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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Paul Siebert[edit]

With consensus among admins to decline, the filer has also withdrawn their appeal. El_C 18:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 
Paul Siebert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Paul Siebert (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
3 month topic ban from the Eastern Front [1]; see also my informal appeal and a subsequent exchange.
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 

Statement by Paul Siebert[edit]

  • In his response, Sandstein correctly writes "you must not speculate about the motives of others". Unfortunatelly, Sandstein's interpretation of my diff#1 and diff#2 as "comparing editors to Nazis" would be hardly possible without assuming that when I wrote "defend Hitler" I wanted to "call these other editors defenders of Nazism". Actually, he cannot know what I really wanted to say, he cannot claim that by writing "X", I meant "Y", and he must not speculate about my motives, per his own rule.
  • As I already explained (see the first part of "Full evidences" section) I didn't use the word "Nazi" in a context of the user MVBW, and there was a very serious reason for that. There is a big difference between advocacy of the views of, for example, David Irving, a legally confirmed Holocaust denier,[1] and pushing just the Suvorov's theory. I am always trying to be accurate in my statements, I described MVBW's actions using the words found in reliable sources, I know that the words "Nazi defender" (or derivatives thereof) are NOT used by scholars to describe Suvorov, and that is why I never applied those words to the actions of MVBW, who is advocating Suvorov's views.
  • The conflict that has lead to this AE report started around the book Icebreaker by Suvorov. It's major idea is that Stalin was more responsible for WWII outbreak than Hitler, and that Hitler's Barbarossa plan was just an act of self-defense.[2][3] Suvorov defends Hitler's decision to attack the USSR, but he does NOT defend Nazism and its crimes, and, accordingly, he is NOT considered a Nazi defender by scholarly community. That is corroborated by the fact that his theory was seriously discussed in respected, mainstream Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung[4], and supported by some democratic and liberal Russian journalists, such as Julia Latynina and Mikhail Veller[3][4]; R.C.Raack, a reputable American historian, sees Suvorov's ideas as deserving thoughtful analysis.[5]Obviously, all of that would be impossible, had Suvorov been an Irving style Nazi defender.
Importantly, both Suvorov's supporters and his critics agree that his books make Hitler look better;[2] many critics say Suvorov's books defend Hitler and his strategic decisions to attack the USSR.[6][7] Other reviews on Icebreaker available at either say pretty much the same, or do not contradict to that conclusion. However, AE is not an appropriate place for presenting a comprehensive list of reviews on that book.
  • I believe it is obvious that when a user A is pushing the book X in Wikipedia, then the epithets that are applicable to X are equally applicable to the actions of A. If reliable sources state that the book X revives a bizarre politics of defending Hitler,[7] the same is applicable to the contributions made by a user A. I don't see any flaw in this logic, but I DO see a serious logical flaw in Sandstein's conclusion that by writing "X's edits defend Hitler" I meant "A user X is a Nazi supporter".

To summarize:

  1. It does not follow from presented evidences that I ever called a user MVBW "Nazi defender".
  2. The fact that Suvorov's books revive a bizarre politics of defending Hitler[7] is an undeniable fact, although it is well known that this author is NOT a Nazi defender.
  3. MVBW is aggressively pushing Suvorov's views (see a third part of the "Full evidences" section).
  4. Therefore, it would be correct to apply the same words (bizarre politics of defending Hitler) to MVBW's actions. That was exactly what I did in my diffs #1&2.

Based on all said above, and taking into account the context, it is obvious that in my diffs #1&2 I actually say that the user MVBW is pushing a fringe theory that defends Hitler, concretely, his decision to attack the USSR. That claim is much less outstanding than the claim that was ascribed to me by Sandstein, it does not need outstanding evidences, and the evidences presented by me here fully support this claim. With regard to formal aspects of these two statements, it seems Sandstein has no objections to that, so I am not discussing this issue here.

In connection to that, independently on a result of that appeal, it would be fair if Sandstein modified his statements where he incorrectly accused me of calling some users "defenders of Nazism".

Appendix. I asked two closely related questions at different fora [5], [6], and the answers were: [7], [8].

@El C: Yes, that does not necessarily suggests POV pushing. However, when an experienced user vandalized the article one time, then does that again, than is doing several partial reverts: this and this this, this, and that in just a couple of days (a clear sluggish edit was), that tells something about the user. Taking into account that the same user has been engaged in a sluggish edit war on the same subject in a sister article: [9], [10], [11],[12], [13], [14], that suggests something about a user. Note, he is persistently removing good English sources and adding some garbage sources. Note, my participation in that edit war was minimal.

@Levivich: It seems you misunderstand something: what happened was a total removal of ALL criticism of the theory that defends Hitler (see my responce to @El C:). By that, a user gave absolutely undue weight to some fringe view. If that is not POV pushing, than what is? If an editor is edit-warring and vandalising the article to advance some POV, they do feel strongly. Regarding a misconception, I repeatedly asked about a wording that could be appropriate in this situation, the answers are shown in the "Appendix" section. My conclusion from these answers is that my wording is ok if it is supported by evidences. My evidences seem adequate, what is the problem? My question is not rhetorical, I sincerely want to master this Wikipedia newspeak.

@Nug: First, discussions of that type are explicitly allowed during appeals. Second, if you remember, I refused to present any evidences against you during EEML arbitration, although, retrospectively, I understand that I could. Don't you feel that it would be noble to abstain from supporting your friend today? @GoldenRing:, @El C:, @Sandstein: As far as I understand, you see a problem primarily with wording. In connection to that, can anybody give me a direct answer to one concrete question:

If I see a disruptive behaviour of a user X, who vandalized the page, removes a well sourced criticism, edit-warring, and, according to reliable sources, this type activity is defending Hitler, what wording can be used to report this user? Note, my post at Sandstein's page was not a part of a normal discussion, it was tantamount to report? What is the problem with a statement "User's X edits defend Hitler"? Does it imply anything about motives?

A second question. Do I understand correct that by banning me from reporting that user you demonstrate me that you see more problem with formal wording than to a potential disruption case? Is it a consolidated position of admins?

I believe if your goal is really to decrease the number of violations, you should explain me that, because I really don't want to use a trial-and-error approach to understand admins' position.

@GoldenRing:, @El C:, @Sandstein:, @Nick-D: I am pointing your attention at the fact that this diff contains a directly false statement: that user never "restored" that sourced content. The references and the criticism that were previously removed by that user were restored by a user who edited this article just before MVBW. A simple browsing of the article's history easily demonstrates that. Making false statements that conceal incorrect actions is a serious violation. As far as I know, that is a second deceptive claim made by MVBW.

The provisions of my topic ban do not allow me to report this user, everywhere except in this thread. I think it is in interests of a community if the provisions of my topic ban will be amended to allow me to report that user, and provide a full description of his violation, which is serious.

@Seraphimblade: It seems you are missing the point. My objection is focused mostly on the equation of "Acting as a Hitler defending" and "Being a Nazi defender", which, as I demonstrated, is totally wrong. The former statement (in a context of the current topic) means being a defender of a theory that, according to reliable sources, defends one concrete strategic decision of Hitler, and I do not think this accusation is not nearly as serious as an accusation of being a Nazi defender. In addition, recent and previous actions of that user seem to add more weight to that my conclusion. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ @Thryduulf:, @Seraphimblade:, @GoldenRing:, @El C: & a closing admin; Concluding remarks Thank you everybody for comments. I think the consensus is clearly to decline the appeal, so it would be correct if some admin closed this case.

I want to make some general statement, where I want to present my general vision of the problem.

When reporting some civil POV pusher, we always have a dilemma: if the report contains just a very neutral and abstract description of user's actions, majority of admins may consider it just a content dispute. If a description of user's actions is too focused on the user's malicious intents, such a report may be considered a personal attack (as this case demonstrated). In connection to that, I think we need some specific rules that define which language is acceptable for reporting civil POV pushers, and, simultaneously, give enough freedom to the user who reports that type misbehaviour. So far, I failed to figure out what these rules are, although from your comment I conclude some wording is a priori not acceptable, whereas some other wording is not. Before that case, I believed that any wording that discusses user's actions "the actions of a user X is YYY" (where "YYY" can be any statement) is a priori ok, whereas any wording that discusses user's personality like "a user X IS YYY" is not. Now I see that it seems wrong.

I am ready to play according any rules, provided that these rules are clear and universally accepted. So far, I failed to find a clear description of those rules. I am not going to use a trial-and-error approach to figure out what is acceptable and whet is not, and it seems the only solution is to address to ArbCom for general explanations, which I am going to do in close future.

Thank you everybody, please, don't waste your time, and close the case.

  1. ^ Peter J. Wosh. Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial by Richard J. Evans. Archival Issues, Vol. 27, No. 2 (2002), pp. 164-166
  2. ^ a b Michael Jabara Carley. The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II by Viktor Suvorov. Review. The International History Review, Vol. 32, No. 1 (March 2010), pp. 165-166: "Suvorov's central hypothesis is not based on archival research, but rather on circumstantial evidence, and mainly, on categories of Soviet 'offensive' weapons"..."Suvorov's account may remind readers of a science fiction scenario in which the protagonists travel to an alternate reality where everything is upside down. Evidence does not matter in Suvorov's world where Hitler, too, is a victim of Stalin, the 'chief culprit' who connived at world domination."
  3. ^ Cynthia A. Roberts. Planning for War: The Red Army and the Catastrophe of 1941.Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 47, No. 8 (Dec., 1995), pp. 1293-1326 "In a sensational book published in the West and then in Russia, the Russian expatriate and former Soviet army major Viktor Suvorov also blames Stalin for starting the war with Germany. With virtually no documentary sources, Suvorov's book has been viewed in the West as an anti-Soviet track."
  4. ^ Teddy J. Uldricks. The Icebreaker Controversy: Did Stalin Plan to Attack Hitler? Slavic Review, Vol. 58, No. 3 (Autumn, 1999), pp. 626-643 "Likewise, among some segments of the German population there has long been a market for popular literature that provides some sort of justification for the Nazi war effort. Gerd Ueberschar has suggested that the resurgent popularity of the preventive war thesis in Germany springs from an attempt by conservative political forces to refashion an image of the German past acceptable to right-wing nationalists. Even the respected, mainstream Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung got into the controversy, declaring that the preventive war hypothesis had "become more plausible" as a result of Suvorov's findings. In contrast, the icebreaker thesis seems not to have stirred nearly as much interest among either the general public or the scholarly community in France, Britain, or the United States, except perhaps in anti-Semitic circles.
  5. ^ R. C. RAACK. Stalin's Role in the Coming of World War II: OPENING THE CLOSET DOOR ON A KEYCHAPTER OF RECENT HISTORY. World Affairs, Vol. 158, No. 4 (SPRING 1996), pp. 198-211.
  6. ^ Jonathan Haslam. Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia 1941: A Failure of Reasons of State? International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 76, No.1 (Jan., 2000), pp. 133-139: "The claim made originally by Field Marshal Keitel and subsequently reiterated by Suvorov that Hitler, in launching Operation Barbarossa on 22 June 1941, pre-empted a Soviet attack always was, to say the least, a piece of dubious special pleading on behalf of a lost cause. The reason for its unheralded appearance is not hard to explain. The interpretation proved a godsend to Germans, now freed from postwar constraints, who hoped to place Hitler back into the pantheon of patriotic history."
  7. ^ a b c Mark Von Hagen (2006) Review Article: Pairing Off Dictatorships, The International History Review, 28:3, 567-571, DOI: 10.1080/07075332.2006.9641105 "... he [Overy. -P.S.] rejects a recent revival of the bizarre politics of defending Hitler for having saved Europe from Bolshevism in the 'Icebreaker' polemics that claimed that, as Stalin was planning a preventive war against Hitler, Operation Barbarossa was a defensive war. Curiously, this recent restatement of the claim, which rests on published statements by a defector from Soviet military intelligence, found immediate support among German scholars and cold war anti-Communist scholars elsewhere."

Statement by Sandstein[edit]

I recommend that this appeal is declined for the reasons given by Nug and El_C.

As to Levivich's suggestion that a warning would have been appropriate, I think that this appeal indicates that a warning would not have been heeded. The ban was not twice the length of the previous 24h block because the sanctions are not for the same kind of misconduct, and because blocks and topic bans are not equivalent. A block is much more restrictive than a narrow topic ban. Sandstein 06:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes[edit]

Here is link to WP:AE case under discussion.

Paul completely misrepresents my editing and motivations. @Paul, once again, I did not act "as a Hitler defender" and a "troll", contrary to your claim [15]. I also did not "push a fringe theory that defends Hitler", as you continue claiming here, just as before [16].

@Nick_D. I did not remove sourced criticism from the page (please see my diffs 1.1-1.5 in the original WP:AE case [17]), and the criticism is currently included on the page Icebreaker (Suvorov). If you or anyone else thinks this is not enough, you are very welcome to edit this page and improve it.

@Nick_D. I temporarily removed this content from the page to discuss it on talk and re-include the reliably sourced part of the content with modifications later, after verification. That follows from my editing summary, explanations on the article talk page [18] and actual editing, i.e. restoring version with criticisms, see also my diffs 1.1-1.5 in the original WP:AE case [19]. I never said it was entirely unsourced.
@Nick-D. Do you think my comment on your talk page [20] was problematic? Well, I just wanted to ask if you read the book by Suvorov, because it helps to read the book if you edit a page about the book, it helps to know a theory if you edit a page about theory, etc. It does not matter if an author was right or wrong. If you want to make a good page about the Bible, you should read the Bible, along with literature about the Bible.

Statement by Nug[edit]

Paul doesn’t seem to be exhibiting any understanding why he was topic banned in the first place. He says above: ”If reliable sources state that the book X revives a bizarre politics of defending Hitler, the same is applicable to the contributions made by a user A.”. No, it is not okay to conflate a viewpoint or political beliefs held by an author of a source and project it as the POV of an editor using that source in contributing to an article . That would have a chilling effect upon achieving NPOV. The place to assess a source would be WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN. This appears to be a relitigation of the original topic ban, the outcome of which expressly prohibits “continuation of this tedious squabble in any forum, such as through another AE request”Nug (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich[edit]

@Paul: I would go even further than El_C's formulation and say that an editor can feel very strongly that a particular source should be included, and still not be pushing the POV of that source. For example, Adolf Hitler would not be a complete article without some quotes from Mein Kampf, and so Mein Kampf is a source for the article Adolf Hitler. You'll see "Hitler, A." in the references. I am strongly in favor of including that source in that article; it doesn't mean that I am promoting or pushing Hitler's POV, or that I'm a Hitler fan or Hitler defender.

@Sandstein and other admin: That said, if you look at the original AE report, Sandstein noted that Paul had one prior sanction, a 24hr 1RR block from nine year ago, and so a relatively-brief sanction was merited. I don't think a three months' topic ban from the topic area is relatively brief, or warranted. What happened to the sanction being twice the length of the previous sanction? The previous sanction was a 24hr block 9 years ago for 1RR; there were no previous PA sanctions.

Also, why was a warning skipped? A warning that explained what I explained in my first paragraph above probably would have educated Paul about this point, so he could conform his behavior accordingly. Instead, by just issuing a sanction without an explanation/warning, we get an appeal that misses the point, as this one did. I think Paul needs to be educated about the misconception he has, and the sanction length should be reduced, in light of the fact it's his first PA sanction ever, and the PA consisted of saying that someone else's PA was correct (which is slightly better than making a new PA of your own, I guess). Levivich 01:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Paul Siebert[edit]

  • As a general comment, I looked into experts' views on Suvorov and his book Icebreaker as part of drafting the para on this at Operation Barbarossa#Soviet preparations (please see the last para). This material was discussed on the talk page of that article before being added and has now survived with no significant changes for several years. Icebreaker is generally considered unreliable by experts in this field, two of whom have gone to the trouble of writing entire books to rebut it. As such, the Icebreaker (Suvorov) article should go into greater detail on the reactions to the book by experts than it currently does. In particular, it should be made clear to readers that Suvorov's argument has little support among historians and the book is generally not considered reliable. The material being added by the IP was a mix of bad and OK content though, and it's sensible to have removed it pending proper review of sources given that this is a somewhat complex topic with a surprisingly large literature covering it. Nick-D (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    • In response to this post, User:My very best wishes posted this on my talk page arguing that Suvorov should be taken seriously. Given that Suvorov is very much a fringe source, I find it concerning that My very best wishes is removing criticism of the book from the article. I suspect that Paul has grounds for being concerned and frustratated here. Nick-D (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
      • It is also concerning that My very best wishes is now claiming that they did not remove sourced criticism from the page as they did exactly that, twice [21] [22]. There are some OK grounds to have removed this material given that the presence of uncited POV claims in what the editor added makes the whole package suspect, but it is dishonest to state that it was entirely unsourced. I can't say that I remember having encountered this editor before, but this kind of deception is as awful as it is stupid. Nick-D (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Paul Siebert[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I agree with Nug. An editor could contribute content that's derived from a source without necessarily being engaged in promoting the views that the source represents. El_C 01:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I more or less agree with Paul on the content here; removing all criticism of a book that absolves Hitler of responsibility for WWII is not acceptable (note that I haven't looked into whether that is what MVBW was doing and it is not necessary to find out for the purposes of this analysis). But even if that was exactly what MVBW was doing, it is not appropriate to dismiss another editor's views by accusing them of defending Hitler. The way to resolve such disputes is by collegial discussion and getting more editors involved to form consensus on the subject. I don't care if reliable sources accuse the book of defending Hitler; imputing that same motive to other editors is not appropriate. This is clear BATTLEGROUND behaviour and, in my view, the sanction was warranted. I would decline the appeal. GoldenRing (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • There is not any interpretation needed here; the very diffs cited in the appeal states that ...MVBW was definitely acting as Hitler's defender, and ...aimed to whitewash Hitler.... Ironically, these represent the very types of speculations on another editor's motive that Paul Siebert objects to in his appeal statement. Of course, one might disagree with edits another editor makes, but the old saw to focus on content, not the contributor is especially critical in sensitive areas subject to discretionary sanctions. That didn't happen here, the sanction was appropriately levied for personalizing the argument rather than simply focusing on content, and I would decline the appeal. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Seraphimblade and so will decline this appeal if no other admin objects. @Nick-D: et al, it is irrelevant to this appeal what MVBW's actions were, and/or whether they were correct or otherwise (and I make no judgement on that) - the only thing relevant is whether is Paul Siebert's behaviour and whether the sanction for it was correctly applied. If you wish to discuss MVBW's actions, then you need to do so in an appropriate forum (which might or might not be an AE report about them). Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


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 Piznajko[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 20:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Piznajko (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#Standard discretionary sanctions :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

(see my comments below)

  1. 4 August 2018 Talk page notice: "Due recent negativity pushed on me by pro-Russian editors, I'd like to keep this talk page to official messages only; to make myself more clear: unless you're a WP admin or bureaucrat, who came to my TP to leave an official WP message, your contribution to this talk page is not welcome (and will be removed)"
  2. August 2019: Walls of text 1, walls of text 2, walls of text 3, unclosed a closing, unclosed again, all on Talk:Kiev/naming (after which I gave then a DS alert).
  3. September 2019 New walls of text, and more, and more, and more, and again and completely irrelevant rant with personal comments still on Talk:Kiev/naming, and now here on Talk:Ukraine, literally the same, again pinging Roman Spinner, and again and now claiming Roman Spinner is the only authority for which eventually I gave them a block
  4. 5 October 2019 Walls of text at Talk:Ukrainian literature, not really addressing the point of discussion
  5. 5 October 2019, walls of text at Talk:Ukraine again
  6. tendentious editing 17 October 2019
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 26 March 2018 Warning for edit warring on Talk:Kiev
  2. 31 March 2018 Warning for edit warring on Antisemitism in Ukraine
  3. 4 May 2018 24h block for edit warring on Antisemitism in the Russian Empire
  4. 5 May 2018 Warning for personal attacks
  5. 20 February 2019 Warning for edit-warring on 4A Games (Ukrainian company - YMB)
  6. 2 October 2019 48h block for disruptive editing on Talk:Ukraine (unblock request posted, not acted on within 48h [23])
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
2018, 2019
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Apparently, Piznajko had a troubled history before I noticed them in August 2019, and has been warned multiple times and blocked for edit-warring in articles related to Ukrainian topics. I noticed them first at Talk:Kiev/naming. This page was created to reduce disruption at Talk:Kiev, where Ukrainian users constantly demanded to move the article to Kyiv. In August, Piznajko started to post walls of text there, celebrating that style guides of certain media switched to Kyiv, constantly pinging Roman Spinner, the only other editor who advocates this name, and would not stop even after having repeatedly told by multiple editors that the only factor which matters is how the city is actually called by the native speakers of English. At one instance, they edit-warred for closing the thread and stopped only when I explicitly told them I would block for the next revert. Still, they soon posted more walls of text, and went to other pages (pinging again Roman Spinner hoping to get support). After they claimed that Roman Spinner is the only user who understands the matter and went far into WP:IDHT territory, I blocked them. They of course disagreed and posted an unblock request that they did not do anything wrong. A couple of days ago, they started editing articles, and the editing of Ukrainian literature (where at the talk page they previously also posted walls of text not really addressing the point) is clearly disruptive. For example (diff above), at some point they had a list of countries in the lede which said Ukraine was ruled by, one of them was Lithuania with a link to the modern state. When I replaced Lithuania with the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (since of course modern Lithuania never "ruled" Ukraine) they replaced all other countries (for example, Romania to the Kingdom of Romania) leaving Russia intact (apparently implying modern Russia "ruled" Ukraine?). Given that on their talk page they state "Due recent negativity pushed on me by pro-Russian editors, I'd like to keep this talk page to official messages only; to make myself more clear: unless you're a WP admin or bureaucrat, who came to my TP to leave an official WP message, your contribution to this talk page is not welcome (and will be removed)", my conclusion is that Piznajko is just not capable of constructively contributing to any topics related to Ukraine. This disruption continues already at least for one and a half year.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Piznajko[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 Piznajko[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Piznajko[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • The purpose of discretionary sanctions is to provide an environment where editors can improve articles collaboratively and productively. Editors who insult others, disrupt collaborative processes, or continuously reject consensus ought to be removed from the topic area or from the project. It would be appropriate to hear from Piznajko before proposing a solution, but I would expect their response to address the manner in which they intend to improve our coverage of Ukraine-related topics. – bradv🍁 21:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm posting in this section because, while I created the subpage Talk:Kiev/naming and posted a note at its top, that was in 2007, and I've had nothing to do with the issue since then, nor did I even then express an opinion on the naming issue. Like Bradv, I will also wait for Piznajko to respond — not indefinitely, though. Meanwhile, Ymblanter, I've removed the examples of evidence that the user is aware of DS that the template offered — you haven't added diffs to them, and I think you may have left them in by mistake. They're not needed, anyway. Please just restore (with diffs and names) if I'm mistaken about your intention. Bishonen | talk 10:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC).