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 Mr Miles[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Mr Miles (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#Motion:_Remedy_transfer_to_Gender_and_sexuality_shell_case_(February_2021)

In 2020 and 2022, Mr Miles comes to Trans women and engages in disruptive WP:POINT-making about the lead sentence based on his POV that trans women are not real women. Mostly this focuses on changing the language of assigned male at birth to "biologically male".

Diffs

1. 17:47, 27 July 2020 Changing lead sentence
2. 17:46, 27 July 2020 Insisting that trans women are "biologically male"
3. 17:41, 27 July 2020 Ditto
4. 16:22, 27 July 2020 Changing lead sentence
5. 16:18, 27 July 2020 "Because everyone know that trans women are obviously not actual women, they are men suffering from gender dysphoria, one treatment for which is for them to live as if they are women. Some extremists have distorted these facts to actually claim that trans women ARE women, for political reasons."
6. 14:54, 27 July 2020 "Obviously trans women are not women else they wouldn't be trans women they would merely be women and would have all the associated biology. Wikipedia is not the place for radical left-wing activism."
7. 11:27, 20 July 2022 Same dispute with lead sentence, calling it incoherent
8. 14:39, 20 July 2022 Again blaming trans rights activists as being gatekeepers
9. 15:23, 20 July 2022 Trans women aren't women
10. 16:01, 20 July 2022 ""disrupting" - I'm giving an opinion on an article on its talk page :) Is this a cult?"

Other anti-trans edits:

1. 21:06, 31 July 2021 Removing transgender from Man
2. 18:22, 5 November 2020 Disruption on Judith Butler over singular they
3. 17:04, 14 July 2022 Adds claims that Michel Foucault abused children using an opinion piece, a non-RS, and article that describes him as the "beacon of woke ideology".

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.
  • July 27, 2020 and July 31, 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Give that this editor has shown trans-antagonistic editing over multiple years and that they have returned to the same article to make the same disruptive WP:POINTs, I believe a topic ban is warranted. This disruption is not limited to one page, so a partial block on Trans woman would not suffice.

Replies:

• You used "actual women" which is effectively the same as "real women".
• Foucault is a foundational post-structuralism philosopher (like Judith Butler) regarding gender theory.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

16:06, 20 July 2022

Discussion concerning Mr Miles[edit]

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 Mr Miles[edit]

I merely went to the Talk Page for Trans Women and questioned why the unsourced intro claimed that 'Trans Women are women' (a political slogan), rather than the consensus of reliable sources which is that 'trans women are people assigned male at birth who identify as women'. My understanding is that talk pages are for discussing the relevant article. I was subjected to a barrage of ad hominem by a set of editors gatekeeping a POV. That I made one change to the intro 2 years ago (!!) is hardly evidence of 'disruption'.

I also reject the term 'real women' used by the editor of this request for enforcement.

And on Michel Foucault - how is this relevant, he wasn't trans? The sources there were of course RS. This request is vexatious

Definitely vexatious: thankfully another editor has reverted my edit and restored the reliable sources I used.

User:Crossroads - I went to the talk page and gave an opinion, how is that 'uncollaborative'? That the editors that have accumulated around this article all share a POV doesn't mean giving a different opinion is disruptive/'trolling'! Isn't that what the talk pages are for? WP:CIV - "Differences of opinion are inevitable in a collaborative project"

User:Drmies - The definition of 'whitewashing' is replacing a black person (Whitewashing in film) with a white one - Beachy Head Lady was a white woman as the DNA sampling showed. Unless your claim is the Francis Crick Institute doctored its results to 'whitewash' them - if so, I'd like to see a reference for such an extraordinary claim? Mr Miles (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

trans women are women is absolutely a political slogan, a google search of the term results hundreds of images of placards. And the statement is empirically false, as well as the anatomical differences between the two, in the UK, trans women do not have the same single-sex rights as natal women, sporting bodies (eg FINA, the world's swimming governing body) have banned trans women from competing with natal women. Whether you agree with this or not is irrelevant and merely your personal politics - the point is there are substantive differences between trans women and natal women. 'Enough already'. Mr Miles (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And again, as with my edits on Michel Foucault, my editing on Beachy Head Lady has been supported by the regular editors of the article against the reverts by Drmies. How embarrasing. Mr Miles (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dennis Brown I didn't change 'long settled text', I made one edit to the intro 2 years ago (and as I pointed out, that intro had been changed radically from earlier more accurate versions) - how could that be considered 'hateful' in the mind of a reasonable person? Mr Miles (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dronebogus: "transphobia"? An accusation without supporting evidence is considered a ‘personal attack’, for which an editor may be blocked from editing. WP:NPA Mr Miles (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being 'assigned male at birth' means having one's birth sex identified and recorded. What else could it mean, a prediction on which gender stereotypes a person will adopt?! Mr Miles (talk) 08:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial

Newimpartial :"(Concerning Man, an article that is not particularly "about biology")."

The intro to the article Man: "A man is an adult male human... Like most other male mammals, a man's genome usually inherits an X chromosome from the mother and a Y chromosome from the father. Sex differentiation of the male fetus is governed by the SRY gene... During puberty, hormones which stimulate androgen production result in the development of secondary sexual characteristics, thus exhibiting greater differences between the sexes. These include greater muscle mass, the growth of facial hair and a lower body fat composition... Male anatomy is distinguished from female anatomy by the male reproductive system, which includes the penis, testicles, sperm duct, prostate gland and the epididymis."

Seems the entire article is ALL about biology. And I'm being accused of pushing a POV!

And my statement "trans women are not women but are males who identify as women" is of course shared by the BBC: "those assigned male at birth but living as a woman" BBC

Not sure of the relevance of my frequency of editing Wikipedia? Sounds spurious. Mr Miles (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Crossroads[edit]

I support a topic ban. This behavior is uncollaborative, even troll-like, and a detriment to the editing environment. There are constructive ways to suggest changes, and Talk:Trans woman/Definitions shows there are many possible ways to define the topic, but this behavior is uncivil and unacceptable. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dronebogus[edit]

Behavior at Talk:Trans woman is definitely obvious Wp:SEALIONing and purely vexatious (making his accusations of vexatiousness hypocritical). On top of this user doesn’t even seem to have a coherent point and swings between frivolous complaints about word definitions to thinly veiled transphobia. Strongly support topic ban at minimum. Dronebogus (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr. Miles: I am not the one under investigation here. Making empty threats of having me blocked while you are “in the dock” is only weakening your own standing. Dronebogus (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Mr Miles: “males who live as women” is NOT the same as Assigned male at birth; ordinary I’d assume simple ignorance and confusion but you have a known habit of twisting word definitions to make a point. Dronebogus (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newimpartial[edit]

I agree with Crossroads.

To be less succinct, MrMiles has done very little with his account, for more than two years, except to push a POV on gender issues. To wit:

• The term 'biological male' is the defining characteristic of trans women.
• Yes, the condition that leads a man to feel he is a woman is biological.
• everyone know that trans women are obviously not actual women, they are men suffering from gender dysphoria
• Obviously trans women are not women ... Wikipedia is not the place for radical left-wing activism.
• Article is about biology, not gender ideology (Concerning Man, an article that is not particularly "about biology").
• trans women are not women but are males who identify as women

So very much POV, without the slightest fig leaf of contributing (or even participating in the discussion of) sources. I don't really care whether the edits in question were motivated by transphobia; they clearly do not contribute to the development of article content, are accompanied by truly epic amounts of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, and have repeatedly provoked disruption on more than one Talk page. I favor a topic ban, without which further disruption appears inevitable. Newimpartial (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Mr Miles[edit]

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

• User:EvergreenFir, thank you for starting this: I was just looking at that talk page, and that led me to the whitewashing on Beachy Head Lady, and then the warnings on their talk page made me ponder whether I should just drop a topic ban there--but this is a better way. I fully support a topic ban for this editor. That stuff on the Trans woman talk page, that's really just trolling. Also trolling: this. Also a good reason to make this a broad gender ban: this. Now that I see their response: "Trans Women are women" is not a political slogan. Enough already. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re:Mr Miles's comment on "Michele Fourcaut"--it's Michel Foucault, and how problematic Mr Miles's work was is clear from Talk:Michel_Foucault#Allegations_of_molestation. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There is room for all opinions, but there isn't room for this behavior. I read through this earlier today but didn't have time to post a reply, and I wanted to think on it. It all boils down to whether someone can participate in an area peacefully, coexisting with others in spite of having different opinions, and I just don't see this happening. It is fine to disagree, but when you go changing long settled text in this way, it comes across rather hateful and demonstrates a lack of self-control. I would support a topic ban. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a topic ban here - this behaviour is disruptive, isn't helpful for article improvement, and I don't see why other people should have to put up with it. It's fine to have an opinion, even an unpopular opinion, but Mr Miles' edits in the area largely consist of picking fights with other people about his opinions, and that doesn't work well with a collaborative project. Hut 8.5 13:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious topic ban, but I have to say, given some of the trolling, would we actually be losing anything useful to the encyclopedia by just indeffing? I don't see much really useful in those (very thin) contribs, mostly arguing on talk pages. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 Iskandar323[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Fad Ariff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Iskandar323 (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/Iranian politics

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

Iskandar323 gaslights and misuses policy [1][2] to POV-push seemingly WP:OR / WP:SYNTH content in the article. The sources in the article don’t support:

1) That the logo in the infobox belongs to this group.

2) That the group was "Left-wing".

3) That its colourcode was "red".

4) That its religion was "Islam".

5) That Parviz Yaghoubi was "a veteran member of the MEK since 1968".

6) That the group was "homonymous" with the PMOI.

7) That People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran – Followers of Musa's Way was a "prominent" group (the opposite seems to be the case).

See article talk page where I raised many of these points but Iskandar323 has mostly deflected.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Not that I am aware

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

1. (15:01, 31 May 2022 ) Another recent AE report showing Iskandar323 POV-pushing, deflecting, and mischaracterising sources in this topic.
2. (12:24, 27 May 2022) Iskandar323 posting this notification in another article
3. (04:59, 18 February 2022) An editor explaining sanctions notification to Iskandar323
4. (12:02, 20 May 2022) Iranian politics general sanctions notification in Iskandar323’s talk page

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[3]

Discussion concerning Iskandar323[edit]

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 Iskandar323[edit]

A frivolous AE filing about content not discretionary sanctions violations that should boomerang. It is worth noting that Fad Ariff recently raised three AE cases against different editors in 24 hours: [4], [5] and [6] - making clear that they do not appreciate the limited resources available at AE. On the contrary, as I raised at a previous AE case that was ultimately never resolved, Fad Ariff has been guilty of fairly wholesale DS violations, including several breaches of WP:1RR, alongside further evidence of WP:1RR gaming. I would also note Fad Ariff's use of the adversarial language about 'gaslighting' and 'deflection' is all fairly battleground. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: Not the DS notice specific to the PMOI and related to Syrian Civil War and ISIL, but the more general post-1978 Iranian sanctions one, yes. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: Ah, actually, now that you mention it - I do see that the PMOI page template is subtly different from the standard one: something I had not realised. I had thought the PMOI notice WAS the standard one, and had assumed that all of that material was contained in the standard template. I now see that the part at the very end in bold is an additional note. That's my bad. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: Fixed the talk page notice already: here. I'll definitely always go straight to the source for the talk page templates in future. I had thought the consensus requirement applied across IRANPOL pages, just like the 1RR rule across ARBPIA pages, which I'm more familiar with. I hadn't realised other conflict areas had page-specific template tweaks. Lesson learned. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@חוקרת: Adding a DS talk page notice is not an admin action - it is merely a public notice to inform editors that certain sanctions are in effect - but thank you for your concern. It is also irrelevant to this case, since Fad Ariff has long been active in post-1978 Iranian politics and is fully aware of what sanctions apply - based both on recent alerts on their talk page and recent activity at AE. Unrelated. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fad Ariff is already more than fully aware of the post-1978 Iranian politics DS from editing the main page in the conflict area: People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers[edit]

Even assuming Fad Ariff is correct about everything in their filing and that all of the parts of Iskandar323's one edit to the article were mistaken, this is still not a matter that needs any sanctions. Iskandar323's clear motivation was to preserve content, including plausibly reliable sources, during an AfD discussion. I haven't looked into Fad Ariff's conduct enough to have an opinion on a boomerang sanction, but I urge a warning, at the least, to ensure that this is their last frivolous filing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323, have you perhaps been copying the DS notice from Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran to other IRANPOL pages? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323, I'm glad to see you realizing your mistake. As Researcher indicates below, this also means you were incorrect in suggesting that your revert was justified by the consensus required restriction. Unlike ARBPIA, there's no restriction (like 1RR or CR) automatically applied to articles in the IRANPOL topic area. Fixing up the notice at any pages where you added it and acknowledging the mistake are the only things I feel are needed from you here. My points about this AE filing otherwise stand. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@חוקרת: I fixed the notice at Talk:Organization of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class and tried at least one way of searching for any other pages affected (finding no others so far). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Researcher (חוקרת)[edit]

Is Iskandar323 an admin? Because the user rights on the account don't show this. Iskandar323 placed a Ds/talk notice consensus required notice on the talk page. If Iskandar323 is not a secret admin, then they are very much in the wrong here.

Fad Ariff also gave a reason in each of his edits why he remove material like here and here. Iskandar323 gave no reason other than announcing via edit summary that DS notice consensus required applies. Iskandar323 was supposed to check if the sources said what the text said. Again, is Iskandar323 an administrator? Because only administrators are allowed to make this kind of ruling I think.

Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Firefangledfeathers, it is more than just copying a DS notice, Iskandar323 wrote in their edit summary "per the post-1978 Iranian politics DS notice, please seek consensus before re-instating (via reversion) any edits that have been challenged (likes the ones being reverted here in this restoration)". Iskandar323 relied on the Ds/talk notice they placed themselves.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't true. You placed a page restriction of consensus required You then relied on that same restriction you placed yourself, telling Fad Ariff they couldn't revert you unless they had consensus. I wonder, did you verify the material you placed after Fad Ariff said it wasn't verifiable? And who appointed you to place page restrictions? And even if you had the authority to place a page restriction, it wouldn't be ethical to both place a restriction and be in dispute with another editor on the page.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you aren't an admin, you don't get to decide that consensus required applies. And even if you were an admin, placing the consensus required on the talk page and reverting six minutes later based on your own consensus required ruling would be wrong.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My replies above were to posts moved in this edit, therefore indents are doubled.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iskander323 also placed a consensus required restriction at Talk:Organization of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class, it is still there as I type, can it be removed?Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Iskandar323[edit]

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

• Appears to be another attempt to get Iskandar323 sanctioned after the last one failed. I note that the filer even opened a second AE in that case against someone who defended Iskandar. This one doesn't appear to have any merit either, it's a content dispute if it's anything, and I don't see much "anything" here. Black Kite (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Without comment on the merits, I would just remind editors that filing multiple unactionable or spurious reports is a form of WP:DE, WP:HARASS and likely a few other acronyms. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think this is actionable. Iskandar323 was wrong to claim that the article was under a "consensus required" restriction and doesn't have the authority to impose one (even if Iskandar323 was an admin their involvement in this dispute would disqualify them from acting), but this looks like an honest mistake and certainly not the kind of thing that would justify a sanction. The other edit looks like a content dispute, the bar for imposing discretionary sanctions in content matters is very high. Hut 8.5 18:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 TheLastOfTheGiants[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

TheLastOfTheGiants (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

1. [7] It is clear that they push a nationalistic POV to the exclusion of all other POVs, while there is no WP:RS/AC on this matter. According to them there is WP:THETRUTH of Romanian nationalism, and all WP:SCHOLARSHIP to the contrary should get doubted.

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. [8] of 26 July 2022.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

For the same reasons as Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive244#Cealicuca and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive244#Iovaniorgovan, these are clear and strong precedents.

Why use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV inline, while the whole section is clearly attributed to the Immigrationist theory?

I believe tgeorgescu believes the Immigrationist theory to be the academic consensus: what I have said above? I said "while there is no WP:RS/AC on this matter". This clearly refutes your belief about me.

The John Doe is the best baseball player argument: so? You were trying to fix the wrong section. You now argue that the other section needs fixing.

the statements that don't have reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view: and which are those statements? Do those statement clearly state "the consensus of scholars is..." or "the majority view is..."? I guess not. Wrong reading of WP:RS/AC. And if you mean that there is WP:RS/AC for continuity, that's a bogus consensus claim and its source should be dismissed as unreliable. "We, the people at Toilet Duck, recommend Toilet Duck".

I stand by my words: "Wrong reading of WP:RS/AC."

Anyway, I find your defense unconvincing: you're getting lost in the shifting sands of your own deeds and arguments. And, above all, I still did not hear the reason why you're in a different position than Cealicuca and Iovaniorgovan.

The facts: in that article there is continuity turf (i.e. a section), immigrationist turf, admigration turf, and neutral turf. On the continuity turf view there is stuff like With the colonists coming from many provinces and living side by side with the natives, Latin must have emerged as their common language. See? No inline WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, quite similarly to no inline attribution from some of the stuff from the immigrationist turf.

But see the rest of their edits: they are pushing a nationalistic POV. There are hardly exceptions from this rule. Maybe I was wrong that they are a Romanian nationalist, possibly they are a Vlach or Aromanian nationalist. Cealicuca also supported their pet theory. Or was that Iovaniorgovan? Hard for me to distinguish between the two, except that they sided with different theories. Anyway, all three of them use WP:WALLS.

About "nationalist": through your edits Hungarians always get the short end of the stick. Besides, statements including In 1875, the government of Prime Minister Tisza intensified... are blatant copyright violations. It seems that the plagiarism scanner enjoys its summer holiday. Anyway, "nationalist" comes second, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/TheLastOfTheGiants comes first.

Your lies are puerile at [9]: (not copy-pasted, so no copyright violations). Revdel requested at [10]. I was not the first saying it's copyvio: see [11]. My excuse for losing my temper: the most infuriating tactic is complete denial. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[12]

Discussion concerning TheLastOfTheGiants[edit]

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 TheLastOfTheGiants[edit]

To simply the issue, so that is understandable for those who don't know the subject:

We have page (A) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piranha and page (B) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Romanians

We have sentence (A) "Piranhas belong to the subfamily Serrasalminae, which includes closely related omnivorous" and sentence (B)"Reliable sources refer to the Romanians' presence in the lands to the north of the Danube for the first time in the 1160s".

Without knowing anything about either of those subjects, and looking at those sentences, can you determine which one is general consensus and which one is an individual opinion that is not part of the general consensus?

Answer: sentence (A) is general consensus, sentence (B) is an individual opinion that is not part of the general consensus.

(Not my personal opinion, the historians supporting the Daco-Roman Continuity theory supporters believe this, tgeorgescu doesn't seem to deny it either: as I wrote in the "dubious" part that I got reported for - "There are many historians who agree that the Primary Chronicle, Gesta Hungarorum, She Song of the Nibelungs and other mentions of "Vlachs" north of the Danube refer to the Romanians"; the Vlachs being another name for Romanians, and the 3 listed sources are those that refer to the Romanians' presence in the lands to the north of the Danube before 1160s, which historians such as Ioan-Aurel Pop and Dennis Deletant find reliable, this is not a fringe theory)

I listed them as "dubious" or "NPOV" in order to discuss them on the talk page. Which if you look at the talk page I did start a conversation there, before getting reported. All the sentences I listed as "dubious" or "NPOV" have this issue, with the contradictory opinion that makes them not general consensus listed in the added "dubious" or "NPOV".

Adding those "dubious" and "NPOV" where I drew attention that that is not the general consensus, are the reason I got reported, and may get banned for it.

I should also point out that tgeorgescu not once tried to talk to me, despite me literally saying "please see the talk page", that's his version of conflict resolution.

I should also point out that tgeorgescu's accusations are a complete fabrication without any substance. I never said I'm a nationalist, it's just a buzzword from his part. I never excluded all other POVs. And I never said "According to them there is WP:THETRUTH of Romanian nationalism, and all WP:SCHOLARSHIP to the contrary should get doubted", not even remotely close. It's a complete fabrication from his part. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning TheLastOfTheGiants[edit]

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

• @TheLastOfTheGiants: Your statement is currently over 4,000 words long. Please shorten it to 500 or fewer. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• A few things: Piranha has no place in the discussion, it isn't an Arbitration Enforcement (AE) area and not in the initial report. At it's heart, this is really a content dispute and there is discussion ongoing on the talk page. The "dubious" tags are fine in theory, but this is overtagged (6 of them), which is a bit disruptive. Not actionable by itself, but you might want to narrow down your tags. Finally, TheLastOfTheGiants is already at ANI for copyright infringement, where I've proposed an indefinite block for copyright infringement that seems to continue. Here, there isn't a lot that we can do at AE as the report isn't giving us a bright line rule violation or a pattern of AE related issues to work with. The copyright issues are beyond our remind at AE, and are already being handled there. As for the article, I suggest using the talk page for now, and until there is a more clear pattern, I don't think there is anything we can do in the way of Arbitration Enforcement. As an aside, TheLastOfTheGiants is entirely too verbose in all places. You need to be more concise, as no one wants to read walls of text. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I reverted TheLastOfTheGiants here [13] for adding 23,551 bytes worth of wall of text. You've already been told twice about walls of text. After the revert, you have around 400 words, giving you 100 words to go. Because you are a party, I can see stretching that two hundred words, 700 total, but not walls of text. We simply aren't going to read it. Do not go past 700 total words. Use https://wordcounter.net/ if you don't know how to count them otherwise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 Philip Cross[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Philip Cross (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:NEWBLPBAN

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

1. 05:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC): violation of WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:BLPSPS, straight revert of what was a good faith claimed BLP violation (discussed here)
2. 14:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC): violation of WP:BLPRESTORE, straight revert of a claimed in good faith as a BLP violation without affirmative consensus

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Relevant block related to editing on anti-Zionists/anti-Zionism in the area of his British politics ban

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

• Notified of BLP DS 15:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I requested the user self-revert the blatant WP:BLPRESTORE violation, the user declined. The Jerusalem Post blogging platform is open to all, here is the application, and WP:BLPSPS is clear that only blogs that are subject to the editorial control of the newspaper may be considered for use. Regardless, there had been no attempt to engage in generating a consensus as is required by WP:BLPRESTORE. Additionally, Philip's editing of this article raises serious concerns that stretch back years. For example, he, in 2020, removed material about the SPLC apologizing to Khalek with the false claim that the material was located elsewhere. Nowhere else was that in the article. Taken as a whole, his editing at this page show a clear attempt to amplify any negative coverage and diminish any positive coverage. But even without that history, these two edits are blatant violations of WP:BLPRESTORE, the second following a DS alert, and a refusal to self-revert. Should result in a BLP ban.

And somebody should revert the violation, I just dont want to end up at XRV and do it myself. nableezy - 06:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aquillion I think that misses the point. It simply does not matter if it is actually UNDUE or if it is actually a BLP violation for our purposes. This is not that discussion. What is relevant here is that WP:BLPRESTORE requires consensus for the reinsertion of material that has been claimed to be, in good faith, a BLP violation. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Must be obtained first. Twice now Philip has re-reverted what have been called BLP violations without so much as a token attempt at gaining consensus. And then refused to self-revert, despite policy demanding consensus for his restoration. There is no affirmative consensus for the reverts, and as such Philip Cross has violated WP:BLP multiple times, unrepentantly at that. An editor that refuses to abide by WP:BLP should be banned from editing BLPs, full stop. He still has not self-reverted the blatant BLP violation. Also, if admins are waiting on PC before doing anything here, I would say that is a waste of time. Philip Cross has simply refused to engage in reports, see for example phis only edit to the ANI report on a past topic ban violation. He made no comment in the ANI thread. Its as if waiting out the report is the strategy, and it should not be allowed to continue. nableezy - 13:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philip has been editing since this report was filed, yesterday and today, and as he apparently voluntarily declines to participate here this should actioned without regard for his absence. nableezy - 14:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes multiple violations of WP:BLPRESTORE, from an editor sanctioned by ArbCom for violations of the BLP policy in another topic (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles) is not much ado about nothing. The content here is entirely irrelevant, and that is seemingly a purposeful attempt to distract from the issue. Philip Cross violated WP:BLPRESTORE twice within a few days, and refused to self-revert both times. That he has previously been found to be disruptively editing BLPs of those whose politics he opposes should lead to a full BLP ban at this point, and it is not much ado about nothing. If somebody wants to prove that Levivich had options besides edit-warring out BLP issues then here is your chance. nableezy - 16:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Im at a loss as to how anybody is missing the BLP violation here. The BLP violation is restoring an edit without modification that was removed as a BLP violation without consensus. It doesnt matter if it was sourced to the word of God Himself, if something is removed with a good faith claim of a BLP violation then it is a straightforward violation of WP:BLPRESTORE to simply re-revert that material back in to the article without an affirmative consensus for it. Both of those edits are BLP violations, and it is a modus operandi for Philip. So is the longstanding editing practice of attempting to fill in to BLPs of people he dislikes any negative material one can find on the internet sourced to whatever marginal or straight up unreliable source he can find, and then basically refusing to discuss it. I am at a loss as to how this straightforward BLP violation in an article on somebody whose politics he dislikes, by an editor restricted from editing other BLPs of those whose politics he dislikes, is basically being ignored. nableezy - 20:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Philip Cross[edit]

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 Philip Cross[edit]

I edited the article on Paul Joseph Watson on the basis that his main activities are US based via his association with Alex Jones. I have not edited the brief mentions in the article which relate to domestic British politics. There is "no consensus" about using The Daily Beast as a source.

The one edit I have made to the article about Jacek Rostowski here relates to his career in continental Europe. Philip Cross (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen 328[edit]

That blog post by Petra Marquardt-Bigman is a highly opinionated piece that shows no evidence of editorial control or review or fact checking. It is a diatribe and a screed, not journalism. It is so flagrantly biased that I cannot see how it can possibly used in a biography of a living person. Cullen328 (talk) 06:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion[edit]

Oh, good lord, is this the same dispute as the Volunteer Marek request above? Anyway, the answer is similar; the older diff is not the sort of clear-cut BLP violation that would justify sanctions for restoring it once - it's "this person has been described as X" citing a number of sources to reasonably high-quality non-SPS opinion pieces describing them that way. It's probably WP:UNDUE but not something so shocking that you can get people sanctioned simply for restoring it a single time. The newer diff is somewhat more serious - it is definitely inadequately sourced per WP:NEWSBLOG; even if the author is an expert (as Philip Cross has said), that doesn't solve the issue because the subject-matter expert exemption is for WP:SPSes and we cannot use a SPS, even an expert, for BLP-sensitive statements per WP:BLPSPS. (The particular problem is that, as I understand it, The Jerusalem Post's blogs are not subject to their editorial control, as BLPSPS requires.) But adding it once, and failing to realize that a sufficiently low-quality newsblog is effectively a WP:SPS, is an incredibly easy mistake to make - even very experienced editors make the same mistake with WP:FORBESCON, which is similar. Making that mistake once is not sufficient reason to ask for sanctions. --Aquillion (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes[edit]

Yes, this source should not be used by Philip Cross, and he should not be reverting. But ( striking this through per comment by Mhawk10 below). This was hardly anything significant in terms of content. The cited source supports the following text [14]: In an address at Berkeley in April 2015, Khalek said Israel was responsible for exporting military technology intended for repressing minorities having tested it in Gaza. OK. Looking at the next sourced/undisputed phrase, it says She compared Israel to ISIS asserting they "have shared values". There is no question the subject is strongly anti-Israel, and yes, sure, Israel imports and exports military technology. This is much ado about nothing, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LittleChongsto[edit]

I agree that Philip Cross has shown a repeated pattern of biased and bad faith edits in various BLPs over many years. I honestly find it very surprising that they're still allowed to edit BLPs at all, but I am relatively new to the Wikipedian community. I disagree with Aquillion that this edit was a mistake, given the long history of similar edits to other journalists and political figures.

Statement by Mhawk10[edit]

The J-Post piece is an example of why we have WP:NEWSBLOG, but my reading of that very same guideline distinguishes NEWSBLOGs from WP:SPS at least at first glance (it instructs people to look at the SPS section for personal blogs and group blogs, but does not give that instruction for newsblogs). That does not mean that reverting the source and content back was a good idea (I think basically everyone here agrees about that and that the source was not-so-reliable), nor that we should treat JPost blogs as anything other than SPS, but I don't see it as the sort of bright line BLP violation that's worthy of any block or ban based off how the guideline is written. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing that an editor above struck through their comments about the appropriateness of the source. Let me reiterate: I don't think the source should be used in the article for a source of contentious facts. The point of my comment is that WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:SPS are treated as distinct by our current guidelines and there isn't a clear policy prohibition on using NEWSBLOGs in BLPs. After all, there's even a difference in how WP:RSP treats The Guardian's newsblogs (WP:MREL) and Forbes's contributor blogs (WP:GUNREL). Maybe this is for a good reason, maybe it's not, but sanctioning editors on the basis of using what would appear to be a newspaper in a BLP based on the erroneous claim that doing so is always prohibited except for WP:ABOUTSELF seems imprudent and not narrowly tailored towards preventing disruption. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the edits highlighted below by Vladimir.copic seem to be correcting obvious BLP violations (Paul Mason), (Nick Cohen), or correcting typographical errors (Extinction Rebellion), making copyedits that are unrelated to British politics (Jacek Rostowski), or making other edits not related to British politics (Patrick Minford), (Paul Joseph Watson), (Talk:Piers Morgan). I don't think that journalists are inherently within the scope of BritPol/AmPol and there's an general exception to topic bans for correcting obvious vandalism and flagrant BLP issues. That being said, there isn't exactly an exception to topic bans for correcting typos/doing copyediting other than WP:IAR. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vladimir.copic[edit]

This is a slightly unrelated observation on this editor's recent editing. I note that Philip Cross is indefinitely banned from post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. In the past few weeks this editor has made edits to the following articles that are in the area of this ban (non-exhaustive example diffs below):

• British economist and Brexit advocate Patrick Minford
• environmental movement Extinction Rebellion established in the UK
• British political commentator Nick Cohen
• English journalist Piers Morgan
• British-Polish politician Jacek Rostowski
• British political journalist Paul Mason
• British far-right commentator Paul Joseph Watson
• National Citizen Service a UK government program started in 2011

There is nothing wrong with these edits - some of them were needed - but nonetheless they are well within the area of the ban. I have a lot of respect for the work Philip Cross has done on jazz biography and would hate for the project to lose him due to these infringements on his ban (especially in light of last year's block for a topic ban violation). Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhawk10: As I said above, the edits themselves are not problematic but WP:BMB is pretty clear. The ban is broadly construed and I cannot imagine "post-1978 British politics, broadly construed" not including recently active British politicians and political journalists. Like I said this is not an exhaustive list of difs - PC has made over 20 edits to PJW's article just this year. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Philip Cross[edit]

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

• The JPost blog post, which begins by implicitly accusing the subject of anti-Semitism/racism (and linking to a post where that accusation is explicit), would not be a reliable source for a factual claim even if it were made by a renowned subject-matter expert in the opinion pages of The New York Times. Philip Cross has been here long enough that he should know about WP:RSOPINION. And if his tenure here didn't teach him that, the community-imposed TBAN (or PBAN? bit vague) from George Galloway should have put him on notice about BLP compliance; and if not that, the ArbCom-imposed ban from post-1978 British politics, in a case titled BLP issues on British politics articles; and if not that, the first block for violating that TBAN (on a BLP's talkpage); and if not that, the second block for violating the TBAN (on a BLP).
  As to Vladimir.copic's evidence, I see them as:
  • 2 allowed under WP:BANEX for removing BLPvio: Cohen (full multi-party edit war); Mason
  • 2 marginal: Minford, a non-politician involved in politics, edit not about politics; Morgan, ditto
  • 2 minimal but clearly in-scope of TBAN: Extinction Rebellion (full trio of edits); NCS
  • 2 blatant: Rostowski (someone who's run for office in the UK, edit about something political, even if it's not British politics); Watson (clearly political figure, edit clearly about his political activity; negative BLP info from a BLP-questionable source [true or not] here; etc.)
• I'm not a fan of outright BLP TBANs. It's very hard to completely avoid BLP material, and so editors wind up running into a bunch of de minimis violations, and then maybe some slightly-more-than-de minimis ones, forcing admins to choose between either letting violations slide or sanctioning them for relatively innocuous edits. I'm inclined to block 3 months for third-offense violation of the UK politics TBAN, particularly with respect to Watson, and to impose a TBAN on living people who are significantly involved in politics, broadly construed (including, but not limited to, candidates, activists, and political journalists or commentators). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing this thread, I concur. Not really much for me to add beyond that, I agree with your analysis. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tamzin's analysis here. Setting aside all other diffs, Philip Cross should at this point know better than to use a blog (even by an expert) for contentious material in a BLP; at the very least, in-text attribution would be necessary in such circumstances. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 Ghazaalch[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Iraniangal777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ghazaalch (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/Iranian politics

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

• WP:CRP: Ghazaalch has been edit-warring their preferred version into this article non-stop: Content 1: ([33]-[34]-[35]-[36]-[37]) and Content 2: ([38]-[39]-[40]-[41])

• WP:NPOV. Ghazaalch does this while removing other content (from the same sources) without proper explanation: ([42]-[43]-[44]-[45]-[46]-[47])

• Many warnings (at first they appear to have self-reverted, but now they seem to have lost any regard for policy): ([48]-[49]-[50]-[51])

• Ghazaalch's other disruption: tampering RFCs ([52]-[53]-[54]), not giving explanations in the talk page when asked to explain reverts ([55]-[56]), making false narratives ([57]), stonewalling ([58]-[59]), and other forms of WP:GAMING (such as WP:BADFAITHNEG [60]). There is also WP:Tag-teaming, all of which can be discussed if anybody wants, but the above may be the worst of it since at this point Ghazaalch seems to have lost any regard for policy (particularly WP:CRP). Even today they edit-warred this again using a trumped-up edit summary.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

• CASE from a month ago.
• Their Talk page also shows a couple of alerts about discretionary sanctions in this are of conflict.
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 22:49, 25 July 2021.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Done.

Discussion concerning Ghazaalch[edit]

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 Ghazaalch[edit]

I won't need to defend myself if the administrators had enough time to go through the discussions in the talk-page, since as I said in a previous Arbitration the main problem with this page is that there is no admin to watch it, so pro-MeK users feel free to do what they like. Here is the summary of the discussion that made Iraniangal777 to bring the case here:

1. Revert of names's discussion starts with Vice regent's objection that TheDreamBoat shouldn't have deleted the English versions of Mojahedin-e-Khalq i.e. People Strugglers& Holy Warriors
2. TheDreamBoat's response is that the translation is not among the most common names used for MeK
3. VR asks that How many sources do you require to show you that "People's Strugglers" has been a commonly used name for the organization? and provides 25 sources that uses the "People Strugglers" and "Holy Warriors"
4. TheDreamBoat's answer starts with Hi Tia, Could you please click on this link, and add the following there (at the bottom) which shows he is editing on behalf of a blocked pro-MeK user.(see Stefka Bulgaria, BarcrMac and Idealigic for the pro-MeK users who were topic-banned before the new ones Fad Ariff, TheDreamBoat, Hogo-2020 and Iraniangal777 emerged) However the reasons that was copy-pasted into the talk page by the proxy was that the 25 sources provided by VR used "MeK" as a common name other than "People Strugglers" and "Holy Warriors"
5. VR's response is that no one is disputed the "MEK" name for the organization, I'm only saying that alternative names are also commonly used
6. TheDreamBoat was topic-banned by then, so another pro-MeK user (Ypatch) continued the discussion but provided no reason other than the section doesn't need more name variations
7. Then it became obvious that Ypatch himself was topic-banned, so another pro-Mek user (Hogo-2020) continued discussion but gave no reason independent of those given by previous users. Because, as I said in a previous arbitration pro-MeK users don't want to reach consensus. They just discuss, or better say, write something, no matter what it is, to show that they are not convinced, and that there is no consensus yet; meaning you cannot add anything to the article; and since there is no moderator to implement the consensus, they are not worried about the way discussions goes on. So I gave up the discussion.
8. Three months later I happened to read a comment by Apaugasma, so I came to know that per WP:BLOCKEVASION I could revert the deletion by TheDreamBoat, because he had been editing on behalf of a blocked user
9. So I reverted TheDreamBoat's deletion, then the edit war started. Now I know that I should have brought the case here instead of involving in edit war.

Being reported by a did-nothing-but-reverting-account, I would also like to summarize another discussion in which pro-MeK users are Gaming the system, deliberately using Wikipedia:Consensus required policy to remove a well sourced content, if you let me exceed 500 words limit.

Statement by Vice regent[edit]

Fyi, I'm an involved party. Iraniangal777 you need to engage constructively with Ghazaalch on the topic of names. As Ghazaalch points out, almost all your edits at the article are reverts. You've made three comments on this issue ([61][62][63]) and none of them gave any substantial reason for your revert. You seem to be using WP:CRP to Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, and this report comes across an attempt to weaponize WP:AE to resolve a content dispute in your favor.VR _talk 04:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarioGom[edit]

I think Ghazaalch's interpretation of WP:BLOCKEVASION and WP:BLOCKREVERT is fair. The page in question has been subject to edits by a proxy (TheDreamBoat) who eventually got caught and topic-banned.

The initial accusation by Iraniangal777 about tag teaming is interesting, because the behavior by Hogo-2020 [64] and Iraniangal777 [65][66] looks pretty much the same like the tag teaming and gaming the system tactics that the previous cohort of sanctioned users used. And they were effectively proxying edits for a topic-banned user. MarioGom (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex-h Except Ghazaalch had a legitimate reason to revert a content removal that: 1) had obviously no consensus, and 2) should have not been done in the first place because it was proxying for a blocked user. 1RR or consensus required should have been no excuse to prevent Ghazaalch's revert. It should be the other way around: those seeking to enact TheDreamBoat's illegit content removal should seek consensus for it. MarioGom (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hogo-2020[edit]

Nobody has yet addressed the diffs by Iranigangal777. Instead this is being deflected to TheDreamBoat (an editor already blocked) or to the OP (Iraniangal777). Yet all that the OP has done is revert Ghazaalch's edit-warring, started a RFC about the disputed content, and reported Ghazaalch with evidence in the form of diffs. What is apparent in that article (and in the diffs provided by the OP) is that Ghazaalch has been persistently edit warring (despite the in-progress RFC about that content or the article's regulations, which I can only guess were put in place to prevent this kind of edit warring). Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alex-h[edit]

Accusing Iraniangal777 of "proxying" because she objected to Ghazaalch's edits (as a different editor who is now blocked also did) would be like saying Ghazaalch is "proxying" on behalf of blocked socks Expectant of Light [67], Kazemita1 [68], or Saff V. [69] because they tended to WP:POVPUSH that the MEK are "hypocrites" and a "cult" (matching Ghazaalch's additions to that article, which started after these other socks were blocked). Iraniangal777 or Hogo have not done anything wrong here. Alex-h (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MarioGom You have this wrong. Ghazaalch did not "revert a content removal", Ghazaalch added new content to the article (some of which concerns an open RFC). Then, when he was told that his additions didn’t have consensus and that he should respect the RFC process, he kept adding (edit warring) that new content to the article anyways using deceiving edit summaries like "Reverting to the version before the edit-warring". Ghazaalch did this in spite of multiple warnings. Alex-h (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iskandar323[edit]

@Dennis Brown: What I found fairly inappropriate about Iraniangal777's behavior with respect to this specific RFC is the way they removed the content it referred to, and essentially shifted the goalposts of their own RFC after starting it. Since 22 June, this was the version of the relevant section. Iraniangal777 then started the RFC on 27 June, and five minutes later deleted a portion of material in the same section, by this point, part of the material to which the RFC seemingly referred. Ghazaalch has partly been reverting, as I did once, to restore this section to its pre-RFC state, as is customary, pending the outcome of the RFC. In the preceding edit to my revert, Iraniangal777 demonstrates a clear understanding that the material they are deleting is part of the content being "summarized" in the RfC, and yet deletes it all the same, before later excusing it due to the material having being added "recently" (though still five days BEFORE the RFC). Given that the RFC involved "shortening proposals", it is rather pertinent what the material contained in the section was immediately prior to the RFC. Otherwise, only people who scour the edit history for old versions know what is being talked about. I have made a note of this at the top of the RFC, conscious of the confusion that this might otherwise cause, since with part of the material deleted mid-RFC, Iraniangal777's "shortening proposal", for instance, only actually "shortens" anything by about 7 words - but again, only because there are an invisible 69 words already deleted by Iraniangal777. This is a phenomenal way to go about causing absolute confusion, but a bad way to hold a transparent RFC. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fad Ariff[edit]

@Dennis Brown: The diffs show that Iraniangal merely reverted to the article’s original version and started a RFC. Aside from the deflection and confusion in this thread, the diffs about Ghazaalch show that he kept edit warring his additions despite lack of consensus, despite the ongoing RFC, and despite warnings showing he was violating CRP. Ghazaalch also used a dishonest edit summary to restore his edits after being reported at ANI. Ghazaalch has also been re-arranging the comments of other editors in that RFC (even after being asked to stop [70] [71] [72] ). Like Alex-h clarified for others above, Ghazaalch added this new content to the article, and then proceeded to constant edit war / make WP:CRP violations. Is all of this going unnoticed? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: thank you for your feedback. Maybe you can also take a quick look at Iskandar323 report (the same topic area, and Iskandar323 and myself are also involved there)? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Ghazaalch[edit]

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

• There are a lot of people edit warring on that page, should I just block all of them? I will say this, if you are adding material that describes a group as a "cult", and there is an ongoing RFC about what to add, you need to restore the article to the version that existed before the edit warring started, and hash it out on the talk page in the RFC. The RFC seems to be moving along in a reasonable fashion. If people will stop reverting (which it has slowed down or stopped), then I don't have to break out the ban hammer on everyone. The main point here is that there seems to be a lot of bad behavior going on, although it has slowed. It would be in everyone's best interest to just stop editing that portion and stick to the ongoing RFC BEFORE adding any of that material back. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Technically, removing/adding to an article during an RFC isn't a violation of any policy per se. Again, I would really rather let the RFC play out, and you can note the differences in the RFC comment if you want. It is difficult for admin to start parsing content edits without there being a clear behavioral issue at stake. I can't just decide what should or shouldn't be in the article during an RFC. I can block for edit warring, POV pushing and the like, but this is so clear that it's a violation, even if it is a bad idea. It shouldn't change the RFC itself, which is focused on specific wording as an end point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Fad Ariff, there was a lot of back and forth before the RFC start, but technically the RFC started without Ghazaalch's additions. If Ghazaalch reverts again while the RFC is ongoing, I would probably just block them from editing any article. Fortunately, the reverts have been quiet for the last few days. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Fad Ariff, I have seen that report, and would hope you got the message down there, as I would rather not sanction you for making frivolous reports, but I can. That would prevent you from making any reports at AE at all. This is not the school yard, and we are not the teachers whom you can go tattle on over every little thing. You, and others, have a habit of making reports for things that aren't actionable, and that will soon come to an end, one way or another. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with the above. If people will just let the RfC run its course, there's no need to start going crazy handing out sanctions; that would be preferable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 Gitz6666[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Gitz6666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Eastern Europe

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

1. [73] removal of well-sourced claims about forceful deportations of Ukrainian children because (edit summary) “no allegation of war crime”. Gitz6666 explains why he thinks this is not a war crime [74]: “…drafting a law on adoption is not a war crime… There are many different interests at stake here, and the interest of Ukraine in avoiding Russian naturalisations is only one (and relatively minor compared to the interests of the child)”. Surprisingly, but Gitz6666 considers this as a legitimate adoption. ??? No, that is a heinous war crime, possibly even a genocide – according to RS [75].
2. [76], [77], [78] [79]– removal of well sourced (NYT, BBC, etc. ) claims about rapes by Russian soldiers. Why? Because (edit summaries) “WP:EXCEPTIONAL”, “this text fails WP:V spectacularly” etc. No, this info does not fail WP:V.
3. [80] – including six "alleged" and negative info on Ukrainian ombudswoman that does not belong to the page. The “alleged” is not supported by sources. For example, there was no doubts that the bodies of civilians were burned by Russian soldiers (2nd “alleged” in the diff); there was no doubts that the mayor was abducted by armed men (3rd “alleged”), and so on. Note that the edit was revert over objections by other contributors.
4. [81], [82], [83], [84] edit warring to include the following: “The Russian military allegedly exposed the civilian population to unnecessary and disproportionate harm by using cluster munitions” instead of simply saying that “The Russian military attacked the civilian population using cluster munitions”. How come? There is no question they indeed attacked the civilian population and killed civilians using cluster munitions - as a matter of fact [85]. (striked through to reduce volume of the request)
5. [86] a removal of reliably sourced claim that Russian forces used Ukrainian children as human shields.
6. [87] removal of reliably sourced allegations by the British ambassador to the United Nations of sexual violence against children by Russian troops.
7. [88] removing well sourced info about killing over 50 elderly persons in a Ukrainian care home by Russian soldiers and placing it to a section about war crimes ("human shields") committed by Ukrainian forces [89]. Here is the initial version of this section [90]. Well, according to the most recent sources [91], these people have been killed by Russian forces, but there are "both sides to blame". But even if "there are two sides to blame", this is not how Gitz666 frames this issue. He frames it as war crime exclusively by Ukrainian forces [92]. Actually, no RS say it was a "war crime" committed exclusively by Ukrainian forces.
8. [93],[94] - removal of well sourced info about torture and killing of Ukrainian POWs with improper justification in edit summary.
9. [95],[96],[97],[98],[99] - edit warring to include section on Missile attack in Donetsk as a war crime where "Russia and Ukraine blamed each other for the strike". Well, the best and most recent RS on this subject was article in WaPo [100] entitled " Inside "Russia’s propaganda bubble: Where a war isn’t a war". It tells that according to Ruslan Leviev, a leader and founder of Conflict Intelligence Team, an independent fact checking organization, all "photos from the incident suggest the missile flew from Russian-controlled territory and was not intercepted [as claimed by DPR representatives]". Meaning, that was a false flag attack by Russian forces.
10. [101] removal of sourced info that Denisova shared her database with reports by victims with other government officials and prosecutors. This is a misrepresentation by Gitz6666. No, the in-line reference used to support the statement (an article in NYT) does say that she shared her database with other government officials [102]. On the other hand, the article in Ukrainian Pravda discussed on talk does not say she did not share her database with any other Ukrainian officials.

additional explanations for several diffs

Diff #1. While the intention of Gitz could indeed be a replacement and "softening" the text (he removed "The parents of some of these children were killed by Russian military" and assigned all claims exclusively to opinion by Zelensky), he also clearly explained the purpose of his edit [103] in edit summary: No allegation of war crime here - drafting a law, possibly violating the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child do not amount to war crimes, or at least no RS say so. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the in-line source used in the diff [104] because it says: "By doing so, the Kremlin violates Articles 7 and 21 of the Convention on the Right of the Child (UN) and Article 49 of the Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflicts." Article 49 of the Geneva Convention. Violating it is a war crime by definition.

[105] - Gitz6666 continue misinterpreting things on this noticeboard. Yes, of course, the source tells about forceful deportations (some sources say "kidnappings") of children as a war crime, not about legitimate adoptions. But the text removed by Gitz6666 and referenced to this source [106] is also not about legitimate adoptions ("Russian authorities have also kidnapped more than 121,000 Ukrainian children" and so on). My very best wishes (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs #2. No, that was not about Denisova, since Gitz also removes other content. In the first diff of this series he removes an independent claim by British ambassador to the United Nations Barbara Woodward. In 3rd and 4th diffs he removes "reports ... compiled by independent Ukrainian journalists and published by the Ukrainian parliament". My very best wishes (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diff #7. Based on their response [107], Gitz6666 insists that the killing of elderly patients by Russian forces should be described as a war crime committed by Ukrainian forces. This is a misinterpretation because "The report by the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights doesn’t conclude the Ukrainian soldiers or the Moscow-backed separatist fighters committed a war crime." [108] (does NOT conclude), hence this content arguably does not belong to the page, but in any case is not a war crime by Ukrainian forces. My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

User is aware as noted at the top of their talk page: [109]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am reporting this because some other contributors suggested that the matter could be considered at WP:AE [110]. Gitz6666 has 2,000+ edits mostly related to war crimes in Ukraine. I think diffs above are enough to establish the pattern, but there are more his recent edits of same nature: [111], [112],[113],[114],[115],[116][117].

• I am sorry for bringing this complaint (I strike through 3 diffs above to reduce the volume), but I think Gitz6666 is the most elaborate and persistent POV-pusher in this area, and he continue doing the same even during this request [118],[119]. This is related to diff #10 above. Here are my comments on talk [120],[121],[122],[123] and reply by Gitz6666 [124]. This is an example of discussing something with Gitz6666.

• Git6666 provided examples of his allegedly neutral edits. Each of them should be checked carefully in context. For example, Gitz6666 provides this diff ("correcting a gross misrepresentation in the lead section of 2014 Odessa clashes") as the best proof of his unbiased editing. The correction was: "a pro-Maidan mob attacked anti-Maidan activists" -> "a pro-Maidan demonstration was attacked by anti-Maidan activists". Yes, but Gitz6666 also made this edit [125] meaning that, no, these guys were actually not anti-Maidan activists, but agents-provocateurs presumably dispatched by pro-Maidan forces. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The campaign by Gitz6666 to exclude all statements attributed by RS to Denisova (see Elinruby below). Yes, that was discussed on RSNB, and I think it boils down to this: [126]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• My conclusion that Gitz6666 is a relentless POV-pusher on "pro-Russian" side is by no means exceptional. Six other contributors came to the same conclusion during recent ANI discussion: [127]. My very best wishes (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If uninvolved admins do not see a problem, that's fine. Gitz6666 said the following in their reply below: "I literally don't give a damn about the Ukrainian/Russian divide". I do not think this is true based on diffs, but even if it were true, this would be actually a problem. It does matter who started the war of aggression and a lot more. Consider someone who say "I literally don't give a damn about the Nazi/Allies divide" and writes an article about War crimes during WWII committed by all sides. I am not saying that page Allied war crimes during World War II should not exist. Yes, it must exist. I am only saying that someone who "does not give a damn about" the Nazi versus Allies "divide" would either had a huge bias or would not be honest. My very best wishes (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User notified [128]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Gitz6666[edit]

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 Gitz6666[edit]

Without entering into details (diff by diff reply to MVBW is in my sandbox), I want to address MVBW's general allegation:

the most elaborate POV-pusher in this subject area

which sounds almost as a compliment, but it's false. I'm not a POV-pusher for the Russian side. I believe that the Russian army is committing hideous war crimes in Ukraine and I'd very much welcome the perpetrators being brought to account before a court of law. Admittedly most of my edits are related to war crimes in Ukraine - I wrote nearly 1/3 of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which means that I've spent dozens of hours documenting war crimes committed by the Russian army. I provided no less than 30 diffs documenting Russian war crimes in this discussion at ANI, which I opened on 22 June, and from 22 June to 15 July I counted at least 17 more edits adding contents and sources about Russian war crimes. A small selection includes [129] (Mariupol theatre), [130] (killing of a 13-year-old girl), [131] (number of killed children in the lead section), [132] (shooting on passing civilian cars), [133] (bodies in the Kyiv region), [134] (lead of 2014 Odessa clashes); many more can be found in my sandbox.

I don't edit War crimes in Ukraine for including a pro-Russian POV. I truly believe that building an encyclopedia based on reliable sources and committed to neutrality is an excellent effort in a time of war: it promotes knowledge, understanding, sympathy for the victims and accountability for the perpetrators. Plus, I literally don't give a damn about the Ukrainian/Russian divide, I see only victims and perpetrators. To put it differently: this is not my war. If it were, I wouldn't be editing there.

As I'm not a pro-Russian POV-pusher, why is MVBW reporting me here? The reason is that I've constantly opposed the attempt by MVBW and Volunteer Marek (VM) to "weaponise" war crimes allegations, which means using them (and using Wikipedia as well) as tools of warfare, by grossly exaggerating and misrepresenting war crimes so as to achieve a political goal. I've tried to keep the bar of verifiability at the same level as our reliable sources. Wikipedia is as authoritative as its sources, and it's of the utmost importance that we refrain from amplifying questionable contents such as Denisova's allegations on child rape ([135], discussion 1, 2 and 3) and intercepted phone calls circulated by the Ukrainian army ([136], [137] and discussion). Moreover, Wikipedia is committed to neutrality, which means that we cannot sweep allegations of Ukrainian war crimes under the carpet. Each and every time someone publishes contents about Ukrainian war crimes, MVBW and VM immediately revert. For that reason I've been mostly (but not exclusively) arguing in the talk page from what might seem a pro-Russian perspective; had I encountered an equally fierce couple of pro-Russian POV-pushers, I would have argued from an apparent anti-Russian perspective.

At the very beginning of this discussion I asked MVBW if they had ever made one edit or one comment mitigating the responsibilities of the Russian army or documenting allegations of Ukrainian war crimes ([138]). MVBW replied in my talk page [139] and the answer was "No": they've never ever made a substantial edit or comment that couldn't be interpreted as anti-Russian POV-pushing. MVBW has made 95 edits to War crimes in Ukraine (4.35% of the total edits) and 219 edits to the talk page (10.66% of the total), and none of them can be quoted to show that they have tried, at least occasionally, to write from a neutral point of view. They are a crystal-clear case of sealioning and nationalist editing.

And they are also a crystal-clear case of WP:DISRUPTIVE. MVBW is only at number 41 in terms of authorship and has added a meagre 766 characters to the article (0.3% of the text). The mismatch between number of edits and contribution to the text depends on the fact that almost all of MVBW's edits are reverts and edit warring, as anyone can see [140]. They're not really engaged in building an encyclopedia, they have other stuff to do here. At the beginning I tried to address their constant edit warring in a polite and friendly way [141], then in a harsher and more direct way [142], then I simply gave up and tried to block their disruption by repeatedly reverting them (although I have never violated, as far as I know, the 3RR).

Tendentiousness and edit warring are not at all new to MVBW. I understand that until 30 April 2015 they were called User:Biophys, had a nice record at AE (e.g. [143] [144] [145]) and were also part of a group of editors who coordinated off-wiki to approach the articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics with battlefield mentality and edit warring [146].

I'd like AE to throw the most astounding and powerful WP:BOOMERANG against this impenitent and disruptive POV-pusher who has wasted my time and other editors' time for way too long. The same should be done with Volunteer Marek, as the two editors work in tandem and VM has been unashamedly WP:CANVASSing here below [147]. I've done my best at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and I hope that the closure will restore my good standing in the community and compensate me for the stress MVBW and VM subjected me to.

Comments, questions

@Seraphimblade My statement (here above) is now 1068 words long and contains 19 diffs and various links. Plus I've created a sandbox (not yet finished) where I intend to reply to MVBW in detail. As I'm new to AE discussions, could you please tell me if this is acceptable? Note that MVBW has so far published over 1000 words of request + additional explanations + additional comments (not counting stricken-through text) and Volunteer Marek has published 839 words. I'd appreciate if I were allowed to significantly exceed the 500 words limit in these circumstances. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Alex Bakharev)[edit]

The article is on my Watchlist. As far as I can see it Glitz is a productive user and certainly not a pusher for the pro-Putin point of view. He is trying to weed the article out of questionable facts. Like for example Lyudmyla Denisova, the Ukrainian ombudsmen until 31 May 2022 was dismissed from her position for "making gratuitously detailed and unverified statements about sexual crimes allegedly committed by Russian soldiers" that makes any claims about those "sexual crimes" that are sourced to her to be unreliable even if reported by reliable sources before 31 May. There was a discussion Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Denisova's_declarations_on_child_rape about the matter and the apparent consensus was to remove this information. Similarly some allegations that appear in the fog of war may later be not proven or they can be used by both sides to accuse each other. I think it is important that we keep the balance and only include as fact the information that is proven, mark as "alleged" or "reportedly" the info that is not proven but highly probable and do not include the information that is most probably not true or is misinterpreted. I think Glitz is doing good job trying to achieve those goals. Maybe he is overzealous sometimes. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]

While the Denisova stuff is debatable, I think there are at least two clear cut violations in the above diffs provided by MVBW. First problem is that Gitz6666 is using Denisova as an excuse to remove OTHER sources. Basically if Denisova said it, he’s removing it EVEN IF other, independent sources say the same thing. You can see that in this diff (in #2 above), where he removes text starting with “The existence of credible allegations…” which is cited to CBS news not Denisova. There’s other instances of this kind of WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:GAME editing.

2nd big problem is #7. Somehow “Russians shelled a home for the elderly” gets turned into “Ukrainians used elderly as human shields”. EVEN IF some sources speculate on presence of Ukrainian forces near the elderly home, NONE of them state that Ukrainians used these elderly as “human shields”. That’s original research at best and a gross misrepresentation of sources at worst.

I haven’t looked into all the diffs provided above so this is a non-exhaustive summary of potential problems here. Volunteer Marek 18:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but what the hey is this: Gitz6666 says/claims do they (MVBW and others) think that NATO will enter the war because Wikipedia reports that the mother of a Russian soldier gets sexually aroused when her son describes to her the way he tortures Ukrainians?. Where and when did "Wikipedia report that the mother of a Russian soldier got sexually aroused" by... well, anything??? This is the diff Gitz6666 gives. That's not what it says at all. In fact there's nothing in there about "sexual arousal". Of anyone.

If Gitz6666 is going to accuse other editors of hyperbole perhaps they shouldn't engage in it themselves? Volunteer Marek 21:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Gitz6666 but you're being disingenuous. You quote text from the Mirror which was never used in Wikipedia. Likewise NO ONE ever tried to put into Wikipedia that the mother was "sexually aroused" - but you are pretending that someone did. NO ONE even PROPOSED that such text be added. Certainly not in the discussion you link. But you are pretending that someone did. The actual text that you were trying to remove was much milder and supported by reliable sources (NPR etc). So again, you're trying to pull a switcheroo here - claiming that people want to include one piece of text (which they don't) and using that as a false excuse to try and remove text which says something different.

In that light, perhaps it's worthwhile to look at this ANI discussion which dealt with the same kind of problematic approach to editing these articles. Some comments from uninvolved users from that discussion:

• I will not be surprised if this report (by Gitz6666) ends up in a WP:BOOMERANG - User:GizzyCatBella
• I'm definitely concerned by Gitz's clear attempt to slide in content with weasel word caveats while sliding out reliably sourced content in Wikivoice - User:Iskandar323. This report here shows that you're still trying to do the exact same thing.
• I am of the general opinion that that Gitz6666 is POV-pushing problematically here and I note they have had an ARBEE alert in April - User:Black Kite who is the one suggested taking this to WP:AE
• Gitz purpose (in this area) is to edit in and promote Russian propaganda and excuse/deny war crimes, that is clear from their editing. Just broadly topic ban them from the Russian invasion of Ukraine - User:Only in death
• on the article about war crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of the Ukraine, to the extent he pushed anything, it was *back* on Gitz6666’s extremely consistent advocacy of a Russian narrative on every single detail, minimization of sexual misconduct, and attempts to include vague Russian allegations of Ukrainian misconduct. Gitz is aware that he does (this) by User:Elinruby
• Selective application of standards is a persistent issue with Gitz and Gitz (and another user) routinely ignore talk page discussions when editing, claim their edits are not disputed while there are talk page threads actively disputing their edits - User:Shadybabs (arguably involved)

This report here shows that you didn't take ANY of these multiple users' comments into consideration. Volunteer Marek 04:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gitz6666 - what are you talking about here? MVBW, for no reasons apart their ideological zeal and party loyalty, has harassed one of the most active, scrupulous and useful contributors to War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? Are you referring to yourself in such high and lofty terms? Really?

Anyway, the escalating personal attacks coming from Gitz6666 in the course of this report clearly show that there is indeed a WP:BATTLEGROUND problem here as well as just completely inability to "read the room" (this was already evident in his ANI report, where even after half dozen uninvolved editors told him "no, Gitz6666, the problem is actually with YOUR edits" they still went around insisting that the ANI discussion "supported" him (yes, he does same kind of thing in talk page discussions - claiming non existent consensus). Volunteer Marek 01:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PaulT2022[edit]

I was not involved as an editor, however as a reader I think the article in question would benefit from more rigorous application of WP:GRATUITOUS and WP:RSBREAKING. See also opinions of User:Cinderella157 and User:Masem expressed in the related ANI discussion referenced by VM above.

It appears that strongly held beliefs of editors on both sides result in different interpretation of the sources. For example, in the allegation No.9, investigator Ruslan Leviev says in the referenced interview (1:25) that CIT estimates that there's a 70% likelihood that the rocket was launched from the Russian side, and up to 30% chance that it was intercepted as claimed by DPR. This is interpreted as a statement of a proven fact by one editor, and as a 50-50 chance by another.

Life experiences and beliefs of editors would inevitably affect interpretation of the sources and it would be unfortunate if content discussions, much needed in this situation, would be constrained by the threat of sanctions from mutual accusations of POV pushing. --PaulT2022 (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC), clarified last sentence PaulT2022 (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elinruby[edit]

I was still processing the fact that Gitz6666 (talk · contribs) doubled down on his sniggering smear at WP:RSN of Denisova as “not reliable” at (13:36, 8 July 2022), when I realized that he had tripled down on it after his 04:08 July 18 notification of this complaint, which he received quite acrimoniously, btw. Despite saying that he was traveling but would try to find the time to answer he managed to explain kindly to me that Denisova’s statements were “not informative” and “alas, unreliable” (08:45 July 19), adding that she should be ignored for the good of Ukraine: “one finds out the 25 girls held in a basement in Bucha is a fake (if it is a fake) and one starts wondering if the Bucha massacre has ever happened.” (09:51 July 19) This was in answer to my warning to Boynamedsue that such remarks were BLP violations and potentially libelous (09:38 July 18) Denisova was fired for what the government considered cause, but that cause notably did not include assertions that she was “unreliable” — this is inaccurate and derogatory and exactly the sort of impugning of her integrity that BLP is supposed to prevent. Elinruby (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Somewhat later)[edit]

I think the ANI thread MVBW and VM linked to above is an excellent example of Gitz’ utter conviction of his correctness; in it I also link to the *previous* RSN thread about Denisova and in addition tell him (19:33, 27 June 2022 and following) that in the lede to an article he had badly misrepresented a source. I wrote it off at the time to the perils of machine translation, but it remains uncorrected he is still reinserting it. Elinruby (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

in answer[edit]

• @Gitz6666: I am here because you doubled down at RSN. (You really don’t listen, do you?) Nor am I buds with VM, at all, but he quoted me accurately and I stand by the statement. And I dunno, if somebody told me I had misrepresented a source, I’d be trying to address that, personally. Elinruby (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gitz6666: I answered you at the talk page. This is also extensively discussed in the ANI thread. I suppose I can get you a diff but it isn’t like the article has a lot of history. Elinruby (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gitz6666: Good, you found the thread where I discuss cognates, and as I just did *again* at the talk page, note the fact that “vérifier” means “to check”, not “to verify”. Levivich (talk · contribs) called your edit an “overstatement”. I call it wrong, kinda like “made unverified statements” does not equal “alas, unreliable”. I have explained extensively and provided links and diffs; I have probably reached my word limit and will not reply further to you here. It’s just a shame we had to be at AE before you could could hear me. Elinruby (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AdrianHObradors[edit]

I haven't been involved on Eastern Europe articles for a while, but I believe that limiting Gitz6666 from editing there would be a big mistake. It is a very difficult subject to keep with a NPOV right now, yet he has been able to maintain some pages reasonably neutral. Of course, when almost everyone, and even a lot of the press, has an (understandable) bias, trying to keep things NPOV can seem as if the person enforcing it has on its own a bias, and it isn't hard to cherry pick some and try to portrait someone as biased. NPOVing those articles is a hard task, which Gitz6666 has been performing diligently. I want to mention that both VolunteerMarek and MVBW do show a bias on their edits, (MVBW himself has expressed his believe that he probably is not able to edit with a neutral point of view on this subject here), and Volunteer Marek's edits sometimes border the unconstructive. Gitz6666 however helps keep an equilibrium, and I believe it would be for the worst to enforce any kind of sanction against Gitz6666. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

This has transformed from an arbitration enforcement request to an arbitration case request, mostly because no admin has shown any interest in it before it quintupled in size. Well one did, to say it was too large. I think it has gotten larger since. nableezy - 15:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pravega[edit]

There was no need to file this report. Apart from edit warring which happened from all sides, everything else looks like a content dispute.

I also agree with other editors that Gitz6666 is the best editor in this entire dispute. I recommend closing with no action.❯❯❯Pravega ^g=9.8 05:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Adoring nanny[edit]

I have interacted with VM, Gitz, and MVBW at articles related to the Ukraine war and have clashed somewhat with Gitz, but it has been workable. I believe the articles are strengthened by the diversity of views. Different users do have different POV, and that's OK! I would not want to lose any of them in this topic area. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alaexis[edit]

These are legitimate disagreements in the interpretation of sources and Wikipedia policies. To take a random diff from the list, reasonable people can disagree whether reports of atrocities made by Ukrainian sources and quoted by major Western newspapers (but not confirmed by independent sources at that time) are WP:DUE. I think that these issues can be resolved through the normal editing process. Alaexis_¿question? 09:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boud[edit]

I think that Gitz6666 does tend to push in the direction of neutrality rather than due weight in the 2022-Russian-full-scale-invasion related articles (the article Adolf Hitler has due weight, and is not neutral: we describe Hitler as utterly evil, which is overwhelmingly supported by WP:RS). I also feel that Gitz is quite persevering in some editorial debates and can be slow to concede (e.g. a few editorial debates with Elinruby, where I think Elinruby tends to have been right). As Alex Bakharev says above, "maybe [Gitz] is overzealous sometimes". But this is not Russian-POV pushing. While I disagree with some of Gitz's edits and arguments, overall, I think it's clear that Gitz is making a well-intended and constructive contribution to these articles. Boud (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SamuelRiv[edit]

The article is currently a disaster and Gitz6666 has if anything been too ambivalent about what quality of content actually belongs in a Wikipedia article (and thus obviously not supporting my position of aggressively removing junk). I'm not here to defend anyone because I don't know what meaningful content changes have been made that I'm supposed to defend. Although this inquiry is about Gitz6666, the only way I can meaningfully contribute is to criticize My very best wishes, first for bringing up content disputes that were or are still discussed on the Talk page (such as the UNHCR report he continues to misquote), or that were successfully concluded at RSN (Denisova). In general I am concerned about the way some participants above lead discussions in war-related articles in unproductively POV directions. Of course everyone's accusing each other of pushing propaganda, and the sad thing about propaganda is that, as much as I wish I could say that obvious exaggerations, inaccuracies, and lack of credibility would lessen its effectiveness, they don't. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Gitz6666[edit]

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

• Gitz6666, statements are limited to 500 words. Yours is currently more than four times that amount. Please do some substantial trimming. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm generally sympathetic to requests from the parties to a request to have some additional words, so I'll grant both the filer and the respondent an extension to whatever they're currently at, but stop there please. AE is not for long walls of text or lengthy back and forth conversations, nor discussion of what articles should or should not say; that's not decided here. Volunteer Marek, you are not a party to the filing; trim back to 500 please. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is getting almost impossible to parse, which is likely why it has received no admin attention. The diffs I have reviewed so far seem more like parts of a legitimate content dispute than conduct issues. I specifically reviewed the two examples VM described as being the worst problems, and I'm not seeing a conduct issue with either; and I find Gitz's explanation here reasonably persuasive given the content I am seeing in the diffs. If anyone wishes to provide one or two examples of actionable behavior (such as source misrepresentation, OR, or misleading edit-summaries) I would be open to reviewing them; but please, no more walls of text. If the behavior is such that you cannot explain it without 50 diffs, it's an indication that ARBCOM may be a more suitable venue. Seraphimblade, I'm wondering if you've had a chance to review this. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Vanamonde93, I have certainly tried to get to this (with at least the worst of the text walls trimmed some), but at this point, there's such a mess here that I have not been able to reach something I am confident is a suitable end point, and honestly am not sure if that will be possible at all. You might be right that this is something more in order for a full-on ArbCom deliberation, than a decision here at AE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]