Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:51, 22 December 2020

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

GizzyCatBella

Since I have accepted today the arbitration enforcement appeal by GizzyCatBella, and the topic ban has been lifted, I am closing this with no action, with the same understanding that if problematic edits resume the sanctions will be imposed again, and they will be imposed swiftly.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2020 (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 GizzyCatBella

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Astral Leap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: GizzyCatBella (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: TBAN and other questionable edits

Full disclosure: I came about to scrutinizing GizzyCatBella's edits after she filed a bogus sock-puppet case against me. User:Nsk92 suggested that GizzyCatBella deserves further scrutiny in light of her multiple AE blocks, an AE topic ban and her sneak revert of a WP:NONAZI blocked user's edits, placing Aryanization in Affirmative action.

Generally questionable edits:

[1]: sneak reverting (hidden at bottom of copy edit) of Zezen's addition of Aryanization to Affirmative action. Zezen was WP:NONAZI blocked by User:Bishonen in part due to this edit.
[2]: Derailing discussion to attack User:Trasz she is in dispute on other pages.
[3][4]: Changing "antisemitic (branded "anti-Zionist")" to "anti-Zionist". Not only is this unsupported by the sources, GizzyCatBella doctored quotations. In page 121 of book she placed it says "and in the aftermath of the "anti- Zionist" campaign of 1968", with scare quotes, yet GizzyCatBella doctored this to: "and in the aftermath of the anti-Zionist campaign or 1968" without scare quotes. This omission completely changes the nature of the quotation.

Edits that violate WWII in Poland TBAN (or skirt awfully close)

[5]: Includes significant WWII in Poland content. Under "Second World War" section: "A labour subcamp of the Stalag II-D prisoner-of-war camp was also operated in the town by Germany.", under "Post-war Poland": "After World War II the city became again part of Poland, under territorial changes demanded by the Soviet Union at the Potsdam Conference, and was handed over to Polish administration on 1 June 1945..."
[6]: Discussing inclusion criteria for list whose first entry is The Holocaust, second is Nazi genocide of ethnic Poles, and also has Polish Operation of the NKVD.
[7]: Article is about Polish myth on region lost in WWII.
[8]: The article is about the WWII educational policy of Poland's ruling party.
[9]: One of the main topics of the WWII Potsdam Conference was the allocation of Polish territory.
[10]: Removing German place name of formerly German village allocated to Poland in 1945.

Edits that violate violence immediately prior/after to WWII in Poland TBAN (The TBAN includes: any acts of violence by, in or against Poland, or by or against Poles or Polish Jews, during or immediately prior to or after World War II)

[11]: Vote in RFC whose content difference includes anti-Jewish violence immediately after WWII: "In 2008, Wolniewicz addressed a packed crowd at the Basilica of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in Krakow and shouted "The Jews are attacking us! We need to defend ourselves", in an event protesting against the Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz book and alongside Jerzy Robert Nowak." Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz is about anti-Jewish violence immediately after the end of WWII.
[12]: This facility was known for torture and incarceration of without trial of Polish Jews and other minorities between 1934 and until the Polish collapse in September 1939 ([13][14]), included in anti-Jewish/Polish violence immediately prior to WWII.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

April 2018 AE block
June 2018 AE TBAN
May 2019 AE block
June 2020 AE block

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Replying to GizzyCatBella's statement, does she expect editors to ignore the diffs? To be brief, I'll highlight just one falsehood. In the Polish city of Kołobrzeg she writes that "The edit is entirely about the Middle Ages", but if you search the diff for:

1. "A labour subcamp"

2. "Propaganda in Nazi Germany"

3. "was handed over to Polish administration on 1 June 1945"

There are three separate paragraphs she edited that are on 1939-1945, not the Middle Ages. And her opinions on Aryanization and Affirmative action are even worse than the TBAN issue.--Astral Leap (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After I wrote the above, GizzyCatBella struck her point no.1, responding to User:Ealdgyth saying she was mistaken and would have done so anyway without me commenting on her falsehood (which disingenuously was presented as "extremely bad faithed and dishonest" on my part), but other points are blatant falsehoods. She said: "3 - False; there is no mention, NONE, about WW2 in Poland in the entire article" on diff. However, the article had "which after 1945 were separated from Poland" (The 1945 World War II Potsdam Conference again, which affirmed the reallocation of Polish land during the war). The article was all of 3 lines and less than a day old, created by User:Buidhe. GizzyCatBella should know 1945 is related to World War II, and should be able to read three lines. And again, I am even more worried about her placing Aryanization in Affirmative action. The aryanization edit is more worrying than all the other Polish edits, and this worrying irrespective of aryanization being a World War II topic taking place in Nazi territory, including Poland.--Astral Leap (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to this statement by GizzyCatBella, does she think Wikipedia editors are fools? She links to End of World War II in Europe, that states:

The Potsdam Agreement was signed on 12 August 1945. In connection with this, the leaders of the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union planned the new postwar German government, resettled war territory boundaries, de facto annexed a quarter of pre-war Germany situated east of the Oder-Neisse line, and mandated and organized the expulsion of the millions of Germans who remained in the annexed territories and elsewhere in the east.
— Wikipedia editors, End of World War II in Europe

The Potsdam Conference and agreement are a core part of WWII in Poland, see also: Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II, Recovered Territories, Kresy. The agreement transferred the Kresy eastern territories, seized in the 1939 invasion, to the Soviet union while awarding the Recovered Territories, conquered in 1944-1945, to Poland. I am unsure what alternative is worse here: GizzyCatBella taking us for fools or GizzyCatBella actually believing what she is writing.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potsdam Conference is included in Category:World War II conferences, and Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II has "immediately" in the title.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [15]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

This report is of tit-for-tat type and resembles all other attempts of getting me blocked where users were issued an interaction ban due to stretched pieces of evidence[16] such as the ones below. Please allow me some extra time to address it due to my real-life issues at the moment. I'll ping administrators @Guerillero:, @El C:, @RexxS: involved in prior case since they are the most familiar with my situation and a long-overdue topic ban lift. Hope they have time to look at it also. Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

~~(Update - I'm so sorry that I have no time to address this today; I should respond by tomorrow's end.)~~

First, I would like to note that Astral Leap and Nsk92 coordinated this report's filing[17] (User talk:Nsk92#Can you take a look?) so Nsk92s comments are not independent. ~~(to be continued..)~~ - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(thank you for the wait)

So Astral Leap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who spent on Wikipedia a total of 31 hours editing time [18] since their account initiation back in February/June 2020 [19], was generous enough to dedicate his exceptional skills of know-how around here and, according to their own words [20], examined up to 1000 of my last edits to find all of this.

Let's take a look at what they have discovered:

Generally "questionable" edits

1 - This has been addressed already following the question of EdJohnston [21] I answered in detail[22],[23]. Why is the junior account of Astral Leap bringing up yet again here and as the #1 issue that has been addressed already even though this report is about my alleged breach of the topic ban? Because based on that one diff they wish to paint a false picture and brand me a "NeoNazi" or "NeoNazi friend" right at the intro, as they shamelessly referred to me on their talk page[24].

Regarding Astral Leap's latest comment regarding Aryanization [25] - Astral Leap has no idea what my opinion about "Aryanization" is. Them ascribing any such views to me is dishonest, manipulative, and a personal attack. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2 - With the mentioned user, I don't have disagreements; I had issues with that user stocking my edits [26][27][28] hence my note to them[29], but that is a different affair.

3 - False, I haven't "doctored" anything; it was an anti-Zionist campaign, and it is supported by sources [30] (pl. Kampania anty-Syjonistyczna w Polsce 1967-1968 --> eng. The anti-Zionist campaign in Poland 1967-1968 -->google translate[31])

Edits that "violate" WWII in Poland TBAN

1 - False; I haven't touch anything in regards to WW2 in Poland; (I'm meticulous about not touching that for almost 3 years now!) The edit is entirely about the Middle Ages, which can be easily seen[32]. Yes, the article does have some info in it about WW2 but that’s because it’s a general level article about a city which goes over the city’s history. I didn’t make any edits to the part concerning WW2, so this presentation of a diff is extremely bad faithed and dishonest.

Update - fell into the trap again! - I just remember now! (I see that Astral Leap commented on it already) Sorry, I didn't remember this incident when I was writing the above, I remember now, and I was fooled again while writing the above response. This is also regarding my closing note below. Here is how I reacted when I accidentally breached my topic ban, which I did a few minutes earlier with this diff [33]. I self reverted [34] right away. I also expected one of the new accounts would arrive soon to revert me and it did here [35] (surprise, surprise - within 14 minutes). Do you see how closely these sock accounts follow me!? 14 minutes. And here is the trap! That was a deliberate setup, and the anon sockpuppet knew about my topic ban. My original revert was ONLY about the Middle Ages [36] However the new account added at the very bottom some minor things related to WW2 [37] with tricking edit summary "bring back lead and remove nonconstructive changes". Bringing back the lead and remove, eh? They do it all the time to me, as I outlined in my closing comment. Now, I remember exactly when I noticed that trap. Soon after, I reverted the new account [38] believing that I’m reverting the Middle Ages part and and missed that sneaky additions. Then I didn't have a chance to correct myself because the new account reverted me [39], so I left the article. I meant to inform RexX and EI_C about it but I forgot. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few examples of past set-up attempts by the brand new accounts that were unsuccessful— all the same modus-operandi as the above.

a - A brand new account (now blocked as a sockpuppet of Icewhiz [40]) arrives within 9 minutes to revert my edit [41] please note at the bottom the sock puppet sneakily adds material related to WW2 hoping I'll not notice and revert "His wife and daughter, after being briefly imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp, joined him".
b - Here, a blocked sock puppet of Icewhiz arrives within 9 minutes to revert my edit [42] but at the bottom modifies article adding words about WW2 "During the Second World War.... University faculty members utilized"
c - Here, a brand new account arrives within 27 minutes to revert me [43] at the article about Czechoslovakia to revert me and sneakily adds material about WW2 in Poland at the bottom "...was annexed by Poland following an agreement with Nazi Germany"
d - Here, a brand new account arrives to regress my edits [44] and attaches at the very bottom WW2 related material "The ethnic German inhabitants were Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950.."
e - Here, a brand new account arrives to revert me[45]. Please note at the bottom the account sneakily removes material related to WW2 "The camp ... September 17–18, 1939 after the Soviet invasion of Poland" hoping that I'll revert without noticing it.
f - Here, a brand new account arrives at completely unrelated to WW2 in Poland discussion pretending to support me with a comment about WW2 in Poland.[46] --->These are just a few examples of numerous instances of attempts to get me tricked into a topic ban violation just to illustrate the issue better.

2 - False; I haven't discussed anything in regards to WW2 in Poland, there was no mention of anything WW2 when I composed that comment [47]

3 - False; there is no mention, NONE, about WW2 in Poland in the entire article[48]

4 - False; there is no mention, NONE, about WW2 in Poland in the comment. I only noted that it was a new account.[49]

5 - False; I haven't touched anything in regards to WW2 in Poland.[50]

6 - False; there is not a single word about WW2 in Poland in the article.[51]

Edits that "violate" violence immediately prior/after to WWII in Poland TBAN

1 - False; I haven't discussed anything about WW2 in Poland or violence against the Polish Jews. That person is a post-war philosopher, not a historian specializing in WW2 in Poland or a person involved in the war.[52]

2 - False; Bereza Kartuska was not a prison for "Jews" or such like Astral Leap is falsely claiming. The source does not support what Astral Leap claims at all. Bereza Kartuska was a prison mainly for far-right extremists, communists and Ukrainian nationalists. Regardless, it operated before WW2, so outside the scope of the topic ban. The fact that Astral Leap is manipulating the truth here about the nature of this subject and what's in the sources in a shameless attempt to get someone blocked should raise all kinds of red flags regarding that editor.

Answers to Astral Leaps added comments

Regarding this comment -->[53] World War 2 in Europe ended in April/May 1945. [54] Potsdam Conference took place in July/August 1945 [55] after the War. STOP MISLEADING PEOPLE! - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another personal attack! [56] "I am unsure what alternative is worse here: GizzyCatBella taking us for fools.." I'm not taking anybody for a fool! Astral Leap, full stop now. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note:

I will take the time and bring this significantly bothering me issue to this board as well. My initial topic ban introduced in 2018 was a consequence of the filing of now globally banned user Icewhiz[57]. Since the introduction of the ban, I was continually being reported (10 times already if I count correctly) by Icewhiz/his peers/new accounts in an attempt to get me banned or blocked. I outlined the history of that in the last case under ("AE cases filled upon me" [58]). Since the conclusion of that case, I'm being followed by a bunch of newly created accounts that arrive quickly at the articles I edited to revert my edit or challenge me on talk pages. As an example: this new account [59] this one [60], this one [61], this one [62], this one [63], this one [64], this one[65] this one[66], this one[67], this one [68], this one [69], this one [70], this one [71] and more..They even impersonate me filing SPI reports. That just happened on October 22 under [72], but since then, that fake report has been deleted, and I can't provide a proper diff anymore. I think you can view it in your administrative records. Sometimes they purposely enter WW2 Poland related information [73], understanding that I'm Topic Banned from that area. These examples are from the last 3-4 months only, but this is going on for a lengthier time than that, with greater or lesser frequency; I summarized the latest occurrences here already [74]. I'm constantly on alert following my topic ban restrictions and not to stumble into a trap set up by socks, or I'm struggling with the reports aimed at blocking me. I have to tell you that this is extremely exhausting. I'm hoping to get my topic ban lifted soon, being encouraged by the positive comments of the administrative team members, such as El_C-->[75] or RexxS-->[76]. If you would consider that at the same time, that would make me extremely happy (you can't imagine how happy) and would return enjoyment in editing. Thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella replying to Ealdgyth

Look Ealdgyth. It took me well over an hour to compose that update,[77], collecting diff, underlining what's important and describing the situation. I'm not a fast typer, I write offline and then copy/paste things. After I already posted my response, which took me an entire night to write, I noticed and recognized that incident myself. Just before I was ready to post the update, I saw that Astral Leap already commented on it. So no, my update wasn't triggered by Astral Leap's response. I would write that update anyway. "You should know by now that you need to check over EVERYTHING when you're reverting," you say? Yes, I'm careful, 1000 edits Astral Leap checked I'm careful, three years of the struggles of not breaching my topic ban, I'm careful. I have indeed been stalked and harassed mostly by throwaway accounts or brand new accounts like Astral Leap. Their purpose has been to drive me off Wikipedia by starting edit wars with me, setting up traps, and filing spurious AE reports. This is part of a pattern, and I cried about to El_C and RexxS. Until you are subject to the same kind of campaign of harassment, you should withhold judgements, especially when the topic ban breach here was minor and done by accident due to the deliberate setup. Aside from that one mistake, the rest of Astral Leap's report is blatantly false, just like I stated. And by the way, my name is Gizzy, not Grizzly as you wrote [78] (speaking about making mistakes) - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ealdgyth for correcting my name[79], but I was not offended by the misspelling or anything like that; I only pointed it out to show that we are all making mistakes. Believe me; I'm sooo careful about not breaching a topic ban that it's an obsession by now. I'm currently collecting a few other similar setups where I immediately detected it and didn't fall into the trap. Bear with me; I have to dig through the diffs. I'll try to do it today, I'm exhausted, but I'll try. (PS - Icewhiz wanted me to be sanctioned for misspelling his name

--> GizzyCatBella is directed to write Icewhiz's name properly...[80] or for placing discretionary sanctions note on his talk page [81] - I'm showing you this to show how far back these block attempts go) - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, I posted some of those diffs here [82] How many times is needed to finally succeed to entrap somebody? 10? 20? 100? Hope that made it easier to understand what I’m dealing with for the past 2-3 years. Nightmare :( - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella replying to Guerillero

You see User:Guerillero, and I truly believed it is not within the scope of the topic ban because Potsdam Conference happened after the WW2 in Europe ended (see End of World War II in Europe) (Poland is in Europe), the war ended in April/May 1945:

The final battles of the European Theatre of World War II as well as the German surrender to the Allies took place in late April and early May 1945.

Potsdam Conference took place from July 17 to August 2, 1945 after the war

The Potsdam Conference (German: Potsdamer Konferenz) was held in Potsdam, Germany, from July 17 to August 2, 1945.

But besides that, all I did at that article is this[83]:

I haven’t touch anything related to Poland and I have not been topic-banned from the history of World War II in general. I have been topic-banned from "the World War II history of Poland". - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella replying to El_C

El_C, believe me, I have learned a lot during those three years while being topic banned. BIG TIME. Not only that I learned the hard way from my mistake that resulted in a topic ban, but I'm also very certain I'll not repeat it. Thank you for having trust in me; I appreciate it so much, and I'll not disappoint you. I'll draft the appeal and post it here below. Please provide me some time to do it; I'm really exhausted; I hardly slept in the past two days. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning GizzyCatBella

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 Nsk92

I dislike the tit-for-tat nature of the events that led us here, but in terms of substance this report has merit. IMO, the diffs provided by the OP either skirt extremely close to violating GizzyCatBella's TBAN or actually do violate it. For instance, I believe that the edits [84] on Potsdam Conference and [85] on Talk:Bereza Kartuska Prison violate the TBAN. The future of Poland was a major topic at the Potsdam Conference, Potsdam Conference#Poland, and the decisions made at Potsdam finalized the post-WWII arrangements for Poland. The Bereza Kartuska Prison describes, incliding in the lede, that suspected German sympathizers were incarcerated there immediately prior to the start of WWII and they were freed when WWII started and Germany invaded Poland. GizzyCatBella already has 3 AE blocks and they should have known by now to stay well clear of anything that can be interpreted as breaching their topic ban or coming close. (See User talk:GizzyCatBella#Arbitration enforcement warning for extra discussion on the topic where GizzyCatBella promises to be more cafeul.) Instead they keep pushing the envelope closer and closer to the edge, and sometimes over it. Clearly, some additional sanction is needed, either a wider topic ban under the same Eastern Europe arbcom case, or a longer block. Nsk92 (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After Astral Leap prepared this repor at User:Astral Leap/sandbox, they did contact me at User talk:Nsk92#Can you take a look? and asked for my opinion. I did offer it there, in a single post[86]. I did not edit the report, nor did I suggest any extra diffs to be added to it. That was the extent of the "coordination" here. In any case, I hope that the report will be evaluated based on its substantive merits and not on any ad hominem considerations regarding percieved motives of the commenters. Nsk92 (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re GizzyCatBella's comment: "World War 2 in Europe ended in April/May 1945. Potsdam Conference took place in July/August 1945 after the War. STOP MISLEADING PEOPLE!". The comment is a blatant, and rather unconvincing, attempt to wikilawyer around the plain meaning of the topic ban. The topic ban was not for "World War 2 in Europe" but for World War 2: "For the avoidance of doubt, this includes any acts of violence by, in or against Poland, or by or against Poles or Polish Jews, during or immediately prior to or after World War II, as well as persons known for their involvement in the World War II history of Poland." World War II ended on September 2, 1945 with the unconditional surrender of Japan, well after the Potsdam Conference. Nsk92 (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ealdgyth

~~Grizzly~~ Gizzy - YOU are responsible for your edits. You should know by now that you need to check over EVERYTHING when you're reverting. If you think folks are out to get you, then you should be extra careful. Frankly, you seem to be too caught up in the hunt for socks and folks out to get you and not enough caught up in making sure your own edits are good and within the bounds of your topic ban. Spend more time inpsecting edits and less time blindly reverting.

And I'm not impressed with the impassioned declarations that all the diffs were false but then when the exact problem is pointed out, suddenly you remember? Did you not LOOK at the diffs presented? Or did you just assume they were false without inspecting them ... I'm AGFing that it was the first, but after a while, this will be harder and harder to do. (And this was after you needed extra time to deal with the filing here - I would hope that if someone asks for extra time they .. use that time to be sure they are replying to the matters brought to the noticeboard.) -- Ealdgyth (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologizes for the misnaming. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buidhe

I'm in no way out to get GCB. In fact, I did not report her even though I noticed that there was (what appeared to me) to be a TBAN violation at the Bereza Katruska article. However, I agree with the comments above that the case should be evaluated on its merits, regardless of the possible motivations of the filing party. (t · c) buidhe 02:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Piotrus

There are two aspects to consider here. First, the filler himself linked to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CommanderWaterford/Archive, which GCB opened against them. While that case was closed with no action, per comments there by parties and CUs I think it is quite clear (WP:DUCK) that AL is not a new account. Whether they are avoiding scrutiny due to sanctions on their past account or not, it is hard to tell for sure since nobody has yet positively identified their previous account, but filling this revenge AE is clearly contributing to the WP:BATTLEGROUND, and that kind of mentality, in turn, was something that did result in a number of editors active in the topic area that AL and GCB both frequent getting banned. Therefore, some sort of WP:BOOMERANG is highly recommended, as editors should be made to de-escalate, not escalate, one way or another.

As for the edits reported here, they seem to be the usual borderline stretching of the 'widely construed' wiki-legalese. IMHO there is no violation here, except by extreme stretchy standards - like editing an article about Europe or planet Earth would be bad too? Because GCB was banned from the topic area which is located in the smaller subset of such articles... c'mon. Like the Bereza Kartuska, it was a non-issue during the war, but sure, if you dig deep enough you can make a connection between it and anything. This further reflects the usual battleground-ish attempt to roll the proverbial dice and see if something sticks this time ("hey, maybe random admin x will conclude one of the dozen diff I throw this time is actionable? Let's spin the admin lottery wheel!"). This is also doubly troubling when it comes from a new account (AL's activity is a few months long). This fits the modus operandi of a number of disruptive editors, who create such temporary accounts for the purpose of 'staying around until burned' and taking the occasional potshots at their opponents, hoping that every now and then they can take them down with them. AE admins should be extremely familiar with this tactic.

Frankly, I feel that GCB has been doing pretty well dealing with the topic ban they've been settled with. The more active one is, the more likely it is one will make some borderline edit once in a while, and per diffs above, GCB has been trying to stay away from breathing the ban, every now and then asking me or another editor whether they can make an edit or not. This is cumbersome, stressful, and a waste of time, particularly when we consider that this topic ban originates from the Icewhiz-era. If Icewhiz (now site-banned for real-life harassment of myself and others) haven't been here to goad and provoke others, the odds are good GCB would never have been topic banned in the first place. I suggest lifting her topic ban, which should bring us closer to the desired stability and quiet of this topic area from the pre-Icewiz era. Things were relaxed and peaceful until they appeared, and now that they have self-destructed, we should ensure things go back to the way they were, and not let them or any fellow sock travelers take innocent victims down with them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Since I noticed Postdam Conference being mentioned and comments about some editors being fools... well, GCB's topic ban states that is includes "events... during or immediately prior to or after World War II". In my view, immediately, implies days at best, not months (for example, I'd consider Gleiwitz incident from 31 August to be "immediately before", but not the March 1939 German ultimatum to Lithuania, with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of mid-August meriting a warning for 'skirting on the edge'). Likewise, three months is not "immediately after WWII", though of course, if one prefers a geological time scale... Anyway, for future similar bans, I'd suggest using wording that is less ambiguous. If I was the one imposing such a ban, to avoid weaseling, stretching, and ban-shopping, I'd either use precise dates or would have made used undisputable definitions like "any event included in the Category:Aftermath of World War II" or such. Not that I think this particular category is the best since it includes events from the 1950s like the Korean War which are presumably even further removed from the concept of 'immediacy', but anyway, using categories to define the scope of topic bans would at least remove the onus from admins on having to figure out if the adjective "immediate" in historical context refers to seconds, days, months or years. Something to consider in the future. Oh yeah, the comment about fools. Well, I think it will be foolish indeed if the bad-faithed attempts for ban-shopping above remain unaddressed. Boomerang, please. Battleground-creating socks should not be tolerated. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not harass (or be harassed) other editors. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kristallnacht is from 1938, so even less immediate than anything else discussed. And no, Nazi Germany is not covered by GCB's topic ban. It was a country created in 1933 that was later involved in WWII, that's all. You might as well dig a random difference from some Poland-related topic GCB does often edit, it would be as relevant, and you know what - you can probably list a good hundred diffs GCB did on Polish topics. Good luck convincing anyone that they are relevant. I have to say, this random diff throwing & ban shopping by accounts that had no prior involvement in this topic area is... interesting. I hope some CUs are watching this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby: Let the admin make a ruling what does 'immediately before a historical event' means - and in either case it would be rather unfair to penalize a user for whom that was never clarified before. In my view, that adjective should ref3er to hours or days at best. In your view, months or years? Huh. I just googled for "immediately before Pearl Harbor" and the first hit is [87] which begins with events from mid-19th century. So maybe immediately should means a century or so before the event? It amazes me how badly this topic ban was worded; perhaps any admin who tries to impose a topic ban should have one imposed on them first, just to make sure they understand the importance of being as precise as possible with vocabulary and terms used. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xx236: [88] Yes, this is a terrible abuse of Wikipedia, and clearly this merits our immediate and strongest response. Hopefully against parties which use such joke-diffs as a form of fake evidence/ban shopping (=wP:BATTLEGROUND). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robby.is.on

Aren't the following topic ban breaches?

Herschel Grynszpan, a Polish Jew, "Nazis used his assassination of the German diplomat Ernst vom Rath on 7 November 1938 in Paris as a pretext to launch Kristallnacht" – immediately prior to World War II
Kristallnacht – immediately prior to World War II
Propaganda in Nazi Germany – "propaganda used by the German Nazi Party in the years leading up to and during Adolf Hitler's leadership of Germany (1933–1945)"
Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world "The relationship between Nazi Germany (1933–1945) and the leadership of the Arab world"

Robby.is.on (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: It would seem the Nazis were "persons known for their involvement in the World War II history of Poland"? Kristallnacht was less than a year before World War II started. I think you'd find few major events in Germany in the 20th century which are closer to the outbreak of the war.

As for your baseless insinuations about sockpuppetry: I have been editing here for a long time, many, many years before I noticed off-putting things happening in Poland-related articles and before the fake Nazi death camp hoax was uncovered.

@Xx236: As far as I know, the topic ban is not limited to controversial or substantial edits? Robby.is.on (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xx236

Robby informs about a terrible crime:

Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world

I have checked and found 'the'. Please explain me why this 'the' is criminal? Is this Wikipedia better without the 'the'? Xx236 (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have also found this meaning of 'immediately' - 'without any intervening time or space'. Xx236 (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning GizzyCatBella

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

I said this before and I'll say it again: I am calling for the immediate revocation of GizzyCatBella's topic ban. Unfortunately, I am writing somewhat in haste, but I'll try to elaborate further soon. El_C 19:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I would agree, Guerillero. That said, I'm not sure I would agree with Piotrus' notions of 'days rather than months,' either. Is it the end of the war or the beginning of the postwar? It's hazy. At any rate, the ban is not defined as a post-1945, etc. ban, so that is why, procedurally, it is not a "clear" violation. But beyond this singular instance, I think the ban should have been revoked months ago. It is my view that GizzyCatBella has absorbed the necessary lessons from and has suffered enough penance for it. So, GizzyCatBella, I encourage you to draft an appeal at any time. Hopefully, other admins also share my view that this ban is (still) producing more heat than light, and that in the interest of everyone's collective time here at AE, it ought to waived. El_C 23:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Postdam Conference is pretty clearly within the scope of the topic ban --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: FWIW, I agree that the ban is not sustainable at this time --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I endorsed overturning the ban below --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 02:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To prevent automatic archiving--Ymblanter (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will close this in an hour, when I have more time in the office.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by GizzyCatBella

The appeal has been accepted, with the understanding that if the user resumes problematic editing, more severe sanctions will be swiftly imposed.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appealing user

GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the World War II history of Poland.[89]

Administrator imposing the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[90]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

(Reformatted manually on Fri. Dec.4th - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

In light of [91] and [92]

Since June 25, 2018, I have learned a lot about the proper use of tools available to Wikipedians and relevant policies' significance. I was sanctioned[93] as a result of a request submitted by Icewhiz on June 24, 2018, and I respected the decision to the best of my knowledge. I edited Wikipedia almost every day since then in other topic areas. I believe that my clear and transparent presentation here demonstrates that I can use templates and other tools correctly and my technical competence as an editor is satisfactory. In 2018, I was invited to appeal the ban in six months, showing substantial, competent, prejudice-free editing in other topic areas. My intention was/is to appeal the topic ban once I'm ready. However, since that time, I was reported continuously by various accounts similar to this report. I do not want to focus on the negative, but that I have learned a lot and affirm that my editing is no longer an issue. I'm just an ordinary editor. And if not for constant and mostly spurious reporting to get me sanctioned by known users using this lengthy topic ban as a springboard, my record would be clean. In the end, I would like to recognize the misconduct that led to my original t-ban. I was too quick-tempered on that particular article [94]; I should not have allowed myself to falter. I have long learned from that accident, and this is not going to occur again. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

I am not currently active in arbitration enforcement. I therefore leave it to my administrator colleagues to determine whether the sanction should be lifted or modified, and do not object to any uninvolved administrator doing so. Sandstein 11:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal

Statement by Astral Leap

I don't understand half of what is going on in Polish Nazi history on Wikipedia, I understand CommanderWaterford was involved and that there is much heat. While my knowledge of the past is poor, I did come across GizzyCatBella in the present. This edit (scroll down to the bottom of diff) by GizzyCatBella in which she sneaked Aryanization into Affirmative action, a mere hour after Zezen did so, tells me everything I need to know about GizzyCatBella. User:Bishonen blocked Zezen citing WP:NONAZIS a few days later.--Astral Leap (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Piotrus

I support the appeal per my comments above. As for the comment by AL above, which links to the SPI they were discussed at in their very post above, and who opened the account just a few months ago but is already active in AE and many other parts... "Polish Nazi history on Wikipedia", really? This "tells me everything I need to know" about that account, indeed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I would just like to point out (with the obvious disclaimers) that if Guerillero's logic was extended to the RW, then all a convicted prisoner would have to do to be released is to make an absolute nuisance of themselves. The only reasons that GCB's topic ban should be lifted is either that they have shown that they don't need it anymore to edit non-disruptively, or that the topic ban is shown to have been unwarranted in the first place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of a sanction is to reduce disruption on Wikipedia. Some admins clearly believe that the current sanction is not doing that. However -- without having closely evaluated GCM's edits, just going on my observations of the complaints that their editing has engendered -- I very much doubt that having no sanction whatsoever is going to make the situation any better. Rather than lifting the current sanction and leaving nothing in its stead, perhaps some thought could be put into crafting a sanction which would reduce disruption caused by GCB's editing? Just removing the sanction seems to me to be akin to throwing up one's hands and walking away instead of dealing with the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal

@GizzyCatBella: Please properly format this request using {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} as instructed in both the header and the editnotice for this page. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am amicable to lifting the topic ban; it is causing more disruption than it is preventing. That being said, if the problems that lead to the current topic ban reappear, the new topic ban should probably cover a much wider topic area. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero's statement encapsulates my own, thus saving me the time from writing anything original! El_C 16:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter, sounds good. Thanks for stepping up! El_C 04:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was no activity here for always a week, and the only way I can close this request now is to accept the appeal (which would also mean that the request above is rejected). If anybody has additional considerations, please present them within a couple of days (or feel free to close the appeal).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mzajac

Mzajac (Michael) has been topic banned for one year from anything to do with Kyiv, broadly construed. Yesterday, I found to my disappointment, that Michael has continued to edit disruptively in the topic area, even as participants (including yours truly) patiently awaited his reply here. A highly unusual (and frankly, bizarre) thing to do, not to mention for someone with advanced permissions. Certainly, not to his credit. Earlier today, Michael made a brief statement that offered no explanation for, well, anything. That, too, is not to his credit. As has also been discussed in this report, because Michael is an admin, he may yet face further scrutiny and censure from the Committee itself. El_C 02:23, 16 December 2020 (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 Mzajac

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

18 September 2020 Replaced Kiev by Kyiv in an article which is not about the city and mentions it in the context of the 17th century.
18 September 2020 After I reverted, starting the talk page discussion claiming the usage is not historical.
30 September 2020 Introduced the name of the city to the article in an unnecessary context.
30 November 2020 After the RfC at this very page was closed as no consensus claimed that the "no consensus" means Kyiv for all usage.
1 December 2020 Repeated the argument; said that my argument that the usage is historical "failed to achieve consensus".
1 December 2020 Replaced both instances of Kiev with Kyiv though this is the 17th century usage.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: none yet

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [95]

Recently, a RM at Talk:Kyiv was closed as move to Kyiv. Mzajac is a strong proponent of the name Kyiv. He immediately started indiscriminate move all instances of Kiev in all articles to Kyiv. Many users objected (an example ) but he would not stop claiming that the real name of the city is Kyiv and this is how it should be referred to in every context. Finally, users who objected the replacements opened a number of RfCs/RMs, for example, here, here, or here. In all of them Mzajac actively participating pushing his arguments and ignoring the arguments of the opponents. In the diffs above, he added an unneeded usage of Kyiv in the article and then argued that consistence requires that other spellings were changed to Kyiv. He perceived attempts to discuss his behavior as personal attacks (e.g. this ANI thread where he posted in a topic which had no relation to Ukraine). The main RfC (at Talk:Kiev) was closed as no consensus to use Kyiv in historical context, as a guideline everything before 1991 should use Kiev, and BRD must be observed in all cases. Subsequently, the RfC at Talk:Territorial evolution of Russia was closed as no consensus. The first thing Mzajac did (see diffs above) was to open a new topic at the same page stating that there is a clear consensus that this is not a historical article, and therefore the usage must be Kyiv. When I removed the unneeded use of 2014 Kyiv, he said that I "failed to convince the editors that the RfC applies to this article" and restored Kyiv for the two instances of the 18th-century usage. The RfC was opened specifically about historical usage, and now Mzajac claims that this RfC was only about articles which are fully about historical period, and does not apply to Territorial evolution of Russia. This is clear wikilawyering. Note that Mzajac's understanding of which historical sources are reliable and which are not is substandard (this is a good example). The cycle I describe by the diffs above (A makes an edit, B reverts, A opens an RfC, D closed RfC as no consensus, A interprets "no consensus" as "I revert back") is not a valid dispute resolution avenue.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [96]

Discussion concerning Mzajac

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 Mzajac

[Waiting for admin action on the request, which exceeds the 500-word limit. —Michael Z. 15:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)][reply]

Thanks, [El_C]. I see it’s been edited down since I posted that note. Will respond as soon as I am able, hopefully tomorrow. Is there a time limit? —Michael Z. 00:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the delay. I will respond today. —Michael Z. 15:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing my response now.

User:El_C, as the result seems to be a moving target and I’m not sure everyone is on the same page, would you please explain with precision what the proposed “Kyiv Kiev ban” constitutes? And as a long conversation at user talk:El_C#Some thoughts about the recent AE case appears to be vital to your decision, can we have it moved here, for other admins to read and for me to respond to? (I have not read through it yet.) Thanks. —Michael Z. 15:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul Siebert

Incident 1. I made this edit. Without introducing any new source, I replaced an existing inaccurate descriptive statement with more correct one. We had the following exchange. Mzajac's edit summary says blatant OR (accusation that lack evidences are personal attack). I explained my search procedure and proposed Mzajac to do the same search by himself. In a case if his search results would be different I was ready to apologize for source misinterpretation, otherwise I expected him to apologize for wrong accusations of doing OR. IMO, that was fair. No apology followed. Mzajac's aggressive tone was, most likely, the reason why a very good user:TaivoLinguist decided to abandon this topic. (If Taivo does not want his name to be mentioned here, I will withdraw the last statement and ask admins to disregard it). I concede Mzajac's contributions are sometimes very good, but Taivo seems to be even more valuable asset for Wikipedia.

Incident 2. To the references that directly support a totally neutral and descriptive statement that Kiev is an English name for the city, Mzajac added numerous commentaries that imply that the sources demonstrate growing usage of the word "Kyiv". That may be correct of wrong, but the sources cited do not say that, so that is a pure OR. That is especially noteworthy keeping in mind the accusation Mzajac himself is throwing (see #1).

Incident 3. Per our policy, the change of the name of one article does not automatically affect the names of related articles. That is a policy, and, being an experienced user, Mzajac is supposed to know that. However, he used the Kiev->Kyiv renaming as a pretext for renaming a large number of articles and even categories.

Incident 4. This recent incident affected my decision to comment here. This is a good summary of Mzajac's editorial behaviour. He charctersises me "genuinely naïve or intentionally demeaning" and provides the evidences of ostensibly wide usage of "Kyivan": google scholar, google books and Wikipedia. However, Mzajac totally fails to understand the following:

He provides gscholar results for "Kyivan", but he forgot to check how frequently "Kievan" appears in sources (a hint: 22,100 times, 10 times more frequently than "Kyivan").

He provides google.book search, but forgets to do a simple check: Ngram (English 2019) says "Kievan" appears 5 times more frequently, and that ratio is stable for last 10 years;

He refers to Wikipedia, but he forgets that Wikipedia is not a source for itself per our policy.

That means Mzajac either cannot properly use search tools and doesn't know our policy, or he is deliberately ignoring our policy and misusing search tools to advocate some specific POV. That means he, probably, does not fully meet the expectations listed in guide.expect.

Fresh evidences. this edit introduced a totally ahistorical and very infrequently used spelling into English Wikipedia. I am a little bit puzzled why Mzajac has time for editing Wikipedia, but has no time to respond on this page.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mzajac

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

As the principal admin involved in making the move request from Kiev to Kyiv orderly (see also my notes in the log), I can personally attest that Mzajac often skirted the line throughout that process. Coupled with the evidence provided in this report, my sense is that a Kiev-to-Kyiv restriction is probably due — although at the time of writing this, Mzajac has yet to provide a response to this report, so this constitutes a preliminary assessment only. El_C 20:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mzajac, while the OP's portion of this report does, indeed, exceed the 500-word limit, it does not do so by a lot — it being below 600-words. Exceeding the limit by less than 100-words is not something we ordinarily enforce here at AE. So, as far as your response goes, there's no need to wait. El_C 22:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mzajac, no rush. If you need to take a week, that also works for me. P.S. I moved your response onto to your own section, because we don't do threaded discussions at AE. El_C 02:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mzajac, as a fellow admin, I'm not sure you're aware of this, but reports on AE are not usually expected to remain open for entire weeks. That is a bit extraordinary. But this entire report is somewhat extraordinary. Here we have one admin asking for Arbitration enforcement sanctions to be placed on another admin, while a third admin (yours truly), who just happens to be familiar with the issues raised, is set to evaluate the request. While I usually prefer to refer any actions that would involve another admin to the Committee, in this case, there's has been no use of the tools nor an invocation of administrative authority by Mzajac (none whatsoever). He has been acting purely in an editorial capacity. So, Mzajac, how about we do this: ~~another week~~, starting now. ~~I don't really see the harm in doing that, as I doubt that in the meantime, you'd engage the topic area with the type of edits identified by this report.~~ But, if 7 days from now you still haven't submitted your statement, I am leaning toward deciding this in your absentia by imposing a narrow Kiev-to-Kyiv restriction of a duration that has yet to be determined. And I am prepared to do so even if no other admin opines here. I feel qualified to do so (again, due to my knowledge of and prior administrative intervention in the dispute) without quorum. Note that you would be able to appeal my decision in three different ways: either to a quorum of uninvolved admins (here at AE); directly to the Committee (at ARCA); or to the community (at AN). Anyway, sorry for going on about this at such length and thanks for having made it this far! I hope it all makes sense to you. Please do not hesitate to query me about anything (whatsoever). El_C 06:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Paul Siebert has just brought to my attention on my talk page (didn't help that I was a bit slow on the uptake there), I overlooked that Mzajac has been making the same disputed edits even as we were waiting for him to respond here (see strikethroughs above). Unbelievable. Look, Michael, I don't know what you were thinking, but that is not a respectful manner for one to conduct themselves. So, this is what's going to happen: I intend to close this report sometime tomorrow. You are welcome to respond before then, but I'll be honest with you: I doubt there's much you can say to avoid sanctions at this point. I would like to, once again, thank Paul for setting me straight. I appreciate it, truly. El_C 02:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, argh. You're right. At my defense, indeed, usually there are other uninvolved admins who make an appearance (and who help keep my absentmindedness in check). Too bad today's appearances came too late for that! As for your suggestion that we widen the topic ban, I'm not opposed to doing that in principle. I'm just unaware of there being EE issues other than the Kiev-Kyiv naming convention disruption. Mzajac, I feel it's probably best that I spell this out: if you make even one more Kiev-Kyiv edit, I am going to block you. And I will do so without hesitation. While it has been years since I blocked an admin, I am undaunted. El_C 04:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, ah, I see what you mean now. Sorry, I'm not sure why I'm being so dim today. Eep. You are now the second person struggling to explain the obvious to me. Yes, please extend heartfelt sympathies for lapses in cognitive functions! Anyway, needless to say, I agree with your reasoning. In light of everything, I think it would be best to err on the side of severity with a broadly construed ban from Kyiv (rather than just a narrow naming convention ban). So, unless there are objections, that is now the sanction I intend on imposing when I close this complaint tomorrow. Thanks again for, well, holding my hand here... El_C 05:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mzajac, really? That is all you have to say? After everything? Wow. No, nothing needs to be moved here. Read it or don't. Linking is good enough. And the Kiev-Kyiv ban is pretty much no longer on the table. Had you bothered reading my comment directly above, you would know that, in light of your recent misconduct, you now face a full Kyiv topic ban, broadly construed. Anyway, unless another admin objects, I intend on closing this report by imposing this more severe topic ban later today. In any case, your avenues of appeal have been outlined above, so you will be free to pursue that at any time. Finally, I'm sorry to say, but your latest reply (such as it is) exhibits virtually zero introspection and reflection about any of what has transpired thus far. Which is disappointing, still. El_C 17:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In actu, Barkeep49, with regards to the school of thought which views adminship to be incompatible with facing restrictions, myself, that is not something to which I am inherently opposed. And, hey, maybe that's a viewpoint you can both bring to the incoming Committee when you join it soon. Which I'm sure is gonna happen. After all, I voted for the two of you, so I'm ready to call voter fraud if either one of you do not make it! </kiss ass> El_C 18:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark, to me, a naming convention ban was a likely outcome from the beginning, because I was already personally aware of Michael's disruption in the topic area from before this report (back when I applied Arbitration enforcement to the Kiev-to-Kyiv RM). Now, the reason I (and others) think a wider ban is now due, is because Kiev-to-Kyiv disruption by Michael continued while we were waiting (and waiting) for him to reply here. If this is to be brought before the Committee, as has been suggested here, I would not be surprised if Michael were to face additional censure, up to and including a desysop. But anyway, no, the softly-softly approach is done, as far as I'm concerned. It's just not an effective way to deal with stonewalling. El_C 18:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin who has monitored the Kiev/Kyiv issue (but not been as frontlines as El C), I endorse a Kyiv to Kiev ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think Mzajac got, if not quite the embodiment of WP:SUPERMARIO at the minimum, he did get special treatment here because he is an admin. I am not blaming El C - when only one admin comments it puts that admin in a tough spot and I think he was trying to navigate a fraught situation carefully and without support. However, to abuse the special treatment creating time to do further disruption but not to respond here is not in-line with our policies, guidelines, or practices. I am now skeptical that a narrow Kiev-to-Kyiv ban is the appropriate measure to ensure that there is not further disruption by this user in this topic area. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C I am indeed sympathetic, as my comments hopefully made clear, to the position you found yourself in. It's why I jumped in when I happened to wonder this way for the first time in a while. Kyiv is clearly the source of disruption for this editor. On first glance saying "don't change Kiev to Kyiv anymore" felt like it would be sufficient to stop disruption. I worry that he will test the limits of that bespoke sanction and so we should instead issue a more typical topic ban from Kyiv, broadly construed. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@In actu:, I am, as my second message in this thread hopefully makes clear, also troubled by the actions here including the lack of communication. I certainly respect the idea that having created enough disruption to merit a topic ban is incompatible with being an administrator. I go back and forth as to whether or not I agree. Obviously imposing the topic ban, which I still support, is not incompatible with someone opening a case request about the topic. So I still support imposing the topic ban here, as it is within our remit, and leave it to you, or others, as to whether it's appropriate to make a formal case request. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would endorse a Kyiv to Kiev ban --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 02:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: The lack of any real communication here while engaging in these disputes elsewhere makes me think a wider topic ban should be imposed. Honestly, we should go off to arbcom, because my long-term position that admins shouldn't be allowed to keep their tools if they created enough disruption to lead to a topic ban --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a Kiev to Kyiv ban but I don't really see evidence of large scale disruption here. Three of the six diffs provided by ymblanter are talk page posts explaining Mzajac's position. I looked at Mzajac's contributions and while there are many instances of Kiev --> Kyiv, they seem to be in response to the recent page move from Kiev to Kyiv. My inclination would be to leave well alone, perhaps with an admonishment to be careful in dealing with historical references to the city. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: I don't know the longer history of this (which is, unfortunately, not clear from this report) so, of course, you should go with what you think is best. No worries. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have been on the edges of some of this editing..seeing it pop up on some historical articles I watch for vandalism. I think a wider topic ban from everything Kiev related is warranted. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Գարիկ Ավագյան

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 Գարիկ Ավագյան

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Solavirum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Գարիկ Ավագյան (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: Topic ban from all Nagorno-Karabakh related pages.:

--

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

[97] reverting edit. The sarcastic rhetoric in his edit explanation is even worse.
[98] reverting, yet again, without even trying to discuss it.

Wanted to pass this as WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, but the user was involved with such edits since the conflict began. He even failed to address the talk he was referring to in this edits. Also, it seems like he's aware of the enforced sanctions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Steverci: Stop misusing the sources. The France24 article, citing a single French doctor, stated that Azerbaijan could have used the munition, that doesn't mean that this particular media outlet confirms its use. And a claim by a French doctor isn't enough for such remarks. Before accusing others, check the source you actually give reference to. Yet there are many claims on the article made only by Azeri government sources and no one else, yes. They are written in a rhetoric to show that it is indeed a claim by the government. No footage from the Azerbaijani government claim was written as 100% fact and the truth. Again, there's not enough independent confirmation of that being a white phosphorus munition. Accusing others of edit war is also absurd, as the definition of edit war suggest that the Armenian user had engaged in the edit war, not me. This isn't even the issue. We're talking about how the user has surely violated the sanctions. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 08:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To date, Գարիկ Ավագյան, Stereverci, nor Armatura (who all protested this application and stated that consensus was not achieved) has joined the discussion. As there's no objection, we've already achieved a consensus and the two reverts made by Գարիկ Ավագյան is unjustified and had violated the sanctions. Armatura's worryings has no importance here, Գարիկ Ավագյան had to think beforehand about the possible unbalanced inclusions that might come after the enforcement of the sanctions. I'd like to note that Wikipedia is not a battleground like how some assert it. There are several third-party editors checking for neutrality and exclusion of Գարիկ Ավագյան is not, how to say, End of the World. So, this issue is not our problem and we shall not tolerate his worrying edits just because of this. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 14:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Գարիկ Ավագյան's comment on 14 December. Seems like you don't want to refer to this particular issue and how you've broken the sanctions here. Calling my edits biased without even linking to anything, and trying to divert this discussion is yet again wrong. even without finding a consensus, a consensus that you had to achieve before removing the content, and as a third-party finally made a comment, I ended my efforts on keeping the text on hand. I sent a letter to the administrators of the English Wikipedia with a request to involve neutral editors to maintain the neutrality of the article from biased edits -- there's so much wrong here, I don't know which one to refer first. Firstly, anyone is allowed to interfere in the article, if you claim that my edits are disruptive, file a complaint, no one is holding you captive here. While your last comment is yet again absurd. This is the first time that I've reported anyone during the 44 days of the war and further period after it. While a group of Armenians had reported me a dozen times and had mostly failed to limit my activity. For two days you've avoided the talk page and reverted edits asking for a consensus which you don't even moved a finger to achieve. In short, this comment of yours is nothing but an attempt to divert the issue. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 15:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Գարիկ Ավագյան's comment on 15 December. Even, let's say, you've added 90% of the article's content, this still won't give you a get out of jail free card. You've continuously violated the WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH you seem to be trying to tutor others about in your response. Accusing others of biased editing, and remarks such as how you made a personal album of President Aliyev from a whole article is also the violation of WP:CIVIL. For my part, I'll respond to your uncivil remarks and accusation about Aliyev. Those images were also in the Russian Wikipedia version of the article, and as there were no other free images that fitted the topic at that time, I had to insert such images in the article (which surely isn't the case anymore; I've even removed one of Aliyev's images in the article and replaced it with a better-fitting one). If your WP:JDLI actions required a response, I was inclined to give it to you. In the meanwhile, no, reporting editors who've violated the rules, especially the sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee, is not attacking them. The photo about an Armenian volunteer who captured a Syrian mercenary was surely an image uploaded from the Armenian ministry of defence. Are we supposed to accept Yerevan's claims as the sole truth of this universe? Of course no. The other editors gladly restored the image, though with a neutral wording, as opposed to your additions. The rest of your reply is nothing but torturing any civility or courtesy there is. For the second time you've failed to thoroughly defend yourself and continued in your attempts to put the reported in the spotlight. I hope that the administrators will soon respond to this report. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 18:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[99]

Statement by Steverci

You say that there is "not enough independent confirmation of that being white phosphorus", yet it there is a citation that it has been reported by France 24. You object to including the video just because it was published by the Armenian government, yet there are many claims on the article made only by Azeri government sources and no one else. And on the talk page, the only evidence presented about it not being white phosphorus is three unverified Twitter accounts. It seems the requesting user just doesn't like the video and started an edit war to remove it. --Steverci (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CuriousGolden

@Steverci: None of what you just said justifies the fact that the mentioned user reverted 2 edits on an article where sanctions are valid and only 1 revert is allowed. If you don't agree with the edit, take it to the talk page and discuss it (to date, none of the objectors have said anything in the actual talk page discussion). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Armatura

I will leave the revert counts to the uninvolved admins. However, I would like to highlight that removing one of the few Armenian editors of the article would leave the editorial workforce of the article in question more unbalanced than it already is. I disagree with the removal of the white phosphorus video without reaching a fair consensus, such unilateral removals by the user who opened this appeal have previously sparked revert cycles. Regards, Armatura (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Regarding Armatura's response above: I do not think it should ever be a consideration for Wikipedia's admins to make decisions based on an editor's presumed ethnicity or nationality -- and I do not believe I've ever seen that be the case. The only consideration should be whether the editor can edit in a NPOV manner in accordance with basic Wikipedia policies. If an Armenian editor can do so, fine, if a Azeri editor can do so, also fine, if any editor of any stripe cannot do so, then they should be prevented from editing. What that does to the "balance" of editors working on a particular article is irrelevant, and is also ephemeral, as editors come and go. Therefore, Armatura's point is not an appropriate one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Գարիկ Ավագյան

Dear Solavirum, this is not the first time that you have been warned for your biased edits. We have asked you many times not to be a biased editor on the English Wikipedia. Unfortunately, your edits suggest otherwise. In our last discussion, you categorically argued that your edits were justified, and even without finding a consensus, you still made your edits, where, in the end, the decision was made not in your favor. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. We are all volunteers here and must adhere to the rules of Wikipedia and respect each other. From the very beginning of the 2020 Nagorno Karabakh conflict, after seeing that you were spending 24/7 on articles related to Nagorno-Karabakh, I sent a letter to the administrators of the English Wikipedia with a request to involve neutral editors to maintain the neutrality of the article from biased edits. I also have concerns that blocking Armenian users has become your priority. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Solavirum, unfortunately, I do not have as much time as you spend in articles related to Nagorno Karbakh, but on the other hand, you cannot fail to notice the significant contribution that I made in the articles, mainly removing your biased edits. I still remember how you made a personal album of President Aliyev from a whole article and attacked participants who were against your edits (this is what you are trying to do now). You were also warned that you do not fully understand the WP:GOODFAITH principle and were subsequently blocked, but you still abuse it without understanding. As for the video on using the phosphor, there are links to third sources, [100], [101], [102], [103], although I can see you did your own investigation. In the same way and with the same statements, you removed the photo about an "Armenian volunteer who captured a Syrian mercenary", calling it "Armenian state propaganda". I am very sorry that Wikipedia has extended-confirmed editors who still do not understand the simple principles of Wikipedia. Once again, I ask you not to be a biased editor. You can freely remove information in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, but please try to find a consensus with the editors in the English Wikipedia first, and then remove. It is also very unclear to me who do you call the third editor? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it says on this talk page that "the Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia". If you look at the edits in this article, which were done by me, is about absolutely respecting the rules of Wikipedia. I'm terribly surprised that violating 1RR may lead to the topic ban for 3-6 months, which I definitely couldn't imagine myself.

Also, there are no accusations. If you look at my and Solavirum's contributions you can see that we had disagreements on different topics.

As for the phosphorus video, the discussion on the page is not finished yet and I think here is not the right place to continue such discussion. I would suggest to continue discussion with you and Solavirum on the use of the white phophorus video on the talk page of the article. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Գարիկ Ավագյան

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

A topic ban from the topic area for 3-6 months makes sense to me. In addition to a 1RR violation, there also seems to be a deep misunderstanding of WP:ONUS. Neither of these problems are addressed in the responses of the editor facing the complaint (Գարիկ Ավագյան). Instead, they make repeated accusations of bias against the editor who has filed this report (Solavirum), which is not really helping anything and is just plain inappropriate. Now, as for the use of white phosphorous during the recent 2020 war, specifically (see also: White_phosphorus_munitions#2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war), I get the sense that there are a few possibilities. 1. It did not see military use, at all. 2. It did see military usage, but for smoke screening purposes rather than as a chemical warfare agent, and resulting in no injuries or fatalities. 3. Smoke screening use did result in unintentional injuries and fatalities. 4. There was intentional use of it as a chemical warfare agent (or otherwise usage of such gross disregard to possible enemy exposure, it basically amounts to the same thing). So, the question as to which of these possibilities are favoured by 3rd party sources is a matter for discussion. If that discussion reaches an impasse, a dispute resolution request (like an RfC) is something that participants may avail themselves of. Naturally, any pertinent claim made by official sources affiliated with either side ought to be qualified accordingly. While a discussion is ongoing (say, pending closure), the status quo ante version is the version that ought to be displayed. That is the point of ONUS. That it falls back on longstanding text until it becomes clear what's what. It's surprising that any of this needs to be spelled out, yet here we are...¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 19:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting removal of sanctions on Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

Declined. It seems unconvincing that the restrictions are no longer necessary, or that removing them is necessary to facilitate copyediting, and the user has not put forth any argument to support either claim. Consensus of admins here is also against removing the restrictions. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, so a removal of sanctions (even if temporary) would be kind to the Copy Editors.

Also, the article was extremely edited in November, hence the sanctions, but has a single edit (Done by me in preparation for the copy editors) in December. Thinking the sanctions are unnecessary at this point. Thanks, Elijahandskip (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding request to remove sanctions

How would the current page restrictions hamper straightforward copyediting? SPECIFICO talk 00:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BMK, most copyedits would not be considered reverts unless the text was quite recent. SPECIFICO talk 03:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Isn't it the case that a series of reverts with no intervening edits by other users between them are considered to be a single revert for purposes of 3RR or 1RR? If I'm correct about that, then copyediting shouldn't be much affected by the 1RR sanction. An "INUSE" notice might also be helpful while copyediting is underway, or do the editing in a sandbox with a copy of the article and then copy-paste it over if no other changes were made in the interim. The requirement for "consensus required" might be a bit sticky if someone objects to the changes made, but then GCE edits are presumably well-considered and not controversial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result regarding request to remove sanctions

What sanctions are on the article --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 00:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the editor is referring to the AP2 sanctions notification when the page is edited (1RR, consensus required). I don't think that should affect copy editing so perhaps the OP can explain? --RegentsPark (comment) 02:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark: I agree --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Elijahandskip: The easiest and cleanest way to get the sanctions temporarily removed is to contact User:ST47, the administrator who originally placed the sanction in October. If that fails then a consensus of administrators here could also do it, but that requires several of us to go review the article's history to see if there's a good reason to override the judgement of one of our colleagues. ~Awilley (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this would be a good idea or that it's necessary. From what I've read, Trump isn't going to let this go away and may even use his new acting Attorney General to push this. Doug Weller talk 15:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This remains a hot-button topic, so I don't think it would be wise to remove the extra restrictions authorized under ARBAP2. The restrictions are only intended to prevent edit warring (one revert per user per day, and any edit that has been reverted must be taken to the talk page), and are unlikely to apply to any copy editing types of activity. ST47 (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Belteshazzar

Topic banned from Complementary and Alternative Medicine, broadly construed --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:39, 21 December 2020 (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 Belteshazzar

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Psychologist Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Belteshazzar (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: Topic ban on Bates method related articles which has been supported elsewhere by different users[104]

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

March 2020 Discussion at the Fringe theories Noticeboard regarding Belteshazzar's POV edits in trying to remove the term "ineffective"
June 6 2020 Discussion at the Fringe theories Noticeboard showing Belteshazzar's disruptive edits on seven articles that mention the Bates method. The outcome was a block for 2 weeks.
"ineffective" 16 October 2020 Belteshazzar continuing to argue the Bates method is not ineffective

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

26 May 2020 blocked by JzG for 31 hours for disruptive edits on Bates method
6 June 2020 blocked for 2 weeks for disruptive edits on Bates method. El C's block log comment is Last chance block for WP:POINTy behaviour.

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

20 March 2020 notified about discretionary sanctions in relation to pseudoscience] by user Tgeorgescu.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Belteshazzar has been disrupting the Bates method article and talk-page since 11 March 2020 and related articles that mention anything to do with the Bates method. His agenda has been to get the term "ineffective" removed from the lead of the article or other skeptical references about the Bates method removed. This user argues against scientific consensus, disagrees with Wikipedia policies regarding fringe (WP:FRINGE) and pseudoscience.

There have been two discussions about Belteshazzar disruptive edits on the Admin Noticeboard Incidents (WP:ANI). JzG reported Belteshazzar on 8 July and I reported Belteshazzar on 8 November where I explained in detail how problematic his edits have been. I previously had reported his vandalism (on the Aldous Huxley and other article) on the Fringe theories noticeboard in June 2020 [105].

If you look at the history of the talk-page for Bates method, we can see hundreds of edits from Belteshazzar going back months. It's basically the same thing every time. He claims there is some legitimate mechanism to how the Bates method works, he wants the term ineffective removed from the lead or he criticises the Quackwatch reference as using old sources. He has created many discussions on this "ineffective". This obsession of his runs back months and months [106] yet he continues to create new sections on the talk-page making the same pro-Bates arguments or on other users talk-pages. If we check a recent discussion on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard we can see this user has not changed his behavior. He still thinks there is legitimate evidence for the Bates method and he wants the Quackwatch reference removed [107] This user is still claiming other users are wrong and the entire scientific community is wrong. This is not good faith because this user was blocked

If you check this user's talk-page I have not seen anything else quite like it when it comes to repeated chances. There seems to be endless attempts of many users trying to give him advice about how Wikipedia works going back to May 2020 but he ignores it all [108]. I believe Belteshazzar's obsession with the Bates method whilst ignoring scientific consensus on the subject and advice from administrators and other users is a case of WP:NOTHERE. I believe a topic ban on anything related to eyesight would be justified because this user has caused too much disruption on the talk-page it is wasting other users efforts and editing time. In the block log in June 2020 an admin said it was the last chance for WP:POINTy behaviour but it is clear Belteshazzar is still up to their old tricks and pointy behavior because they are making the same arguments for the Bates method in their recent edits this week. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[109]

Discussion concerning Belteshazzar

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 Belteshazzar

From June 2019 to February 2020, four established users removed "ineffective": [110] [111] [112] [113] Had perceptual learning been brought up during that time, this removal might well have stuck. I wasn't quite aware of perceptual learning as a vision mechanism until August or September. After bringing it up and getting nowhere, I was going to let this go, but then put together the aforementioned diffs and concluded that "ineffective" did not have nearly as strong a consensus as it appeared; people had simply given up. Thus I doubled down and pointed out how controlled studies might have gone wrong. Others seemed to ignore the mechanism that I had highlighted, but recently, someone showed a clear understanding of it and still supported keeping "ineffective". Thus I dropped the stick. My subsequent comment in that thread was only a response to a new comment by Guy Macon.

If Psychologist Guy is referring to my recent comments regarding Quackwatch, "he wants the Quackwatch reference removed" is a misrepresentation. I was simply trying to fix the citation. The Quackwatch page in question reproduces a chapter from a 1956 book.

Both ANI threads were opened after I did something perfectly legitimate, though I acknowledge that my behavior has been problematic at other times. I answered other points in those threads.

Mainly due to what is known about perceptual learning, I think there is a non-negligible chance that the Bates method will become less fringe in the future. As it turns out, this view was also expressed years ago by one of the users who last year removed "ineffective". In such an eventuality, we will have to ask ourselves whether it was ever correct for Wikipedia to summarily deem the Bates method as "ineffective" or "discredited". That was my reason for this. I wasn't proposing changes to policy now, just leaving that for the future. Belteshazzar (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jmc

Belteshazzar now [20 Dec 2020) appears to have embarked on a more general crusade against 'ineffective'. In an edit to Mickey_Sherman[[114]], he/she replaced 'ineffective with 'inadequate', even though 'ineffective' was the term used in the referenced source, with the edit summary "Of course it was "ineffective" if he was found guilty. I guess I don't like the word "ineffective"". -- Jmc (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to respond here or above, but that was simply happenstance. I didn't even make the connection with "ineffective" until I was partway through that edit. Yes, the source said "ineffective", but the article wasn't actually quoting the source's words in those instances. Belteshazzar (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Belteshazzar

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

Looks like this one has fallen through the cracks, but indeed, enough is enough. I, for one, favour an indefinite topic ban from the topic area (broadly construed), a sanction which appears all but inevitable at this point. There is (or at least there ought to be) a limit as to how long WP:FRINGE contributions ought to be entertained on the project — most especially for a topic which falls under the sourcing requirements spelled out in WP:MEDRS. El_C 19:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Belteshazzar's claim that four established users removed "ineffective" is an odd one, since at a glance, there does not appear to be a single "established user" among them — and two of them are named "Samuel," somehow (what?). Further, Belteshazzar's argument that there is a non-negligible chance that the Bates method will become less fringe in the future, which may or may not be true (I have no idea), sidesteps the problem with them bludgeoning anything to do with promoting this possible outcome, in stark contravention to both WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS. In fact, it looks like such an effort is pretty much all that Belteshazzar does on the project. That is why I note above that a blanket prohibition from the topic area seems all but inevitable at this point (even if Belteshazzar was more responsive to these critical concerns, which they do not appear to be, in any case). El_C 23:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks like we need a topic ban here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Belteshazzar

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: Belteshazzar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Belteshazzar (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from the subject of Complementary and Alternative Medicine, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Belteshazzar, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2020#Acupuncture

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

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

Statement by Belteshazzar

Before the case was filed, I dropped the stick, as someone who clearly understood the concept in question nevertheless supported keeping "ineffective". My subsequent comment in that thread was only a response to a new comment. What I did after that seems to have been misrepresented. Psychologist Guy said "If we check a recent discussion on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard we can see this user has not changed his behavior. He still thinks there is legitimate evidence for the Bates method and he wants the Quackwatch reference removed [115] This user is still claiming other users are wrong and the entire scientific community is wrong. This is not good faith because this user was blocked". Regarding the Quackwatch reference, I was simply trying to fix a citation, as the Quackwatch page in question reproduces a chapter of a 1956 book. I do think the apparent scientific consensus here is likely wrong, and if that someday turns out to be the case, that will raise questions about whether it was ever correct for Wikipedia to summarily label the Bates method as "ineffective" or "discredited". That's why I suggested that policy might be changed in the future. I was not proposing such changes now. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by In actu

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Belteshazzar

Result of the appeal by Belteshazzar

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

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 535: / Line 535: @@
 * Yes, it looks like we need a topic ban here.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 19:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 {{hab}}
+==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Belteshazzar==
+<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small>
+<small>''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]]).''</small>
+; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Belteshazzar}} – [[User:Belteshazzar|Belteshazzar]] ([[User talk:Belteshazzar|talk]]) 20:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
+; Sanction being appealed : Topic ban from the subject of Complementary and Alternative Medicine, imposed at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Belteshazzar]], logged at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2020#Acupuncture]]
+; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|In actu}}
+; Notification of that administrator : ''The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a [[WP:DIFF|diff]] of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.''
+===Statement by Belteshazzar===
+Before the case was filed, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bates_method&diff=995040857&oldid=995038524 dropped the stick], as someone who clearly understood the concept in question nevertheless supported keeping "ineffective".  My subsequent [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABates_method&type=revision&diff=995274051&oldid=995271911 comment] in that thread was only a response to a new comment.  What I did after that seems to have been misrepresented.  Psychologist Guy said "If we check a recent discussion on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard we can see this user has not changed his behavior. He still thinks there is legitimate evidence for the Bates method and he wants the Quackwatch reference removed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Bates_method] This user is still claiming other users are wrong and the entire scientific community is wrong. This is not good faith because this user was blocked".
+Regarding the Quackwatch reference, I was simply trying to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bates_method&diff=prev&oldid=995256557 fix a citation], as the Quackwatch page in question reproduces a chapter of a 1956 book.
+I do think the ''apparent'' scientific consensus here is likely wrong, and if that someday turns out to be the case, that will raise questions about whether it was ever correct for Wikipedia to summarily label the Bates method as "ineffective" or "discredited".  That's why I suggested that policy might be changed in the future.  I was not proposing such changes now. [[User:Belteshazzar|Belteshazzar]] ([[User talk:Belteshazzar|talk]]) 20:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
+===Statement by In actu===
+===Statement by (involved editor 1)===
+===Statement by (involved editor 2)===
+===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Belteshazzar ===
+===Result of the appeal by Belteshazzar===
+:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
+<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the discretionary sanctions log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
+*

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