Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Lo meiin[edit]

Not currently actionable, but Lo meiin is warned to avoid battleground-like conduct. Sandstein 07:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Lo meiin[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
WarKosign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 18:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Lo meiin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 (as well as WP:1RR and WP:CIV)
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. September 18 A revert in the I/P area, which they are not supposed to be editing at all
  2. September 18 Second revert within minutes
  1. September 11 Personal attack
  2. September 17 battleground mentality
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

None, a new user

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

Lo meiin is a new user who immediately took interest in the I/P area. They opened multiple garbled RFCs (1, 2, 3), two of them on the same article at the same time. Responded in uncivil manner to an opinion they didn't like and repeatedly made significant POV changes against consensus.

Regarding the connection to WP:ARBIPWP:ARBPIA - at List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia the user made many edits, most of them adjusting the table entry on State of Palestine according to their POV: [1]. I agree that most of the article is not relevant to WP:ARBIPWP:ARBPIA, but entry on SoP is, even without "broadly construed". This came after their edit request was rejected and an RFC State of Palestine didn't seem to go the way they wanted. WarKosign 19:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
My understanding that an article containing (among many other things) descriptions of Israel and State of Palestine and their partial recognition *is* related to the conflict. Perhaps my interpretation is broad, but this is what WP:ARBPIA tells us to do: "The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted". WarKosign 20:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
If you still disagree with my interpretation - sorry about wasting your time. I would appreciate a clarification. However, before you dismiss the case I would ask you to clarify to Lo meiin that DS topics are not a good starting place for a new editor, and that they should be civil and avoid edit wars. I'm afraid that otherwise the user will soon repeat the same pattern on an article that is directly relevant to A-I conflict without any need for broad interpretation. WarKosign 20:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notified

Discussion concerning Lo meiin[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 Lo meiin[edit]

First of all I’d like to begin by refuting the allegations made against me. I started out filing an admin notice on auh20s talk page as I saw he is engaged in editing conflict with some editors not as a personal attack but as an appropriate means of dispute resolution. I’ve also requested countless RFCs, 3O before editing, and I even recognized where I went wrong apologized and learned from the experience in order to grow as an new editor. In addition, even after I apologized, I was labelled profanely as a “punk”, despite condemning previous personal attacks on auh20 republican by other editors. Why I combined both generally and substantially recognized states in Asia together is to avoid contention over the issue and satisfy all parties to the dispute. In addition, I attempted to present the facts in an NPOV manner by plainly and objectively stating the facts and by making no significant changes to Taiwan and Palestine’s labelling. Despite my personal reservations on the issue and me being mainland Chinese, I conceded to labelling Taiwan as a “country” for the sake of Wikipedia. Auh20 and his ally warkosign (who happens to be Israeli, making him POV on the issue) are once again hungry for conflict by reverting these edits, possibly due to their bias towards Israel over Palestine. I would also like to mention that auh20 has made several reverts to already established articles that group un member and observer states together to impose his view without previous consent. I suggest combining the two categories together to end this ceaseless feud and to turn to a new chapter on Wikipedia; and if this request is granted, I will vow never to edit any Arab- Israeli related articles until I am a confirmed user.

Lo meiin (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

There was supposed to be some sort of clarification on broadly vs reasonably construed and what is subject to the edit-restriction. AFAIK, currently only articles that are themselves as a whole related to the conflict are covered, and edits elsewhere, such at Airbnb, and consequently List of sovereign states, are not. nableezy - 20:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]

ARBPIA 30/500 is clear and the amendment request referenced here is also clear. The article itself should not be under ECP but the editor should be blocked for violating ARBPIA 30/500 and for being disruptive. He was warned several times that he can't make edits in this subject area and that talk page edits are generally allowed if they're not being disruptive (I am not sure if RFC's are allowed). We had a similar case over at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive256#Bill_Josephs just a few days ago where a new user was behaving similarly and was blocked. This seems to me a clear case and not sure we need a drawn out AE action and most certainly don't need any more articles protected. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

On your part, you are in no position to tell me what to do in this matter when you yourself are a POV editor and advocate for the state of Israel

Lo meiin (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by AuH2ORepublican[edit]

  • In my defense, I reverted that article several times in order to try to return to the status quo ante (this after a week of imploring Lo meiin to seek consensus in the Talk page); other editors similarly reverted Lo meein during the past two weeks after his relentless, POV edits.
As for the editor's passive-aggressive insult to WarKosign, that was after he "learned" how to be civil. Not long ago, he accused me in an administrative noticeboard of "hav[ing] depicted Palestinians are [sic] a mindless, anti Semitic, radical and insolent people" (and I asked him to apologize for his calumny for weeks before he finally did so) and asked in a Talk page "And AuH20, food for thought, do you hate Palestinians and Taiwanese people yourself?", so his insults have become more nuanced and refined as time goes on. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In reaction to Lo meiin's statement (see above), while I don't think that this is the correct forum to discuss the proper presentation of sovereign states in Wikipedia (the proper forum being the Talk pages of such articles), and thus will forgo doing so, I will respond to Lo meein's claim that I insulted him when I referred to him (in my own Talk page, in response to another editor urging me to press a harassment claim against Lo meein due to his persistent insults) as a "punk." As I responded to Lo meein when he chided me for the appellation in my Talk page:
I referred to you as a "punk" right after I was made aware that your latest cowardly insult to me was to add the following comment to a Talk page in which you already had insulted me: "And AuH20, food for thought, do you hate Palestinians and Taiwanese people yourself?" So I was being polite when I referred to you as a "punk" instead of using more appropriate words to describe you.
This also was after Lo meein insultingly had claimed that I "have depicted Palestinians are [sic] a mindless, anti Semitic, radical and insolent people," so, under the circumstances, my referring to him as a "punk" showed remarkable self-restraint on my part. Oh, and Lo meein did not apologize for his insults until afterwards, so, contrary to what Lo meein claims, I did not call him a "punk" after he already had apologized. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Lo meiin[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I guess I'm struggling to figure out a connection to WP:ARBIP — that article is not under (any) discretionary sanctions El_C 19:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh, WP:ARBPIA. Okay. But that article is still not under (any) discretionary sanctions. El_C 19:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Um. The edit is certainly related to Palestine, but the article isn't, and therefore isn't under discretionary sanctions. Therefore it isn't extended-protected (and never has been), so WarKosign is incorrect with this edit-summary. I do note that another editor, User:AuH2ORepublican has reverted seven times on that article in the last two days, including a 3RR violation, so perhaps a 1RR restriction (on the article) might be useful. (Incidentally, "you clearly have no political knowledge and probably failed your geography class ... Thank you and no offense intended" is superb, perhaps more users should follow this method if they have to be incivil). Black Kite (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Closed as not actionable. The article is not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The personal attack was prior to the DS notification. But we do have indications of battleground conduct, so I'm warning Lo meein to behave. If not, bans or blocks are likely. Sandstein 07:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

WikipediansSweep[edit]

WikipediansSweep is indefinitely topic-banned from everything related to fringe science, including but not limited to Walter Russell. Sandstein 17:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning WikipediansSweep[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
CaptainEek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 07:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
WikipediansSweep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [2] Edit warring
  2. [3] Edit warring
  3. [4] Edit warring
  4. [5] Edit warring and editing while logged out
  5. [6] Very uncivil comment/borderline PA made at me while I was trying to calmly ask Bradv for advice
  6. [7] Barely sensical ramblings on WP:FTN
  7. [8] Claiming Einstein was a fringe scientist
  8. [9] Rather long rant that boils down to 1. strong bias for article in question 2. Pseudoscience ramblings 3. WP:BATTLEGROUND
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

[10] Alerted to DS in PSCI by Bradv on September 7

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I originally got pulled into this debate (on whether Walter Russell was a genius and discovered Plutonium before Niels Bohr, among other issues) as a result of a WP:3O request. I tried to be very calm, civil, and helpful, and took WikipediansSweeps less than civil behavior and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in stride. But after more than a week, its become clear that WikipediansSweep is a WP:SPA who strongly wants Walter Russell to be portrayed in their chosen POV. For additional evidence of WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND, see Talk:Walter_Russell#Third_opinion, and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Walter_Russell. Please let me know if I've done anything wrong in this request, I have never filed a claim at AE before, and the process is a bit confusing. I tried to be very patient with WikipediansSweep, and I'm dissapointed it had to come to this. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 07:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[11]

Discussion concerning WikipediansSweep[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 WikipediansSweep[edit]

Concerning the above comments in regards to changing or reverting edits that do not match the criteria prescribed recently does not seem to be ingeniune as i am actually finding sources which support the conclusions and statements i have undone edits on. One example is the Modern Leonardo claim about Walter Russell which I supported in the talk portion of the article. There have also been sweeping edits in regards to multiple paragraph deletions and other credibly sourced portions upon which i am now paying for subscriptions to support and to find. The fact this man was an architect, painter, sculptor, speaker, musician, ice skater, and inventor are all supported in my sources recently mentioned. I do not have a battle ground mentality but request sensible edits that do not step over the bounds to match someones point of view rather than find the material questionable without research. I do find a lot of edits sensible and have not touched those, but major edits in regards to things as simple as personal history to well documented sources and saying "read the rules" as its justification whenever it fails to even meet that criteria is a bit absurd. I admit to somewhat of senseless ramblings but let us be humble and admit our shortcomings and imperfections. I also do believe Einstein was somewhat fringe in the years he published his famous papers which were originally scorned and then brought up many worlds theory and how it was initially scorned, both were seemingly fringe at the time, the mentioned how planck stated that science progresses one funeral at a time. But there are some ramblings in there i do admit. But i am simply trying to publish the truth out into the world and am conforming to every standard i see that requires more due dilligence. For example there was major edits done in regards to this man bein a master musician, artist, sculptor, architect, and how was able to successfully defend his points in the new york times against outspoken scientist, where i have them, albeit clumsily in an failed embedded format, sourced. This man was also personal friends of thomas edison, mark twain, and theodore roosevelt, and many more outstanding people in our society. I also am using a mobile device for most of this if not nearly all so forgive my lagish response and failure to be more formal in multiple places such as this. I also am noting how many warnings i received and honestly have only gotten one on this end. Also my friend above, whom i thought i was in good standing with now due to my lengthy sourcing last night, originally deemed this man a kook, quack, and in my opinion shot from the hip and demanded major editing was required on this article due to simply being ill informed. Also it seems as if i am the one doing the most work on the page as i am the one find sources, and asking for validation on edits rather than "fringe stuff removed" sweeping edits that include many things not considered fringe. It was a mans unique universal perspective or philosophy if nothing more being removed as fringe to where it begets the concern on how philosophy itself doesn't classify into the same spectrum. All of which i have asked for clarity on in the talk page with some but not adequate response. So apologies as i am in an attempt to actually uncover the truth in a format befitting to all readers, not defend my point of view strictly in regards to this individual. But obviously one of the best painters, sculptors, architects, and considered by a considerable few a polymath does not seem to be quackery by any stretch of the imagination. There are articles of him giving edison medals of honor from his society and it seems almost foolish to see a man never deemed a quack in his time of prominence to be in our times deemed such by people whom lack the full information on him. I am doing my best with the little i have and do not adopt battle ground mentality but a sturdy one finding only support for my claims. I apologize if this is over my word count. (Added 10 minutes after original comment: as i said i have only received one warning on this end and admit to somewhat senseless ramblings, i am using a mobile device mostly due to situational standards, i do apologize for the lagginess and informality of much of my input, i also apologize for seemingly brutish behavior which is not intended as such, i am only trying to find the actual material accepted by standards laid out here and question the exact reasons behind some things not being seen as reasonable sources, and i have a very limited pallet, and somehow even with 10 other editors, i can, on my phone, validate many claims with dozenz of sources previously deemed kookie by other editors, that should be stating something, i hope to be in good standing and will continue to find other sources, something i was in the process of until i saw this) WikipediansSweep (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional: look i will take this as a formal warning because i am new to editing on wiki and for the most part am swamped in response complexities i find it hard to retort. I will cool it on my end and keep the discussion strictly professional and if there are further warnings you can ban me.

For now I'm the only one adding source information previously deemed unfindable and thrown to the way side with lack of scrutiny. It honestly seems as if no one is reading those either and it seems the edits go far beyond the bounds of normal desire to present the facts and instead with a scorn for something that goes against the mainstream. Almost as if the vigor against faith healing is applied to this. That is my two cents though, I would honestly love to hear advice and feedback as it seems many eyes will view this and would be beneficial.

WikipediansSweep (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning WikipediansSweep[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • The request seems to have merit (pending a response by WikipediansSweep). I think a topic ban from fringe science, including Walter Russell, is in order. Sandstein 07:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The rambling response by WikipediansSweep confirms my view. Sandstein 08:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks to me like a pretty clear indefinite topic ban from fringe science topics, broadly construed.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This sort of issue is why the discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience article exist - endorse the indefinite topic ban, broadly construed - David Gerard (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Holy Crap Batman. Yes, a topic-ban is called for. It should be indefinite, and lifted only if they demonstrate the ability to be a net positive elsewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging[edit]

TheTimesAreAChanging is blocked for two months. Sandstein 15:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning TheTimesAreAChanging[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 21:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Discretionary_sanctions :
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_(1932_cutoff) :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. (edit summary) 05:14, 19 September 2019, a personal attack (“known troll”, “in an effort to bolster WP:FRINGE nonsense defending Nazism” and more)
  2. (edit summary) 18:14, 19 September 2019, a personal attack again ("Stop defending Hitler!"), even after receiving a notification/reminder about discretionary sanctions in the Eastern Europe subject area
  3. [12], [13], [14], [15],[16],[17] - All these edits seem to be in a violation of his topic ban of American politics [18]. The topic ban concerns “all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States”. Does not it cover the foreign politics and wars by the United States?
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. [19], 7 February 2018 - topic ban on editing in the area of US politics imposed by Sandstein
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • The contributor was previously sanctioned at WP:AE and frequently contributed with comments, complaints and appeals on WP:AE [20]
  • [21] - a notification for EE area, 16:49, 19 September 2019
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
I thought TTAAC would apologize [22] and start discussion of a disagreement [23] after his edit (diff #1). However, instead of doing just that, he responded with another offense (diff#2).
Note that in the both diffs, #1 and #2, TTAAC restored the following text: "Suvorov is often accused (or praised by historical revisionists) of shifting the blame of World War II on Stalin...[citation needed]... In his later books, Suvorov insists that Stalin was a true evil genius (although unlucky), while describing Hitler as evil but grossly incompetent.[citation needed]" This is an obvious WP:OR content which was unsourced for a long time, possibly also a WP:BLP problem. Also note that TTAAC never edited this page before. He just followed my edit to blindly revert and make an offensive edit summary.
More comments here. But no, I really do not have any content dispute with TTAAC on this page. He just followed my edit, reverted twice with offensive summaries, and refused to talk on the article talk page.
Speaking about this my edit, yes, I removed the phrase in WP voice: Proponents of this absurd justification can still be found today, a few even among historians and retired generals. Said who? This is not clear. An "absurd justification" of what? This is not clear.
Speaking about the "preemptive strike" by Hitler, here is what the author of this book claims: [24]. But even if it was indeed a "preemptive strike" by Hitler, how this can be seen a justification of anything Hitler did?

Responses.

@TTAAC. I think you are a good content contributor, and I tried to support you several times on WP:AE, last time here. But that incident was over the top. Speaking about my diffs #3, I think we just need a certainty here. If those were not topic ban violations, everyone needs to know.
@Drmies. I agree. Bringing back very old stories and grudges (by TTAAC and others) may qualify as WP:BATTLE.
@Icewhiz. Yes, there are many historians, including Suvorov, who place a part of the responsibility on Stalin, together with Hitler. This is because of the "secret protocols" with Hitler, Gestapo–NKVD conferences, the occupation of Poland, German–Soviet Commercial Agreement (1940), etc. There is nothing fringe here. More disputable is the Soviet offensive plans controversy. But I do not see how this can justify the incivility and non-cooperative behavior by TTAAC.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning TheTimesAreAChanging[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 TheTimesAreAChanging[edit]

This is obviously a frivolous request for the reasons laid out by Paul Siebert below, and in far greater detail than the request deserves. My very best wishes's diffs simply do not support his claims. In fact, the bad faith displayed by MVBW in reinstating the apparently pro-Nazi IP's deletions is obvious from Icebreaker (Suvorov)'s revision history, where MVBW is edit warring with several users over long-standing content dating back as far as a decade ago, while pretending that it was recently added by an IP (as if that would be sufficient explanation for his edit). Note that MVBW also removed sources only to cite the lack of sources as justification for further deletions, omitting the consensus of academic historians in favor of the following profoundly misleading "summary": "Rolf-Dieter Müller a former professor of military history at Humboldt University who served as the scientific director at the Center for Military History and Social Sciences of the Bundeswehr states that Hitler claimed that he had been forced to counter Soviet expansionism with a preemptive strike." (Hitler may have claimed this, but RS do not take official statements by Hitler at face value.) This case should be dismissed and MVBW should be discouraged from gaming the system to "win" content disputes.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Paul Siebert[edit]

US ban should be discussed elsewhere.

  • This edit summary is actually correct: the IP restored the text removed by another IP. This second IP (97.115.131.125) made the edit demonstrating its pro-Nazi position. By removing the content that was previously removed by an obvious pro-Nazi IP, MVBW implicitly supported it. Therefore, a deeper analysis is needed to figure out if TheTimesAreAChanging's edit summary was a personal attack, or it was just an adequate description of what happened.
  • In addition, MVBW claimed that the text removed by one IP was added by another IP. That is not a legitimate reason for removal: any IP is allowed to edit. Second, that MVBW's statement is false: the content he removed was a result of a collective work of several users, for example, a significant part of the removed fragment was added by me in 2009.
  • By removing properly sourced material under a misleading edit summary, MVBW committed a serious violation. That is exacerbated by the fact that he was de facto acting as a proxy of an antisemitic IP.
  • Importantly, recent events demonstrate that this and similar MVBW's actions are not just good faith errors, and their roots go back to the infamous EEML case. Upon having read TTAAC's edit summary (TTAAC mentioned the EEML case), I decided to refresh my mind about this case, and looked through my talk page archive. I found this: look at the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list section. During this discussion that took place in 2009, User:Viriditas was trying to convince me to read EEML emails, because the EEML members were contemplating something against me. I recall, in 2009, I refused to read EEML's emails, but after I have realised that Biophys may be dangerous not only for me, but for other users too, I decided to take a brief look at those emails, which are currently easy to find. What I found shocked me and dispelled my remaining beliefs in Biophys/MVBW's good faith.

Despite MVBW's dishonest behaviour (I know exceptional claims require exceptional evidences, and I am goint to present them), I was taking no actions against him, because I believed that that was only my problem. Now I started to realise that his activity is harmful for Wikipedia in general, and I would like to present evidences against him. In connection to that, it would be correct to suspend this case, and to wait for arbitrators' opinion on the evidences I am going to present. If the conclusion will be that I am right, then the TTAAC's edit summary was just a statement of fact, although redundantly emotional one. If the decision will be in MVBW's favour, than TTAAC's words are a personal attack. Since I was not going to report Biophys/MVBW before that case, I need some time to collect the evidences. Should I present them here, or they should be a separate case?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies, I mean recent evidences, but those old emails appeared to be instrumental for understanding some recent events. And, please, keep in mind that in 2009 I abstained from presenting any evidences against EEML members (although now I realize I probably should have done that), and I am currently maintaining good relationships with some of them. With regard to OUTING, I named noone, except one person who repeatedly attempted to OUT me (and, as I now realize, those plans go back to 2009). --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies, I am going to present the evidences that MVBW is currently posting a direct lie aimed to discredit other users, and my analysis of old emails demonstrates this is not a good faith error, but a continuation of an old strategy privately discussed by EEML members 10 years ago. Other ex-EEML members abandoned this tactics many years ago, and currently they are good and productive editors. Biophys is an exception, and that is why discussion of his old name is quite relevant here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies[edit]

Just one thing: will this EEML shit ever cease? And why on earth does TheTimesEtc. think this is somehow appropriate to bring up in an edit summary? I have been rev/deleting EEML references and old user names since they really constitute OUTING--and here we go again. But really, in the end: this is all water under the bridge, and should be disregarded/not mentioned/removed. Editors should be judged NOT on what happened a decade ago which somehow might be construed to be relevant today. Sheesh. Paul Siebert, I don't know what "evidences" you are trying to present, but I sure hope they are younger than my children. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Paul Siebert, I can't keep anything in mind cause those 2009 proceedings aren't in my mind to begin with. The OUTING relates to your naming of old accounts; there is no good reason to do that. We don't need to go back to 2009 and before (since I'm sure there's even older evidence in that case) to establish some pattern that you claim is causing disruption a decade later. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (Jack90s15)[edit]

MVBW Said I should read the book Icebreaker

   (Why Stalin did it? Read the Icebreaker (Suvorov).)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soviet_Union&diff=916481834&oldid=916481666

But then right after MVBW Deleted all the Sourced Information that were put by Paul Siebert with the False edit summary??

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_(Suvorov)&diff=916483449&oldid=890861013Jack90s15 (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


@TheTimesAreAChanging: that is Clearly Pov pushing they falsified what I put Rolf-Dieter Müller did not say (that Hitler claimed that he had been forced to counter Soviet expansionism with a preemptive strike)


What I put for my edit

(Rolf-Dieter Müller a former professor of military history at Humboldt University served as the scientific director at the Center for Military History and Social Sciences of the Bundeswehr. states Hitler claimed that he had been forced to counter Soviet expansionism with a preemptive strike. Proponents of this absurd justification can still be found today, a few even among historians and retired generals)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_(Suvorov)&diff=916489392&oldid=916486083 its on page x



What MVBW changed it to

"Rolf-Dieter Müller a former professor of military history at Humboldt University who served as the scientific director at the Center for Military History and Social Sciences of the Bundeswehr states that Hitler claimed that he had been forced to counter Soviet expansionism with a preemptive strike."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_(Suvorov)&diff=next&oldid=916600593

Statement by Icewhiz[edit]

MVBW actions here on content (Icebreaker by Suvorov) described in academic literature as "overarching conspiracy theories" (source: Slavic Review) merits very close scrutiny from a WP:PROFRINGE perspective.Icewhiz (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding - Icebreaker transfers responsibility for World War II from Hitler to Stalin.Icewhiz (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Result concerning TheTimesAreAChanging[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • The request has merit.
    As regards the topic ban violation claims, the diffs at issue all relate to U.S. interventions abroad, i.e., U.S. foreign policy. A discussion could be had about whether this relates to the "politics" of the United States. I believe it does, because foreign policy is inseparable from domestic politics. Our article Foreign policy of the United States is labeled as being "part of a series on the politics of the United States", and Category:United States foreign policy is a sub-sub-category of Category:Politics of the United States. TheTimesAreAChanging therefore violated their politics topic ban by making edits about US foreign policy.
    As to the personal attacks, they are also actionable as violations of WP:NPA.
    The comments by TheTimesAreAChanging and others about the underlying content disputes are entirely irrelevant in this forum.
    TheTimesAreAChanging does not address either the topic ban violations or the personal attacks in their response, which consists only of complaints against others. It can therefore be disregarded (cf. WP:NOTTHEM). We can therefore proceed from the assumption that TheTimesAreAChanging does not contest having violated their topic ban and having made personal attacks.
    As per my usual practice, I am doubling the duration of the most recent block (of one month, for socking), and am imposing a two-month block. Sandstein 15:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Paul Siebert[edit]

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 Paul Siebert[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 15:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Paul Siebert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Discretionary_sanctions :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  • Diff #1. 19:02, 20 September 2019 - those are serious accusations, and without a shred of evidence: a "Hitler's defender", "a troll", "was acting as a proxy". Here is what had happen:
  1. 04:05, 19 September 2019 - I made first edit on this page. This is a revert of an edit by an IP [26]. I tell the edit by the IP was problematic.
  2. 18:30, 19 September 2019 - I quickly fixed the edit by the IP to create this version. Note (the diff) that I removed unsourced text and that extensive sourced criticism was included.
  3. 00:42, 20 September 2019 - I explain on article talk page why this edit by the IP was problematic
  4. 04:19, 20 September 2019 - Paul responds positively on article talk page, saying the the content was indeed problematic. Paul did not make any other comments on article talk page.
  5. 19:02, 20 September 2019 (diff 1 above) - Paul makes personal attacks on Sandstein talk page and tells he is going have me sanctioned (whole discussion).
  • Diff #2. [27] - Paul continue making personal attacks on this page by claiming that my intention was "to whitewash Hitler". No, as I explained on article talk page [28] and edit summaries, I first made this edit and soon created this version of the page to remove unsourced materials and describe claims by the author of the book (not me) in logical order. Please check my version. Contrary to claims by Paul [29] I did NOT remove sourced criticism from the page. But even if I would remove whole "criticism" section, that would be something justifiable, because it was not about the book (the subject of the page), as I explained on talk [30],[31].
  • Diff #3. [32] Paul tells "These words by MVBW ("This is a provocative idea and something debatable, but not a reason for committing personal attacks.") is an example of trolling." This is yet another personal attack by Paul.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Comment 1. The comments by Paul had a serious ripple effect when two other contributors decided to follow his example (this is relevant as disruption caused by comments by Paul):

Case #1. [35] - a personal attack by User:Sir Joseph against Sandstein. It goes like that:

  1. [36] Paul asks Sandstein: "...did I understand that my report on MVBW should go to AE, not arbitration?..."
  2. Sandstein replies: "You are free to request arbitration, but ..."
  3. [37] - Sir Joseph jumps in discussion: "Paul Siebert, don't bother. It's quite clear that Wikipedia is now the home of Holocaust revisionism... If anyone needs a TBAN it should be Sandstein from AE."

This triggered a long ANI discussion about Sir Joseph [38].

Case #2. User:Jack90s15 copy-pasted personal attacks by Paul on various pages and was blocked for WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR [39].

Comment 2. An ANI discussion resulted in a topic ban of Paul on August 5, 2019: [40]. The problem was WP:TE/WP:IDONTHEARYOU by Paul. Same happens on many pages on Eastern Europe [41]: Paul made 3,301 posts to Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes, 920 posts on Talk:Communist terrorism, etc. A casual contributor like me can only run from these discussions. This is the situation when someone (Paul) with a lot of time and stamina automatically "wins" all content disputes on all pages visited by just a few contributors [42]. That’s why I stopped editing all these pages and avoid Paul, after filing an AE report about him [43] which was closed as "no action". But Paul said he wants to get me sanctioned now for "supporting Hitler" - at the talk page of Sandstein [44].

P.S. I ask admins to make a definitive judgement here (one way or another) because Paul said he will submit another AE request about me very soon. Per my comments in next discussion [45] and statement by ZScarpia, there is nothing really "fringe" in ideas by Suvorov (he had many). But even if his ideas were "fringe", I fail to see how his ideas and how my editing of a page about his book can be viewed "pro-Hitler".
  • @GoldenRing. Yes, I did not check editing history of the page when I made first revert of the IP. I checked it only later. I now created a sequence/"timeline" for the diff #1. Please tell if anything else is needed. Even if Paul happened to disagree with my first edit, he had to discuss it first on the article talk page. Yes, he made a short comment, but it was actually an admission that I was right. Then, instead of discussion on talk or editing the page, Paul starts making very serious personal attacks.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[46]

Discussion concerning Paul Siebert[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 Paul Siebert[edit]

First of all, per WP:ASPERSIONS all accusations should be made "... on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page". The diffs provided by MVBW were taken from this AE page, or from admin's page, and that is a quite legitimate place for raising that type concerns. Moreover, not only a place, but also a context of those statements was appropriate: I claimed that MVBW is acting inappropriately, AND declared I am going to request some actions against him. Therefore, these my words should be considered as a declaration of intentions, not a personal attacks. I also think these statements were made in a civil manner, for this type wording is being routinely used by scholars in peer-reviewed publications (see below).

Below is my analysis of the most important MVBW's claims (I focuse on them following Liz Read! Talk! advice).

  • Re this. A declaration of an intention to present evidences is not a personal attack. I found only three potentially questionable statements that require explanations: "undue weight to the views of Irving and Suvorov", "Hitler's defender", and "troll". Explanations are as follows:
1. "this revert gives an undue weight to the views of Irving and Suvorov (the first one is a known Holocaust denier)." By doing this, MVBW removed ALL criticism of Suvorov's fringe theory, thereby giving an undue weight to it. Furthermore, on the Sandstein's talk page, I provided this reference, where the author (p. 729) directly links Suvorov's and Irving's views and says that the latter is a Holocaust denier. All needed proofs have been already provided on Sandstein's talk page and or here).
2. "by doing that MVBW was definitely acting as Hitler's defender." In his article, Mark von Hagen says: "In a related argument, he rejects a recent revival of the bizarre politics of defending Hitler for having saved Europe from Bolshevism in the 'Icebreaker' polemics ...." That means my statement is supported by a RS. Another source (cited by me in #1), on a page 729, says
"we save the “apologist for dictator X” label for those who, like David Irving, deliberately falsify history to make mass murderers look better."
I believe, per this source, it would be correct to save "apologist for XXX" for those Wikipedians, who falsify content to make mass murderers look better. Wholesale and repeated removal of criticism of a theory that makes Hitler look better (per von Hagen) totally fits this definition.
By saying that, I do not claim that adding, in a balanced and neutral manner, the content that supports Suvorov's view is something wrong. Indeed, some (few) authors still support his views, and he is a populat writer. However, this case is totally different: MVBW completely removed ALL criticism of this theory, which made it a POV-Fork of a sister article. This behaviour is totally disruptive, and it should be characterised as such.
3. "MVBW is acting as a troll". Upon reflection, I came to a conclusion that that cannot be considered a personal attack. Taking into account the place where this statement was made, and a context, it is clear that that statement is a description of some actionable misconduct, and that I am going to take appropriate actions in that respect. The link provided by MVBW demonstrates that that statement was made on Sandstein's talk page. In addition, in a response to my question, Sandstein explained that a discussion of other's misconduct should be a separate AE request. Therefore, I think it should be correct to consider this statement as a brief description of the AE request that I am currently preparing. In addition, that would be unfair to demand me to present evidences here, because they definitely will not fit into the 500 words limit.

Regarding the mention of a EEML story, I believe all EEML members deserve a right for a clean restart. I did not participated in any actions against them in 2009, and I maintain good relationships with some of them, and fruitfully collaborate (I am not providing their names for obvious reasons, but admins can easily check that). With regard to MVBW, his recent actions is a demonstration that he does not deserve a clean start, for he has not abandoned his disruptive tactics. That also will be a subject of my AE request, and, again, I don't see why the announcement of the actions against a disruptive editor can be considered a personal attack.

Re this fresh accusation (the #2 that starts with the words "[31] - Paul continue making personal attacks on this page by falsely claiming that my intention was...". This statement is a typical example of manipulation of evidences by MVBW with the aim to conceal own misdeeds. He refers to this later edit where he partially restored the text that he removed twice [47], [48] one day before that. That restoration was a result of a severe opposition of two users (one of them was TTAAC). It is obvious to any reasonable person that MVBW restored the content only due to the severe opposition (otherwise it is not clear why he was persistently removing it before that). Imo, "dishonest" is an adequate word to describe such behaviour.

@@GoldenRing:, per AGF, the first revert was just a mistake. However a second revert, was not: MVBW was informed he is performing a wholesale removal of sourced contribution of many users. TTAAN's edit summary was too emotional, but we have to concede his actions were correct. If MVBW were a good faith user he would stop at that point ("I made a blatant mistake, so I deserve to be called an asshole for that"), a simple notice on TTAAC's to avoid such a language would be sufficient. That would be a demonstration of MVBW's good faith and resolved a situation.

This is a typical cherry-picking. The meaning of the whole sentence was "if you consider yourself as a smart person, you should not resort to this type argumentation".

@Nug: To mention my name in a context of a nasty Russian propagantistic resources was much more offensive than to mention your name in a context of EEML. By the way, you never apologised, but I never reported you (and have no intention so far). I believe this your posts made more harm to you than to me.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (Jack90s15)[edit]

Removed as not helpful to assessing the request. Non-parties are asked to be brief and limit themselves to relevant new evidence related to the matter at hand, rather than continuing old disputes, content disputes, etc. Thanks, Sandstein 16:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

And I was not following them I was watching the page after they told me about the book. The other page I came across at the same time as they were editing it was a Coincidence Jack90s15 (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz[edit]

The trigger to this dispute seems to be MVBW removing 70% of the page - [49] saying an IP added it (the IP reverted another IP that removed it diff) - content that has been present on the article for over a decade.

The article in question is on a book that transfers responsibility for WWII from Hitler to Stalin. This article in Slavic Review sees this as "overarching conspiracy theories". The book is mainly known for this controversy.

The version created by MVBW - permalink is problematic from a NPOV and PROFRINGE standpoint - this version is absent anything critical on this book - presenting it as mainstream (when it is very much not so).Icewhiz (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

ZScarpia - to be clear - I did not paint Suvorov's book in any which way - I quoted an academic article in Slavic Review which paints this theory in this way. this article in The Journal of Slavic Military Studies also notes the widespread rejection of this thesis.Icewhiz (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia[edit]

The description given by Icewhiz of the book Icebreaker (the full text of which is available here) in the comment immediately above, "a book that transfers responsibility for WWII from Hitler to Stalin", is inaccurate and, since Suvorov has been conflated elsewhere with Irving, rather gives the impresssion that he, and by extension MVBW, is some kind of Hitler apologist. The book came out in 1990, when in the Soviet Union, the period before Operation Barbarossa, when the Soviet Union was an ally of Germany, attacking Poland and assisting the German war effort with material, had been blanked from history. Suvorov's aim wasn't to defend Hitler but to attack Stalin. He wrote in the Preface to another, similar book of his, "The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II": "This book is about Stalin's aggressive endeavors, about his role in plotting World War II - the bloodiest slaughter in human history. Perhaps one might become suspicious: in exposing Stalin, am I attempting to exonerate Hitler? No, I am not. For me, Hitler remains a heinouse criminal. But if Hitler was a criminal it does not at all follow that Stalin was his innocent victim, as Communist propaganda portrayed him before the world." There are a lot of conflicting theories about why Hitler attacked the Soviet Union when he did. Because of his well-known desire for lebensraum in the east he would eventually have attacked in any case. However, both the Soviet Union and Germany would have viewed the likelihood of each attacking the other eventually as being high, so to present Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union as being pre-emptive is not far fetched. The thesis that the Soviet Union was on the point of launching an attack on Germany in the summer of 1941 is more so. However, to paint the book as consisting of "overarching conspiracy theories" as Icewhiz does is really over-egging it.     ←   ZScarpia   14:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC) {Word count: 319}

@Icewhiz, 15:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC):
You did two things:
  • You gave an inaccurate description of "Icebreaker", which tended to imply that MVBW is a Hitler apologist.
  • You gave a link to a review of which most editors can probably only read the abstract, then quoted a phrase, "overarching conspiracy theories", implying that it applies to the whole book, but without any context, so, without a subscription, that can't be checked.
I've run various Google searches on the terms "Viktor Suvorov" and "conspiracy theory". The only result of any significance I can find is in "Experience and Memory: The Second World War in Europe" by Jörg Echternkamp and Stefan Martens, where, on page 96, it says that Suvorov constructed "a conspiracy theory of sorts" that Stalin was attempting to foment a world revolution. From what I've read about the differences between Stalinism and Trotskyism, I should think it was unlikely that Stalin was attempting to foment a world revolution. That's not the same, however, as arguing that Stalin did not plan to pre-emptively attack Germany himself, was not hoping to keep Germany occupied in a conflict with the UK and France and did not share responsibility for the start of the world war or deserve opprobrium for supporting Germany, attacking Poland, attacking Finland and attacking the Baltic Republics at the start of it.     ←   ZScarpia   21:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC) {Word count: 218}

Statement by Nug[edit]

I wasn’t going to comment here, but I have to say it is ironic that Paul doesn’t consider saying ”MVBW is acting as a troll”, let alone calling MVBW a ”Hitler defender” a personal attack, given that he took such offence to my mild rhetorical question as to whether Paul sources some of his views with respect to the Baltic states from Sputniknews.com or rt.com. Paul proceeded to out me here in response[50]. EEML happened over 12 years ago for heaven’s sake. Paul should just apologise to MVBW. --Nug (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Result concerning Paul Siebert[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Can everyone please cut it down to 500 words in your statements? Some of you have twice that amount of text and I've noticed that the longer the complaint (or response), the fewer admins who participate in these sort of proceedings. Trim to just the basics of your arguments, please. Here is a Word Count Tool Liz Read! Talk! 20:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Hours later and still no other admins have commented. Get the message, everyone? Brevity is your friend. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @My very best wishes: As far as I can make out, Icewhiz's characterisation of this is broadly correct. This IP edit removed a large amount of material that had been in the article for a long time. This IP edit restored that material. This edit of your then removed that content with the edit summary, "rv edit by an IP 174.61.151.138. If a regular contributor wants to check these sources and properly re-write, that's fine." Is that a reasonable summary of the sequence of events leading up to this? If so, your edit summary looks rather as though you just didn't bother to check the page history. GoldenRing (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TheTimesAreAChanging[edit]

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

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

Appealing user 
TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
two month block at AE.
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging[edit]

Sandstein previously indicated that editing, e.g., Vietnam War was not in violation of the AP2 indef TBAN that he imposed last year. Specifically, he stated that this diff "appears unrelated to US politics," implying that the war as such is not within the scope of AP2. (Were my edits at Icebreaker (Suvorov) also within the scope of AP2, since the USSR was a major U.S. ally during World War II?) Therefore, I have to correct Sandstein's closing remark that "TheTimesAreAChanging does not contest having violated their topic ban and having made personal attacks." I intended to contest those assertions in my statement, commenting that MVBW's diffs—including minor copy edits—were not compelling examples of any TBAN violation but rather a frivolous attempt to remove a user from an unrelated content dispute. (I also directed readers to Paul Siebert's statement explaining that MVBW was, in fact, defending Hitler as a defense against the claim that my observation that MVBW was defending Hitler constituted an actionable WP:PA.) If this edit to Korean War is actionable, unlike the earlier edit to Vietnam War, the distinction seems arbitrary to me and the violation was unintentional. Given that no disruption (including PAs, etc.) was even alleged to have been associated with any of those diffs, blocking me on that basis seems to be punitive rather than preventative, so the block should be reduced.

I never appealed the TBAN, but I have little choice but to request that it be modified or reduced now that Sandstein is promulgating an expanded definition of its scope. You could say that any violation, even inadvertent, resets the clock, but I have made an obvious effort to adhere to the ban and the reaching evident in some of MVBW's diffs itself demonstrates this; certainly, there have been no other AE complaints against me since the TBAN was imposed, nor any edits of mine to any articles clearly labelled as subject to DS. Consider the following: 1.) My first AE TBAN was indefinite (rather than lasting for one, three, or six months, etc.), which is unprecedented in my experience on Wikipedia. Its reimposition has significantly limited my editing for more than a year, but if I have unknowingly made constructive edits to articles that could fall within the ban depending on the interpretation of an administrator, that would be an argument for narrowing it, rather than continuing with an open-ended restriction. 2.) The conduct for which I was previously sanctioned at AE was hardly exceptional; if you review the case, you will see that it concerned edit warring at an AP2 article, but I did not violate 3RR and 1RR/consensus required was not in place. While I regret taking the bait, three administrators—GoldenRing, Awilley, and Timotheus Canens—argued that the indef TBAN that Sandstein imposed was too harsh and/or that the other party in the dispute was guilty of (in the words of Timotheus Canens) "blatant violations of our content policies" by restoring what amounted to WP:HOAX material. In that case as well as the one recently initiated by MVBW, Sandstein took harsh, unilateral action against me without regard for the fact that my edits were directed against WP:HOAX and WP:PROFRINGE content, penalizing me for my inability to weaponize AE as effectively as other editors. The outcome genuinely seems to me to be unjust, and I would be remiss if I did not state my case here, whatever the odds of success.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein[edit]

This appeal should be declined at least insofar at it is addressed against the enforcement block.

Regarding the topic ban: I leave it to other admins to decide whether the topic ban is still necessary, including as to its scope and length. However:

  • The fact that it had to be enforced, and that TheTimesAreAChanging made personal attacks in a discretionary sanctions topic area, indicates to me that it is probably still necessary.
  • The fact that it was not appealed during the year that it has been in force is also an indication that it is not prima facie unjust, overlong or unduly restrictive.

I already imposed this ban once with a time limit, and later lifted it based on TheTimesAreAChanging's assurances of good conduct. I then had to reinstate it, this time indefinitely. See WP:AELOG/2017#American politics 2. This makes me less willing to believe any new assurances of good conduct.

Regarding the enforcement block: The block should not be lifted at this time. I'm open to considering lifting it later if I am convinced that it is no longer needed to prevent ban violations and personal attacks. I'm not convinced about this at this time:

  • The appeal mistakenly argues that there was no topic ban violation. In my diff quoted by TheTimesAreAChanging, I merely said that a particular edit, about Khmer Rouge atrocities, had nothing to do with US politics. This is true, because that edit did not mention or relate to the United States. But the edits for which I blocked TheTimesAreAChanging did. They were about US interventions in various wars. They therefore concerned US politics, understood to include US foreign policy, as discussed in the AE closure, which is not contested here by TheTimesAreAChanging. My previous statements therefore do not invalidate the block.
  • The appeal makes the point that the block was "harsh and unilateral". All blocks are by their nature harsh and unilateral. These characteristics do not invalidate them.
  • The length of the block is not contested by TheTimesAreAChanging. I therefore do not address it here.
  • The block was not only made in response to topic ban violations, but also to personal attacks by TheTimesAreAChanging, to wit: "known troll", "in an effort to bolster WP:FRINGE nonsense defending Nazism" and "Stop defending Hitler!". TheTimesAreAChanging does not address these statements. This makes it appear likely that such attacks will reoccur if the block is lifted. Instead, TheTimesAreAChanging appears to argue that their position in the underlying content dispute was correct. This is immaterial. Even if it is true, it does not justify personal attacks. Content disagreements can and must at all times be expressed civilly by discussing only the content, rather than the other editor's supposed (nefarious) intent. See WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF. Sandstein 08:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz[edit]

Allegedly TABN violating diffs by TheTimesAreAChanging include - diff in Korean War. While US foreign policy could be construed to be part of US politics - this is stretching it - the edits in question are far from the locus of AP2 (e.g. - spats between Democrats and Republicans) - if any article involving US foreign policy is seen under AP2 - then an AP2 ban is effectively a ban from every geopolitical article post-1932 (as the US is involved in most modern geopolitics - e.g. Brexit or September Knesset election, 2019 could be seen as AP2 due to US involvement, as would just about any military conflict in the period).

The trigger to the original complaint was MVBW removing 70% of Icebreaker (Suvorov) - [51] saying an IP added it (the IP reverted another IP that removed it diff) - content that has been present in the article for over a decade. Icebreaker is a book that transfers responsibility for WWII from Hitler to Stalin. This article in Slavic Review sees this as "overarching conspiracy theories". The book is mainly known for this controversy. The version created by MVBW - permalink is problematic from a NPOV and PROFRINGE standpoint - this version is absent anything critical on this book - presenting it as seemingly mainstream (when it is very much not so). Icewhiz (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

ZScarpia - to be clear - I did not paint Suvorov's book in any which way - I quoted an academic article in Slavic Review which paints this theory in this way. this article in The Journal of Slavic Military Studies also notes the widespread rejection of this thesis. Icewhiz (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia[edit]

Please see the comment dated 14:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC) I made on Icewhiz's inaccurate description of the book "Icebreaker" in the request concerning Paul Siebert above.     ←   ZScarpia   14:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes[edit]

@Icewhiz. One could just as easily cite an academic source that supports Suvorov ("Sokolov claims that, ultimately, Stalin planned to launch his offensive on 6 July 1941'" [52]). Yes, this is debatable, but not "fringe". No. The idea that Hitler and Stalin were both responsible for starting the WWII (that is what Suvorov tells) is "majority view". In particular, this is something officially declared by the European Parliament - [53]. An opposite view (that Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact "saved hundreds thousands lives" as claimed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Russia)) is a historical falsification [54]. Suvorov also claimed that Stalin tried to use Hitler as a proxy to attack Europe, which would allow the Red Army to “liberate” the Europe from Nazi occupation. This is a provocative idea and something debatable, but not a reason for committing personal attacks. My very best wishes (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Based on this question, Paul has no idea what personal attack is. No, Paul, you can not call a "Hitler defender" neither IP nor a named contributor, unless this is plainly obvious for anyone. And in this particular case this is just a stretch of your imagination, or your personal POV, or disliking me so much. My very best wishes (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Paul Siebert[edit]

I am not aware of the details of topic ban violation, so I cannot say anything on that. However, I think it is absolutely necessary to review the PA accusations in a context of the evidences presented by me in the AE case against me. I agree that first TTAAC's edit summary was redundantly emotional, however, what he says follows from what reliable sources cited by me say. With regard to the second edit summary, taking into account that the user it was addressed to repeatedly removed the content that was previously removed by a pro-Nazi IP, TTAAC's words were a nearly correct description of a situation. These statements are supported by reliable sources, which I already presented in the previous case. ~Swarm~, I respectfully ask you to look at the above case and reconsider your decision.

@Seraphimblade. Could you please elaborate on "personal attacks?" Are the words "effort to bolster WP:FRINGE nonsense defending Nazism" personal attack independently on the context? In that case, how would you characterize this edit by the anon? Isn't this edit by the same anon a blatant example of Holocaust denial? If we are not allowed to call this Holocaust denier as such, how can we combat antisemitism on Wikipedia pages? If this anon can be called "Hitler defender" but a logged user who is making totally the same edit cannot, what makes him so special? I sincerely want to understand the attitude of admins to this issue, for I have a feeling they are more interested to maintain a formal decorum that to combat really disruptive users.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@~Swarm~ No, you understand me incorrect. I said that it may be ok to call MVBW Hitler's defender, because he removes all well sourced criticism from the article that tells about a generally discredited (as reliable sources say) theory that (according to what reliable sources say) is defending Hitler (the sources have been presented in the previous AE request, I don't want to duplicate this info due to space limitations. I also believe such statements are pertinent to AE or similar talk pages, and they should be avoided in routine conversations. That is why I usually do not resort to that type rhetoric anywhere except some special pages. However, this page is a quite appropriate place for such accusations.

You response creates an impression that I throw these accusations without needed support. Actually, due to space limitation, I do not present them in each thread. I already presented them in the AE concerning me (see a previous AE), and I see no reason to duplicate them here.

Per WP:ASPERSIONS, it is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of serious misbehavior without reasonable cause. Accusations should be not routine, supported by an adequate evidences, and made at the appropriate place. I raised my legitimate concern exactly at the appropriate place (AE page, and then on admin's talk page, and during a conversation with an editor in question, mostly at my talk page). To avoid misunderstanding, I do not support the idea that such accusations as "Hitler's defender" should be routinely thrown in edit summaries or regular talk page discussions. These accusations should be thrown once, preferably at AE or ANI, they require serious examinations and, if the violations are confirmed, severe actions must follows against those who committed these violations. That is why came at AE, and that is why I am throwing them here.

The TTAAC's problem is that he typed correct words in an incorrect place. The more appropriate way would be to use a neutral edit summary, and, after the second MVBW's revert to file an AE request against MVBW. In contrast to him, I presented my accusations at the appropriate place, and I do not understand why you are speaking about any sanctions against me.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TheTimesAreAChanging[edit]

Result of the appeal by TheTimesAreAChanging[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Good block, which was well substantiated in the original AE report.[55] Per that report, the user violated Eastern Europe sanctions by making personal attacks (accusations of Nazism at that) in the subject area ("deleted again by known WP:EEML troll User:My very best wishes ... in an effort to bolster WP:FRINGE nonsense defending Nazism" and "Stop defending Hitler!). User also violated an American Politics TBAN by editing Civilian casualties from U.S. drone strikes, United States involvement in regime change, Korean War, and Operation Freedom Deal. While AP does not inherently cover the entirety of American history or military history, these articles are obviously all highly controversial and politically charged aspects of US politics and foreign policy. This seems cut and dry, and 2 months might be severe if there was only one violation, but we're looking at repeated violations in multiple DS areas. ~Swarm~ {sting} 15:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • If I understand Paul's argument, it's that calling MVBW a Nazi troll is okay in this context, because MVBW is a Nazi troll. Paul, if you continue to argue in support of personal attacks and cast aspersions, you're going to end up blocked as well. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Swarm. These were violations and violations made while making personal attacks, to boot, and following a block for disruptive socking. I agree with both the block and the length of it, and would also warn that we're on a pretty swift track to an indef, especially if there's any more socking. Stay well clear from articles that could even be considered to have anything to do with US politics. We have millions of articles totally unrelated to that subject; go work on them instead. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)