Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello Anonimu. Just an FYI, the 5% rule is only for single-candidate elections – it doesn't apply to parliamentary ones. Cheers, Number5718:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just wanted to mention that you have reverted two attempts by two different users including me at renaming the page Irina Walker. Note that there have been no previous RMs for this page and you are the only person who has been opposing the move. Do you have a specific reason or are you just asking for a discussion to take place? Keivan.fTalk22:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned on the AfD that you're planning on proposing the sisters for deletion. If you do, and they end up at AfD, please let me know. --JBL (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s been about a week since the article on Irina has been deleted. As JBL stated, I was wondering if you were still willing to have the articles about the other two sisters nominated as well, since you argued they had a similar level of notability and I’m sure we don’t wish to discriminate between the sisters. Keivan.fTalk16:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh did the one related to Russia expire? Regardless:
Your recent editing history at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Volunteer Marek 22:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're right! It was a GENERAL 1RR parole/restriction not just limited to Russian topics. Old, but never removed if I understand correctly. Volunteer Marek 22:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Bucha massacre shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
I've looked into it and it looks like you are under a general 1RR restriction (as well as civility parole and an injunction to "act impeccably"). AFAICT these restrictions were never removed nor were they limited only to Balkan area. Please observe them. Volunteer Marek 07:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments about user behavior at article Talk pages
(edit conflict) Comments on user behavior are off limits on article Talk pages. Article talk pages are restricted to discussion of how to improve the article. I've collapsed a portion of a discussion you initiated at Talk:War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, because it was exclusively about user behavior. If you need to raise a behavioral issue concerning a user, please start by addressing them at their User talk page, where such discussions are appropriate. In addition, the section header you chose violated several of the recommendations at WP:TALKHEADPOV, including (bold in the original): Don't criticize in headings, Don't address other users in a heading and Never use headings to attack other users. I've reverted the section header to what it was Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the note. However, my comment was directed to vandalism of the article, which is a valid topic for talk page discussion. Listing the violations of Wikipedia guidelines is not an attack, since, per WP:AGF, good faith is not assumed anymore when confronted with obvious evidence to the contrary. Maybe naming Volunteer Marek in the title is overkill, but nominating actual violations which damage the encyclopedia is clearly within the scope of talk page discussions.Anonimu (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A Russian soldier's grandfather living in Magnitogorsk consumes only official Russian press and TV news, and vigorously supports the governmental line about the war. He is active at Wikipedia (having worked for a few years as an attaché at the Washington embassy in the late 50s under Khrushchev), and is going around to all the articles related to the Ukraine war, pulling out numerous western sources because they are specifically labeled "fakes" in the Russian media, and substituting propaganda from Russian news, and other friendly sources, completely tilting the articles from their former neutral state, to nothing but a totally biased, one-sided whitewash, and pure, pro-Russian account of the war, which he earnestly believes to be exactly what is happening in Ukraine after he has removed all the "pro-western fake news". After all, it's all he hears, and he wants everyone to know the truth. Is he a vandal?
Answer: No. That does not fit the definition of a vandal. Here's an excerpt from WP:Vandalism:
"On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia."
Did you know, for example, that "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." As long as an editor is attempting to improve Wikipedia in good faith, "their edits are not vandalism, even if they violate some core policy of Wikipedia."
21:03, 9 April: in your TP comment, you said that they are "currently heavily vandalising the article", and "such vandals should not be allowed to game the system".
21:11, 9 April: in your edit summary: "an editor vandalising articles is by definition a vandal"
06:22, 10 April: in your edit summary: "how surprising that editors with just 6 edits are coming to excuse [<name of the other editor>]'s vandalisms"
07:26, 10 April: in your edit summary: "continued vandalism through fake sourcing and source misrepresentation"
These four edits constitute repeated accusations of vandalism against another editor, at the wrong venue, and without supporting evidence. Whatever you think of the quality of their content, this editor is clearly acting to improve the article, and the encyclopedia. You may entirely disagree with the article content this editor wishes to include in the article, which is fine; methods of dispute resolution exist to help resolve content disputes, and the article Talk page is the right place to talk that out. But your accusations of vandalism are doubly wrong there: first, because they don't belong on an article talk page at all (wrong venue; use the User talk page for that), and secondly, because of your mistaken idea of what constitutes vandalism at Wikipedia.
If upon reflection, you now believe the other editor's actions do not constitute vandalism, you could WP:REDACT your comments by striking them out, like this (unfortunately edit summary text cannot be changed). If you still believe you have identified vandalism at the article, then you are free to raise it in a neutral manner at the editor's user talk page, incorporating WP:DIFFs as evidence to support your allegations. However, please refrain from making any further comments about other editors' motivations or editing behavior on an article Talk page, and most especially, please refrain from accusations of vandalism at the article Talk page. A pattern of unfounded accusations may be seen as WP:DISRUPTIVE, or a personal attack. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: He's been here since 2005, he knows what vandalism is and what it isn't. He's also on civility parole and subject to 1RR [1] (these restrictions have never been lifted) which were imposed as conditions of removing his indefinite ban. Volunteer Marek 09:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand what you're saying. I've not previously interacted with Anonimu, afaicr, and I may have more influence, I hope, treading lightly. But these actions are not promising, and WP:AE may be an option. I hope they see the light and change course before that becomes necessary. Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mathglot, Volunteer Marek is not an old man in Russia who only has access to state propaganda. His edits shows he has access to a wide selection of sources, including some which are not generally accessible to the rest of editors due to paywalls. The problem is not that he doesn't get the info, the problem is that he has all the info he needs and still insist in in promoting his POV by selectively copying info from the sources. Consider a RS A printing "X is very dumb, says Y", with Y being involved in real life dispute with X. Volunteer Marek takes this info and has in on Wikipedia "X is obviously dumb <ref>A</ref>".
This behaviour perfectly fits the second paragraph of WP:VANDALISM
The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.
Since he is an editor with tens of thousands of edits, he has been here from 2005 and was involved in numerous Arbitration and Administrative reports, we are safe to assume that he is well aware of policy. This prevents me from assuming good faith and consider he is just not accustomed to the principles of WP:V and WP:NPOV. The fact that he occasionally fixes some of the most obvious vandalism he has made (such as recently when he backed down that a photo of a body in Mariupol showed a massacre in Bucha) shows that he is fully aware of his actions and has full editing capacity. His other actions however indicate he's trying to promote a certain POV using more subtle forms of vandalism, forms which are still covered by the quote above.
Per WP:SPADE calling an editor vandalising articles a vandal is not a personal attack. Supporting evidence was provided, with diffs, however you unfortunately decide to hide them by collapsing part of the section.Anonimu (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in debating what some other user did or didn't do. I'm convinced your interpretation of vandalism is incorrect, leading you into questionable activity at article talk pages; you're convinced it's accurate. So, we disagree about that. That's fine. You may bring up complaints about user behavior at a user Talk page or another venue that's amenable to reports of user behavior, if you believe administrator action is needed to protect the encyclopedia from damage. But whatever you decide to do on that count, please keep comments about user behavior off article talk pages, as that's not what they are for, and I think you know that. For your own benefit, just a caution about one thing though: you appealed to WP:SPADE as a way of legitimizing accusations of vandalism. However, SPADE will not protect you if your behavior is called into question, as WP:NPA is policy, and SPADE is merely an essay. So you might want to rethink that approach, or at least, don't use it if an admin comes calling, because they'll know there's no teeth to it. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages "is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article", and fixing vandalism is exactly that, thus a legitimate topic of discussion. I wasn't discussing Volunteer Marek general behavior or his edits elsewhere, I was discussing specifically removal of sourced content, misrepresentation of sources and false captioning of images, all of which address the content of the article. It's not my fault that all these "deliberate attempts to damage Wikipedia" were associated with one specific user.07:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Editing or discussing anything to do with the WP:ARBEE topic area, including Russia or Ukraine, broadly construed.
You have been sanctioned per an April 11 AE report (permalink). It demonstrates tendentious editing which is alarming and discreditable. And has no place on the English Wikipedia.
I just closed your appeal. There was a consensus to endorse the topic ban and reject your appeal. You may appeal again at any time, but a successful appeal will probably only be after 6 months, or more, of editing elsewhere -- GuerilleroParlez Moi20:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
