Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:47, 9 January 2023

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342

ZaniGiovanni

Consensus that this be referred to ArbCom at WP:ARCA. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:30, 5 January 2023 (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 ZaniGiovanni

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Abrvagl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: ZaniGiovanni (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 enforcement log/2021#Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

20 December Removes a source from a reliable website because the article was published in Baku (Azerbaijan).
21 December Reverts the restoration of the source again for being a Baku based article
19 December Restores incorrectly attributed information from a local Armenian newsletter without verifying (3rd point) the source.
20 December Making 6 reverts within a day on the same article (diffs provided within the linked report)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

2 February 2022 warned against edit warring and is expected to be more diligent in pages covered by the AA2 DS
15 September 2022 banned from the topic area for 2 months for battleground behavior, including highlighting the ethnicity of users they were in a dispute with

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 15 September 2022 by Tamzin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On the 2022 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh article, ZaniGiovanni repeatedly removed (diff #1 & #2) an article from JAMnews, a reliable third-party source. ZaniGiovanni asserts that the article is unreliable because it was published in Baku (Azerbaijan) and refers to it as a Baku-based article. Aside from the problematic nature ZaniGiovanni assuming an article is unreliable solely because it was published by someone from Azerbaijan, another red flag here is that ZaniGiovanni doesn't apply the same standards when it is advantageous to their position. Here is ZaniGiovanni using a similar article from the same JAMnews, this time published in Yerevan (Armenia) to add a statement in wiki voice.

ZaniGiovanni was also recently engaged in edit wars on the same article (diff #4). The administrator confirmed that ZaniGiovanni's was edit warring and issued verbal warnings before closing the report as Stale. This is a direct violation of ZaniGiovanni's February warning by El C.

Reply 1

@Rosguill and El C: ZaniGiovanni is not a new user who made a single mistake and was reported, nor is this the first time they have been informed of their problematic behavior. ZaniGiovanni's behavior not only on the pages I've linked to, but also on this page, is a clear violation of WP:TE.

ZaniGiovanni made more than three reverts within 24 hours on the 2022 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh article, as the closing administrator informed them. However, they insist, even here, that their edits weren't edit warring. A textbook example of WP:TE.

Rosguill, your point about the validity of questioning sources would be correct if the actions weren't so blatantly one-sided, which reveals that this questioning isn't done to obtain reliable sources, but rather to protect one viewpoint over another. As evidenced by ZaniGiovanni using the same source when it supported their position ([1]) but questioning it when it did not (diff #1 & #2). (WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH; WP:CPP: They argue that reliable sources are biased while their own preferred sources are neutral.).

Furthermore, in another discussion, ZaniGiovanni was unconcerned with reliability when they referred to the propagandistic website panarmenian.net [2] or pre-election advertisement article by Rachael Rose Luckey on citywatchla.com[3]. A quote from the citywatchla.com:

Los Angeles now has a renewed opportunity to stand with the Armenian-American community of Little Armenia to pressure Los Angeles’ City Hall and the Biden Administration to declare the Republic of Azerbaijan a terrorist state.

When I challenged[4] the sources, ZaniGiovanni told me to familiarise yourself with WP:SEALION [5] and Your "explanation" is just a collection of original remarks with which nobody concurs here[6].

ZaniGiovanni has been warned or sanctioned in this topic area at least 3 times this year alone ([7], [8], [9]). Their topic ban expired a month ago, and they've already been reported for 3RR and at AE in that time. It is perplexing to see how ZaniGiovanni manages to avoid adequate punishment for their infractions repeatedly, despite the fact that no other editor in AA2 has received such leniency in the past. A b r v a g l^(PingMe) 11:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El C, Tamzin, Rosguill before filing this report, I gave the matter thoughtful consideration - I can assure you that the topic is entirely non-personal; rather, it is a plea for admin involvement in a pattern of behaviour that is incompatible with Wikipedia. I have something to add and feel compelled to add it, therefore I'm requesting an additional response, promising to be concise. A b r v a g l^(PingMe) 07:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last Reply

The below diffs isn't to debate whether ZaniGiovanni was right, but to demonstrate how exhausting it is when they repeatedly revert without thinking, and after search for sources to justify revert, resulting in them tossing irrelevant or low quality sources without examination. This frequently leads to absurd scenarios in which they reject your concerns and demand you to take the blatantly low quality sources (like pre-election advertisement article on citywatchla.com), which were brought up by them, to the RSN ([10]).

For instance: On 19 December 2022 ZaniGiovanni, without any comment or talk, manually undid ([11]) number of the edits. Including edit ([12]), which replaced partisan source with eurasianet.org and added missing attribution. When I protested that ([13]), ZaniGiovanni barely addressed any of their reverts: What's the exact disagreement here? BBC is pretty clear and casts alot of doubt on the so-called activists ([14]) and undid edits again ([15]). Then, while trying to justify their revert, ZaniGiovanni twice referred headlines of BBC article ([16]; [17]), then an unrelated tweet ([18]), then an opinion piece ([19]), and each time I had to explain that the source was either irrelevant or didn't support their claim ([20]; [21]; [22]; [23]). Finally, ZaniGiovanni brought up two sources ([24]; this I didn't comment on talk yet), one of which is Kommersant, which generally should not be used without attribution in controversial areas where Russia involved. ([25]). Should not we expect that user with over 7000 edits has enough competency and will to evaluate sources before bringing them up? It doesn't look like WP:CIR since it is evident that ZaniGiovanni is quite skilled at examining sources when they are not advantageous to their viewpoint, rather it is the pattern of tendentious editing. (WP:CPP; WP:TE) A b r v a g l^(PingMe) 11:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning ZaniGiovanni

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 ZaniGiovanni

1) [20 December] Removes a source from a reliable website because the article was published in Baku (Azerbaijan). – Since you haven't discussed this on the article talk page, let me explain that the content in question was making extraordinary claims (based on a single Baku edition article from "JamNews") that humanitarian aid passed through the blockade, which even to this day is highly doubted and at the time, wasn't reported to be true by any other sources. In fact, WP:RS clearly stated that supplies are running low or either are entirely lost due to the blockade. HRW, referring to some media reports, said trucks allegedly containing humanitarian goods were allowed to pass. So to say something like this at the time in Wikivoice no less using a single Baku edition article needed additional third-party to confirm per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:UNDUE, especially when multiple third-parties didn't confirm this at all and stated that supplies are lost or running low, and HRW reporting more than a week after blockade with "alleged" wording.

2) [21 December] Reverts the restoration of the source again for being a Baku based article – Explained above, it's the same edit which was restored with complete disregard to WP:ONUS, WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:UNDUE. I think my removal was well justified based on the above explanation, and you should first consider discussing content before reporting here.

3) [19 December] Restores incorrectly attributed information from a local Armenian newsletter without verifying (3rd point) the source. – The source was already cited in the article (not by me) and actually you added a source that's no better. But this is something that has been extensively discussed in the talk, which you haven't replied to for a week now. So why are you bringing up random content snippet from a discussion to AE? Also, a third-party source for Az soldiers blocking the road [26], just in case.

4) [20 December] Making 6 reverts within a day on the same article (diffs provided within the linked report) – Didn't make "6 reverts" and the report is closed for a week now btw, in case you haven't noticed. This looks like WP:FORUMSHOPPING with a closed report.

5) [Here] is ZaniGiovanni using a similar article from the same JAMnews, this time published in Yerevan (Armenia) – This is neither extraordinary nor undue, it literally describes events from the blockade article so you're comparing apples to oranges here. Also, if you had a problem with that source (which I replaced btw just in case), why again am I learning about something like this first on Tamzin's talk page today and now in AE? I don't see any discussion on Lachin corridor or my talk.

Abrvagl still comments on the stale report from a week ago and Lachin Corridor where they haven't even opened a discussion. They also bring up a snippet from discussion regarding stamp section on different article. The summary; I found additional 3 third-party sources that supported the current wording and presented on talk, Abrvagl raised issues regarding the sources, they later asked me to take to RSN, to which I replied if they think there are issues with third-party sources, they should take to RSN themselves. That's it. I haven't even used these sources in the article as I generally try to get consensus before adding something that'll possibly be contested. Abrvagl didn't reply for a week now (my comment being latest) neither they took to RSN.

The stamp being rejected by Postal Union I show here with a source. Summary; it was part of the discussion and my reply to Abrvagl's "online hysteria" comment, I didn't suggest adding it to the article nor (again) I ever did.

[I can assure you that the topic is entirely non-personal] - I don't think this is the case as evident by Abrvagl's repeated plea to sanction me. They've done a similar report on another user not so long ago, bringing up content issue to AE while neglecting to reply in the discussion for over a month. In the diffs here, most they didn't even discuss on talk, in one didn't reply for over a week now, and the other was a week-old stale report that they kept bringing up. In their 2nd comment, they don't provide an edit diff of mine and just take out-of-context snippet from random discussion they didn't even include in the initial report. At this point, I believe a WP:BOOMERANG should be applied for battleground behavior @Rosguill:, @El C:, @Tamzin:.

How does one keep choosing out of context snippets from the same discussion where we’re long past the point, didn’t reply to the discussion for over a week, and think they’d present said snippets in AE as diffs? Especially when they claimed they have “something to add”. I just don’t get this repeated behavior, they’re showing the same things which they either didn’t reply for over a week now or didn’t discuss at all. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KhndzorUtogh

Exactly how has Zani "returned to the same problematic behaviour that resulted in their original Tban" if they have not mentioned another user’s ethnicity since? And if the 3RR was deemed stale a week ago, why would that be any different now? It also appears that Abrvagl did not attempt any discussion first for any of these sources; instead they came straight to AE to request sanctions for the user they are disagreeing with. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ixtal

As someone that moderated their DRN thread some months ago and have reached out to both on their talk pages at different points to attempt and convince them to avoid conflict, it seems that ZaniGiovanni and Abravgl will continue to find themselves unable to collaborate on here productively. I'm not placing blame on either or both of them, but I do think if the arbs or other admins find this report deeply insufficient to consider placing some kind of temporary restriction on Abravgl's filing of requests and/or ANI threads. They are a relatively newer editor that was shown the drama backrooms of Wikipedia too early due to their focus on armenia/azerbaijan and so didn't really learn how to resolve conflicts without external punitive measures or when to file requests/threads. I remember my own ban from ANI (3 months, 2021) as a crucial guardrail that has helped me immensely and think Abravgl could benefit similarly. Additionally, their statement I can assure you that the topic is entirely non-personal is suspect to me due to their and ZG's history of conflict. As always, ZaniGiovanni you really need to work on being nicer when editing with others. Getting dragged here distracts you and others from editing constructively and we both know if you didn't WL essays like SEALION or assumed bad faith from someone who is clearly trying to improve our coverage of such a contentious topic (even if they are wrong from time to time), you wouldn't be wasting so much of everyone's time and find yourself being able to contribute much more productively. Take a week off and edit some non-contentious azeri/armenian articles (e.g. sports clubs, music artists, important art and architecture). Useful reading for ZG: Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade and for both: Wikipedia:Advice for hotheads. If either of you don't learn to be more collaborative I don't expect to see y'all editing in a few years and that would make me quite sad. P.S. Happy New Year everyone! Hope you've had plenty of rest and appreciated how nice winter clouds look this time of year ^u^ — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Grandmaster

ZaniGiovanni twice removed a reference to Jamnews, claiming it was a "Baku based source", which it is not. [27] [28] Jamnews is an international news outlet with reporters in all 3 South Caucasus states. It is the same as saying that Reuters is "Baku based", because it has reporters in Azerbaijan, and thus unreliable. I could understand if ZaniGiovanni made a case for attribution of the information to a particular source, but I don't find it to be acceptable to simply delete information claiming it is unreliable because of the reporter's nationality, especially considering that the reporter represents an international news outlet. Grandmaster 17:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning ZaniGiovanni

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

This report seems unripe in the absence of prior talk page discussion of the edits exhibiting BATTLEGROUND or other inappropriate behaviors, particularly considering that both parties have been able to make significant constructive edits to the article at-issue since the first disputed diffs were made, and with nearly 100 edits to the page since the most recent diff listed here. Questioning sources for AA2-related topics on the basis of their country of operations is valid given the nature of press coverage of the conflict, and is distinct from the genuinely-problematic behavior of highlighting the ethnicity of editors or source-authors that has occurred in the past. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with El C below that it is time for AA3. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm mentioned as the admin who'd previously logged ZG's warning, I agree with Rosguill above. Complaints on this board should be the last step in the WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION process, not the first. Please at least attempt to WP:ENGAGE the matter prior to filing reports here. Thanks. @Abrvagl, ZaniGiovanni, and Rosguill: courtesy pings. El_C 08:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abrvagl: there's a 500-word limit on this board, which you've now more than doubled. Now, I don't really mind that as far as breaking that rule, but if you'd like for me, at least, to review your comments, you'll need to condense better. If not, I'll leave this to other reviewers who can spare the time for that excess (if such reviewers exist, which they may or may not). Thanks. El_C 12:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ZaniGiovanni: as I've noted on Rosguill's talk page, you, for your part, should not be circumventing AE's word limit by splitting the discussion on the talk pages of reviewing admins. El_C 13:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure if Abrvagl posted their query to Tamzin before or after filing this report, because they failed to sign + timestamp their OP here, so I had to look it up in respective revision histories. And they're not the only ones. For whatever reason, several OPs on this board are not signed + timestamp, which is a bit annoying. Anyway, my sense (from memory, mind you) is that Abrvagl and ZaniGiovanni report one another on various instances in various venues, with some regularity. When it will end, no one knows.

What, however, is clear from the log is that each have received a logged warning this year, ZaniGiovanni as mentioned by myself (in Feb), and Abrvagl by Rosguill (in June). Then, there's ZaniGiovanni 2-month TBAN in Sept, more on that... notion below. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I get the sense that Abrvagl may well have been similarly sanctioned, and that it's sort of luck and circumstances that ZaniGiovanni was and they were not (neither one is better or worse from the other is what I'm getting at). Still, it does give Abrvagl somewhat of an edge (a lead) in this perennial dispute.

Anyway, much of this back and forth seems unfocused, with both seemingly determined to have the other removed from the topic area. Honestly, I've been feeling less and less inclined to look into these, in general, for some time now. As I've mentioned on number of occasions, I think WP:AA2 needs a full AA3 WP:RFAR case refresher, with wider evidence submission and parties. That said, if someone has the time to give this (these) in-depth attention, that'd be good (big if, though). BTW @Tamzin and Callanecc: it's my and many others' view that timed TBANS, which used to be the prevailing practice, nearly always fall short. Because we nearly always end up back here, but as a new report rather than through an appeal (one could still recommend to appeal in no less than 2 months, 6 months, a year, whatever). Just putting it out there. El_C 02:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abrvagl and ZaniGiovanni: since you're both saying the same thing, that it isn't personal, I'll answer both of you at once: give us some credit, no one here thinks this is primarily personal. Rather, we know it is ideological. As mentioned, an arb intervention, rather than an admin one, is due (overdue). I'll emphasize again that the overarching dispute goes beyond just the two of you, limited to narrow incident/s. Each of you seem to be expecting (hoping) that we'll side with respective you. But short of something truly and obviously egregious, that's unlikely to happen.

So, whether or not either one of you are able to detach yourselves, even for a moment, so as to see this from this broader perspective — the reality is what it is, regardless. And what it is that going for piecemeal, with just the two of you, again barring a major slip up, is unlikely to go anywhere. Best to be blunt about this so as to avoid repeated time sinks, here and elsewhere.

Abrvagl, I doubt you have some major revelation to add, because why wouldn't you have added it already, if it were to significantly bolster your case? You want an extra couple hundred words to say whatever, sure, okay. But I doubt it'll get us anywhere. Because, as noted several times above, mine and others' view is that anything short of a full AA3 arbitration case would be a waste of time for all involved, parties and reviewers alike. El_C 15:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I referred Abrvagl here from my talk page because what they were alleging was not the sort of blatant disruption I felt suited to resolution by a single admin (unlike the past behavior that Rosguill alludes to above). I don't have a strong feeling at this time about whether admin action is necessary. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked through some of the information here but not all of it I think the only way to 'resolve' this short of the full arbitration case suggested above would be to topic ban both ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl. Now I'm not suggesting that that is something we should do in this circumstance. The best solution is that you both see the bigger picture per El C's comment above and recognise the situation you're in and try to engage constructively with each other, or short of being able to do that, avoid each other as best you can. It's likely that if issues with either of the two of you end up back at AE you'll be facing an indefinite topic ban as a first-step response remembering that the goal of admins in arbitration enforcement create an acceptable collaborative editing environment by responding flexibly and proportionately not necessarily to search through piles and piles of discussion to pick an editor to be removed from a topic area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc/El C: If you think this needs a case, under the new CT procedure you can refer a subject to the committee -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 13:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero: Is the Committee's intention behind that provision that there'd be a willingness to open new cases by motion at ARCA? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc: I think there is a willingness. If the AE admins thinks it rises to this level, I will accept, but I can't speak for others -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 11:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have read none of this discussion except this thread with you Callanecc but speaking only for myself I think the intent of that new option was to take seriously when there's a rough consensus of AE admins that Arbcom proper needs to do something. If that something is a case I would take that quite seriously as I do at ARC when admins who've tried to address a problem tell us to accept. Barkeep49 (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree that this is the type of situation where referral to ArbCom makes sense. This area is a perennial problem, and clearly sanctioning one bad actor here or there is not sufficient to stem the disruption. I can't say I know what the solution would look like, but at least a full case would be much more likely to allow crafting something than the discussion at an AE request. Since this would be the first instance where such a referral would be made, I think we need to figure out what exactly doing that looks like. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade: Not necessarily the first, that's effectively how Falun Gong 2 started just with an AE admin filing it. It looks like the process now is that we just open a request for amendment asking the Committee to open a full case to examine the topic area based on the consensus here. The reason in this instance is that the consensus here believes that ArbCom is best placed to resolve the perennial problems in this topic area due to the number of editors involved and that problematic edits aren't necessarily obvious and need the process of a full case (evidence and workshop) to determine and to come to a solution. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade @Callanecc Yeah, I don't think we need to make it more complex than it needs to be. If consensus exists to refer a matter, same as how one would assess consensus in a sanction appeal, someone closes it here and 'files' it with the Committee. Neat and tidy. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll file a request at ARCA tomorrow. Before I do though, @Seraphimblade, did you have something in particular in mind re what specifically to ask for? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Callanecc, I think primarily for an AA3 case, to essentially examine the entire area and the editors who are active in it, especially those who like to show up here a lot. It should not be considered a case about just the two editors involved here; that's what brought it to a head, but that's by no means the entire scope of the problem. I think one challenge will be determining who does need to be a party; maybe ArbCom can help with the best way of going about that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paddykumar

Paddykumar (talk · contribs) is topic banned from any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated peoples, broadly construed, for twelve months. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2023 (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 Paddykumar

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Maddy from Celeste (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_and_sexuality#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

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

Special:Diff/1095408795 – reverting rather than engaging on the existing talk page discussion: Talk:Irreversible Damage/Archive 11#4w.com.
Special:Diff/1097846273 & Special:Diff/1097890049 – reinstating bold edits rather than engaging on talk.
Special:Diff/1105881874 – reintroducing a WP:BIASED source while discussion is ongoing and heading against inclusion: Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy/Archive 4#Newly published paper by Jack Turban.
Edits to Mermaids (charity) on 29 September 2022, since revdelled – edit-warring BLP violations. Was blocked for this.
Special:Diff/1115693918, Special:Diff/1115704396, Special:Diff/1115706566 – edit-warring, MOS:GID & BLP violations.
Talk:Mermaids (charity)#Discussion on "rude images" reported by The Times – more MOS:GID failures.
Special:Diff/1124992571 – continuing the above.
Edits to Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull since Special:Diff/1129683071 – nine reverts in three days, with only a single talk-page post.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Special:redirect/logid/137212804 – blocked for edit-warring in the topic area.

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

I think this demonstrates how Paddykumar has a fundamentally unsustainable approach to editing in the GENSEX topic area, which has persisted over half a year, including a block for edit warring. Some of these diffs would not be actionable on their own, but are part of the larger pattern, which comprises most of Paddykumar's contributions in this area.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1130340097

Update: Paddykumar has now broken 3RR on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull: Special:Diff/1130347719 (edit summary also indicates intent to keep violating MOS:GID). ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Lord Roem, this is my first time filing here, so I have a few questions. You said the DS alert is missing from the report. However, the preload encourages the filer to choose one of the options to indicate why the accused is aware of DS. The one for an alert, which I chose, says to see the system log linked to above. Is it nevertheless better to explicitly link the diff where they were alerted? You also speak of a time-limited topic ban. From lurking various discussions, I am under the impression that AE administrators rarely impose such bans anymore, as they are deemed ineffective. Is there any particular reason to consider one here? Thank you. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that Paddykumar's block has now expired and they have made an edit on BLPN, but have not responded here. This post is also a perfect example of how Paddykumar puts their personal opinions above reliable sources. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 09:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Paddykumar

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 Paddykumar

Statement by (TheTranarchist)

I want to reaffirm the previous statement, and also add that overall it is obvious from their edit history that Paddykumar is WP:NOTHERE. Their edits are frequently removing pertinent information, or adding irrelevant ones, particularly to articles related to trans topics. They have a focus on disparaging trans people, from their insistence on misgendering at Irreversible Damage and Sealioning about it, to their misgendering in Mermaids (which has a disproportionate number of fully deleted edits) and in the whole "rude" pictures debacle to their misgendering and edit warring at Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshul, despite being warned repeatedly in the past not to do, to name but a few highlights. I feel their continued presence on Wikipedia would not benefit the encyclopedia at all, only serving to make trans editors uncomfortable by accepting recurring bigotry and increasing the workload of editors forced to deal with them in general. The majority of their edits within the GENSEX topic area have been reverted. If possible, an indefinite general ban seems the best option, but an indefinite topic ban could also fit, as their edits outside the topic seem at a glance less ideologically driven.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Paddykumar

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

I've blocked them for the 3RR violation. It's missing from the report, but they were also alerted to DS in this area back in June. I'll take a look at the rest of their history before commenting further. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further review, they have a tendency to debate other editors through reverts/edit summaries, which isn't particularly helpful. Today's the second edit war they've been sanctioned in within this topic area in the last 3 or so months. I'd like to hear their feedback when the 3RR block expires, but based on this record I'd support a time-limited topic ban (perhaps, 6 months?). --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Maddy from Celeste It's best for clarity to note the explicit DS alert, as their original edit warring block appears to have been a normal admin action. As for the length of any TBAN, it's accurate it's not as common, but with newer editors--they have 169 total edits as of writing--I usually lean towards a narrower restriction in the hopes they'll participate more productively after it expires. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Given the block's expired and they've edited elsewhere w/o addressing this matter, I'm inclined towards a 12 months topic ban. I've occasionally seen editors with a battleground mentality immediately violate their TBAN; if that were to occur, it'd be reasonable to make it indefinite. That said, I'll hold off for a bit in case they have anything to add, but that is how I currently plan to close this in the next day or so. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lord Roem: I was initially thinking that a one-revert restriction might be suitable but since there are other issues with Paddykumar's editing (eg BLP) in this area I agree that a topic ban would be appropriate. I think at least 6 months would be appropriate possibly 12 depending on their response to this AE request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think a topic-ban of either 6 or 12 months is called for, and I am leaning towards the latter given their persistent disruption and failure to respond to this filing. Black Kite (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PreserveOurHistory

PreserveOurHistory (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages and discussions concerning India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2023 (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 PreserveOurHistory

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MBlaze Lightning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: PreserveOurHistory (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

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

03:17, 29 December 2022; Reverts another editor's removal of a bunch of images, with an outrageous edit summary, "restored vandalized content", implying that the editor had vandalized the disputed content. I then reminded them of the DS notice they had recieved, that they need to avoid such insouciant use of the expression to undo g.f edits, assume good faith, and discuss the matter on the talk page without reverting.
16:43, 30 December 2022; Made a second revert, reinstating the disputed content, asking rhetorically on thier talk, "should I stop restoring content others remove without an explanation?",[29] despite the other editor clearly having said that they were removing the images because of NPOV issues.[30]
03:55, 31 December 2022 Reinstates the disputed content for the third time without any edit summary, contravening the 1RR restriction on the page, and after I categorically enjoined them to "stop reverting, period"...discuss the matter on talk page. The reversion came against the backdrop of an ongoing talk page discussion over the matter, after I spelled out the issues with their images to them, and momentarily after their terse response on the talk page that beat around the bush without even touching on the said issues (of non-compliance with MOS etc).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

October, 2022 blocked for a day for disruptive editing, for he "refuses to acknowledge they’ve been harassing and insulting an editor and that sources are required".

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on September of this year by Doug Weller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
I reminded them again of the discretionary sanctions being in effect in the topic domain of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan on 30th of December 2022.
Alerted about 1RR being in effect on conflict articles in September, 2022 by Doug Weller.
Extant editnotice on the page about 1RR restriction in place.[31]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notwithstanding the efforts to get this editor to appreciate and observe policies of the site, they have shown they are more interested in wikilawyering. The foregoing context also shows that their approach to the matter has been domineering, and that neither the policies or other people's words seem to matter to them.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Duly notified

Discussion concerning PreserveOurHistory

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 PreserveOurHistory

Statement by (username)

Result concerning PreserveOurHistory

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

Support sanctions, probably an indef WP:TBAN from WP:ARBIPA. This user exhibits consistent WP:BATTLEGROUND and for some reason believes WP:RS do not apply to them. See for example several excerpts documented by Doug Weller @User talk:PreserveOurHistory#October 2022 (permalink). El_C 19:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The October block unfortunately didn't lead to any change in behavior. Agree with an indef TBAN given the earlier recent disruptive conduct and the 1RR violation (1 2). Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with indef TBAN. I see no evidence the editor will change their behaviour. Doug Weller talk 14:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maitrey M. Telang

Maitrey M. Telang is given a logged warning regarding citing sources for edits. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:26, 5 January 2023 (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 Maitrey M. Telang

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: BilletsMauves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

28 October 2022 Unsourced addition
29 October 2022 Unsourced change
21 December 2022 Same
30 December 2022 Unexplained deletion of sourced content

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.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [32]

Discussion concerning Maitrey M. Telang

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 Maitrey M. Telang

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Maitrey M. Telang

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

Maitrey M. Telang seems to making some good edits but they aren't adding sources to the majority of their edits. Given that some of them are good it suggests that the changes to numbers they're making might be accurate but based on sources they haven't added. The edits also extend beyond the India-Pakistan area so I don't necessarily think that a TBAN would be effective. I suggest a logged warning stating that they need to ensure that the content they add or modify needs to be cited to something reliable that supports their change (effectively verifiability, not truth). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ronar~enwiki

Ronar~enwiki blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:23, 4 January 2023 (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 Ronar~enwiki

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Ronar~enwiki (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:ARBGENDER, WP:ARBPS

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

[33] 2 January 2023 — restoring ::Different people can inject meaning into a text, but the text has the meaning its author intended to convey. Writing is a form of communication, and that which the author had in mind is what they were attempting to communicate, not what some person injects into the text to suit their own agenda. Writing is NOT an abstract painting that people can just give meaning to willy-nilly. The bible is quite clear on the subject of homosexuality, and only those who wish to ignore the clearly stated truth of scripture would conclude otherwise. The God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament, as the bible says God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The old testament says homosexuality is an abomination to God(a hated thing). As God does not change, homosexuality as an act or tendency one indulges in is an abomination. If God hates something and has clearly said so, it is a sin to do that thing. Those who hate God will try any kind of nonsense to deny the truth and hope that nobody will take the time to study the issue for themselves. This article IS non-NPOV--its point of view is clearly skewed towards lying to support the false view that homosexuality isn't hated by God. As the article is about what the bible says rather than what humans think it should say, it should be rewritten to actually reflect the truth of God's word.Ronar~enwiki (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[34] same as above
[35] same as above
Many more edits WP:SOAPBOXING that their own religion is objectively true, see recent warnings at their own talk page, e.g. [36], 2 January 2023, which seems like a big WP:CIR WP:REDFLAG
[37] 29 December 2022 (not covered by sanctions) There is plenty of evidence that Jesus not only existed but died and came back, along with doing many miracles. All of Muhammad's miracles were invented years later.
[38] 31 December 2022 (covered by ARBPS) Pretending that Catholics and liberal Protestants don't believe in the bible or the true God. Insisting that intelligent design is true, despite being advised against it immediately above their answer. According to them mainstream scientists are still full of nonsense and promote doctrines of demons. Try arguing with someone who believes that the National Academy of Sciences and Nature (journal) promote doctrines of demons and see how that goes.

To sum up: if they aren't awarely trolling, their actions are indistinguishable from trolling. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[39]

Discussion concerning Ronar~enwiki

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 Ronar~enwiki

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ronar~enwiki

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

Ronar~enwiki's fairly short editing history mostly consists of attempting to make sure Wikipedia reflects their particular version of conservative Christianity. Given this I think a WP:NOTHERE indef block is better than trying to use discretionary sanctions. Hut 8.5 18:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was going to use WP:CIR but both work. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I was actually thinking about blocking under WP:DE, but no matter. I'm going to block under NOTHERE as a normal admin action and close this request. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)}}[reply]

Eta Carinae

Dispute takes place on another language Wikipedia. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 12:29, 6 January 2023 (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 Eta Carinae

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TheRealDiogoFaro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Eta Carinae (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/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?redirect=no&title=Wikipedia:PBAN

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

6/1/2023 11:24 am TheRealDiogoFaro updated the ideology section of the Portuguese Communist Party's page in the portuguese language to match the english language version
6/1/2023 11:40 am Eta Carinae again reverts the portuguese language page to the old version that so many users have complained to be ideologically biased and that lacks any source to support what is stated

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: This user clearly abuses his power and has ideological bias, so much so that he blatantly refuses to update the portuguese language page to the same standarts as the english page, instead he repeatedly posts the same misinformation without any sources. Several other users have already complained about this issue on the talk page but nothing has been done to change the situation.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Eta Carinae

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 Eta Carinae

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Eta Carinae

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

This noticeboard has no power outside of the English Wikipeedia --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 12:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael60634

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

Request concerning Michael60634

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Michael60634 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Eastern Europe

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

1.5 October 2022 Referring to other editors' good faithed edits as "vandalism"

I asked Michael60634 not to do that here. Accusing others of "vandalism" is a straight up personal attack. Nonetheless, Michael has continued to use such edit summaries, with some other personal attacks thrown in for good measure:

2. [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]

Since Michael has not edited most (any?) of these articles before, these reverts appear to be revenge edits in retaliation for the dispute we had at Erich Honecker where Michael has also been edit warring against several users as well as consensus achieved at WP:NPOVN [52]. In late December they made three reverts in less than 24 hours [53] [54] [55]. They were warned [56] and then removed the warning with an edit summary full of personal attacks [57] (Providing a warning for 3RR is obligatory. Removing it is fine but the personal attacks are not)

Only a few days later Michael directly broke 3RR on the Honecker article [58] [59] [60] [61]

Note that in that edit war (against another user) he also refers to their edits as "vandalism" [62]. I would've reported them then but it was right after New Years and I was busy.

3. Then, after performing the mass reversion of my edits with the personal attacks in the edit summary, Michael went to the talk page of another user whom I've had disputes with (and who's... "outlook on things" is well known) and WP:CANVASSED them to help them in their edit war [63]. This is a straight up request to help in an edit war. I warned them about that too, they also removed that message with personal attacks in edit summaries (I'm happy not to post on their page, but again, notifications of this type are obligatory).

Then, apparently as response to my warning about CANVASSing, Michael decided to double down and went to another user's talk page [64] and made a similar request for help in their edit warring. This is a user that pretty much everyone knows I've been involved in disputes with so going to them is another blatant attempt at coordinating a response/edit war.

Note that until late October the Michael account was technically not allowed to edit articles related to Russian-Ukrainian war because they were not autoconfirmed. They were informed of this fact by another user here. See also the user's comments to Michael on the POV nature of their edits [65]. These warnings too were removed [66] and Michael continued editing these articles despite their awareness that they weren't supposed to. I guess sometime between late October and late December they got autoconfirmed and that's when they decided to go on a revert spree on these articles.

This case bears strong similarity to the case of User:Anonimu, who was also topic banned at AE [67] (failed appeal [68]) for similar WP:TENDentiousness and calling other users "vandals" despite repeated requests not to do so. Volunteer Marek 22:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None AFAIK, fairly new account only recently autoconfirmed.

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

[69]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Response to Mellk - this is really outside the scope of this request, as it gets into content issues. Basically there's users, including Mellk who insist on listing Ukrainian cities as "de facto Russia" (sic) and who consistently remove as many mentions of "Ukraine" from these cities as possible as well as the fact that these cities/areas are occupied by Russia. Which is of course what sources say "occupied by Russia" not this strange invention of "de facto Russia". Anyway. Mellk is one of the users WP:CANVASSed by Michael to help him edit war as noted in diffs above. Shall I go and notify go and notify all the users that most likely agree with me about this dispute and report? Volunteer Marek 01:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the accusations that Michael levies against me in their attempt to deflect are also instructive. For example he claims I called edits “garbage”. No, I actually called a source/text garbage [70]. What was that source? Oh, it was somebody’s personal YouTube channel full of conspiracy theory nonsense that YouTube itself removed a couple days later and banned the uploader [71]. In other words, garbage. The inability to distinguish legitimate sources from stuff like this is a serious problem as is confusing discussing content (calling a source garbage) and discussing editors (calling someone a vandal). Volunteer Marek 08:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and the account that Michael accuses me of unfairly calling a sock puppet? Yup, it was banned for… sock puppetry [72]. I mean, come on! Volunteer Marek 08:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gitz6666 is of course the other user, in addition to Mellk, that Michael was WP:CANVASSing to help him edit war [73]. The fact that Michael knew exactly whom to go to to ask for help kind of illustrates what the POV of these users is, and the fact that it is pretty transparent. And now both responded to the WP:CANVASS by coming here. And Gitz, yes, there’s a huge difference between describing Ukrainian territory occupied by Russia as “occupied by Russia” and describing it as “de facto Russia” (along with constant removal of mentions of Ukraine from the articles). Volunteer Marek 18:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gitz, to pretend that there’s no distinction between “occupied by Russia” and “de facto Russia” is disingenuous at best, whatever “expertise” you may claim to have. Basically what RolandR said below. And if it’s so immaterial why are some editors so insistent in removing the very word “occupied” from these articles? And why do virtually all reliable sources say “occupied by Russia” and almost none “de facto Russia”, which seems to be a Wikipedia OR invention? Volunteer Marek 00:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[74]

Discussion concerning Michael60634

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Michael60634

I did not edit these articles previously because doing so would require being extended confirmed as I was told per this comment on my talk page. Before this comment was left on my talk page, I was not aware of the restrictions on editing these pages. Just because I later cleaned up my talk page doesn't mean that I didn't acknowledge the message, as VM seems to be implying. At the time I was not extended confirmed, so I stopped editing the articles that had the extended confirmed restrictions. Despite not being able to edit, I continued paying attention to articles related to Crimea and I did see that VM was removing content about the places referenced in these articles being disputed or saying that these places are only in Ukraine even though, once again, they are disputed territories. Once I did get enough edits to become extended confirmed, I tried to improve the neutrality of the articles in question. I did not remove any mention of Ukraine or include only information about Russia. I did my best to include both Ukrainian and Russian info to maintain article neutrality. And I tried to avoid pointed language. However, VM seems to consider all of my edits to anything Russia/Ukraine/Crimea related, and apparently anything opposing their viewpoint on these topics, as "POV pushing" or "original research".

Furthermore, claiming I'm "revenge editing" is both blatantly false and a personal attack against myself. I hold no negative sentiments against any editors.

Claiming I was editing against consensus is also false. The consensus seemed to be that the article for Erich Honecker should not call him a dictator in the first line. Where did I edit against consensus?

I also did not ask anyone to edit war. That's also false. I was asking for help editing articles. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my comment, but again here I was trying to ask for help with neutrality from an editor who I have had experience with on Sevastopol.

Sure, my changeset comments need to be improved, and I do apologize for misuse of the word "vandalism", but I think this complaint seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black, as seen in the changeset comments found below:

Changesets by VM calling edits "Russian nationalism", "Russian irrendentism", "Russian disinformation", or "Russian propaganda": [75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92]

Changesets by VM calling edits "POV pushing" or "POV": [93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104]

Changesets by VM accusing editors of legitimizing aggression: [105][106]

Changesets by VM accusing editors of trying to "conquer" places: [107]

Changeset by VM accusing an editor of being a sockpuppet: [108]

Changesets by VM labelling an edit as "garbage" or "bs": [109][110][111]

Changesets by VM labelling edits as "weaseling": [112][113][114][115][116]

My account is not "fairly new". I've had it since early 2019. I don't edit much as I don't believe I have much to add to existing articles, but I do make changes or updates when I see incorrect information, out of date information, or grammar and capitalisation errors. I have been editing articles related to Russia and Ukraine because I have an interest in this region. I have close friends and family members from both countries, so naturally I became interested in learning more about Russian and Ukraine. Accusations of editing to push a Russian nationalist POV are dishonest and false. Michael60634 (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response to @GizzyCatBella's statement:

Your statement about myself canvassing other editors to participate in this AE discussion is false and misleading. I never did any such thing. What I did do is ask @Mellk to help with some articles, and I made a remark to @Gitz6666 about the editing behaviour of another editor. Nowhere did I ask for help defending myself here. And as Mellk pointed out, "Michael left that message before this request."[117] As your statement is entirely misleading, I request you withdraw it, or modify it so it accurately reflects what happened. Michael60634 (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mellk

There is a dispute here over what wording should be used in Crimea-related articles but Volunteer Marek has engaged in long-term edit warring to push his preferred POV in these articles (he does not like it being called disputed territory or even annexed) and displaying a battleground mentality when his edits are challenged. Not that long ago with the Simferopol article where it all started, he made a series of edits which get reverted[118], he then reverts that user[119] and proceeds to edit war against a few other users within a span of a couple of days.[120][121][122][123][124] Here in this edit summary he accuses me of "trying to 'conquer' Ukrainian cities on Wikipedia for Russia".[125] Few days later, more edit warring[126][127][128]. This is 9 reverts already. Then inappropriately uses the disputed template to write "Russian disinformation" in the what parameter[129] and restores it despite being told what the paramerer is for[130]. Several days later returns out of nowhere to try and restore his version again[131]. The talk page of course is a shitshow (of course accuses someone else of being a sleeper account[132]) but he claims there was no consensus on the wording he tried to change[133] and repeating that it was just all snuck in (even though the articles were like this for the previous 8 years before he tried to make mass changes to these articles and despite being reverted by multiple editors across multiple articles and no one supporting his changes). This behaviour remained the same, for example in Sevastopol he started another edit war and accused me of being "in pursuit of irredentist POV"[134] over the same issue. Again he misrepresents the version he doesn't like as "Russian nationalist irredentist POV" even though the wording is nothing like it.

Now I see that he is still continuing with this in the same articles, for example today in Autonomous Republic of Crimea changing "annexed" to "occupied" and calling the annexation label "Russian nationalist fantasies"[135] in the edit summary even though it literally links to Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. When I reverted this, for some reason he decided to use a deceptive edit summary "correct spelling" to restore his edit.[136] Mellk (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I brought this up Volunteer Marek is because this report was filed after the back-and-forth reverts on those Crimea articles. Calling those edits vandalism is definitely inappropriate and Michael should not do it again. But your own conduct these past few months regarding those kind of articles has been unsatisfactory to say the least. Just before and after you filed this report, you continued with this kind of behaviour and even went a step further by using a deceptive edit summary so I felt this had to be addressed because it cannot continue. Mellk (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Synotia: Volunteer Marek made his edits on Autonomous Republic of Crimea and I reverted him even before Michael left his message on my talk page. Falsely claiming "reinforcement" does not change the conduct issues detailed above. It should also be noted Synotia that you were warned against name-calling Michael in edit summaries including "tovarisch"[137][138] and "Misha"[139]. Referring to me as "our buddy" on AE does not help you at all. I also do not find your "bend over" edit summary for your AE statement appropriate[140] so the fact you are continuing this kind of behaviour is probably sanctionable. Mellk (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella: Michael left that message before this request. And before that message, I was already dealing with Volunteer Marek's edits as already detailed above. I did not take part in any of the edit warring that Michael was involved in, I did not respond to it. But sure, if you think that will work to deflect attention. Mellk (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

With regard to multiple edits in diff #2 by filer, such as [141], they look like typical simple nationalistic edits by Michael60634, of the kind frequently reported to ANI and AE. If so, then Michael60634 is pushing a Russian propaganda narrative well known as Krymnash, even though he objected saying that the territory is disputed and hence it must be marked on our pages as Ukrainian and Russian. I do not think so because this is Ukrainian territory according to internationally recognized borders. The fact that the territory has been occupied by Russian forces and annexed, just as several other Ukrainian territories, does not change that.

However, I am not certain these are purely irredentist edits because in the multiple edit summaries Michael60634 was saying that they "Reverted politically motivated vandalism" by VM. Based on that and their comments above, it seems he indeed disliked VM so much as to follow and target him with "revenge edits". Michael60634 says that he is "not pushing POV", that he is angry ("What angers me"), and that he only wants "get information that they [readers] are looking for" [142]. Well, I think the latter is difficult to buy in terms of content (several proper links to maps are already provided in the infobox), but especially given the repeated vandalism accusations, and indeed the anger. Hence, in the end, this does look to me as a behavior issue, although I am not sure if it was a nationalistic POV or vengeance. The denials of that by Michael60634 in their statement above is not a good sign. My very best wishes (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Synotia

It is important to note that our buddy Mellk is none other than a reinforcement called by Michael here yesterday to help him write down Crimea as Russian territory on Wikipedia. In an amazing turn of situation, he is now eloquently taking his side! Marvellous – if I ever need a lawyer, I know where to go. --Synotia (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you've bent over, now cough! cough! and cough! Wow, you've got a real treasure up there. I can continue making you cough but I have better things to do.

Let's put aside strip searching metaphors: What I personally see is someone making it his task of trying to clean Russia and the Soviet Union of wrongdoing as much as is possible within the extent Wikipedia's framework can handle it. Any other way of serving his motherland would have been more dangerous to his physical health. I personally will not cloud myself in hypocrisy pretending like I don't know what is going on, especially considering the geopolitical context we are in. I won't call you Misha or Vovochka or anything similar, if that makes you this uncomfortable, i'll leave the task to your mamka. Synotia (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mellk tries to intimidate me into removing what I've written above, calling it egregious personal attacks. Fine – I might have wandered into the terrains of inappropriateness when I called him a keyboard warrior, I'll remove that one. However, there is no way I will remove the rest – I am still absolutely convinced we are not dealing with someone of good faith, rather someone who tries to use Wikipedia as a tool to whitewash all the evil committed by Russia and its predecessors away from public discourse. I am certain that in his profilic history I can dig even more pearls, but that was already enough for today – otherwise I'll vomit. If that is a personal attack – alright, go to ANI and see what happens, I'll go with you even. Synotia (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gitz6666

Calling Volunteer Marek a "vandal" is wrong: he doesn't deliberately disrupt the project and he is no WP:VANDAL. However, after having spent hours interacting with him, I often wonder whether Volunteer Marek deliberately disrupts the editors. When he perceives that users don't share his POV, he provokes them to the point that either they run away from the EE area or go berserk and soon get banned. This may not be intentional, but it is systematic enough to be worrying.

Volunteer Marek mentioned user:Anonimu, who is actually a good case in point. Anonimu also started repeatedly calling Volunteer Marek a "vandal" and were rightly topic banned. But it all began from this exemplary entry of Volunteer Marek [143] into the delicate talk page discussions on War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which made a complete pig's breakfast of collaborative editing in that article. I wonder if AdrianHObradors and Ilenart626, who were very active in the area, left it also because working there had become too unpleasant and time-consuming.

As for Michael60634, I'm sorry that he reacted so badly to the treatment he was subjected to. Since until late October he was not autoconfirmed, I guess he is not used to the toxic environment of the EE area (but does it really have to be that toxic?). Perhaps WP:IJME applies here, as he might have understood "vandal" as a generic synonym of disruptive editing and incivil behaviour. In fact, looking at the diffs he shared, I have the impression that he had to deal with quite a bit of incivility. The continuous flow of edit summaries might give you an idea of what Michael60634 and other editors active in the area have to put up with every day: Please stop trying to territory mark these places with nationalist Russian propaganda [144], Rmv Russian nationalist fantasies [145], Please stop rewriting section headings to pronounce Russian propaganda. ALL sources references fake surrender and perfidy. There’s no consensus for YOUR ridiculously slanted POV version [146], Stop trying to legitimize brutal aggression and illegal land grabs [147], Sources use “occupied” not “de facto Russia” which is obnoxious nationalist Russian POV invented by some editor (original research) [148], please stop removing the word "Ukraine" from the article in pursuit of irredentist POV [149], restore NPOV version based on sources rather than original research, and Russian nationalism and irredentism [150], restore NPOV with actual source rather than some nonsense irredentist original research some wikipedia editor just pulled out of their ... air [151], No, you’re not putting that this city is in Russia in the infobox. Please stop it with the irredentist nationalist propaganda [152].

For many users being called a Russian irredentist and propagandist is an insult and a slander. No one who decides to freely volunteer their time and energy to the good-faith contribution in a collaborative project should be subjected to this kind of treatment.

A final note, which applies to both Volunteer Marek and Michael60634. I find it surprising that such a surge of hostility was provoked (if I undestand correctly) by the question of whether the status of Crimea should be described as "de jure" Ukrainian and "de facto" Russian, or as annexed by Russia and internationally recognised as Ukrainian, or as Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory. All these three formulations look pretty much equivalent to me and the difference in connotation, if any, is very slight, which makes me think that aggressivness and hostility here may not be means to the end of writing the encyclopaedia, but rather that writing the encyclopaedia is a means to the end of expressing aggression and hostility, which would be a sign of Wikipedia:NOTHERE.

I suggest a formal warning to both users and strict scrutiny on their future behaviour. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek I didn't respond to any canvass. I have always been aware of your disputes at Sebastopol and yet I have never taken part in them [153] because what you describe as the huge difference between "occupied by Russia" and "de facto Russian" is only in your head. Nobody understands this difference and I certainly do not, despite the fact that international law is one of my main interests. Yours seems to me to be a purely terminological dispute devoid of any legal and political content, stemming from the fact that you have arbitrarily associated some pro-Ukrainian vibe to "occupied by Russia" and some pro-Russian connotation to "de facto Russian" and "annexed by Russia". This doesn't make any sense and is likely based on a mistake: "belligerent occupation" has always been defined as a de facto situation, which in itself is neither legal nor illegal (e.g., the occupation of Western Germany after World War II was not illegal), while under current international law "annexation" does not transfer sovereignty and is an illegal act [154]. Frankly, I find the whole discussion toxic and ill-conceived, and I believe that the amount of time invested in these kinds of disputes does not depend on their real importance to the encyclopaedia or the outside world, but on the childish battlefield mentality that characterises many interactions in the EE area. Assuming good faith and behaving with civility could be the first step to overcome this mentality. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:RolandR Just to acknowledge that your comment is correct: the regime of occupation refers to a temporary situation, which is intended to last until a peaceful settlement is reached. However, "de facto Russian" (as well as "de facto Israeli") does not imply that the situation is just and should continue. As opposed to "de jure", "de facto authority" refers to effective control over a territory and only implies that that situation is contrary to the law (e.g., contrary to international law). I'm afraid this is off-topic and I'm ready to revert if asked. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella I think you're wrong because this is not a community discussion and the final decision will not be taken by us editors here but by admins below: we're just providing insights and information, and the more the better. I'm pretty sure this is correct because otherwise Volunteer Marek would have made the most blatant canvass in his statement at AE on a request concerning me when he pinged all editors who had criticised me (six editors, including you) during a previous discussion at AN/I: [155] (by the way, this board is not that hard to find even without us being "canvassed", as you claim, don't you think?) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RolandR

I have not been following this closely, but feel obliged to respond to Gitz's comment above that there is merely a terminological distinction between "occupied by Russia" and "de facto Russian". Anyone reading, writing or working around the Palestine-Israel issue would recognise instantly that there is indeed a huge difference between saying that East Jerusalem is "occupied by Israel" and saying that it is "de facto Israeli". The first formulation is a simple statement of fact; the second, whatever the declared intention of the speaker, is a highly contentious and loaded claim, implying that the current situation is just and should continue. I see no reason to believe that the situation in Ukraine is any different, nor that those working in this area are indifferent to the political implications of such phraseology. RolandR (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

Please note that Gitz and Mellk arrived at this board because Michael60634 solicitated for help at their talk pages (see WP:CANVASSING)

Here are the diffs:

User Mellk being canvassed by Michael60634

Quote: Hello! I need your help..

User Gitz6666 being canvassed by Michael60634

Quote: And now they (VM) are POV pushing in articles about administrative entities..

This is considered to be disruptive (see WP:INAPPNOTE).

Both Gitz6666 and Mellik responed to the canvass most likely with the statements here. This is also an issue that needs to be addressed.

Do we have aditional history of disruptive canvassing by Michael60634? (.. to be continued) GizzyCatBella🍁 00:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Michael60634

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

Note that Synotia was blocked for their comments in this request.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Folks... there are word limits and you should stick to them. Why do you think that admins want to read through walls-of-text and lots of back-and-forth-name-calling? In my opinion, none of the above commenters are doing anything other than making me want to borrow from a Crusade ..."Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." (even though I'm not a monotheist, there are times when it would be nice to have one omnipotent god to deal with this sort of thing...) .. at this point, the distruption is approaching the territory where topic-banning everyone is sounding like a good solution. Ealdgyth (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 540: / Line 540: @@
 <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
 * Note that Synotia was blocked for their comments in this request.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 18:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
+* Folks... there are word limits and you should stick to them. Why do you think that admins want to read through walls-of-text and lots of back-and-forth-name-calling? In my opinion, none of the above commenters are doing anything other than making me want to borrow from a Crusade ..."[[Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.]]" (even though I'm not a monotheist, there are times when it would be nice to have one omnipotent god to deal with this sort of thing...) .. at this point, the distruption is approaching the territory where topic-banning everyone is sounding like a good solution. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] ([[User talk:Ealdgyth|talk]]) 00:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
-*

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