Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Shirshore

Shirshore is indefinitely topic-banned from Horn of Africa, broadly construed. The topic ban can be lifted on appeal, which is possible after six months.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Shirshore

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kzl55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn_of_Africa#Final_decision

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

14:26, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sanaag.
14:38, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sanaag.
15:35, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sanaag.
15:06, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sool.
15:36, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sool.
19:05, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sool.
20:34, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sool.
15:19, 24 March 2022 POV edit in which Shirshore removed almost 20% of the article by blanking a sourced section wholly with the summary: Removed derogatory content which belittles group concerned. This demeaning content should not be allowed on Wikipedia.
20:05, 24 March 2022 Shirshore removed an entire sourced section of the article with the edit summary: Removed derogatory and degrading text not suitable for Wikipedia. This is abhorrent and can’t be allowed on Wikipedia". This appears to have been an edit they've made from a mobile device.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

15:42, 16 April 2021 Shirshore was reported for engaging in the same kind of disruptive POV edit warring behaviour on some of the same articles included in this report (e.g. [1]), as a result of the report they were blocked.

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions on 20:12, 15 April 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor has been engaging in disruptive editing for sometime within the Horn of Africa space, particularly within Somaliland/Somalia articles. Their edit summaries indicate they are only interested in pushing a specific viewpoint and are more than willing to erase sourced content they dont like using "derogatory" as justification (e.g. from 2019: Removed derogatory and inflammatory material on the Derivsh period. This material, although sourced cannot be allowed on Wikipedia. [2], vs 2022: Removed derogatory content which belittles group concerned. This demeaning content should not be allowed on Wikipedia [3]. Please see User_talk:Kzl55#Dhulbahante_-_Dervish_Period. for a discussion in which this behaviour was discussed and Wikipedia guidelines were explained to them. They've been sanctioned last year for the the same disruptive edit warring behaviour [4]#User:Shirshore_reported_by_User:Dabaqabad_(Result:_Blocked).

They do not seem to care all that much for edit-warring warnings as they have gone back to edit warring within minutes of the notice [[5]], [6].They are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. As such I request a WP:NOTHERE ban, failing that I think a permanent topic ban from Horn-related articles is the minimum necessary sanction. Kind regards -- Kzl55 (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the discussion was automatically archived by a bot, as such I've restored it pending a decision from admins. Best regards --Kzl55 (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[[7]]

Discussion concerning Shirshore

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 Shirshore

The content removed is derogatory and inflammatory towards the group concerned. I don’t believe such content should be on Wikipedia, it can be deemed abusive should be removed off the platform. However, if other editors believe it to be constructive I will cease editing. Regards

I don’t think there is need for a topic ban or a block. Since my editing has been received as disruptive I can simply cease editing controversial issues to avoid conflict before consensus is reached with other editors. I think my contribution to the project overall has been constructive and I have helped improve the quality of articles concerning the Horn of Africa in general. I have a lot of knowledge on the region and ultimately I seek to dispense that in a neutral and balanced manner for readers. Unfortunately, I see that many articles have evolved to form a bias towards one entity over another, and my endeavours to correct that has been misconstrued by editors who consent to that bias, hence this engagement here. Nevertheless, I’m more familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and I intend to observe them in all my edits in the future. I’m not here to be disruptive, I’m here to contribute to the platform in a meaningful way. Kind regards!

Statement by Freetrashbox

I don't disagree with TBAN because I have several problems with Shirshore's edits, especially this one. However, the same goes for Kzl55 and Jacob300 for joining in the editing battle. It is clear from the BBC and VOA articles that these areas are disputed areas. Kzl55 and Jacob300 are clearly violating WP:POV and there is no doubt that their edits are frustrating their opponents. I have had several dialogues with Jacob300, but they simply repeat their arguments with the latest version fixed to their preferred edit (and their logic is that "as long as no consensus has been formed, the current version should be adopted,") and I rarely feel that a consensus can be formed in a dialogue with them. It would induce hasty and emotional editing. If their editorial attitude is not changed, it seems likely that similar examples will follow. I have been a long-time participant in the Japanese Wikipedia, but the situation in this topic on the English Wikipedia is extraordinary.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment @El C: I re-read my post above, and I apologize for the content that could be taken to suggest that the English Wikipedia is inferior to the Japanese version. I mainly translate English Wikipedia articles into Japanese version, and I browse in a wide range of fields, including science, culture, geography, and history. Compared to those, there are many editorial battles in this field to rewrite A into B (and B into A), and the articles are not being enriched in spite of this. Editorial battles are generally caused by both sides. I think it is good idea that both be mentioned jointly, but it seems to me that this is being rejected by both sides participating in this field in the Somaliland/Somalia(Puntland) capacity.--Freetrashbox (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Shirshore

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

Recommend an indef WP:BROADLY WP:TBAN. Even though editing WP:HORN pages is all Shirshore appears to do on the project, so I'm not sure how open they'd be to that, still, at a minimum, I believe this is what's required to curb the disruption. If they are able to edit productively elsewhere for, say, 6 months, appealing this sanction would have a fair chance of success. El_C 11:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a June AN3 report (warned) and I think their talk page speaks for itself. They have made 7 edits between Aug 2021 and Jan 2022. Anyway, there needs to be strong assurances, at this point, I think (I've yet to see any at any point), which a TBAN is the ultimate test of. I still think it's due. El_C 14:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Freetrashbox, excuse me if I take long-time participant in the Japanese Wikipedia with an extra grain of salT, knowing what I know about the alarming extent of historical revisionism on that language project. Anyway, the general convention on the English Wikipedia is to refer to de facto independent (self-declared) states by their own names rather than the countries from which they had separated from.

Somalia vs Somaliland naming conventions disruption had been a perennial problem on Wikipedia for as long as I can remember. Now, wrt the Puntland–Somaliland dispute, maybe Somalia and Somaliland could both be mentioned jointly in the Sanaag and Sool infoboxes, as a compromise. It doesn't necessarily need to be either or, all or nothing, etc. But that discussion needs to, well, exist. It needs to have the foundation to exist. A foundation which WP:BATTLEGROUND editing work very much against. El_C 01:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is two cases of edit warring on two article in a couple of days. Not sure I would jump to a topic ban just yet, although I understand if that is how it goes. Their last (and only) block was by EdJohnston in August of last year for 72 hours for similar. Being that this is in such a short period of time, and I think their intentions are good (although their execution is horrible), I would be more inclined to issue a strong block, one week, standard admin action, then go to a topic ban if this continues (3rd strike). I don't think this is a matter of someone who is inclined to be disruptive, but rather, someone who gets something in their mind and won't let it go; a habit they need to break. They also need to read WP:BRD, ie: if you are the one trying to introduce new material, YOU are the one that needs to go to the talk page after you are reverted, then build consensus. Or accept you don't have consensus. In other words, take your own advice.[8] Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are two very valid points, I had missed the prior warning. I have to admit, I'm a bit warmer to the idea of a topic ban now, particularly give the limited scope. The warning was appropriate in that episode was not the most egregious violation of edit warring, but the same problem was going on, a fundamental misunderstanding (or flat out ignoring) of WP:BRD. Again, I'm not against the topic ban so much I like trying to be less aggressive, but you do make a strong case for a tban. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to admit it, but I'm coming down on the side of a TBAN. The chronic edit warring is pretty clearly disruptive, and it's gone on for long enough. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think El_C's proposal seems the best option here. A topic ban from all editing related to the Horn of Africa region, broadly construed, with an appeal possible in six months. --Jayron 32 13:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Veverve

There's been a lot of ideas as to solutions, and we all agree on the problem. At the end of the day, I think the best solution is to institute an indefinite topic ban for all topics relating to "Russia", broadly construed, for Veverve. This includes talk pages or discussions anywhere on the Wiki, subject to the usual exceptions (appeals). The scope was kind of tricky, as we aren't trying to overshoot the mark, yet it's unfair to have the scope too narrow or confusing as to invite more AE discussions as to what is and isn't a violation. I think there is a clear consensus that Russia in general is the primary problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Veverve

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Eastern_Europe#General_restriction

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

23:40, 29 March 2022, 14:05, 30 March 2022, 04:21, 2 April 2022, 21:31, 3 April 2022, 17:17, 5 April 2022, 02:22, 6 April 2022 - sustained edit-warring on page Russian_fascism_(ideology), immediately after coming from a block for edit-warring on the same page. In last edit summaries user claims consensus to delete this page by making it a redirect. I do not see an obvious consensus anywhere. An AfD about this page was closed as "no consensus" on March 18 [9].
[10],[11] (please check their edit summaries) - the user repeatedly removes Category:Russian fascism from a page about Neo-fascist essay What Russia should do with Ukraine. This essay advocates extermination of Ukrainian people in context of the ongoing War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. And it is described as such on the page: "The article calls for the full destruction of Ukraine as a state and the Ukrainian national identity ref" in the lead. It also say that "According to Euractiv, Sergeitsev [author of the essay] is "one of the ideologists of modern Russian fascism" ref". The irony of this? The category was already there, I inserted it by mistake. But such edits show the bias of Veverve and their readiness to edit war even about categorization of pages as belonging to Category:Russian fascism when they obviously belong to such category.
[12] - Veverve objects to using Category:Russian fascism on a number of pages (such as page in the previous diff #2), and instead of discussing why the category would be applicable to specific pages (as I suggested [13]), demands that I must self-revert on all such pages or he will submit an ANI request about me. This is a highly confrontational approach.
[14] - misleading edit summary by Veverve. No, Z symbol removed by Veverve is very much relevant to the subject, this is like removing swastika from a page about Nazi. But he removes it again: [15], and again [16]. This is modus operandi of Veverve: just declare something to be unrelated to the subject and remove over the objections by other multiple contributors.
[17] - misleading edit summary. Veverve removes not just views by Dzhokhar Dudayev (which are relevant), but views by well known academic historian Timothy D. Snyder
(edit summary) - is that an adequate explanation for removal?

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[18] block for edit-warring on page Russian_fascism_(ideology)

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

DS alert

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As a note of order, I now restored the page based on comments by admins below. I also commented on article talk page about it: [19] My very best wishes (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to categories (diff #3), my typical response would be that Black Hundreds, for example, should be included to the category based on their description in book Russian Fascism: Traditions, Tendencies, Movements or in another book, but this is beyond the point. The point is the confrontational approach by Veverve to resolving content disputes: the refusal to discuss the essence of disagreements and demanding to self-revert immediately on all pages or "I will report you to ANI". The report to ANI would result only in wasting time by contributors in this case.

If a TBAN to be issued here, I think this should be a TBAN from anything related to Russian nationalism or fascism or any wider topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User notified

Discussion concerning Veverve

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 Veverve

1. What you call edit-warring is either: a) enforcing the consensus at Talk:Russian fascism (ideology)#Scope of the article, and I was not the only one doing it by revertingyour edits as HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith reverted you; or b) disagreeing on the content of the page which does not constitute edit-warring. I told you on the article's talk page that there was a consensus and that another uninvolved user had seen there was a consensus. The consensus was also seen by a second uninvolved user at ANM.

My article-ban was from 17 March 2022 to 24 March 2022. All your examples are from more than 5 days after the end of the ban, so I do not see how you can say I had contend disputes immediately after coming from a block for edit-warring on the same page.

I opened an ANI on 1 April 2022 concerning this page and a dispute with another user, Tsans2. On 2 April the user was topic-banned, and I received no sanction or accusation for edit-warring at this ANI, meaning I was not considered by anyone as edit-warring (i.e. no WP:BOOMERANG as should have happened if I was doing what you are accusing me of). This topic-ban was supported by Deepfriedokra, who had previously imposed a one-week article-ban of this article to both me and Tsans2.

2. and 3. As for the second and third point, you are emphasising the content dispute aspect, while I was protesting against you trying to make controversial changes. As I stated on you talk page, most of your additions did not meet WP:CATDEF. And some (probably most if I remember correctly) of the articles to which you added those tags make no mention of fascism; I gave you two examples at your talk page (Russian world, Third Rome). Another example is adding this category to Category:Antisemitism in the Soviet Union which is highly contestable. I have the right to ask you to follow WP:BRD and WP:QUO when a policy is not respected; I feel in no way can this behaviour be considered a highly confrontational approach.

Veverve (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: since there was no consensus at the AfD, as I told My very best wishes, my reasoning was that there was no WP:CONLEVEL, as WP:NOCONSENSUS seems treated differently in the same policy page (I pointed out WP:CCC and WP:BUREAUCRACY in my comment). Veverve (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: that I may have misinterpreted one or more policies, I admit. However, what POV are you accusing me of pushing? Veverve (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown: I would like to point out that my argument about CCC and CONLEVEL were made 6 April 2022, 1 month after the AfD; and they were not made after you gave an explanation on them.

While I was previously given the argument that the soft deletion was not to be done due to the AfD result, other users have also been given this argument and have also changed the article into a redirect, in good faith, in the name of what they perceived as enforcing a legitimate consensus from the talk page. Besides, I am not the one who turned this article into a redirect in the first place. I am not invoking a WP:SHEEP editing on my part, but the user My very best wishes wants to make those actions as if they were outlandish and especially made by me.

While those elements do not make my actions automatically excusable, I hope they provide a bigger picture of the situation. Veverve (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that My very best wishes (MVBW) has changed their complaint to try, even here, to POV-push adding the Z (military symbol) and the Ribbon of Saint George as symbols of fascism in Russia without any source; this is despite having accepted the letter "Z" was not a fascist symbol according to the only sources once given in the article supposedly supporting this claim. MVBW is also trying to blame me for not agreeing on their scope of the article at the time, which by a 2 vs 1 was not following MVBW's opinion; MVBW's view being that the article should be a collection of claims of Russia under Vladimir Putin being fascist or compared to fascists. I have justified myself concerning Danilov's opinion on the article's talk page; the opinion to me is not DUE and the statement it supports is half a FICTREF. Dudayev's opinion is from an interview and therefore is a primary source and given weight arbitrarily. Those new accusations are either once again content dispute material, or an user trying to justify WP:OR. Veverve (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dhawangupta

@Dennis Brown: I think you should take WP:ATD into consideration. There is no need of another AfD to overturn a previous AfD. The discussion on talk page happened for weeks and it was concluded that Wikipedia is better off without this article. The clear consensus was also noted by arbitrator+admin Xeno on WP:AN.[20]

Since this report largely depend on that particular point that has been already resolved, I don't consider this report as anything more than WP:FORUMSHOPPING to find another resolution instead of describing on talk page that why this POV cruft is needed or if there is any academic coverage about it. Dhawangupta (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: With that logic, the whole issue is now moot because "Russian fascism (ideology)" was redirected and "Fascism in Russia" became article after Vevere requested on RM/TR.[21] I believe his efforts were sincere and he was being helpful. Dhawangupta (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

Just want to note Veverve's recent editing in this topic area, including a group of RfDs, plus their retirement message, plus more editing afterwards. Sorry I'm on mobile and don't have time for diffs, but it's all in their contribs from today. I would suggest the scope of the tban include fascism and EE, not just "Russian fascism" as that's too narrow IMO. Levivich 17:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Veverve

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

Veverve, why exactly are you (and Czello and HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith) trying to soft delete an article that went to AFD and was closed as "no consensus".[22]. AFD is considered a global consensus, unlike a talk page which is a local consensus, as it attracts input from all over the Wiki. It would seem to be that if you want it to be deleted, you would take it to AFD again. I mean, you didn't even bother to have a well advertised RFC, you just got a few people together on a talk page and decided the AFD was "wrong". There are plenty of issues with the article (as the AFD pointed out), but you can't overturn global consensus with local consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing textbook tendentious editing from Veverve here. You can't just quote BRD or only give it lip service, then point your finger at the other guy. I will look around more, but seriously, this may warrant a topic ban. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus defaults to KEEP under all circumstances at AFD, and always has, as that is the default state of an article. The only real difference between a no consensus and keep decision is that it is considered acceptable to bring a no consensus article back to AFD after a period of time, 3 to 6 months. For all intent and purposes, the status quo was "keep", and the AFD showed there was NO consensus to delete it. Been that way since I started in 2006. And please stay in your own section. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add, your quoting CCC (consensus can change) two weeks after the AFD is making the case that you need to be topic banned. You seem blinded by your POV here and reaching for any straw to grab onto. You're quoting policy you don't understand, and instead of learning policy, you are trying to find some policy that fits your preconceived ideas. I don't think you need to be editing in EE areas, your POV is overriding good judgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dhawangupta ATD has no bearing here. The Arbitrator didn't take action as an admin, and their opinions don't carry more weight anyway. Local discussions don't override a recent AFD. Had it been a well advertised RFC (thus global) or actual advertised and tagged merge discussion, that might be different, but it wasn't. Your arguments here are moot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Deepfriedokra who made the last block and is more familiar with the case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown's observations reflect my own. This is straying into WP:CIR territory. El_C 11:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, just trying to be nice, because incompetence might happen in good faith, unlike agenda, uh, servitude. But that's right, we don't have special insight into someone's soul. In that sense, mitigating factors for DE can only go so far, with the effectiveness of the enforcement action serving as the driving imperative. El_C 13:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Veverve I see my block did not deter you from further disruption. Not sure if we need just a TBAN enforced by a partial block on Russian_fascism_(ideology) or a TBAN on Eastern Europe entire. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: is it WP:CIR or is it in the service of some agenda? Quien sabe. Or some other reason? There's a Roger Zelazny quote I won't bother to look up that would apply. The reason is irrelevant. Stopping the disruption is what we seek. (noting "retired" on user page) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wot Firefly sed --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK with any broader than the one article topic ban. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My instinct would be a partial block + TBAN from Russian fascism (ideology), with a clear warning that should the same disruption "leak" elsewhere in any way, broader sanctions will be swiftly imposed. firefly ( t · c ) 13:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm clear, a topic ban only on Russian Facism specifically, broadly construed, as well as a partial block from the single article/talk? That is a lot narrower than all of EE but does make sense and I could support that. Not sure how necessary the partial block would be if there is a tban in place, but it can't hurt. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking on it just a minute more, this would have to be a little broader, covering Russism, Russian nationalism and more. If making it that narrow, might be better to just make it all of Russia, or Russian politics and philosophy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could happily support something along those lines - "Russian politics/political philosophy, broadly construed"? firefly ( t · c ) 14:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I think about it, I'm still a bit worried the narrowness will cause him to trip up unintentionally, or perhaps intentionally thinking there was plausible deniability, ie: editing the current Russian war, which is getting close. I think if we are going to narrow it smaller than EE, it may need to just be "Russia", broadly construed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, we don't want ambiguity if we can help it. "Russia, broadly construed" looks good. firefly ( t · c ) 11:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support TB for Russia broadly construed. Doug Weller talk 10:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through all of this, it seems the most appropriate response here is a topic ban from all Eastern Europe topics, per WP:ARBEE. I would also support any lesser included topic bans if it is felt that a more narrow scope is sufficient. --Jayron 32 13:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goliath74

Article ECP protected by El_C --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Goliath74

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Goliath74 (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

16:35, 08 April 2022 Restores content with unreliable reference without explanation
16:35, 08 April 2022 Again restores content with unreliable reference without explanation, despite my very clear edit summary of "rv. See previous edit summary. The discussion has been had regarding that website. It isn't reliable. Per WP:BURDEN, anyone restoring the information needs to cite a proper reference, not an unreliable blog

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/a

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

Notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Given the ongoing propaganda war surrounding the actual war, the last thing relevant articles needs is editors who persist in restoring information by a blog deemend unreliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 320#defence-blog.com. FDW777 (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Goliath74

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 Goliath74

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Goliath74

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

Extended confirmed protected for the duration. FDW777, while Goliath74's edits to the page might be subpar, it's only 2 reverts and this article isn't subject to WP:1RR right now. El_C 11:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if @Goliath74: can agree to not make further edits with that source, and to discuss contents and sourcing going forward, we can call it a day-o --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ECP should work. I note that Goliath74 rarely edits, with months between edits, and wouldn't be surprised if he's not going to again for a while. Doug Weller talk 10:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that this be closed as "article ECP protected" (thanks El_C). FDW777 was correct to bring this here but the discretionary sanctions notice was only a minute before Goliath74's second revert and that user is a very infrequent editor and can be excused for not being aware of how DS works. Goliath74 should be aware that any future issues of a similar nature would be likely to result in a sanction (block or topic ban). Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14Jenna7Caesura

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 14Jenna7Caesura

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Funcrunch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 14Jenna7Caesura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality

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

00:34, 10 April 2022 Page move without discussion
23:14, 29 March 2022 Page move without discussion
04:03, 20 March 2022 Page move without discussion
17:40, 11 November 2021 Page move without discussion

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User has a number of DS alerts in other areas as well, but my reason for filing is the number of page moves without discussion on pages subject to gender and sexuality sanctions. Funcrunch (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning 14Jenna7Caesura

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 14Jenna7Caesura

Please review Talk:Causes_of_transsexuality#Changing_the_title.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does DS mean a 0 revert policy? If so, every single time, I reverted even once, I got a DS notice. Let me know is DS means 0-revert policy or no discussion allowed.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Deepfriedokra is one of the editors who backed blocking me in 2021; I was asked to create an account and reveal personal information even though I was okay with IP editing.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I may have more DS's on my talk page that I probably deleted.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I move the pages, I let them know that reversion of my page moves are okay. There were either discussions there as in Talk:Causes_of_transsexuality or I discussed when asked about my rationale.
The main advocates of Causes_of_transsexuality have refrained from casting a single vote at Talk:Causes_of_transsexuality#Requested_move_10_April_2022 to explain the selection of the "transsexuality" term.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe users can be allowed to state that they believe another user's edits are transphobic, sexist, racist, and so on for example. I am not sure why a user has been be so thin-skinned. By the current standards, 98% of guests on broadcast and cable news would have to be cut off in the middle of the their interviews. I understand group think and admins wanting to form a coalition. However, is a personal vendetta more important that a positive contribution? Even after I yielded on edits, some users want to overdo by beating down on me. If the goal was proper naming of the article, then why hasn't one editor after 3 days made an argument in favor of the current title at Talk:Causes_of_transsexuality#Requested_move_10_April_2022? --14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I express my judgment that Wikipedia is deteriorating badly. I studied the 3RR rule. I learned about 1RR rule. I now learn 0 RR rule. I use commonsense understanding of personal attacks. I now learn expressing an opinion that a person is transphobic, sexist, misogynist, man-hating, racist, and so on is itself an attack that you most of you say merit sanctions. What I see in mainstream media I don't dare to add here. I see some editors delete hundreds of reliable sources in this example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_people_killed_for_being_transgender&diff=1079610221&oldid=1079461882 (with the deletion of Muhlaysia Booker's name that numerous news outlets cited as an anti-trans murder) I am being told this is a good edit. I don't think that anyone from the left or right side of the political spectrum can make valuable contributions in this way; thus, Al Sharpton, Joy Reid, Tucker Carlson, and hundreds of mainstream journalists would be suppressed. Even Joe Biden would be sidelined when he called Putin a "killer" a couple of years ago. There are established editors who have don't dare to wade into controversy for fear of being targeted. I know that most of you don't listen to my rational voice, but I hope to sway some who can see a tyranny of the majority here grasping at straws to cite arcane rules that even trial lawyer will have a hard time grasping.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am against personal attacks. At the same time, I am against weaponizing the no personal attacks rule to violate neutral editing. I am also against using the no personal attacks rule to attack me and target me.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removing Muhlaysia Booker from the article is an example of discrimination against a dead t girl. I am learning that on this platform if I as an editor write a complaint, then the said complaint is equated with a personal attack. Thus, of course, I am against personal attacks. Nevertheless, because of the way that a good rule of "no personal attacks" is exploited improperly, it suits me best to self-censor and disengage mostly.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Crossroads

See this about BLP-violating gender-related content being added to an article after getting the gender DS, and the attacks in the reply here to another editor.

14Jenna7Caesura made this edit to Equality Act (United States), which added a source but also subsumed sex and sexual orientation as part of gender even though none of the sources support that, not even the one she added. After being reverted, she edit warred by restoring the same edit with a non sequitur edit summary about sex and gender being related (true, but they are distinct, as is sexual orientation).

The discussion she points to in the comment here contains personal attacks against Funcrunch, found in this diff. Odd to point to it. Whether someone is right or not, editors must be collaborative and civil. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Donald Albury

@14Jenna7Caesura: The community enforces the no personal attacks and other policies in an attempt to create a welcoming environment in which editors may work collaboratively to produce a quality on-line encyclopedia. If those policies restrict your ability to express yourself, maybe you would be more comfortable editing on some other platform. - Donald Albury 19:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 14Jenna7Caesura

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

Well, it looks like 14Jenna7Caesura goes and does as she wishes without attaining a consensus. @14Jenna7Caesura: you must not do this. I leave it to those with stronger reading skills to look further. Not sure what the provenance of four (4) DS alerts is or should be. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4 different alerts for 4 edits in different areas. Doug Weller talk 15:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that's all that I can see. I think either a page move ban or a topic ban would be appropriate here. Doug Weller talk 10:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Page move ban might be sufficient, and given the topic is an Arb DS area, I think that a total page move ban is within our authority to implement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be the one dissenting voice to put the brakes on sanctions at this point, or indeed to at least consider lesser sanctions than the ones proposed above. The difs above show me a little overly aggressive application of WP:BOLD, but 14Jenna7Caesura is also showing restraint as time has gone on... For example, in the April 10 move, WP:BRD was clearly followed, as the initial contested move has now resulted in a discussion. 14Jenna7Caesura has been made aware of DS in the past, but as far as I can tell, WP:ARBGSDS has no provision requiring a move discussion. I'm sure 14Jenna7Caesura is now aware that such moves as they have been making have been unilaterally controversial, and that such moves in the future, especially those in the ARBGSDS remit, should ALWAYS be preceded by a consensus building discussion (which is to say, no more WP:BOLD moves in the GS topic area). I don't think we need a ban to accomplish this as long as 14Jenna7Caesura agrees to common sense self-moderation including 1) refraining from enacting likely-to-be-controversial moves unilaterally 2) participate collegially in discussions about such proposed moves before they happen, and refrain from accusations of bad faith or WP:BLUDGEONy-type responses from those that disagree with them. While the others above note that people have applied DS notices from multiple topic areas, while strictly true, this all relates to GS-related editing, even if the notices come from other sensitive topic areas. I think if we have some assurances that they intend to work more cautiously, I would be willing to forstall formal sanctions at this point, under WP:LASTCHANCE principles. I am but one voice here, so don't let my dissent overrule any consensus that may develop in another direction, but this is at least my feelings on the matter. --Jayron32 15:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I could back down to a formal warning, which at a minimum is warranted. WP:BOLD is the cornerstone of Wikipedia, as is WP:AGF, but the judgement is questionable in these moves and I would feel better if they simply offered (and stuck to) a voluntary refrain from moving pages for at least 6 months. That is all the AGF I have. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend an indefinite topic ban from gender and sexuality topics, broadly construed (WP:ARBGS). Notification of the discretionary sanctions was given on 3 December 2021. The diffs in Crossroad's statement show an approach that is incompatible with editing in a contentious topic. Another example is here (permalink) where 14Jenna7Caesura answers a good-faith (and good) comment about standard procedures with "You want to discriminate against t girls" and more. Regarding the reported four page moves, the first couple might be excused as bold but more than that shows a need to be separated from this topic. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see a rough consensus for a topic ban forming. I am going to leave this open for 24 more hours to give admins time to react to Jayron32's comments --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per the reasoning given by Johnuniq, I support an indefinite topic ban from gender and sexuality topics, broadly construed (WP:ARBGS). - Donald Albury 20:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I very largely come down on the side of Jayron, most of the diffs are benign, in good faith, and don't rise to the level of sanctions, the editor generally seems communicative and willing to improve, and IMO most of the rationales for implementing sanctions here are not good. However, Jenna's own comment above articulates that they don't support the NPA policy being "weaponized" against "neutral editing". This statement shows that the user's mindset is fundamentally incompatible with editing in a contentious topic area in which they have a strong bias, and to me there is no other option than a TBAN for that reason alone. I do think the user is here in good faith but once you resort to the whole Kafkaesque "accusing someone of personal attacks is a personal attack" argument, we cannot reasonably ask or expect our volunteers to continue to engage with you. Competent rational behavior and communication are required as a prerequisite to participate on this project. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I now support a TBAN rather than just a page move ban. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at Azov Battalion

Declined malformed. Elinruby, this is inadequate and malformed. It doesn't look like you've put that much effort into this report, like much of a summary, the users involved, key diffs, and so on. I've given you a logged warning due to spillover from this dispute just yesterday, and I'm sorry to say, but this does not inspire confidence. Worse still, when the careless (not just inexperience) nature of this report was brought up, your responses had been just confounding (diff). And also just plain wrong, because not only is Redrose64 an admin, but her knowledge of these editorial procedures is unrivalled. Please do better because a WP:TBAN is pretty much imminent for anything else. Newcomers can only be given allowances to a point. Competence is required, most especially for WP:ACDS matters. El_C 23:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning RfC at Azov Battalion

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Elinruby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: [[User:RfC at Azov Battalion|RfC at Azov Battalion]] ([[User talk:RfC at Azov Battalion|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/RfC at Azov Battalion|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/RfC at Azov Battalion|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/RfC at Azov Battalion|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/RfC at Azov Battalion|block user]] · block log)
Search CT alerts: [{{fullurl:User talk:RfC at Azov Battalion|action=history&tagfilter=contentious+topics+alert}} in user talk history] • in system log

RfC close as no consensus

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

Section as it stands: [23]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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

.

Not seeking sanctions, just closure

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Not seeking sanctions at the moment but there has been a revert war on an RfC as people were voting on it. This may be due to a previous refusal to discuss but the bigger point right now is that everyone involved seems to agree.that the RfC needs to be closed and started over.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Not seeking sanctions, just closure

Discussion concerning RfC at Azov Battalion

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 RfC at Azov Battalion

Statement by Aquillion

Explanation (sort of) here. I don't think AE lets administrators close RFCs as an arbcom enforcement action, so it's unclear what is being requested here. See the list of things you can request via AE at the top of the page. If you're requesting action against a user you need to specify the user and why. I would assume that this page falls under the Eastern Europe DS, though. --Aquillion (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning RfC at Azov Battalion

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

EnlightenmentNow1792

EnlightenmentNow1792 is topic banned from Eastern Europe --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning EnlightenmentNow1792

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vladimir.copic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBEE

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

10 April Disruption/vandalism of an RfC
10 April Disruption/vandalism of an RfC
10 April Disruption/vandalism of an RfC
10 April Disruption/vandalism of an RfC
10 April Disruptively editing away from the status quo (the result of an RfC) while a new RfC is in progress. They cite votes in the ongoing RfC as justification.
8 April Accusing an editor (myself) of being an SPA on Jimbo Wales' talk page.
9 April Uncivil behaviour after receiving an AE warning
9 April Uncivil behaviour at AN/I
9 April Battleground/uncivil behaviour
9 April Declined report at edit war noticeboard
8 April Baseless accusations of edit warring
8 April Baseless accusations of edit warring
8 April Repeated re-adding of POV tag
8 April Repeated re-adding of POV tag
8 April Repeated re-adding of POV tag
9 April Repeated re-adding of POV tag
8 April Bludgeoning

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

19 February 2022 1 week block for disruptive editing

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

DS alert sent on 8 April [24]
AE warning logged on 9 April [25]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is just a snapshot of this editor's disruptive behaviour over the past few days at the Azov Battalion page encompassing more than 100 edits on the talk page since 30 March.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[26]

Discussion concerning EnlightenmentNow1792

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 EnlightenmentNow1792

My contributions to the attempt to improve the article:

1. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azov_Battalion#Is_Azov_still_neo-nazi? (over a dozen of the most eminently RSs)

2. Many hours spent trying to help finish the malformed RfC (I didn't want to), only for the initiator to then take back control of the RfC, which I acquiesed to:

3. For the RfC, an "Alternative Draft #2:"

The Azov Special Operations Detachment is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine, based in Mariupol, southeastern Ukraine. It was founded as the Azov Battalion in Kyiv in 2014, a small paramilitary group of extremist Far Right and neo-Nazi political activists under the political leadership of Andriy Biletsky.^[1] "Irregular Militias and Radical Nationalism in Post-Euromaydan Ukraine: The Prehistory and Emergence of the “Azov” Battalion in 2014." Terrorism and Political Violence, 31(1).^[2] Active participants in the Revolution of Dignity, the militia became notorious in Western and Russian media for its tech-savvy online presence,^[3] relatively unfettered use of neo-Nazi symbolism,^[4] and its successful efforts in recruiting international volunteers.^[5] However, after its forced absorption into the National Guard and the subsequent purging of its extremist political element - most especially Andriy Biletsky and his circle - the scholarly consensus is that the unit has for long now been largely "de-politicized".^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]</ref>^[13]^[14]

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply regarding GizzyCatBella:

I believe this editor's activities to be WP:BATTLEGROUND to the point of being disruptive. Would I be correct in surmising that these diffs below (are they diffs?) are indicative of someone who is not, at this moment, here to build an encyclopedia? WP:NOTHERE

[27] - demonstrates she hasn't read the Talk Page discussion.

[28] - "After thinking about it - here is the issue with the above version. Do we have any source that says includes Neo-nazi elements. Do we? If not, I don’t think that can be used unfortunately. see WP:OR" - there are dozens. Demonstrating she hasn't read the Talk Page discussion, but is nevertheless commenting, voting, insulting, warning, other users that don't share her POV.

[29] - Comment - Same here, do we have any source that says which used to be neo-Nazi ? - there are dozens. Demonstrating she hasn't read the Talk Page discussion, but is nevertheless commenting, voting, insulting, warning, other users that don't share her POV.

[30] - invited her to withdraw a personal attack, she clearly declined

[31] - Comment - After thinking about it - here is the issue with the above version. Do we have any source that says includes Neo-nazi elements. Do we? If not, I don’t think that can be used unfortunately. see WP:OR - demonstrating again she hasn't read the discussion

[32] - Yay, I would go with this one, perhaps modifying it to defined as neo-Nazi - votes, despite not reading sources, and ends choosing the least supported of all the options. The sources in fact actively refute this allegation. But she votes that way all the same.

[33] - "Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic." - accuses a new user that doesn't share her POV of being a SPA

[34] - adds "insignia used by the Nazi SS divisions" to the text of the article lead! Very helpful!

[35] - replaces TWO BBC sources (2018 and 2022) about the Wolfsangel symbol, with a 2015 RBC (Russian state-controlled media) one specifically linking it to Andrei Biletsky, who, of course, was booted from the modern Azov unit way back in 2016. Demonstrating again, she is not familiar at all with subject or the the source material (8 years out of date).

[36] - "@ Bbb23 - Battleground mentality of Aquillion? I feel users who arrive here with such an obvious absurdity to safeguard their POV partner need to be cautioned. I'm referring to the remark left EnlightenmentNow1792." Tries to goad an admin to "caution" me because I am supposedly there to "safeguard my POV partner", who, as it happens, kept rv my edits as much as she did! lol

[37] - this whole Talk Page exchange is bizarre. She has repeatedly, point-blank refused to even take a look at, let alone read, any sources. She has added no content herself. No sources. Well, except for the RBC one! What is the point of even being on Wikipedia if you're not prepared to look at sources or contribute any content?

When I provided her with a list of recent high quality sources on her Talk page, her response was this...

[38]

Apparently she's been blocked multiple times for edit-warring and WP:BATTLEGROUND. This hasn't stopped her from spending much her time on Wikipedia trying to get others blocked for supposedly edit warring... only if of course they have the temerity to not share her POV.

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding and replying to El_C:

This admin is not uninvolved. He has repeatedly threatened me with a TBAN on my talk page since he was first made aware of my presence in the topic area, in which I possess a high level of professional expertise and unusual level of access to sources (books, academic journals, Russian language sources, can speak/read Russian, etc). It's impossible not to respond to WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior with retaliatory combative edits in this topic area, as editors who have a special interest POV are constantly pushing for new users - who don't share their nationalist/ethnic special interest - to be Topic Banned, blocked, etc. Admin who aren't familiar with the source material, the scholarship, and the political disputes in the region, then are often successfully goaded into banning new users, who don't know how to properly defend themselves (the the required competence WP:CIR El_C) refers to. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal to BSMRD

How is it that you are accusing me of exhibiting unhelpful, battleground behavior/editing, when your edit count[39] shows that you have made 28 edits to the Azov Battalion article proper, at least 6 of which are outright reverts:

1 - [40]

2 - [41]

3 - [42]

4 - [43]

5 - [44] - (including this deliberately deceptive edit calling the op-ed author published a highly WP:PARTISAN and outdated source, American memoirist Lev Golinkin, as a "Ukrainian affairs writer" and a Ukrainian!?! The piece is clearly not fact-checked of course, being published in 2019 yet calling Biletsky Azov's leader, attributing to him a long-discredited quote, claiming he's a member of the Rada... all untrue as of 2016, when he was was booted out of Azov and founded his own political party which was precisely zero parliamentary representation, himself included)

6 - [45] - (and this telling edit summary: "(They are neo-Nazis, IDK how that is "overkill per their articles" when we call the orgs neo-Nazi in their articles)" as nonsensical as it is disrespectful to all the scholarship and respective news orgs who have said otherwise)

...and including at least one edit[46] edit, which simply amplifies Kremlin disinfo. (without qualification, by explicating Moscow's use of the existence of the Azov unit, an outfit of 1,500 max nationwide, as justification for it's Siege of Mariupol', a city of half a million largely Russian-speaking people, nearly half of which identify as ethnic Russians).

Incidentally, the Avoz unit itself is comprised of a majority of Russian-speakers, but, again, as with so much other sourced information in the article that doesn't suit the simplistic Kremlin narrative, a mere 2min look at the recent edit history of the article will uncover the slow-motion tag-team edit-warring that keeps this kinda info out of the article. I'm referring of course to not justBSMRD, but Vladimir.copic (Russian),[47](removal of multiple RS) GizzyCatBella,[48] Mhorg (Russian),[49] and Aquillion [50] not only managing to keep the "neo-Nazi" label intact by appealing to sources such as YouTube, The Telegraph (2014), Al Jazeera, RT (Kremlin-run), and RBC (Kremlin-run) - but they've even managed to delete any evidence that there is actually on ongoing dispute over the NPOV of the article, by repeatedly deleting even the NPOV-Disputed tag![51], [52], [53], and countless more diffs.

You have contributed no sources, nor engaged in any meaningful discussion on Talk, and yet somehow you have well over 30 edits on Wikipedia's Admin and Arbitration requests regarding this very article! If that is not an indication of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, I don't know what is.... EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Umland, A. (2019)
^ Shekhovtsov, A., & Umland, A. (2014). The maidan and beyond: Ukraine's radical right. Journal of Democracy, 25(3), 58-63.
^ Saressalo, T., & Huhtinen, A.-M. (2018). The Information Blitzkrieg — “Hybrid” Operations Azov Style. The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 31(4), 423–443.
^ Chossudovsky, M. (2015). Ukraine’s neo-Nazi summer camp. Guardian (Sydney), (1701), 7.
^ Fedorenko, K., & Umland, A. (2022). Between Frontline and Parliament: Ukrainian Political Parties and Irregular Armed Groups in 2014–2019. Nationalities Papers, 50(2), 237-261.
^ Umland, A. (2019). Irregular militias and radical nationalism in post-euromaydan Ukraine: The prehistory and emergence of the “Azov” Battalion in 2014. Terrorism and Political Violence, 31(1), 105-131.
^ Fedorenko, K., & Umland, A. (2022). Between Frontline and Parliament: Ukrainian Political Parties and Irregular Armed Groups in 2014–2019. Nationalities Papers, 50(2), 237-261.
^ Bezruk, T., Umland, A., & Weichsel, V. (2015). Der Fall" Azov": Freiwilligenbataillone in der Ukraine. Osteuropa, 33-41.
^ https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2017-08-01/how-ukraine-reined-its-militias
^ AFP in https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war
^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/06/ukraine-military-right-wing-militias/
^ https://www.ft.com/content/7191ec30-9677-423d-873c-e72b64725c2d
^ https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-60853404
^ https://www.dw.com/en/the-azov-battalion-extremists-defending-mariupol/a-61151151

Statement by BSMRD

In addition to what has been provided above, EnlightenmentNow1792 seems to be reverting any messages regarding their behavior off their talk page as "personal attacks" (that's just a small sample, more can be seen here). Now, by itself there is nothing wrong with that however, in addition, they have shown nothing but contempt for Wikipedia's administrative processes and ruling, shown both in the above posting, this comment and their response to this warning. They clearly have no desire to change their behavior or regard any other editors or administrators encouragement to do so. In fact, they don't seem to have changed their behavior at all since the last time they were blocked, and I doubt anything short of a broader/longer block or TBAN will do anything. BSMRD (talk) 07:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

I always advocate against sanctioning editors unless it's absolutely necessary and justified but this case requires administrative intervention, unfortunately. Edit warring [54], [55], [56], [57] and WP:BLUDGEON on the Azov Battalion talk page including "hijacking" RFCs [58] (modifying other people's text to their liking [59] see the complaint that followed -->[60]), the repeated removal of other people's comments [61], [62], [63] are just samples that are outside criteria that must be followed. (I could go on with more examples of disruptive behaviour but I believe these already presented are enough) - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page needs a clerk intervention please. Everything written below this message is not mine - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BLUDGEON at the Azov talk page continues (as I write this). Here is just a recent sample of it:

March 31 list of sources eg. Umland, A. (2019) etc - [64]
April 9 again Umland, A. (2019) etc - [65]
April 11 yet again (just a few minutes before coming here) Umland (2019) - [66]

It's very challenging to navigate through that talk page as it is. We don't need to hear repeated argumentation, over and over and over. Sadly, I'll have to support a topic ban at least from that talk page, please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On top of the bizarre accusation of misconduct against our finest administrators [67] and here too [68] I believe it's worth noting the strange remark posted here [69] that has been copy-pasted from talk page of ToBeFree [70] where EnlightenmentNow1792 went on a block shopping journey just a day earlier. The editor exhibits clear battleground behaviour. I'm not sure 🤔 but perhaps they require also a break to recognize it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And now this [71] .. contesting another fine admin. Oh Lord.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also share the view of Firefangledfeathers -->[72] EnlightenmentNow1792 has the potential to be a positive acquisition to our project if they only understood how to act accordingly to our standards. The only issue is their conduct which might be happening because of a lack of experience. I hope they learn from this incident and revise their behaviour. I really hope so and I would welcome rather soft sanctions. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

I'll likely have more to say later, but I'd like to call attention to prior conduct issues raised at ANI in December and February. Both involved disruptive conduct in other topic areas. WP:TEXTWALL is a recurring issue with this editor. EnlightenmentNow1792, are you aware that there is a 500 word limit here? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems some sanction is likely, I won't add to the pile of diffs, but if admins feel more are needed I've got them. For the record, EN1792 has a great strength in compiling and sharing quality source lists. They present themselves, convincingly, as someone with an extensive library and source access and the willingness to spend hours digging out the relevant info. I hope they get a chance to show off their more civil, collaborative side. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

The battleground attitude of this user is obvious, but if a topic ban to be issued, I would propose it to be only for 2-4 months as their first sanction. The user seems to be agitated and profoundly disturbed because of the ongoing Ukrainian war, and especially the Siege of Mariupol. When these events end, and there will be more certainty on this subject as reflected in sources, perhaps she/he will be able to edit in a more reasonable and collaborative manner? My very best wishes (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen. Yes, I agree with you after checking their earlier edits, and not only in the EE area. This user seems to be non-cooperative in general, but the problem is becoming bigger in contentious subject areas. My very best wishes (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning EnlightenmentNow1792

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

Recommend TBAN. This user is needlessly combative (WP:BATTLEGROUND) and they lack the required competence (WP:CIR) to edit the topic area at this time. Little if any reflection or introspection were ever shown (perhaps because they fail to realize that there is a problem), so it's probably for the best. El_C 17:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user does not understand WP:INVOLVED. I've interacted with them in an administrative capacity only, and of course, I made no threats. That they call my warning that is further proof of intractable BATTLEGREOUND. El_C 18:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, I pretty much stopped setting TBANS to automatically expire a while ago. Been burned too many times before. Also, obviously, we can't tell when Russian atrocities are going to end in the Ukraine, so how do we set any kind of a clock on the ban? How can any duration not be arbitrary, in that sense? El_C 00:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with El C. I'm particularly interested in the user's editing after they were warned by El C, and quite a lot of the diffs offered indeed postdate that warning. This is a very obvious case of disruptive battleground/steamroller editing, and a topic ban seems necessary. Indeed, I thought of simply issuing one myself, per my sole admin discretion, but it would perhaps be a pity not to reinforce it by having it come from multiple admins here at AE. I note and appreciate My very best wishes's recommendation of a 2-4 months' ban only, but I can't agree. Time-limited bans can be simply waited out, and then users can return with their bad habits intact, without having had to show they can otherwise edit constructively. Topic bans should normally be indefinite, IMO. In this case, an appeal in three months' time could be entertained. EnlightenmentNow1792, if you are indeed topic banned indefinitely with a three-month wait to appeal, as I recommend, you can make that appeal more credible by showing good editing in other areas, and also in the EE area on our sister projects. (You would only be banned from the English Wikipedia.) Bishonen | tålk 22:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]
I support an indefinite topic ban. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An indefinite topic ban for EnlightenmentNow1792 is required. I have seen credible claims (although of course nothing is really credible in the fog of war) that a lot of fighters have joined the Azov Battalion because of its effectiveness, and the new fighters have no Nazi leanings. It might therefore be unfortunate to label the whole of the current organization as neo-Nazi (that's might—I have no reliable sources). Even if that and more were true, EnlightenmentNow1792's approach is not compatible with a topic under discretionary sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anonimu

Indef TBAN from ARBEE. Thanks, My very best wishes for the summary. Volunteer Marek, triage, please! El_C 01:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Anonimu

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Eastern Europe

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

User:Anonimu has both been extremely WP:TENDENTIOUS in their edits to articles related to the Russia-Ukraine war, and extremely uncivil, uncooperative and insulting as well.

For the record, Anonimu is still under a 1RR restriction, a civility parole and an admonition to "behave impeccably" [73]; although this restriction was imposed quite some time ago as a condition of removal of their indefinite ban from Wikipedia, it was never lifted and still applies. Anonimu acknowledges that it still applies in this edit summary although they claim that these restriction only apply to "Balkans" and not "Russia". There is no indication anywhere that this is the case. The original restrictions apply to ALL of their editing.

Anonimu has violated all three of these restrictions, and even if one regards these restrictions as "stale" on account of their vintage, their behavior is still sanction worthy. Indeed, this seems to be a reversion to exactly the same kind of behavior (both in terms of civility and POV/WP:TEND) that led them to get indefinitely blocked back then.

The most vexatious issue is Anonimu repeatedly referring to my edits as vandalism:

First instance
and then more seriously here - also accuses me of using "fake descriptions". To be clear, there are two photos there and I did mislabel label one as from Bucha instead of Mariupol. Anonimu could have simply corrected that or pointed it out. But this wasn't the gist of the dispute - they wished to remove that both of these are attributed to Russia by RS. --- I then asked Anonimu not to refer to my edits as vandalism [74]. First time.
He ignores my query, doubles down referring to me as a "vandal" personally --- I again ask him to stop [75]. Second time.
In response he starts a talk page section with header which again calls me a vandal. It's becoming obvious that he's purposefully using "vandal" as a way to antagonize and insult (WP:BATTLEGROUND) --- I again ask him to stop accusing me of vandalism, and point him to the relevant policy about it, WP:NORESVAND. Third time.
Anonimu doubles down on the accusation (edit summary is straight up personal attack) --- I ask them again [76]. Fourth time
They respond by repeating the attack. --- I removed their attack from header [77] and ask them (again!) to stop [78]. Fifth time. Someone else chimes in [79] also telling Anonimu to cut it out.
Does it again and accuses the other user of being my sockpuppet (lol)
Anonimu restores section header. Yet another user collapses the section and then informs them [80] as to how their offensive headings violate policy. This is at least Sixth time Anonimu was told their comments are inappropriate.
They respond with more! User:Mathglot also explains to Anonimu what is and isn't vandalism [81]: "these four edits constitute repeated accusations of vandalism against another editor, at the wrong venue, and without supporting evidence." and asks them to "most especially, please refrain from accusations of vandalism at the article Talk page. A pattern of unfounded accusations may be seen as WP:DISRUPTIVE, or a personal attack". Seventh time Anonimu was told to cut it out. We're wayyyy past WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory here. See also this assessment by Mathglot. The previous user, User:Chuckstablers complains to Anonimu about the accusations of sockpuppetry [82] [83] and [84]
Anonimu responds by repeating the personal attacks --- it's explained to them again - Eight time - why these are problematic [85] [86]
Also Anonimu continues to refer to my edits as "vandalism", and restores the personal attacks to the section header [87] that Mathglot changed to remove them. --- I also ask for the Ninth time for him to stop calling my edits vandalism [88]
Yup, he responds by doing it again. it's pretty clear that this isn't just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT but just straight up TAUNTing.
And more. Repeats false accusations. It's almost like he wants to make sure that I see him insulting me. --- TENTH warning from me here (and here
Yup, he does it again and even uncollapses the section [89]

And here we are. I've been about as patient as it is humanely possible here with Anonimu. Ten warnings, from myself and other users. Each one seems to only embolden him.

Anonimu's edits to article space have likewise been problematic. On War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine their edits generally try to deny, whitewash or minimize Russian war crimes reported on in reliable sources:

Removing well sourced info [90] (more of the same [91], [92] [93])
Typical edits [94] where he adds "according to Ukrainian authorities" to anything that makes Russia look bad, EVEN IF sources report it at face value (CNN in this case). More of the same [95] [96] [97] (replaces "human rights groups", which is what source says, with "Ukrainian authorities"), [98] [99] [100]
Restores text to lede against consensus [101] (trying to "bothsides it"). Then edit wars about it (violating 1RR which he is subject to) [102]. And again [103]. And again [104]. And again [105]
More 1RR violations [106], [107] with new flimsy pretext [108] (text not backed by source)
WP:TEND [109] because apparently because Russian soldiers killed NOT JUST civilians but also some soldiers, then it wasn't a war crime.
Removes well sourced text because "it fails verification", meaning, he didn't check it himself [110]. Inserts whitewashing language such as "apparently dead bodies". Yeah, "apparently" they were dead. This is a subtle pushing of the conspiracy theory being pushed on pro-Putin social media that the massacre was staged by Ukrainians with crisis actors. He re-inserts the conspiracy theory here (although attributed)
[111] (not actually "per source"), [112] (more conspiracy theory insinuations), [113] (false pretext - source mentions two beheadings, it's just that one was "partially beheaded", so he changes it to singular)

Note that's there's likely a dozen or so 1RR violations in the above, in addition to WP:TEND and WP:NPA violations.

There's even more at Kramatorsk railway station attack

Inserting the conspiracy theory that Ukraine bombed its own station [114]. And again [115]
Pretends that who the attacker is is disputed out there among reliable sources [116]

Volunteer Marek 00:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[117] Indef ban
[118] ArbCom ban on top of 1 year ban.

Yes, both of these are very old. But these were the reasons he was placed under 1RR restriction and civility parole as conditions of removing the indef ban [119]. The restrictions were never removed.

As mentioned above Anonimu recognizes the restrictions are still in place but likes to pretend they only apply to the Balkans. This is not true. And in fact, their original indef ban was over edits to the topic area of Balkans AND Russia.

Volunteer Marek 00:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[120]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Like I said above, I'm out of patience here. Four different editors have tried to explain to him why their behavior is problematic. The response is just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and escalation in incivility and battleground. And that's NOT EVEN considering the WP:TEND content of their edits. While I don't think their indefinite ban should be restored (although it's exactly the same problem that led to it) a topic ban from anything Eastern Europe and especially Russia related is a minimum here.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[121]

Discussion concerning Anonimu

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 Anonimu

Statement by My very best wishes

I also noticed that recent editing by Anonimu in this subject area was very problematic. Some diffs:

[122] - Anonimu believes that bombing pregnant women in a hospital was not a war crime
[123] - Anonimu believes that mass bombing of civilians in Mariupol was not a war crime, even though it was described a "humanitarian catastrophe" by International Committee of the Red Cross in text he removes
[124] (edit summary by Anonimu: "source mentions not reports, but rumors heard by locals") - This is a misrepresentation of the source by Anonimu. The article in Haaretz [125] tells about reports by eyewitnesses, not rumors.
[126] (edit summary by Anonimu: "rv vandalism ..."). Here, Anonimu includes to the lead of the page that "Ukrainian authorities have been accused of ... indiscriminate shelling on civilian areas" with a reference to this. No, the body of page (and the source) do not include any credible claims that Ukrainian authorities indiscriminately shell their own civilians. My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[127] - Anonimu believes that use of cluster munitions is legal, even though Human Rights Watch found that it was not (in the text Anonimu deleted in this diff)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Anonimu

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

Volunteer Marek, you are well over the 500-word limit (over 1,600), please trim with that baseline in mind. Also, please sign + timestamp at the end of your statement. Thanks. El_C 00:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Anonimu

There is a consensus to reject the appeal and endorse the topic ban --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Anonimu (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Indefinite topic ban from Eastern European topics, imposed at WP:AE#Anonimu, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2022#Eastern_Europe

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

Notification of that administrator: dif

Statement by Anonimu

I did not have the occasion to make a statement on the original AE request, since it was closed in just 2 hours. Since enforcing admin said the ban was applied for supposed "tendentious editing", I'll just go through the "offending" diffs and show that they were just strict application of WP:5P2 (more specifically WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:ATT). Do note that this is a current topic, thus should be judged according to data available at the time of edit, not info which appeared later:

[128] and [129] add a neutral description to photos published by a non-independent, non-reliable source (the Ukrainian government); the first diff also fixes a obviously wrong caption (a photo the Ukrainian gvt says was taken in Mariupol is presented as taken in Bucha), and introduces text from BBC: "accused Russia of using its Iskander short-range ballistic missile with a cluster munitions warhead. But he later corrected himself, "Russia's defence ministry also said that Tochka-U rockets were used in the Kramatorsk strike, blaming Ukraine's armed forces for the attack." "The ministry insisted it did not use the type of Tochka-U missile that was fired, whereas the Ukrainian military did."
[130] Moves source to the supported text and clarifies info from BBC source: "analysts point to images and videos on social media that appear to show the Russian military using the Tochka-U."
[131] and [132] removes text that violates WP:ONUS. While sourced, the text does not indicated how exactly is relevant to the article, and none of the sources warrant its inclusion in a page about "war crimes". The same for [133], which moreover misrepresents Haaretz, which says about the subject "Abrazhevich recounted, adding that she had also heard reports of looting"
[134] This is simply fake sourcing, Euronews does not support one word of the article text.
[135] is attributing text, as the Washington Post says "About 400 women, children and elderly people had taken refuge inside Art School No. 12 in the Left Bank district of eastern Mariupol before it was bombed by Russia on Sunday, according to Mayor Vadym Boychenko and the city council. The Washington Post could not independently verify the claim.". [136] is also attribution, as CNN states "according to local authorities, as hundreds of thousands of people remain trapped in the coastal Ukrainian city that has been encircled for weeks by Russian forces.", while Sky News says "People are buried under rubble after a theatre in Mariupol - where hundreds of people are reported to have been sheltering - was bombed by Russian forces, local officials have said". So is [137], as CBS news says "Ukraine documents alleged atrocities by retreating Russians" and "Ukraine's troops found brutalized bodies with bound hands, gunshot wounds to the head and signs of torture after Russian soldiers withdrew from the outskirts of Kyiv, authorities said Sunday"."Authorities said they were documenting evidence of alleged atrocities". The Times never calls the massacre "war crimes".
[138] is also attribution. Per Al Jazeera, "Thomas-Greenfield said the United States had not yet confirmed the allegations made on Saturday by the Mariupol city council", "Kallas said the allegations of Ukrainians deported to Russia", while The Guardian says "Russian forces are sending Ukrainian citizens to “filtration camps” before forcibly relocating them to Russia, according to the accounts of two women".

[139] completes attribution presented in source, per the Guardian "Ukraine’s attorney general is gathering a dossier of claims about the Russian use of local children to avoid fire when in retreat from around Ukraine’s capital and elsewhere. Coaches of children were said... It was further alleged that children had been taken as hostages"

[140] restores consensus version as indicated by talk page here; there was no consensus for removal, as evident from the discussion here. Consensus for inclusion is also proven by the fact the phrase, reformulated and more clearly attributed, is currently] still in the lede.
[141] fixes misrepresentation of sources, and violation of WP:V and WP:NPOV, as Washignton Post says "showed at least nine people, including one child, lying in the street of a residential area in the town of Bucha, north of Kyiv, after Russian forces retreated. They appear to be dead." Words such as "evidence" and "atrocities" are not used at all. The type of source presented by The Kyiv Independent (probably non-RS in this context) is qualified, and text is presented as allegation, as Kyiv Independent attributes it to a photographer: "According to the photographer Mikhail Palinchak, under the blanket are the bodies of one man and two or three naked women that Russians attempted to burn down". BBC does not mention executions, so I corrected the article text.
[142] restored text sourced to CNN. [143] restores text sourced to UN Human rights watch (page 8, section D). As evidence of consensus for inclusion, they are still in the article and have not been removed in the past week.
[144] adds information from BBC: "two are wearing recognisable Ukrainian military uniforms".
[145] introduces information from Washington Post: "Russia’s Defense Ministry [...] claimed some of the footage of bodies in Bucha was “fake” and accused Ukrainian forces of killing people by shelling Bucha." "Kyiv’s mayor, Vitali Klitschko, said the discovery of the graves could “only be described as genocide.”", "Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, [...] accusing Russia of carrying out a “massacre,” requested that the ICC visit the scene “to collect all the evidence of these war crimes” "
[146] fixes misrepresentation of the New York Times: "the town’s hospital was shelled. It is not entirely clear who hit the building, but local residents accuse the Russians of firing into the structure" "In the morgue, beside the three dead Russian soldiers, Dr. Volkova pointed to a body bag in the corner of the room. “This person was tortured to death,” she said." "war crimes" are never mentioned.
[147] add lack of information as explicit from CBC "It was not clear who the people were or under what circumstances they were killed."

[148] adds Russian claims, as reported by several RS, including CNN "At least 50 people [...] were killed after Russian forces carried out a missile strike [...] Ukrainian officials said", "Zelensky said that the "Russian military hit the railway terminal"", "On April 8, the Russian armed forces did not conduct or plan any artillery fires in the city of Kramatorsk. We emphasize that the Tochka-U tactical missiles, the wreckage of which was found near the Kramatorsk railway station and published by eyewitnesses, are used only by the Ukrainian armed forces." [149] removes fake attribution to this same CNN source.

[150] restores info reported by the UN High Commissioner for Human rights: "We are also looking into allegations of indiscriminate shelling by the Ukrainian armed forces in Donetsk and in other territory controlled by the self-proclaimed ‘republics’."

I fail to see how adding info from sources such as BBC, CNN, The Guardian, The New York Times, Euronews, CBS News, and the UN High Commissioner for Human rights and reporting the original attribution (explicit in these RSs) instead of presenting Ukrainian claims in WP:WIKIVOICE can be considered WP:Tendentious editing.Anonimu (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional statement by Anonimu

I am able to provide "clear evidence" of "malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia" by Volunteer Marek. Therefore, per WP:SPADE and WP:GOODFAITH, I think adequately describing his actions does not qualify as incivility. I will only list diffs if requested to do by administrators (just collecting the ones from last month will take three or four times as much as my original statement).Anonimu (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE to User:Jayron32: WP:GOODFAITH says explicitly "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). " I restate that I'm open to list such "obvious evidence" if requested to do so.Anonimu (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, maybe I was wrong in my interpretation of policy and calling Volunteer Marek directly a vandal was unnecessary, I can admit to that. How about the diffs related to content, could you point out exactly which ones are in violation of what policy? Please also read my statement relate to diffs presented by MVBW (I left them out initially for the sake of brevity). I can only improve if I'm told what I'm doing wrong. Anonimu (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I politely ask you again to indicate effective bias in my mainspace edits. Anyway, if I were to accept a temporary topic ban (which I don't find warranted), topic area is too broad, letting me very little space to contribute (if you check my edit history, it is mostly related to Eastern Europe, all articles I have created created would be covered by it). I already have about 6 articles in the pipeline, but all are about Romania, which will fall within the scope and thus I won't be able to move them out of userspace. Basically, the point I'm taking home right now is that I'm indefed for calling another user a vandal.Anonimu (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE to User:El C: I do agree that every person's death is tragic and cannot be justified unless done in immediate self defence. However, that does not mean WP editors can make a judgement call and declare that one specific death qualifies as a war crime, considering that even legal experts fail to agree what exactly constitutes a war crime. Unless, of course, there's a RS saying that, and, at that moment, there were none.Anonimu (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering it's a highly contentious issue regarding an ongoing event, it was my belief that such a conjecture can only be made if backed by a RS, otherwise it would amount to WP:SYNTH. Anonimu (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My original statement had 150 words of original contribution and the rest was just piecewise explaining the diffs from the original enforcement with quotes from the sources (some are paywalled, some have a count limit per IP, some require registration, some times readers fail to check them at all). If a list is made of what particular diffs are problematic and resulted in the original enforcement, I will trim the others from the original statement.Anonimu (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE to User:Seraphimblade: Regarding the diff you mention: it was actually a revert of this edit, which happened while a discussion was still ongoing and apparent consensus, was, despite the claim of the editor, for the inclusion of the text. Since the torture part did appear to summarize the section, as also indicated in the linked discussion, while the second part was explicitly supported by the source, I though at the moment it was the right thing to do. As you are well aware, refs in the lede are generally discouraged on WP, and I didn't consider it necessary to add the other source (namely The Guardian), as it was already cited in the article text.Anonimu (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE to User:Johnuniq: I fail to see how exactly that edit is an issue of competence or twisting the situation. Washington Post literally says "Ukrainian officials on Sunday accused Russia of bombing an art school in Mariupol where hundreds of people had been sheltering in recent days", and further below "About 400 women, children and elderly people had taken refuge inside Art School No. 12 in the Left Bank district of eastern Mariupol before it was bombed by Russia on Sunday, according to Mayor Vadym Boychenko and the city council. The Washington Post could not independently verify the claim.", while CNN says "the city council said the building was acting as a shelter for an estimated 400 people." I fail to see how "Ukrainian officials", and "mayor" and "city council" of a Ukrainian city cannot be summarized as "Ukrainian authorities".Anonimu (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE to @Swarm:. As I noted below, edits shown by MVBW are justified by WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:ATT, while their description by MVBW does constitute egregious violations of WP:NPA. Regarding "evidence" by Biruitorul (which has in the past has brought repeated spurious accusations against me and has engaged and still engaging in personal attacks), I note that considering the discussion of the misuse of sources and failure to verify text as evidence for wrongful editing will defeat the very objective of having talk pages at all. The rest of Biruitorul's comment is just yet another personal attack (the claim that I'm both "pro-Putinist" and pro-Communist is particularly laughable, considering Putin is notably anti-communist and has justified the invasion of Ukraine by claiming "Ukraine is an artificial state created by the Bolsheviks"). Regarding Turgidson's comments: [151] indicates discussion of unreliable sources and [152] shows WP:ATTRIBUTION of WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims made by the subject of the article. ([153] is Turgidson's own edit, he probably added it by error). I fail to see how any of these constitutes improper editing.Anonimu (talk) 08:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What we see above is a classic case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Instead of reflecting on the series of errors that has brought him to this dire situation, and wondering why an unbiased community is revolted by his conduct, he attempts to shift blame onto productive, disinterested editors, meanwhile launching tendentious allegations of personal attacks, and presenting his own drain of resources as mere disinterested promotion of impartiality. Given that he has been editing Wikipedia since 2005, this can only be interpreted as bad faith. Apply the full range of the topic ban, and let him return to the Eastern Europe area only after expressing sufficient understanding of his errors. -- Biruitorul ^Talk 08:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect process and add your comments to the appropriate section.Anonimu (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement regarding diffs provided by MVBW

MVBW's statement is actually a list of personal attacks, at it attributes to me beliefs I do not hold. Do note that per WP:V and WP:NOTTRUTH, one editor's personal beliefs are irrelevant as long as he edits according to WP:NPOV. So here we go:

[154]. This was removed per WP:ONUS and WP:DUEWEIGHT. BBC does not use the expression "war crimes" anywhere in the article.
[155] This was removed per WP:ONUS and WP:DUEWEIGHT. "war crimes" are not mentioned by Space.com, Al Jazeera, Associated Press or The New Voice of Ukraine. Note that the refs to Maxar link to the company's home page and its presentation of its general work, thus we have a case of fake referencing.
[156] I already discussed above: Haaretz says about the subject "Abrazhevich [a young student in Kharkov] recounted, adding that she had also heard reports of looting". That's a rumour, not a witness account.
[157] This is restoration of content per apparent consensus on talk page. The source is the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights: "We are also looking into allegations of indiscriminate shelling by the Ukrainian armed forces in Donetsk and in other territory controlled by the self-proclaimed ‘republics’. "
[158] I don't have an opinion since I'm not a legal expert. However the word "illegal" is used neither by Amnesty International, nor by Human Rights Watch. HRW does say "An international treaty banning cluster munitions has been adopted because of their widespread indiscriminate effect and long-lasting danger to civilians. Cluster munitions typically explode in the air and send dozens, even hundreds, of small bomblets over an area the size of a football field. Cluster submunitions often fail to explode on initial impact, leaving duds that act like landmines. Neither Russia nor Ukraine is among the ban treaty’s 110 states parties." Thus, while it is undoubtedly immoral, we have no source saying the use of cluster munitions is illegal. My edit removed WP:OR.Anonimu (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove grave personal attacks by involved editor

I kindly request that MVBW's statement that I am "trying to whitewash crimes" be removed as a gross violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL Anonimu (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El C

Let's be clear, VM's report was terrible. So long, needlessly so. Which then unsurprisingly reflects in this appeal. And the weird thing is that VM actually knows better. He has argued multiple times, on this very noticeboard, about how a responding party needs more space than the complaining one. And yet here we are.

I looked at a couple of other examples from VM's lengthy complaint that were questionable. Like, claims of 1RR vios for pages not subject to 1RR. Also, RE: Euronews source, I'm not sure what happened there, but "terror" is mentioned in the aforementioned titled "Ukraine war: Distress and destruction as Russia continues its assault," which can be found here.

Anyway, I digress. What I was getting at is that the evidence submitted by MVBW was what prompted me to act so decisively. Otherwise, the report from VM seemed pretty TLDR-impenetrable. So I would advise the appellant to focus on those diffs rather than on those submitted by VM. Personally, I believe that that evidence is rather damning, but if the general feel is that this was too hard too fast on my part, I'll definitely take note. El_C 15:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, point taken and understood. El_C 16:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE: AdrianHObradors' defense of the appellant, let's just look at the first diff they list. It concerns mention of a pregnant woman who, after Russians bombed a maternity and children's hospital in Mariupol, was seriously injured and her infant stillborn, and who later succumbed to her wounds. This was the appellant's edit summary upon removal of this mention (in full): the hospital air strike has been described as a war crime. The death of that woman has not been. Am I the only one confounded by this... (I don't even have words)? El_C 17:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anonimu, if the hospital bombing was, as you yourself had said, described as a war crime, and that woman was killed by that bombing, then... (I can't believe I even need to write this). El_C 18:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RandomCanadian, yes, they are over the word limit, but so was VM in the original report. And while, regardless, I don't feel comfortable clerking an appeal that concerns myself, I did ask VM to trim his own material (which he sorta did). I'd recommend the appellant do the same (but less sort of). El_C 03:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

El_C imposed the topic ban on Anonimu for tendentious editing (well deserved, even if not ALL of Anonimu's edits were problematic). I'm guessing from El_C's statement (replying to MVBW) that the tendentious editing by itself was enough to merit a topic ban. My initial AE report in good deal also focused on persistent incivility by Anonimu, refusal to tone down attacks, and general WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude. Anonimu is also still under 1RR restriction (which they've broken numerous times) and a civility parole (see original report). Here are the diffs which show Anonimu making repeated and escalating personal attacks and refusing to stop calling my good faithed edits 'vandalism' despite being asked/instructed to do so by several editors:

First instance
2nd instance --- me requesting he stop: [159].
3rd time --- I again ask him to stop [160].
Escalates, 4th time --- I again ask him to stop[161]
Again, 5th time --- I ask them again [162].
And again, 6th time --- I ask them to stop [163]. Someone else asks them to stop [164]
Does it again, 7th time and accuses the other user of being my sockpuppet (lol)
And again, 8th time restores section header. Yet another user collapses and then informs them [165] as to how their offensive headings violate policy.
And again, 9th time. User:Mathglot also explains to Anonimu what is and isn't vandalism [166].See also [167]. The previous user, User:Chuckstablers complains to Anonimu about the accusations of sockpuppetry [168] [169] and [170]
Anonimu does it again, 10th time --- again is asked to stop [171] [172]
And again, 11th time and 12th time --- I ask again for him to stop [173]
Responds doing it again, 13th time
And 14th time. --- Again ask him to stop [174] (and here
Chooses to do it again immediately, 15th time

I've been extremely patient, but dealing with someone who does this over and over again is simply impossible. Volunteer Marek 15:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

I did not even read any diffs and comments by VM in his request. However, I provided 5 diffs which clearly demonstrate that Anonimu should not be editing in this subject area. And yes, that diff (see comments by RandomCanadian) shows exactly the same. It does not matter why exactly Anonimu does it. Hence, I would definitely endorse the topic ban by El_C. My very best wishes (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I copy paste these diffs with my comments for convenience:

[175] - Anonimu believes that bombing pregnant women in a hospital was not a war crime
[176] - Anonimu believes that mass bombing of civilians in Mariupol was not a war crime, even though it was described a "humanitarian catastrophe" by International Committee of the Red Cross in text he removes
[177] (edit summary by Anonimu: "source mentions not reports, but rumors heard by locals") - This is a misrepresentation of the source by Anonimu. The article in Haaretz [178] tells about reports by eyewitnesses, not rumors.
[179] (edit summary by Anonimu: "rv vandalism ..."). Here, Anonimu includes to the lead of the page that "Ukrainian authorities have been accused of ... indiscriminate shelling on civilian areas" with a reference to this. No, the body of page (and the source) do not include any credible claims that Ukrainian authorities indiscriminately shell their own civilians. My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[180] - Anonimu believes that use of cluster munitions is legal, even though Human Rights Watch found that it was not (in the text Anonimu deleted in this diff)

Based on these and this diffs, I think Anonimu is trying to whitewash war crimes committed by Russian military.

Diffs #1, #2 and #5. The large-scale bombings of civilians, including pregnant women and hospitls are a war crime essentially as a matter of fact. Removing such info with such justification by Anonimu is a textbook example of POV-pushing I believe.

Diffs #3 and #4. I leave it to admins to decide if it was a manipulation and misinterpretation of sources by Anonumu, but I think it clearly was. My very best wishes (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One can easily find more diffs. For example, [181] (edit summary: rm fake sourcing, which IS vandalism (none of the RS include or talk about this photo)). What? The sources (such as [182]) do include very graphic photos and video of civilians killed in Bucha. Perhaps these sources include not exactly same photo, but something shot from a different angle, but does it matter? Calling this "fake sourcing" and vandalism... My very best wishes (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

additional comments

Looking at other edits by Anonumu, I would support a wide EE ban by El_C because there are same problems in other areas. Some diffs:

edit summary: "failed verification, no mass rapes, just "problems of rape and pillage" (this is about removal of text starting from "At the beginning of the occupation, mass rapes of Romanian women by Soviet soldiers") - so, according to Anonimu, those were just rapes of many women, but not mass rapes. That's why he removed that sourced content. Also note him changing a redirect from Romanian prisoners of war in the Soviet Union to just prisoner of war. Why? Same revert again [183].
edit summary:none of these are characterized as mass killings by sources - The numbers of victims in the removed text vary from 6,000 to 20,000. Not a mass killing?
[184] - Note removed categories and edit summary: "just one claim". What? His poisoning by NKVD is actually well known. The page tells "the biochemist Ilya Zbarsky revealed that the unexpected death of Koltsov was a result of his poisoning by the NKVD" [reference to Nature Genetics]. My very best wishes (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by tgeorgescu

While some of their edits have merit (especially when confronting extreme Romanian nationalists), their POV is too much pro-Putin in order to be allowed to edit in ARBEE topics.

Also, they might be right about some dubious use of sources, but according to WP:PRESERVE fact-based content should be preserved and if better sources are needed, they should ask nicely and wait till those get provided. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 3)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Anonimu

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 RandomCanadian

Some of the edits mentioned above are clear instances of WP:FALSEBALANCE, and, unfortunately for the OP who does not seem to agree with the wider community, it is indeed tendentious to insist otherwise (for example [185]). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs by Marek could on their own (IMHO) be enough for a WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA block... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonimu: Stop digging! Calling edits by others "malicious" and accusing them of vandalism is well beyond the usual norms here. You disagreeing with someone does not make it vandalism. Even if it were actually disruptive editing (as in edit-warring), it would still not be vandalism. On the other hand, as I was saying, the evidence presented so far in regards to your edits is rather damning, and you're not helping your case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Reviewing admins (@El C:, but anybody else if you see this first): Is it just me or Anonimu is well over the word limit? Some clerking might be in order: I'd venture forth but maybe better to leave that to you. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AdrianHObradors

I just saw this, and I am not sure if I am doing this correctly, is my first time on a discussion about an appeal. Also don't know how uninvolved I am as I have been keeping an eye over the subject and have been seeing the edits made by both Anonimu and Volunteer Marek, and sometimes trying to reach a compromise between them. I think they are both a bit biased, but they did find a bit of an equilibrium between each other. And I don't think Anonimu deserves the block (in regards of his edits of the article). The articles involving Ukraine are very hard to keep NPOV, and his contributions actually help balance it a little bit. Sometimes it is balanced a bit too much, but still helps.

I want to go over the statements made by My very best wishes:

[186] - The edit isn't about what Anonimu believes, source makes no mention of war crimes. It is probably a war crime, but either a better source should be found or he did well removing it. (See WP:SYNTH)
[187] - Again, this shouldn't be about what Anonimu believes, but his edits. And a humanitarian catastrophe is not the same as a war crime. War crimes cause humanitarian catastrophes, but so does war by itself.
[188] - The source is about local reports, which by themselves are not very reliable, and it is something that is often talked about on the talk page. Reports by locals or by the Ukrainian government that hasn't been verified by third parties are very unreliable.
[189] - I disagree with the call of vandalism, but what MVBW said is untrue. Source says "We are also looking into allegations of indiscriminate shelling by the Ukrainian armed forces in Donetsk and in other territory controlled by the self-proclaimed ‘republics’".
[190] - See Cluster_munition#International_legislation. Neither Ukraine nor Russia (or the USA) subscribe to the Wellington Declaration, so calling it illegal is a bit confusing.

I do think Anonimu should stop claiming vandalism everywhere, but I do understand it is a very sensible thread and many get a bit heated up over it. In short, I think removing Anonimu from editing would actually be more negative than positive and make it harder to keep those articles with a neutral point of view. AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Biruitorul

Anonimu's involvement here, where he recently filibustered and distorted a non-controversial DYK for weeks on end, merely because it made the Romanian Communist regime appear in a negative light, is further proof that whatever productive contributions he may make, these are far outweighed by his tendentious battleground mentality. His new hobbyhorse, seeking to cast the Kremlin's latest aggression in a positive light, further cements this assertion. He wastes the time of productive editors, injects pro-Communist, pro-Putinist bias into articles, and is generally a nuisance. Thus, the wide-ranging topic ban is fully in order. -- Biruitorul ^Talk 12:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Turgidson

I strongly endorse the broad topic ban (including all areas of EE) imposed on Anonimu. He displays the same pattern of "vandal" accusations against established editors [191][192], tendentious and at times disruptive editing [193][194], etc, etc when editing articles about Romania and its relations with neighboring countries. In my experience of having to endure this painful pattern of behavior for many years, I would say at most 10% of his edits are constructive, no matter what the EE-related subject is. Turgidson (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Super Dromaeosaurus

Evidence of what Anonimu was attempting is clear, and they shouldn't be allowed to edit pages of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The attitude that they had had has also been clearly excessive, I find it ridiculous to have to argue what constitutes vandalism to be able to call established editors vandals instead of... just not calling them vandals and have a more kind collaboration. So the topic ban regarding the invasion is appropriate.

I'm a bit less convinced that the ban should apply to all of Eastern Europe, but from my part, I've also had inexplicably disruptive cases with Anonimu. In the article Obște, I was continuously reverted by this user for my edits being "unsourced" and to "restore status quo" when it was either maintenance and good uncontroversial edits or the removal of an exonym for the Romanians that had been added for no apparent reason (nor sources) [195]. More on the history of the page [196]. I attempted discussion with this issue while this supposed dispute was still ongoing but I was ignored [197], as if this was some kind of test or lazy attempt by them to get their point through by making me give up or something.

Another example of their strange modus operandi, in the page Bender, Moldova (which is a Moldovan city under unrecognized Transnistrian occupation), I had a conflict with this user while trying to add the official name that the Moldovan government gives to the city (Tighina) to the lead [198]. They cited policies [199] that contradicted their stances [200] (some explanation needed: that policy they cited allows names to be kept if they are used in 10% of English-language sources, and I searched the names of both cities in Google and Google Scholar to prove this was the case). After this, they dropped citing policies and started mindless reverts [201] [202] (their claim here is wrong, the official Moldovan name is Tighina, see this random document from the Moldovan government [203]), but they eventually gave up.

A third example, in Unification of Romania and Moldova, I added two polls on this issue [204] within a table in the article. One was actually not from the organization the table was for, and it also made a different question than the one this organization made for the poll. So, they decided to revert me, also removing the second poll which had no problem (???) [205]. I hadn't understood yet what was I wrong in so I reverted back [206], they did the same this time explaining it more precisely [207], so I re-added the second poll that had no problems at all [208]. This user cared enough to go and check the source of the first poll (and if they did that, it's obvious they also did for the second one) and noticed the error, but instead of fixing it themselves or at least noticing me in a nicer way, Anonimu reverted me also removing the second poll which I suspect they checked and saw had no problem. Once again, lazily trying to get their point through.

Anonimu has recurrently been, to put it simply, annoying, and that's clearly a strategy of them, a bad-faithed one. I'm still not entirely convinced that the topic ban should be this broad, because yes they have made some good edits, but cases like the ones I've cited abound with Anonimu, and I'm sure it would be a relief in general for Romania-related editors if these petty conflicts with them were over. Super Ψ Dro 09:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Anonimu

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

I was a bit taken aback, as well, by the speed of the initial close by El_C, but their response, and especially the diffs by VM provided above, which outline clear tendencies towards WP:TE in this topic area, including repeated mischaracterization of good-faith editing by others as "vandalism" (a pervasive and almost sine qua non hallmark of TE in my experience) and the mis-representation of source material presented by MVBW in the initial report leads me to believe, as an uninvolved admin, that the prior close was the correct one. I Endorse El_C's initial sanction. A few points in both directions 1) To Anonium: there is no requirement that any report be open for any particular length of time. While borderline cases can be left longer, when something is a very clear-cut violation of existing Arbitration-enforced sanctions, then quick responses are not uncommon here. This is not a court-of-law, this is a place to get admin's attention. 2) To El_C: the initial close was impenetrable from an outside reader, to say the least. I had a hard time following your rationale for closing, it consisted mostly of an admonishment of VM for exceeding word/diff counts, and very little explanation as to why you were issuing the sanctions. In the vein of "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"; having a clear rationale for a sanction would have helped immensely. It doesn't need to be verbose, but it should leave little doubt in anyone's mind that the correct action was taken. --Jayron32 15:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Anonimu: Please spare me the talking-down to. I've been an active admin for 14 years and an editor for several years longer than that. I am not discussing the fineries of what is and is not vandalism and bad-faith editing. I am telling you that you are wrong. Straight up. The edits noted by VM above are not vandalism in any way, despite your calling them such, and disagreements can exist between two people editing in good faith. Every word you type denying that is not going to convince anyone that the sanctions imposed by El_C above are unjust, indeed, your continued stance on your indefensible position is likely to convince people that they didn't go far enough. Don't try to defend yourself, because you're so obviously in the wrong here, it is basically indefensible. Convince us you intend to change. I haven't seen any of that yet. --Jayron32 16:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anonimu: Thank you for your change in tone here. This board does not deal with content issues, only behavior. As admins, our role is in making sure that editor behavior does not interfere with smooth operation of the encyclopedia, and that conflicts are handled the correct way (by using article talk pages, by building consensus, by seeking WP:DR and outside opinions when there is a disagreement) and NOT the wrong way, such as using reverts, or characterizing other editors as malicious or their edits as vandalism, or whatever. My concern here is with the behavior, not with the content itself. Your behavior has been a problem, and it is for that you were rightly sanctioned by El_C. My recommendation is that you ride out the sanction and edit collegially in other areas of Wikipedia for a while. 6 months is usually the standard amount of time between appeals; if you can show 6 months of improved behavior while editing outside of the WP:ARBEE area of concern, then you stand a better chance of succeeding with your appeal. --Jayron 32 17:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The original request was closed too soon, but the result was reasonable. If nothing else the repeated unfounded accusations of vandalism - which continued after several explanations of what "vandalism" means here, and which were even repeated in this appeal - are enough to justify a sanction IMO. And while some of the edits cited are at least justifiable, this strikes me as a textbook example of false balance. Hut 8.5 18:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think the topic ban should be narrowed to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and related topics, I don't think there's a need for a topic ban from the whole of Eastern Europe. Hut 8.5 19:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll disagree with the "too soon" assertions here. Arbitration enforcement is meant to facilitate quick resolution, and indeed can be done without any request made here at all. There's no minimum length of time for a request to stay open. That said, I think an excellent example of the problem (which the individual requesting the appeal actually showed on their own accord in the appeal, indicating they're rather unaware of the problem) is this edit: [209], which changes "abusing" to "torturing" in the article, while the cited reference ([210]) contains no assertion or even mention of torture whatsoever. Misrepresentation of source material is a very serious issue which entirely supports a topic ban, and so I would decline this appeal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I strongly disagree with the general statement that closing a report in 2 hours is "too soon", which implies it was in error. AE does not require a consensus, and some cases are obvious. Prolonging an obvious case of disruption isn't helpful to the good faith editors in that area. In fact, we don't even need WP:AE to issue discretionary sanctions, it is just handy for filing reports. Two hours isn't common, but was reasonable given the evidence. More often than not, report stay open too long here. Endorse sanction. As to narrowing it (per Hut8.5), I have no opinion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Decline appeal, endorse sanction. Re the fast close, in addition to Dennis Brown's point about helping good faith editors, I would argue that fast resolutions also do the sanctioned user a favor by letting them know how out-of-step they are. On that point, I offer [211] from Anonimu's statement which justifies the edit on the basis that the source wrote "according to Mayor ...". However, the edit inserted "the Ukrainian authorities claimed"—that is either a severe competence issue regarding the implication of the chosen language, or a blatant twisting of the situation. Re the scope of the topic ban, I endorse the broad EE scope. It would be up to Anonimu to request a narrowing based on an explanation of what edits they would like to make in the EE area. Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The appeal does argue the sanction is too broad and gives examples of other edits Anonimu has made which relate to Eastern Europe. That is an extremely broad area and all the evidence of disruption presented relates to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Hut 8.5 07:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not implacably opposed to narrowing the scope of a topic ban. It's just that at the time of my first comment above I had not seen any explanation of what EE edits were contemplated. I now see "topic area is too broad" with a brief explanation (after 1400 other words). I don't have time to investigate that at the moment but it would be helpful if someone independent from the dispute were to comment on why or why not the topic ban should be narrowed. That is, I would like to see someone say they have briefly investigated the material and support reducing the topic ban from all of Eastern Europe because the other material is neutral and beneficial. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse TBAN on anything and everything to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And I mean anything. Broadly construed. And not just that one article! Having said that, a brief skim through tells me it might be possible for Anonimu to edit constructively in other areas of EE. So it would be reasonable to reduce the scope of the TBAN. Looking at Anonimu's contribs, that's a huge subject area in and of itself.--Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse TBAN Eastern Europe Per MVBW, El C and Swarm, per Biruitorul and Turgidson --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to close this in 24 hours because I see a rough consensus forming --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse TBAN, I totally agree with El C that MVBW's evidence alone renders this an open-and-shut case. The scope should not be narrowed, per Biruitorul and Turgidson's evidence. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the broad EE topic ban because of the evidence provided that the disruptive editing is not restricted to Russia/Ukraine but also has affected Romanian topics as well. Cullen328 (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MbIam9416

Wrong forum. WP:GS/Crypto is not covered by WP:ACDS. WP:GS vios should be submitted to WP:AN. El_C 11:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef as a regular admin action. Page re-deleted, salted. So I guess you beat the system, Fram! El_C 12:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning MbIam9416

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Fram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: MbIam9416 (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:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies

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

[212] Creation of Xiasi Inu (cryptocurrency) three times: 4 March 2022 (moved to draft), 4 March again (deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xiasi Inu (cryptocurrency)), 14 April 2022 (tagged for G4)
5 March 2022 Vandalizing Dogecoin to promote Xiasi
4 March 2022 Adding link to Xiasi to completely unrelated page (self-reverted one huor later)
Xiasi Inu 6 April 2022 Creation of same page at different title
Inbetween warnings and a block for disruptive behaviour (including the removal of AfD templates), see their talk page

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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

Warned about the GS on 4 March2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[213]

Discussion concerning MbIam9416

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 MbIam9416

Statement by (username)

Result concerning MbIam9416

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.

[3] Umland, A. (2019)

[4] Shekhovtsov, A., & Umland, A. (2014). The maidan and beyond: Ukraine's radical right. Journal of Democracy, 25(3), 58-63.

[5] Saressalo, T., & Huhtinen, A.-M. (2018). The Information Blitzkrieg — “Hybrid” Operations Azov Style. The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 31(4), 423–443.

[6] Chossudovsky, M. (2015). Ukraine’s neo-Nazi summer camp. Guardian (Sydney), (1701), 7.

[7] Fedorenko, K., & Umland, A. (2022). Between Frontline and Parliament: Ukrainian Political Parties and Irregular Armed Groups in 2014–2019. Nationalities Papers, 50(2), 237-261.

[8] Umland, A. (2019). Irregular militias and radical nationalism in post-euromaydan Ukraine: The prehistory and emergence of the “Azov” Battalion in 2014. Terrorism and Political Violence, 31(1), 105-131.

[9] Fedorenko, K., & Umland, A. (2022). Between Frontline and Parliament: Ukrainian Political Parties and Irregular Armed Groups in 2014–2019. Nationalities Papers, 50(2), 237-261.

[10] Bezruk, T., Umland, A., & Weichsel, V. (2015). Der Fall" Azov": Freiwilligenbataillone in der Ukraine. Osteuropa, 33-41.

[11] ttps://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2017-08-01/how-ukraine-reined-its-militias

[12] AFP in https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war

[13] ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/06/ukraine-military-right-wing-militias/

[14] ttps://www.ft.com/content/7191ec30-9677-423d-873c-e72b64725c2d

[15] ttps://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-60853404

[16] ttps://www.dw.com/en/the-azov-battalion-extremists-defending-mariupol/a-61151151

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

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