Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346

Abrvagl

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 Abrvagl

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Abrvagl (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:ARBAA2

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

29 May 2022 - WP:HOUNDING and "jumping" into a discussion between me and another user
20 June 2022 - WP:HOUNDING hours after my edit
21 June 2022 - Possible WP:PACT and WP:GAMING violations, further explanation below

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, on 26 January 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'm following up on this as I find Abrvagl is still being problematic and needs AE's attention. The first diff is a WP:HOUNDING by them, where they randomly "jumped" into a discussion between me and another user. This confused me at the time but I tried to not pay attention to it. However, because of their recent repeated hounding, I couldn't just restrain myself and ignore it; after my edits yesterday in Garadaghly, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abrvagl who hardly edited for almost a week, made this edit in the article among others, hours after me. They added a partisan source with extremely partisan language [1], which isn't an improvement and shouldn't have been added. This kind of behavior with hounding is unpleasant to me and discourages me as an editor.

Third diff; some time after the previous AE case, they left this comment in the same discussion, which I believe breaches WP:PACT and WP:GAMING and I'll explain why shortly; considering the fact that Talk:2020_Ganja_missile_attacks#The_missile_attacks_happened_one_week_after_Azerbaijan_began discussion was linked in that previous AE case and Abrvagl was told that Eurasianet is a reliable third-party source, the fact that Abrvagl still pings me to that discussion and demands to answer their essay of a comment where they conclude that;

"Saying that bombardments of civilian areas of Ganja, which resulted in the death of civilians, was in response to Stepanakert civilian areas bombardment, which also resulted in the death of civilians, is an unsourced attempt to justify war crimes and insert of the wartime ethnic retribution logic into article. It is gross violation of WP:WEIGHT/WP:Neutral and there no place for that in Wikipedia."

And finally, considering the fact that to my appropriate reply, they're telling me; "You should consider good faith, no-one here sealioning or else.. Please also keep in mind that even a third-party user agrees with me on the talk page ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) How convenient to "jump" into the middle of a discussion with me and another user, despite never editing on that article, and now claim the "page was on my watchlist".

2) The specific diff I linked isn't an improvement, you cited an extremely partisan source which should never have been added to the article, hence it is hounding. And you did so hours after my edit despite hardly editing through 13-20 June. And again, you didn't have a single edit on that article prior.

3) I didn't cut anything from your conclusion segment, I included it as a whole, it's a publicly available diff. It's also convenient that you link your own comment judging what's "sufficiently substantiate" by a third-party editor, but didn't link my reply to you [2]. Considering all of this and the above, pretty sure your demanding good faith from me at this point could be considered WP:GAMING and perhaps WP:PACT. I'll leave that to admins to decide. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill Perhaps I should've provided more diffs/context, but I didn't want this to get long. This isn't the first time Abrvagl is hounding someone, their hounding against a different user was brought up on this ANI report, which I happened to take part in. From that thread, there are quite a few other examples;

[3], [4], [5], [6] [7] (these specifically show them hounding the user and edit-warring over an info cited by a partisan source, see discussion).

So this isn't the first time Abrvagl hounds someone, and the articles are very niche for them to randomly stumble upon, such things cannot happen repeatedly.

Regarding Ganja attacks, BBC reports that it was a response, attributing it to Artsakh. Eurasianet reports that it was a response with no attribution. Talk consensus is also against Abrvagl, as even the third-party user still disagrees with them. I honestly don't know what else I should do, it's not on me at this point to reach anything with Abrvagl. They could've used any mechanisms necessary like RfC, third opinion, etc. instead of dragging me every time to the talk page, since clearly as of now, talk consensus is against them. Bottom line is, I would kindly ask you to evaluate your opinion regarding hounding, since clearly this isn't the first time from them. And regarding Ganja strikes, I have nothing else to say. It's been enough already, I'm not planning to waste months of time just to appease this user. They know all the necessary tools, they should've already used them if they didn't like the talk consensus. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not obliged to read through a 4000byte+ wall of text, so I'll address the diffs you brought up against me. I also think some of these were already brought up by Abrvagl in the previous AE, it's just repetition all over again;

1) Had it watchilsted way before you, proof? I'm not just going to say "I have it watchlisted" like you did, here my edit. Also, not a personal attack.

2) Same scenario as the first [8]. And what's the personal attack?

3) You probably found that discussion on my talk page User_talk:ZaniGiovanni#Golden, so you should've seen just below that I, in good faith, also asked about it in the TeaHouse User_talk:ZaniGiovanni#Your_thread_has_been_archived ([9]) because it was still unclear to me whether discussing user conduct on article talk pages should always be prohibited. I'm certainly more careful about this now, and I make sure just for good measure to raise complex conduct issues on user pages instead or appropriate noticeboards like I'm doing now.

You say I brought up 2-month-old diffs (which I only brought up as backup to my current accusation of your hounding and only after Rosguill's comment), but what are these then, and why are you bringing up these irrelevant even older diffs in AE case regarding your hounding; 26 March 2022, 10 April 2022?

And why are you discussing Kadyrova here? Have you forgotten the extensive talk page discussion? I thought we reached that RfC conclusion which you still have to launch, I'm so confused. Rosguill please tell me if I need to address anything here regarding Kadyrova or if this should be discussed on talk instead, I'm not sure about this essay comment and the purpose of it. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Abrvagl

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 Abrvagl

Seriously Zani, you could have at least tried to talk to me before dragging me into this unnecessary AE only 9 days after your last report.

1. 29 May 2022 This page and talk page are in my watchlist. I saw a conversation between two editors and shared my own view on the conversation. How is it Hounding? WP:HOUNDING clearly states: if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behaviour, my comment did not mean any of that. it was aimed to help conversation. It is really strange to hear such concerns. If my comment is hounding, what is this then, where you jumped into a discussion with +1,879 bytes of text and raising personal remarks about me? I believed you did that with good intentions because I assumed good faith every time you joined discussions like this and expected the same from you. But it seems I shouldn't have.

2. 20 June 2022 No hounding or else here. Page is on my watch list. It brought my attention because there were recent changes. I actually expanded and improved the article. Abrvagl who hardly edited for almost a week, - as I mentioned earlier[10], I had emergency surgery and was having a rest. They added a partisan source with extremely partisan language - [11] is the official webpage of State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons, which is perfectly fine for statistical information about missing persons, especially considering that I correctly attributed it in the article. If you believe that source is not RS for that information, you could have talked to me or at least raise it to RS board.

3. 21 June 2022 - not sure how me asking you to stop writing personal remarks on the talk pages and informing you that we need to take this case to the dispute resolution is WP:PACT and WP:GAMING. Abrvagl was told that Eurasianet is a reliable third-party source, the fact that Abrvagl still pings me to that discussion and demands to answer their essay of a comment where they conclude that; I never said that Eurasianet is not reliable. You actually cut the conclusion out of the context which may lead to misunderstanding. Here is the full comment[12] read the paragraphs 9 and 11 about Euroasianet. And finally, considering the fact that to my appropriate reply, they're telling me; "You should consider good faith, no-one here sealioning or else. - Zani, making personal remarks on the article talk page is not appropriate, I and other editors[13][14] already told you that many times. If you want to discuss anything unrelated to the article you are always welcome to use the editor's talk page. keep in mind that even a third-party user agrees with me - this third-party editor did not sufficiently substantiate his comment[15], as I already told him[16].

Reply 2

Rosguill I am not sure why Zani brought up diffs which are more than 2 months old and was not even related to him to say that I am hounding.

Diffs mentioned by Zani were a case when I noted that one of the editors was going through the Azerbaijan-related articles and removing tons of information(sometimes obvious information) from the articles with "unsourced" comments. At first look, it may look like edit warring, but in reality, I was reinstating removed material and adding sources. For example: Revert[17] and added source[18]. Revert[19] and adding source[20]. Revert[21] and added source[22] and so on.

ZaniGiovanni, didn't link my reply to you [26]. - I did not, because I did not want to show you in a bad light as you were making personal remarks about me there [23].

Zani, we shall always judge other people as we judge ourselves. If you saying that my good faith edits are Hounding, then can you please explain a few examples listed below? Do you think that they can be considered as hounding? I personally don't, as I assume good faith, but looks like you have a different view on what the hounding is.

[24] - you jumped into conversation writing personal remarks.
[25] - 17:21 I made a revert as consensus was not reached. 9 minutes later, you, who was uninvolved created a topic on talk-page with +1,879 bytes of text again with personal remarks.
[26] - here you jumped into the conversation and made personal remarks about other editor's behaviours by bringing up eight 1-2 years old diffs.

you cited an extremely partisan source which should never have been added to the article - I agree that the source generally not reliable as it is not this party source, however official governmental entity(The State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons) is reliable to reflect Azerbaijan's official perspective and statistical data on missing persons if it is written with proper attribution. Not sure how it is hounding, but you could talk to me if you had concerns or at least take it to the RS board.

Zani, again, we shall judge others such as we judge ourselves. Here[27] you added two sources about the living person(WP:BLP). One of the sources is the Russian search engine Rambler.ru[28], which refers to not existing webpage Kdpconsulting.ru. When you click to open Kdpconsulting.ru, it actually opens an unknown yellow pages website runews.biz. The second source[29], which seems to be personal blog[30] focusing on IT from France perspective, does not even know if Kadyrova is male or female, and wrongly says that she is male, and focuses on her nationality calling her Azerbaijani journalist, while not mentioning that she is actually Russian journalist ...Azerbaijani journalist Saadat Kadyrova revealed to the Russian TV... He compared the residents to terrorists. Do you believe that sources are reliable for information about the living person?

Long story short - I never hounded anyone or had intentions to hound anyone, don't have anything else to add.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Abrvagl

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

Noting first for the record that both ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl contacted me on my talk page to ask for advice related to this dispute, reviewing the evidence here, I don't think that the HOUNDING accusation holds water. Having compared both editors' contributions on and immediately prior to June 20 and May 29, this looks like coincidental overlap on topics of mutual interest and don't see any clear-cut evidence of hounding. Reading through the entirety of the discussion at Talk:2020 Ganja missile attacks, while Abrvagl's conclusions cited here in ZaniGiovanni's additional comments (with additional emphasis add by ZG) are hyperbolic, I don't think that the argumentation is tendentious overall: they acknowledge Eurasianet as an RS and make an argument that the reference in question does not fully support the claims made, then provide an analysis of other sources. While one need not agree with Abrvagl's argument, I don't think it's sanctionable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ZaniGiovanni, the additional diffs you provide are certainly edit warring and possibly hounding, but they're also around 2 months old. I'm open to hearing disagreement from uninvolved editors as far as my initial assessment on hounding, but at the moment I stand by my initial assessment of the recent edits. As far as the continued discussion regarding the Ganja strikes, you have no obligation to continue responding to Abrvagl's arguments; it appears that the stable status quo is your preferred version, so the ball is in Abrvagl's court to call for an RfC, since a third party has already weighed in and you're clearly not interested in taking it to DRN. Given that the state of discussion on the talk page is an extensive back-and-forth between you and Abrvagl, plus a single-sentence affirmation in favor of your perspective from another editor (we can also count Kevo's revert as another voice in favor), I don't think we're quite in WP:DROPTHESTICK territory where continuing to raise the issue becomes tendentious. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ZaniGiovanni, no I don't think that Kadyrova needs to be discussed here. It's not really relevant to either of the allegations you raised in this case, and the argument as presented falls short of the evidence of persistent or willful failure to respect community standards and processes around sources that would justify sanctions in my view. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mhorg

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 Mhorg

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mhorg (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

[31]– Mhorg inserts the following text: “Rada member Pavlo Frolov suggested that she "failed to gather enough evidence", which made it sound like the Rada determined that Denisova was lying or spreading misinformation about the nature of sexual violence, rather than simply diverting attention.” However, this is a misinterpretation of the in-line reference [32]. The source does not say “which made it sounds like the Rada determined that Denisova was lying or spreading misinformation”. Yes, her dismissal was controversial, and she was criticized, but she was not found in RS to promote any specific “lies” or misinformation.
[33] [34],[35] [36],[37] - placing negative claims about Denisova to multiple pages where such claims do not belong.
[38], [39], – Mhorg removes statements made by Denisova in her official capacity as Ukrainian Ombundswoman . Well, even if an official would be found to promote multiple falsehoods (she was not!), such blanket removals of all his statements just “because he is a liar” would not be appropriate.
(edit summary). This is an inventive approach. Mhorg combines “everything by Denisova” in her section “even if it contains content by other people” (!) to discredit all such claims altogether by discrediting Denisova. [40] - this is highly misleading because Mhorg incorrectly attributes some claim by other people (or claims made also by other people) to Denisova.
[41] [42]. A highly damaging claim (one in the beginning of this section [43]) was attributed to a Ukrainian politician. The politician publicly denied he ever said it; there is no documented proof he said it, and his multiple rebuttals are well sourced. Mhorg removes his rebuttals.
[44]. Mhorg implies that Ukrainian president Zelenskiy is associated with Neo-Nazi based on unreliable sources. He uses this ref: [45], but the link includes a reference to Russia RT on the bottom. Mhorg says he would rather not include such content, but still posts the suggestion on article talk page. Based on their response [46], that was not a WP:POINT, but rather a desire for this material to be included to the page.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them - see User_talk:Mhorg#Azov)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Based on the diffs above, Mhorg does not like certain people and therefore present them as negatively as possible. These people are usually Ukrainian officials or politicians, but there are other examples. More diffs can be provided if needed.

A number of BLP violations or highly POV edits by Mhorg have been mostly fixed by other participants, but the contributors wasted a lot of their time to do it.

P.S. Speaking about the bias by Mhorg, I think this his posting is telling. Many sources he refers to (you can follow his links for #1,2,3,etc.) is WP:PRIMARY, and Mhorg interprets these sources according to his bias in this posting. My very best wishes (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. I would not file this request, but Mhorg push his own interpretations about living people not supported by sources [47] and behave confrontational not only with regard to me. To show the later, here are a couple of examples where I was not involved in editing:

[48],[49], [50], [51], [52] [53], [54] – sustained slow-motion edit war to remove sourced content about alleged neo-Nazi on page Sparta Battalion. Note that the removed content was included by at least four different contributors. The discussion was conducted on article talk page, and people probably came to an agreement (I am not sure [55]), but how much time and effort they have spent!
[56], [57],[58] edit-warring to restore an unsourced info without even any attempt of explanation, even in edit summary. No any explanation on talk page [59] Note that Third position is a set of neo-fascist ideologies, hence the meaning of reverts by M. is not at all clear. My very best wishes (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Siebert.

Seaking on my diff #1, no, Mhorg can not blame another contributor. Not only that was his edit, but he clearly made also other edits (#2-4) based on his personal conviction/bias that she is spreading lies about war crimes by Russian military forces in Ukraine. And he said just that himself [60].
Speaking about Bieletsky, yes, I also do not like the guy, but we have an obligation to provide his well sourced rebuttal per WP:BLP.
Yes, I do believe that sources like this [61] are self-published or at least not peer-reviewed. More important, no one objected to these removals. Yes, in one of the edits I removed whole para because it started from a phrase sourced to WP:SPS. I never meant other sources in the same para to be WP:SPS. Now fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pravega (talk · contribs) proposed making such changes [62],[63] on Page Alexei Navalny, but they have been rejected on an RfC as a BLP violation [64]. We did had a disagreement with Mhorg on this page who suggested such edit [65], which I thought would also be a BLP issue as a highly biased summary and repetitive content to disparage living person [66], but this seems to be resolved. My very best wishes (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did follow strong advise from El_C to avoid interacting with Mhorg for as much as possible. However, when Mhorg initiated a contact on my talk page [67], I asked El_C, and he responded that it is OK to interact with Mhorg [68]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to statement by Mhorg. Mhorg is making various accusations about me, but it would take a separate WP:AE request to respond. As about alleged wikistalking - no (in some of his diffs I do not change or modify his previous edits; in other cases I do, but this is not wikistalking). It was rather Mhorg who followed my edits. For example, he came to blindly revert several my edits on page Vladimir Zelenskiy in a matter of hours after my edits [69]. He never edited this page before. In edit summary he tells about Pandora papers, but reverts everything. He continued with other reverts [70],[71]. In edit summaries of the last 3 diff, Mhorg makes it clear that he specifically targets my edits. While doing this, Mhorg did not participate in discussions on article talk pages on the content he reverted although such discussions were ongoing [72],[73]. This is an example of confrontational editing by Mhorg. My very best wishes (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure there is a significant editing overlap for me and Mhorg, but one should look at every specific page (as I just did above). For example, a contributor A coming to a page X soon after B to fix something that B did not edit is not wikistalking. On the other hand, if user A tells in their edit summary, "Hey, I am reverting YOU [user B]!" (for example, [74], [75], [76],[77]), after consulting how to get that user B banned [[78], that is clearly a wikistalking, even if they both edited page X before. My very best wishes (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First diff in this series [79] is especially telling. In edit summary Mhorg say Reverting stealth deletion with deceiving edit summary by user My very best wishes, but what he actually does in his edit? In the end of the paragraph prior to the edit by Mhorg you can see :Another OHCHR report documented an instance of torture of a man with a mental disability [ref]. But Mhorg adds right after that second time (a repeat) the following: Another OHCHR report documented an instance of rape and torture, writing: .... Mhorg does not even check what he is doing, he is just making an unsubstantiated accusation in edit summary. My very best wishes (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a reaction to discussion of admins below, I agree with Dennis Brown. I think diffs in my request show a trouble on multiple pages. But it is difficult to judge if someone edited against the spirit of WP:BLP. For example, consider this edit by Mhorg on yet another page [80] and this discussion [81]. Was it a BLP violation by Mhorg? In my personal view, yes, it was a BLP violation. Was I wrong? I think there is bright line as outlined in WP:BLP, and I tried to explain it to Mhorg here, but apparently without any success. My very best wishes (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment by Gitz6666. Indeed, I noticed that Gitz6666 and Ilenart626 were making edits similar to those by Mhorg (diff #2) [82], [83], edit on 22:33, 16 June 2022. Was not it a BLP violation as well? I did try to explain to Gitz this issue [84],[85], but apparently without much success based on their statement below. Of course I do not think that Gitz hates Denisova. The purpose of the edits, i.e. edit warring to include multiple "alleged" and the negative info on Denisova [86],[87],[88],[89],[90], is to sow doubts that the war crimes by Russian army did happen. My very best wishes (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion concerning Mhorg

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 Mhorg

Dear colleagues, unfortunately I have to defend myself against the slanders that are part of a WP:Battleground mentality that MVBW has never definitively abandoned, such as when years ago (he was called User:Biophys) was part of a political 'battle squad' that coordinated off-wiki[92] with a mailing list to fight his 'enemies'.

This AE request comes after MVBW:

Was warned by an admin for WP:WIKIHOUNDING against me[93] together with User:Nicoljaus, who was Tbanned instead.[94]
Made an absurd and inconcludent SPI against me and other 5 users (they were all users with whom he clashed in discussions).[95] Note that Nicoljaus, after 3 months of inactivity,[96] intervenes in the SPI against me (perhaps warned by MVBW off-wiki?).[97]
Was warned by an admin for massively removing sourced content[98], while he was trying to get M.Bitton sanctioned with his little games. My comment was crucial, and since that day he has become increasingly aggressive.[99].
From then on he started again to check my contributions daily, WP:FOLLOWING me from article to article (I make a list here of all the times he has recently intervened in articles, in which he never made a single contribution before, because I already deal with the user on dozens of articles):

[100],[101],[102],[103],[104],[105][106] and started to meddle in talk pages with other users again.[107] I would like to recall that he had been warned by @El C: precisely because he had intruded on my talk page by replying to users asking for things from me.[108] The user now writes I asked El_C, and he responded that it is OK to interact with Mhorg, does "interacting with users" mean checking their contributions daily and constantly intervening in the articles? Is it normal that this user is constantly breathing down my neck?

- "It was rather Mhorg who followed my edits." At this point I ask for the intervention of an administrator who maybe can check whether I searched the history of his contributions and then went directly to that edit. This user systematically lies, in fact, as I have already explained, I had gone to Zelensky's article precisely to ask the question.[109] Before asking that question I looked at the history of the article and found its usual removal with sources. As I wrote to El_C, I have no pleasure in interacting with MVBW, I have always tried to keep contact to a minimum. Please, some administrator check this out and save me from this hell of lies.[110]

Notice how the user tries to hide his previous comments in which he said "Mhorg makes it clear that he specifically targets my edits ~~(same on a number of other pages)~~".[111] Yes, the user can only talk about that Zelensky case, and I am sure that if an administrator can check how I arrived at that article, they will find that I did not do so by searching MVBW's contributions. I repeat: I am not that kind of user, the only times I check MVBW's history I do so to AVOID him, not to FOLLOW him.

Blatantly violated an RFC verdict (in which he himself participated) by removing one of my reverts (I was just trying to enforce the verdict on other users.[112]). I point this out to him,[113] and instead of apologising he lies:[114] "That change was made not by me, but by another contributor who edited just before. I started from editing his version.": FALSE.
"Mhorg say Reverting stealth deletion with deceiving edit summary by user My very best wishes ... Mhorg does not even check what he is doing, he is just making an unsubstantiated accusation in edit summary." this was his edit summary:[115] "fixing and removing the tag. These sources are good enough, except they do not say "war crimes"" instead he removed this part of text "A report from January 2015 stated that a Donetsk Republic supporter was detained and tortured with electricity and waterboarding and struck repeatedly on his genitals, which resulted in his confessing to spying for pro-Russian militants.". Shouldn't he have written that he was removing this part and summarising other parts of the text?

I ask you for the opportunity to exceed 500 words so that I can fully defend myself against this user, who has practically harassed me on every possible occasion in recent days:

Denisova - (list of the sourced accusations against her:[116])

1. That part was inserted by user Cononsense (with another source).[117] And MVBW knows it very well, because he deleted that part.[118] Unfortunately he has a habit of removing massive chunks of text, or heavily altering the content, to make it difficult for other users to edit. To see how I had organised that section (later disrupted by MVBW), read here the Frolov part.[119]

1a. Mhorg can not blame another contributor: Mystification, I did not accuse Cononsense (also read my edit summary[120]). Instead, I restored their stuff but the source was lost in the process, thanks to MVBW's mass removals and manipulations.

2. I opened a discussion to talk about this.[121] Perhaps the user intends to resolve it by means of an AE Request?

3. As I have shown in point #1 (all material removed from MVBW) Denisova has been accused by members of parliament, journalists, academics, of being highly unreliable with her rape reports. Somehow we will have to deal with her statements, either by deleting them, giving them less weight, or adding parts of text explaining to the reader what happened. MVBW, on the other hand, would like to minimise everything.

4. Yes, I still think that any statement she made should be grouped in a section to give the reader important information about the accusations made against her.

Other

5. MVBW speaks of 'A highly damaging claim', yet the same politician wrote: "the writer argued that human races are divided into higher and lower. He considered the White race to be the highest, and Neanderthals, N_gro_s, and Papuans to be the "lowest." Other races occupied an intermediate position. According to Frank, the "lower races" first differed from the monkeys. And from them ("lower races") stood out higher, more perfect forms. By the way, in modern science, this is one of the main hypotheses of anthropogenesis. [...] I would like to wish our "real" friends to read "uncircumcised" censored classics."?[122] But if you want to know more:[123]

6. Mystification. I was just saying that for both cases the importance was zero. I never included that part in Zelensky's article, and in fact for me that nonsense should be avoided for both presidents.

Additional comments

1. Resolved on talk page by consensus. Thank you for showing how mystifying you can be.[124]

2. They were all edits without source\motivation by anonymous users. What would you be insinuating? That I shouldn't have reverted them?[125]

Answer to TyrelBurden

1. Mhorg was a strong advocate of the Azov Regiment being described in Wikivoice as a ″Neo-Nazi″, defined in that way in a large and very participative RFC. At least 17 users voted as I did, many of whom cited my argument as valid.

2. They would use questionable at best tactics such as striking an RFC option, this is our discussion on that fact.[126] I simply did not know the rule.

3. Each of my contributions is supported by sources. As for the accusation of POV, I can say the exact opposite of you and MVBW, but that is not why I would have asked for a TBAN.

Answer to Dennis Brown

@Dennis Brown: may I ask you which part you think was manipulation? Maybe I can try to give you an explanation. Thank you.

I hope with all my heart that other users who have had a bad experience with MVBW will intervene in this AE request.

Dennis Brown Please, I have to ask you a second time, since you are requesting a ban on the topics on which I have the most expertise, can I ask you at least specifically which of my contributions seem problematic to you? I would like to remind you that I have participated assiduously in all democratic processes (I spent hours and hours in discussions, RFCs, so on) and always acted with the consensus of other users. I have always acted having (ALWAYS) sources behind me (maybe I need to learn to use the term "alleged" in discussions, as Drmies suggested, but be aware that English is not my first language). Is it possible that there is a need to ban me in this way when the user who opened this AE Request is even allowed to make unsourced, biased and forum comments like this[127]?--Mhorg (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul Siebert

First of all, let me quote these words

I think this is a typical pattern of someone providing a lot of diffs produced during tense discussions in a hope that at least some of them (or so many of them) will be viewed as incriminating.

Below, I am going to demonstrate that these MVBW's words perfectly describe his own behaviour.

Thus, the evidence #6 is the talk page post, where Mhorg says that this type information should NOT be added to the article. IMO the only idea this evidence demonstrates is that MVBW is following the above described tactics in an attempt to eat up the defendant's 500 words limit and to link his name with highly discredited "Russia Today".

Next, the evidence #5. The ostensibly "highly damaging claim" was supported by three reliable sources, the Guardian article and two books, each of which have been widely cited by peers ([128], [129]), so each of them are without any doubts RS. In contrast, the text removed by Mhorg was supported by Ulmand, who writes:

"Bilets’kyy asserted that he had not written the articles to which Hromadske referred, and admitted that only his video and audio statements, available on the world wide web, were genuine. The racist texts under his name were, according to Bilets’kyy, fabricated by Russian propaganda, in early summer 2014 when Azov was starting to take shape. However, it is inconceivable that Likhachev, as a highly experienced researcher of the post-Soviet far right, would have reproduced the above quotes on his blog, without being certain of their genuine nature. Bilets’skyy’s outspoken rejection of his racist statements and their association with Russia’s information either were an expression of cognitive dissonance or were designed to cover his pre-Euromaydan political biography." (the colored text was not included into the article).

In other words, the text removed by Mhorg contained a very selectively cited source (Umland), whose main idea was totally misinterpreted. That means, Mhorg just fixed a blatant misinterpretation of the good source (Umland), thereby improving the artilce.

I can perform the same analysis of other evidences, but the 500 word limit does not allow me to do that. I would like to to point out the following.

Dennis Brown, hasn't specified which sources he looked at, so it is hard to me to comment on concrete examples of misinterpretation. However, it is necessary to discriminate between the text written by Mhorg and the text that was written by others and restored by Mhorg. Clearly, it is a big difference between non-critical restoration of someone else's wrong text and writing misinterpretations by themselves. I suggest to look more carefully on the diffs and to verify who exactly wrote each piece of the problematic text, who deserves a real topic ban, and who needs just a warning.

Similarly, regarding the evidence #2, the statement added by Mhorg seems quite relevant. The style of each edit is uniform: to the text saying that Denisova made a clam X, Mhorg adds that some politicians criticized Denisova for that claim. This criticism refers to the claim made by Denisova, and that claim is the very same claim that is presented in each of those articles. How can that be seen as "irrelevant"?

Frankly, I strongly recommend admins to carefully examine other evidences presented by MVBW, for virtually every statement made by this user may be problematic. As an example, I can provide this recent diff: [130] this user has removed three good sources, that were added by Mhorg previously [131]. MVBW claims these sources were SPS, but that is a lie: one source is a conference paper authored by an expert in the field, another one is a peer-reviewed publication cited 33 times, and the last one is the book cited 108 times. By removing this text, MVBW removed information about murder of Jews and of gentile 3000 civilian during WWII. Denial of the participation of some nationals in the Holocaust is considered as one of the forms of the Holocaust denial. Ironically, that was represented as an attempt to improve the Holocaust related article.

In connection to that, I have a question: if relatively minor misinterpretations made (or ostensibly made) by Mhorg, deserve a topic ban, what should be an adequate reaction on MVBW's misleading statements and removal of the information about the Holocaust made under deceptive edit summaries?

I fully understand that accusations of misbehaviour that lack evidences may be considered as a personal attack, and I declare that I do have enough evidences that support my general claim about MVBW's behaviour. I am ready to present them upon a request, but I cannot do that here, for they do not fit the 500 word limit.

In summary, I strongly suggest BOOMERANG.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my intention to go into the details of the situation around modern Ukrainian Nazi (and I even cannot tell for sure if they are real or perceived Nazi). In my opinion, during the ongoing war this topic should be edited very carefully (I prefer to to edit it at all). However, two facts seems obvious and non-questionable.

1. Many WWII time Ukrainian nationalists had strong ties with German Nazism, and they were active Holocaust perpetrators. Some modern Ukrainian nationalists consider WWII time Nazi collaborators and Holocaust perpetrators as "founding fathers" of Ukrainian statehood, and they expressed racist ideas.

2. Currently, many Ukrainian nationalists are fighting for freedom and independence of their country against Putin's invasion, and it is unclear to which extent they still support ideas of Nazism (if support at all).

Clearly, any user who is editing in the Ukraine related area must do that very cautiously to avoid focusing too much on the first or the second aspect. And if we topic ban the users pushing just one of above described aspects (those who tries to emphasize the linkage of Ukrainian nationalists with Nazi collaboration, Holocaust ct=rimes and racism, or those who is trying to deemphasize such a linkage beyond any reasonable limits, thereby whitewashing real crimes and denying the Holocaust), we introduce a strong bias into this very controversial area.

It cannot rule out a possibility that Mhorg's editorial style is strongly biased. I myself think we all should minimize editing this topic during the war, and do that only if that is absolutely necessary (and that is why I stopped editing). However, I do not see any strong evidences of Mhorg's disruptive activity in the evidences provided by MVBW. --Paul Siebert (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TylerBurden

I have never commented on this page, but everything I have seen from Mhorg lines up with the concern that there is too much political motivation and bias at play with their edits. Mhorg was a strong advocate of the Azov Regiment being described in Wikivoice as a ″Neo-Nazi″ battalion(at the time, now called regiment) despite confliction amongst reliable sources which in my brief time on this site was the biggest and most blatant WP:NPOV mess I have seen. They would use questionable at best tactics such as striking an RFC option that unrelated people had voiced support for because the OP had been blocked afterwards to support this cause. They owed up to it on their talk page when it was called out, which is fair enough, but one only needs to take a look at their edit history to see that they spend most of their time on the site linking Ukranians with Nazism and other general anti-Ukranian POV edits. This would be one thing if they also made edits from the other perspective, but they don't. People who get in their way are accused of whitewashing 1 2. I agree that there is too much bias with this editor, and that they have an obvious POV that they are pushing above all others, Wikipedia is meant to be built on WP:NPOV and people like this are tearing that pillar down. Support topic ban. --TylerBurden (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Mhorg: Accusing me of being a POV pusher in response to me calling out your (obvious) WP:TENDENTIOUS editing is a rather weak retort. In that RfC, I voted for the option covering both Nazi past/allegations, but without stating it in Wikivoice. You voted for a WP:NPOV violation. I think that, along with our edit histories would show that I am nothing like you. My frank opinion is that you're not here to build an encyclopedia, maybe you were at some point, but your mission here now is to push agendas and you're willing to use dirty tactics to do it, as seen by your misrepresentations and other antics. That's all I have to say about this. TylerBurden (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

Normally I don't edit in this area, I accidentally ended up involved in the Azov battalion saga and interacting with some of the editors there. Mhorg has very forthright opinions but from my limited experience, he is not alone in that, there are those with equally strong opinions on the other side of the (Ukranian) fence, so to speak, things get heated from time to time. A warning to dial it back is certainly in order, any repetition, go to jail, do not pass go. Selfstudier (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should be clarified at this point that Michael Colborne, From the Fires of War: Ukraine's Azov Movement and the Global Far Right is not a self published book but is published by ibidem. In fact, I was taken to task over this issue myself. Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pravega

Tyler Burden's claim that Mhorg should be topic banned because he wanted to retain status quo on Azov Regiment by retaining "neo-nazi" in wikivoice is absurd. Even the RfC closure noted that such a view "received the most !votes, both in favor and against it".[132]

What I have seen until now is that Mhorg is in fact doing a great job with his editing and MVBW is causing disruption. I am describing all of that with proper diffs about the disputes where both MVBW and Mhorg were involved very recently.

1. A very good example of POV pushing, WP:IDHT and WP:STONEWALLING by MVBW is on display at Talk:Alexei Navalny#Proposed addition to "Political position" section where he is trying to reject reliably sourced content without citing a policy-based reason. After he failed to justify his content removal, he asks "Why discuss it now?"

2. MVBW made the above responses only after he failed to turn BLPN against his opponents at Talk:Alexei Navalny. On BLPN he brings the issue as if editors were committing BLP violation and he is misrepresenting me, mhorg, and other editors to be engaging in an "effort to misrepresent Navalny as a far-right ultranationalist." An uninvolved editor, Curbon7, noted there "I think you're misreading the room." Note that none of the participants were ever notified of the discussion as required by either informing in the existing talk page section or starting a new section to notify editors. This BLPN displays WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of MVBW.

3. MVBW's unnecessary edit warring to whitewash Alexie Navalny which is on 1RR.[133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141] MVBW is falsely claiming to have "consensus" by citing an RfC that was closed for being impractical with regards to the fate of the content. Only 2 users: MVBW and Alaexis are opposed to the content while 5 other editors (including this one) are in support and/or have no issue.[142]

4. Again, false claims of BLP violation on Alexei Navalny by MVBW. No users could find any "BLP violation" and MVBW after seeing lots of opposition himself tries to wiggle out by saying "If no one else thinks that was a BLP problem, let it stay."[143]

5. MVBW cites 100% correct edits by Mhorg above about Sparta Battalion (Mhorg was following WP:BRD to remove fake news promoting sources per consensus) but MVBW omits that he was violating WP:BLP by adding fake news sources (meawww) getting their information from WP:DAILYMAIL to Vladimir Zhoga on that same day by falsely claiming him to be a Nazi.[144]

6. Edit warring at Azov Regiment by trying a new edit every time.[145][146]

7. Back-to-back removal of highly acclaimed scholars such as Richard Sakwa, Stephen F. Cohen on Far-right politics in Ukraine and falsely claiming to have consensus on talk page to remove long-standing content.[147][148][149]

In all of the above disputes, Mhorg is the one complying with WP:BRD and WP:CON, while MVWB is engaging in clear misrepresentation of sources, rampant edit warring against consensus, false claims of gaining consensus, WP:IDHT and battleground mentality. I am also citing WP:CIR with regards to MVWB due to claims of BLP violation when none exists. So Dennis Brown, if anyone deserves a topic ban then that is MVWB for disruptive editing and making this report only to get rid of a far more sensible opponent in a content dispute.❯❯❯Pravega^g=9.8 15:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gitz6666

With regard to MVBW's point N° 2, "placing negative claims about Denisova to multiple pages where such claims do not belong", I beg to disagree. I think that here Mhorg was trying to address a real issue of verifiability which was not created by them.
Some editors, no doubt in good faith, have spread along multiple articles the information that 25 girls between the ages of 14 to 24 were held captive in a basement in Bucha, they were repeatedly raped by Russian soldiers and nine of them became pregnant. The only source of this information is Denisova, who said that she got it from a telephone helpline service (BBC). At the beginning of April, this information was reported by The New York Times and BBC, amongst others; with different wordings and more or less details, it was published in our articles War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Bucha massacre and Wartime sexual violence. I myself had to start a discussion at RSN to understand whether Denisova's declarations, as reported by Daily Beast and Yahoo News, constituted a reliable source with regard to the alleged raping and killing of a 1-year-old infant in Ukraine, two 10-year-old boys, triplets aged 9, a 2-year-old girl raped by two Russian soldiers, and a 9-month-old baby who was raped in front of his mother, according to Denisova.
The point I'd like to make is the following: Denisova is no longer, and probably has never been, a sufficiently reliable source for the purposes of inclusion of contents related to sex crimes involving minors in the context of the war in Ukraine. She had been accused of making […] unverifiable statements about alleged Russian sex crimes (Wall Street Journal) and some of these accounts [sexually motivated crimes described in gratuitous detail] had not been verified (Deutsche Welle). So I think that those statements and accounts by her do not pass the threshold of WP:V. However, the editor who opened this request for enforcement thinks differently, and until today they have been arguing tenaciously that Denisova's statements continue to be verifiable enough for the purposes of inclusion: e.g., 21:47, 21 June 2022, 00:37, 25 June 2022, 15:07, 25 June 2022.
My argument is: Mhorg was addressing a real issue there. If we keep Denisova's declarations, then we need to offer the reader some elements for assessing their (lack of) reliability. My preferred solution would be to remove Denisova's declarations entirely from articles dealing with war crimes, but that's a matter of contents; with regard to the case at hand, I think that MVBW's point N° 2 is not convincing at all and that Mhorg's edits can be seen as good-faith attempts to address a serious verifiability issue that other editors (MVBW included) had created.

Result concerning Mhorg

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

I checked several sources, translated, and it does seem pretty clear that Mhorg is misrepresenting the sources, exaggerating the claims against Denisova. Topic ban is likely the only solution. I can only guess, but my best guess is there is a serious bias at play here, one that Mhorg can't overcome and be neutral about in this topic area. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- My stance hasn't changed, but I will ping El_C who is likely familiar, for a different perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - As noted on my talk page, my interactions and actions wrt to these 2 disputants were over a year ago, events which I scarcely recollect (I've close literally tens and tens of AE reports during that time). As for the latest, I've reviewed little of anything, so am unable to opine at this time, one way or the other. El_C 20:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mhorg, I'm not going to give a blow by blow report on all your edits, that's not the goal here. We aren't a court, we aren't here to met out justice, we are here to find solutions. The fact that you "have the most expertise" in these areas might be part of the problem, as you tend to talk "at" other editors rather than "with" them, perhaps due to being convinced you think you already know all the right answers. The BLP violations alone are worthy of a topic ban of some sort, as it was more than a single instance. When contemplating a topic ban, the question I ask myself must be: is the area better with or without this individual participating? In this instance, I believe you are a net negative in the topic area. Unless another administrator changes my mind (which is always possible) in the next day or two, then that is the action I would take. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To the person or persons who keeps emailing me about this case (I have not replied to any of these emails) — please stop. See my comment above. After one closes +50 AE reports in the course of a year, it isn't easy to remember individual cases. I don't have the time (or energy/stamina for that matter) to investigate this AE complaint, so I have nothing further to add atm, which is unlikely to change. Thanks. El_C 11:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I've had some interactions with Mhorg, all friendly, I believe. I'll note that my very first paragraph contains diffs and points to discussions that I was involved in (though those mostly involve a question of sourcing, in a discussion with another editor).
I find #5 difficult particularly since the Colborne book was still the leading citation for the authorship of the "The Word of the White Leader" brochure--but that book is self-published and should not be used for such serious matters. But this was discussed on the talk page, and Mhorg seems to have accepted my removal of that text, so that's in the past as far as I am concerned.
#6, and the diff provided, are problematic too--linking Zelenskyy to some Nazi resembles a smear campaign. But then, this was last month, and I am unwilling to single that out as sufficiant cause for a topic ban.
If this was it, and since I've been involved in one of the articles, I think I'd just suggest some strong warning or something like that, particularly for the Zelenskyy test balloon. And as I mentioned I've interacted with Mhorg on this, and edited the article on Biletsky. But then there is the Denisova material, items #2 and #3, which I have not seen before AFAIK, and that's a(nother) BLP matter, but one where clearly Mhorg's very recent POV-guided edits smear someone's reputation across various articles. At the very least, Mhorg should, IMO, be topic banned from editing anything pertaining to Denisova. I'm sorry, Mhorg, but this cannot stand. Please note that I am sidestepping the issue of behavior toward other editors: that's too complicated for me to dive into now, and I prefer to focus more narrowly on the BLP aspects of this complaint. A topic ban from Denisova seems fair to me--plus something else: a strong, strong warning to NOT smear living people in edit summaries. Mhorg has a tendency to do that, dropping unnecessary commentary and references in the very edit summary, which makes it more difficult to clean up BLP violations--and I wonder if some of their edit summaries shouldn't be revdeleted. That tendency, to state things in Wikipedia's voice outside of article space, occurs on talk pages also. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Selfstudier, please see this--which is what I based my judgment on, reached through a title search in Google Books clearly indicating Books on Demand, published Jan. 2022. I see now that there are hits for "idibem", an imprint (?) of Columbia UP, March 2022--that changes things considerably for the editing of the article. Thank you for that. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Pravega, the purpose of this AE thread is to investigate one set of complaints. Yes, BOOMERANG and all that, but you would have to make a very impressive cause if you wish to undermine the evidence for this case by arguing the one who filed it shouldn't be editing here. Either there is evidence against Mhorg or there isn't--whatever your complaint is about MVBW's editing you may file as a separate AE request. You have not, in fact, defended Mhorg here, unfortunately. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Denisova posts were indeed core to why I believe a topic ban is required to restore neutrality to these articles, but I think a tban on just Denisova would be too narrow, as we are seeing questionable edits in the examples given that demonstrate an inability to stay neutral in discussion and edits. I would be more inclined to support a tban for "Ukrainian politics and wars since the year 2000". This would allow editing on history, geology, etc but keep them away from the problem areas where BLP violations are likely to keep happening. I can't really support anything less. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Denisova material is definitely problematic; we don't mess about with BLP issues, so a topic-ban simply referring to her should be the minimum action here, whether it needs to be wider is another question. Black Kite (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella

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

Request concerning GizzyCatBella

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:APLRS

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

15 June 2022 - attempt to relitigate a previous APLRS-related closure;
15 June 2022 - further insisting on overturning that closure;
23 June 2022 - threat to remove + further insistence on non-reliability of previously-considered reliable source;
23 June 2022 - more of the same; likely misunderstanding of underlying APLRS remedy;
23 June 2022 - going again;
23 June 2022 - and again;

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above: [150] - two blocks (both self-reverted, one technical) in August 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: The Warsaw concentration camp returns again to the Arbitration Committee.; On 2 November 2021, GizzyCatBella challenged the usage of this source. GizzyCatBella properly challenged that article since it was non-scholarly and the user provided some sort of rationale other than the point of non-scholarship (in that case, the participation of banned Icewhiz). Acting on this challenge and given my interest in making that article as comprehensive as possible, I started what proved to be an acrimonious RfC three days later that later escalated to ArbCom. The RfC ultimately was closed with the following relevant point, that there is consensus that the Haaretz article used as a source for the footnote is reliable and, as such, WP:APLRS is satisfied.; In June, Jens Lallensack, who was not involved into any of the prior discussions, started the GA article review. GizzyCatBella stated in diff 1 that they don't want the reference to appear in there, without any qualifiers, if that was to be a GA, but ignored the request to refer the RfC to review. No policy I am aware of allows some sources for inferior articles but disallows for the others. The user repeatedly showed their will to challenge the closure and threatened to disregard it by removing the source in question (diff 3). They claim that the RfC closure said that since it is reliable as used in a footnote, it is not reliable anywhere else (likely due to the user's own opinion on it as unreliable), and suggested to go with an ArbCom clarification, or else challenge it again, which would be very likely burdensome for the community. [Another usage of that source is quoting from Jan Grabowski and Havi Dreifuss, both subject-matter scholars]. The user repeatedly said that multiple other sources available for the same content, but provided none to back up their point. The user seems generally to believe that whatever was not written by a historian is unreliable for the topic, which is not what APLRS says.; GizzyCatBella additionally threatened to challenge two videos from YouTube, one being a France24 report, and the other being an Israeli TV interview with Gideon Greif, a subject-matter expert on the Holocaust, without stating any problem other than being YouTube videos (WP:SQSAVOID obliges the reverts have a "clear substantive explanation", which the user avoided to share so far despite being asked to do so).; I ask the admins to instruct the user to comply with the closure, order the editor to stop abusing APLRS as a way to automatically remove any reference without explanation, and otherwise stop the uncooperative and combattive behaviour.; I request 200 more words for replies. TonyBallioni is pinged as the administrator imposing discretionary sanctions. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella, this board is in the category of "dispute resolution" boards for a reason.

Also, given the very long discussion about that source (and several others you have engaged in, i.a. over the meaning of the word "hoax" in Wikipedia), obviously I've had enough of that once I've been that shitshow, and I struggle to understand why others haven't and want to remind us of that waste of editor resources over and over again.

My very best wishes, exclude a source for what reason? Reliability? The RfC said we were over it. DUEness? Also over it. Narrative of a banned Wikipedian? Well, it is there, no denial, but that objection was also overruled anyway as we don't cite it. I have no complaints about civility here, but repeating the same arguments in different venues, when the editor knows that these were overruled, and then trying to argue the RfC closure is not what (most) people think it is due to a grammatical/technical quirk, is disruptive. And even if we disregard all that, the editor knows that most people agreed to disagree anyway, so why raise this issue again? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella, the problem here is not the source itself, it is your behaviour with relation to that close, which was clarified to mean what it means by plain reading of that source (thanks for confirming that, Isabelle). The enforcement request is about compliance with the RfC, it is not about the source, for which this venue is not appropriate. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [151]

Discussion concerning GizzyCatBella

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

Statement by GizzyCatBella

I'll address the issue as soon as I can (busy for most of the day) as there are numerous inaccuracies here such as number 3 (just a quick example for now) - a threat to remove --> Where do I say that I'll remove or where is the threat of me removing anything from the article Szmenderowiecki?

Meantime, please read the entire conversation and (among other things) notice this comment --> [152] were the filer disrespectfully insinuated that my good faith involvement in GA review is to overturn the RfC, which is untrue, that is not my intension at all. Also Szmederowiecki, why didn't you ask for a wider input from our community, as I suggested, instead of accusing me of acting in bad faith? You came here to resolve the disagreement? You know that this might be a tremendous unnecessary time sink, right? You are requesting the AE to resolve that debate instead of asking the community for consensus? What's up with that Szmenderowiecki? - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes - Sorry, I’m still busy, just scanning here. So the article with such troubled history could be freely used directly, anywhere in such uneasy toopic area? I understood the closing of RfC completaly different. (Use ok as a source for a footnote - only in this particular article) I’m not arguing with your evaluation, looks like you're skilled in Linguistics (judging by your front page also), and English is my second language, but I'm a little stunned.. Should we ask the closing editor for clarification or study the RfC and clarify it ourselves elsewhere? GizzyCatBella🍁 22:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Szmenderowiecki - So if you (quoting you) had enough of that once I've been that shits how why on earth it’s so important to you to maintain that particular source in the body of the article, to the point that you came here with this dishonest (not only my opinion) report? What it’s more important to you Szmenderowiecki? Maintaining the potentially troubled source in the body (instead of the footnote - no objections here) that has a prospect to destabilize the article in the future or passing the article into the GA status? Explain that to me, please? GizzyCatBella🍁 23:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Isabelle Belato Thank you for clarification Isabelle - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent conversation with the filer on the talk page of user Deborahjay preserved here for the record -->[153] - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Let me get this straight. User:Szmenderowiecki filed a WP:AE report because… someone disagreed with them (civility, politely) in a discussion??? Every single one of these diffs is a comment. Not article edits, not anything even resembling incivility, nothing. I don’t even understand what policy these are supposed to violate. This seems to boil down to “how dare you have an opinion different from mine!!!!”

I mean, I’ve seen some ridiculously spurious WP:AE reports over the years but this has got to be some kind of record for spuriousness..es..esses(?)

Just ban Szmenderowiecki from WP:AE and tell them to quit wasting people’s time. Volunteer Marek 19:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

A contributor (GizzyCatBella) can reasonably believe that a source should be removed from a page if we want this page to become a Good Article, regardless to any previous RfCs. This is not an unreasonable opinion because during the RfC a number of other contributors argued that the page would be better off without this reference. If we simply remove the disputed ref, the article will remain just as good (GA), as it is. End of story. Why bring this here? Perhaps there are some reasons, but I do not understand them. My very best wishes (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes. Yes, I see it: Requests to enforce the discretionary sanctions or sourcing restrictions should be posted to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE) for evaluation by uninvolved administrators. However, I do not see how anyone (like GizzyCatBella) arguing to exclude a source (an article in Haaretz) from a page to make it a Good Article might be viewed by anyone as a violator of sourcing requirements. Even if it was a reference satisfying the requirements by Arbcom, one can always argue to exclude it for whatever good reason. This is not a violation of any remedy by Arbcom. Only someone arguing to include an insufficiently good reference on talk (like Szmenderowiecki) might be viewed as a potential rather than an actual violator. My very best wishes (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Isabelle

It seems like my poor domain of the English language has finally come to haunt me. Firstly, I have no opinion on this particular matter as it relates to GizzyCatBella, and am here just to clarify any misunderstandings related to this close. Wugapodes is correct in their assessment that my findings were that the article is reliable, generally speaking. While the discussion was focused entirely on the source as it related to the information found as a footnote, participants agreed that it was reliable, meaning that if that same information was to be added to the body of an article, it would still be reliable and usable (although I find it hard the community would find that WP:DUE). I hope this answers any questions. Feel free to ping me if any further comments are necessary. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 01:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning GizzyCatBella

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

It's pretty clear to me that the RfC found the source was generally reliable. It says explicitly the argument against the source's reliability is not a strong one, so with that context I struggle to see why the Haaretz article used as a source for the footnote is reliable and, as such, WP:APLRS is satisfied should be read to mean it's only reliable for that footnote and nothing else like GizzyCatBella claims in the third diff. I think the phrase "used as a source for the footnote" is a restrictive relative clause that is used to specify which source is being discussed specifically. The ambiguity comes from the omission of the relative pronoun (common for restrictive clauses in English). So there are two potential readings depending on what relative pronoun you use to fill in that gap: "the Haaretz article [which is] used as a source..." or "the Haaretz article [when] used as a source...". Given that we list the source as "generally reliable in its areas of expertise" and the closer said the argument against the source's reliability is not a strong one, I think the interpretation is clearly "which" not "when". I can see how an editor could, in good faith, misunderstand that given the ambiguity, so I don't think there's any need for AE to do anything beyond clarify that. — Wug·a·po·des 21:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @My very best wishes: The arbitration committee explicitly told editors to bring issues like this to AE. See clause 4 of that motion. — Wug·a·po·des 21:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @GizzyCatBella: Sure, I've asked the closer for her comment. I think it's ambiguous even if your first language were English, so it's probably best we get some clarity to avoid future misunderstandings. — Wug·a·po·des 23:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JameyRivendell

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 JameyRivendell

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Praxidicae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2

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

[154] June 25 The first edit to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's article, this user adds "far-left" to the lead, despite there not being any description of such in the body. This was later reverted by me and partially by Cullen328.
[155] Original insertion of "left wing politics" in the see-also section, which was what was removed by Cullen and JameyRivendell was asked to take it to the talk page for consensus.
[156] June 25 My original full reversion of the addition of both what seemed to be a nonsensical addition and the far-left in the lead.
[157] June 25 JR's revert of me, again with what appears to be an attempt at a pejorative in the edit summary
[158] re-adding left-wing into the lead again, without discussion or consensus
[159] June 25 Following my DS/GS notification, they moved onto Kenosha unrest shooting inserting "in self-defense" in the lead without any discussion or consensus, which I asked them to get in my first and only revert there.
[160] June 25 Nearly immediately i was reverted and called a vandal

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, diff

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I will also note that I reverted my second edit removing their edit as I didn't realize until afterward that it was a 24hr cycle restriction. Beyond that, it appears that JR is mostly here to stir up trouble in AP2 topics, given their editing history to the articles above, Matt Walsh (political commentator) and The Daily Wire. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen I think I fixed it. Also I wanted to add, since notifying them of this request, they've been rather pleasant. why don't you fuck off, which leads me to believe my original assessment may be correct in that they are WP:NOTHERE. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

why don't you fuck off WP:NOTHERE lol JameyRivendell (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning JameyRivendell

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 JameyRivendell

JameyRivendell pleads not guilty. The monkey ass who keeps reverting my edits seems to have an agenda. I believe in symmetry of information. If every single conservative politician on wikipidea is labed "right wing" or "far right" using biased sources that this should apply to left wing politicians as well. Besides AOC is far-left af for those in the bunker. Wikipedia is not a DNC platform. Please stay neutral.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning JameyRivendell

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

I can't get those diffs 1 — 7 of yours to work in any of my browsers, Praxidicae. Are they supposed to be like that? They go nowhere for me. Bishonen | tålk 21:45, 25 June 2022 (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]

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