Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:22, 14 March 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

SpicyBiryani

SpicyBiryani is subject to a 6 month WP:ARBIPA topic ban --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:53, 13 March 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 SpicyBiryani

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIP

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

Since his return from a 3 months topic ban from WP:ARBIP:

4 December 2020: Removes "thenews.com.pk" with false edit summary "figures are Indian claims".
20 January Unsourced WP:OR and marks such a major edit as 'minor'. Not sure how I forgot to add this diff earlier. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
25 January 2021: Changes "93,000 captured" to "90,368 captured" by marking such a major edit as 'minor' and inserts false edit summary that "Pakistani POW count now matches the rest of the page", despite the lead mentions "Approximately 90,000[36] to 93,000 Pakistani servicemen were taken prisoner by the Indian Army".
20 February: Falsely accused me of adding "unsourced figures to the infobox", and when he was provided clarification and additional sources, he still fails to agree with the validity of the "93,000" figure.
23 February: Misrepresents source and makes the edit without edit summary.
- SpicyBiryani: "Pakistan gained control of roughly a third of Kashmir (Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan), whereas India retained the rest (Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Ladakh)."
- BBC source: "To the west of the ceasefire line, Pakistan controls roughly one third of the state."
21 February: Adds report from months back to decide about a conflict that is currently on-going and has gone through series of changes including widely reported "complete pullout". See WP:CIR.
23 February Doubles down with his WP:OR. Claims that thenews.com.pk is a "random article from 2014" and asking me "how exactly is GlobalSecurity not a reliable source". See RSN discussion for globalsecurity. In this message he also mocked me by imitating my earlier message ("Your personal research does not carry weight here.") by saying "assumption you made is your own personal WP:OR and carries no weight here". See WP:BATTLE. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk)

@El C: One of the discussions I linked above is from RSN, and now I would link another one from Military noticeboard. Both discussions agreed that Globalsecurity.org is not reliable and also showed that it has been subjected to undisputed mass removals after these discussions.[1][2] Having observed these edits earlier, this is why I claimed that globalsecurity.org is not reliable. The website itself notes: "While we make every effort to ensure that the information on this site is accurate and up to date we accept no responsibility whether expressed or implied for the accuracy, currency and completeness of the information."

But I would like to know how SpicyBiryani concluded below that RSN discussion showed the website to be reliable? This is further evidence of comprehension issues of SpicyBiryani.

Since this report, SpicyBiryani has continued to make problematic edits. Here is yet another recent diff where this user added "most neutral sources rejected this claim." Of course, none of the sources they cited stated or even implied this conclusion. This is the kind of Original Research/WP:SYNTH that is explicitly barred under the policy. Whereas one of the sources they cited said "India’s latest release of information is interesting, but it remains too circumstantial and limited to put the issue of whether or not the IAF shot down an F-16 to rest for good".[3] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Topic banned for 3 months WP:ARBIPA on June 2020.[4]
Blocked for violating the topic ban on June 2020.[5]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [6]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Note, that this account has only 107 edits. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [7]

Discussion concerning SpicyBiryani

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 SpicyBiryani

NOTE: Since the above request was modified after I made this statement, the numbering here may be slightly off. Refer to this diff to match the old numbers. SpicyBiryani (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: See this diff.^[1]

6: Here are some excerpts from the RSN discussion on GlobalSecurity.org, which is what I based my argument on:

It is a reliable source. It is used by the mainstream media as a source, it is cited in 240,000 books in Google books and by 17,600 articles in Google scholar. It has a page showing support from third parties[82] and despite its disclaimer for errors, bills itself as "reliable source of background information and developing news stories in the fields of defense, space, intelligence, WMD, and homeland security."[83] Its director is John Pike, a leading expert.
Examples from NYT of links to globalsecurity.org: 2014: An NYT "editor and researcher" selected reference to the site as a resource on Iran's Guardian Council, Also in 2014 as a resource on Pakistani ISI director Ahmed Shuja Pasha, 2013: globalsecurity "Iranian rocket expert" cited in NYT article, 2012: Cited as a "defense website" for historical information on a US military exercise. There are several other references that can be found by searching globalsecurity.org on NYT. Washington Post has used them more recently: 2016, 2015, 2014. Reuters has most recently used globalsecurity as a source in 2016, CNN in 2015 and Fox in 2016
globalsecurity.org is cited in:

Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War / Oxford University Press
Gulf Military Forces in an Era of Asymmetric Wars / Preager
Handbook of International Electrical Safety Practices / Wiley-Scrivener

John Pike, one of the founders, "directed the Space Policy, Cyberstrategy, Military Analysis, Nuclear Resource and Intelligence Resource projects" [1] at the Federation of Atomic Scientists. In terms of reputation and expertise it appears better than the average RS.
[81] Edwards Air Force Base usage of source

In short widely used by reliable sources, and by a US government agency.

1/6: As for Aman's source, last I checked, according to WP:HISTRS, a single news article from nearly a century later is not considered as a reliable source. If it is, then I don't see how GlobalSecurity, a prominent defence website widely cited by mainstream media and thousands of articles and books on military history, is not. The rest of what he said is completely WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS so I'm not going to bother with that. To me, his refusal to accept sourced content and belief that his personal opinion carries more weight looks like a case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.

Aman countering original research with his own original research resulted in me, assuming good faith, reminding him that that his WP:OR is not considered RS either. Obviously, the wording will be somewhat similar, since you can only phrase "Original research does not carry the weight of a reliable source" in so many ways.

POW count: See this diff.^[1]

China-India Skirmishes: See this diff. ^[1]

Other: See this diff.^[1]
SpicyBiryani (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All sections except those still under discussion have been removed to reduce the wordcount. See the previous diffs to view their content. SpicyBiryani (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous replies: See this diff. ^[1]

@El C: I've collapsed everything except the GlobalSecurity section of my statement to reduce the wordcount and make it easier to refer to. Since you asked specifically about GlobalSecurity, here's what happened: The infobox contained Indian claims for the casualties of both sides, and these were presented as neutral claims. So, I started this discussion on the talk page to find neutral figures, and cited two sources, the Researchgate one, and the GlobalSecurity one.

Researchgate turned out to be unreliable. I had no issues with this. It didn't give any figures anyway, just stated there were no reliable numbers. Aman claimed that GlobalSecurity is unreliable but didn't specify why. To prove it was indeed reliable, I headed over to RSN, and ended up at the same discussion which he has only now decided to link. In the above statement, I already quoted excerpts from the discussion which concluded that GlobalSecurity is reliable, so I'll post them here in collapsed form.

Quotes from RSN discussion on GlobalSecurity

It is a reliable source. It is used by the mainstream media as a source, it is cited in 240,000 books in Google books and by 17,600 articles in Google scholar. It has a page showing support from third parties[82] and despite its disclaimer for errors, bills itself as "reliable source of background information and developing news stories in the fields of defense, space, intelligence, WMD, and homeland security."[83] Its director is John Pike, a leading expert.
Examples from NYT of links to globalsecurity.org: 2014: An NYT "editor and researcher" selected reference to the site as a resource on Iran's Guardian Council, Also in 2014 as a resource on Pakistani ISI director Ahmed Shuja Pasha, 2013: globalsecurity "Iranian rocket expert" cited in NYT article, 2012: Cited as a "defense website" for historical information on a US military exercise. There are several other references that can be found by searching globalsecurity.org on NYT. Washington Post has used them more recently: 2016, 2015, 2014. Reuters has most recently used globalsecurity as a source in 2016, CNN in 2015 and Fox in 2016
globalsecurity.org is cited in:

Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War / Oxford University Press
Gulf Military Forces in an Era of Asymmetric Wars / Preager
Handbook of International Electrical Safety Practices / Wiley-Scrivener

John Pike, one of the founders, "directed the Space Policy, Cyberstrategy, Military Analysis, Nuclear Resource and Intelligence Resource projects" [1] at the Federation of Atomic Scientists. In terms of reputation and expertise it appears better than the average RS.
[81] Edwards Air Force Base usage of source

In short widely used by reliable sources, and by a US government agency.

As you can see, the discussion concludes that GlobalSecurity is a reliable and widely cited source run by experts. So unless Aman didn't read past the first few paragraphs where people were confusing it with other random websites, I don't see why he is citing RSN. Additionally, the GlobalSecurity article also cites these sources:

^[2]
^[3]

So, even if GlobalSecurity's credibility as a source is under question - which it shouldn't be, considering the points made in the RSN discussion - in this specific article it is further citing other neutral and reliable sources. Therefore, I believe GlobalSecurity qualifies as WP:RS, especially in light of the RSN discussion. SpicyBiryani (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:

1. Aman calling GlobalSecurity unreliable^[4]

2. My response ^[5]

I did insert these diffs as links above but for some reason they aren't appearing on your end. Maybe it's a formatting error or something.

SpicyBiryani (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=1009112517#SpicyBiryani
^ Heitzman, James; Worden, Robert L. (1996). India : a country study. Washington, D.C. : Federal Research Division, Library of Congress.
^ Sarkar, Bhashkar. (1999). Kargil War: Past, Present and Future. New Dehli: Lancer.
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947%E2%80%931948&oldid=1003156922#Casualties_claims
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947%E2%80%931948&oldid=1008484498#Casualties_claims

@Aman.kumar.goel:, User:El_C stated they are no longer following up over here.

Instead of claiming that others have comprehension issues, you could try reading the vast amount of quotes I cited here to prove GlobalSecurity's reliabliity, which were sufficient enough to be termed excessive. Or, you can go ahead and tell NYT, Reuters, and the authors of more than 20,000 articles and books that their work is unreliable because of that seven line discussion (which took place before the RSN discussion concluded GS is reliable) you just posted. If you still insist on resorting to WP:ICANTHEARYOU by ignoring all of the things I cite, then I can't really help you.

As for the thrilling story of an F-16 being shot down by a MiG-21: Almost every neutral source I know of, even prominent scholar Christine Fair who is renowned for her harsh criticism of Pakistan's military, has rubbished this claim. (Fair specifically termed it "dubious," said it doesn't pass the "Rubbish test,"^[1] and called the IAF narrative "deployed by politicians to win elections." )^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] This claim has only been propagated as credible by Indian officials and media. Hell, the pilot of the MiG-21 himself stated he got shot down while looking for a target^[7], and never that he downed an F-16, even after returning to India. SpicyBiryani (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

^ "Christine Fair speaks at MilLit Fest 2019". Retrieved 27 February 2021.
^ Dogra, Chander Suta. "IAF Did Not Shoot Down Pak F-16 in Balakot Aftermath, Says US Scholar Christine Fair". The Wire. Retrieved 27 February 2021.
^ Marlow, Iain. "India Never Actually Shot Down Pakistani F-16 in Kashmir Clash, New Report Says". TIME. Retrieved 27 February 2021.
^ "U.S. count shows no Pakistan F-16s shot down in Indian battle: report". Reuters. Retrieved 27 February 2021.
^ Abi-Habib, Maria. "After India Loses Dogfight to Pakistan, Questions Arise About Its 'Vintage' Military". The New York Times. Retrieved 27 February 2021.
^ Seligman, Lara. "Did India Shoot Down a Pakistani Jet? U.S. Count Says No". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 27 February 2021.
^ "Wing Commander Abhinandan speaks about how his MiG-21 got shot down". Retrieved 27 February 2021.

@Swarm: See the diffs of the content I removed - while they are lengthy, you'll see all my arguments in content disputes are supported with sources. (I'll provide specific examples of this again, if you'd like.) CIR is also covered in those - To summarise, I am competent per WP:CIR and haven't exhibited the consistent total incompetence required to justify requesting sanctions. WP:RCD and WP:RUCD also state that sanctions should only be requested when all attempts at civilised communication about the article's content have failed, and the argument has been reduced to an exchange of personal attacks - which again, is not the case.SpicyBiryani (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: @Rosguill: Another thing which I'd like to restate is that the core point of the allegations against me is "SpicyBiryani doesn't agree with my POV on the talk page." Per WP:BRD, WP:CIR, WP:RCD, and WP:RUCD I have done nothing that violates Wikipedia's policies, let alone repeated actions severe enough to justify sanctions. Furthermore, quoting my edits out of context as Aman.Kumar.Goel has in allegation 2 is the behaviour expected of a WP:BULLY. And having the audacity to call me incompetent and claim I have comprehension issues (as if WP:NPA doesn't apply to them) on top of that, is resorting to the deplorable tactics of WP:SMEAR. Such behaviour is worthy of WP:BOOMERANG. SpicyBiryani (talk) 08:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SpicyBiryani

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

Barely 100 edits and already having been subject to a 3-month IPA TBAN and blocked for violating it? That's not good. There are valid concerns relating to the misrepresentation of sources, some fairly innocuous, but others less so. For such a fraught topic area focus that Kashmir and the 2020 China–India skirmishes represent within IPA itself, an indef BROADLY IPA TBAN is probably the only way to go here. Let this inexperienced user prove that they are able to edit other areas of the project productively and without incident. Then, after a considerable time period has passed, a convincing appeal may be considered. So, that is my recommendation. El_C 17:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SpicyBiryani, two things. First, you are responsible for familiarizing yourself with the scope of any sanctions, otherwise, querying anything that is unclear. Secondly, charging that an user lacks editorial competence isn't necessarily a personal attack — see WP:CIR. El_C 13:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SpicyBiryani, I'm sorry you went through that (truly), but with respect to editing, dispassionate detachment is expected in any and all mainspace submissions. Also, I'm not sure why you're going on and on about CIRNOT — I submit to you that it is a distraction from the matter at hand and isn't worthwhile pursuing further. El_C 17:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SpicyBiryani, also, not intended as a CIR reproachment, but please sign all of your comments. El_C 17:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SpicyBiryani, in your relatively short tenure on the project, you have already been sanctioned about the topic area before, so, though Aman.kumar.goel may ought to have engaged further with you (if they, indeed, had failed to do so), I don't think that annuls this complaint. Further, you are still going on at length on matters which do not seem that germane to this dispute — also with you having grossly exceeded the word limit at this point, so please trim accordingly to align with that requirement. Finally, as a followup to my first point, diffs are missing for some of the more important issues raised, like the GlobalSecurity.org matter (diffs, please), while quite a few others which seems largely irrelevant, are quoted at length. So, please be more selective with your submissions here, overall. Thank you. El_C 19:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SpicyBiryani, way too lengthy, still, including quoting to an excess, quite unnecessarily so. And, the key matter of Aman.kumar.goel challenging GlobalSecurity is still without diffs, for some reason. I'm not sure how to articulate this better, but your response to this complaint is still highly lacking. I would recommend that you condense, a lot more. There's simply no need to expand in this much detail. Brief, concise summaries with a detailed collection of relevant diffs attached, that'd be best. As a side note, I'll point out that I, myself, had used GlobalSecurity as source for various military and weaponry -related pages for many years without incident. El_C 17:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SpicyBiryani, I'll leave the matter of the word count enforcement to the next admin to handle as they see fit, since I will not be following up on this or any other open AE complaint. But I will say that Aman.kumar.goel just saying that GlobalSecurity was deemed unreliable, without supporting that assertion with anything (whatsoever) — that does make me go hmm. Best wishes to all. El_C 01:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While some of the diffs provided by Aman.kumar.goel appear defensible, I concur with El C that the misrepresentation of sources is an issue. Given that the last sanction was for incivility, not OR/CIR issues, I'm inclined to simply suggest a long tban, rather than an indefinite one, 6-months to a year. Incidentally, I did some digging through RSN archives and my impression is that there is no consensus one way or another on GlobalSecurity.org (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#GlobalSecurity.org), so that dispute is a bit of a red herring as far as this case is concerned. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see a reason to not impose indefinite topic bans in 2020 --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rosguill that some of the diffs do appear to be defensible, and that that doesn't excuse the fairly serious problems of misrepresenting sources, synthesizing sources, rejecting good sources, and making unsourced edits. The violations themselves do appear to be fairly minor and not necessarily in bad faith, this appears to mostly be a CIR issue. I'm on board with a 6 month TBAN to avoid railroading a new and inexperienced user. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steverci

No action needed, but Steverci is asked to remember to assume good faith --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 02:01, 13 March 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 Steverci

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: CuriousGolden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Steverci (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

16 February 2021 - Removing war crimes category from an article about bombing of a city during a war.
16 February 2021 - Removing war crimes category from an article about bombing of a city during a war.
25 February 2021 - Saying that "bombing of a city during a war is a war crime" is WP:OR, even though HRW has called it that, while going on to defend that another bombing from the same war is a war crime.
5 February 2021 - Failing WP:AGF and calling improvement of a map a "nice try", implying that I had bad intentions.
6 February 2021 - Replying with "On the contrary, you should consider yourself lucky that I haven't decided on showing this blatant example of POV pushing to the administration noticeboard yet." when I tell them not to accuse me of bad faith for their previous comment (previous diff). See rest of the discussion to understand that the map change isn't remotely close to POV pushing.
22 February 2021 - WikiHounding. Steverci commenting on my contributions (in an area where he hasn't edited in), saying that the information I've added is UNDUE. See my comment.
28 February 2021 - "you and your off-Wikipedia contacts were WP:GAMING the system by abusing consensus, turning it into a vote against something you don't like." Clear case of WP:ASPERSIONS.
28 February 2021 - Saying "you should stop if you don't want to share the same fate (as another banned user)" for trying to keep the WP:ONUS.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

12 March 2015 - Indefinite topic ban from Armenia-Azerbaijan and Turkey articles following this report.
8 December 2015 - Indefinite topic ban from articles relating to Armenia for "misrepresentation of sources, POV pushing and editing logged out to avoid scrutiny".

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

Steverci's indefinite topic ban has been lifted only recently. Their contributions since the lift have almost exclusively been focused on deleting information, nominating articles for deletion and getting in disputes. From their uncivil behaviour and constant threats, it is clear to me that the previously imposed topic ban did not give the desired effect.

@Steverci: At 786 words, your comment is way past the AE word limit of 500. I'll reply briefly to some of your points and I don't plan on replying further to your next possible comments until a third party is engaged in the report, as arguing back and forth with walls of text isn't helpful.

1-3) The discussion you've linked had no consensus and it's not a Wikipedia policy. It really doesn't take much to realize that bombing a city during a war is a war crime, it's common sense and not undue, like you said, as another uninvolved editor, User:Jr8825 pointed out in their comment. What's more baffling for me is that, while arguing that this bombing isn't a war crime, at the same time, you also argued that another bombing is a war crime, even though HRW also does not explicitly say "X is a war crime" about that, as you required. You seem to quite enjoy showing my one comment everywhere as "proof" that me and Solavirum "worked together". Contacting people off-wiki to exchange resources is common and instead of accusing me (and others like User:HistoryofIran), as you've done here, either use actual proofs or stop spreading ASPERSIONS.

4) Your explanation for this precisely shows how you've violated WP:AGF. Instead of asking me to elaborate on what part you didn't understand or want to be changed, you jumped to the conclusion that it was POV-pushing, reverted the map everywhere (including every single foreign language Wikipedia) and started accusing & threatening me.

7) Campaigned against it? I was the one who added about the Stepanakert bombing without hesitation when I thought that your source was RS and was explicitly saying that |Ganja was bombed because of Stepanakert". However, I later found out that that was your WP:OR.

"CuriousGolden's personal objections are the only thing against me adding my changes again" I think you're forgetting the fact that the volunteer in the DR repeatedly told you that what you want to add is OR (1 & 2) and not a single person has come in support of Stepanakert bombing's addition in the lead (Which honestly seems like an attempt to "justify" the bombing).

8) Changes you reverted weren't part of Solavirum's addition. You reverted it even after another, uninvolved person told you that the addition wasn't POV. And the revert was done when you didn't even reply to the comment of mine (you still haven't).

Your comment makes me, even more, convinced that the topic bans that User:Callanecc imposed have not given the desired effect. If my intention was to "witch hunt" and "take you down", I wouldn't have waited until now. The only reason I decided to report now was that I could not take the constant threats and POV accusations by you, even after I asked you politely not to repeat them.

I don't really care about what, if any sanction Steverci gets and my only wish is for him to stop his mean and threatening behaviour (not just me, but also others like here). As long as they agree to assume more good faith and avoid accusatory language (which crosses the line to ASPERSIONS in some cases as I've pointed out above), I'm fine with it. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notice

Discussion concerning Steverci

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 Steverci

1–2. The consensus for classifying an article as a "war crime" is that it is: a term with legal implications, in that if some country or other international body has ruled some action as a war crime, we can factually state that (and categorize it as such), but without that type of ruling, it must be treated as opinion. These edits were part of a clean up for the recent misuse of categories that resulted in the topic banning of User:Solavirum, a user that CuriousGolden just so happens to have contact with outside of Wikipedia and tried to speak in defense of for his enforcement request.

And in that same discussion, CuriousGolden was scolded by an admin for browbeating my enforcement request, so CuriousGolden accusing anyone of not AGF is quite ironic.

3. The article says nothing about the HRW classifying it as a war crime. The article states only Azerbaijan and Turkey classified it as a war crime, which is not enough due weight for Wikipedia to do so. And like #1–2, this was also part of a misused category clean-up.

4. CuriousGolden didn't explain why he was changing the names in his discussion opener, he just vaguely called them "problematic and inaccurate", which seemed to be WP:POVPUSH (the presentation of a particular point of view in an article). Even if he was trying to change the names to be what the common names were at the time, there were a number of location names that he neglected to change, as I pointed out.

5. As explained above, CuriousGolden's changes had signs of POV pushing because his name changes weren't consistent, as CuriousGolden partially admitted. If CuriousGolden actually said why he is making his changes, he would probably find a lot more good faith. He had also already added the image to many different language Wikipedias, which made the possible POV pushing seem aggressive.

6. Of the couple dozens of articles that CuriousGolden edited, some of them were on my watchlist. Rather than engage in edit warring by reverting them all, or starting the same talk page discussion for dozens of different articles, I did the most productive option: discussing all of the identical changes with CuriousGolden on his talk page.

7. I've been extremely patient in trying to resolve this per how the WP:DR guidelines suggest. Even though my edit had many reliable sources, when CuriousGolden reverted it, I decided to just go to the talk page to resolve it. Despite the sources being clear, both CuriousGolden and Solavirum (who often appeared in the same discussions) campaigned against any mention of the 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert. I tried opening a dispute resolution, which failed it get another opinion. I also opened an RfC on the talk page twice, but still no one else has come to give another opinion. Now that Solavirum is topic banned, CuriousGolden's personal objections are the only thing against me adding my changes again, yet still I'm waiting for another opinion rather than edit warring.

8. Interesting that CuriousGolden only quoted part of what I said and out of context. The changes I was reverting were done on February 5th by Solavirum, and were part of his arbitration enforcement request. I chose to wait until the enforcement request for Solavirum was finished before reverting it, in order to prevent an edit war. Solavirum was topic banned on February 14th, and I reverted the changes on February 15th. It is a shame that CuriousGolden's subsequent edit warring caused the back-and-forth diffs that I tried to prevent. So yes, CuriousGolden was quite literally doing exactly what another recently topic banned user had done, and I was giving him a fair warning.

Contrary to what CuriousGolden believes, I've been very conscious about adhering to all of the guidelines ever since my topic ban was removed. Ever since my ban was lifted, everything I've proposed adding has had reliable sources, I've been careful to get a consensus for anything that might be disputable, and I've only been editing with this account. I have even been occasionally emailing User:Airplaneman for advice when I wasn't sure how to go about a dispute.

I've been very careful with everything I've said and careful not to make any edits I couldn't defend. I hope the above list makes it clear how much thought actually went into each situation. This list of edits CuriousGolden provided seems to really be scraping the bottom of the barrel, with #1–3, 6, and 8 in particular having very dishonest explanations. I admit I should've been more polite/patient with #7, but otherwise this seems to be a WP:WITCHHUNT in retaliation for the enforcement request I recently made for CuriousGolden's friend. --Steverci (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CuriousGolden: I didn't realize how long my first comment had gotten and tried to trim it below 500 words, but you already replied to most of it so there isn't much I can remove now without this discussion getting confusing. I'll find a way to if an admin requires it however.

1–3. WP:ASPERSIONS isn't a Wikipedia policy either. But virtually every comment agreed that it isn't something that can be decided by WP:OR. What you're neglecting to mention is that Category:Armenian war crimes went from being created to one of the largest 'war crimes by country' categories in a few months, due to a user's misuse of categories that resulted in them being topic-banned. I removed most of them, and you tried to keep many that had no source for war crimes whatsoever. Examples are on the 1991 and 1992 shootdowns. In both cases, you accused me of WP:JDLI, demonstrating a lack of good faith by assuming I had malicious intent, when it was actually just your WP:OR. Naturally, when removing the categories from so many articles, it's possible that one may have actually been appropriate.

4. It's your responsibility to explain why you are replacing the map in the first place. How was I "threatening" you? Lol.

7. You mean that you did your own version of the edit in WP:SCAREQUOTES calling it retaliation, while my edit simply said the Stepanakert bombing happened first. It's not my fault you don't bother to read sources before you cite them. This is actually very similar to what you claim the war crimes issue is about, because the HRW source provides an assessment but never actually declares it to be a war crime, which was your WP:OR conclusion.

The volunteer also stated "I would like to remind those involved that back and forth discussion should be limited". I then replied to the volunteer to explain why the sources confirm a link, as they had asked me to. But you continued trying to have the discussion there even though the volunteer asked you not to, so they just closed the case as failed.

8. That is blatantly a lie, the whole text was part of his addition. And once again you're giving a dishonest summary of a diff. Jr8825 was only referring to the "result of the Armenian offensive" line, not the majority of the changes, such as the war crime category. I explained to Jr8825 why trying to "blame" either side is unencyclopedic and can easily be cut out, and he didn't dispute that. Didn't notice your response because I got 3 different pings from you, I'll get to it soon.

And while CuriousGolden is apparently now "convinced" that I should topic banned, during Solavirum's enforcement request he said neither genocide denial or ignoring category definitions "suggest any serious behavioural issues and seems more like content disputes". --Steverci (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note for the archived record, CuriousGolden said he won't won't reply to any more comments after I made the comment above. --Steverci (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jr8825

Just throwing in my two cents as someone who has been working with both parties in this topic area, I'm generally in agreement with Vanamonde93's thoughts on this – I think this is a case of both editors being sensitive to edits they perceive as favouring/disadvantaging one side of the conflict over the other. My impression is that both CuriousGolden and Steverci have been making consistent efforts to adhere to the policies relating to sources and NPOV, but that both editors made a number of misjudgements with their edits at the two main articles linked here, Battle of Kalbajar and 2020 Ganja missile attacks. It's essential that we remind ourselves to assume good faith on each others' part in these cases, and when they occur address each other respectfully and patiently. As a personal suggestion to both editors, linking the relevant policies and explaining in a clear, friendly manner where we think the other editor has made a mistake, then thoughtfully taking into account the other editor's explanations, will hopefully make such mistakes less frequent as the nuances of the core content policies become more familiar through repeated references to (and reading of) them.

I think a gentle reminder to both parties of the principles established at ARBAA2, as well as the civility policy's requirement for editors to treat each other with consideration and respect, might be helpful here. Jr8825 • Talk 12:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC) _{(edited: Jr8825 • Talk 19:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC))}[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Steverci

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

With the caveat that this is not a topic I am very familiar with; I am seeing some evidence that Steverci needs to be better about assuming good faith; but I'm not seeing anything else here that is more than a content dispute. Everyone clearly has strong feelings about the topic, as is the case for most nationalist conflicts on Wikipedia; we cannot sanction someone solely for that reason. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs included in this case report seem largely defensible. Steverci needs to tone down the terseness a bit but I don't think this report warrants a sanction. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck

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 Noteduck

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Springee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Noteduck (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#Final_decision

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

Edit warring Reverted editors include myself, Conan The Librarian, Shrike, Visite fortuitement prolongée, Mcrt007, Pincrete, Kyohyi. While wp:ONUS puts the burden of making the case for inclusion on the editor trying to include new content, Noteduck feels the burden is on those rejecting the change.

The PragerU (trimmed):
- [[8]]
- [[9]]

At Douglas Murray (trimmed):
- [[10]]
- [[11]]
- [[12]]
- [[13]]
- [[14]]
- [[15]]

Behavioral Standards: Bludgeoning

Long discussion regarding the Bridge Initiative as a SPS here: [[16]]. Editor tediously says consensus is reached because they feel objections have been addressed. [[17]], [[18]], [[19]]

Behavioral standards: Edit summaries disparage editors (trimmed)

[[20]] "Given that (from your talk page) you've engaged in edit wars on this page and given that you called the PragerU page "critical remarks from partisan leftists writing in fashion magazines and on twitter" (20 November 2019) you may be struggling with bias. I see you and [editor] know each other - please don't collude to remove material"
[[21]] "a warning was given for disruptive editing which was ignored. Lvl3 vandalism given on page User:[editor]. Please refrain from deleting material on the page without evidence. Go to talk page for commentary on article and discussion"
[[22]] "I am concerned that your revision was not made in good faith and can be considered tendentious editing. If these edits are removed again a warning for vandalism may be due. You betray your biases with your description of academic sources as "absurd" and "nonsense" on the talk page. Please refrain from unjustly removing evidence thnx"

Behavioral Standards: Casting aspersions/inappropriate talk page comments: (trimmed)

[[23]] If you cannot view this subject neutrally and objectively it may be best not to edit this page
[[24]] In particular, this comes in the form of right-wing editors trying to omit unflattering material from pages on controversial subjects, resulting in a kind of whitewashing by omission or status quo stonewalling
[[25]] "I've noticed that certain editors on this page have a regrettable tendency to revert large blocks of recently-added material wholesale, especially material that might be controversial." - Admin deleted the section [[26]]
[[27]] "have a look at WP:ROWN when considering whether to discard this edit"
[[28]] Created section "Blatant partisan politicking on this page" - "This is the last attempt I'm going to make to put a stop to these tendentious edits. The editors engaged in this process of tendentious editing know who they are and I'm not going to ping them for now.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

NA

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [[29]]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Noteduck account created 19 Dec 2020 (prior account Spungo93 from April 2020). Battleground mentality including include edit warring, uncivil talk page behavior (unrelated comments about editor, tendentious editing, refusal listen to others). Editors have reached out to discuss issues [[30]], Callanecc (uninvolved) commenting[[31]][[32]]. Myself before filing this complaint [[33]]. Noteduck complaint at the Treehouse. An uninvolved editor said Noteduck needs to listen to others[[34]].

Dialog was ignored or treated as examples of the unreasonableness of other editors. Noteduck does not follow concepts like BRD and CONSENSUS, repeatedly reintroducing disputed content absent consensus or sometimes discussion. This resulted in extensive, slow edit warring. Noteduck is quick to use article talk pages/edit summaries to cast aspersions and or inappropriately focus on editors. Affected articles include PragerU, Roger Kimball, Douglas Murray (author) and Andy Ngo.

Edited for length Springee (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

and again Springee (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

Noteduck's replies illustrate why they are problematic. Rather than address their own behavioral problems (edit warring, attacking other editors etc) they have bludgeoned the discussion with text, much of totally misrepresenting the facts. As an example, in "Update 5" Noteduck falsely said I removed "Reuters and Fox News(!)[281]". The link in question shows I moved the text, removed nothing. This sort of false accusation yet again illustrates the issue. It is not possible to have a good faith disagreement with this editor. Until they learn the ropes they should be restricted to less contentious areas of Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, your Update 5 accuses Pudeo of colluding on some of the disputed pages:

It's worth noting that Springee, Shine, Pudeo, and Hipal have all edited together and largely backed each other up on pages like Andy Ngo and PragerU

The editor interaction tool is telling here [[35]]. Pudeo has never edited PragerU or its talk page. They did edit Andy Ngo... over 2 months ago (2 edits total). Their edits to Douglas Murray (3 months back) and Roger Kimball (3/4 years back) are even further back and less than 3 edits each time. Falsely accusing editors of collusion is an example of the disruptive behavior that we are concerned about. Springee (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generalized reply to Loki and Shadydabs

If you look at the diffs in most cases Noteduck isn't reverting my edit or replying to my comments. Absent diffs claims that I was edit warring, POV pushing etc have no merit. Springee (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loki, your edit here fails to noted the talk page discussions that went along with the edits. Most of this talk page is about the content in question[[36]]. Note there were more editors in the discussion. Can you say there was a consensus for any of the edits you cited?[[37]] Why have a consensus policy if we don't expect editors to respect it? Springee (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear Noteduck still doesn't get that they should comment on the edits, not the editor. In the last few hours they accused Hipal of ROWN.[[38]] Springee (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shadybabs, it is perfectly reasonable to dispute your edits to long standing article text. Why is that a complaint here? Springee (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Cedar777

Cedar777, your accusations against me misrepresent the facts but also miss the point. For example, when looking at the examples of casting aspersions, Noteduck is attacking a large number of editors, not just myself. Even with this active ARE they decided to accuse Hipal of ROWN just a few hours ago. Springee (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to dlthewave

Dlthewave, I think you are confusing disagreements regarding content with editors casting aspersions etc which is the heart of the issue here. Your last point, saying I refused to review a list of sources, is not entirely accurate. Noteduck dumped a large list of possible sources on the talk page and asked which I would reject which is already borderline failing to AGF. Since there was no text to accompany the source we have no way to know how the sources would be used. I did provide an answer [[39]] but it had to be limited to just the sources which were either not green or not green for this topic. You also neglected to mention that you are an involved editor. Springee (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to El_C

El_C, I've thought about what is the correct remedy here. As I said to Noteduck here [[40]] I want the problem to stop. I think a clear warning that comments about users are not acceptable on talk page. Any comment that is about the editor not the content of the article should not be on the talk page. The one sanction I think would help is a consensus required restriction. This would force Noteduck to slow down and listen to editors who object to changes but aren't willing to engage in the edit wars. Being forced to slow down and trying to address objection or otherwise establish consensus is only going to make Noteduck a better editor overall. Springee (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, you comment is one of my concerns. The real issue here is the volume of inapropriate comments, edit summaries, examples of large changes made without consensus. In filing this complaint one of the hard parts was figuring out which examples to leave out[[41]]. Springee (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, even with this AE open, Noteduck's edit warring and failure to follow BRD continues. Just last night they added new content [[42]]. The material was removed, ND restored it with a demand that the objecting editor make the case for removal [[43]]. {u|Peter Gulutzan}} subsequently agreed and removed the content. Noteduck's failure to discuss disputed edits and expectation that others should have to justify removals is contrary to ONUS and BURDEN and leads to more edit warring. A BRD restriction or similar on ND's edits would be helpful. Springee (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[[44]]

Discussion concerning Noteduck

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 Noteduck

I believe 1RR allegations are factually incorrect, as LokitheLiar said.

Given block reverts and vandalism I will concede that I got somewhat cranky around the Douglas Murray (author) page. As a newbie I was sometimes ignorant of policy - eg I know now Springee can delete material from talk page even if I'd prefer they didn't - and I apologize. It seems I edit-warred on several occasions and I apologize - happy to learn from any arbitration decision.

A counter-claim - if not the right forum I will happily withdraw it for now: I contend Springee is highly partisan and doesn't edit pages with any objectivity. Springee's talk page history has many claims of partisan bias and misunderstanding of policy (these just from the last 3 years),[45][46][47][48][49] including worrying claims of firearm advocacy,[50] behavioral problems,[51][52] edit-warring,[53] vandalism,[54] and canvassing[55][56] Springee's twin fixations seem to be conservative politics and firearms. Stalking has been raised by another editor.[57][58] Springee has followed me around Wiki, aggressively editing pages they previously had no involvement with right after I edit them.[59][60] I believe Springee sometimes follows my user contributions, looking for material to challenge. Springee's MO seems to be stonewalling any potentially unflattering material from pages on conservative subjects. It's worrying that Wiki pages of powerful conservative groups have become one-sided and whitewashed thanks to Springee. Full disclosure - I have discussed these problems with other editors via email who have concurred.

I appreciate Loki's criticism - it's ironic of Springee to accuse me of ignoring requests for help. On several occasions my posts on Springee's talk page were rapidly deleted without engagement.[61][62]

As Loki mentioned this is a boomerang but I believe Springee in fact has serious behavioral and POV problems that need addressing. Noteduck (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I went back further through Springee's talk page history, and there are a large number of accounts of behavioral problems and failure to meet Wiki standards going back years, including some serious allegations including hounding and harassment. I'm not sure how to deal with it but it needs attention Noteduck (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE 2: I'll get to the other points but first, what is the actual contention of impropriety on the Roger Kimball page? Two primary sources referring to Kimball's endorsement of the conspiracy theory that Joe Biden rigged the 2020 presidential election (which he has done on quite a few occasions, hence the term "repeatedly") were deleted by Springee and I reverted them once. Multiple previous primary sources in the same paragraph that were more flattering to Kimball were not touched. At any rate, after discussion on the talk page and a BLPN discussion initiated by Springee I did not end up restoring the contested source and provided two independent sources for the claim, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Pudeo, I'm not sure how familiar you are with Australian journalism, but Creighton and Newman are VOCAL about lockdowns and climate science respectively, so I don't see how this material is improper in any way. I didn't know the Epoch Times was depreciated at the time and don't see how that's relevant, but I apologise, I should have done more research. I never said Springee hounded me - I said that Springee's pattern of apparently going through my user contributions in order to contest material was concerning given previous accusations of stalking and hounding. Pudeo, given that you made vociferous, detailed, and baseless claims of sockpuppetry against a new editor (myself) on my talk page, and declined to remove them when I asked, your accusations of incivility are something of a pot-kettle-black matter[63] Noteduck (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[To El_C:] what sanctions are potentially enforceable? I've learned more about Wiki's rules over the last two months and I'll aim to be more mindful of Wiki policies. I still think I have a strong counter-claim though, which I'll support with more evidence soon Noteduck (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hipal, I've presented robust claims of partisanship, POV-pushing, stonewalling and behavioral problems from multiple editors on Springee's part in formal and appropriate language, based on dozens of diffs (with more still being added). I've taken two days off my new job to make sure my arguments are as thorough as possible. This is a forum for resolving disputes between editors, and I hardly think presenting my side of the case constitutes "battleground behavior" Noteduck (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, I don't quite understand your comments. I am just making my defence that I am not in conflict with a disinterested editor, but rather somebody who is highly partisan and experienced at whitewashing Wikipedia. Is this not the appropriate forum for this? I think my sometimes scrappy behavior needs to be understood within this context, but nonetheless I'll strive to improve and be more relaxed in the future. I believe that my contributions to Wiki, such as creating Soon May the Wellerman Come, Draft:Osman Faruqi(waiting on assessment for this one) and my additions to Douglas Murray (author) and Andy Ngo, as well as innumerable grammar and syntax corrections, are high-quality and demonstrate my commitment to improving this site in good faith Noteduck (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, I wanted to tell you this privately, but it was bound to come out sooner or later at any rate. I'm disabled - I have bipolar disorder and struggle with mania from time to time. I should have been more proactive about looking up Wikipedia disability policies but I see there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility page and a Template:User bipolar2 tag. Over the summer (I'm Australian) I was unemployed and had nothing to do, and nothing to look forward to or be happy about except editing Wikipedia. I think this is trenchant information that demonstrates that I have no ill intent or lack of good faith in editing. I'll cut down the statements in the morning Noteduck (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, no problem with the trim. For full disclosure, I do plan to launch a claim against Springee, which is in my sandbox for now Noteduck (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, please cease repeating the misrepresentation that I "accused" Hipal of anything. I simply mentioned being mindful of WP:ROWN when considering whether to revert material - a reminder of established policy is not an accusation Noteduck (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks El_C. I feel like I need to do two things (1) defend my own conduct and the charges Springee is making, and (2) make a counter-claim against Springee's own conduct, which I believe I have a strong case for. Should I being with the first one, or try to combine them both into a single argument? Cheers Noteduck (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, please don't make spurious and misleading allegations. I added a single 14-word sentence to the Dennis Prager page based on a NY Times article that referred to Prager misrepresenting the seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic. There weren't any editing restrictions on the page at the time, and nobody has told me that I can't edit while the arb request is ongoing. The edit was reverted on the frankly implausible basis that it was "fake news","misleading, biased and anti-semetic"[sic].[64] I think any reasonable editor would have done the same as I did and restored it Noteduck (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rosguill ^talk and Ymblanter, thanks for taking over this matter. Is there a usual timeframe for wrapping up these arb request decisions? Thanks Noteduck (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC) Furthermore, I just want to confirm that it's okay to criticize persistent editorial bias and tendentious editing if the editor feels that it's justified, including on talk pages of contested articles when necessary. I'm not sure how else it can be communicated. Cheers Noteduck (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it's heartening to see other uninvolved editors like LokiTheLiar, Shadybabs, Cedar777, Dlthewave, PaleoNeonate, jps (note that I'm a newish editor, don't have social connections on Wiki, and haven't solicited comments from any of them) raising the same serious issues with Springee's conduct. Browsing Springee's last 1000 edits (a very small sample given their 12 years on Wikipedia) over 95% seem to relate to subjects related to right-wing politics (I've discounted contributions to user pages) and follow this same pattern of relentless ideological bent and obstructionism. This WP:AE claim is clearly WP:LAWYERING and WP:BOOMERANG on Springee's part. Springee, can you please strike out the false claim you made on 26 February that I engaged in edit warring and failure to follow BRD?[65]? Obviously, this whole matter belongs in Arb Com. Noteduck (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LokiTheLiar

As someone who's been involved in some of the disputes above, I would like to say that Springee's above portrayal of themselves as neutral or justified in all the above is not true. So for example, take the PragerU page from January 5th to January 7th. It's my contention that that history pretty clearly describes a two-sided slow moving edit war, with one of the sides being Noteduck and the other being Springee and Shinealittlelight, and that it's eventually ended by the edit-protection of the page by Callanecc and the starting of this RfC a few weeks later. Or in other words, Springee was also edit warring, they just had a partner making their edit warring less obvious.

I also think the characterization of Noteduck as having broken 1RR on PragerU is incorrect. This edit, which Springee characterizes as a revision of this previous edit adding that entire sentence to the page, is not in fact a revert. It's just an edit. A revert, according to WP:3RR is an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions — whether in whole or in part. Simply changing the wording of a sentence to be less credulous towards Ngo's claim does not undo the previous edit regardless of what Springee feels about the purpose of including that sentence. (And I'd also like to point out that asserting that it does undo the edit to reword it would be evidence of POV-pushing, as it would indicate that the purpose in including that line was to support Andy Ngo and not to document the facts.) Noteduck made only one revert to that page, this one, in accordance with 1RR.

I'm less familiar with the situation on Douglas Murray but a cursory glance at the page history reveals a similar slow motion edit war that Noteduck is only one of many participants in. Several editors, most of whom appear to now be blocked, remove large parts of the page without going to the talk page, and Noteduck and several other users add them back in, including Springee themself at one point. My impression here is that the side mainly at fault is the side with all the socks that repeatedly tries to remove large sections of the article without talk page consensus.

Some of the above behavior from Noteduck is still concerning. Obviously, edit warring is not good even if many other people are also edit warring on the same page, and I'd really rather Noteduck had just gone to ANI with their complaints rather than cast all the WP:ASPERSIONS they've been casting. But TBH I'm tempted to call for a WP:BOOMERANG here because Springee's case against Noteduck is pretty directly parallel to a similar case that could easily be made against themselves. At the very least, this is not a problem with Noteduck, it's a content war across multiple pages that Noteduck is one member of one side of.

E: Quick reply to Shine: I don't believe that anyone here is casting aspersions, nor do I believe that aspersions can even be cast here,as this is one of the appropriate forums for dispute resolution that the guideline mentions. The whole point of the guideline is to get people to raise concerns about editor behavior here and not on article talk pages. Furthermore, I gave evidence that Shine was a party to a slow motion edit war, and Noteduck seems to have given plenty of evidence for their accusations, so I really can't help but see this as attempted WikiLawyering.

E2: Because both Springee and Shinealittlelight again have asked me to provide evidence, I am providing a timeline to substantiate my accusation of a slow motion edit war on PragerU (and fixing the broken link above, sorry, my mistake):

Timeline

03:15 on Jan 5th: Noteduck adds some material to the Critiques of Videos section about a video on Robert E. Lee, and points people to the talk page in the edit summary.
03:49 on Jan 5th: Springee reverts Noteduck's edit, asserting existing consensus on the talk page was against inclusion.
04:04 on Jan 5th: Noteduck reverts Springee's revert, again directing Springee to the talk page and asserting previous removal of the material was based on poor sources.
04:38 on Jan 5th: Noteduck adds more material to the Critiques of Videos section, this time significantly expanding a paragraph about a video narrated by Douglas Murphy.
15:09 on Jan 5th: Shine reverts Noteduck's older addition about Robert E. Lee, and points to talk page consensus as the reason.
02:42 on Jan 6th: Springee significantly cuts down the material Noteduck added about Douglas Murphy, again pointing to discussion on the talk page.
02:53 on Jan 6th: Noteduck reverts Springee's partial manual revert, claiming it is "totally unjustified".
06:28 on Jan 6th: Shine completely reverts Noteduck's addition to the Douglas Murphy paragraph, again pointing to the talk page.
06:43 on Jan 6th: Noteduck reverts the revert and accuses Shine of edit warring and POV-pushing in the edit summary.
08:43-11:45 on Jan 6th: Noteduck adds a bunch of material to the Reception and Critiques of Videos sections.
16:04 on Jan 6th: Springee makes a small edit adding context to Noteduck's new material but does not remove it. They also explicitly say they do not endorse the new material.
17:07 on Jan 6th: Another user named Hipal comes in and manually reverts all Noteduck's edits up to this point.
01:05 on Jan 7th: Noteduck reverts Hipal's manual revert and asks them to be more specific about what exactly they object to.
03:10 on Jan 7th: Hipal reverts Noteduck's revert.
11:41 on Jan 7th: Callanecc full-protects the page.

Also for full context, this RfC about Noteduck's various additions was opened weeks later through processes that apparently did not entirely occur on the PragerU talk page.

In total, over a three day period, that's two reverts each for Springee, Shine, and Hipal (for a total of six reverts by their "side") and four reverts by Noteduck, for a total of ten reverts over 3 days.

@El_C: Could you be a little clearer about what part of Pudeo's comment is causing you to lean towards sanctions? I'm personally not seeing anything interesting/new there.

Statement by Shadybabs

Having come into conflict with Springee in the past I can say pretty confidently that it is Springee, and not Noteduck, who is the primary problem with contentious edits and extremely biased application of wikipedia policy to whitewash factual information with respect to right wing individuals or organizations.

[66] Another diff by Springee undoing edits where I try to move language away from PragerU's self-published claims to those made in RS, as well as re-inserting edits that were still under dispute in the talk page. He provided no specific justification on which edits were sourced poorly. Alarmingly, PragerU's disinformation regarding climate change is removed from the content about their fact-checking spat against youtube, highly biasing the article against youtube in favor of PragerU, against what is reported in third party sources.Shadybabs (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shinealittlelight

Noteduck admits to being sometimes ignorant of policy and states that Noteduck edit-warred on several occasions. Noteduck then quotes editor complaints on Springee's talk page over the last three years, which don't show anything without providing diffs of alleged misbehavior. Noteduck then alleges that Springee was hounding him. But this isn't true: WP:HOUND says Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy. Given that Noteduck was violating policy (as Noteduck admits) it was reasonable for Springee to check on Noteduck's edits to be sure that Noteduck wasn't continuing to violate policy. Noteduck says Springee's twin fixations seem to be conservative politics and firearms. What is the evidence for or relevance of the claim that Springee has "fixations"? He then accuses Springee, without evidence, of whitewashing. To me, without diffs backing these statements, Noteduck is repeatedly casting aspersions here. Per WP:ASPERSIONS, An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence. LokiTheLiar apparently concurs that Noteduck has cast WP:ASPERSIONS elsewhere as well. I agree, per the evidence Springee gave above, and I would add that Noteduck has shown an unwillingness to stop this behavior despite being repeatedly warned (again, per the evidence in the complaint). That and his repeated editing against consensus has been what is most frustrating to me.

@LokiTheLiar: accuses me and Springee of slow-motion edit warring. This is an outrage. I'm extremely careful not to edit war. If evidence cannot be produced, then I'd ask Loki to strike that statement. I thought Noteduck was pushing content about Douglas Murray and Robert E. Lee into the article against consensus, which I politely removed one time each here and here. Because Noteduck kept reintroducing this content against consensus, other editors, including Springee but also notably the most experienced editor on the page, Hipal, removed the material, e.g. here. These additions went to arbitration, which produced a massive RfC which seems to be split at present (no consensus so far). This is how editing contentious pages works: we slowly improve the page. Casting ASPERSIONS and editing stuff into the article against consensus is going to drive good editors away. I'd like to also note that Hipal and I have often disagreed in the past; there's no attempt to "team up" here. I see Springee, Hipal, and I just trying to do our best to deal with a disruptive editor.

@Shadybabs: do you have any diffs showing what you're saying about Springee? Otherwise that's more WP:ASPERSIONS.

Noteduck is new, and I don't want to be too hard on new editors. But Noteduck needs to apologize for casting aspersions, and to be sternly warned that continued editing against consensus and casting of aspersions is unacceptable. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LokiTheLiar: The "evidence" you allegedly provided is that broken link to the history page? That's not evidence. And no, we can't cast aspersions, even here at AE, without evidence. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hipal

Per the evidence offered by Springee, Noteduck needs to be constrained from involvement with AP2 topics, otherwise we're going to be back, after even more disruption from Noteduck. Noteduck's statement above shows what we can expect until it is stopped: bad faith assumptions of others, an inability to respect content and behavioral policy, and the battleground attitude typical in AP2 topics. --Hipal (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck's subsequent comments above show an inability to take responsibility for their own behavior, in addition to what I wrote above. --Hipal (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck is now arguing above, without any diffs, that editors agreeing with Springee (It's worth noting that Springee, Shine, Pudeo, and Hipal..) are doing so because of similar biases. [67] This is absurd and assumes bad faith. Noteduck provides no diffs because it's nonsense. --Hipal (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On January 27, I provided Noteduck with 13 diffs showing evidence demonstrating you've been working from the perspective that other editors are pov-pushing against your edits [68]. The response from Noteduck was agreement: right-wing editors trying to omit unflattering material from pages on controversial subjects [69]. Almost a month later, Noteduck continues with this battleground mentality in this very discussion. --Hipal (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck has redacted the accusations against me made here.[70] Thanks. --Hipal (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dlthewave, we're dealing in this discussion here with an editor, Noteduck, that I think would be best blocked or banned from PragerU completely for the reasons already given. In this context, I believe my very slow and cautious approach to his latest comments at Talk:PragerU are perfectly fine, especially if one were to assume good faith. Even if this discussion wasn't happening and there was no problematic editing going on, slow and cautious is always advisable. --Hipal (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pudeo

Noteduck could have been blocked as a "sock of someone" (seen such a block rationale), after Spungo93 was CU-blocked and their explanation for that did not make sense. Noteduck explained: I made User:Spungo93 years ago and forgot about it. This was not correct because Spungo93 had been created on 18 April, 2020 (log entry), meaning Notedeuck misremembered the date by years. Furthermore, the "forgot about it" part did not make sense because they had edited with the account 4 days before registering this one. (After more review, I don't think Noteduck is Perspex03 based on their timecard, though).

Noteduck has used self-published / WP:PRIMARY sources to make contentious claims: 1) Using Dennis Prager's own National Review column to say he rejects scientific consensus on climate change 2) Using Roger Kimball's own columns to say he has "repeatedly" contended that there was voter fraud, then after someone changed "fraud" to "irregularities", they changed that and their own original wording to say he has repeatedly made "false and debunked claims", while claiming white-washing in the edit summary. They once reverted the removal of these primary sources, accusing Springee of hounding. One of Kimball's own columns that Noteduck used as a source was in The Epoch Times which is a deprecated source in Wikipedia. 3) Using Maurice Newman's own column to say he rejects consensus on climate change 4) Using Adam Creighton's own column to make critical claims on his lockdown stance. I think it's unusual that someone would link to The Epoch Times or the person's own columns to make negative claims about the subjects, so it's clear these were WP:OR claims, and editors should err on caution per BLP like Springee has done.

They also initiated a declined RFAR with a focus on four editors on January 7. They seem to be constantly accusing other editors of partisanship: "partisan politicking", "problem with partisan bias", problem with politically partisan editing" "ideologically motivated -- sabotage" etc. Some of their statements had to be hatted in the PragerU DRN thread due to personal comments. While this isn't too unusual in the topic area, it's usually done by ranting IPs, not by regural editors. --Pudeo (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cedar777

My familiarity with this dispute is limited to the Andy Ngo article. Noteduck has made a number of constructive, if imperfect, comments and edits. The article has benefited after Noteduck pointed to WP:ROWN and MOS:LEADCITE. I do not agree that there was a 1RR violation or that Springee is a faultless party here.

Springee has repeatedly removed reliably sourced content from the article that, if retained, might reflect unfavorably on conservatives. The bar set by Springee (with support from Shinealittlelight) for inclusion of content critical of Ngo is impossibly high such that they have disallowed content from the NYT, the WP, along with a number of other sources listed in green at WP:RSP when the content is not flattering to conservatives. In observing these patterns and engaging with editors on the talk page over several months, the phrase "moving the goal posts" comes to mind. Even innocuous statements such as Ngo has been the subject of wide ranging media coverage (when there were already 77 citations) have been sanitized from the article by Springee as in this edit.

Meanwhile, the door has largely been left open to contributors sympathetic to Ngo where the quality of their sourcing receives limited scrutiny, as with this edit sourced to Sky News Australia followed by more disparagement of RS at talk where the NYT & Wapo were referred to as "fourth rate sources". This pattern is also reflected in efforts to enforce 1RR: sympathizers get gentle proactive advice from Springee here, while opponents are warned and/or scolded here and here where a user restored sourced content that happened to mention a political figure. Overtime, these actions add up to a skewed article that does not reflect what the bulk of RS actually say. Sanctioning Noteduck is not going to address this underlying issue.

Noteduck has been direct at times about the reverting of unfavorable content but is otherwise respectful. Springee and Shinealittlelight have had issues with what is known as "talking out of both sides of your mouth". For example, Springee claims this NYT article can be used to support that Ngo must be called a journalist diff. . . but once a summary of what this same NYT article was discussing about Ngo was added, the source was deemed no longer usable or relevant when it came to criticism. Diff A second instance is where user Springee, in a slow motion edit war, reverted content that was added by 3 different editors, sourced to WP, Bellingcat, and Daily Dot:

The original contribution Nov 19 from Snooganssnoogans: Addition 1a + sources in Addition 1b Springee deletes content: Deletion 1

Content restored on Dec 1 by LokiTheLiar: Addition 2 The second deletion by user Springee: Deletion 2

The most recent addition Feb 12: Addition 3 Which was again deleted by user Springee: Deletion 3

Noteduck is a newer editor, with much to learn. While I cannot speak for the disputes at the other pages, in my view their contributions have been a net positive at Andy Ngo. Cedar777 (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

User:Noteduck filed a Request for Arbitration concerning PragerU. I said that I was willing to mediate the content dispute, and the arbitration case was closed, and a DRN case was opened, which was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_201#PragerU The result of the mediation was a six-part RFC, which is at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PragerU#RFC_on_Various_Proposed_Edits The calendar is about to run out on the RFC, so that the bot will remove the tag, and the RFC will be ready for closure. One editor took issue with the RFC, saying that the sources were unreliable. My view was that reliability of the sources could be considered by the community in the RFC discussion. The same editor, User:Hipal, also said that there were behavioral issues that needed to be addressed. The behavioral issues were not addressed at DRN because DRN is a content forum.

I don't have a strong opinion on either the content, because I was maintaining neutrality in order to mediate, or on conduct, because DRN is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Closure If any admin here (or other experienced editor) hasn't become involved in this case, they could help by closing the RFC. On the other hand, I am willing to close the RFC if no one objects, and if the parties agree that I have not become involved and am neutral. Of course, "closing" the RFC doesn't mean performing some housekeeping task such as archiving it. It means assessing consensus, which requires judgment.

Do the other editors want me to assess consensus and close the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dlthewave

I have concerns about whitewashing at PragerU, where it appears that several editors are working to block any negative content. The general attitude towards Noteduck comes across as condescending and there seems to be no effort to work collaboratively or help Noteduck develop their editing skills.

Example #1:

00:07 19 February 2021: X-Editor adds "In 2020, a joint analysis conducted by counter-disinformation consulting firm Alethea Group and the nonprofit Global Disinformation Index found that PragerU was one of the five most common sources on the Internet that spread COVID-19 misinformation.^[1]"
12:12 19 February 2021: Springee reverts with the reason "Opinions of a red linked group (Alethea/GDI) are not DUE", an argument that has absolutely no basis in policy. Springee has been around long enough to know that WP:DUE concerns the reliability of the source, which in this case is MSN/Yahoo News, not Alethea/GDI.
Discussions follow on Springee's talk page [71] and the PragerU talk page [72]. Springee repeatedly claims that Alethea and Yahoo News somehow do not meet WP:DUE, and Hipal repeatedly claims that the source is a "warmed-over press release" (read it, it clearly isn't). Both editors provide little to no evidence or correct interpretation of policy, and there is little effort to acknowledge that Noteduck and myself have a valid point of view, yet these spurious arguments are effectively blocking inclusion of this content.

References

^ Dickson, Caitlin (2021-05-01). "Exclusive: Pandemic relief aid went to media that promoted COVID misinformation". Microsoft News. Yahoo! News. Retrieved 2021-02-19.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Example #2:

17:38 24 February 2021: Noteduck proposes a "Criticism" section along with 13 sources.
18:53 24 February 2021: Hipal immediately suggests a bizarre and tedious approval process - "How about picking the best reference out of that bunch and telling us what you believe is encyclopedic and due from it? If we don't agree on it, we can go to the next, until we have some agreed-upon references or we run out of references to consider." This bears no resemblance to our normal consensus building process, and I struggle to see it as anything other than the start of another drawn-out effort to block content that Hipal doesn't like.
20:23 24 February 2021: Springee refuses to look at the sources and instead insists that Noteduck bring a proposal to Talk before editing the article. This appears to be an effort to require Noteduck to bring a publication-ready proposal that will not be approved until it is perfect, and the entire burden will be on Noteduck to satisfy any concerns.

I've seen this abuse of the consensus-building process before and it's a very effective way for a small group of editors to control article content while maintaining superficial civility and complying with 3RR. I'm concerned that a "Consensus Required" restriction would only grant Springee, Hipal and others more power to block content by refusing to reach consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 04:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to address Pudeo's BLP concerns. I would generally argue against the use of these primary sources, since they would need secondary coverage to establish WP:WEIGHT and The Epoch Times has been deprecated. However, I fail to see how Noteduck's edits [73][74][75][76] can be construed as contentious or negative. They're literally repeating what the subjects say about themselves which falls under WP:ABOUTSELF from a verifiaility standpoint. Again, this content shouldn't be self-sourced, but it's not the big BLP brouhaha that Pudeo is claiming. –dlthewave ☎ 04:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PaleoNeonate

My involvement at PragerU has been minimal so far and I'll avoid commenting on specific editors at the moment. I comment to share that I did notice particular resistance and whitewashing in relation to the promotion of climate change denialism by the org, despite reliable sources being clear about it. There's a tendency to present a WP:GEVAL view like if ideology and science were equal or that sources that comment on it are only opinions. —Paleo Neonate – 18:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by jps

I am appalled by User:Springee's approach on the Talk:PragerU page. It looks to me like we have a case of WP:Civil POV-push as a source is being blackballed from a respected university on the flimsiest of bases. When I pointed out that this is the hallmark of an ideological game, Springee decided to come to my user talkpage to wag his finger. Perhaps Springee should take a break. jps (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Username

Result concerning Noteduck

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

Springee, your request greatly exceeds the 500-word limit, so please trim accordingly. Thanks. El_C 06:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll preface by saying that I've only glanced at this still lengthy complaint (with me, Spartans!), but from the several random examples I viewed, I'm not seeing anything too egregious. Just a tendency to call out partisanship, which runs both ways, in a way that certainly exceeds article talk and user talk pages usage. Overall, the less said on any of that the better, except in forums such as this. Not sure what the filer or the respondent to this complaint are really asking for. Are they asking for sanctions? A logged warning (to that, to those interested, see my latest clarification request about logged warnings at ARCA)? An un-logged warning?

Regardless, an evidentiary basis needs to be established with both the recent and the egregious prioritized, if one expects any sort of an outcome from this process. Finally, I plead with several participants to significantly trim and otherwise aim at concision. Us AE admins are not paid staff, we are volunteers like you. I submit that you are asking too much out of available volunteer resources. El_C 15:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, I'll re-emphasize that the evidentiary burden for sanctions (CR or otherwise) doesn't appear to have been met in your complaint. Just from what I've seen so far. El_C 16:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, I'm afraid I don't have any additional advise beyond those general recommendations at this time. Perhaps another uninvolved admin will see it different...? Who know. El_C 17:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per Pudeo's evidence, now starting to lean toward sanctions. Will wait to see what other admins think, though. El_C 02:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, you probably don't realize this, but your various updates (word limit?) are doing you a disservice. "Partisanship" is in the eyes of the beholder. Even if much of everything (everything!) that you've written has a sound basis in fact, I doubt that, in this case, that's something AE admins would wish to address — if anything, that would probably be a Committee matter. You're basically making the complainant's case for them right now. Thought you should be aware. El_C 13:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, two things. First, to re-emphasize: word limit? Secondly, in answer to your question: no, with respect to what you allege about Springee (which, hey, may well be true), I contend that this goes outside the purview of admins at AE, but rather, that this would be a Committee matter. I suppose other admins' mileage may vary, though. El_C 13:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, while Wikipedia takes a strong anti-ableist position, as it does against all other forms of prejudice and discrimination (for example, with WP:ACCESSIBILITY and so on), I'm afraid that when it comes to the realm of the psyche, that isn't something for which many allowances can really be made. BTW, sorry for declining your request to correspond privately (I now realize about this), but as a matter of principle, I don't usually do that with users whom I don't already know (well enough). Best wishes, El_C 13:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, thank you for the significant (20K) trim. Much appreciated. El_C 23:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, I still seem to be the only one contributing to this section, so maybe a couple of additional notes. Noteduck, you should make your case here. If you are to file a new AE request, it is likely to be viewed negatively. Folks may well end up asking: why didn't they just present their case in the original complaint? I'll stress that the filer of an AE complaint faces no less scrutiny than the its subject. Springee, you still need to trim (hopefully, with no more collapsing). The requirement is an upward of 20 diffs, whereas you are now approaching 40. El_C 17:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, sorry, I am not familiar enough with the details so as to advise further with any confidence. All I am really able to provide is my general sense. Which, hey, may be off. Who knows. Also, I'm sorry to say (well, not that sorry, to be honest), but I will not be following up further with this or any other open complaint on this noticeboard. Best wishes to all. El_C 00:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that if Noteduck stops including allegations in their edit summaries and slows down a bit no further intervention will be necessary. Notebook has made some errors regarding the use of primary sources, but given the examples seen so far this seems like it is likely just inexperience and a good faith misunderstanding of WP:OR. I don't think it is necessary to impose a consensus-first sanction at this time, but a formal warning is probably appropriate. Regarding the behavior of the editors listing grievances against Notebook, while they obviously could have been a bit more collaborative, I don't see any breaches of conduct that clearly merit a sanction (Noteduck, note that it is more helpful to post diffs of problematic behavior itself, rather than diffs about other editors accusing someone of problematic behavior). One editor's obstructionism is another editor's quality control, and I concur with El C that ArbCom is the only venue that can successfully handle cases where the allegation is tendentious editing without overt breach of decorum or policy. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with Rosguill that a logged warning is needed, but probably not blocks or topic-bans at this stage.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Casperti

Appeal declined--Ymblanter (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: Casperti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Casperti (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan, here: [77] based on the comments of a user (Aman Kumar Goel) on El_C talk page here: [78] because of my edit here: [79]

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

Notification of that administrator: [80]

Statement by Casperti

1 March: Dear @Swarm:, @The Blade of the Northern Lights:, @Johnuniq:, @El C: and others;

I hope you are all doing well. I am writing a shorter appeal for my TBAN, my apologies for the last appeal. It was indeed too long. I have a personal natural tendency to write longer paragraphs.

As stated in my TBAN template, the Admin believed I have been against a consensus and have repeated my behaviour, since the reporter claimed as such. According to the talk page (which you can check) I have not been against the consensus at all since there was no consensus (2 vs 3). Secondly, the claim that I have violated the previous reasons for my TBAN (edit warring/attacks) is not true since I only made this 1 edit based on a WP:DRN here [diff] and acted upon the advice to solve the 2 year-long dispute and opened a DRN. To delete this “interview source” claiming 3.2M Pashtuns [81]  Furthermore I opened this DRN to solve this dispute with the Editor who added the source in the first place. Dispute for the source’s reliability is going on for 2 year:

Talk page 2019: Talk:Pashtuns/Archive_19#Edit_warring_and_unreliable_source_being_forced_into_this_article
Talk page 2020: Talk:Pashtuns/Archive_20#Infobox
WP Reliability board RSN 2020: [82]
WP:DRN 2021 on where I Acted: [83]

Regarding the WP:SYNTH question: I have reinstated the Indian census source that was used for 10 years before this source addition in 2019 see intervals, : 2019 Jan [84] (worth to mention India notes Language for ethnic measurements in their censuses and it is used for every ethnic group of India for counting)

Based on the dispute resolution board advice I made this edit out of good faith based on advice and in order solve. I have not violated anything given by the reasons above. the Report that led to the TBAN was missing much information.

In light of these facts, I request a reconsideration of the decision about my TBAN.

I greatly appreciate you taking time to read this and the attached diffs. I am happy and ready to discuss this further incase of any questions.

Respectfully,

Casperti (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to @Rosguill:, Something important to note is that I actually advocated for a "^{[better source needed]}" template in the talk page of 2020 [85], that was the preference. And that the dispute was regarding the deletion (and reliability) of the "interview source of 3.2M", since 2019 (you can check it) and not about the Indian census. Since the Indian census source was the previous source used, I reinstated it but I do not care if it gets replaced since the main problem was the WP:RS of the interview source. Important to note is that India does only measure it's ethnicities/ethnolinguistics by language and never by race/ethnicity, that is whole issue here actually (you can check it for any ethnicity in India, only this is used). So briefly, the deletion of the 3.2M source was the dispute. Forgot to highlight this in my statement, many thanks in advance. regards. Casperti (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to @Rosguill:, Thanks for your comments. I do not want to come over as a “Bad guy” since I am certainly not. I only wanted to solve the dispute regarding the interview source. I think there is a misunderstanding. Look here [86], in the RSN we wanted to have a “Better source needed” template. And that language census source was the previous source before this 3.2M “interview source” was added in which I also mentioned in the RSN. So, whatever the case the source of the 3.2M Pashtun figure was stamped unreliable. I only reinstated the source. Besides, again India does not have a census for ethnicity since that is forbidden. Therefore they carry out language censuses. You can check here South_Asian_ethnic_groups#Indo-Aryan_people & Demographics_of_India#Ethnic_groups and click on any random Indian ethnic group. We only have the Indian lang census source for ethnicity counts. I did not have bad faith in mind for performing this edit, is there a way we can have a better solution because now the issue still stands (so does that unreliable source) and I come over as a “bad person”. Since, it is my main topic. Isn’t it a harsh punishment? Remember all the information that I gave in the appeal was not told by the reporter who reported to El_C. That is the main reason I wanted to appeal. Is there a way to solve this? @Rosguill: @Swarm:. Or should we wait for more commenters? since I shortened the appeal the others have not seen it yet. Many thanks in advance. Casperti (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

First, seeing this lengthy appeal, it does remind me of the sort of filibustering which prompted me to tell the appellant on my talk page that I expect better reading comprehension from them (having had to do so on more than one occasion). Regarding the reasons behind their (2nd, this time, indef) topic ban, I don't really have much more to add at this time beyond linking to the discussion on my talk page (here) and my sanction notification text itself (here). If any other reviewers of this appeal have any further queries for me, please don't hesitate to ask (and also ping). El_C 21:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casperti, I mean this with the best intention, because I don't think your appeal will succeed (I'm basing that on the 7 or so AE appeals concerning my actions which were filed during the last month or so, all declined) — but your appeal seems emblematic of the same problems that editors had with you, in addition to your re-insertion of SYNTH data after it was clearly deemed as such by all of the other participants. That problem, again, is all of this filibustering and your overall tendency to WP:BLUDGEON, at length. I submit to you that so long as you are unable to condense your appeal to its salient points, it basically amounts to a collective waste of everyone's time. El_C 17:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casperti, sure, sure. Not trying to badger you, really. What I am trying to say (still), just in a breath, is that condensing your appeal further to concise summaries (and paragraph breaks) supported by a detailed collection of relevant diffs, would be in your best interests. I'm basing that assertion on my ample experience in all matters AE. I'll stress that I don't mind being proven wrong, believe it or not (truly), so, if you do have a case, I'd rather see it presented skillfully than less so (i.e. rather than in a way that would contribute to it otherwise faltering).

I'm just saying that, though it doesn't happen often, there are AE appeals that are declined virtually without comment, simply with a closing note that says: since nobody has shown interest in the appeal, it is declined. So, that has happened before, and I would rather it wouldn't here. I'd much prefer for it to be reviewed. Now, it's only been a few days, so hopefully, it doesn't. But maybe help even the odds by condensing and amending, is all I'm saying. One final note about something I just noticed. Above, you've written : hopefully it is not personal from El_C side towards me. I'd like to clarify that, not only isn't any of this personal for me, but I didn't even remember who you were (I don't mean that unkindly, I just didn't), and had to refresh myself with the background. I mean, I've blocked close to 8,000 users, I only remember the details of a very small number of them (obviously). El_C 16:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Casperti

Result of the appeal by Casperti

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

@Casperti: The notice at your talk included "I don't know what you're thinking by repeating that 21,677 piece of SYNTH, even after it was explained to you by multiple participants at Talk:Pashtuns/Archive_20#Infobox that it was in error." That concerns your 12 February 2021 edit at Pashtuns which changed the Pashtuns population in India from 3,200,000 to 21,677. I find this incident to be very confusing but that seems to be the central issue. Your statement above lacks focus and I find it hard to follow. I think you are saying that the DRN close justified your edit because the close said that a quote from a person is not a WP:RS for census information. That might justify removing 3,200,000 (I agree that using an advocate's number is inappropriate in an infobox) but I see no acknowledgment of the WP:SYNTH problem, namely that the number of Pashtuns is not the same as the number of Pashto-speakers. Unless I am missing something in the rambling statement above I would decline the appeal because even if the edits were good, it is necessary that someone repeating edits in a contentious topic is able to communicate concisely and engage with key issues. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TL;DR. If anything, this borderline stream of consciousness appeal reinforces the need for this topic ban; unloading gigantic walls of text on talk pages is hugely disruptive. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad it's not just me who finds this appeal rambling and incoherent. Casperti, no offense, but we don't have all day to read excessive, rambling walls of text. This is a CIR issue, you need to learn to be concise. If you want something, just say what you want and why we should give it to you. If you're confused about something, just ask the question without a massive wall of text. Walls of text are disruptive and are actually several different types of policy violations. I would decline this, for lack of a coherent appeal. If the user can formulate a more reasonable, coherent appeal, they can submit a new appeal. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked into this more now, and it's a bit of a tough case. The argument that the census info he was trying to insert is useless, that seems pretty straightforward. That being said, was the info he was removing reliably sourced to begin with? That's another story. Casperti seems to have done the right thing here, he took it to RSN and DRN, where the only feedback he got was that it wasn't a reliable source. True, he didn't get a lot of feedback, and he didn't get a consensus, but the feedback he got rejected the info he removed. Is the census info a good substitute, no, but is the other figure good if multiple uninvolved editors are opining that they don't think it's coming from a reliable source? Was Casperti perhaps wronged by these uninvolved editors for definitively stating that the source was not reliable? Perhaps. There doesn't seem to be a consensus one way or the other. Substituting it the census info may have been the wrong answer, but there is a bit of backing to where he's coming from if no other sources exist. Then again he was already sanctioned for POV-pushing in the topic area. I don't know. To me the aggravating and mitigating factors break even. I guess I'd err on the side of an unban, given the fact that he received ample uninvolved third-party advise conclusively telling him that the figure was unreliably sourced and that census info is preferred. Even if that advice was not fully informed. I'm not saying he did nothing wrong, but it was one edit and there's enough here to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'd be inclined to throw him some more rope, to further reinforce the need for a TBAN if nothing else. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Fair points. I certainly trust your instincts. I'm fine with a decline, while allowing for an appeal in a few months, on the condition that Casperti can demonstrate constructive editing in other areas. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this now that the appeal has been made significantly shorter, I'm inclined to decline. There still doesn't seem to be any recognition that the problem with their use of the Indian census source is the conflation of the Pashtun ethnicity with speakers of the Pashto language. The discussions that Casperti cites to establish that consensus is on their side seem to me themselves somewhat problematic, as the framing Casperti uses in the RSN and DRN discussions appears to misrepresent the nature of the underlying dispute. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While acknowledging the concerns raised by Swarm, I think I take a less favorable view of the RSN and DRN discussions because of Casperti's use of leading questions that misrepresented the dispute. Setting that aside, there's still the serious concern that Casperti reinstated content that conflated language proficiency with ethnic group membership despite that equivalence having already been contested in discussion. Stating now in this appeal that they are fine with other editors removing the census source in favor of another RS does not negate the original problems with misrepresenting the source. I am still of the opinion that this request should be declined, although I'd be happy to hear an appeal in a few months provided that Casperti is able to make constructive edits elsewhere in the meantime. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absent other opinions, I am going to decline an appeal in about a day.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ChandlerMinh

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 ChandlerMinh

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Srijanx22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: ChandlerMinh (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

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

24 February: Falsification of source. The provided source makes no mention of a 'debate' or a 'fact'.
23 February: Same falsification of sources like above. Adds "dated from 1st century BCE and 5th century CE", as dating for "earliest reference to the story of the Ramayana is found in the Purananuru" but the cited source makes no mention of this dating, nor do the whole book.
18 February Removes sourced content of 500 bytes + and marks the edit as 'minor'.
17 February Removes sourced content of 500 bytes + by depending on his own knowlege and repeats his revert [87] while making zero contribution on talk page.[88]

Same edit warring on 23 January and no contribution on the talk page.

17 February "Any sane person would ideally prefer to quote Tesla’s own writing", see WP:NPA.
8 February violating WP:NOTFORUM even after he was warned for it just 4 days ago.[89]
2 February: Adding unsourced WP:OR he is himself unsure about.[90]

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): 2020, 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [91]

Discussion concerning ChandlerMinh

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 ChandlerMinh

Hi ChandlerMinh here. I apologise for the WP:NPA involved here and will make sure to be more careful in future. Regarding the other edits, I will give my full statements after going through each of the requests made. I need some more time at least till 10 March 2021, as I have some personal commitments. Until then I will not make any edits on Wikipedia.

I don’t know whether I could reply here, but as far as my last 9 edits are concerned all I did was fix typos and give occupation of an Indian foreign service officer as “diplomat”. These are really silly changes that takes no time, unlike the charges made against me by Srijanx22 which would require some time to go through and give a proper statement . If even fixing typos are not allowed, i will stop that too ChandlerMnh (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here is my full statement:

24 February: I should have been more careful while rephrasing statements. The statement There has been discussion as to whether the first and the last volumes (Bala Kand and Uttara Kand) of Valmiki's Ramayana were composed by the original author. was there in Ramayana page well before I did any edits. When i added that to lead of Balakanda ‘discussion’ became ‘debate’ by mistake.
23 February: I did not attempt to falsify the source, all i did was copy the date of the scripture as it is given in the lead of Purananuru.
18 February I did not remove any content but just moved it to separate section titled Mention in Mahabharata.
17 February: true that I removed sourced content here, but the revert from me after that only happened once and as the Three-Revert rule goes, I think I wasn’t edit warring.
23 January: I dont know what is exactly wrong here, it was about a newly created page Parakram Diwas that was merged to Subhash Chandra Bose. I had only two edits in Parakram Diwas.
17 February: I have already apologised for the WP:NPA involved.
8 February: I have already removed that edit of mine which some other user said was “politically motivated”.
2 February: It is a common knowledge among Indians that Andaman Islands are likely named after Hanuman. See Britannica encyclopaedia also says the same.
—ChandlerMnh (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

@Vanamonde93 and Johnuniq: FYI, at the bottom of this ANI thread about another ios app user is a chart that shows how notifications work for the apps and other UIs. It looks like an ios app user may not receive a custom block message (or any other type of notification). However, this particular user sometimes edits with mobile browser instead of the app [92]. Also, they've made at least one user talk post to another user's UTP, ironically with the ios app [93]. Anyway, idk if you should block or not, but if you block, too short of a block might have zero effect, unless they check their own UTP through the app, or unless the block lasts long enough until the next time they log in via mobile browser (which the block might get them to try; John's suggestion of a month should be long enough judging by mobile web contribs), at which point they should see notifications, etc. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Van: idk if they can see their block log when they try to edit, but pinging Suffusion of Yellow who made the chart at ANI, maybe they know. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doug Weller

As I'm involved in a friendly discussion at I'm involved, so posting here. @Rosguill, Vanamonde93, and Johnuniq: I posted a note at Talk:Sinauli#Secrets_of_Sinauli where we are discussing an issue and asked them to respond. The reply was "@Doug Weller: I have replied at my talk page and gave my statement at the AE. I said will need more time to go through each of the requests. ChandlerMinh (talk) 10:09 am, Today (UTC+0)" - their reply was yesterday afternoon UTC. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Joshua Jonathan

add 1: WP:DISRUPTSIGNS does not mention "falsification of source"; WP:TENDENTIOUS comes closest. But to call rephrasing statements in a source "falsification" is misplaced, though the source could have been represented better: it says that the possibility exists that Valmiki's version is not the second oldest. But that looks like a mistake, not a "falsification."
add 2: can't find "1st century BCE and 5th century CE" either, but see The Four Hundred Songs of War and Wisdom: An Anthology of Poems from... p.xvi}}
add second 2 (Sinauli/WP:FORUM): are we going to block editors for making a joke?
add second 3 (Andaman Islands/WP:OR: added Indian scholars argue that the name derives from the Hindu deity Hanuman; talkpage-comment diff Expand etymology section. Some sources suggest the island is named after Hanuman. How true is that?. That's quite different from Adding unsourced WP:OR he is himself unsure about: these are not ChandhlerMinh's conclusions, but the (alleged) conclusions of (unnamed) Indian scholars. A "source needed"-tag would suffice.

I'm not going to check the other allegations, since they seem to be exaggerated, but I notice that Srijanx22 never issued concerns, or a warning, about these edits at ChandlerMinh's talkpage, so I wonder why they go straight to AE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Srijanx22: why this comment at my talkpage? You state everyone there has confirmed that Chandlerminh is unresponsive to any concerns raised on his talk page and that's why he had been reported, but you didn't post any concerns on these points at their talkpage. And why do you state I would also suggest you to avoid getting into this mess because admins generally prefer seeing the reported editor to defend his own case? See the top of the page: All users are welcome to comment on requests. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: I think ChandlerMinh can improve their edits, as explained above, but I don't see the need for AE here; I've seen worse, and I've seen contributions and responses by CM which are helpfull. Regarding the communication: yes, a response by CM would be welcome; it didn't take me that long to respond to the specifics. But note this self-revert at 2 march 2021 by CM; clearly a response to warnings for WP:NOTFORUM. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ChandlerMinh

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

The report appears to check out, and I note that Chandler continues to edit while ignoring this report. I am thinking about a block for disruptive editing here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the content-related issues are relatively minor here, though CM needs to be more careful. The issues with communication are more serious; I'm seeing numerous warnings on their talk page, and a clear absence of engagement with any of the issues raised with their conduct or their contentious edits. I'd support a block for disruptiveness, to be lifted when they convincingly commit to communicating properly, and also a logged warning about OR. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq:, any one of us can indef as a normal admin action; it's only an AE block that can't be indefinite. That said, if you think this is a consequence of the app they're using to edit and that therefore a shorter block should be tried first, I have no objections. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: That is a truly absurd state of affairs; but one would hope that the inability to edit (presuming iOS hasn't disabled the effectiveness of a block...) would at least prompt them to look at their talk page. Does anyone know if they can see their block log when they try to edit? Also, if this necessitates a longer block than we would otherwise want, I'd be okay stating that explicitly in the block message. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think CM's statement goes a long way towards addressing any concerns, but I would still like an explicit commitment to more talk page engagement, and a recognition that adding content based on what is "well known" isn't really okay; if it's well-known, it ought to be sourceable. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I second Vanamonde's suggestions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that ChandlerMinh has participated here and appears willing to engage with other editors, I think that this report can be closed without action. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I left a warning at User talk:ChandlerMinh#Notice about AE saying that an indefinite block was likely because communication is required. Actually, we should block the WMF Board who have allowed situations like this to arise. Special:Contributions/ChandlerMinh shows almost all of their edits are flagged "iOS app edit" and I believe that means they never see notifications. I have seen discussions where it is asserted that such editors should not be sanctioned because it's not their fault. I don't agree with that because we have to work with what is available and if someone cannot be reached, they have to be stopped from editing in contentious areas because it causes too much disruption in topics where participants are told they must follow the rules, yet have to suck up non-communication from app users. That is not sustainable. Re the app issue, see VPT archive and WMF pump. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I said indefinite but now that I think about it, we can't do that. Perhaps a month-long block from the article namespace with a block reason linking to User talk:ChandlerMinh#Notice about AE although even that apparently won't work. Johnuniq (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - What a mess. ChandlerMinh has edited a talk page so presumably they are sufficiently experienced to know some basics about Wikipedia. I'm thinking a month-long article namespace block is worth trying because (a) we have to protect established editors, and (b) there is a chance a block would alert them to find their talk. Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Joshua Jonathan: Srijanx22 explained themselves at your talk. Please use this page to focus on the issue, namely whether the reported user (ChandlerMinh) or the reporter (Srijanx22) are editing in ways that warrant administrative action. I infer from your comments that you do not agree with the descriptions used in the report but what do you think about the contributions themselves? Are they suitable for a topic under discretionary sanctions? ChandlerMinh posted here at 10:21, 3 March 2021 and has made nine edits to articles since then, most recently at 16:01, 3 March 2021. If further article editing occurs, it might be worth blocking them from article space because regardless of the desirability of their edits, communication really is required and their current response here ("I need some more time") is insufficient. Johnuniq (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadko

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 Sadko

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

5 January 2020 Sadko stated “I have a duty to my ancestors” with respect to his editing, setting the scene for the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour they have engaged in ever since
27 September 2019 stating that editors that disagree with them have a “corrosion of intellect”, and 25 March 2020 Calling opposing editors “punks in kafana (a dodgy type of Balkan tavern)” against WP:NPA
28 October 2020 Further indication of adopting a victim mentality and an axe to grind
15 November 2020 and 3 December 2020 These are examples of trolling of the talk pages of editors that oppose his POV

Examples of consistent POV pushing

1 December 2020 Changing “Genocide” to “Ethnic cleansing” on Chetnik war crimes in World War II
2 December 2020 Removing the WWII Chetnik genocide of Muslims and Croats from List of genocides by death toll
3 December 2020 Deleting NPOV addition regarding Ante Starčević on Anti-Serb sentiment
20 December 2020 and same day Continuing POV-pushing work of the indefinitely Balkans-TBANed User:Antidiskriminator, removing mention of the numbers of Muslim civilians killed in Battle of Višegrad
20 December 2020 Clear disdain for non-Serb nationalist sources and POV comments on Talk:Battle of Višegrad
14 January 2021 Adding an image of Muslim SS to History of Bosnia and Herzegovina – hugely undue POV pushing
18 January 2021 Deletion of material mentioning Serbs killing Muslims and the resulting split between Chetniks and Partisans
[94], [95], [96],

[97], [98], [99], [100] These all involve removal of negative material from clearly reliable sources from an article Sadko created about a highly controversial recent Serbian film about the Croatian Ustaše Jasenovac concentration camp (Dara of Jasenovac) between 5 and 25 February this year

6 March 2021 Unsourced POV pushing regarding the views of Ante Starčević on Croatisation
6 March 2021 Inserting negative material about a historian criticising the Chetniks on Dubravka Stojanović (this is a classic case of pushing obvious academic gaslighting; Stojanović says Serb historians are involved in historical revisionism/negationism, so Sadko adds material from a Serb historian claiming she is involved in historical revisionism…). This is clearly in response to and intended to undermine Stojanović’s negative comments about Dara of Jasenovac which were incorporated into the film article by other editors. Sadko has not incorporated any negative reviews or comments into the article, which confirms his obvious POV editing and agenda.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

7 September 2019 Warned by EdJohnston for suspected battleground behaviour and reverting without gaining consensus on Bosnian genocide denial
23 September 2019 Warned by EdJohnston for edit-warring at Vlaho Bukovac (a Croatian painter and academic)

Sadko has made quite a number of other appearances on the dramaboards in the time this report covers (since the account was renamed from User:Mm.srb in August 2019) , as the editor being reported or through making gratuitous comments, baiting or casting aspersions regarding others involved in discussions, including:

27 September 2019
4 November 2019 Resulting in Sadko making a concession that he would stop edit-warring to avoid a block
5 January 2020
30 April 2020
2 August 2020
24 October 2020
1 January 2021 Issues with Sadko’s editing behaviour identified by Joy (a long-time admin operating in this subject area)

Since January, I have been largely inactive on WP due to RW stuff, but have been collating material for this report when time allowed, and have only just been able to complete that task.

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

Alerted to ARBEE discretionary sanctions by Barkeep49 11 December 2019 and reminded by EdJohnston 1 July 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I've been given a dispensation by Vanamonde93 for going over the usual limits. Long-term POV-pushing is one of the most insidious aspects of Wikipedia, and one with which I have long experience as a content creator and admin in the Balkans subject area. It is hard to counter and it is harder to make a case against its exponents than against editors who cause intense but short-term disruption. I could add many additional diffs of the same sort of editing behaviour. One of the worst aspects of what Sadko has been doing is that their editing is clearly at the core of a significant uptick in highly disruptive and blatant POV-pushing editing and battleground behaviour on former Yugoslavia articles that has been going on for over a year. In that time, in addition to a small group of longer-term pro-Serb/Serbia editors, many IPs and new accounts have appeared to support Sadko’s efforts, either to reinstate Sadko's edits when reverted, or to chip in on talk pages to create the impression of a “consensus” supporting their edits. The meatpuppetry and off-wiki coordination implications are obvious. Equally, Sadko often supports and reinstates edits made by these IPs and new accounts.

This has created an environment where editors from other countries in the Balkans have responded in kind, themselves supported by IPs and new accounts, as well as existing POV pushers, particularly pro-Croat/Croatian ones, but also others. My primary subject area is Yugoslavia in World War II, but as you can see from some of the above diffs, Sadko's editing behaviour spreads wider than that into all subjects relating to Serbs and Serbia and their relationships with other former Yugoslav peoples and countries. Sadko’s creation and POV defence of the Dara of Jasenovac article is just the latest in this war against neutrality on Wikipedia.

In order to help prevent the high level of disruption and POV-pushing centred on Sadko, I recommend they be topic banned from Balkans and Balkans-related articles for at least six months, with scope to appeal after six months expires if they are able to show that they can edit neutrally in other subject areas in the meantime. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not intending to reply point-by-point to Sadko's response, although I will respond more generally in a day or two. Given I have been given some dispensation as to length and diffs, Sadko's response length is fair enough, as they are the subject of the report. However, the length of other editors' comments (particularly those that take one or either side in Balkans articles) need to be looked at by reviewing admins. Long TLDR/off-topic comments re-fighting past battles are of no use here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I will be posting further, as requested by reviewing admins. Probably later today Australian time. Unfortunately, RW stuff is sucking up most of my time at present. I will note that most of the editors posting here claiming there is "nothing to see" are the usual suspects, many of whom are themselves highly partisan (from one side or the other), and reviewing admins should take that into account when reading their contributions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience, and apologies in advance for the length of this. The key aspect of long-term POV pushing is that it usually does not cross the line into easily blockable "smoking gun" territory. It needs to be looked at across a considerable period of time, and the restrictions on 20 (or a few more) diffs actively hampers effective reports of it, because only examples can be used. I used 22 diffs over a year and a bit, but I could have provided many more. Long-term POV pushing (which I agree Mikola22 is also involved in, for the record, and which needs to be dealt with) is a consistent pattern of partisan editing behaviour that erodes the Wikipedia pillar of neutrality. Editors that engage in it are trying to minimise negative material about their "side", and maximise negative material about the other "side". The majority of the POV-pushing that has been ramping up in the last year has been coming from Serbophile/Croatophobic or Croatophile/Serbophobic editors, and Sadko and Mikola22 are probably the worst offenders from the respective sides (although there are several others who are not far behind, some of whom have commented here). The numbers of editors pushing their POV and battlegrounding in the Balkans area has, over the last year, become completely unmanageable from an admin perspective due to a high level of disruption, and is significantly eroding the quality of the encyclopaedia in this area. They may well be coming from Croatian Wikipedia (which is a cesspit) and Serbian Wikipedia (which isn't great either).

But back to Sadko. If you look at Dara of Jasenovac, not only did Sadko create the article about the film (which was highly promotional from the beginning), but they consistently defended the film from criticism for weeks (as evidenced by the diffs above, and others I did not use), and never added any information about criticism of the film at all. This is absolutely typical of Sadko's editing behaviour, in this case, they are enhancing as much as possible the victim status of Serbs (which is of course entirely correct in the case of the Jasenovac camp and the genocide of Serbs by the Ustasha more generally), while minimising or eliminating completely legitimate and serious criticism of the film and the motives behind it from reliable sources. This is Sadko's default editing position. Sadko claims I am "involved". But am I really? I am trying to ensure articles in this space are neutrally written, and when I disagree with him, others on his side, or editors on the opposing side, protect articles to stop edit wars etc, I am just protecting the neutrality of the encyclopaedia. I have no barrow to push here, and am not aligned with any side, although I have been "accused" of being from every faction of the former Yugoslavia at one point or another.

In response to Vanamonde93's specific question: If you look at this edit on 1 December 2020 that you mentioned, Sadko is changing "genocide" by Chetniks (Serb guerillas) to "ethnic cleansing". At this point, the question of genocide vs. ethnic cleansing had been discussed on the talk page in April and May of that year, and any fair reading of the thread (now in the archives, but here) would have concluded that the consensus (if you take out the comments by the later Balkans TBANed WEBDuB and Antidiskriminator (both Serbophiles), and Mikola22 on the Croat side), was that the correct term was genocide, and several reliable sources were provided by those arguing that point (including me). But Sadko ignored this when he made the 1 December 2020 substitution, and it was then the subject of a further discussion at that time (here), which again resulted in a consensus that genocide was the right term, despite the intense involvement of WEBDuB again (Antidiskriminator had been TBANed by this stage). When the matter was raised yet again in late December 2020 as an RfC (the continual rehashing of disputes where a consensus has already emerged is frankly exhausting), it was closed in support of the description of it as genocide. So, Sadko was acting against an existing consensus in 1 December 2020, and that consensus has been confirmed twice since.

In conclusion, the TBANing of Sadko (and Mikola22 for that matter) would significantly reduce the ridiculous amount of POV-pushing and battlegrounding going on in the Balkans space by editors trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS against their "side", something that has been going on at intense levels for over a year and is eroding the quality of the encyclopaedia in this space due to the constant undermining of neutrality, a core content policy. Rosguill has suggested that liberal application of temporary TBANs may help establish higher standards of editing behaviour, and I heartily endorse that approach. When it comes to POV-pushers in this area, like WEBDuB and Antidiskriminator, TBANs have been the only thing that has worked. In my nine or so years here, Wikipedia hasn't been good at dealing with long-term POV pushing in the Balkans; it took years for Antidiskriminator to get indefinitely TBANed despite his outrageous POV-pushing behaviour and multiple reports. Any editors TBANed as a result of this report will get the opportunity to show that they can edit neutrally in areas outside the Balkans, and in six months they can ask for it to be lifted if they have demonstrated they can do it. If they have, I will support their return. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

01:24, 8 March 2021

Discussion concerning Sadko

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 Sadko

I was and am here to build an encyclopedia, and I did so for a number of years, improving subjects and articles which were in poor state, and sometimes tagged for +10 years. I do not claim that my editing is perfect or anything of the sort, but the text posted above takes it to a whole new level.

Most of the diffs presented have been cherrypicked and taken out of context, by an administrator, no less, with whom I had several strong disputes and disagreements in the past. Out of the diffs presented across many years and months of editing, I am guilty of 1 ad hominem comment made after the IP edits which pushed fringe viewpoints on Nikola Tesla for several years.

I can also understand that there is this interesting idea being introduced in the report, which pretty much states that my ban will somehow magically lead to things being calmer, during the time that the editor making the report is absent. That is both naive and offensive. It serves as means to present me as the main cause of the supposed chaos, which was ever-present in the Balkans-related topic to begin with. It is even more irrational considering that I have been hounded and harassed by persistent disruptive IP editors.

Examples of cherry picking and not giving proper context in the report:

#4 November 2019 Resulting in Sadko making a concession that he would stop edit-warring to avoid a block In fact, the deal was about 1 article only, Old Serbia, which was fully respected to this day. There were no bans after that little incident; in total I was banned for that once and another time for going over 3RR when one editor denied the existence of a whole nation. That is all, for 10+ years on the project.

5 January 2020 Sadko stated “I have a duty to my ancestors” with respect to his editing, setting the scene for the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour they have engaged in ever since. Nonsense and obvious lack of good faith. I was referring to Historical Revisionism and Anti-fascism, which are some of my personal values. "My duty" was presented in the report literally, for obvious reasons.

Calling opposing editors “punks in kafana (a dodgy type of Balkan tavern)” In fact I wrote "LIKE punks in kafana", which is jut a figure of speech and a colorful comment on the atmosphere in the comment section. Another things, Kafanas are not "a dodgy type of tavern" (see the pictures), as somebody who lived in the Balkans and with a connection to the region, he/she/it is probably aware of this.

Another example - Dara of Jasenovac, which I created, improved, heavily engaged on the TP, tried to be neutral etc. PM was deeply WP:INVOLVED (an example which was further analysed and tried to push the content including criticism of this movie by 1 irrelevant person who directed 4 short films (which he bravely presented as an evidence of my "POV" here + opinion stated by an NGO director who has nothing to with cinema or potential scientific analysis of political messages shown in the movie. He even ignored 3RR (please check the page history). Talk about "POV defence". I did not add most of the negative reviews because other editors added them, but I did add this one, which just proves how wrong this "agenda narrative" is. I really do not follow this line of thought, which obviously holds a bias against my editing and probably myself.

Another example - Changing “Genocide” to “Ethnic cleansing” on Chetnik war crimes in World War II This is a tricky one (and a sensitive topic); only several academics call these terrible events this way and it something relatively recently introduced. There are authors who do not call it genocide, and PM if familiar with this. As it can be seen, presenting a different viewpoint will lead to a person being labeled. Ethnic cleansing is also factually correct and undisputed.

Another example - *14 January 2021 Adding an image of Muslim SS to History of Bosnia and Herzegovina – hugely undue POV pushing . The page history would suggest that the image was not added by myself, it is relevant, on-topic and it was removed without any discussion. Considering that other editors thought otherwise, I have removed myself from that discussion.

I did not attack other editors on "dramaboards", I've merely stated my opinion, calmly, most of the time. Some comments may seem be a bit more salty, which can happen to anyone. This insinuation is an attempt to prove that I am a part of some wider plot.

I have only 1 account and I have no means to gather "supporters", as it is bluntly implied without any evidence. The fact that there are several editors who are following my edits (which I am very well-aware of), has nothing to do with me, and it is outrageous to hold it against me.

this diff was presented as If I was a Muslim hater and supporter of these crimes. In fact, the information was simply added without any sources! Another article in which PM was involved and where he had his online battles with editor Antidiskriminator, who created the very same article. no sources

[101] This diff was a matter of dispute as it obviously introduced a number of reliable sources. PM missed to mention that and the fact that I've let it go and that this particular dispute has been taken to the TP.

6 March 2021 This diff was used to present me as somebody who is trying to dig dirt on my "opponents". In fact, the article/source used, written in Serbian Cyrillic, which PM can not read and can not understand, was written by 1 influential university professor and academic, going point by point as to why a part of this historian's statements are problematic. It's mindboggling and even creative to present my edit as some sort of agenda, because, well, I was supposedly angry because of her viewpoints of 1 particular movie. The edit was an improvement (in my book) and it was not challenged so far. Presenting that diff is even comical and show how far a person can go in order to present somebody they disagree with as a vilian.

[102] This diff was presented as if I was removing information about massacres, while in fact the editor just copied the source and the sentences made little sense. The editing history clearly shows that I did not edit or reverted further.

3 December 2020 Deleting NPOV addition regarding Ante Starčević on Anti-Serb sentiment That is very far from the thruth. There was a lot of fake balancing on the article about this person, who was a chauvinist and a racist. No admin actions were taken because of these edits at the present time.

What was presented as an example of my "trolling" (I'm not entirely sure what that means) by PM was directly or indirectly about myself and my actions and I did not offend anyone with my responses.

TP, my TP/Archive1 and page history on Vlaho Bukovac suggest that we did reach a consensus and improved the article (I added most of the references), while the person who reported me was temporarily banned for several reasons. This context was not given here and this, should be, on the contrary, an example of joint work and consensus.

Pinning some sort of "problems in the wide topic of Balkans" on me is not fair, but I did not expect anything else. I am just 1 editor, with no administrative power over anyone's editing.

This report even includes reports of my editing (which did not lead to anything) by long-term disruptive editors who have been blocked across the project and used fascists as sources several times. [103] I reverted a number of their questionable edits and was accused for whatnot. The reporter is well familiar with this fact. And I do understand WP:NOTTHEM, I am just trying to add context and explain that there was no selection of diffs in this report, it was all lumped together.

An example of a discussion in which PM was also involved. By all means, add it to the report. I presented reliable sources which claim that 1 information present in the article was obviously wrong, it can be checked in 3 clicks, please, be my guest. What happened? I was accused of whitewashing war crimes/criminals, insulting the victims, the whole shallow bravado. And he/she/it left the debate. Wow.

[104] This was a response to angry allegations that I am following somebody around, which is and was nonsense, because I edited the page before. Using this "evidence" is mindboggling.

Another example of the same type of behaviour pointed at me over and over again, while accusing me of adopting the "victim mentality".

PM has also made snide comments about my capabilities as an editor and intellectual in the past. I can't dig them at the moment as I need to work soon, and I do not think that they would do much good, I've been around enough to understand how the system works.

Another thing, it just seems weird to ban 1 editor from editing about, for example, culture/art history/geography of the Balkans or any other region, if their edits, which are presented as disruptive, have all been about history in the first place. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 04:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[@Mikola22:]

1) The sources claimed so, not myself. TP debate was over and in the end there was a consensus about it. There is absolutely nothing wrong in that dispute in fact, it is a nice example of a civil debate. 2) Yes, there were cases of assimilation of many groups even in the Middle Ages. Cheers. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[@Maleschreiber:]

1) It did not improve. 2) I never accused any admin of being anti-whatever, that is not my opinion and never has been. 3) My editing is not linked to anything but the intention of improving the encyclopedia and material on the topics which are generally not in a good shape. 4) That was a typo, I have an app. which auto-corrects English on my work, considering that I use other languages on a daily bases, "deaf" (diff) is an example. :) 4) There is no "minimalization", it is utter nonsense. That is a sensitive topic which was a matter of debate. Please do not try to present that I had some hidden intentions or the idea to minimaze anyone's victims, which is something that I never did nor will do. The very fact that we had a lengthy debated about the wording and everything else suggest that there is no consensus on the matter, and do not blame that on me (or several other editors who had a similar stance), but rather - the sources and the lack of consensus amongst scholars. Another things, this sort of subtle labeling, accusations of attempts to "minimaze" victims and the general pressure (this has been taking place for a while) is the exact reason why I did this. That is the amount of pressure and lack of good faith which people can generate on these topics. The same narrative can be seen in this report. 5) Ha, now this is great, I did not "defend a fringe theory that Serbs and Russian lived in early medieval Macedonia". The author, a university professor with a PhD in archeology in fact stated that Antes are the ancestors of modern-day Russians, and that Antes, and other Slavs, settled Macedonia. I went by the source, that is all to it. 6) The edit on Jovan Ćulibrk was factually more correct. Another thing which would give perspective about this one: This also happened on the same article. Before that edit, we had this question as well [105] 7) I was in favour of !keep and improving the article (the more important part) and I see no problem with that stance, considering that Noel Malcolm, Noam Chomsky and other notable scholars have discussed it at length. The article was in a poor shape and I was in favour of improving it. Thank you for your comment. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 05:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[@Peacemaker67:]

I'll try to answer as short as I can. This is my reply to the second post by PM.

When the matter was raised yet again in late December 2020 as an RfC (the continual rehashing of disputes where a consensus has already emerged is frankly exhausting), it was closed in support of the description of it as genocide. So, Sadko was acting against an existing consensus in 1 December 2020, and that consensus has been confirmed twice since. PM presented this diff as an evidence for my alleged default behaviour. If you look closely the user in favour of this formulation was reverted by a senior editor (Buidhe). The reporter quotes the RfC when discussing my edit from 1 December. That is quite interesting, considering that the RfC was initiated on 25 December. I made no further edits about the wording after the RfC was initiated (which established the consensus). This can be easily checked.

At this point, the question of genocide vs. ethnic cleansing had been discussed on the talk page in April and May of that year, and any fair reading of the thread (now in the archives, but here) would have concluded that the consensus (if you take out the comments by the later Balkans TBANed WEBDuB and Antidiskriminator (both Serbophiles), and Mikola22 on the Croat side), was that the correct term was genocide, and several reliable sources were provided by those arguing that point (including me). Opinions stated in the discussion in late April/May: In favour: 3 (Tezwoo, PM, Mikola22), against - 3 (Sadko, Antidiskriminator, WEBdUB), Neutral (prefers a middle solution, alternative wording) - Ktrimi991. I would say that is textbook no consensus. What the reporter failed to mention is that the editors who were banned (this is highlighted in order to present me as guilty by association) were banned long after that discussion in April/May 2020 and mostly for other reasons, 1 editor was banned in January 2021 and another in September 2020.

But back to Sadko. If you look at Dara of Jasenovac, not only did Sadko create the article about the film (which was highly promotional from the beginning) What part of the article when I created it is "highly promotional"?

but they consistently defended the film from criticism for weeks (as evidenced by the diffs above, and others I did not use), and never added any information about criticism of the film at all. Not true. Here is an example of criticism added by me.

This is Sadko's default editing position. Sadko claims I am "involved". But am I really? I am trying to ensure articles in this space are neutrally written This is an example of the "neutral" content PM was attempting to add to the lead, the movie was barely released at that point And please check this out I stand by my view that the source quality is very questionable, and this particular NGO is not relevant for the movie, I have literally never seen film criticism published by this NGO, which publishes politically charged opinion pieces and promotes incendiary rhetoric that goes beyond simply civil society activism . I have created and edited a bunch of articles on this topic and never have I seen something like this.

become completely unmanageable from an admin perspective due to a high level of disruption This is supposed to motivate other administrators and gather sympathy, but the reality is very much different. I have been editing for over a decade, longer than the user reporting me, and no one considered TBANNING all that time. Any content disputes I may have engaged in since December 2019 were to undo edits I considered disruptive, to a large extent by Mikola22 and now banned sock Miki Filigranski.

they are enhancing as much as possible the victim status of Serbs Utter nonsense. History is only one of several topics which I'm interested in. I am more active and have been contributing for years on topic like Culture, Arts and Religion, having created dozens of articles on these topics and improving a number of articles, like Serbian literature or Slobodan Jovanović or Atanasije Jevtić and many many others.

and when I disagree with him, others on his side, I'm sorry but is this "us vs. them" type of comment???

(although there are several others who are not far behind, some of whom have commented here) + will note that most of the editors posting here claiming there is "nothing to see" are the usual suspects I am the subject of this report, leave other editors out of this.

They may well be coming from Croatian Wikipedia (which is a cesspit) and Serbian Wikipedia (which isn't great either). This is also extremely unfair and offensive. No article on SW, which is not perfect mind you, ever went full Holocaust denial like the case was with the CW. It is simply unfair to many hardworking editors from sr.wiki who have outstanding results, which can be seen here and here.

As a testimony of good will, I am willing to recuse myself from the Balkan topic area for a month as a sign of good faith and to show I am capable of neutral editing. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[{{ping|Santasa99}]

The lengthy post by Santasa99 has 3 main points, I'll try to keep it as short as possible.

1) The first thing he/she/it did was "to show" that there is some sort of secret bromance/connection between AB and myself. It is completely nonsensical and WP:ASPERSIONS. Considering that I edit the topic which has only several active editors, it is only natural and logical to exchange messages on the TP at some point and overlap in regards to which articles both of us edit, like I did with this editor only recently. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, is it not? I can't see what is the point in posting diffs to show that I have asked other editor to contribute to articles about Arts which I have redone and rescued from a poor state, like Serbian literature? If there was some sort of context or relevance, that would be understandable, general comments with a bunch of text are bludgeoning the report considering that the amount of text posted is already huge. Santasa posted a diff which he claims proves "canvassing". In fact it was a neutrally formed message posted out in the open on the editor's TP. drmies explained how things stand, what is allowed and what is not, gave comments to the editor writing to his page about unreliable source used and everybody moved on (or so it seemed), business as usual.
2) The next claim is that I have "special ways of sophisticated disruptive editing by removing scope" and what not. That is absolutely not true and even imaginative. As seen here I engaged on the TP a lot. As it can be seen here, two more editors were not accepting the massive removal of content by Santasa99. I agreed to remove some of it and added a ref. or two, but having seen the TP discussion I have left the article as it is now, which can be seen in the page history. Completely misleading. The second example presented as my "disruptive work" is List of Serbian films. You can see the debate here and who did the hard work - here. The same can be observed on other pages, where I tried hard to get to a solution acceptable for all, which is usually very hard. Please check this out - I am the one who is allegedly changing the scope and doing God knows what. What a spin.
3) Adding those outrageous accusation of hounding is just too much. If there was a basis for such a claim, the editor would make the report long back. I have faced and faced this sort of harassment before (we simply edit the same type of articles), and my answer is stated in one of the diffs presented by fellow editor Santasa. Notice the way this editor is addressing me in one of the diffs presented: Well, obviously, you have no clue, As far as I know, accusations of hounding are a serious matter and should not be thrown around like that - for over a year. They are doing it quite frequently. The funny thing is, there were no such accusations made against me in the last 5-6 month by the same editor. I guess I was on a break from my notorious hounding agenda during that period; it's not like I don't have way more interesting and usable ways to spend my free time.
Additional points: 1) Editor Sa99 comments about the fact that there is a clear difference between Serbians (citizens/nationals of Serbia of all ethnicities) and Serbs (ethnicity+nation) and calls it "an ambiguity". What is up with that? 2) Some of the diffs presented are attempts to "get even" because of prior "lost battles" like this one and many many other crusades which led to permanent ban of the editor posting the comment being on the table a couple of times, I'll stop myself there as anything more from my side would be off-topic and not okay.
This report is making less sense after every reply (not that I am content about it or anything). If some of my comments made on the report are not civil or they are against any Wiki guidelines/rules, do let me know so that I can work on that. Another thing, a bunch of comments which should have been about my editing only have gone full or borderline WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:HARASSMENT and WP:PERSONAL. For example, two editors have tried to use my prior nickname as "evidence" for... What exactly? Nobody commented about that except for 1 editor. What is up with that? How is that allowed, considering that there is no real context or connection made directly? Not to mention all the other repeated comments and diffs, which are borderline WP:BLUDGEON, repeated armchair Pseudopsychology of my editing (which is something I never did to anybody) and what not. This is simply outrageous. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mikola22

@Amanuensis Balkanicus, it is enough to see editor Sadko's report against me on WP:AE. Review of that report from administrator Peacemaker67 has shown that there is nothing or very little in report. This was bad faith report. As for the second attempt ANI (2021), and the merging some of my statements from the past(2019) in Nazi context, I have explained that a hundred times. Krunoslav Draganović, which is the biggest Ustasha and Nazi for you, Sadko and others for me in 2019 was a historian esteemed in the Croatian Church, quoted in many Croatian school papers, presented in libraries by leading peoples of the Catholic Church in Croatia, even Noel Malcolm use his sources. I don’t know about his Nazism at that time and I don’t know how you can’t understand that? Regarding "Ustaše on meta.wiki" I didn't mention the Ustashas anywhere. At that time the source which was on Cro wiki in some article, some editor on meta.wiki exposed as a problem of Cro wiki. I thought at that time(2019) that it was RS and since I supported Cro wiki I also supported their decision to use that source because I didn't know at that time what actually mean RS although I never read that source. For me at that time every source is RS. I was also ask for negative reviews of that source and no one, not even you or Sadko who were there exposed this negative reviews.

To summarize, from your answer it is clear that attacks based on artificial facts continue against me and that I am only one on your mind. Anyone who neutrally evaluate your accusations against me, you accuse as my support which clearly shows yours bad faith in relation to me but also disrespect for administrators. I don't think that's right. Mikola22 (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy: You may not have read my answer but report of Sadko against me(here) was very weak and false which I knew right away at first reading, ANI(2021) report was a set of my edits and my statements from past(2019) when I didn't know the rules of wikipedia nor do I know then what wikipedia actually is. @Amanuensis Balkanicus is editor which supports editor Sadko on all occasions no matter what. Do you see that he mentions some Ustashas which I didn't mention, do you see that he keep repeating the same thing even though it was explained to him in good faith what is it about, do you see that he is just continuing the work of editor Sadko, he twice reported me for alleged sockpuppetry, it is constantly somewhere behind me waiting for my mistakes. When I as editor started entering information's in articles for NPOV ond other information's about Vlachs, Milan Nedic, Partisans, Serbian history, various maps etc..they didn't like it. I suggest you read article about Milan Nedić, Statuta Valachorum before my edits and after my edits, see my edits on Yugoslav Partisans article, look at the historical forgeries that have been promoted on Vlachs of Croatia article(talk page) or Serbs of Croatia, take a look at my debates about forgerie (or mistake identified in the sources of Sima Ćirković) which still exist on several articles(Eparchy of Marča etc.., and "200 thousand Serbs who came to Slavonia and Croatia"), etc etc. This is their problem, not my statements from 2019 or the use of some source which is used and by British academic. If various historians and academics say that Serbs or part of Serbs are of Vlach origin, it is not my fault, blame Noel Malcolm and others don't blame me. Therefore when you do an evaluation of the actual situation you have to get to the heart of the problem. When someone promotes primary historical information that "Serbs inhabit the Roman Dalmatia", it would be ok put the NPOV information's which exists in various sources. By the way, we heard this information as one-sided information(just as it has been in various articles) from Greater Serbia ideologues. This is problem. Mikola22 (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Khirurg:there is evidence that he has a) defended the claim that the number of victims of Jasenovac concentration camp was "probably 1,654" I don’t follow Roman Ljeljak, I just said what I knew in 2019 about this information. As far as I remember, for the entire complex of Jasenovac camps, he found in the Belgrade Communist Archives number of 29 or 26 thousand killed(I don't remember exactly) and just for Jasenovac(inside Jasenovac not for the whole camp complex) he talked about that number which is also found in Belgrade Communist Archives. I am not defending that number nor am I interested in numbers, my answer "Therefore, if no Croatian historian has refute this document, then it is probably correct.", I mean the document(that it is a legitimate primary source) not the numbers. We need to have sources at that point which refute his book(no source for refute is exposed). Context is that Roman Leljak bases his claims on original Yugoslavian documents. And this polemics is about whether his source is RS or not because on Cro Wiki use that source(Roman Ljeljak) in articles and this was exposed as one of the problems for Cro Wiki but at that time we have no RS which refute or negatively evaluates his source and Cro Wiki is not guilty for that. My earlier answer in this context "Considering it is a sensitive issue Leljak chose the way(historical interpretation) in which documents speak instead of him. This is logical because documents he uses speak very differently from official history. I am not defending his claims I say that he "speak very differently" but he uses Yugoslav sources which no one else mentions. And whether or not this source is RS must be told by the sources(I learned that then on the English wikipedia) but at that time this sources do not exist. Mikola22 (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: you know I will respect every decision, but still you have to be aware that I came among them 5 or 6 editors, also I was very inexperienced because I didn't know what wikipedia actually is and they used this situation well. I think that two of these 5 or 6 editors are blocked, the third would be editor Nicoljaus who worked for some period in tandem with Sadko, and Sadko as the fourth is close too. If I were from beginning in interaction only with editor Sadko and not with all of them I certainly wouldn’t have so many reports and edit wars because they all worked together. So we are not completely equal to share common punishment. Also as we hear from them, when I came to wikipedia they all started getting into trouble and slowly disappear from wikipedia? They worked here in good faith for years and then some anonymous(Mikola22) person with hundreds of sources, information's, checking the sources from articles, removing OR information's etc, disrupted their good faith conception? Yes there were mistakes but I think a lot of good has been done. Mikola22 (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one game play. Editor Amanuensis Balkanicus and Sadko vs Mikola22, article Smiljan. Information from the source "Serbian Orthodox Vlachs lived in the hamlets of Selište" and OR information which are supported by these two editors "which was aligned with ethnicity; in Smiljan the Orthodox, who were ethnic Serbs, lived in the hamlets of Selište". In that moment they know what the source say but they together pushing OR and violate the rule wikipedia. [106][107] My edit [108] Mikola22 (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have and this game play. Article is Flag of Serbia. Here are together editor WEBDuB and editor Sadko. The source mentions primary information from 1281 that on some canvas(fabric) two colors are mentioned "Red and Blue". Based on that, they support a flag(of some anonymous person ie editor) with this information "Flag of Vladislav I (reigned 1233–1243), as described in 1281." which obviously have today's modern Serbian flag as pattern but with context "from 1281". They continue to promote OR information although the administrator Peacemaker67 tells them that it is OR. They act as if they are alone on wikipedia.[109][110][111] Talk page discusion[112]. Mikola22 (talk) 05:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion of OR map of editor Khirurg and editor Sadko although this has been explained to him several times. Article is Serbia in the Middle Ages. This map is based on primary source De Administrando Imperio. In this case, the area to which Serbs coming includes and parts of Croatia, Montenegro(Duklja), Bosnia, Bulgaria, probably Albanian territory but this fact primary source DAI does not mention ie that Serbs coming to these areas. Despite everything, they promotes this map, even though they knows that this is a violation of wikipedia rules.[113][114] and map[115] Mikola22 (talk) 06:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion of OR and fringe information. Article is Višeslav of Serbia and there we have information that According to De Administrando Imperio the other Serb-inhabited lands, or principalities, that were mentioned included the "countries" of Paganija, Zahumlje, Travunija and the "land" of Duklja(Montenegro), but primary source DAI does not mention Duklja which were setled by Serbs. The fact that Serbs appear in that area in a later period has nothing to do with DAI or "according to DAI" fact and this was confirmed by a neutral(Englesh) editor on RSN(which should be respected).[116] But in this case editor Theonewithreason who has support of editor Sadko[117] continue to promote OR information ie context in this article. Mikola22 (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion of OR and fringe information. In this article Serbia in the Middle Ages we have interesting situation. Participants are editor Khirurg and editor Sadko. Information During the 822 uprising, Serbs supported the rebellion, thus siding against the Frankish Empire and indirectly supporting the Byzantines. This information is from source of some archaeologist. The context is rebellion[118] in Lower Pannonia(810 – 823). In primary source Royal Frankish Annals which speaks of rebellion Serbs are mentioned in one word "Ljudevit escaped to Serbs", and in no rebellion context. Sources or historians which would talk about participation of Serbs in that rebellion do not exist. But that doesn't stop mentioned editors from supportng fringe information even though everything has been explained to them and they know that.[119][120][121] Mikola22 (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion of information from historian who denies the existence of Croats in Montenegro, considering them as Croatianized Serbs and information from some internet portal which is not RS. Article is Andrija Zmajević and information is Zmajević was born to a Serbian family. Editors which support information from these portals and historian are Amanuensis Balkanicus and Sadko.[122][123][124] Mikola22 (talk) 10:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article is Yugoslav Partisans and giving suport[125][126] for information in the introductory part of the article ie that "The multi-ethnic resistance movement was majority Serb but had significant minorities of Croats, Slovenes, Montenegrins, Macedonians and Bosniaks."(edit which has not passed because sources do not have such information, and because most editors decided that, talk page[127]) He as editor knows that in article exist this information "According to Tito, by May 1944, the ethnic composition of the Partisans was 44 percent Serb, 30 percent Croat" and this is not minority fact. His right as an editor is to support whatever he wants but at the same time he remove information from strong RS that Serbia’s contribution in Partisan movement until the autumn of 1944 which means the last six months of the war was disproportionately small.[128][129] Mikola22 (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion of OR and fringe map. Article is Časlav of Serbia and everything is explained on talk page[130] but despite that editor Sadko with support of block sockpuppet editor John L. Booth and editor Theonewithreason(also used sockpuppet account in some others edits) continue to promote OR and violate wikipedia rules.[131][132][133][134][135] A simple solution in good faith is correction of irregularities in that map, but it is not an option for them, for them it is better to continue supporting OR and fringe information although they know that in fact they support violation of rules. Mikola22 (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article is Croatisation. I am not reverting the article in state before editing of sockpuppet editor John L. Booth, although it is requested by admin Sro23 ("Closing. Also, does anyone want to clean up the sock's contributions?" from 5 March 2021)[136] I only remove edit in which I saw problem in the sources(I didn't research the rest at this time).[137] My edit is reverted by editor Elserbio00[138] After I exposed problem on talk page[139] editor Sadko returned edit of sockpuppet editor John L. Booth two times[140][141] After my notification of the editors on talk page and the fact that it is a requirement of admin and that in Uskoks section we have problems, editor Vacant0 as third editor made revert ie restored information's of sockpuppet editor John L. Booth [142]. And then coming and forth IP editor and made revert[143] So they are all aware that it is request of admin(talk page [[144]]) and that at least in Uskoks section we have problem but they persistently return controversial information to the article and knowingly violate the requirements of the admin and wikipedia procedure ie rules. Mikola22 (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removing Croat and Catholic participation in Herzegovina uprising (1875–1877) and leaving information's only for Serb participation. After I entered information's from the sources blocked editor Antidiskriminator and editor Sadko remove my information's with claims I quote: "WP:UNDUE hypothesis in attempt to Croatize this uprising" and "POV pushing, fringe and undue"[145][146][147] although they are very well aware of the fact that and Croats and Catholics also live in Herzegovina, they actually make up the majority of Herzegovina population as a whole(it would be logical that some of them also took part in the uprising). After I found more sources including a Serbian author who also talks about Croats as participants in that uprising they stopped their actions. Finally the blocked editor WEBDuB remove information from the introduction part of the article about Croat and Montenegrian participation in that upraising although a strong Serbian source speaks about it.[148]. Since I'm not sure what can go in introduction part of the article I didnt make revert of WEBDuB edit. Later there were attempts to remove my information's and sources(some IP editor) but while I am here these information's must be respected because they are from strong sources, Mikola22 (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eight sources challenge. Article is Military Frontier, and I have 8 strong sources for information that in Military Frontier and Vlachs are coming, part of the sources uses context "Vlachs and Serbs, etc" ie that they coming together. But for editor Sadko even 8 sources is not enough because it is, I quote: "Germans and Vlachs were a tiny minority compared to Serbs and Croats, this formulation is not WP:NPOV and looks like WP:SYNTH"[149]. I think that I'm holding the record of wikipedia with this edit, because not 8 non-Croatian sources are enough for punting one information to the article. Eventually I had to add two more sources, "The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics" from Ivo Banac and the best North American book in the field of Russian and Eastern European studies for 1984, and source of Austrian historian Karl Kaser expert for Military Frontier. It is ultimately 10 sources. Mikola22 (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support the statement of administrator @Peacemaker67. This block will be final for me because I don't follow other parts of wikipedia. What a ride it was. I have been anonymous and alone from the beginning and I managed to learn most of the rules of wikipedia although I didn't even know what wikipedia really is (because I hadn't read it until 2019). The only person I appreciate here is "editor" @Peacemaker67 and his word is commandment. It is very possible that some of my information will start to disappear but let others take care of it(if they are interested in these information's and because they are based on strong sources). I just couldn’t edit differently because there were too many of them. It was simply such a situation. Thanks to everyone who stays. I will edit until this process is complete. Tnx. Mikola22 (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I resent is when editor Sadko report me here all administrators supported his report although in fact nothing was written in it (which I knew immediately) or very little which was later establish and by @Peacemaker67. I blame you(administrators not you @Peacemaker67) for that but I forgive you. Mikola22 (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Joy

As mentioned above, I've noticed the issues with this user's behavior myself, and I'm only posting in a separate section in an effort to avoid any appearance of impropriety.

In short, yes, having people editing in this topic area while they can't seem to follow some basic tenets of Wikipedia and rules of the contentious topic area in particular - is pointless. For example, we shouldn't have to keep explaining what should be the glaringly obvious rules on the basic integrity of reproducing what sources say like I had to do here. Or what's an ancient primary source and what's a modern secondary source, like I had to do here. Add in advocating for biased pamphlets masquerading as articles and then railing against evil admins who are out to get them, like it happened here, well that's just depressingly bad.

A non-trivial volume of (fairly ridiculous) Balkan edit warring is going on at en: practically all the time - indeed whoever follows up on the links above will notice that often times it was interactions with editors who have since been rightfully blocked for various policy violations. The 'warring' parties feed off one another's ridiculousness, and create what seems to be a perpetually toxic environment. If an editor has 25k edits under their belt and still has to be moderated in this regard, then that is a lost cause and a waste of volunteer time and effort. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amanuensis Balkanicus, the fact that all this tendentious editing is considered par for the course in your eyes is actually pretty depressing, and demonstrates how the casually toxic environment has become more of a norm in the WP:ARBMAC topic area, as opposed to being an exception. The proper way forward is to enforce the rules of decorum, for example also extending a topic ban on this Mikola22 user for their own violations of the rules of decorum. Not letting Sadko and them continue to battle it out for years to come. Hell, for all we know, all of them could be persistently violating the sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry policies and in another 20 years we'll have another Kubura situation and nobody will care. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill thank you for coming back to the point. I am entirely unamused to see the discussion spammed to death again just like the last time I had contact with this matter. This is basically gaming the system to death - an abuse that is pretty much obvious is met by kilobytes upon kilobytes of wikilawyering. And that is both by allies and enemies of the accused! Apparently they all sense that keeping the waters muddy is the main trick here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amanuensis Balkanicus

This will be lengthy, but it extensively dissects the points raised by Peacemaker67, and I promise you, is well worth the read. Sadko is a user who's been editing Wikipedia far longer than anyone likely to comment here, including Peacemaker67 (and excluding Joy). Full disclosure: I've worked with PM67 for around a decade and together we promoted 3 or 4 articles to FA status and several others to GA. I've always considered him a constructive editor, although we've had minor disagreements in the past. By early 2020, my perception of PM67 began to change, because when push came to shove, PM67 began to almost invariably side with "Croatian POV editors " (his words, not mine) in content disputes.

After his six-month topic ban in January, WEBDuB (an editor I believe is Serbian) appealed to PM67, but the latter told him he supported the topic ban until WEBDuB could "demonstrate he could edit neutrally." [150] This all seemed rather peculiar to me, given that PM67 has treated the Croatian editor Mikola22, whose editing is far more problematic than WEBDuB's or Sadko's, with kid gloves time and time again, using his considerable clout as an admin to ensure he evades sanctions. This comment defending Mikola is from the other day. [151] This glaring double standard was noted by Griboski shortly after WEBDuB's topic ban. [152] A few months ago, PM67 also came to Mikola22's rescue in an AN/I and argued that Mikola's outbursts had been misconstrued because English wasn't his first language. The diffs in which Mikola said those awful things were from 2019, and thus "stale", PM67 said. [153] Water under the bridge. Let bygones be bygones. But with Sadko? Then it's perfectly acceptable to cherrypick diffs from 2019 and use them to portray Sadko in the worst possible light, first language and age of diffs be damned. Mighty convenient, chief.

Let's take a look at PM67's "evidence" of Sadko's supposed malign behaviour:

Sadko stated “I have a duty to my ancestors” with respect to his editing, setting the scene for the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour they have engaged in ever since. [154] So you consider this snippet phrase from a much longer paragraph an apropos example of a comment presaging WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, but not Mikola22's remarks about the Ustaše on meta.wiki which were the subject of an AN/I in which you defended Mikola22? [155] [156] Sadko has been editing since 2008. If this "set the scene" for his so-called WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, what has Sadko been doing for the past 13 years? By your own logic, he's been a constructive editor.

Calling opposing editors “punks in kafana (a dodgy type of Balkan tavern)” against WP:NPA [157] and stating that editors that disagree with them have a "corrosion of intellect" [158] As far as incivilities go, "punks" and "corrosion of intellect" are G-rated. I hate to say this, but I've heard worse from you, PM67. One time you even said you had no issues with calling other users "arseholes" or telling them to "fuck off" in certain circumstances. [159] Fair enough, I get frustrated sometimes too. But don't then turn around and feign outrage that an editor you disagree with used mildly naughty words at some point in time. Clearly you have no intention of holding Sadko (or other users you don't like) to the same standard you hold yourself (or users whose POV matches your own).

Further indication of adopting a victim mentality and an axe to grind [160] Leave the armchair psychology to the armchair psychologists, chief. Sadko was responding to Mikola22's claim that anti-Serb sentiment is a myth created by Serbian intellectuals. While "bias" and "hate" are strong words, Sadko was totally justified in opposing Mikola's rhetoric. Perhaps you also believe anti-Serb sentiment is a "myth"? Do tell.
These are examples of trolling of the talk pages of editors that oppose his POV [161] and [162] I find this highly amusing since yours truly has been the target of very public and gross "gossiping" by OyMosby and Peacemaker67 in the past. [163] Sadko has every right to interject in a conversation that is about him. Given that he was called a hypocrite by OyMosby in the preceding paragraph, his passive aggressive tone is mild given the context. [164]
Changing “Genocide” to “Ethnic cleansing” on Chetnik war crimes in World War II [165] Run-of-the-mill content dispute; this particular edit came before the start of a months-long RfC into the matter (which was only concluded a few days ago and in which I personally did not participate).

Removing the WWII Chetnik genocide of Muslims and Croats from List of genocides by death toll [166] Yep, because its WP:SYNTH and WP:OR (Geiger, the source used to cite the death toll in question, doesn't use the term genocide), although the edit summary Sadko provided is admittedly lazy.
Deleting NPOV addition regarding Ante Starčević on Anti-Serb sentiment [167] This paragraph was sourced to a reference from...1918. I seem to recall something about WP:PRIMARY and WP:AGEMATTERS. Sadko was fully justified in this diff. Why was this even included as "evidence"?
Continuing POV-pushing work of the indefinitely Balkans-TBANed User:Antidiskriminator, removing mention of the numbers of Muslim civilians killed in Battle of Višegrad [168] and [169] Umm, yeah, because there were no sources provided for the 2,500 figure in those diffs. Ctrl+f and check for yourself. Totally justified. Again, can't tell why this was included as evidence of "wrongdoing".

Clear disdain for non-Serb nationalist sources and POV comments on Talk:Battle of Višegrad 20 December 2020 I see two users (Sadko and Santasa99) whose first language isn't English squabbling about obscure sources they both know little about. Cringy? Maybe. Malicious? No. Grounds for a TBAN for either of them? No.

Adding an image of Muslim SS to History of Bosnia and Herzegovina – hugely undue POV pushing [170] Why is it "hugely undue POV pushing"? The division was part of the country's history, wasn't it? In any event, Sadko wasn't the one who originally added the image, he was merely restoring it after it was removed by Santasa99 without consensus. [171] The user who originally added it was GenoV84 [172] Again, very sloppy "evidence collection".

Deletion of material mentioning Serbs killing Muslims and the resulting split between Chetniks and Partisans [173] WP:COPYVIOs can be removed on sight ("Contributors should take steps to remove any copyright violations that they find.")

These all involve removal of negative material from clearly reliable sources from an article Sadko created about a highly controversial recent Serbian film about the Croatian Ustaše Jasenovac concentration camp (Dara of Jasenovac) [174] Has there been an RSN discussion about the reliability of Radio Sarajevo? Not to my knowledge, there hasn't. Until Radio Sarajevo's reliability is sorted out, Sadko is well within his rights to question its reliability.

Unsourced POV pushing regarding the views of Ante Starčević on Croatisation [175] The content was originally added by the sockpuppet John L. Booth, and Sadko was making a blanket revert to that version. While I disagree with Sadko in this case and would not personally have reinstated the banned user's edits (as per WP:BANREVERT), this is hardly tendentious. OyMosby did the same thing recently after I implemented WP:BANREVERT on another article. [176] I have no intention of seeing him TBANNED over that.

Inserting negative material about a historian criticising the Chetniks on Dubravka Stojanović [177] So PM67's issue is Sadko added WP:BALANCE to the article? I can cherrypick that time PM67 added nothing but glowing reviews to Philip J. Cohen and yours truly had to balance out the reception section with more critical reviews. I certainly never considered seeking a six-month topic ban against PM67 until he "could figure out how to edit neutrally".

Sadko has made quite a number of other appearances on the dramaboards in the time this report covers (since the account was renamed from User:Mm.srb in August 2019) I don't see what the point of underscoring the fact that Sadko's username used to be Mm.srb other than to emphasize that he is Serbian, especially given that none of the links you've provided about the warnings Sadko has received were made while the account was called Mm.srb. Not a good look, PM. I'm very disappointed to see this from you.

And lastly, only two of the AN/I's and AE's that PM67 has cited were directly about Sadko's editing, and both ended in Sadko's favour. There's a damn good reason for that. None of the closing admins who weren't WP:INVOLVED saw enough reason to take any measures against him. But why one AN/I and (now two) AE's, you may ask? Because Sadko's involved in editing Balkan-related articles, that's why. I don't know if you've noticed, but no one can agree on anything here.

The last AE cited is rather interesting in that it included the participation of two glaringly obvious anti-Sadko sockpuppets that I subsequently exposed and who were then blocked (Miki Filigranski and Thebeon). Naturally, no one cared in the slightest about the socks, including Joy, the initiator, until I came around. Joy's tunnel vision with regard to the conflict between Miki and Sadko, and his apparent bias against the latter, was even called out by El C. [178]

In conclusion, literally everything Sadko has ever-so-dubiously been accused of here is either something that is standard fare in this part of en.wiki or has been done by the vast majority of Balkan users who have commented here or are likely to comment here. All in all, this report is quite disappointing, not least because PM67 is a longtime admin, who (in theory, at least) is supposed to be impartial and "above all that", especially when it comes to petty regional quarrels as we've been seeing over the past 18 months. Not to mention the incredibly poor quality of evidence that's been put forth. A great big nothing-burger all around. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy: It's encouraging to hear that you're at least open to treating Mikola with the same "gloves" you would Sadko. That's a marked improvement over PM67's approach, so I commend you for that. Apologies if I seemed overly harsh earlier, but once I saw the thoroughly unconvincing (and in some cases, misleading) nature of the diffs provided, it was frustrating to have to put aside over an hour of my valuable time to address each point one by one.

I also understand your eagerness to stamp out systemic POV-pushing given what happened at hr.wiki (which is now being reversed, thankfully). However, it's inappropriate to compare Sadko (or Mikola22, for that matter) to Kubura because (as I understand it) Kubura was one of very few admins on hr.wiki, giving him a disproportionate influence over the project. Given their editing histories, I don't see either Sadko or Mikola becoming admins, literally ever. But taking actions that give the impression that admins favour a certain "editing bloc" over another is not the way to go (as I think you're starting to realize), and would actually contribute to the toxic environment you are referring to.

Believe it or not, I used to write GAs and DYKs on a regular basis because for many years the topic area wasn't the den of instability it has become in the past 18 months. Now I have no time or energy to contribute meaningfully to the project because I have to deal with drama on half-a-dozen articles at a time on an almost daily basis. It's all become quite exhausting. That being said, this drama didn't start with Sadko. It largely started with an uptick in editing by Mikola22 and OyMosby (among others) in late 2019. COVID-19 made things crazier because suddenly people were working from home and had more time to edit. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Khirurg

Sadki has been editing productively since 2008 and has generally managed to stay out of trouble, and has kept a clean block log since 2019. He performs valuable work on badly neglected topics such as Serbian cinema and arts; for instance, he has created over 70 articles on Serbian art personalities [179]. He has not violated 3RR, nor does he regularly game the 3 revert limit.

The "punks in a kafana" and "corrosion of intellect" diffs are extremely mild and I have seen (and been on the receiving end) of far worse from other Balkan editors. And in Peacemaker's own words civility is mostly subjective [180] and robust discussion is entirely warranted regarding Yugoslav topics. These disputes can get very very intense (in Peacemaker's own words, try the patience of a saint), but I have yet to see Sadko cross the line. If these are the most incivil diffs Peacemaker can find, that would make Sadko one of the most civil editors in the topic area.
The diffs regarding the claim that Sadko has quite a number of other appearances on the dramaboards in the time this report covers either do not involve Sadko at all [181] [182] [183], or were created by editors with an opposing POV, in an attempt to get rid of Sadko. In none of those reports was Sadko sanctioned. If anything they reflect well on Sadko, who was dragged to the drama boards in bad faith several times, maintained his composure, and emerged vindicated.
The vast majority of the "consistent POV-pushing" diffs are part of typical content disputes in the topic area, and what constitutes "POV-pushing" is entirely subjective. Of course, if one has a pro-Croatian POV, these diffs could be seen as POV-pushing, but as someone who is somewhat familiar with the subject, it is not immediately obvious to me what is so egregious about diffs such as these [184] [185] (Radia Sarajevo is not WP:RS). Regarding changing "Genocide" to "ethnic cleansing" in the Chetnik War Crimes in World War II article [186], that is an extremely controversial topic, and Sadko's edits are not out of line with much of the scholarship in the area. The title of the article adter all is "war crimes", not "genocide". These diffs have also been convincingly address by Amanuensis Balkanicus, who is much more familiar with the topic area. In any case, Sadko has participated in the many dispute resolution attempts, such as RfCs, and has always abided by their outcomes.
Much of Sadko's editing is in response to POV-pushing by Mikola22. If anyone deserves to be topic banned, it is Mikola. In this report here [187], there is evidence that he has a) defended the claim that the number of victims of Jasenovac concentration camp was "probably 1,654" [188] (actual number: 83,000), b) lamented the very existence of Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia [189], c) introduced material from notorious Nazi sympathizer Dragoslav Krunovic [190], among others. Yet instead of taking action, Peacemaker casually dismissed the ANI report as nothing more than a disturbing trend of Serbian POV editors trying to get rid of Croatian POV editors from en WP [191], which successfully derailed it. He even played the English is obviously not their first language, and their meaning is sometimes not clear. card. Does this apply to Sadko as well, or no? While we are all obligated to adhere to NPOV, this is even more true of admins. I found Peacemaker's defense of Mikola extremely disturbing to say the least.
Lastly, the allegations of meatpuppetry, off-wiki coordination, and using IPs are entirely unsubstantiated and should be removed or struck. We can't have stuff like that in an AE proceedings.Khirurg (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker's most recent addition does not contain any new evidence, and basically boils down to something like "Sadko is really really bad, trust me on this". Regarding the edit from Sadko on December 1 2020 [192], I note the RfC was initiated on December 25th [193] and closed on January 21. The edit by Sadko predates the RfC by almost a month. Furthermore, all the votes in the RfC where a consensus was supposedly reached regarding the genocide question are from editors (with the exception of Peacemaker) who are heavily involved in the topic are and strongly favor a particular POV. Two of the votes are just !votes without any reasoning provided. I would argue that is a very weak consensus and the RfC was prematurely closed before the 30-day period ended. Nor do I see anything resembling a consensus in preceding discussions in the talkpage [194]. All I see is users with similar POVs agreeing with each other. But if there is no "smoking gun", there is no case. This is a very difficult topic area, and things often get hot. If we start banning people evidence-free, it would set a disturbing precedent. Khirurg (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Maleschreiber

This report is about Sadko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If other editors' activity is similar, they should get reported.
The Balkans editing environment has improved in the past six months largely as the result of topic bans and increased admin oversight on a daily basis. El C, Peacemaker67, EdJohnston, Drmies and other admins have played an important role in establishing oversight. Every time a Balkans editor has been reported, blocked or sanctioned admins have been accused of having an anti-/pro- Croatian/Serbian/Albanian bias.
Sadko's editing is linked to persistent, mid-level edit-warring very often based on a POV narrative and a personalization of disputes with other editors: Fake balancing which only brings confusion to the readers - POV editing with aims to narrow down early Serb medieval history only to Rascia.[195], sheep voting has been seen in several requests for renaming so far, this is a free project and I am quite free to suspect[196]Do you have any Wikipedia rule or guideline which would support your deaf???[197] The POV narrative is also evident in the reports they file and they have been logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement log#Eastern Europe and warned to not weaponize AE in order to eliminate opponents of content disputes on 29 June 2020. They still personalize disputes in reports as in The reported editor is a big time WP:BULLY. I’ve seen this at work several times, in RL he would instantly get fired for Mobbing (...) [198]. The bigger problem is that their editing is often focused on specific POV narratives whether it involves minimization of crimes of Chetnik Nazi collaborators against Croat civilians (That is still only several historians, as I said before, there is more mentions of genocide done to the Muslims, which is not the general case for Croats. The title alone seems awkward ("Genocide of Bosniaks and Croats") and a verbal construct of Wikipedia editors. The number for the Croats are simply not there, neither is the scale of crimes, which simply can't be compared to most of similar terrible events.[199] or defense of a fringe theory that Serbs and "possibly" Russians lived in early medieval Macedonia[200] or arguing that that the virulent antisemitism of Nikolaj Velimirović in the 1930s is not antisemitism but something "very different" ..anti-judaism (immediately prompting the intervention of another editor [201]) or trying to !keep articles like Demonization of the Serbs.
PM's suggested sanctions are justified and will improve the editing environment - as all sanctions have done. Its limited 6-month scope will allow Sadko to focus their editing attention on other pages and reflect on their perspective. The ban could then be lifted via simple admin action without a discussion at AE.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vacant0

I can't really tell if the environment around Balkan-related topics has been improved over the course of past six months since I've been trying to stay out of them ever since I made my account. What I have noticed is that since the beginning of this year there has been more POV pushing by all sides, and because of it I had to step in somewhere even though I didn't want to. I don't think that it's worth for me to make statements about Sadko's unacceptable behavior because other editors already proved some point. Sadko has been here for over 10 years now and there is no doubt that he might did something wrong in the past, but I personally think that he isn't that type of an editor to do these unacceptable edits on purpose. I've been following Sadko's edits since the beginning of this year because he has been involved in some of the Balkan-related topics and I generally can't see any POV pushing by him. I'm pretty sure that I'm not wrong but if I am you can correct me on this one. I think that my comment won't make any difference here but I personally wanted to comment on this situation because I saw similar and worse editing by user Mikola22 but I'm not sure if his edits have been discussed before. Vacant0 (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Santasa99

It’s hard to be concise at the same time and work out something elaborate that should show a wide range of violations - in terms of behavior and content. The toxicity of the Balkan scope can hardly be tolerated, and the root of all the problems is, of course, the emotional attachment to local identities, which editors cannot or do not want to control. I’ll try to put together a statement in as few words as possible and as few “diffs” as possible, and if any administrator finds it interesting, I’ll provide clarifications. First to contrast these enormous defensive walls of text of Sadkos tag-team buddies, such as Amanuensis Balkanicus (AB) (this illustrates existence of exclusive circle, [202]→[203], or how they together suspect Mikola from time to time [204]→[205]→[206], [207]→[208] (there is Sadko's attempt to get rid of Mikola in one such report, which closing admins called weaponization of the process but Sadko escaped with warning); this didn't stop Sadko from trolling my own TP uninvited for reason they perceived as similar (I never respond to such requests, though): [209]); false equalization by insisting on "POV pushing on all sides"; noticeable attempt to distract this report by redirecting attention from Sadko to Mikola (who else), while questioning Peacemaker's integrity as a neutral editor and admin by all three parties, Sadko, AB and Khirurg - so, let it be registered that AB is not neutral agent and that his agency as a pusher of Serbian perspective (POV) on Balkans topics (history, Yugoslav Wars, and so on), is felt, for instance, when they found themselves implicated in meatpuppetiering with messages like this to Sadko, regarding this, they removed the AB's message immediately and went to help; or like this, where AB asking Sadko for support against admin Drmies' concerns after the issue was raised by Maleschreiber. Drmies warned AB of canvassing and both, AB and Sadko, of tag-teaming on highly sensitive topics, adding that what they did was partisan and not neutral (Drmies advised Maleschreiber to take it further to ARBMAC). How these editors, who edit from the same POV as Sadko, appeared here if no one invited them, is something noticeable in many examples in AN and voting, with sr.wiki editors without being active on en.wiki appearing out of nowhere (diffs for this can be provided on request) - I learned about the case by interacting with Sadko's edits at the List of Serbian painters, a case of disruptive editing which I am about to post below.)

Sadko peculiar method of disruption is changing scope where arguments fail. In article List of Serbian painters, I tried to remove painters who do not belong to the list because they are not related to Serbia, but Sadko restored these items (painters) twice, and on third revert they did this, with an edit-summary, Lead changed, as it gives a wider range of possibilities for growth of the article + numerous great Serb painters were not born or lived in Serbia., followed with this, with an edit-summary, data restored, per lead, and from this point onward reverting dragged through several weeks, avoiding 3RR. All that time I tried to bring them into discussion on the TP, but they apparently didn't think that their change of the article scope should be open for discussion, only the content, however, as soon as I would restore article appropriate scope in the lede, Sadko would resort to blame game, stating in "edit summaries" that it's me whose editing is disruptive because I am changing the scope - extremely irritable summaries in this case aren't far from outright trolling. I strongly suggest reading Talk:List_of_Serbian_painters in its entirety - it has three sections/discussions, much shorter than any individual statement in this report, and it is quite illustrative in exposing Sadko's focus (do I dare say obsession) on ethnicity, which combined with emotional attachment to identity drives this kind of attitude, or as Sadko explains this phenomenon best by saying that they "have a duty to (their) ancestors" to fix the project and correct mistakes on Wikipedia. Oftentimes they use their own preconception on ethnicity in conflict with entire set of guidelines dealing with ethnicity vs. nationality. As Sadko ambiguously explains it in this exchange, [210]→ [211] (Sadko is/was Mm.srb), this ambiguity is reflected in their usage based on personal whim, as it suites them from case to case, and although they correctly observe the problem of double definition for Serb(s) and Serbian(s) could possibly result in existence of double articles, they proceed to use this ambiguity themselves elsewhere, such as in case of List of Serbian painters, which they tried to turn into list of Serb painter, against whole host of problems attached to such re-writing: article is titled List of Serbian painters not Serb painters, turning scope into ethnic-based exclude Serbian painters of all other ethnicities, which we then can't include elsewhere, and so on (again, on TP I discuss all aspects of the problems created with this approach and they respond, so pleas read it). Similar thing happened here, while here Sadko defended and reverted my attempt to change scope which was terribly conceived, almost outright nationalistic, as it can be seen from diff. However, where it does or doesn't suits their POV, they interchangeably play with the "ethnicity" - example: when asked about it, they responded with this, but then changed a tune in this; this also means they are aware of what they are doing. Never apologizing Sadko seem content with Balkan-scope toxic situation: Wikipedia is not the place for you, as there are constant complaints about somebody being harsh or something like that. Unfortunately, Balkan-related topics are not always milk and honey and that's not likely to change. ([212])

Another problematic issue is following (hounding): me - Sadko I complained many times since late 2019, at least twice at user's TP: first time, and again. Few examples: instead of individual diffs I offer my User contribution page filtered between 02:13, 20 June 2020 and 23:58, 20 June 2020 where it can be observed editor jumping from page to page behind me; me - Sadko. I could provide more diffs on this problem if necessary, also in case of other editors being followed by Sadko, if that would be appropriate.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadko:, shell we check timelines here ?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC) As a side note, since when we refer to editors with "it" - we refer to each other with singular "they" forms of third-person personal pronouns, hence, I am not "it", I am "them"/"they"/"their(s)"/"themsel(f)ves" for you and anyone else in here, unless I say differently.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Griboski

As it's been pointed out by other editors and admins, most of these diffs regarding Sadko aren't egregious. But let's just take a couple of examples listed here; Sadko's removal of genocide from the Chetniks war crimes and list of genocides by death toll. There was legitimate debate back then over this. Buidhe, who is a prolific editor in topics of Holocaust and Genocide supported these same "POV" changes. 1 2 It's a real issue of historiography (and WP:OR as far as it being included on the list). @Vanamonde93: This is also in response to your inquiry. There is more background on this in this thread, although it is long.
Most of the less-than-ideal editing behavior from Sadko has coincided and been directly impacted by the arrival of Mikola22, who has shown an exclusive preoccupation with Serbian topics and articles, editing from a Croatian nationalist POV. It is then easy to see why that would provoke a reaction from Sadko and result in a battleground atmosphere. I proposed a topic-ban for Mikola in an ANI Report in January. Rosguill, the lone uninvolved admin and editor in that report, who has also commented here, supported it before those with a similar POV to that of Mikola came out in droves to derail the thread.
If the goal here is to create a less toxic environment in the Balkans editing area, then the fairest and most appropriate solution would be to implement a topic-ban for a period of time against both Sadko and Mikola as suggested by AB, Joy, Rosguill and PM (and agreed upon by Mikola). Otherwise, it is selective punishment and enforcement of rules. --Griboski (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Sadko

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

Having read through this report and mulled over it for a decent amount of time, I feel like I need to write some sort of comment here, even if I'm unsure what the best outcome would be. It's clear that Sadko has a consistent POV, but most of the diffs presented here strike me as defensible. The most troubling behavior that I see here is the comments defending the prominent use of a medieval source at Talk:Narentines as mentioned by Joy, which, despite its relevance to Balkan historiography, requires further analysis and interpretation by more recent scholarship. As I have previously suggested sanctions against Mikola22 at ANI, I'm not exactly opposed to the idea that they deserve a tban, but it's not clear to me whether banning Mikola22 necessitates a ban for Sadko as well. I'm wondering if the liberal application of temporary tbans to POV editors in Balkan may help establish new standards for behavior around this subject matter, while allowing borderline editors to eventually return to the topic and demonstrate their commitment to building an encyclopedia once the waters have settled a little. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm wondering myself whether such a liberal application might not be the best solution. I keep marveling at the copious amounts of time these editors have to write up these notices, provide the diffs, respond to them, respond to the responses, and keep a record sometimes going back years. Don't they need to eat? Drmies (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still working my way through this; anyone besides Peacemaker and Sadko would do well to be more concise going forward, as I suspect y'all have already scared off many patrolling admins. Peacemaker67, I hate to ask you to lengthen your statement, but I'm looking at diffs like this one, and while that may be taken as evidence that Sadko has a POV, it's only a problematic edit if he is actively misrepresenting sources or ignoring consensus in the sources to push fringe views. Can you elaborate on those diffs to show that this is the case? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C, Ymblanter, EdJohnston, and Newslinger: I see you have been active as admins on ARBEE matters; do you have anything to suggest here? Even if you have no wish to plough through all of the above, any insights you have would be appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have now ploughed through the entire history of Dara of Jasenovac and it's talk page, and that's an hour of my life I'll never get back. It's frustrating, but unsurprising, to see the same patterns of stone-walling and argumentativeness appear here as in other prominent political and nationalist disputes. Having read through that history, I am convinced Sadko needs a break from the topic area. Mikola's conduct on that particular page was not egregious, but they are not exactly covering themselves in glory either, and I think a warning to them is the minimum necessary. There's others at that page whose behavior is worse; I'm not going to name them, because they haven't participated here. More generally, I think this area could benefit from more uninvolved admin intervention, and from quicker use of limited TBANs, partial blocks, and/or EC-protection. I am not in a position to undertake such monitoring. El_C does yeoman's work in difficult areas, but we can't rely on him for everything. If no single admin is willing to dive in, more frequent posts to AN/ANI/AE might be necessary (yes, I did just say that). Vanamonde (Talk) 18:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the diffs in the initial report lack a "smoking gun" violation of policy that would justify a topic ban. Content-wise, the worst diff I see is Special:Diff/1010666091 (as well as Special:Diff/1010680495), which shows edit warring to restore inadequately sourced controversial content about Ante Starčević that was originally inserted into the Croatisation article by John L. Booth, a sockpuppet of the previously blocked editor JohnGotten. As stated in the policy on proxying, "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content", and to be compliant with the verifiability policy, these edits needed inline citations to support the controversial content about Starčević. A pattern of edits like these two would justify a sanction, but I believe these two edits by themselves do not.
Behaviorally, the initial report shows a concern with respect to the following comments, all of which fall short of the civility policy:
1. Special:Diff/918206068: Describing another editor's comment as "a sure sign of corrosion of intellect"
2. Special:Diff/947289150: Stating that other editors are "behaving like punks in kafana" while accusing them of "labeling other editors and ignoring Wikipedia:Civility" in the same sentence
3. Special:Diff/995378938: "Learn to behave yourself and stop acting paranoid"

Since these three diffs span a range of 15 months, it would suffice to issue a reminder for Sadko to focus on article content, not editor conduct, in content disputes.

As it is likely that editors will add more comments to the existing discussion, here is some general advice for participating on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard:

Be concise. Lengthy responses are more likely to be skimmed over by reviewers, which would reduce the amount of consideration afforded to your points. If you have written too much, feel free to collapse the less important parts of your comment using templates such as {{cot}} and {{cob}}.
Provide diffs. Commentary is not very useful for assessing the situation, unless it is supported by evidence. Reviewers are more interested in the actual edits that were made, and less interested in general opinions about the dispute. Clear-cut examples of policy violations are the strongest form of evidence.
Address the reviewers. The sectioned format of this noticeboard is intended to encourage involved editors to speak directly to the reviewers, instead of to each other. This makes the discussion more manageable. If you would like to address a point another editor has made, try to do so while staying on topic (which in this case would be focusing on whether Sadko's editing is sanctionable).

— Newslinger talk 06:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the situation, but it is complicated, and I better look again before providing an opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flushing Girl

As these are very similar in nature to the type of edits the editor was initially topic banned for (and are blatant violations of the topic ban), Flushing Girl will be blocked for one week. Flushing Girl is further cautioned that any more violations of the topic ban are likely to lead to lengthy or indefinite blocks. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:08, 9 March 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 Flushing Girl

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Flushing Girl (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

Indefinite topic ban from all pages related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, broadly construed (imposed 27 February). This was issued primarily due to issues regarding their edits related to Kosovo.

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

6 March 2021 Edits article on List of twin towns and sister cities in Kosovo
9 March 2021 Removes Kosovan party from template of member parties of the Party of European Socialists

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

Notification of topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Looks like we may be verging into WP:NOTHERE territory. Number 5 7 13:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amanuensis Balkanicus: They already have an indefinite TBAN. The issue here is they are breaking it. Number 5 7 14:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Flushing Girl

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 Flushing Girl

Well then just let me edit some things here. just made some mistakes. no need to be worried about it.

Statement by Amanuensis Balkanicus

I agree that an indefinite TBAN would be the best way forward in this instance. Flushing Girl has a habit of perpetuating a Serbian-nationalist POV and trading jabs and insults with (presumably Albanian) sockpuppet accounts on talk pages. [213] [214] I removed these pointless exchanges once from Talk:International recognition of Kosovo. [215] Flushing Girl is clearly here to right great wrongs and isn't here to build an encyclopedia. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: Oh. So wouldn't that call for a block then? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Flushing Girl

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

BirdZilla

BirdZilla is indefinitely topic banned from all pages related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed. — Newslinger talk 06:15, 12 March 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 BirdZilla

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: BirdZilla (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

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

10 March 2021 Removes sourced, consensus-approved material from the lede of Ben Garrison.
10 March 2021 Engages in edit-warring to continue to remove the material, even when reminded of consensus for that material.
10 March 2021 Declares their intent to edit-war this material indefinitely.

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 by Doug Weller in January 2021: [216].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

BirdZilla is effectively a single-purpose account; 19 of their 25 total edits are related to Ben Garrison, beginning with an edit-war to remove far-right from the article lede.

Contrary to their declarations, a consensus at an RFC they themselves opened supports the sourced description of Garrison as "alt-right". That RFC contains three users supporting "alt-right", one supporting "far-right" (which BirdZilla had previously objected to), and one inconclusive but which did not support either.

This is far from the strongest RFC consensus, but when the RFC an editor opens comes to a result that they disagree with, the solution would be to request a broader RFC, or more participation. What BirdZilla decided to do was disappear from the encyclopedia for a month and a half, before reappearing today to simply edit-war that same material again.

Out of their 14 total article-space edits on Wikipedia, nine of them are reverts on Ben Garrison.

I submit that this behavior is not compatible with continued editing in the American politics space, and request an indefinite topic ban from Ben Garrison, broadly construed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, starting an edit war is not a valid remedy for an RFC that you disagree with. You have lots of valid options to pursue; revert-warring with false declarations and personal attacks of "dishonesty" leveled toward other editors is not one of them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning BirdZilla

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 BirdZilla

I'll do my best to address this then.

I stumbled across the article on Garrison a while back, and was somewhat shocked that the artist was described as "far right". "Pro-Trump" could certainly be supported, but "far right" struck me as more of a smear. I checked the page sources, and indeed none of those sources supported such a label - it appeared to have been quietly injected in an older edit. I attempted to remove this, only to find that NorthBySouthBaranof showed up to repeatedly revert my changes without any discussion whatsoever. A similar pattern occured with some other users, who insisted that "far right" was supported despite none of the sources actually saying this if you read them.

I raised this issue on the talk page. Eventually this was changed to 'alt-right' with at least some attempt at sourcing, though I noted that sources which use "alt right" are in the extreme minority. The editors were essentially cherry-picking sources with what they wanted to say. Within the talk discussion NorthBySouthBaranof was again dismissive and suggested an RFC, which I did. The RFC did not seem to get much attention. NorthBySouthBaranof was unsurprisingly for alt-right, two users also supported this (though more from their personal opinions than what the sourcing said), and two others were against - three if you included myself. I understood that RFCs are not a straight vote, so the lack of any real discussion was a let down. I left the article as-is hoping that eventually someone else would come along.

During this, multiple users have attempted to alter the wording with various alternatives. I've also tried myself, only to be immediately reverted by North once again. I'm sorry, but trying to declare a split vote to be a consensus in your favour is just ridiculous.

What's important here is that Garrison, the subject matter, has had his work deceptively edited by third parties to imply support for positions he rejects. Considering that Garrison has publicly denounced the groups in question, labelling him as "alt right" is particularly outrageous. I'm not sure if there's a Wiki policy on this, but it is worrying if there isn't.

Regarding my account, I've had it a few years but I don't edit Wikipedia often. The sheer effort I've had to put in on this one small matter against editors who show little will to engage doesn't make this a single-purpose account. It should not be so difficult to get extremely dubious statements corrected, but considering the hostile reception it's not surprising that the only users who tried to tackle this problem have been new to editing and quickly pushed out. Indeed, I hold that NorthBySouthBaranof's raising of this case is more of an attempt to keep control over the article by slinging administrators at any new user who challenges his control over areas of the site. To my understanding a user is allowed to revert 3 times per day, and thus I did not exceed that in the article. I did however want to support another user's proposal which had, once again, been immediately reverted without consideration. I went through the talk page and RFC systems without much engagement, so I feel I've done everything as I should. I doubt that a random scattering of newer editors could really challenge the one or two established users who are so keen to mould the article as they desire, but it was worth a try.

@GorillaWarfare: I did not simply ignore the discussion. While one of the respondants suggested "far right" or "pro-Trump" in bold, their full comment made note that it's not appropriate to sling the term around without strong sourcing and so would be unwise. The policy link is appreciated, and I would highlight that the policy is use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources - which would be "Pro-Trump", instead of selectively including sources to push "alt-right". So I do maintain that the RFC was inconclusive and doesn't support blindly shutting down any attempt at revision. BirdZilla (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: I agree that trying to revert North was the wrong direction to take, but reading the RFC responses carefully I don't think I'm unjustified in concluding that there was not a firm consensus for "alt right". I do see that users are now searching for more sourcing to support alt-right in response to this being disputed further, but if you're having to go out of your way to find sources which say what you want, while ignoring countless others which don't support your desired wording, that's really not an attempt at representing what's most commonly found in the sources. On the contrary, I feel that North and others are overinterpreting a limited discussion to feed what they desire for the article. One user suggesting that "alt right" is a fair descriptor because they'd personally describe half of the US population as "alt right" really isn't compelling. BirdZilla (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: If I'm being repeatedly accused of "editing against consensus", then I have every right to defend myself on the basis that there isn't actually a consensus. I think I'm done with editing at this point, it seems clear that the editorial process on anything remotely political is just a farce. BirdZilla (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: I would say that it's proved difficult to get newer users to engage on the talk page. Despite many people trying to improve the wording most are immediately pushed out by the way these editors zealously revert changes. Honestly I think I'll just step away from the article. It sucks for Mr Garrison but it's been a strong lesson in how Wikipedia struggles with contentious subjects. BirdZilla (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: You'll find that there's no relation between myself and all the other accounts. I expect what you're seeing is other users who don't usually edit trying to correct what they view as an egregious mistake. I still don't regard the RFC as providing a clear consensus, and so was taken aback to see North declaring consensus based on it in order to suppress other users' attempts at fixing the article. Regarding "sheer effort", my point was that a newer user going through the expected motions to dispute content doesn't make them a single purpose account. BirdZilla (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Personally, I'd like to know if there is any connection between Birdzilla and H 19rayy or the indef blocked editor Imtransilovebiden, both of whom made similar edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And user 218 forever as well. What is the connection between these 4 accounts, 3 of which have only edited Ben Garrison. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not terribly sympathetic about the "sheer effort" Birdzilla had to put into this dispute: when you edit against consensus, you're asking for people to object to your editing. It's clear that Birdzilla knew what the result of the RfC was, and so knew they were, indeed, editing against a formal consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning BirdZilla

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

It is misleading to describe the talk page discussion as a "split vote". Participants in the talk page discussion, excepting yourself and one who left a general comment, have all supported describing him as either alt-right or far-right, and that there was not solid agreement on which of those two descriptors should be used does not mean the term should be removed entirely. I understand that you disagree with the way the discussion went, but that does mean you can simply ignore it. If you think the RfC did not get sufficient participation, you can relist it.
As for your question about a policy existing, I think you may be looking for MOS:IDENTITY: When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources. We quite regularly refer to people using terms that they have said they do not use for themselves—many white nationalists, for example, do not self-identify as such (WP:MANDY).
Regarding your comment that To my understanding a user is allowed to revert 3 times per day, you are misunderstanding WP:3RR somewhat: "While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block.... The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." (bolding in the original). GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Your interpretation of the results of the discussion appears to be colored by your own personal views on what the outcome ought to be, which is why we prefer the results of RfCs to be determined by outside parties. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - BirdZilla's continued insistence that their actions were reasonable because "I still don't regard the RFC as providing a clear consensus", and describing NorthBySouthBaranof's reverting of edits that contradicted the RfC as "suppress[ing] other users' attempts at fixing the article" makes me think a warning will not be sufficient here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - reading the RFC responses carefully I don't think I'm unjustified in concluding that there was not a firm consensus for "alt right". You are focusing on this, but you were not warring between the various supported terms at the talk page—you were removing "alt-right" to war in "libertarian", which it appears only you really supported. Please remember that AE is about your behavior, and not about relitigating the RfC. The time for discussing the strengths of arguments would have been before deciding to edit war, by beginning a new discussion and/or seeking outside opinions. It is concerning to me that you are continuing to justify your behavior, and does not give me faith this won't happen again.
      I think a partial block from Ben Garrison is the minimum action here; given BirdZilla's limited editing history it's hard to say if something broader like an AP2 topic ban is necessary. My instinct is no at this point in time, but it's probably worth noting to BirdZilla that if no such TBAN is put in place, continuance of this behavior on similar articles will almost certainly result in one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Rosguill: Fair point, I think that's reasonable. I'll plan to leave this discussion open for a while for any additional input, unless you want to action it sooner. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think it's pretty clear from the state of the talk page that edit warring against the current wording is disruptive. At this point in a content dispute, it would be appropriate to join a discussion started by another editor (such as the ones BirdZilla mentions in their statement) or if additional new evidence is found. Edit warring once an RfC has concluded, even if in support of edits made by a previously uninvolved editor, is disruptive. If I'd come across this behavior on my watchlist, I would probably have issued a temporary partial block from Ben Garrison. But since this has made it's way to AE and BirdZilla is making a good faith effort to participate, if they promise to stop edit warring I think this could potentially be resolved with a warning. Otherwise a topic ban is warranted. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with GorillaWarfare that the responses here unfortunately don't inspire confidence that a warning will be enough. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare, I think a TBAN from Ben Garrison, broadly construed and with the additional warning regarding escalation that you suggest, is probably the way to go here. Implementing it as a p-block at this point would just create unnecessary gray area around content related to Ben Garrison elsewhere. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I think an AP2 topic ban is necessary. The interpretation of that RfC is clearly tendentious; no reasonable person could read that and think "libertarian" was the consensus outcome. If BirdZilla could gain some experience editing in less fraught areas and learn a bit more about how things are done here, we could revisit whether the ban is still necessary after some time has passed if they want to appeal at that point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Seraphimblade that a topic ban makes the most sense here --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 05:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence shows that BirdZilla should be topic banned from the topic of Ben Garrison, broadly construed. However, BirdZilla has a total of 31 edits, consisting of 6 from 2015 to 2020 and 25 in 2021 (all of the 2021 edits being related to Garrison). The point of that is that there is no evidence regarding how this editor might approach AP2 topics other than their approach regarding Garrison. Therefore, I support an indefinite AP2 topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 05:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by J.Turner99

Appeal declined. — Newslinger talk 05:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: J.Turner99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – J.Turner99 (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: topic banned from editing or discussing anything to do with the post-1992 American politics topic area (WP:AP2) for 6 months, broadly construed

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

Notification of that administrator: [217]

Statement by J.Turner99

All I can do is say I have no intention of doing it again. There is no way for me to prove this with out a topic unblock. I now understand that the 3RR rule is not an entilement to revert. I also understand I shoud've of listened to warnings. I was foolish and I did not.

With all due respect, I don't understand what is wrong with saying "foolishly". I have said I am sorry. I have no intention of editing anywhere else, so you have banned me from the whole site as far as I am concerned.

I understand the point of these blocks is to prevent damage to wikipedia. I have said sorry and have said I will not do it again, this feels more like a punishment. J.Turner99 (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"By your very own admission", this suggests you are trying to catch me out or something. J.Turner99 (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to Jaybee. You said it yourself, my edits on other areas are fine. J.Turner99 (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons are not self-evident J.Turner99 (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have always edited constructively in all other topics. J.Turner99 (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

J.Turner99, you were warned (diff), gave the impression you understood the warning (diff), but then failed to follow through on that promise, by your very own admission, "foolishly" (diff). Therefore, you've lost some trust and now you should try to earn it back by editing any one of the millions of articles that do not fall under the WP:AP2 purview for a not inconsiderable (but not that prohibitive, either) length of time. Not sure why you view this as such a hardship, considering the circumstances. El_C 21:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J.Turner99, neither did I say that there was anything "wrong" with you saying "foolishly," nor am I trying to use your own words as a means to trap you. I topic banned you so as to prevent further disruption from you to this fraught topic area. Again, you've lost trust, which now you need to earn back. I can't help that all you're interested in editing is post-1992 American politics. That isn't something that is within my control, but regardless, it isn't a valid reason to lift the sanction. If nothing else on the project interests you, then that is indeed unfortunate. Anyway, if other admins here do feel that your assurances are enough for you to immediately return to editing the topic area, then that is what will be. Not sure there's much else to it, really. El_C 22:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JayBeeEll

This is silly and obviously premature. J.Turner99 should edit constructively on other topics for a while. Also it would be great if they would try to understand what the phrase "assume good faith" actually means, since they chronically fail to do it while demanding that others do so. Also, for the convenience of others, here's the relevant discussion on ANI. --JBL (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bilorv

J.Turner99 says I have said sorry and have said I will not do it again. Unfortunately, as I said on their talk page to a similar statement, this is not an explanation in your own words of what you did wrong and what measures you will take to avoid such behavior in future (which is needed because without this crucial step what often happens is someone is unbanned, does the same thing again immediately, and then says "but it was different this time!" because they didn't actually understand what they did wrong). J.Turner99 has expressed very little understanding of what behavior they did that was wrong (though this is a small step in the right direction), so any reassurances "I will not do it again" are not based on a shared knowledge of what "it" is. Even in the filing of this appeal they display a thoroughly superficial reaction to all criticism levelled against them: El_C said you have the option of immediately appealing [...] Maybe it will go your way, though I tend to doubt it[218] and J.Turner99 then said I have done as you suggested, and appealed[219]. Except that El_C is explicitly not suggesting this as a desirable course of action, only a permitted one. — Bilorv (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by J.Turner99

Result of the appeal by J.Turner99

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

I would choose to decline this appeal for reasons that are likely self-evident. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, there's enough concerning behavior identified in the ANI case such that I think the onus is now on J.Turner99 to demonstrate that they can edit constructively in less contentious areas before returning to AP. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would decline the appeal. The editor here had plenty of opportunity and warning to stop edit warring before the sanction was applied. Given that, I don't give much credence to an immediate promise not to do it again. The ban is for a limited period of time, so gain some experience editing in less contentious subjects for those six months, and then if you wish to return to AP2 after them, hopefully that will be without any further problems. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would decline --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 05:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lilipo25

Indefinitely blocked as a regular admin action for repeated personal attacks and WP:NOTHERE behavior _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:14, 12 March 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 Lilipo25

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Lilipo25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

02:35, 12 March 2021: Discriminatory screed on user talk page, including the text "Nonbinary is made-up bullshit for people who desperately want to be able to say they're oppressed minorities when they aren't. Everyone on earth is either male or female (and if your only priority when it comes to women's rights is people with dicks but you still call yourself a feminist, you're almost certainly the former). Wikipedia may accommodate your need to feel special, but biological reality never will." For context, Lilipo25 was banned from interacting with Newimpartial on 28 February 2021. Newimpartial identifies as non-binary on their user page as of 21 February 2021, which Lilipo25 had previously acknowledged on 27 February 2021. This 12 March comment also includes aspersions directed against me, Armadillopteryx, Black Kite, Chillabit, and DanielRigal.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

28 February 2021: Interaction ban with Newimpartial (two-way converted from one-way), applied as a discretionary sanction in the gender and sexuality topic area (log)

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 28 February 2021 by El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I submitted a report on certain aspects of Lilipo25's conduct in the gender and sexuality topic area to the Arbitration Committee on 3 March, and was told that it is being considered. Since the report involves off-wiki evidence provided by other editors, I am unable to discuss many of the details in a public venue per WP:PRIVACY. However, while the status of the report is presumed to be pending, Lilipo25 is continuing to attack other editors on-wiki, as shown in the 12 March edit above.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1011697042

Discussion concerning Lilipo25

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 Lilipo25

That comment has nothing to do with Newimpartial, who isn't the only person in the world to claim 'nonbinary' as a personality because they don't have one worth relying on. Now stop pinging me and leave me alone, Newslinger. Or ban me. Or delete my account or whatever, I don't give a shit.

Humans can't change sex and every human on earth is either male or female. Reality is less scary than you think. Lilipo25 (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

I'd suggest this might be better at ANI, as it's fairly obviously become a WP:NOTHERE issue now. Black Kite (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Girth Summit

Please note that I have blocked Lilipo25 for 72 hours for the above comment, which I interpret as a personal attack against the person they are IBanned with. I have no view on the original request, this block is purely about this comment, seen above. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Lilipo25

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

So, after having an AE complaint filed for transphobic personal attacks, this editor comes to the AE to make more transphobic attacks against an editor with whom they have an interaction ban. Quite honestly, I cannot think of a reason not to just flat out indef block as a regular administrative remedy, for severe personal attacks and NOTHERE. If not that, a complete topic ban from gender and sexuality related topics would certainly be in order. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leechjoel9

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 Leechjoel9

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Boud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Leechjoel9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa

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

NPOV: refusal of NPOV in RfC on "current" population of Eritrea

6 March 2021 ignored the statement by a previously uninvolved editor of "two historical gov't figures: 3.56M in 2002, and 3.2M in 2010" based on the two most recent Eritrean National Statistics Office (NSO, demographic institute) estimates (2010, 3.2 million; see pdf page 31 = page number 3);
6 March 2021 used own calculation to exclude the Eritrean NSO 2010 estimate
7 March 2021 responded to the five in-depth demographic, UN DESA research results from different research cycles in 2010, 2012, 2015, 2017, 2019 by ignoring the pre-2019 research results' existence;
8 March 2021 refused to acknowledge that the old demographic (secondary) sources (UN DESA 2010, 2012, 2015, 2017) agree with the non-demographic-institute, (tertiary) sources that s/he calls "six credible independent sources" (three of which pre-date 2019, explaining why they have high estimates);
8 March 2021 claimed that demographic history is irrelevant to projections of the "current" population: "chart is not needed to explain this";

Wants to remove sourced, core information: argues for removing the demographic history of Eritrea table from Demographics of Eritrea without a strong reason:

10 March 2021 reason: the most recent research gives a surprising result (explained here), so all Revisions (2010, 2012, 2015, 2017, 2019) of the total population history should be excluded
12 March 2021 reason: histories of population should be excluded because tertiary-source projections, each of a single "current" value, disagree with secondary-source full historical estimates/projections

Discouragement of participation by uninvolved editors:

12 March 2021; removed {{disputed inline}} tags and made false edit summary stating Currently already consensus in reference to the RfC; (later accepted restoral of the tags);

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

9 March 2021 AN/I warning

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 on the Horn of Africa on 28 January 2021.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Gaming the system? The user's average contribution of live edits is negative (-73 bytes/edit). S/he frequently refers to Wikipedia policy in an apparent attempt to bypass a core policy: NPOV. The population of Eritrea is a sensitive issue because there are about 0.5 million Eritrean refugees (pre-2019 estimate). The demographic history of Eritrea should not be censored in Wikipedia. Boud (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: "NPOV" means not excluding the "UN" estimate. Boud (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

13 March 2021

Discussion concerning Leechjoel9

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 Leechjoel9

Ive experienced several issue with Boud. All in some way related to the Tigray War in Ethiopia. A very politicised subjected which goes under the discretionary sanctions WP:ACDS for Horn of Africa articles. The user Boud has been informed and is well aware of the sanction for related pages. Despite this the users have been involved in some incidents:

Eritrea- Overall the issues started when user added content related to Tigray War in this article. The user then went on questioning the population estimates of Eritrea. I responded and asked for engagement in the discussion section created by this user [220], still this user made the edits prior to even beginning responding in the discussion thread [221]. I urged the user to engage in the discussion and reach consensus before making these edits, [222]. After that the user started engaging in discussion but repeatedly added content relating to the population est. of Eritrea with out reaching consensus several times, while the discussion was ongoing 1)[223],2[224]. See talk page for discussion.
Then the user took the discussion to the Demographics of Eritrea article. User then decided to add a huge section to this article knowing that the same issues about population of Eritrea is being discussed in Eritrea article and also that this subject is under Discretionary Sanctions which makes it even more important to reach consensus when making so big changes. Still the user again preceded doing changes to this article. See [225]. Boud have since created 8 section relating to the same issue (pop.est) in these two articles which makes it time consuming and hard for users, outsiders and admins to keep up in the discussions. Boud lacked support to reach consensus for proposals in the discussions per WP:NOCON despite extensive discussion ongoing for weeks. Boud also created an RFC with the aim of involving more users for getting support and input for proposals. Which has yet resulted in nothing. See talk page for discussion.
Eritrean Defence Forces - User added content not relevant to the article. See talk page for discussion.
Tigray War- Boud have been heavily involved in editing this politicised article despite knowing its under sanctions WP:ACDS. See talk page for discussion.

The users own behaviour and overall edit style should be questioned when editing these articles. I.e handing out sanction warnings to those who disagrees with the users, doing changes before reaching consensus, and not respecting when the user haven’t got consensus. I think it’s good to inform users about the sanctions but I don’t think they should come from users not involved in disputes. This may discourage the users who receives the warning from contributing. I have politely engaged in discussion and showed great patience towards this user in all of the talk pages of the articles. Despite this the user made up assumptions about me (like the edit bytes) several times. I have refrained from reporting the user myself and I have urged user to focus on content and discuss these kind of matters in the talk pages, since this is related to dispute over content and nothing else. It should also be solved through discussion which it has so far and currently there is not any issue of concern. For the estimate issue there is currently an open RFC. Leechjoel9 (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by power~enwiki

The population of Eritrea is disputed; the CIA currently estimates 6 million [226] while the UN currently estimates 3.5 million [227]. No official government census has been conducted. The choice of estimates is politically charged.

I don't understand what the repeated claims of "NPOV" in the filing refer to, and having a average diff size that is negative is completely irrelevant. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some mention of the dispute over the population figure should be in the article; but advocating otherwise on the talk page certainly isn't cause for Arbitration Enforcement. I don't see anything else to do here; posting to some WikiProject might be a way to get participation on the open RFC. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Leechjoel9

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

I'm not seeing any clearly sanctionable behavior in the report, with the possible exception of the brief edit war over the disputed tag, which seems a bit trivial. The description of NPOV diff #2 provided in the report in particular seems like a rather creative interpretation of the diff in question, which itself may deserve a formal warning. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:04, 14 March 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.

[old-3] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=1009112517#SpicyBiryani

[4] Heitzman, James; Worden, Robert L. (1996). India : a country study. Washington, D.C. : Federal Research Division, Library of Congress.

[5] Sarkar, Bhashkar. (1999). Kargil War: Past, Present and Future. New Dehli: Lancer.

[6] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947%E2%80%931948&oldid=1003156922#Casualties_claims

[7] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947%E2%80%931948&oldid=1008484498#Casualties_claims

[8] "Christine Fair speaks at MilLit Fest 2019". Retrieved 27 February 2021.

[9] Dogra, Chander Suta. "IAF Did Not Shoot Down Pak F-16 in Balakot Aftermath, Says US Scholar Christine Fair". The Wire. Retrieved 27 February 2021.

[10] Marlow, Iain. "India Never Actually Shot Down Pakistani F-16 in Kashmir Clash, New Report Says". TIME. Retrieved 27 February 2021.

[11] "U.S. count shows no Pakistan F-16s shot down in Indian battle: report". Reuters. Retrieved 27 February 2021.

[12] Abi-Habib, Maria. "After India Loses Dogfight to Pakistan, Questions Arise About Its 'Vintage' Military". The New York Times. Retrieved 27 February 2021.

[13] Seligman, Lara. "Did India Shoot Down a Pakistani Jet? U.S. Count Says No". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 27 February 2021.

[14] "Wing Commander Abhinandan speaks about how his MiG-21 got shot down". Retrieved 27 February 2021.

[15] Dickson, Caitlin (2021-05-01). "Exclusive: Pandemic relief aid went to media that promoted COVID misinformation". Microsoft News. Yahoo! News. Retrieved 2021-02-19.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

@@ Line 1,310: / Line 1,310: @@
 <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
 ====Statement by Leechjoel9====
+Ive experienced several issue with Boud. All in some way related to the [[Tigray War]] in Ethiopia. A very politicised subjected which goes under the discretionary sanctions [[WP:ACDS ]] for Horn of Africa articles. The user Boud has been informed and is well aware of the sanction for related pages. Despite this the users have been involved in some incidents:
+::#[[Eritrea]]- Overall the issues started when user added content related to Tigray War in this article. The user then went on questioning the population estimates of Eritrea. I responded and asked for engagement in the discussion section created by this user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eritrea&diff=1008255056&oldid=1008191033], still this user made the edits prior to even beginning responding in the discussion thread [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eritrea&diff=1008186024&oldid=1008178808]. I urged the user to engage in the discussion and reach consensus before making these edits, [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boud&diff=1009096499&oldid=1009094727]. After that the user started engaging in discussion but repeatedly added content relating to the population est. of Eritrea with out reaching consensus several times, while the discussion was ongoing 1)[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1009133672],2[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1009136021]. See talk page for discussion.
+::#Then the user took the discussion to the [[Demographics of Eritrea]] article. User then decided to add a huge section to this article knowing that the same issues about population of Eritrea is being discussed in Eritrea article and also that this subject is under Discretionary Sanctions which makes it even more important to reach consensus when making so big changes. Still the user again preceded doing changes to this article. See [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demographics_of_Eritrea&diff=1009631707&oldid=1009514850]. Boud have since created 8 section relating to the same issue (pop.est) in these two articles which makes it time consuming and hard for users, outsiders and admins to keep up in the discussions. Boud lacked support to reach consensus for proposals in the discussions per [[WP:NOCON]] despite extensive discussion ongoing for weeks. Boud also created an RFC with the aim of involving more users for getting support and input for proposals. Which has yet resulted in nothing. See talk page for discussion.
+::#[[Eritrean Defence Forces]] - User added content not relevant to the article. See talk page for discussion.
+::#[[Tigray War]]- Boud have been heavily involved in editing this politicised article despite knowing its under sanctions [[WP:ACDS]]. See talk page for discussion.
+The users own behaviour and overall edit style should be questioned when editing these articles. I.e handing out sanction warnings to those who disagrees with the users, doing changes before reaching consensus, and not respecting when the user haven’t got consensus. I think it’s good to inform users about the sanctions but I don’t think they should come from users not involved in disputes. This may discourage the users who receives the warning from contributing.
+I have politely engaged in discussion and showed great patience towards this user in all of the talk pages of the articles. Despite this the user made up assumptions about me (like the edit bytes) several times. I have refrained from reporting the user myself and I have urged user to focus on content and discuss these kind of matters in the talk pages, since this is related to dispute over content and nothing else. It should also be solved through discussion which it has so far and currently there is not any issue of concern. For the estimate issue there is currently an open RFC. [[User:Leechjoel9|Leechjoel9]] ([[User talk:Leechjoel9|talk]]) 10:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 ====Statement by power~enwiki ====

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