key topic area with respect to following up trouble with enforcement, firmly so. Noting also my pervious AE action against the appellant a month ago, involving a 2-week partial block from the Insurgency in Balochistan mainspace article due to a 1RR violation (see WP:AEL#India-Pakistan for my log entry). El_C 18:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's worth noting that I regret being too lenient with disruptive IPA users in the past. An example could be seen here: User_talk:El_C#Casperti. And though that particular ban reinstatement happened after this appellant was sanctioned, it is nonetheless emblematic of this excessive leniency on my part (excessive not just in this topic area, but in general, though that is a tale best told elsewhere). So, the time to pivot is due. El_C 08:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Srijanx22

As the filer of the report which resulted in topic ban, I would recommend declining because NomanPk44 sees nothing wrong with any of his edits and justifies his edits over what "has been speculated" and continued doubling downing with his poor understanding of what is WP:RS. Srijanx22 (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by NomanPK44

Result of the appeal by NomanPK44

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

Not seeing any actual argument for overturning here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think NomanPK44 would benefit from using the topic ban as an opportunity to practice identifying reliable sources and resolving disputes in less controversial topic areas. Independent publications are not automatically considered primary or unreliable due to the country they are based in, regardless of whether the topic is related to the country. If a section that cites Indian sources would benefit from available Pakistani sources, the preferred action would be to add those sources rather than to delete the existing Indian sources. Alternatively, one can tag the section for due weight and discuss it on the talk page. The explanation for editing against recent consensus in Special:Diff/1006082702 is unsatisfactory, since it does not admit error. Violating 1RR twice in the topic area in just over a month is another negative indicator. I recommend declining this appeal.
@NomanPK44: I noticed that you violated the topic ban by editing the List of wars involving Pakistan article at Special:Diff/1007087462 on 16 February 2021. Please refrain from making any edits about India-, Pakistan-, or Afghanistan-related topics, broadly construed, until your topic ban is successfully appealed. The standard time frame to wait before appealing an indefinite topic ban is a minimum of 6 months. During this period, please focus on less controversial topics, and review the reliable sources guideline and the guide to dispute resolution. — Newslinger talk 23:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hard decline. The user appears to genuinely believe that Indian sources are inherently unreliable simply because they're from India, to the extent that they're even basing this appeal on it. I mean they're literally here typing "INDIAN SOURCES" as if it's some type of appalling concept. No way. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mclarenfan17 (follow-up IP report)

Although some limited communication with Mclarenfan17 did occur at User_talk:El_C#Arbitration_enforcement, they continue to sidestep the point (as of mere minutes ago, even) about their usage of multiple accounts to circumvent the sanction. Per Black Kite's suggestion, I have indefinitely blocked the Mclarenfan17 account for socking. Black Kite has also noted that range blocking isn't feasible at this time due to high collateral, so we're down to semiprotections — Robert McClenon has compiled a list of these, which I have since applied. From this point on, protections for affected pages may be requested at WP:RFPP, noting specifically that this is an AE protection request. I can't speak for the other admins who participated, but users are free to ping me to any such requests. El_C 22:55, 18 February 2021 (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 Mclarenfan17

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tvx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mclarenfan17 (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/Motorsports
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mclarenfan17

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

Not applicable

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'm reporting 1.129.108.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per the instructions in the outcome of the recent arbitration request. The IP made a number of edits in the same generale style and purpose of the edits of this user and edited the a group of articles they frequently edited. The IP also strems from the range they generally use.T v x1 23:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The user has now directly reverted an edit of mine (in fact a blanket revert of a series of edits I had executed), which is another direct violation of the interaction ban.T v x1 03:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One remark to Robert McClenon's statement. I think requiring that the person simply limits themself to using the Mclarenfan17 account could also be an option. As far as I can understand it has been truly established that they cannot access that account anymore.T v x1 17:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: what concerns me the most is that the first of the edits you referred to directly reverted a set of edits of mine, which is a clear violation of the interaction ban.T v x1 02:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

12 February 23:02 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Mclarenfan17

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 Mclarenfan17

I find Tvx1's claims to be made in bad faith. I am largely retired these days; I have been doing a bit of editing recently because of virus restrictions. When he first posted here, he could not cite a single edit that he believed that I had made. He even posted to this page a few days ago and was told that he needed something more concrete. Furthermore, Tvx1 made this edit at 22:31 GMT. It ignored a consensus which was established on the article talk page. Then at 23:01 GMT, Tvx1 posted here at arbitration enforcement claiming that I have been circumventing the terms of arbitration, even though he had no proof of it. Tvx1 is well aware that there is only a small handful of regular editors to that article. In effect, he has made an edit that ignored a consensus, them came here almost immediately to try and have sanctions imposed against me to shut me out of the editing process, if I was ever involved in it to begin with; I was, but given that he could not point to any edits that I had allegedly made, this has clearly been done in bad faith. He has not made any other contributions to that article except to circumvent a consensus, and his interest in the topic waned when I went into semi-retirement last year. Tvx1 has a history of ignoring consensus and of wikilawyering, both of which were acknowledged in the original arbitration discussion by the arbitration committee. I think he is trying to use arbitration enforcement to shut editors he disagrees with out of the editing process so that he can then ignore a consensus that he personally dislikes.

Furthermore, the device that I edit from has a dynamic IP address. While I am aware of this, I do not know how to switch it off. So while I might appear to be hopping between IP addresses, everything that I have done has been done in good faith. I am not trying to circumvent the arbitration ruling and have generally avoided Tvx1 since I became active again. 1.129.108.95 (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

I don't know exactly what is meant by an explicit one-account restriction, but I will either suggest or agree with the idea that unregistered editing should be disallowed in the motorsports area, at least in articles that User:Tvx1 has edited.

I have tried in the past to be neutral in this dispute because I was previously trying to act as a neutral mediator, but McLarenfan17 has made it impossible for me to be neutral. As a scientist and a historian of science by education, I apply Occam's Razor, which is to use the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation of this motorsports dispute between two editors is that Prisonermonkeys / Mclarenfan17 is gaming the system by the use of IP addresses. It no longer matters whether they have lost their password a second time, or whether they lost it a first time. They know how to create a third account, and their failure to do so can only be explained by trying to game the system and evade the interaction ban.

Their statements that Tvx1 is acting in bad faith are a handwave to distract attention from the way that they are acting in bad faith. The way that they can re-establish good faith would be to create a third account.

I think that the human who has been User:Prisonermonkeys and User:Mclarenfan17 should be given a choice of two options. First, create a third account and edit only from it, and never from IP addresses. Second, completely retire from Wikipedia and make no edits in the motorsports area. In either case, motorsports articles should be semi-protected. If the human who has been Mclarenfan17 does not agree to one of the two choices, then either the admins at AE or the ArbCom or the community should ban the human, and treat all such edits as edits by a banned user.

That's my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoodDay - They aren't being allowed to edit logged out. They are editing logged out. The last time that this happened, they said it was because they had lost their password. Either they have lost their password again, or they are choosing to edit logged out. One of the key aspects of this case is how to restrict them from editing logged out. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the block evasion is to particular articles, why don't you semi-protect them instead. I have tagged the World Rally Championship 2021 article for indefinite semi-protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why the accounts are not banned? Yes, this may be a silly question because they will evade the ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:El_C - I haven't identified a list of pages at this time, but I can provide you with a list within less than 12 hours. It's basically any pages being edited by either Tvx1 or by Mclarenfan17, but the tedious part is identifying the pages being edited by Mclarenfan17, because the whole thing about this case is that they are improperly bouncing around on IP blocks. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:El_C - I suggest that you start by semiprotecting the following pages:

2021 Formula One World Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2021 World Rally Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2020 World Rally Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Formula One drivers from the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
2022 Formula One World Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2007 Formula One World Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2021 FIA Formula 3 Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2021 Arctic Rally (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2021 Formula 2 Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2021 World Rally Championship-3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:2021 Australian Grand Prix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unfortunately, it's a Whac-a-mole exercise. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoodDay

Clarification needed. Why is any editor being allowed to edit signed-out, when they have a registered account? GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His IP range should be blocked, as it appears as though the editor-in-question is giving the figurative 'middle finger' to the project. There comes a point, when the project has to acknowledge when an individual 'may be' -bleeping around- with them. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mclarenfan17

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

Tvx1, a lot of IPs edit those high-traffic pages. Is there a way that you're able to better connect the IP to the original account? Because I don't feel that I have that much to go on here, though possibly other admins are able to see what I'm missing. El_C 23:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it is them — self identified, see: User_talk:El_C#Arbitration_enforcement. But seeing as communication has began, perhaps there will be a simple resolution that will spare any possible whac-a-mole worst case scenario. El_C 00:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, for what it's worth, I've already insisted on that. El_C 01:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, I'm happy to apply semiprotection to multiple affected pages. Is there a list of these that you are able to compile? El_C 19:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, thanks. Sounds like a plan. El_C 20:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, thanks. All Done. Do you think there's any more, or can we close this report now? El_C 22:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C My temptation here is to just indef the original account anyway since they're not interested in replying, and then any edits can simply be reverted. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, I have done this. Robert McClenon, never mind, I overlooked your final sentence. Will close with a suitable summary momentarily. El_C 22:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very tempted to ask arbcom for an explicit one account restriction. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 01:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am completely in agreement with Robert McClenon. There's no point in an interaction ban if it is to be gamed like this. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now he's edit-warring on 2021 World Rally Championship (history), currently up to 3RR. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: I wonder if we should range block 1.129.108.0/24 --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 02:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've partial-blocked the /24 from Article and Talk namespaces for a week. He can still come and discuss the issue here then. Didn't want to make it much longer than that because there is a (small) amount of collateral. Black Kite (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero Back on a different range? 1.144.105.189? It's impossible to block Telstra, it's a massive range and there's so much collateral. Black Kite (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr DipakSingh

Blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action. El_C 20:54, 14 February 2021 (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 Mr DipakSingh

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

18:33, 13 February 2021: Changed "militant" to "patriot" in Bajrang Dal, including in the titles of two cited sources, contradicting the cited academic sources
18:36, 13 February 2021: Changed "militant" to "patriot" in Bajrang Dal, including in the title of a cited source, contradicting the cited academic sources
18:49, 13 February 2021: Posted threat on User talk:Mr DipakSingh – "I just removed the militant word, okay. If you block me, I will destroy the entire Wikipedia system from India."
13:38, 14 February 2021: Posted threat and personal attack on User talk:Mr DipakSingh – "This is not a idiotic childish threats, take it seriously i will public this discussion on microblogging portal, i think you are Islamic pro agent. Am i right?"
19:48, 14 February 2021‎: Changed "militant" to "patriot" in Bajrang Dal, contradicting the cited academic sources

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1006788332

Discussion concerning Mr DipakSingh

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 Mr DipakSingh

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mr DipakSingh

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

Uhhibi

Blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action. El_C 22:24, 17 February 2021 (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 Uhhibi

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

Before alert

17:51, 17 February 2021: Personal attack on Talk:Love Jihad – "Newslinger clearly has very biased views and obvious hatred towards a particular religion..."
17:53, 17 February 2021: Personal attack on Talk:Love Jihad – "Newslinger clearly has very biased views and obvious hatred towards a particular religion..."
17:55, 17 February 2021: Personal attack on Talk:Love Jihad – "I mean just look at newlinger's history and previous talks/discussions and its very clear that he/she has extremist, racist and discriminatory views!"

After alert

18:43, 17 February 2021: Casting aspersions on Talk:Love Jihad – "You talk about neutrality and censorship, WHY DID YOU DELETE MY DISCUSSION AS SOON AS YOU'RE PROPAGANDA WAS BEING REVEALED? I wrote a lengthy answer citing academic sources and links to provide proof for my arguement, which you conveniently deleted, this is CYBERBULLYING!" A check of Special:Contributions/Uhhibi shows that Uhhibi has not added any "academic sources" or "links" to their comments, and a check of the page history of Talk:Love Jihad shows that I have never deleted any of Uhhibi's comments.
18:45, 17 February 2021: Casting aspersions on Talk:Love Jihad – "The fact that you had to delete my discussion takes away my right to free speech! And that you were guilty conscious!" See #1.
19:10, 17 February 2021: Casting aspersions on Talk:Love Jihad – "I listed numerous arguements, citations and links to show how you're sweing hatred and propaganda to hurt religious sentiments of a religion while spreading misinformation and a biased opinion, while i gave many examples for the same! Which obviously you deleted so you wouldn't have to face the consequences!" See #1.
20:06, 17 February 2021: Personal attack and casting aspersions on Talk:Love Jihad – "Hey look, you're clearly not one person, an organization or bot of some kind, so I'm gonna stop arguing now since you're obviously paid to spread false propaganda and hatred, so please go ahead, but just for the record to any human who reads this, I had an entire another discussion that NEWSLINGER had removed. In which, i cited academic proofs, links, examples and arguments." See #1.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1007374377

Discussion concerning Uhhibi

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 Uhhibi

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Uhhibi

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

My very best wishes

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 My very best wishes

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mhorg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe

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

The user removed with confidence a huge amount of data of the past of politician Alexei Navalny (approximately 7 years of documented pro-nationalist facts and political views from 2007-2013), mainly the controversial one (together with RS), justifying itself in the many (on purpose?) engulfed wall-text-discussions we had [7][8][9][10][11] mainly in this way: "the page is very big, and we should focus on facts of his biography",[12] abusing everywhere, in my opinion, of the magic word "Undue weight". Or "his views on various political events that had happen many years ago are unimportant",[13] confusing Wikipedia for LinkedIn. I want to specify that I didn't add much to the article, all the controversial parts were already there. I just added tons of RS (from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) and released hundreds of comments in the discussions in a polite manner (I hope) and always open to mediation. I find myself compelled to fill this request because I am exhausted and I think the user is acting disruptively, skillfully walking on the edge of Wiki rules.

03:51, 9 February 2021 Removal of controversial Narod movement (2007), accusing weak sources, instead of seeking RS, justifying it with "Undue weight" (RS [14] [15] [16])
16:51, 12 February 2021 Not collaborating: He questions Narod's existence and asks for the website url.[17] I gave him the archived website.[18] His answer: "This is internet garbage".
21:29, 9 February 2021 Removal of references to Navalny on Anti-Georgian sentiment (RS [19] [20]) for "Undue focus". Read the answer [21] from User: Kober
20:40, 15 February 2021 Removal of the Russo-Georgian war and racial slurs, (RS [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]) and the nationalist campaign, (RS [27] [28]) denying that the consensus for that part was reached in TP. [29]
00:57, 17 February 2021 Not accepting consensus, changing argument in front of evidence in the summary of the user's statements [30]
04:24, 11 February 2021 Deliberate distortion of the RS, to omit that Navalny declared himself a "Nationalist-democrat", as User:RenatUK reported [31]
04:27, 11 February 2021 Removal of controversial content on the support to 2013 ethnic riots for "Undue weight" (RS [32] [33])
04:06, 11 February 2021 Removal of controversial content on Russian march and nationalist campaign, including RS, for "Undue weight" (RS [34] [35] [36] [37])
21:01, 12 February 2021 Removal of controversial NAROD-Navalny's videos and accusing TheGuardian,[38] Telegraph,[39] NYTimes,[40] FinancialTimes,[41] Politico [42] having produced "defamatory content".[43]
23:06, 13 February 2021 Removal of any reference to the nationalists, despite what the RS says.[44]
18:25, 16 February 2021 Coincidences: supports the innocence of a banned user accused of sockpuppetry who took sides for the removal of contents on Navalny.[45] At the same time he supports the guilt of a user accused of sockpuppetry [46] who was in favor of maintaining the contents. Wasn't it better to avoid taking sides?
06:21, 11 February 2021 wikihounding?: reverts my old edits, then self-reverts.[47] (For fun?)
17:15, 15 February 2021 wikihounding/defaming?: takes one of my first edits in 2015 and accuses me of sponsoring terrorism because I used two semi-primary sources of small fighting formations in the war in the Donbass to prove their existence.
21:49, 15 February 2021 wikihounding?: he reverts my old edits with RS, always on controversial content on Vitalii Markiv's trial for "Undue weight".
15:37, 16 February 2021 wikihounding?: he reverts my old edits, always on controversial content: Myrotvorets. Instead of adjusting the contents, he removes everything, even the RS.

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)

Not applicable

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Waiting to receive your reply to be able to exceed 500 words, I am "forced" to answer to the slanderous accusations that the user is addressing me again. In this diff[48] I demonstrate how both MVBW and Nicoljaus targeted my edits from last year, removing them. What I wrote on Nicolajius' tp was a sincere invitation to be left in peace,[49] and now MVBW is even trying to accuse me of provoking them![50] Keep in mind that this is the level of how MVBW distorts reality, which is why I ended up making this AE request: I need someone to tell me if I went crazy all of a sudden, or if there is something wrong with this user's behavior.--Mhorg (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[51]

Discussion concerning My very best wishes

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 My very best wishes

Here, on talk page of El_C, Mhorg tells: El C, I was going to write to u|Ymblanter but then I read the banner (I hope everything is ok), so I thought I would contact you. I have been forced to protect the article from the removal of the controversial content of the past of this politician...I started fighting with the sockpuppet User:LauraWilliamson and User:Nicoljaus, and now I'm continuing with User:Nicoljaus and User:My very best wishes. "Fighting".

"Fighting" (actually a content dispute) about what? As responded below, we actually agree with Mhorg about almost everything except only the following point. He wants to include this text about Georgians described as "cockroaches", "rodents", "rotten teeth", etc. That was discussed on talk page. For example, here - Mhorg himself marked bold all words he wants to emphasize on the BLP page. I believe Mhorg wants to make an undue emphasis on the page to disparage the most famous anti-Putin activist.

There is no consensus to include such specific version by Mhorg. He did started a thread on the talk page, here. (note this edit by another user which makes a part of this thread to appear as something started by me. No, I did not start it). Looking at this thread, does it looks like consensus to support anything that Mhorg suggested? I did start this thread to clarify what consensus could actually emerge. It appears that people are more or less agree on sources, but disagree on text to be included (I think a scholarly source [52] should be used, rather than a bunch of polemic journalistic sources). Mhorg is the only user who advocates his version in this thread, while 3 other users (me including) object. I think this content disagreement could be easily resolved by submitting an RfC.

Mhorg accuses me that I want to remove all "controversial issues" from the page about Navalnyi. No, I never said or tried this. In fact, the entire BLP page of Navalny is one continuous controversy. The content was there all the time. For example, his "nationalism" is now described in the 2nd paragraph of this section. I did not remove it. There is a single disagreement on the page Navalny that was described above.

Additional responses (roughly in the same order as in the complaint by Mhorg, but not all points):

We actually agreed with Mhorg to include the content about "Narod" long before he submitted this AE request, i.e. I self-reverted [53], and Mhorg re-edited this text as he wanted [54]. However, Nicoljaus removed it with a reasonable justification [55]. This is not a disagreement with me.
Yes, the sources in this diff by Mhorg here if not an outright "internet garbage", but definitely something we do not want to use. Please check these links.
Anti-Georgian sentiment. Here is discussion [56]. This is a typical content disagreement between another set of users, one that I believe has been already resolved.
Yes, this is an issue of disagreement (see above)
"Wikihounding" (Vitalii Markiv and Mitotvorets). Actually, we quickly came to consensus with Mhorg on both pages [57], [58], including full agreement on talk page (here, on the bottom). Why bring this here? Not mentioning that I edited page about Markiv in 2019 [59], and it was actually Mhorg who followed my edits on this page in 2019 [60].
No one accused Mhorg of sponsoring terrorism. That was my comment, and it was summarized in edit summary. That was not about terrorism at all. Yes, I had a concern here, and asked Mhorg about it [61], but it was more along the lines of "links to avoid" and using unrelibale sources (anonymous YouTube videos) with content about living people in WP.

Please check these: [62], [63].

My conclusion. This AE request is an advanced WP:Battle by user Mhorg where he openly declares a war on users with whom he has content disagreements (me and Nicoljaus, on talk page of El_C, first link in my reply), and then successfully provocs Nicoljaus to make questionable comments, leading to his topic ban. In my opinion, that alone justifies lifting the topic ban for Nicoljaus.

@El_C. I assume that was his edit which triggered the warning? Perhaps admins know better, but I think his citation of the article from The Guardian was on the subject.

@El_C. OK, I now see the part of discussion you refer to, but I do not think that comments by Nicoljaus on that talk page deserve a topic ban. In fact, Nicoljaus was the most knowledgeable contributor on the subject during this discussion.

Statement by Nicoljaus

I think it's enough to look at the "Top edited pages" of Mhorg [64] and the VoxKomm main page [65] to see almost a complete intersection by topics. Obviously, the user here is just WP:NOTHERE.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is that VoxKomm link even about? I can't make any sense of it -- "almost a complete intersection by topics", as Narrow self-interested or promotional activity in article writing.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

It looks like AE is being used to win content disputes to me. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MVBW ---> "forced" ---> [66] - It could be the language thing.. They could mean "I had no choice." Possibly, I'm not sure, but I believe that's what they meant. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

The filing editor filed a request at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard on 10 February, which had to do with a survey that had been disrupted by sockpuppetry. The DRN request listed eight editors, the eight who had responded to the survey, which is more than DRN can normally work with effectively. I recommended that the survey, which was sort of an informal RFC, be converted to a formal RFC, with the assistance of a volunteer. Mhorg then requested to put the DRN on hold, which was done. Mhorg then said that there was a complex mix of content and conduct issues, and that they wished to withdraw the DRN in order to file a conduct report, which is this thread. They have now asked me a question on my talk page about the word limit. I can see that they are using a lot of words. I haven't researched the details of the conduct dispute, and have nothing more to add at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bob not snob

Over in the Western side of Eastern Europe, I encountered My Very Best Wishes in this recent edit in which he restored information sourced to Publicystyka Antysocjalistycznego Mazowsza. This is an "anti-socialist" webpage or blog, that is right-wing extremist, and is not a reliable source for anything. The extremist nature is quite obvious, on the archived source itself there is an image of Donald Tusk with a German and Polish flag, with text expressing opposition to the election of a "German candidate" to the Polish presidency. The about page describes how this website was initially the website of the Masovian district of the Real Politics Union, a small extremist political party. The site itself is mainly the work of one individual, Krzysztof Pawlak.

When I pointed this out to My very best wishes, he first reverted my post and then later posted on my talk page: "Unfortunately, I do not know Polish, and I am not sufficiently familiar with Polish sources and politics to respond to your comment".

Moments before placing this extremist source, he removed content from an academic source.

If My Very Best Wishes is unable to assess Polish sources, why is he restoring content removed with the edit summary of "This is not a reliable source"? Bob not snob (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning My very best wishes

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

Note that I was asked to investigate this dispute, singularly (User_talk:El_C#Operation_Whitewash_on_Alexei_Navalny's_article), as an AE matter, but declined. I still don't really have time to look into this in too much depth, but I would like to reaffirm Mhorg's citation of what I said to My very best wishes a few days ago about the nation of Ukraine not setting the tone in designating pro-Russian separatist groups as terrorist organizations (diff). Ukraine certainly does not have anything remotely resembling the gravitas of such designations as listed by the US Dept. of State in their United States Department of State list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Also noting a recent related warning from a few days ago which I had issued Nicoljaus with in the course of this dispute (diff). Their extremely terse accusation above that Mhorg is NOTHERE does not inspire confidence, I'm afraid, about Nicoljaus toning down on the WP:ASPERSIONS. What is that VoxKomm link even about? I can't make any sense of it. The AE noticeboard isn't a free-for-all, Nicoljaus.

That said, not sure why Mhorg would call attention to MVBW's edits to their own sandbox (diff). That space is for MVBW to do with as they see fit. I'd also point out to Mhorg that in one of the pages where they claimed MVBW was HOUNDING them, MVBW had actually edited that page before them. Notwithstanding all of that, my first impulse (such as it is) is that this isn't actually as one-sided as some of the participants above make it out to be. Finally, Mhorg, remember what I told you about the AE noticeboard having a word-limit? Please make note of that (didn't count, but it does look pretty close to the limit, at the very least). You may wish to trim in order to continue participating. El_C 17:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, the point is that there are more than a few nations out there (like WP:ARBAA2, etc.) who may designate hostile groups as "terrorist" or "extremist," but that does not imply that this is something which we necessarily are required to observe on the project, as such, overall. El_C 18:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicoljaus, if you are unwilling or unable to substantiate, it's best to say nothing. Doubling down on WP:ASPERSIONS is not a good look and may be a cause for sanctions. El_C 20:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, you presume incorrectly. I had no knowledge of that edit. The warning, as mentioned, revolved around Nicoljaus' most recent comments to Talk:Alexei_Navalny#Narod_movement. El_C 21:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the record that I have imposed an indefinite topic ban on Nicoljaus from the EE/Balkans topic area, broadly construed. Obviously, the previous AE sanctions that I had imposed on them in the past did not produce the desired effect. El_C 22:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, I only noted the sanction here for the record. But, in any case, the actual reasons that immediately prompted it are noted here. Anyway, this isn't the place to discuss the sanction, nor are 3rd party AE appeals a thing. El_C 23:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Nicoljaus

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: Nicoljaus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Nicoljaus (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Indefinite topic ban from any pages or discussions relating to the WP:ARBEE topic area (including the Balkans), broadly construed. It was imposed at User talk:Nicoljaus#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2021#Eastern_Europe

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

Notification of that administrator: I notify you that I have filed an arbitration enforcement action appeal

Statement by Nicoljaus

The administrator who imposed the restrictions put forward two reasons. The first one, as he himself admitted during the discussion on my talk page [67], is irrelevant (he claimed that I admit my HOUNDING of the user and even justify it). In fact, the situation is completely reversed and El_C even warned the user that I "hounded" [68]. So, one of the reasons for the indefinite topic ban can be discarded and I think we should expect some easing of sanctions.

The second situation is more complicated. I found in the contribution of Mhorg some features that seemed suspicious to me. When Mhorg submitted an AE request to another user they were "fighting" with, I shared my observations so that a non-involved administrator could evaluate them by making a decision on the request [69]. The administrator El_C in response made some claims that I may have misunderstood. Later, during the discussion on my talk page, he mentioned that the site I link to was in Italian. But there was no indication of this in his message [70] (actually, I don't read Italian either, but I didn't have any problems). I felt that it was necessary to specify more precisely which part of the rule WP:NOTHERE I refer to and specified the corresponding line, that's all. Reaction of administrator El_C seems excessive. I may have underestimated how serious the charge of violating the WP:NOTHERE rule is (my previous wiki experience doesn't give a reason for this). It is also possible that my observations do not provide sufficient grounds for such accusations, but I have not received direct explanation for this.

As a result, I find the measures taken, on the one hand, unnecessarily harsh, and on the other hand, do not allow me to understand what is wrong. I write a lot on the subject of the Second World War and the history of Russia and usually had no problems with my fellow Wikipedians. My previous blocks is usually arose from the fact that I was constantly attacked by the sockpuppets of disruptive users such as Crovata or Umertan. (With Mikola22, there was a special story, and I admit that I was wrong). I'm asking for lifting, or, at least the modification of the topic ban) – guys, seriously, what are the problems if I write articles like Dmitry Krasny, Battle of Belyov, Izyum-Barvenkovo Offensive, Alexander Bubnov, 15th–16th century Moscow–Constantinople schism (except for my poor English, of course)?--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made my statements in "terse way" just in attempt to follow the demand "dial it back" and not to BLUDGEON the discussion. I gave only references, indicated what I paid attention to, and the corresponding rule.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The language issue; collapsed to follow word limit

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

I don't think that the expression "tone down rhetoric" should definitely be perceived as "dial it back". Now I no longer understand what you were asking me to do - to stop pointing out any behavioral issues associated with the user Mhorg? I doubt that this is in your right, there are other non-involved administrators here, to whom the links I have given might be useful (as I thought, maybe I'm wrong).--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so I was surprised by the new claim about "tone down rhetoric". In fact, stupid Google translate give it exactly as "reduce the rhetoric" (I'm not sure that this link will display correctly: [71]). I didn't really understand your phrase about "dial it back", when I saw it for the first time, but I took it as a requirement not to say too much (I admit that this was the case in the topic you referred to). --Nicoljaus (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich I don't understand why I can't mention that almost all the users I had problems with, were sockpuppets? I was blocked based on the results of the interaction with Themanhascome and Ctvaughn555 (as well as many other user and IPs that attacked me), who were sockpuppets of Umertan aka UkrainianSavior. Miki Filigranski was a sockpuppet of Crovata. The latter, unfortunately, involved the then-inexperienced user Mikola22 in the conflict. I didn't mean that the Mhorg is a sockpuppet, and I didn't make any hints about it (and, moreover, twice), I just want people not to be afraid of my block log.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

Unfortunately, the appellant barely touches on the main reason that immediately prompted the sanction in question, but goes on at length on the ancillary one, devoting nearly the entire length of their appeal for that purpose, despite my previous explanations about that on their talk page. Well, I am here to set the record straight. On the 15th, I had warned them, in no uncertain terms, that they need to tone down their rhetoric, or the likelihood that they would face AE sanctions again is high (diff).

Then, yesterday, they had accused the filer of an AE request of being NOTHERE by drawing a parallel between their editing focus to items on some non-English external website, and doing so in extremely terse way (diff). So, I had the warned them about that, too, also asking (in part): What is that VoxKomm link even about? I can't make any sense of it. The AE noticeboard isn't a free-for-all, Nicoljaus (diff).

As a response, instead of providing any substance whatsoever so as to clarify the matter as was requested, the appellant rather astonishingly doubled-down on more of the same by simply refactoring the very same terse reply a second time (diff). Needless to say, I found that to have been highly inappropriate.

As for the more ancillary reason immediately prompting the sanction, after the filer of said AE complaint (Mhorg) accused Nicoljaus of HOUNDING them —notably, without evidence, for which I have also warned them against (diff)— instead of responding with something like no, I am not hounding you, Nicoljaus hinted that they may well be doing so, but ostensibly not to "annoy" them as that user had claimed, but in the interest of the project or whatever (diff). I found this also to have been inappropriate, though not as egregious as the violation noted in the paragraph above.

Beyond all this, long since I had originally imposed a sanction on the appellant, exactly one year minus a day ago (2020 log entry), I have noticed a return to problematic editing on their part in the topic area, though the volume of their editing was initially very low for this to be too noticeable. But now that it was right in my face, I felt compelled to warn them, then warn them again, then sanction them (this time with a sanction which was not set to expire). I don't recall what last year's sanction was about exactly. Possibly, something about medieval Balkans stuff...? In any case, I think it's well time that Nicoljaus proves that they are able to edit in other topic areas productively and without incident. El_C 11:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that Mhorg may well be deserving of sanctions, as well. I'm not sure. Frankly, I find it quite difficult to parse what they're saying, overall (including directly below). Their writings are just not coming across as coherent and cogent enough for me to able to make that determination at this time. El_C 11:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicoljaus, to "tone down rhetoric" means to dial it back, not to trim it. That was made clear in my warning to you about the VoxKomm aspersion (that it needed substantiation, rather than merely refactoring!), so this explanation which you are now suddenly providing — that is something which I find rather puzzling. El_C 11:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicoljaus, I'm not asking you to do anything. The sanction has already been imposed. You're appealing it here. I just pointed out that "tone down the rhetoric" does translate to "dial it back." That you think it can mean other things, that isn't on me. Not to be harsh, but I'm not responsible for your reading comprehension. El_C 12:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, check this out. In this appeal, I described my warning to Nicoljaus on the 15th as me asking them to "tone down the rhetoric," which they now say isn't the same as saying "dial it back." But looking again at that warning (diff), I actually did say "dial it back." I'll just quote (in part): If you contend that there are violations, the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard is that-a-way. The article talk page is not for that. You need to take immediate steps to dial it back, because you won't get many more chances. Weird. El_C 12:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, when an inexperienced user comes to me to ask that I investigate something EE (direct link), but I tell them that I don't have the time and that if they have a solid case they should take it to AE, what are they supposed to do? Regardless of whether their AE complaint has merit or not (again, I'm not sure about that at this time), you painting them as some topic area regular who is using AE to win a content dispute — that is an unfair charge, I challenge. El_C 12:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, I never mentioned you having said anything "improper" about me because I know you didn't (in all the years of me having known you, in fact). I submit to you that you have misread. El_C 16:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mhorg

My accuses of Following\Hounding come in relation to this AE Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#My_very_best_wishes. User:Nicoljaus was trying to find something to discredit my work on Wikipedia (which is public, and I am still waiting for someone to tell me when I have acted maliciously) looking in my edits history... In fact, the user first made an edit[72] to contest an old edit of mine of 25 May 2020, then accidentally removed all my edit[73] (with the motivation that he was fighting with an anonymous user, I don't know...).
The accusation that I made to him (actually asking him to limit the conflict to a certain area and basically to leave me in quiet because I'm really exausted),[74] does not come from nothing, because in the same days this thing happened with User:My very best wishes (they are defending each other in the AE request)[75], who made the same deletion of the same edit of mine[76] in these days of harsh discussions. Again, MVBW removed[77] my old edit of 1 October 2020, and again he removed[78] my old edit of 9 October 2020. I think there is a connection to all of this. I think that I, unlike you, have tried to question your actions by remaining on a very specific topic (and my edit history confirms it).--Mhorg (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C sorry for my bad english, I tried to explain at the best what pushed me to make those accusations. I didn't know the rule of how to report a wikihounding case (I don't know how to do 99% of the things on the English Wikipedia, as you can see). Seeing the same deletions of the same old content, from the same two users I'm having trouble with, seemed like a good reason to ask them be left in peace. Sorry.--Mhorg (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes I didn't understand what you want to imply that I'm an "experienced user who edited 6 years in Italian WP". We have different rules and in 6 years I don't remember ever needing to call an admin, not even to know if a user was right or not to delete all the controversial content of a politician.--Mhorg (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved editor My very best wishes

Yes, I know: admins have discretion. But ultimately, this is all about improvement of content. Sure, these subject area are difficult, and some tensions are inevitable. People do occasionally tell something they really think, which may lead to sanctions. They may also watch the editing history of each other. I think most of that matters very little, at least until the behavior is really bad. For example, bringing a battleground request to WP:AE to gain an upper hand in a content dispute probably does fall in that bad behavior category.

What usually does matter is this:

Was that user highly knowledgeable in the subject area?
Did she/he worked to actually improve the content?

And speaking about user Nicoljaus, my answer to the both questions is strong "yes", at least on the subjects related to Russia (I do not know what he did before in other subject areas).

@El_C. No, I only said in complaint about me it was just a content dispute. Yes, I think it was. Also, I do not imply anything improper about you. I only think you did not make right decision about Nicoljaus. To the contrary, thank you for explanations! As about Mhorg, he does not know much about Russian politics (although he knows Russian), but I think he is an experienced contributor. First time we interacted in 2019 (#1 in my response). I should say though his comment on your talk page looks strange to me. "I have been forced..." Forced by whom? By me? No.

EL_C. It appears that Mhorg is an experienced user based on their editing in Italian WP. I think you underestimate him. I mean he is probably a fan of VOXKOMM International, apparently a left-wing YouTube channel (he posted their videos in WP [79],[80] that clearly belong to "links to avoid", VOXKOMM International also features fabricated propaganda/hate videos about Navalny and Markiv, subjects that are edited with passion by Mhorg), then Mhorg see the banner on your talk page and therefore decides to act, exactly as he said himself [81]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mikola22

As for our conflicts in the past is concerned I think they were unnecessary, childish and fight about irrelevant information's, but with violation of revert rules. These blocks are now counted in every possible report against me or editor Nicoljaus. We do not meet in the articles after these conflicts and even if we meet I think we would resolve possible problems in good faith. Current editing of editor Nicoljaus I don't follow so I can't say anything about it, but if our conflicts ie blocks are also counted in this procedure I can only ask the authorities not to take our blocks too seriously, if this can be asked at all (I say this from the present time perspective when these conflicts seem ridiculous to me). Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 4)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Nicoljaus

Cutting through the TLDR, these diffs are sanctionable conduct [82] [83] [84]. It's not OK to casually accuse people of socking in an AE thread (and then double down on it) and the third one is an admission and justification of WP:HOUNDING, and IMO it borders on WP:GASLIGHTING or DARVO. Levivich ^harass/_hound 07:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Nicoljaus

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

KidAd

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 KidAd

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tartan357 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)

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

30 December 2020 Accuses me of "scrubbing" the article Luke Letlow for switching the infobox template from {{Infobox officeholder}} to {{Infobox person}}.
30 December 2020 Repeats the "scrubbing" accusation and argues I'm trying to declare the election void because Letlow died.
30 December 2020 Doubles down when I call them out at Talk:Luke Letlow, and accuses me of condescending to them.
31 January 2021 Accuses me of Wikilawyering for pushing back on their argument that readers don't care what year a picture was taken in an RfC at Talk:Joe Biden on whether to include a caption on the infobox image.
2 February 2021 Calls me a stalker for commenting at User talk:KidAd#Captions, which concerned a matter I was directly involved in.
20 February 2021 KidAd agrees to self-revert after I inform them they have violated the 24-hour BRD cycle remedy at Hillary Clinton. However, they tell me they do not plan on engaging with me and intend to simply repeat their edit later.
20 February 2021 After I inform them on their talk page that they are required to discuss content disputes on the article talk page per WP:DR, they respond to me at Talk:Hillary Clinton. The response, however, is uncivil (alleging that I don't know that the year 2020 came after 2013).
20 February 2021 KidAd states that I'm arguing time passes non-linearly.
20 February 2021 After I implore KidAd on their talk page to be nice, they once again claim that I'm arguing time runs non-linearly, and call me insane: It certainly is insane. Glad we can agree on that (twisting my description of the ridiculous claim that I don't know how time works as insane to repeat that I believe that and am therefore insane).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

29 November 2018 3-month AP2 topic ban (expired)
30 November 2018 1-week block for violation of topic ban
7 December 2018 1-month block for violation of topic ban
25 January 2019 3-month block for violation of topic ban
23 April 2019 talk page access revoked for 3 months for violation of topic ban

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

KidAd and I share an interest in AP2, and often run into each other. I've noticed a pattern of incivility from KidAd that often arises when they have disagreements with other editors, myself included. Often, it takes the form of rude and/or sarcastic responses to others' arguments. Additionally, KidAd often chooses, sometimes defiantly, not to engage in talk page discussion. I've remained collegial and civil, and had been hoping that KidAd and I would come to get along. After a tense discussion at User talk:KidAd#Captions ended in KidAd agreeing to work together with me on an RfC, I'd hoped that this was behind us. Unfortunately, after interacting with them today regarding Hillary Clinton's infobox, that does not appear to be the case. They first flat-out told me they intended to force their change in without discussion, and when they did engage me in discussion, they responded to my argument by suggesting it reflects that I don't know how time works. I implored them to stop on their talk page. However, they repeated their insulting comment immediately after I did so. I'm at the point where I feel I can either give KidAd their way when I disagree with them, or ruin a fun day of editing by interacting with them. That just doesn't feel right to me. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[85]

Discussion concerning KidAd

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 KidAd

Especially when compiling a recent log of interactions between myself and Tartan, it becomes clear that our exchanges have been largely negative, though I object to the statement a pattern of incivility from KidAd that often arises when they have disagreements with other editors. When Tartan and I have disagreed, the topics have been formatting, not content-related. As for the recent dispute at Hillary Clinton, please note that I self-reverted my most recent edit as soon as Tartan made me aware of the WP:DS violation. This was an oversight on my part. My comment to Tartan, For issues like this, where there is no clear policy to support changes either way, a discussion will only provide unnecessary frustration was meant to prevent conflict, a decision directly based on our last negative interaction. Reviewing the Clinton discussion, I see no harsh language, only disagreement. The statement The current infobox structuring should remain in place when it is agreed upon that the date of January 2, 2020 occurred after the periods of 1993 to 2001, 2001 to 2009, and 2009 to 2013 was not written to convey sarcasm. It was written to convey my point that dates should go in linear order. Given that sarcasm is usually communicated using inflection, deriving a particular meaning from text is highly subjective. Responding to Tartan's 9th point in particular, this dif does not include a personal attack or accusation of insanity. I am fully willing to comply with an WP:IBAN between myself and Tartan. KidAd talk 06:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning KidAd

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

Just a quick observation. Though the article subjects are all clearly and unambiguously WP:AP2 ones, these series of disputes do not seem to involve AP2 so much as infoboxes, infoboxes and more infoboxes. My sense, then, is that this is an WP:ARBINFOBOX2 rather than AP2 matter. In any case, I have attached the relevant DS alert to both users, just to be on the safe side. El_C 09:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[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.

[3] Kaligian, Dikran (2014). "Anatomy of Denial: Manipulating Sources and Manufacturing a Rebellion". Genocide Studies International. 8 (2): 9. doi:10.3138/gsi.8.2.06.

[4] Aybak, Tunç (2016). "Geopolitics of Denial: Turkish State's 'Armenian Problem'". Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies. 18 (2): 13. doi:10.1080/19448953.2016.1141582.

[5] Suny, Ronald Grigor (2015). "They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else": A History of the Armenian Genocide. Princeton University Press. pp. xii–xiii. ISBN 978-1-4008-6558-1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

[FOOTNOTESuny2015375-6] Suny 2015, p. 375.

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 565: / Line 565: @@
 :@El_C. No, I only said in complaint about me it was just a ''content dispute''. Yes, I think it was. Also, I do not imply anything improper about you. I only think you did not make right decision about Nicoljaus. To the contrary, thank you for explanations! As about Mhorg, he does not know much about Russian politics (although he knows Russian), but I think he is an experienced contributor. First time we interacted in 2019 (#1 in my response). I should say though his comment on your talk page looks strange to me. "I have been forced..." Forced by whom? By me? No.
+:EL_C. It appears that Mhorg is an experienced user based on their editing in Italian WP. I think you underestimate him. I mean he is probably a fan of [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHyxQxjO1beZKiOCicRrmHg VOXKOMM International], apparently a left-wing YouTube channel (he posted their videos in WP [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Separatist_forces_of_the_war_in_Donbass&diff=prev&oldid=645589996],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Separatist_forces_of_the_war_in_Donbass&diff=prev&oldid=644554903] that clearly belong to "links to avoid", VOXKOMM International also features fabricated propaganda/hate videos about Navalny and Markiv, subjects that are edited with passion by Mhorg), then Mhorg see the banner on your talk  page and therefore decides to act, exactly as he said himself [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&diff=prev&oldid=1006600942]. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 15:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
-:EL_C. It appears that Mhorg is a ''highly'' experienced user based on their editing in Italian WP. After talking with him I posted my conclusion in AE statement.
 ===Statement by Mikola22===

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