Shirshore
Shirshore is indefinitely topic-banned from Horn of Africa, broadly construed. The topic ban can be lifted on appeal, which is possible after six months.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
---|
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. Request concerning Shirshore
Editor has been engaging in disruptive editing for sometime within the Horn of Africa space, particularly within Somaliland/Somalia articles. Their edit summaries indicate they are only interested in pushing a specific viewpoint and are more than willing to erase sourced content they dont like using "derogatory" as justification (e.g. from 2019: They do not seem to care all that much for edit-warring warnings as they have gone back to edit warring within minutes of the notice [[5]], [6].They are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. As such I request a WP:NOTHERE ban, failing that I think a permanent topic ban from Horn-related articles is the minimum necessary sanction. Kind regards -- Kzl55 (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
[[7]]
Discussion concerning ShirshoreStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ShirshoreThe content removed is derogatory and inflammatory towards the group concerned. I don’t believe such content should be on Wikipedia, it can be deemed abusive should be removed off the platform. However, if other editors believe it to be constructive I will cease editing. Regards
Statement by FreetrashboxI don't disagree with TBAN because I have several problems with Shirshore's edits, especially this one. However, the same goes for Kzl55 and Jacob300 for joining in the editing battle. It is clear from the BBC and VOA articles that these areas are disputed areas. Kzl55 and Jacob300 are clearly violating WP:POV and there is no doubt that their edits are frustrating their opponents. I have had several dialogues with Jacob300, but they simply repeat their arguments with the latest version fixed to their preferred edit (and their logic is that "as long as no consensus has been formed, the current version should be adopted,") and I rarely feel that a consensus can be formed in a dialogue with them. It would induce hasty and emotional editing. If their editorial attitude is not changed, it seems likely that similar examples will follow. I have been a long-time participant in the Japanese Wikipedia, but the situation in this topic on the English Wikipedia is extraordinary.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC) Additional comment @El C: I re-read my post above, and I apologize for the content that could be taken to suggest that the English Wikipedia is inferior to the Japanese version. I mainly translate English Wikipedia articles into Japanese version, and I browse in a wide range of fields, including science, culture, geography, and history. Compared to those, there are many editorial battles in this field to rewrite A into B (and B into A), and the articles are not being enriched in spite of this. Editorial battles are generally caused by both sides. I think it is good idea that both be mentioned jointly, but it seems to me that this is being rejected by both sides participating in this field in the Somaliland/Somalia(Puntland) capacity.--Freetrashbox (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Shirshore
|
Reasoned Inquiry
No AE-enforcement action needed at this time, though Reasoned Inquiry is cautioned that dominating talk page conversations, per WP:BLUDGEON, is frowned upon, and may lead to behavioral sanctions in the future. --Jayron32 12:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC) |
---|
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. Request concerning Reasoned Inquiry
@Reasoned Inquiry: You were not uncivil. You were just doing WP:PUSH. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
[13] tgeorgescu (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Discussion concerning Reasoned InquiryStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Reasoned InquiryI'll try to keep this statement as lean as possible. I see a big misunderstanding of my conduct in the electromagnetic hypersensitivity talk page surrounding this AE action. My intention was certainly not to indulge in argumentation. I used the talk page solely for the purpose of engaging discussion about the substance of my position. My position was entirely misrepresented over the course of the discussion and my activity in the talk page represents my failed attempts to correct this view with my interlocutors. I use reason/logic to clarify misunderstandings generally because it seems to be the ideal way of making that happen. I intend no antagonism with this; I simply have a style that relies on it, hence my handle name. Blatant misrepresentations are demonstrated with invocations of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. This standard is unclear outside the implication that "EHS has a scientific basis" is a part of my claim. It is not a part of my claim and I further rule it out specifically here: Here are the responses from @tgeorgescu and @Alexbrn that appeared after this comment, implying my claim meets criteria as an exceptional claim in some way: My position is that science has not cast a judgment against EHS[19] [20] and that's the only basis for my proposed edit. So I do not understand why my position was not considered as such. This brings me to the subject of consensus, which I felt was far from clear cut due to these circumstances. This was the spirit of the message I intended to convey to @Meters, (albeit I did not express it well). I did not mean to dismiss @Meters' point, although I see how I might have accidentally allowed that to happen. Generally, I agree with the points they made. I hope this message helps. Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Reasoned Inquiry
|
Veverve
There's been a lot of ideas as to solutions, and we all agree on the problem. At the end of the day, I think the best solution is to institute an indefinite topic ban for all topics relating to "Russia", broadly construed, for Veverve. This includes talk pages or discussions anywhere on the Wiki, subject to the usual exceptions (appeals). The scope was kind of tricky, as we aren't trying to overshoot the mark, yet it's unfair to have the scope too narrow or confusing as to invite more AE discussions as to what is and isn't a violation. I think there is a clear consensus that Russia in general is the primary problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
---|
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. Request concerning Veverve
With regard to categories (diff #3), my typical response would be that Black Hundreds, for example, should be included to the category based on their description in book Russian Fascism: Traditions, Tendencies, Movements or in another book, but this is beyond the point. The point is the confrontational approach by Veverve to resolving content disputes: the refusal to discuss the essence of disagreements and demanding to self-revert immediately on all pages or "I will report you to ANI". The report to ANI would result only in wasting time by contributors in this case.
Discussion concerning VeverveStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Veverve
Veverve (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Dhawangupta@Dennis Brown: I think you should take WP:ATD into consideration. There is no need of another AfD to overturn a previous AfD. The discussion on talk page happened for weeks and it was concluded that Wikipedia is better off without this article. The clear consensus was also noted by arbitrator+admin Xeno on WP:AN.[33] Since this report largely depend on that particular point that has been already resolved, I don't consider this report as anything more than WP:FORUMSHOPPING to find another resolution instead of describing on talk page that why this POV cruft is needed or if there is any academic coverage about it. Dhawangupta (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Statement by LevivichJust want to note Veverve's recent editing in this topic area, including a group of RfDs, plus their retirement message, plus more editing afterwards. Sorry I'm on mobile and don't have time for diffs, but it's all in their contribs from today. I would suggest the scope of the tban include fascism and EE, not just "Russian fascism" as that's too narrow IMO. Levivich 17:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Veverve
|
Goliath74
Article ECP protected by El_C --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC) |
---|
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. Request concerning Goliath74
n/a
Given the ongoing propaganda war surrounding the actual war, the last thing relevant articles needs is editors who persist in restoring information by a blog deemend unreliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 320#defence-blog.com. FDW777 (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Goliath74Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Goliath74Statement by (username)Result concerning Goliath74
|
14Jenna7Caesura
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning 14Jenna7Caesura
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Funcrunch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- 14Jenna7Caesura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 00:34, 10 April 2022 Page move without discussion
- 23:14, 29 March 2022 Page move without discussion
- 04:03, 20 March 2022 Page move without discussion
- 17:40, 11 November 2021 Page move without discussion
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
User has a number of DS alerts in other areas as well, but my reason for filing is the number of page moves without discussion on pages subject to gender and sexuality sanctions. Funcrunch (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning 14Jenna7Caesura
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by 14Jenna7Caesura
- Please review Talk:Causes_of_transsexuality#Changing_the_title.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Does DS mean a 0 revert policy? If so, every single time, I reverted even once, I got a DS notice. Let me know is DS means 0-revert policy or no discussion allowed.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- User:Deepfriedokra is one of the editors who backed blocking me in 2021; I was asked to create an account and reveal personal information even though I was okay with IP editing.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- I believe I may have more DS's on my talk page that I probably deleted.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- When I move the pages, I let them know that reversion of my page moves are okay. There were either discussions there as in Talk:Causes_of_transsexuality or I discussed when asked about my rationale.
- The main advocates of Causes_of_transsexuality have refrained from casting a single vote at Talk:Causes_of_transsexuality#Requested_move_10_April_2022 to explain the selection of the "transsexuality" term.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I believe users can be allowed to state that they believe another user's edits are transphobic, sexist, racist, and so on for example. I am not sure why a user has been be so thin-skinned. By the current standards, 98% of guests on broadcast and cable news would have to be cut off in the middle of the their interviews. I understand group think and admins wanting to form a coalition. However, is a personal vendetta more important that a positive contribution? Even after I yielded on edits, some users want to overdo by beating down on me. If the goal was proper naming of the article, then why hasn't one editor after 3 days made an argument in favor of the current title at Talk:Causes_of_transsexuality#Requested_move_10_April_2022? --14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Crossroads
See this about BLP-violating gender-related content being added to an article after getting the gender DS, and the attacks in the reply here to another editor.
14Jenna7Caesura made this edit to Equality Act (United States), which added a source but also subsumed sex and sexual orientation as part of gender even though none of the sources support that, not even the one she added. After being reverted, she edit warred by restoring the same edit with a non sequitur edit summary about sex and gender being related (true, but they are distinct, as is sexual orientation).
The discussion she points to in the comment here contains personal attacks against Funcrunch, found in this diff. Odd to point to it. Whether someone is right or not, editors must be collaborative and civil. Crossroads -talk- 05:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning 14Jenna7Caesura
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Well, it looks like 14Jenna7Caesura goes and does as she wishes without attaining a consensus. @14Jenna7Caesura: you must not do this. I leave it to those with stronger reading skills to look further. Not sure what the provenance of four (4) DS alerts is or should be. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- 4 different alerts for 4 edits in different areas. Doug Weller talk 15:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- And that's all that I can see. I think either a page move ban or a topic ban would be appropriate here. Doug Weller talk 10:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Page move ban might be sufficient, and given the topic is an Arb DS area, I think that a total page move ban is within our authority to implement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Let me be the one dissenting voice to put the brakes on sanctions at this point, or indeed to at least consider lesser sanctions than the ones proposed above. The difs above show me a little overly aggressive application of WP:BOLD, but 14Jenna7Caesura is also showing restraint as time has gone on... For example, in the April 10 move, WP:BRD was clearly followed, as the initial contested move has now resulted in a discussion. 14Jenna7Caesura has been made aware of DS in the past, but as far as I can tell, WP:ARBGSDS has no provision requiring a move discussion. I'm sure 14Jenna7Caesura is now aware that such moves as they have been making have been unilaterally controversial, and that such moves in the future, especially those in the ARBGSDS remit, should ALWAYS be preceded by a consensus building discussion (which is to say, no more WP:BOLD moves in the GS topic area). I don't think we need a ban to accomplish this as long as 14Jenna7Caesura agrees to common sense self-moderation including 1) refraining from enacting likely-to-be-controversial moves unilaterally 2) participate collegially in discussions about such proposed moves before they happen, and refrain from accusations of bad faith or WP:BLUDGEONy-type responses from those that disagree with them. While the others above note that people have applied DS notices from multiple topic areas, while strictly true, this all relates to GS-related editing, even if the notices come from other sensitive topic areas. I think if we have some assurances that they intend to work more cautiously, I would be willing to forstall formal sanctions at this point, under WP:LASTCHANCE principles. I am but one voice here, so don't let my dissent overrule any consensus that may develop in another direction, but this is at least my feelings on the matter. --Jayron32 15:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I could back down to a formal warning, which at a minimum is warranted. WP:BOLD is the cornerstone of Wikipedia, as is WP:AGF, but the judgement is questionable in these moves and I would feel better if they simply offered (and stuck to) a voluntary refrain from moving pages for at least 6 months. That is all the AGF I have. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I recommend an indefinite topic ban from gender and sexuality topics, broadly construed (WP:ARBGS). Notification of the discretionary sanctions was given on 3 December 2021. The diffs in Crossroad's statement show an approach that is incompatible with editing in a contentious topic. Another example is here (permalink) where 14Jenna7Caesura answers a good-faith (and good) comment about standard procedures with "You want to discriminate against t girls" and more. Regarding the reported four page moves, the first couple might be excused as bold but more than that shows a need to be separated from this topic. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
RfC at Azov Battalion
Declined malformed. Elinruby, this is inadequate and malformed. It doesn't look like you've put that much effort into this report, like much of a summary, the users involved, key diffs, and so on. I've given you a logged warning due to spillover from this dispute just yesterday, and I'm sorry to say, but this does not inspire confidence. Worse still, when the careless (not just inexperience) nature of this report was brought up, your responses had been just confounding (diff). And also just plain wrong, because not only is Redrose64 an admin, but her knowledge of these editorial procedures is unrivalled. Please do better because a WP:TBAN is pretty much imminent for anything else. Newcomers can only be given allowances to a point. Competence is required, most especially for WP:ACDS matters. El_C 23:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
---|
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. Request concerning RfC at Azov Battalion
RfC close as no consensus
Section as it stands: [36]
. Not seeking sanctions, just closure
Not seeking sanctions at the moment but there has been a revert war on an RfC as people were voting on it. This may be due to a previous refusal to discuss but the bigger point right now is that everyone involved seems to agree.that the RfC needs to be closed and started over.
Not seeking sanctions, just closure Discussion concerning RfC at Azov BattalionStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by RfC at Azov BattalionStatement by AquillionExplanation (sort of) here. I don't think AE lets administrators close RFCs as an arbcom enforcement action, so it's unclear what is being requested here. See the list of things you can request via AE at the top of the page. If you're requesting action against a user you need to specify the user and why. I would assume that this page falls under the Eastern Europe DS, though. --Aquillion (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning RfC at Azov Battalion
|
EnlightenmentNow1792
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning EnlightenmentNow1792
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Vladimir.copic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBEE
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 10 April Disruption/vandalism of an RfC
- 10 April Disruption/vandalism of an RfC
- 10 April Disruption/vandalism of an RfC
- 10 April Disruption/vandalism of an RfC
- 10 April Disruptively editing away from the status quo (the result of an RfC) while a new RfC is in progress. They cite votes in the ongoing RfC as justification.
- 8 April Accusing an editor (myself) of being an SPA on Jimbo Wales' talk page.
- 9 April Uncivil behaviour after receiving an AE warning
- 9 April Uncivil behaviour at AN/I
- 9 April Battleground/uncivil behaviour
- 9 April Declined report at edit war noticeboard
- 8 April Baseless accusations of edit warring
- 8 April Baseless accusations of edit warring
- 8 April Repeated re-adding of POV tag
- 8 April Repeated re-adding of POV tag
- 8 April Repeated re-adding of POV tag
- 9 April Repeated re-adding of POV tag
- 8 April Bludgeoning
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 19 February 2022 1 week block for disruptive editing
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This is just a snapshot of this editor's disruptive behaviour over the past few days at the Azov Battalion page encompassing more than 100 edits on the talk page since 30 March.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning EnlightenmentNow1792
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by EnlightenmentNow1792
My contributions to the attempt to improve the article:
1. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azov_Battalion#Is_Azov_still_neo-nazi? (over a dozen of the most eminently RSs)
2. Many hours spent trying to help finish the malformed RfC (I didn't want to), only for the initiator to then take back control of the RfC, which I acquiesed to:
3. For the RfC, an "Alternative Draft #2:"
The Azov Special Operations Detachment is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine, based in Mariupol, southeastern Ukraine. It was founded as the Azov Battalion in Kyiv in 2014, a small paramilitary group of extremist Far Right and neo-Nazi political activists under the political leadership of Andriy Biletsky.[1] "Irregular Militias and Radical Nationalism in Post-Euromaydan Ukraine: The Prehistory and Emergence of the “Azov” Battalion in 2014." Terrorism and Political Violence, 31(1).[2] Active participants in the Revolution of Dignity, the militia became notorious in Western and Russian media for its tech-savvy online presence,[3] relatively unfettered use of neo-Nazi symbolism,[4] and its successful efforts in recruiting international volunteers.[5] However, after its forced absorption into the National Guard and the subsequent purging of its extremist political element - most especially Andriy Biletsky and his circle - the scholarly consensus is that the unit has for long now been largely "de-politicized".[6][7][8][9][10][11][12]</ref>[13][14]
EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Reply regarding GizzyCatBella:
- I believe this editor's activities to be WP:BATTLEGROUND to the point of being disruptive. Would I be correct in surmising that these diffs below (are they diffs?) are indicative of someone who is not, at this moment, here to build an encyclopedia? WP:NOTHERE
- [40] - demonstrates she hasn't read the Talk Page discussion.
- [41] - "After thinking about it - here is the issue with the above version. Do we have any source that says includes Neo-nazi elements. Do we? If not, I don’t think that can be used unfortunately. see WP:OR" - there are dozens. Demonstrating she hasn't read the Talk Page discussion, but is nevertheless commenting, voting, insulting, warning, other users that don't share her POV.
- [42] - Comment - Same here, do we have any source that says which used to be neo-Nazi ? - there are dozens. Demonstrating she hasn't read the Talk Page discussion, but is nevertheless commenting, voting, insulting, warning, other users that don't share her POV.
- [43] - invited her to withdraw a personal attack, she clearly declined
- [44] - Comment - After thinking about it - here is the issue with the above version. Do we have any source that says includes Neo-nazi elements. Do we? If not, I don’t think that can be used unfortunately. see WP:OR - demonstrating again she hasn't read the discussion
- [45] - Yay, I would go with this one, perhaps modifying it to defined as neo-Nazi - votes, despite not reading sources, and ends choosing the least supported of all the options. The sources in fact actively refute this allegation. But she votes that way all the same.
- [46] - "Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic." - accuses a new user that doesn't share her POV of being a SPA
- [48] - replaces TWO BBC sources (2018 and 2022) about the Wolfsangel symbol, with a 2015 RBC (Russian state-controlled media) one specifically linking it to Andrei Biletsky, who, of course, was booted from the modern Azov unit way back in 2016. Demonstrating again, she is not familiar at all with subject or the the source material (8 years out of date).
- [49] - "@ Bbb23 - Battleground mentality of Aquillion? I feel users who arrive here with such an obvious absurdity to safeguard their POV partner need to be cautioned. I'm referring to the remark left EnlightenmentNow1792." Tries to goad an admin to "caution" me because I am supposedly there to "safeguard my POV partner", who, as it happens, kept rv my edits as much as she did! lol
- [50] - this whole Talk Page exchange is bizarre. She has repeatedly, point-blank refused to even take a look at, let alone read, any sources. She has added no content herself. No sources. Well, except for the RBC one! What is the point of even being on Wikipedia if you're not prepared to look at sources or contribute any content?
- When I provided her with a list of recent high quality sources on her Talk page, her response was this...
- Apparently she's been blocked multiple times for edit-warring and WP:BATTLEGROUND. This hasn't stopped her from spending much her time on Wikipedia trying to get others blocked for supposedly edit warring... only if of course they have the temerity to not share her POV.
- EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment regarding and replying to El_C:
- This admin is not uninvolved. He has repeatedly threatened me with a TBAN on my talk page since he was first made aware of my presence in the topic area, in which I possess a high level of professional expertise and unusual level of access to sources (books, academic journals, Russian language sources, can speak/read Russian, etc). It's impossible not to respond to WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior with retaliatory combative edits in this topic area, as editors who have a special interest POV are constantly pushing for new users - who don't share their nationalist/ethnic special interest - to be Topic Banned, blocked, etc. Admin who aren't familiar with the source material, the scholarship, and the political disputes in the region, then are often successfully goaded into banning new users, who don't know how to properly defend themselves (the the required competence WP:CIR El_C) refers to. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Rebuttal to BSMRD How is it that you are accusing me of exhibiting unhelpful, battleground behavior/editing, when your edit count[52] shows that you have made 28 edits to the Azov Battalion article proper, at least 6 of which are outright reverts:
1 - [53] 2 - [54] 3 - [55] 4 - [56] 5 - [57] - (including this deliberately deceptive edit calling the op-ed author published a highly WP:PARTISAN and outdated source, American memoirist Lev Golinkin, as a "Ukrainian affairs writer" and a Ukrainian!?! The piece is clearly not fact-checked of course, being published in 2019 yet calling Biletsky Azov's leader, attributing to him a long-discredited quote, claiming he's a member of the Rada... all untrue as of 2016, when he was was booted out of Azov and founded his own political party which was precisely zero parliamentary representation, himself included) 6 - [58] - (and this telling edit summary: "(They are neo-Nazis, IDK how that is "overkill per their articles" when we call the orgs neo-Nazi in their articles)" as nonsensical as it is disrespectful to all the scholarship and respective news orgs who have said otherwise)
and including at least one edit[59] edit, which simply amplifies Kremlin disinfo. (without qualification, by explicating Moscow's use of the existence of the Azov unit, an outfit of 1,500 max nationwide, as justification for it's Siege of Mariupol', a city of half a million largely Russian-speaking people, nearly half of which identify as ethnic Russians). Incidentally, the Avoz unit itself is comprised of a majority of Russian-speakers, but, again, as with so much other sourced information in the article that doesn't suit the simplistic Kremlin narrative, a mere 2min look at the recent edit history of the article will uncover the slow-motion tag-team edit-warring that keeps this kinda info out of the article. I'm referring of course to not justBSMRD, but Vladimir.copic (Russian),[60](removal of multiple RS) GizzyCatBella,[61] Mhorg (Russian),[62] and Aquillion[63] not only managing to keep the "neo-Nazi" label intact by appealing to sources such as YouTube, The Telegraph (2014), Al Jazeera, RT (Kremlin-run), and RBC (Kremlin-run) - but they've even managed to delete any evidence that there is actually on ongoing dispute over the NPOV of the article, by repeatedly deleting even the NPOV-Disputed tag![64], [65], [66], and countless more diffs.
References
- ^ Umland, A. (2019)
- ^ Shekhovtsov, A., & Umland, A. (2014). The maidan and beyond: Ukraine's radical right. Journal of Democracy, 25(3), 58-63.
- ^ Saressalo, T., & Huhtinen, A.-M. (2018). The Information Blitzkrieg — “Hybrid” Operations Azov Style. The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 31(4), 423–443.
- ^ Chossudovsky, M. (2015). Ukraine’s neo-Nazi summer camp. Guardian (Sydney), (1701), 7.
- ^ Fedorenko, K., & Umland, A. (2022). Between Frontline and Parliament: Ukrainian Political Parties and Irregular Armed Groups in 2014–2019. Nationalities Papers, 50(2), 237-261.
- ^ Umland, A. (2019). Irregular militias and radical nationalism in post-euromaydan Ukraine: The prehistory and emergence of the “Azov” Battalion in 2014. Terrorism and Political Violence, 31(1), 105-131.
- ^ Fedorenko, K., & Umland, A. (2022). Between Frontline and Parliament: Ukrainian Political Parties and Irregular Armed Groups in 2014–2019. Nationalities Papers, 50(2), 237-261.
- ^ Bezruk, T., Umland, A., & Weichsel, V. (2015). Der Fall" Azov": Freiwilligenbataillone in der Ukraine. Osteuropa, 33-41.
- ^ https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2017-08-01/how-ukraine-reined-its-militias
- ^ AFP in https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war
- ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/06/ukraine-military-right-wing-militias/
- ^ https://www.ft.com/content/7191ec30-9677-423d-873c-e72b64725c2d
- ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-60853404
- ^ https://www.dw.com/en/the-azov-battalion-extremists-defending-mariupol/a-61151151
Statement by BSMRD
In addition to what has been provided above, EnlightenmentNow1792 seems to be reverting any messages regarding their behavior off their talk page as "personal attacks" (that's just a small sample, more can be seen here). Now, by itself there is nothing wrong with that however, in addition, they have shown nothing but contempt for Wikipedia's administrative processes and ruling, shown both in the above posting, this comment and their response to this warning. They clearly have no desire to change their behavior or regard any other editors or administrators encouragement to do so. In fact, they don't seem to have changed their behavior at all since the last time they were blocked, and I doubt anything short of a broader/longer block or TBAN will do anything. BSMRD (talk) 07:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Statement by GizzyCatBella
I always advocate against sanctioning editors unless it's absolutely necessary and justified but this case requires administrative intervention, unfortunately. Edit warring [67], [68], [69], [70] and WP:BLUDGEON on the Azov Battalion talk page including "hijacking" RFCs [71] (modifying other people's text to their liking [72] see the complaint that followed -->[73]), the repeated removal of other people's comments [74], [75], [76] are just samples that are outside criteria that must be followed. (I could go on with more examples of disruptive behaviour but I believe these already presented are enough) - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Page needs a clerk intervention please. Everything written below this message is not mine - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
The WP:BLUDGEON at the Azov talk page continues (as I write this). Here is just a recent sample of it:
- March 31 list of sources eg. Umland, A. (2019) etc - [77]
- April 9 again Umland, A. (2019) etc - [78]
- April 11 yet again (just a few minutes before coming here) Umland (2019) - [79]
It's very challenging to navigate through that talk page as it is. We don't need to hear repeated argumentation, over and over and over. Sadly, I'll have to support a topic ban at least from that talk page, please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
On top of the bizarre accusation of misconduct against our finest administrators [80] and here too [81] I believe it's worth noting the strange remark posted here [82] that has been copy-pasted from talk page of ToBeFree [83] where EnlightenmentNow1792 went on a block shopping journey just a day earlier. The editor exhibits clear battleground behaviour. I'm not sure 🤔 but perhaps they require also a break to recognize it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
And now this [84] .. contesting another fine admin. Oh Lord.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I also share the view of Firefangledfeathers -->[85] EnlightenmentNow1792 has the potential to be a positive acquisition to our project if they only understood how to act accordingly to our standards. The only issue is their conduct which might be happening because of a lack of experience. I hope they learn from this incident and revise their behaviour. I really hope so and I would welcome rather soft sanctions. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Firefangledfeathers
I'll likely have more to say later, but I'd like to call attention to prior conduct issues raised at ANI in December and February. Both involved disruptive conduct in other topic areas. WP:TEXTWALL is a recurring issue with this editor. EnlightenmentNow1792, are you aware that there is a 500 word limit here? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Since it seems some sanction is likely, I won't add to the pile of diffs, but if admins feel more are needed I've got them. For the record, EN1792 has a great strength in compiling and sharing quality source lists. They present themselves, convincingly, as someone with an extensive library and source access and the willingness to spend hours digging out the relevant info. I hope they get a chance to show off their more civil, collaborative side. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Statement by My very best wishes
The battleground attitude of this user is obvious, but if a topic ban to be issued, I would propose it to be only for 2-4 months as their first sanction. The user seems to be agitated and profoundly disturbed because of the ongoing Ukrainian war, and especially the Siege of Mariupol. When these events end, and there will be more certainty on this subject as reflected in sources, perhaps she/he will be able to edit in a more reasonable and collaborative manner? My very best wishes (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Bishonen. Yes, I agree with you after checking their earlier edits, and not only in the EE area. This user seems to be non-cooperative in general, but the problem is becoming bigger in contentious subject areas. My very best wishes (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning EnlightenmentNow1792
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Recommend TBAN. This user is needlessly combative (WP:BATTLEGROUND) and they lack the required competence (WP:CIR) to edit the topic area at this time. Little if any reflection or introspection were ever shown (perhaps because they fail to realize that there is a problem), so it's probably for the best. El_C 17:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- This user does not understand WP:INVOLVED. I've interacted with them in an administrative capacity only, and of course, I made no
threats
. That they call my warning that is further proof of intractable BATTLEGREOUND. El_C 18:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's right, I pretty much stopped setting TBANS to automatically expire a while ago. Been burned too many times before. Also, obviously, we can't tell when Russian atrocities are going to end in the Ukraine, so how do we set any kind of a clock on the ban? How can any duration not be arbitrary, in that sense? El_C 00:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- This user does not understand WP:INVOLVED. I've interacted with them in an administrative capacity only, and of course, I made no
- Agree with El C. I'm particularly interested in the user's editing after they were warned by El C, and quite a lot of the diffs offered indeed postdate that warning. This is a very obvious case of disruptive battleground/steamroller editing, and a topic ban seems necessary. Indeed, I thought of simply issuing one myself, per my sole admin discretion, but it would perhaps be a pity not to reinforce it by having it come from multiple admins here at AE. I note and appreciate My very best wishes's recommendation of a 2-4 months' ban only, but I can't agree. Time-limited bans can be simply waited out, and then users can return with their bad habits intact, without having had to show they can otherwise edit constructively. Topic bans should normally be indefinite, IMO. In this case, an appeal in three months' time could be entertained. EnlightenmentNow1792, if you are indeed topic banned indefinitely with a three-month wait to appeal, as I recommend, you can make that appeal more credible by showing good editing in other areas, and also in the EE area on our sister projects. (You would only be banned from the English Wikipedia.) Bishonen | tålk 22:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC).
- I support an indefinite topic ban. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- An indefinite topic ban for EnlightenmentNow1792 is required. I have seen credible claims (although of course nothing is really credible in the fog of war) that a lot of fighters have joined the Azov Battalion because of its effectiveness, and the new fighters have no Nazi leanings. It might therefore be unfortunate to label the whole of the current organization as neo-Nazi (that's might—I have no reliable sources). Even if that and more were true, EnlightenmentNow1792's approach is not compatible with a topic under discretionary sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Anonimu
Indef TBAN from ARBEE. Thanks, My very best wishes for the summary. Volunteer Marek, triage, please! El_C 01:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
---|
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. Request concerning Anonimu
User:Anonimu has both been extremely WP:TENDENTIOUS in their edits to articles related to the Russia-Ukraine war, and extremely uncivil, uncooperative and insulting as well. For the record, Anonimu is still under a 1RR restriction, a civility parole and an admonition to "behave impeccably" [86]; although this restriction was imposed quite some time ago as a condition of removal of their indefinite ban from Wikipedia, it was never lifted and still applies. Anonimu acknowledges that it still applies in this edit summary although they claim that these restriction only apply to "Balkans" and not "Russia". There is no indication anywhere that this is the case. The original restrictions apply to ALL of their editing. Anonimu has violated all three of these restrictions, and even if one regards these restrictions as "stale" on account of their vintage, their behavior is still sanction worthy. Indeed, this seems to be a reversion to exactly the same kind of behavior (both in terms of civility and POV/WP:TEND) that led them to get indefinitely blocked back then. The most vexatious issue is Anonimu repeatedly referring to my edits as vandalism:
And here we are. I've been about as patient as it is humanely possible here with Anonimu. Ten warnings, from myself and other users. Each one seems to only embolden him. Anonimu's edits to article space have likewise been problematic. On War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine their edits generally try to deny, whitewash or minimize Russian war crimes reported on in reliable sources:
Note that's there's likely a dozen or so 1RR violations in the above, in addition to WP:TEND and WP:NPA violations. There's even more at Kramatorsk railway station attack
Volunteer Marek 00:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, both of these are very old. But these were the reasons he was placed under 1RR restriction and civility parole as conditions of removing the indef ban [132]. The restrictions were never removed. As mentioned above Anonimu recognizes the restrictions are still in place but likes to pretend they only apply to the Balkans. This is not true. And in fact, their original indef ban was over edits to the topic area of Balkans AND Russia. Volunteer Marek 00:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Like I said above, I'm out of patience here. Four different editors have tried to explain to him why their behavior is problematic. The response is just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and escalation in incivility and battleground. And that's NOT EVEN considering the WP:TEND content of their edits. While I don't think their indefinite ban should be restored (although it's exactly the same problem that led to it) a topic ban from anything Eastern Europe and especially Russia related is a minimum here.
Discussion concerning AnonimuStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AnonimuStatement by My very best wishesI also noticed that recent editing by Anonimu in this subject area was very problematic. Some diffs:
Statement by (username)Result concerning Anonimu
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Anonimu
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
- Appealing user
- Anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Anonimu (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- Indefinite topic ban from Eastern European topics, imposed at WP:AE#Anonimu, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2022#Eastern_Europe
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
- dif
Statement by Anonimu
I did not have the occasion to make a statement on the original AE request, since it was closed in just 2 hours. Since enforcing admin said the ban was applied for supposed "tendentious editing", I'll just go through the "offending" diffs and show that they were just strict application of WP:5P2 (more specifically WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:ATT). Do note that this is a current topic, thus should be judged according to data available at the time of edit, not info which appeared later:
- [141] and [142] add a neutral description to photos published by a non-independent, non-reliable source (the Ukrainian government); the first diff also fixes a obviously wrong caption (a photo the Ukrainian gvt says was taken in Mariupol is presented as taken in Bucha), and introduces text from BBC: "accused Russia of using its Iskander short-range ballistic missile with a cluster munitions warhead. But he later corrected himself, "Russia's defence ministry also said that Tochka-U rockets were used in the Kramatorsk strike, blaming Ukraine's armed forces for the attack." "The ministry insisted it did not use the type of Tochka-U missile that was fired, whereas the Ukrainian military did."
- [143] Moves source to the supported text and clarifies info from BBC source: "analysts point to images and videos on social media that appear to show the Russian military using the Tochka-U."
- [144] and [145] removes text that violates WP:ONUS. While sourced, the text does not indicated how exactly is relevant to the article, and none of the sources warrant its inclusion in a page about "war crimes". The same for [146], which moreover misrepresents Haaretz, which says about the subject "Abrazhevich recounted, adding that she had also heard reports of looting"
- [147] This is simply fake sourcing, Euronews does not support one word of the article text.
- [148] is attributing text, as the Washington Post says "About 400 women, children and elderly people had taken refuge inside Art School No. 12 in the Left Bank district of eastern Mariupol before it was bombed by Russia on Sunday, according to Mayor Vadym Boychenko and the city council. The Washington Post could not independently verify the claim.". [149] is also attribution, as CNN states "according to local authorities, as hundreds of thousands of people remain trapped in the coastal Ukrainian city that has been encircled for weeks by Russian forces.", while Sky News says "People are buried under rubble after a theatre in Mariupol - where hundreds of people are reported to have been sheltering - was bombed by Russian forces, local officials have said". So is [150], as CBS news says "Ukraine documents alleged atrocities by retreating Russians" and "Ukraine's troops found brutalized bodies with bound hands, gunshot wounds to the head and signs of torture after Russian soldiers withdrew from the outskirts of Kyiv, authorities said Sunday"."Authorities said they were documenting evidence of alleged atrocities". The Times never calls the massacre "war crimes".
- [151] is also attribution. Per Al Jazeera, "Thomas-Greenfield said the United States had not yet confirmed the allegations made on Saturday by the Mariupol city council", "Kallas said the allegations of Ukrainians deported to Russia", while The Guardian says "Russian forces are sending Ukrainian citizens to “filtration camps” before forcibly relocating them to Russia, according to the accounts of two women".
- [152] completes attribution presented in source, per the Guardian "Ukraine’s attorney general is gathering a dossier of claims about the Russian use of local children to avoid fire when in retreat from around Ukraine’s capital and elsewhere. Coaches of children were said... It was further alleged that children had been taken as hostages"
- [153] restores consensus version as indicated by talk page here; there was no consensus for removal, as evident from the discussion here. Consensus for inclusion is also proven by the fact the phrase, reformulated and more clearly attributed, is currently] still in the lede.
- [154] fixes misrepresentation of sources, and violation of WP:V and WP:NPOV, as Washignton Post says "showed at least nine people, including one child, lying in the street of a residential area in the town of Bucha, north of Kyiv, after Russian forces retreated. They appear to be dead." Words such as "evidence" and "atrocities" are not used at all. The type of source presented by The Kyiv Independent (probably non-RS in this context) is qualified, and text is presented as allegation, as Kyiv Independent attributes it to a photographer: "According to the photographer Mikhail Palinchak, under the blanket are the bodies of one man and two or three naked women that Russians attempted to burn down". BBC does not mention executions, so I corrected the article text.
- [155] restored text sourced to CNN. [156] restores text sourced to UN Human rights watch (page 8, section D). As evidence of consensus for inclusion, they are still in the article and have not been removed in the past week.
- [157] adds information from BBC: "two are wearing recognisable Ukrainian military uniforms".
- [158] introduces information from Washington Post: "Russia’s Defense Ministry [...] claimed some of the footage of bodies in Bucha was “fake” and accused Ukrainian forces of killing people by shelling Bucha." "Kyiv’s mayor, Vitali Klitschko, said the discovery of the graves could “only be described as genocide.”", "Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, [...] accusing Russia of carrying out a “massacre,” requested that the ICC visit the scene “to collect all the evidence of these war crimes” "
- [159] fixes misrepresentation of the New York Times: "the town’s hospital was shelled. It is not entirely clear who hit the building, but local residents accuse the Russians of firing into the structure" "In the morgue, beside the three dead Russian soldiers, Dr. Volkova pointed to a body bag in the corner of the room. “This person was tortured to death,” she said." "war crimes" are never mentioned.
- [160] add lack of information as explicit from CBC "It was not clear who the people were or under what circumstances they were killed."
- [161] adds Russian claims, as reported by several RS, including CNN "At least 50 people [...] were killed after Russian forces carried out a missile strike [...] Ukrainian officials said", "Zelensky said that the "Russian military hit the railway terminal"", "On April 8, the Russian armed forces did not conduct or plan any artillery fires in the city of Kramatorsk. We emphasize that the Tochka-U tactical missiles, the wreckage of which was found near the Kramatorsk railway station and published by eyewitnesses, are used only by the Ukrainian armed forces." [162] removes fake attribution to this same CNN source.
- [163] restores info reported by the UN High Commissioner for Human rights: "We are also looking into allegations of indiscriminate shelling by the Ukrainian armed forces in Donetsk and in other territory controlled by the self-proclaimed ‘republics’."
I fail to see how adding info from sources such as BBC, CNN, The Guardian, The New York Times, Euronews, CBS News, and the UN High Commissioner for Human rights and reporting the original attribution (explicit in these RSs) instead of presenting Ukrainian claims in WP:WIKIVOICE can be considered WP:Tendentious editing.Anonimu (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Additional statement by Anonimu
I am able to provide "clear evidence" of "malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia" by Volunteer Marek. Therefore, per WP:SPADE and WP:GOODFAITH, I think adequately describing his actions does not qualify as incivility. I will only list diffs if requested to do by administrators (just collecting the ones from last month will take three or four times as much as my original statement).Anonimu (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- RE to User:Jayron32: WP:GOODFAITH says explicitly "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). " I restate that I'm open to list such "obvious evidence" if requested to do so.Anonimu (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, maybe I was wrong in my interpretation of policy and calling Volunteer Marek directly a vandal was unnecessary, I can admit to that. How about the diffs related to content, could you point out exactly which ones are in violation of what policy? Please also read my statement relate to diffs presented by MVBW (I left them out initially for the sake of brevity). I can only improve if I'm told what I'm doing wrong. Anonimu (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I politely ask you again to indicate effective bias in my mainspace edits. Anyway, if I were to accept a temporary topic ban (which I don't find warranted), topic area is too broad, letting me very little space to contribute (if you check my edit history, it is mostly related to Eastern Europe, all articles I have created created would be covered by it). I already have about 6 articles in the pipeline, but all are about Romania, which will fall within the scope and thus I won't be able to move them out of userspace. Basically, the point I'm taking home right now is that I'm indefed for calling another user a vandal.Anonimu (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, maybe I was wrong in my interpretation of policy and calling Volunteer Marek directly a vandal was unnecessary, I can admit to that. How about the diffs related to content, could you point out exactly which ones are in violation of what policy? Please also read my statement relate to diffs presented by MVBW (I left them out initially for the sake of brevity). I can only improve if I'm told what I'm doing wrong. Anonimu (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- RE to User:El C: I do agree that every person's death is tragic and cannot be justified unless done in immediate self defence. However, that does not mean WP editors can make a judgement call and declare that one specific death qualifies as a war crime, considering that even legal experts fail to agree what exactly constitutes a war crime. Unless, of course, there's a RS saying that, and, at that moment, there were none.Anonimu (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Considering it's a highly contentious issue regarding an ongoing event, it was my belief that such a conjecture can only be made if backed by a RS, otherwise it would amount to WP:SYNTH. Anonimu (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- My original statement had 150 words of original contribution and the rest was just piecewise explaining the diffs from the original enforcement with quotes from the sources (some are paywalled, some have a count limit per IP, some require registration, some times readers fail to check them at all). If a list is made of what particular diffs are problematic and resulted in the original enforcement, I will trim the others from the original statement.Anonimu (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Considering it's a highly contentious issue regarding an ongoing event, it was my belief that such a conjecture can only be made if backed by a RS, otherwise it would amount to WP:SYNTH. Anonimu (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- RE to User:Seraphimblade: Regarding the diff you mention: it was actually a revert of this edit, which happened while a discussion was still ongoing and apparent consensus, was, despite the claim of the editor, for the inclusion of the text. Since the torture part did appear to summarize the section, as also indicated in the linked discussion, while the second part was explicitly supported by the source, I though at the moment it was the right thing to do. As you are well aware, refs in the lede are generally discouraged on WP, and I didn't consider it necessary to add the other source (namely The Guardian), as it was already cited in the article text.Anonimu (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- RE to User:Johnuniq: I fail to see how exactly that edit is an issue of competence or twisting the situation. Washington Post literally says "Ukrainian officials on Sunday accused Russia of bombing an art school in Mariupol where hundreds of people had been sheltering in recent days", and further below "About 400 women, children and elderly people had taken refuge inside Art School No. 12 in the Left Bank district of eastern Mariupol before it was bombed by Russia on Sunday, according to Mayor Vadym Boychenko and the city council. The Washington Post could not independently verify the claim.", while CNN says "the city council said the building was acting as a shelter for an estimated 400 people." I fail to see how "Ukrainian officials", and "mayor" and "city council" of a Ukrainian city cannot be summarized as "Ukrainian authorities".Anonimu (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Statement regarding diffs provided by MVBW
MVBW's statement is actually a list of personal attacks, at it attributes to me beliefs I do not hold. Do note that per WP:V and WP:NOTTRUTH, one editor's personal beliefs are irrelevant as long as he edits according to WP:NPOV. So here we go:
- [164]. This was removed per WP:ONUS and WP:DUEWEIGHT. BBC does not use the expression "war crimes" anywhere in the article.
- [165] This was removed per WP:ONUS and WP:DUEWEIGHT. "war crimes" are not mentioned by Space.com, Al Jazeera, Associated Press or The New Voice of Ukraine. Note that the refs to Maxar link to the company's home page and its presentation of its general work, thus we have a case of fake referencing.
- [166] I already discussed above: Haaretz says about the subject "Abrazhevich [a young student in Kharkov] recounted, adding that she had also heard reports of looting". That's a rumour, not a witness account.
- [167] This is restoration of content per apparent consensus on talk page. The source is the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights: "We are also looking into allegations of indiscriminate shelling by the Ukrainian armed forces in Donetsk and in other territory controlled by the self-proclaimed ‘republics’. "
- [168] I don't have an opinion since I'm not a legal expert. However the word "illegal" is used neither by Amnesty International, nor by Human Rights Watch. HRW does say "An international treaty banning cluster munitions has been adopted because of their widespread indiscriminate effect and long-lasting danger to civilians. Cluster munitions typically explode in the air and send dozens, even hundreds, of small bomblets over an area the size of a football field. Cluster submunitions often fail to explode on initial impact, leaving duds that act like landmines. Neither Russia nor Ukraine is among the ban treaty’s 110 states parties." Thus, while it is undoubtedly immoral, we have no source saying the use of cluster munitions is illegal. My edit removed WP:OR.Anonimu (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Request to remove grave personal attacks by involved editor
I kindly request that MVBW's statement that I am "trying to whitewash crimes" be removed as a gross violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVILAnonimu (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Statement by El C
Let's be clear, VM's report was terrible. So long, needlessly so. Which then unsurprisingly reflects in this appeal. And the weird thing is that VM actually knows better. He has argued multiple times, on this very noticeboard, about how a responding party needs more space than the complaining one. And yet here we are.
I looked at a couple of other examples from VM's lengthy complaint that were questionable. Like, claims of 1RR vios for pages not subject to 1RR. Also, RE: Euronews source, I'm not sure what happened there, but "terror" is mentioned in the aforementioned titled "Ukraine war: Distress and destruction as Russia continues its assault," which can be found here.
Anyway, I digress. What I was getting at is that the evidence submitted by MVBW was what prompted me to act so decisively. Otherwise, the report from VM seemed pretty TLDR-impenetrable. So I would advise the appellant to focus on those diffs rather than on those submitted by VM. Personally, I believe that that evidence is rather damning, but if the general feel is that this was too hard too fast on my part, I'll definitely take note. El_C 15:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- RE: AdrianHObradors' defense of the appellant, let's just look at the first diff they list. It concerns mention of a pregnant woman who, after Russians bombed a maternity and children's hospital in Mariupol, was seriously injured and her infant stillborn, and who later succumbed to her wounds. This was the appellant's edit summary upon removal of this mention (in full):
the hospital air strike has been described as a war crime. The death of that woman has not been
. Am I the only one confounded by this... (I don't even have words)? El_C 17:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- RE: AdrianHObradors' defense of the appellant, let's just look at the first diff they list. It concerns mention of a pregnant woman who, after Russians bombed a maternity and children's hospital in Mariupol, was seriously injured and her infant stillborn, and who later succumbed to her wounds. This was the appellant's edit summary upon removal of this mention (in full):
- RandomCanadian, yes, they are over the word limit, but so was VM in the original report. And while, regardless, I don't feel comfortable clerking an appeal that concerns myself, I did ask VM to trim his own material (which he sorta did). I'd recommend the appellant do the same (but less sort of). El_C 03:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Volunteer Marek
El_C imposed the topic ban on Anonimu for tendentious editing (well deserved, even if not ALL of Anonimu's edits were problematic). I'm guessing from El_C's statement (replying to MVBW) that the tendentious editing by itself was enough to merit a topic ban. My initial AE report in good deal also focused on persistent incivility by Anonimu, refusal to tone down attacks, and general WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude. Anonimu is also still under 1RR restriction (which they've broken numerous times) and a civility parole (see original report). Here are the diffs which show Anonimu making repeated and escalating personal attacks and refusing to stop calling my good faithed edits 'vandalism' despite being asked/instructed to do so by several editors:
- First instance
- 2nd instance --- me requesting he stop: [169].
- 3rd time --- I again ask him to stop [170].
- Escalates, 4th time --- I again ask him to stop[171]
- Again, 5th time --- I ask them again [172].
- And again, 6th time --- I ask them to stop [173]. Someone else asks them to stop [174]
- Does it again, 7th time and accuses the other user of being my sockpuppet (lol)
- And again, 8th time restores section header. Yet another user collapses and then informs them [175] as to how their offensive headings violate policy.
- And again, 9th time. User:Mathglot also explains to Anonimu what is and isn't vandalism [176].See also [177]. The previous user, User:Chuckstablers complains to Anonimu about the accusations of sockpuppetry [178] [179] and [180]
- Anonimu does it again, 10th time --- again is asked to stop [181] [182]
- And again, 11th time and 12th time --- I ask again for him to stop [183]
- Responds doing it again, 13th time
- And 14th time. --- Again ask him to stop [184] (and here
- Chooses to do it again immediately, 15th time
I've been extremely patient, but dealing with someone who does this over and over again is simply impossible. Volunteer Marek 15:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Statement by My very best wishes
I did not even read any diffs and comments by VM in his request. However, I provided 5 diffs which clearly demonstrate that Anonimu should not be editing in this subject area. And yes, that diff (see comments by RandomCanadian) shows exactly the same. It does not matter why exactly Anonimu does it. Hence, I would definitely endorse the topic ban by El_C. My very best wishes (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I copy paste these diffs with my comments for convenience:
- [185] - Anonimu believes that bombing pregnant women in a hospital was not a war crime
- [186] - Anonimu believes that mass bombing of civilians in Mariupol was not a war crime, even though it was described a "humanitarian catastrophe" by International Committee of the Red Cross in text he removes
- [187] (edit summary by Anonimu: "source mentions not reports, but rumors heard by locals") - This is a misrepresentation of the source by Anonimu. The article in Haaretz [188] tells about reports by eyewitnesses, not rumors.
- [189] (edit summary by Anonimu: "rv vandalism ..."). Here, Anonimu includes to the lead of the page that "Ukrainian authorities have been accused of ... indiscriminate shelling on civilian areas" with a reference to this. No, the body of page (and the source) do not include any credible claims that Ukrainian authorities indiscriminately shell their own civilians. My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- [190] - Anonimu believes that use of cluster munitions is legal, even though Human Rights Watch found that it was not (in the text Anonimu deleted in this diff)
Based on these and this diffs, I think Anonimu is trying to whitewash war crimes committed by Russian military.
Diffs #1, #2 and #5. The large-scale bombings of civilians, including pregnant women and hospitls are a war crime essentially as a matter of fact. Removing such info with such justification by Anonimu is a textbook example of POV-pushing I believe.
Diffs #3 and #4. I leave it to admins to decide if it was a manipulation and misinterpretation of sources by Anonumu, but I think it clearly was. My very best wishes (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
One can easily find more diffs. For example, [191] (edit summary: rm fake sourcing, which IS vandalism (none of the RS include or talk about this photo)). What? The sources (such as [192]) do include very graphic photos and video of civilians killed in Bucha. Perhaps these sources include not exactly same photo, but something shot from a different angle, but does it matter? Calling this "fake sourcing" and vandalism... My very best wishes (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 3)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Anonimu
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by RandomCanadian
Some of the edits mentioned above are clear instances of WP:FALSEBALANCE, and, unfortunately for the OP who does not seem to agree with the wider community, it is indeed tendentious to insist otherwise (for example [193]). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- The diffs by Marek could on their own (IMHO) be enough for a WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA block... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Anonimu: Stop digging! Calling edits by others "malicious" and accusing them of vandalism is well beyond the usual norms here. You disagreeing with someone does not make it vandalism. Even if it were actually disruptive editing (as in edit-warring), it would still not be vandalism. On the other hand, as I was saying, the evidence presented so far in regards to your edits is rather damning, and you're not helping your case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Reviewing admins (@El C:, but anybody else if you see this first): Is it just me or Anonimu is well over the word limit? Some clerking might be in order: I'd venture forth but maybe better to leave that to you. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Statement by AdrianHObradors
I just saw this, and I am not sure if I am doing this correctly, is my first time on a discussion about an appeal. Also don't know how uninvolved I am as I have been keeping an eye over the subject and have been seeing the edits made by both Anonimu and Volunteer Marek, and sometimes trying to reach a compromise between them. I think they are both a bit biased, but they did find a bit of an equilibrium between each other. And I don't think Anonimu deserves the block (in regards of his edits of the article). The articles involving Ukraine are very hard to keep NPOV, and his contributions actually help balance it a little bit. Sometimes it is balanced a bit too much, but still helps.
I want to go over the statements made by My very best wishes:
- [194] - The edit isn't about what Anonimu believes, source makes no mention of war crimes. It is probably a war crime, but either a better source should be found or he did well removing it. (See WP:SYNTH)
- [195] - Again, this shouldn't be about what Anonimu believes, but his edits. And a humanitarian catastrophe is not the same as a war crime. War crimes cause humanitarian catastrophes, but so does war by itself.
- [196] - The source is about local reports, which by themselves are not very reliable, and it is something that is often talked about on the talk page. Reports by locals or by the Ukrainian government that hasn't been verified by third parties are very unreliable.
- [197] - I disagree with the call of vandalism, but what MVBW said is untrue. Source says "We are also looking into allegations of indiscriminate shelling by the Ukrainian armed forces in Donetsk and in other territory controlled by the self-proclaimed ‘republics’".
- [198] - See Cluster_munition#International_legislation. Neither Ukraine nor Russia (or the USA) subscribe to the Wellington Declaration, so calling it illegal is a bit confusing.
I do think Anonimu should stop claiming vandalism everywhere, but I do understand it is a very sensible thread and many get a bit heated up over it. In short, I think removing Anonimu from editing would actually be more negative than positive and make it harder to keep those articles with a neutral point of view. AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (uninvolved editor 3)
Result of the appeal by Anonimu
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I was a bit taken aback, as well, by the speed of the initial close by El_C, but their response, and especially the diffs by VM provided above, which outline clear tendencies towards WP:TE in this topic area, including repeated mischaracterization of good-faith editing by others as "vandalism" (a pervasive and almost sine qua non hallmark of TE in my experience) and the mis-representation of source material presented by MVBW in the initial report leads me to believe, as an uninvolved admin, that the prior close was the correct one. I Endorse El_C's initial sanction. A few points in both directions 1) To Anonium: there is no requirement that any report be open for any particular length of time. While borderline cases can be left longer, when something is a very clear-cut violation of existing Arbitration-enforced sanctions, then quick responses are not uncommon here. This is not a court-of-law, this is a place to get admin's attention. 2) To El_C: the initial close was impenetrable from an outside reader, to say the least. I had a hard time following your rationale for closing, it consisted mostly of an admonishment of VM for exceeding word/diff counts, and very little explanation as to why you were issuing the sanctions. In the vein of "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"; having a clear rationale for a sanction would have helped immensely. It doesn't need to be verbose, but it should leave little doubt in anyone's mind that the correct action was taken. --Jayron32 15:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Anonimu: Please spare me the talking-down to. I've been an active admin for 14 years and an editor for several years longer than that. I am not discussing the fineries of what is and is not vandalism and bad-faith editing. I am telling you that you are wrong. Straight up. The edits noted by VM above are not vandalism in any way, despite your calling them such, and disagreements can exist between two people editing in good faith. Every word you type denying that is not going to convince anyone that the sanctions imposed by El_C above are unjust, indeed, your continued stance on your indefensible position is likely to convince people that they didn't go far enough. Don't try to defend yourself, because you're so obviously in the wrong here, it is basically indefensible. Convince us you intend to change. I haven't seen any of that yet. --Jayron32 16:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Anonimu: Thank you for your change in tone here. This board does not deal with content issues, only behavior. As admins, our role is in making sure that editor behavior does not interfere with smooth operation of the encyclopedia, and that conflicts are handled the correct way (by using article talk pages, by building consensus, by seeking WP:DR and outside opinions when there is a disagreement) and NOT the wrong way, such as using reverts, or characterizing other editors as malicious or their edits as vandalism, or whatever. My concern here is with the behavior, not with the content itself. Your behavior has been a problem, and it is for that you were rightly sanctioned by El_C. My recommendation is that you ride out the sanction and edit collegially in other areas of Wikipedia for a while. 6 months is usually the standard amount of time between appeals; if you can show 6 months of improved behavior while editing outside of the WP:ARBEE area of concern, then you stand a better chance of succeeding with your appeal. --Jayron32 17:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Anonimu: Please spare me the talking-down to. I've been an active admin for 14 years and an editor for several years longer than that. I am not discussing the fineries of what is and is not vandalism and bad-faith editing. I am telling you that you are wrong. Straight up. The edits noted by VM above are not vandalism in any way, despite your calling them such, and disagreements can exist between two people editing in good faith. Every word you type denying that is not going to convince anyone that the sanctions imposed by El_C above are unjust, indeed, your continued stance on your indefensible position is likely to convince people that they didn't go far enough. Don't try to defend yourself, because you're so obviously in the wrong here, it is basically indefensible. Convince us you intend to change. I haven't seen any of that yet. --Jayron32 16:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- The original request was closed too soon, but the result was reasonable. If nothing else the repeated unfounded accusations of vandalism - which continued after several explanations of what "vandalism" means here, and which were even repeated in this appeal - are enough to justify a sanction IMO. And while some of the edits cited are at least justifiable, this strikes me as a textbook example of false balance. Hut 8.5 18:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Also I think the topic ban should be narrowed to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and related topics, I don't think there's a need for a topic ban from the whole of Eastern Europe. Hut 8.5 19:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'll disagree with the "too soon" assertions here. Arbitration enforcement is meant to facilitate quick resolution, and indeed can be done without any request made here at all. There's no minimum length of time for a request to stay open. That said, I think an excellent example of the problem (which the individual requesting the appeal actually showed on their own accord in the appeal, indicating they're rather unaware of the problem) is this edit: [199], which changes "abusing" to "torturing" in the article, while the cited reference ([200]) contains no assertion or even mention of torture whatsoever. Misrepresentation of source material is a very serious issue which entirely supports a topic ban, and so I would decline this appeal. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I strongly disagree with the general statement that closing a report in 2 hours is "too soon", which implies it was in error. AE does not require a consensus, and some cases are obvious. Prolonging an obvious case of disruption isn't helpful to the good faith editors in that area. In fact, we don't even need WP:AE to issue discretionary sanctions, it is just handy for filing reports. Two hours isn't common, but was reasonable given the evidence. More often than not, report stay open too long here. Endorse sanction. As to narrowing it (per Hut8.5), I have no opinion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Decline appeal, endorse sanction. Re the fast close, in addition to Dennis Brown's point about helping good faith editors, I would argue that fast resolutions also do the sanctioned user a favor by letting them know how out-of-step they are. On that point, I offer [201] from Anonimu's statement which justifies the edit on the basis that the source wrote "according to Mayor ...". However, the edit inserted "the Ukrainian authorities claimed"—that is either a severe competence issue regarding the implication of the chosen language, or a blatant twisting of the situation. Re the scope of the topic ban, I endorse the broad EE scope. It would be up to Anonimu to request a narrowing based on an explanation of what edits they would like to make in the EE area. Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- The appeal does argue the sanction is too broad and gives examples of other edits Anonimu has made which relate to Eastern Europe. That is an extremely broad area and all the evidence of disruption presented relates to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Hut 8.5 07:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not implacably opposed to narrowing the scope of a topic ban. It's just that at the time of my first comment above I had not seen any explanation of what EE edits were contemplated. I now see "topic area is too broad" with a brief explanation (after 1400 other words). I don't have time to investigate that at the moment but it would be helpful if someone independent from the dispute were to comment on why or why not the topic ban should be narrowed. That is, I would like to see someone say they have briefly investigated the material and support reducing the topic ban from all of Eastern Europe because the other material is neutral and beneficial. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse TBAN on anything and everything to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And I mean anything. Broadly construed. And not just that one article! Having said that, a brief skim through tells me it might be possible for Anonimu to edit constructively in other areas of EE. So it would be reasonable to reduce the scope of the TBAN. Looking at Anonimu's contribs, that's a huge subject area in and of itself. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)