Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1188

PackMecEng

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:PackMecEng is disrupting many numbers of articles related to Hatewatch by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Although there are many different edits, this latest edit is particularly egregious.[1] As you can see they are restoring old sources from 2022 while ignoring newer sources from 2025. That is exactly the opposite of how we use reliable sources, as the currency criterion is paramount. In addition, PackMecEng is going from article to article, calling Hatewatch a "blog" as a way to diminish its credibility.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] It is not a blog. This is the current version of the site:[9] It no longer uses the old term "blog" from 2022 and does not use the old description that PackMecEng keeps adding. Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

At the time of the edit and when the information in the articles that they are referencing was placed there Hatewatch was clearly labeled as a blog. See here for example or passed discussions at RSN. The issue with all those edits is they are misrepresenting the source, the articles at the time they were made, were labeled as blogs. PackMecEng (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Why are you replacing newer sources from 2025 with old sources that were originally dated from 2020 (and archived in 2022)? That's not how any of this works. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Because they removed the word blog from their main page does not mean that all their past articles are no longer blogs. lol PackMecEng (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Again, that's now how sourcing works. Please familiarize yourself with how we evaluate sources and rely on the currency criterion to edit articles. User:Dlthewave tried to correct you and you reverted them across many articles. I did the same and you mass reverted me. Your response up above is not acceptable. You are currently citing a quote from their website from 2020 that is no longer current. Further, you are using the term "blog" in a way that is derogatory, as a POV push to diminish their credibility. It is not a classical "blog", it is a highly curated and edited magazine-like site. I don't think you should be editing in this area until you learn how to use sources correctly. We never replace newer sources with old ones to push a POV. You're committing one of the cardinal sins of basic editing. Viriditas (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the SCUM Manifesto example, it is perhaps ironic that the "blog" part was added in 2013 by you [10]. It was only removed less than 24 hours ago. So PME was restoring something that was stable for 12 years. Springee (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

How is it ironic? That edit was from 2013, and the 2025 source no longer uses the term blog or the quote that was added. This is known as currency, and content changes over time. Basic reliable source 101. Nothing ironic here. Viriditas (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@PackMecEng @Viriditas you're both edit warring over a content issue. I have no interest in blocking either of you, so please use Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Hatewatch. @PackMecEng, "Lol" is not an appropriate response to another editor's concern. Star Mississippi 01:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC) ETA: Or Talk:Andy_Ngo#SPLC_Hatewatch_"blog", it doesn't matter which as long as it's discussed Star Mississippi 03:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Works for me, struck. PackMecEng (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Star Mississippi 02:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Given that this is an issue affecting multiple WP articles, perhaps someone should start a discussion at WP:RSN if they want to continue with this? TarnishedPath^talk 01:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not really any different from the rest of the SPLC content, which already has an RSP entry. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that there is a contention that it is different to the rest of the SPLC content. TarnishedPath^talk 03:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I think RSN is probably the place for it. Here certainly is not the place for it. Also, it does seem reasonable to stick with the long standing version of the text. PME wasn't running around adding "blog" articles. Instead, another editor appears to have moved from a talk page where this was being discussed and proceeded to removed "blog" from stable text that, presumably, referenced material that was originally published under the "hatewatch blog" banner. If "hatewatch blog" was correct at the time the SPLC content was published and when it was added to the Wiki article in question I don't see a reason to change it now. PME was restoring the stable versions of articles, not adding something new. Springee (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

That is not an accurate representation of what occurred based on the above diffs in my initial complaint. PME replaced new quotes and content from 2025 with old content from 2020 (archived in 2022). Since those descriptions of the source and the quote are no longer accurate, PME should not have made the changes nor reverted multiple editors to force them in without discussion. Viriditas (talk) 04:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Whether the citation is from 2020 or 2025 can be discussed but this edit war can't continue, it's disappointing to see among experienced editors and editors seeming to pick sides. Focus on policy on referencing, not content right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Editors on one side of AMPOL have long been unhappy that the SPLC is regarded as an RS as often it is the only source for information on the more obscure right-wing hate groups. This is just a continuation of that, from what I can see. Black Kite (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Self-admission of block evasion

Rachel Zenggggg self-admitted to evading a block in this teahouse diff. "It's my second account, the first account has been blocked permanently."
I will apologize if I'm doing this wrong or if I should've gone to a different noticeboard; this is the first time I've done something like this. I've notified Rachel on her talk page. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 11:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Oop, appears I was too slow - someone already blocked her for sockpuppetry. Thanks @331dot! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 11:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Redux

This is likely User:UNCMS Editor, who is only soft blocked. If so, creating a new account would not be evasion, nor socking.

I also note that there was no block notice placed on UNCMS Editor's talk page, advising them how to proceed. Misread, sorry. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Pigsonthewing: Nuh uh. Worgisbor (congregate) 18:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I also note the advice given in the block notice: "To create a new account with a different username, simply log out of this account and then click here to make a new one." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I've pinged the blocking admin to Rachel's talk page. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Rachel has been unblocked by 331dot. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

78.81.123.235

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 78.81.123.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I explained on their talk page on 19 May that they cannot make any edits related to the Russo-Ukraine war due to WP:RUSUKR. This is the same IP editor as 91.122.22.140 and this address was recently blocked due to persistent violations of the restriction. You can see multiple editors explaining on the talk page there why their edits violated the restriction.

Since I gave them the alert again, they have already violated the restriction multiple times. In this edit, they voted at AfD for Battle of Basivka which is clearly about the war. In this edit, they added a link to North Korean involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Here they left a personal attack at Talk:North Korean–Russian Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. Here they made an edit about the Russian/Ukrainian divisions of Crimea ("Jurisdiction clarified"). This is only after a quick glance at their contributions since 22 May.

At first I thought this was a case of WP:CIR but it is clear now that they simply do not care. Can we get a longer block this time? Thank you. Mellk (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Mellk Thank you for letting me know of ANI at my talk page. Let me explain my edits one by one as mentioned by you.
1.Discussion pages (i.e. Basivka) doesn't seem to be covered by CT.
2.Providing clarifying Wikipedia links for the the articles, AFAIK, doesn't violate the restriction.
3.Jurisdictional clarification update for Crimea considered a CT broadly construed?
4.Should I consider an attack on an obvious troll (one and only edit for an IP user) a personal one? It doesn't about CT in any way
As you brought up my incidents to ANI, obviously, you consider all my understanding above wrong. I've read suggested WP:CIR and would be much more careful from now on, least to say, caring: you impression of my not caring is erroneous. I do care. Thank you 78.81.123.235 (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Do you acknowledge that you previously edited with 91.122.22.140?--Bbb23 (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bbb23Yes, it was the previous IP address assigned by my ISP. 78.81.123.235 (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The previous IP address was blocked due to this edit to Russia–North Korea relations. You now make the extraordinary claim that this edit to the same page does not violate the restriction. Mellk (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

As edit you mentioned was not reverted or removed, my understanding is it was not covered by the ban. I just added wiki links to it without new content whatsoever. 78.81.123.235 (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I think I have said enough times that the restriction applies to all pages. My last suggestion was to not even add a link if it has anything to do with the war, but here we are. Mellk (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Just because an edit you made to a RUSUKR topic article did not get reverted doesn't mean that it isn't covered by the restriction; contentious topics and general sanctions restrictions apply to all edits in the topic area, not just to unconstructive/controversial ones. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Noobcrafting thinks he can enforce his WP:OR by threatening to report

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

First [11] he came with this WP:OR edit saying Any further changes will be considered an edit war, then: Further reversions without consensus may be reported to WP:ANEW as if his edit stood there long time and I'm removing it. Then: according to the rules if you undo the edit for the 3rd time I will be forced to issue you a warning and report which is WP:GAME. Beshogur (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

User has added OR and non-RS's at other flag aritcles e.g. Flag Ff Croatia, [12]. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Note also this is not the first time the user has edit warred over flag colours [13] Multiple reverts without consensus can lead to blocks. Instead, please discuss your changes on the article's talk page per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. Thank you. not per BRD it was on Noobcrafting to gain consensus as it was his Bold edit which was reverted. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I think this editor is doing this in good faith, as over the years they've changed the colors at Flag of Croatia, Flag of the Czech Republic, Flag of Georgia (country) Flag of Honduras, Flag of Jamaica, Flag of Morocco, Flag of Myanmar, Flag of Romania, Flag of Sweden, Flag of Tunisia, Flag of Turkey, and Flag of Vietnam. However, all of these should be checked for the same level of original research by someone who knows what they're doing with regard to flags. Their edit at Talk:Flag of Turkey#Pantone colour to me smacks of wikilawyering BS written up by an LLM (keeping in mind they have a cumulative 148 edits across all Wikipedias and that their subsequent edit abruptly drops the verbosity, formal tone, and perfect grammar). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Breakdown of BRD and potential Holocaust Revisionism at Roman Shukhevych [unarchived]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Roman Shukhevych (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Manyareasexpert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm kind of at a loss of how to proceed. Perhaps there is a better forum for this? I suppose this is a breakdown of the BRD cycle.

I started making some edits to Roman Shukhevych after waiting a long time after a previous contentious discussion with Manyareasexpert. My edits directly cited publicly available sources, with quotes and page numbers often included. [14], [15], [16] Many of my edits have now been jumbled and reverted. I'd normally be okay with trying to resolve this via the BRD cycle, but manyareasexpert's behavior and discussion style has been particularly grating and disruptive.

First, he is repeatedly asking me to read these directly cited sources for him. The talk page is clogged with walls of texts directly from the sources because I am doing his wikipedia homework for him. Almost all of these sources are free to the public. The reason I believe he is not reading the sources is that his objections keep shifting when presented with the text of the source. First, it was that not all "Nationalist Ukrainian diaspora groups, academics, and the Ukrainian government" have minimized, justified, or outright denied Shukhevych's and UPA/OUN's role in the massacres,[17] when it was made clear by reading the sources that I wasn't pulling this from nowhere, [18] manyareasexpert declined to engage productively, instead saying one particular source "does not supports added content," not elaborating on why, and demanding I remove it.[19] He then demands I make the changes needed to align to the sources, and indirectly accuses me of WP:SYNTH. [20] He didn't remove the sources, so he doesn't seem to object to their validity, just the conclusions reached from it. So he just stuck my content near the bottom of the page [21] and restored his preferred wording. He broke citations while doing so. I am not sure how to engage with someone who repeatedly disregards my explanations for my edits.

Secondly, I am deeply concerned he is engaging in Holocaust revisionism. [22] He asked to me to view a uncontested historical fact about the Holocaust (the shooting of Jews by members of Roman's battalion) with skepticism. Additionally, the source he provided for his claims, on page 364, says that the Battalion engaged in killings to on "take revenge on the Jews for the many years of injustices and crimes committed by them against Ukrainians" alleging, on page 363, that "the indisputable fact is that in Ukraine, over the centuries, a significant part of Jews collaborated with the enslavers of the indigenous population" [23] Manyareasexpert goes even further in his interpretation of the source [24], claiming they "had ideological grounds to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews." I sincerely hope this is a lost in translation kind of thing.

In conclusion, I don't know how to engage with this user and need some help figuring out how to engage. isa.p (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, the references for the diffs are messed up. Fixed. isa.p (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I should note that this isn't the first time within the past month that MAE's conduct related to this sort of topic has come up - scroll down here to just above the subsection break and from then on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Socking. The Bushranger One ping only 01:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is all clearly a MAGA inspired witch-hunt to silence my dear friend @Manyareasexpert note that if any action is taken against him all hell will break loose in the form of the mother of all sock puppetry and I will persist until sanity comes back. NotManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Blatant sock. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

It's victimblaming, where the opponent adds WP:OR and blames the opponent for fixing it.

he doesn't seem to object to their validity, just the conclusions reached from it - you should not reach the conclusion, it's WP:OR - On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources.

It's actually the opponent who, responding to a direct request to provide a quote from the source they supplied Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Manyareasexpert-20250402213500-Carlp941-20250402212300 , responds with the wall of text Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Carlp941-20250402231400-Manyareasexpert-20250402213500 from different other sources, combined with WP:PA and accusations of "wikihounding" and one quote from the source in question, which do not support their wording.

It's actually the opponent who provides misleading claims that "The source is plainly saying the Ukrainian government is engaging in whitewashing of the historical narrative" Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Carlp941-20250403175100-Manyareasexpert-20250403162400, which is also factually wrong, given that "Neither Stepan Bandera or the OUN are a symbols of the current Ukrainian government and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is not presenting Bandera or other OUN members as national heroes,[1] preferring to not talk about Bandera.[2]" - Commemoration of Stepan Bandera .

It's the opponent who returns [25] misleading "records show that the Nachtigall Battalion subsequently took part in the mass shootings of Jews near Vinnytsia" , deleting the source which challenges the sentence, and supplying source which do not confirms the sentence, anyway. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

content objections aside, your fellow wikipedia editors are not your "opponents." I am really concerned about your approach to editing if this is how you see it. isa.p (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Seems to be wp:battleground. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The one who disagrees is the opponent, no? anyway, if editors are protesting, will use something different. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a collaborative project. Other editors are not opponents. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

No. Having a disagreement does not make an opponent. We're all here to make an encyclopedia. Why would you think you have a rivalry? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 00:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

In some languages, an opponent is the one who disagrees, not a rival. Anyway, duly noted, will use something different. Now, let's attend more serious issues of original research and misinterpreting or misrepresenting sources and possible PA raised above. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The only personal attack I'm seeing is you accusing them of victimblaming. Insanityclown1 (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you see why it is so hard to engage with you? My warning of wikihounding was interpreted as a personal attack - you pinged me for two discussions on the same page, I was warning you to not continue that behavior.

On your second point, the goal posts have shifted again. Also, citing other articles on Wikipedia to make your point, especially ones you have contributed significantly [26][27][28] to, is poor form. Anywho, the page is about Roman and includes references to sources talking about a nationalist obsfucation of history. It is not about Zelenskyy's policy towards statues of Stepan Bandera and what he alone says about the OUN. You're not even objecting to my sourcing anymore, this is a red herring.

In re: Vinnytsia, I was trying to follow the BRD cycle, but given that the original source was engaging in obscene holocaust revisionism and was not in English, I had to change tack. I used a high quality english source that referenced the same primary document but didn't include a tirade about Jews oppressing Ukrainians. I then restored the original language. I did my best to follow Wikipedia policy. I certainly did not misrepresent the Ukrainian language source when removing it - I quoted it directly in my justification.

Lastly, you have not addressed my concern of Holocaust revisionism, that is troubling. isa.p (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

You don't get to say things like Now, let's attend more serious issues, especially when this thread was started about you. Everybody's conduct involved is open to discussion, yes. But Insanityclown1 is right - the only PA here was by you, and the concerns that arose about your editing in the last ANI you participated in (linked above) are being observed here too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Opponent? Oh dear. GreatCmsrNgubane (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC) Comment by sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, this really might be an issue of English not being their native language. It would probably be helpful if one would give them suggestions for better wording. I think instead of "opponent" something like calling them "the other party" or "the reporting party" would do or just using the username of the person in question (although that might accidentally ping them, which they might not want). Nakonana (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I do not think their English is at a good enough level. See for example this edit. Mellk (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some non-sock-puppet input here.

I'm not hoping for any kind of sanction on MAE, if it can be avoided. If the potential holocaust revisionism can be adequately explained, I think we can work on things. isa.p (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

The fact they seem to have come down with ANI Flu doesn't help. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Since user Manyareasexpert had me tbanned from Eastern Europe on these very articles,[29] I ask the administrators' permission to bring some of his diffs to your attention. Mhorg (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea to relitigate your topic ban here. In my estimation, both of your edits in that TBAN discussion were below standards. Getting back into that seems like a distraction to me, but if admins feel like it is useful thing to look into to observe a pattern of behavior, fine by me.

I have a lot of problems with MAE's editing style, but I was prepared to use a different forum for DR (as I have done in past) until he until he added Holocaust revisionism to the article we were discussing. I want MAE specifically to answer to my question about Holocaust revisionism, and why he seems to have engaged in it multiple times, and why he seems to have come down with ANI flu when directly asked about it. If we work through that, then we can find a way to engage with each other. isa.p (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Socking. The Bushranger One ping only 01:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What nonsense is that, he has not come down with any flu, he just dosen't have the time to be on Wikipedia all day like you. NotManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC) sock.... Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC) Not sure whose, but blatant. Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC) I requested a CU against CmsrNgubane. Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC) You were correct. Blocked half a dozen of their accounts. Girth Summit (blether) 09:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC) Your IP Block failed dismally old man, I'm way too tech savvy for you🤣🤣🤣. 41.144.67.112 (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC) Your block attempts will fail like every other admin before you you may as well just block my entire City 41.144.67.112 (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC) We could continue playing this game forever or we could come to a deal where my original account is unblocked, you should look at the reasons why I was blocked, it was because I opposed manyareasexperts nonsensical contribution to the BRICS article but if you don't want to unblock me then I will continue doing this for many years to come. 41.144.1.188 (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC) I don't think I blocked any IPs, just some accounts. I guess a few IPs might have ended up autoblocked. Anyway, I've now put in place a couple of range blocks that might have an effect, and won't have much collateral - that might be more effective, I guess we'll see. Girth Summit (blether) 16:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• MAE, a regular and prolific editor up until now, suddenly went silent when their conduct was called into question here - since February 1, the longest gap in their editing has been a single day, while as of now it's been 9 minutes short of five days since their last edit. This looks very much like an attempt to avoid scrutiny by playing possum until the thread goes stale. Given the severity of the concerns raised above and that apparent vanishing, I've pblocked them from articlespace until they return and address the concerns here. Once they do adequately, anyone can lift the block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Full disclosure, MAE started an ANI thread against me for "personal attacks" after I told them I do not wish to engage in fascist apologia. Simonm223 (diff) and Rosguill (diff) disagreed with MAE and said that their behaviour could be seen as fascist apologia. But that whole thread is now gone, wtf? ManyAreasExpert tries to hide Nazi links of Ukrainian nationalist organisations: diff thread, diff thread, diff thread.

ManyAreasExpert's MO is clear, they're the JAQ (Just Asking Questions) type of Nazi apologist. I am not surprised that isa.p noticed Holocaust denialism behaviour, as those are usually also the JAQ types. MAE also likes to "question" sources until other editors get so frustrated that they have to copy paste and italicise and bold the relevant sentences because MAE often refuses to see the argument, WP:IDHT.

Other editors have also noticed this behaviour, here is an example.

All in all, this is a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor who displays WP:NOTHERE behaviour in their attempts to WP:POVPUSH. If this was a fringe topic or some cutesy content dispute over numbers of feathers on a bird or something I wouldn't say anything, but because this has to do with whitewashing nazis and their crimes I think it is particularly egregious, per WP:NONAZIS. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you talking about this thread? 128.164.171.24 (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Ping to keep this open awhile longer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  Support making the block permanent unless they return to address the above allegations Andre🚐 05:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  The pblock is already indef until they address them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  It’s possible it’s more of an extreme pro-Ukrainian POV rather than antisemitic/Nazi POV? One can only hope they don’t appreciate what they’re doing Kowal2701 (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. Why would an "antisemitic POV" argue against the censorship of sources criticizing "Gaza Ministry of Health" numbers Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 431#c-Manyareasexpert-20240311111300-Selfstudier-20240311110700 . Or expressing an opinion that Palestine-sourced numbers should be attributed Talk:Gaza war/Archive 34#c-Manyareasexpert-20231206003600-Crampcomes-20231205200100 . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Even if it is "extreme pro-Ukrainian POV", you might still be looking at a topic ban, whether that’s from Jewish history or even Ukraine-related articles. Please address comments admins are about make Kowal2701 (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  The argument that you can't possibly be antisemitic if you criticize Palestinian perspectives is laughably bad, and itself evidence of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude problem. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  I am gobsmacked at this response to my concerns about Holocaust revisionism. You aren't antisemitic because you took a pro-Israel point of view in a content dispute? In addition to not being related to my concern at all, this reeks of a battleground mindset. isa.p (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  If you don’t address the concerns, the indefinite article-space ban will probably stay in place. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Accidentally misplaced. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose CBAN, but though I would support COI-esque restrictions. What I see is preference to use more familiar (and in this case archaic) language, not deliberate whitewashing. JayCubby 13:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC) I assume you meant to post this in the section regarding Davidbena below? - The Bushranger One ping only 21:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC) @JayCubby: The Bushranger One ping only 21:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC) Goodness, yes, I am, @The Bushranger. Thanks a bunch! JayCubby 22:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC) Looks like I already did. JayCubby 22:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC) No worries. We've all been there and done that! - The Bushranger One ping only 22:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Giving this one final ping to keep it open another 72 hours, since MAE has apparently gone on unannounced Wikibreak. If they return after this rolls off ANI, the pblock will remain until they address the concerns that led to this, and their vanishing immediately afterwards. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• I've requested an investigation at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Manyareasexpert . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  You're past three days on the warning above and are trying to shift the conversation elsewhere; please comment here rather than forcing a forum shop in a clear last-ditch attempt to evade scrutiny. Nathannah • 📮 20:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Noting as a passerby: that request has been rejected by Ealdgyth, expressly because of the existence of this discussion, and because MAE's approach to that process was out-of-step with the purpose and procedure of AE. ManyAreasExpert, I'm not familiar with this dispute or the involved articles (beyond having read this thread, and having reviewed the diffs and some of the related discussion), but this looks like a pretty blatant attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP and derail an ongoing behavioural discussion regarding your conduct (that is, this thread). You cannot use the technicality of an AE request (bizarrely filed against yourself) to void or inhibit a developing consensus regarding your activities, regardless of whether that consensus has yet been rendered into a formal closure. This tactic is definitely not going to do anything to improve your standing with regard to this situation, nor the framing of your overall behaviour in the eyes of the community respondents. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• In addition to what Snow Rise said above, it's really interesting that after this complaint was raised and not immediately dismissed, MAE, who had been editing steadily for several months, utterly vanished - only to reappear within the day after this thread was finally (intially) archived from ANI. That's not behavior associated with an editor in good standing with no behavioral concerns. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
  • That said: MAE, you need to respond here to the allegations raised above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Manyareasexpert:
  First, we should attend an overwhelming support (except maybe @Tristario), expressed at ANI for "whitewashing of Nazi crimes" and "Holocaust denial" aspersions.
  Let’s face it: we were discussing subjects engaged in, or connected to, atrocities. The thing is, people (including me) are naturally against atrocities. The reason being, among others, simple survival. The atrocities are bad for people. The atrocities are terrible so much that when people read about something related to, or connected with, atrocities, and they encounter somebody supposedly insisting on not including something "bad" into the article, making the subject a bit "not-that-evil", people feel that their natural rejection of atrocities is endangered. They perceive this editor endangers their rejection of atrocities, is trying to hide atrocities, and is essentially wrong. Regardless of if editor’s arguments are simple denial, or they are based on reliable sources and Wikipedia rules.
  With that, Russia-relater articles are a contentious topic, with personal attacks not allowed (WP:ASPERSIONS - An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe). In related recent arbitration cases, even the editors with serious proof of violation of Wikipedia rules were not treated to similar accusations by the Arbcom. Instead, the editor who made "Holocaust denial" aspersions was investigated and sanctioned. As the arbitrator has said, "it is fine to argue that you think someone is POV-pushing, but implications of Holocaust denialism are very serious and hurtful and should not be made without extremely compelling evidence".
  I call the admins to apply the same or higher standards of investigation to this case as well. No, a talkpage response with the quote from a book by a historian is not "whitewashing of Nazi crimes". No, a call to check if the wiki-article content corresponds to sources is not "Holocaust denial". To argue that "collaboration" and "alliance" are not the same thing, pointing to WP:OR (contested by @Rosguill), is a legitimate discussion and is not "whitewashing of Nazi crimes". The OUN wasn't "nazi"! (although, had some links to).
  With that, I’m not sure if the community can overcome (or even agree with) the issue described in the first paragraphs. There are and there will be editors willing to walk an extra mile and equate "collaboration" to "alliance", "nazi links" to "nazi", and so on, and many, as evident, are against MAE expressing arguments opposing that. As was apparent from ANI requests above, this approach is to prevail, and MAE will remain outcasted. Who would enjoy being called atrocities supporter for their volunteer work, after all. Still, the correct investigation of all the parties should be carried, evidence collected, and correct measures applied.
  MAE's contributions to the topic area should be considered. Most of my edits ( [30] [31] [32] [33] , lead fix, issue raised and fixed by others ) have been accepted within the contesting community of topic area editors. Some, however, are seeing UN reports and academic books getting replaced with WP:RIANOVOSTI banned in Ruwiki, WP:TASS and the like.
  @TurboSuperA+'s usage of accusations to leverage the discussion should be considered. [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] editors reminding the editor to stop accusing other editors. Did you just accuse another editor of protecting pedophiles?
  @Carlp941's previous accusations of "wikihounding" and more which they had to withdraw should be considered. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  This request for an investigation is... bizarre, to put it nicely. My dispute with that editor was resolved amicably, and we shared friendly exchanges after the incident in question. so I'm unsure why this is being drudged up a year later unless the intent is to try to flip the tables on me for asking you to not wikihound. This attempt at starting an investigation into me and others feels like retaliation. It is troubling that in response to being asked to not wikihound, you try to drag me into another forum so you can get your way and have me investigated.

  Instead of attempting to get me and other editors investigated, would you please just answer the questions asked of you? This whole essay does not do that, and is mostly about a bunch of different content disputes. isa.p (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  It is ultimately irrelevant whether the POV motivating the edits was one of deliberate holicaust revisionism, of hard-core pro-Ukraine POV or one motivated by an otherwise good faith total failure to read the room. If you are pushing edits that multiple other editors are calling holocaust revisionism the appropriate course of action is to stop pushing those edits and do a bit of reflection. Simonm223 (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• @Manyareasexpert:, please directly address the concerns raised in this thread above. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes. @Manyareasexpert, I am not deeply involved in this, however I think perhaps it would probably be helpful if you considered the critiques and concerns people have raised and then perhaps described how you could take steps to ameliorate their concerns and and edit in a more collaborative, productive, non-combative manner with other editors. I do think there is a bit of miscommunication going on here in general and some WP:AGF would go a long way, too. Tristario (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  He might be trying to counter Russian propaganda which portrays Ukrainians as modern-day Nazis? (Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Allegations of Nazism) Kowal2701 (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  I tend to be a WP:YESRGW kind of editor but their behavior is not helping them. I am open to this being a misunderstanding, but MAE has now attempted to have me investigated after refusing to address any of my concerns. I believe I have done my best to demonstrate my good faith, I'd appreciate MAE doing the same. isa.p (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  And as I noted above, the timing of their vanishing act, combined with once they returned throwing out...this as their response, raises more red flags than a parade in Red Square. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. The core issue is "Holocaust denial" accusations [39] . No, a call to check if the wiki-article content corresponds to the source is not "Holocaust denial". The source was in the article before for who knows how many years, and I fixed the sentence per source [40] . I may agree now that saying As historian Ivan Patryliak writes, Nachtigall fighters had ideological grounds to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews may be perceived as some justification "to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews". However it may also be viewed in a way that Nachtigall fighters' ideological grounds were that bad that it (grounds) justified atrocities, and that's how I understood Patryliak, and that's why it was included in my edit, initially. Not being "antisemitic" or "nazi supporter", I would expect this either to be fixed, removed, or discussed in a civilized matter, if the misunderstanding would arise (as it probably was). The edit was removed after ([41]), and the content not corresponding to the source was returned. I fixed the undisputed part per source after ([42]) . (Edit: Carlp941 actually removed Patrylak, returned previous content, and inserted another source, with me fixing the content after per new source, with the content corresponding to now-removed Patrylak as well). Later, the whole sentence was removed [43] because it's not about the article subject, and I agree with it.

  Now, an editor may express an opinion that Iwan Patrylak is "Holocaust denialist". Or, maybe saying that Iwan Patrylak, a living person, is "Holocaust denialist", without evidence, is WP:BLP violation? I see nothing about Iwan Patrylak being "denialist" in the article about him. But maybe the party raising the issue will support their opinion with some sources, who knows. Anyway, this opinion can be discussed in talk, in civilized manner, and the wiki-editor should not be accused of "Holocaust denialism" because he fixed the article per source which was already there for who knows how long.

  No, opening separate discussions on different topics is not "wikihounding" (Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Carlp941-20250402231400-Manyareasexpert-20250402213500).

  With that, serious accusations require serious evidence. How would you feel been falsely accused of supporting atrocities, coming to ANI for protection, getting more punches instead, and getting accused by admin of "personal attacks" in response to a request to investigate misbehavior supplied with evidence . I'm effectively been kicked out.

  What other questions need to be answered? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Coming to ANI for protection You didn't open this thread. It was opened about you by Carlp941. And accusing another editor of victimblaming is, in fact, a personal attack. Also I still don't see any explanation of your absence during the time this thread was up previously, and how you just happened to return within 12 hours of it being archived. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  The explanation is there. How would you feel been falsely accused of supporting atrocities, coming to ANI for protection, getting more punches instead, and getting accused by admin of "personal attacks" in response to a request to investigate misbehavior supplied with evidence. I'm effectively been kicked out. Thank you. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  In my view, this is not a good justification. I empathize with being frustrated, but a three week disappearance followed by demanding an investigation into multiple editors... isa.p (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  Might get better results if you weren't effectively trying to gaslight people involved on this thread. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Manyareasexpert Another issue that some editors have expressed concern with is a combative attitude. Perhaps you could outline some areas where you may have gone wrong there, if you believe you did, and where you could do better in the future? Tristario (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  concern with is a combative attitude
  I heard that. I would appreciate some examples of that, and how the communication could be done better. I need to learn a better more diplomatic approach. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Manyareasexpert You should consider some of the issues people have raised, such as: the use of the term "victimblaming", "opponent", acknowledge that you brought up issues unrelated to the issues at hand, making dealing with the present issues raised more difficult and confusing, and acknowledge and apologize for your extended absence.

  Some behavior of other parties is also not great, however it's important not to get into the mindset of letting that justify substandard behavior in yourself. In general, if someone may have a different understanding of a source, to acknowledge where they might be getting their interpretation from, and then explain in more detail what your interpretation of the source is, and then maybe suggest some kind of compromise. It's good to actively try to seek common ground with other editors, rather than, for instance, just stating something isn't in a source without further explanation.

  There's also been a fair bit of miscommunication going on, more than people may realize (this is partially related to your level of ability in english). So you want to be careful about trying to make sure you're well understood, thinking about how you or others might be taking things differently - if there's a misunderstanding, you want to actively try to figure it out and explain it.

  I hope you appreciate this advice. Like, I said, I think outlining where the way you've done things hasn't been great, and how you can do better in the future, would be a good idea. Tristario (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  the use of the term "victimblaming", "opponent"
  Thank you, I appreciate the feedback and will not use these

  acknowledge and apologize for your extended absence
  That would confirm I went "lurking" with some evil intentions to introduce disruptive edits into Wiki articles, which is not the case. Very serious accusations of "evil behavior", supported by the community, really curb the motivation for volunteer work.

  if someone may have a different understanding of a source, to acknowledge where they might be getting their interpretation from, and then explain in more detail what your interpretation of the source is, and then maybe suggest some kind of compromise. It's good to actively try to seek common ground with other editors, rather than, for instance, just stating something isn't in a source without further explanation
  Thank you for the advice. Will do that, and will look for the 3rd party feedback more often.

  So you want to be careful about trying to make sure you're well understood, thinking about how you or others might be taking things differently - if there's a misunderstanding, you want to actively try to figure it out and explain it
  Thank you, will look for the 3rd party feedback more often. I will also look for a mentor to work contested edits and discussions with them and to help my discussion be more diplomatic online. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  Re vanishing, see WP:ANIFLU, it’s pretty common for people to avoid editing Wikipedia when there’s an ANI case open against them, hoping it passes and gets archived Kowal2701 (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  Looks like my responses here are working against me. So the case could be very well concluded without them.

  And even with the case archived, would you be called an atrocities supporter, get this designation supported by the community, and return back to the topic? I don't know where would I get such a motivation. The correct approach is to step out if your edits are not appreciated, regardless if you are thinking you are right. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  I will get into the content later in this, but repeatedly accusing me of victimblaming is crossing a line. Please stop the personal attacks on my character. I have not requested any sanctions on you - I certainly have not victimized you. Your current block is the result of an admin observing your behavior and subsequent disappearance when you were directly asked about said behavior.

  I get that no one likes being accused of wikihounding, but my firm warning does not warrant your fixation. You should note that my initial post does not include an accusation of wikihounding. Yet, you think it necessary to include it here, in the reply above, and in your bizarre request for an investigation. You drudged up a long forgiven dispute to discredit an accusation I did not make here. Pardon the continued dog analogies, but maybe a hit dog is hollering. You'd help your case a lot if you stopped focusing on wikihounding and stopped opening new venues of discussion to dispute it.

  A lot of your post is just trying to rewrite the history of our dispute in your favor, so I am going to press onto the core of the dispute, which is this sentence:

  However it may also be viewed in a way that Nachtigall fighters' ideological grounds were that bad that it (grounds) justified atrocities, and that's how I understood Patryliak, and that's why it was included in my edit, initially.

  What does this actually mean? I keep rereading this sentence, and I have no idea what you are trying to say. Nachtigall had bad ideology and it justified atrocities? Or that they had bad reasons grounding their murders? This sentence is incredibly unclear.

  Your edit, on the other hand, was crystal clear - OUN had "ideological grounds to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews." The source had an extended diatribe about how Jews allegedly victimized Ukrainians, and how their murders were justified as revenge against enslavers. That is ahistorical Holocaust Revisionism, it has no business on Wikipedia. Troublingly, you have not addressed this, and instead allege that I am slandering someone. I made no comment on the historian's motives and I made no edits to his page, so in my view, BLP does not apply. Someone would have to dig into the edit history of a parituclarly obscure article to find out that one of his works engages in Holocaust Revisionism.

  Do you think this work did not engage in Holocaust Revisionism? Why did you deflect here? Why did you ask me to view the shooting of Jews with skepticism? isa.p (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  This is valid discussion for a talk page and editors should be allowed to discuss it, without accusations of "Holocaust revisionism". I've already agreed with the questioned content removed.

  Why did you ask me to view the shooting of Jews with skepticism?
  No, I asked [44] to check if the article contend corresponds to sources provided. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  Not being "antisemitic" or "nazi supporter", I would expect this either to be fixed, removed, or discussed in a civilized matter, if the misunderstanding would arise (as it probably was).
  

  It's not just the Roman Shukhevych page. On a lot of articles on Ukrainian neo-Nazis (sorry, ultranationalist, far-right people and groups aligned with Nazi Germany or linked to Nazi ideology), you are there questioning sources or introducing sources that whitewash their Nazi connections:

• Here you question if "Massacres of..." is an appropriate category for Stepan Bandera and suggest he wasn't aware of the atrocities committed by the OUN-B. On the same talk page you say a person isn't an expert and then question the reliability of Le Monde. Another editor questions your motivations: if your claim is that Stepan Bandera was not Nazi collaborator, it is hardly tenable, as it was discussed here zillions of times.
• Here you introduce a source that argues that "Slava Ukraini" is not a neo-Nazi salute "imbued with a new meaning, free of the original claims to ethno-national superiority and exclusivity" while at the same time arguing to remove statements that connect the salute with its fascist roots.
• Here you argue for the removal of "ethnic nationalism" ideology descriptor from the Svoboda (political party).
• Here you remove a Newsweek source titled "Ukrainian Nationalist Volunteers Committing 'ISIS-Style' War Crimes" citing WP:NEWSWEEK as a reason to remove it, ignoring that it actually says "so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis."
• Here you argue for removing Nazi Germany as an ally of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army.
• Here you start a discussion on the reliability of sources regarding the "controversies" of the 3rd Assault Brigade and when editors try to meet you half-way and address your concerns all you can say is "Perhaps...".

And on and on...

Your defense against allegations against you is to dig up previous disputes I and others have had with other editors and suggest that we're the problem and that we simply throw accusations around without good reason. This leads me to believe that you actually see nothing wrong with your behaviour and think that everyone else is the problem.

Based on the evidence I laid out above, I think you are here on Wikipedia to whitewash far-right, ultranationalist, fascist (take your pick) people and groups, to remove information that links them to Nazi Germany and (neo-)Nazi ideology. For that reason you should receive a TBAN from any area where you might continue these efforts. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Here you question if "Massacres of..." is an appropriate category for Stepan Bandera and suggest he wasn't aware of the atrocities committed by the OUN-B
... and then I add that ... being well informed about the violence, was however "unable or unwilling to instruct Ukrainian nationalist military troops (as Nachtigall, Roland and UPA) to protect vulnerable minorities under their control". As German historian Olaf Glöckner writes, Bandera "failed to manage this problem (ethnic and anti-Semitic hatred) inside his forces... [45] sourced to academic book.

On the same talk page you say a person isn't an expert
No, you need to reference the actual thread Talk:Stepan Bandera/Archive 4#Maryna Shevtsova not an expert .

and then question the reliability of Le Monde
No, you need to reference the actual thread Talk:Stepan Bandera/Archive 4#Le Monde an unreliable source .

Here you argue for the removal of "ethnic nationalism" ideology descriptor from the Svoboda (political party)
... and then I replace sources containing no such designation with the actual academic source [46] containing such designation. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• I second this. You vanished for three weeks, right after this thread opened and only came back when it was about to close @Manyareasexpert. This has become an issue on its own which needs to be addressed. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  I have read through again and see you have responded to them. I sympathize with your feeling of frustration but do not see quitting for three weeks without word, then only addressing the point after being pressed multiple times, as an appropriate response. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  It took me reading through this four times to figure out that this was supposed to be the explanation for their dissapearance, because it doesn't pass the smell test at all. Even with, as Hetman observed, it being a...odd response if true, it also doesn't make sense that they would completely stop editing so abruptly, and then return within twelve hours (looking at the history, it was seven and a half hours) after the thread was archived. That isn't the action of somebody who is blameless and was demoralised, that's the action of somebody who thought they could play possum until the problem went away, and on returning realised the pblock was preventing them from editing until they addressed it. (Also, again: you weren't getting accused by admin of "personal attacks". You made a personal attack and were called out for it.) And even if completely true, it doesn't change the fact that their response to the issue above is...let's go with "wanting". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  ... one of edits I would like to bring attention to is [47] , where the editor removes content referenced with UN, EU Council, ECHR reports, academic books, academic articles, instead adding WP:TASS, unknown "civic-nation.org" , WP:RIANOVOSTI and such, under the description of "sockpuppet account". How can I politely note that such an edit is not an improvement? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note that as MAE has returned and is engaging with the issue, I have lifted the pblock from articlespace. I'd suggest they hold off on editing the topics suggested in the tban discussion below until it is resolved. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic Ban

This has been going on for some weeks now, and the current one vs. the world contest of wills does not seem to me to be accomplishing much at this juncture. There seems to be clear (indeed, pretty uniform, outside of ManyAreasExpert themselves) consensus that there are colourable concerns about MAE's ability to contribute productively and neutrally to areas regarding the holocaust, Nazism, and related topics of far-right extremism.

These issues may very well have been resolvable short of a sanction, with proper discussion and engagement with community concerns, but I believe there is also an extremely clear consensus that MAE has themself consistently thwarted those avenues for resolution through an WP:IDHT attitude towards the concerns raised, compounded by efforts to evade scrutiny through abuse of process. Therefore, to bring this discussion around towards some sort of useful outcome rather than the unfocused castigation it is presently trending towards, I propose the following sanction:

ManyAreasExpert is topic banned from engagement with the subjects of the Holocaust, Nazism, Eastern European political organizations post-1941, and Jewish history, broadly construed

SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: per consensus by all respondents up until this point, up to and including Kowal2701's !vote, the original proposal has been amended to refine its focus. Additions appear in green. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support We've seen similar problems from ManyAreasExpert before and their responses here make it seem likely we will have similar problems in the future unless action is taken. A topic ban on these topics seems a reasonable preventative measure. Simonm223 (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• concerns about MAE's ability to contribute productively and neutrally to areas regarding the holocaust, Nazism, and related topics of far-right extremism
  Editors should consider that most of my edits (Stepan Bandera [48] [49] [50] [51] , lead fix, issue raised and fixed by others , Azov Brigade [52] [53] [54] ) have been accepted within the contesting community of topic area editors. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

MAE, for purposes of explaining the thinking behind this proposal, I'll just assume that you're correct about the assertion that most of your edits in this area are regarded as non-controversial and non-problematic by other editors of the related articles. I don't know that that is actually true, and I'm pretty sure the respondents here would not agree, but for the sake of argument let's take that truism. I believe that even if that concession were granted, consensus would still be that your tooth-and-nail approach concerning the remaining edits constitutes such a source of disruption and drain on community time and manpower (much of it from how you approach the criticisms raised and those who raise them) that allowing you to contribute in this area would still be a clear net negative. I don't think these issues can just be set aside because you are convinced your overall performance average is decent. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for explanation, which is actually quite friendly.
tooth-and-nail approach concerning the remaining edits
Had to look it up, it means "fierce fighting". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you MAE; I'm very gratified to hear that the observation was taken in the spirit it was intended. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Support TBAN - holocaust denial and revisionism is a huge red flag for community, and the lack of real apology and willingness to address shortcomings in this thread sealed the deal. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Support TBAN although I'm not entirely sure about the proposed scope. "Modern European political organizations" is vague, with differing definitions of when modernity starts (and/or ends). Most of the problems on display also seem to narrowly concern Ukrainian history, or more broadly Eastern European history, rather than "European political organizations" writ large. On the other hand, I'm concerned about the battleground attitude towards the Arab-Israeli conflict expressed in this thread, and would thus want to consider a Jewish history scope as part of the proposal. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I considered multiple variants of that last entry, as narrow as "Modern far-right European political organizations" and as broad as "modern political organizations". I believe the "broadly construed" probably removes any real concerns about the "when does the modern era start?" insofar as any broad definition of the modern era includes the entire period in which the Nazi party was created and rose to prominence (the 1920s and 30s) and thereafter. But I admit that leaves reasonable concerns about the scope. Having seen a lot of TBAN discussions, including those arising from editors playing at the edges of their ban, I felt it was best to prevent temptation by circumscribing all topic matter that might be reasonably connected to direct influence by Nazi ideology, and went as broad as I could without completely shutting MAE out of socio-political topics, which would be too broad in my opinion.

All that said, I have absolutely no issues with anyone re-defining the focus of the proposal if there is even basic consensus for it. It should be changed sooner, rather than later, if it is to be changed, so as not to frustrate any eventual closure. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN with the wording of ManyAreasExpert is topic banned from engagement with the subjects of the Holocaust, Nazism, Eastern European political organizations post-1941, and Jewish history broadly construed per Rosguill. @Rosguill: does the clarification regarding the history topic work for you? <s>{{ping|Snow Rise|</s> @Simonm223: @Bluethricecreamman: does this tweak look alright to you?. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  • @Snow Rise:. Curse you typo'd pings. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

    works for me. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

    Yes this is fine as a refinement of the proposed ban. Simonm223 (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

    I was uninvolved in the previous discussions, but as other editors have pointed out, restricting this to Eastern European political organizations post-1941 misses a big chunk of potentially problematic history. In the discussions mentioned above a prominent role is played by debates rergarding the Nazi ties of the OUN. One of our sources for that article, Per Anders Rudling's "The Cult of Roman Shukhevych in Ukraine: Myth Making with Complications", describes the group thus: Founded in 1929, the OUN was the largest and most important Ukrainian far-right organization. Explicitly totalitarian, the movement embraced the Führerprinzip, a cult of political violence, racism, and an aggressive anti-Semitism. It sought the establishment of Ukrainian statehood at any price, and utilized assassination as legitimate means to this end. A typical fascist movement, the OUN cultivated close relations with Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, the Spanish Falange, and the Croatian Ustaše. A footnote adds that Melnyk assured, in a May 2, 1939 letter to Joachim von Ribbentrop that his organization shared the Weltanschaaung [sic] of the National Socialists and Fascists, and offered to help in the ‘reorganization’ of Eastern Europe. In other words, not only did this organisation exist before 1941, but so did its racism and its ties (political and/or ideological) to Nazism, which are the core issue. With this in mind, the proposed cut-off year sounds both artificial and inadequate. Furthermore, from a more practical standpoint, this excessive tailoring of the TBAN could easily lead to future arguments over what exactly falls into the ban or how broad "broadly construed" really is, leading to more heat when what is intended is to lower the temperature, if only slightly, of a perennially hot topic. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

    I don't know if it is appropriate for me to weigh in on potential sanctions, if it's not I'll strike this. But, I agree with this. I don't think the cut off year is clarifying, and I am not sure if OUN would qualify under the TBAN proposed. isa.p (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

    So, I also don't think the 'post-1941' was the best amendment to the wording (without meaning to criticize, I'd speculate that it was proposed and gained consensus because this date is central to a number of previous CTOP designations connected to global political history, and I think the familiarity brought it into the formula). That said, between the fact that the 'post-1941' is attached only to the one noun phrase of the proposed TBAN, and another noun listed is 'Nazism' as a proscribed topic without any qualifiers (so Nazism of any era or locality), enhanced by the "broadly construed", I think we're alright. If the proposal passes and MAE attempts to skirt the edges by contributing to articles about pre-1941 organizations with even tenuous links to Nazism, I do not believe the community would give a free pass on try to leverage technicalities to keep engaged on these topics. Rather I think the response, considering the tone of the consensus already established here, would be quite severe. Perhaps I should have pushed back a little stronger against the 1941 date on the day of the proposal, but we're at a point now where we're right on the bubble for whether the proposal will pass as is. Rewording at this point would probably result in this discussion being archived without action. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

    Okay that makes sense. Under that logic and those assumptions, I agree, the current proposal has my support. No point in prolonging this. isa.p (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

    Yes, this is more to do with Ukrainian history and I am not sure the proposed scope is sufficient. Mellk (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think that works, although there is a far amount of redundancy among those topics. "Jewish history and Nazism" nominally covers all of it, although I know that sometimes we include extra prescriptions in order to preempt lawyering over gray areas. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think that's a workable solution, though it is worth noting that Nazi ideology was influencing central and eastern European groups (in Austria, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, for example) well before 1941. Still, those topics are probably covered by the rest of the wording? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  Eastern European political organizations post-1941
  That means TB on Russia, Ukraine and related political parties and so on. A state is a political organization as well, right? Would editors please be so kind and post some disruptive diffs in the area so we can see the specifics. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBan with Bushranger's edits. I agree there's some redundancy in the proposed TBan range, but, other than for esthetics, I don't see any reason to fix that, and fixing while preventing loopholes may make the definition of the ban even longer. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN as Bushranger's proposal. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN Reading this whole thread it seems clear that MAE's perspective on Ukrainian nationalism and the Nazis is, at best, heavily skewed, and that they are unable or unwilling to change that. Therefore a ban from editing on the topic seems necessary.--Tulzscha (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• Ping to avoid archiving, and request a close. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Further anti-archiving ping while awaiting closure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

    Anti-archiving ping of the day, could we please get a closure? Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarifying question to participants

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So, this was closed invalidly. @Industrial Insect: For future reference, only admins can impose community sanctions, even when consensus is clear.

I was going to reclose this, but, as is being discussed on my usertalk, it is not at all clear what "political organizations" means. That is a vague enough phrase I am not comfortable enacting a TBAN from it, and would not be comfortable enforcing a TBAN made by someone else. So I have a question specifically for people who participated above. When you said "political organizations", did you mean

#	Answer	Clarified scope I would close with
A	Any sort of group that organizes for a political cause, excluding political parties	Organized political movements in Eastern Europe since 1941, excluding political parties
B	Any sort of group that organizes for a political cause, including political parties but not these groups' members	Organized political movements and parties in Eastern Europe since 1941, not extending to edits about individual members unless the edit concerns their membership in such an organization
C	Any sort of group that organizes for a political cause, including political parties and these groups' members	Politics in Eastern Europe since 1941
D	Literally anything that is political in nature and organized, which includes both the above and, among other things, any kind of governmental unit	Eastern Europe since 1941
E	Honestly, Tamzin, I'm not sure what I meant	No sanction; others are still imposed

Pinging @Snow Rise, Simonm223, Bluethricecreamman, Rosguill, The Bushranger, Ostalgia, Rsjaffe, Kowal2701, and Tulzscha. No need to re-!vote on the TBAN or anything. There is clear consensus for a TBAN; the only thing unclear is exactly what y'all meant by this ambiguous phrase. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

My intention was along the lines of C, although both my intent and my reading of the wording of your proposed C text is that this also encompasses governments and their activities. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

So, given the nature of the concerns raised and what I perceived to be the consensus of that discussion, I believe that the scope of this element of the ban should be as close to all-encompassing as possible, without otherwise frustrating the wording or intent of the overall language. So I would say that the summarizing answer in row D is as close to representing what I perceived the intent of the sanction (and the consensus therefore) to be. But I will also say that I personally would probably render that with the wording of row C, as I think the wording in row D would lead to a subject matter ban that is broader than intended. So use your discretion in interpreting those two slightly at odds responses in weighting my portion of the input into the final wording. Sorry to complicate the response; I do like what you did here to make sure feedback catches these nuances. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

My reasoning for that being the scope if the answer is D is that it's basically impossible to write about an area without even mentioning the polities in it. Often the first word after "is a(n)" in a Wikipedia article is a demonym for a polity. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd say C is closest to what I was envisioning at the time: it covers all the areas affected by MAE's problematic edits (that aren't covered by the other conditions of the tban), without (in my opinion) being overly broad and preventing them from editing in less problematic areas. Tulzscha (talk)

C was my intent. D, while attractive in that it is the clearest, is overly broad. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I meant C. I prefer a relatively broad scope here. Simonm223 (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Assuming military and paramilitary groups are considered political of course. As they should be included in the ban. Simonm223 (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

...I don't read that as prohibiting non-administrators from closing sanction disucssions. It says, an uninvolved administrator closes the discussion, but doesn't say non-adminstrators may not. If that's the intended interpretation, the wording there should be clarified to reflect such. Regardless, I read the intent as B, but if we're re-closing three weeks later wouldn't oppose C. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I read it as requiring an admin to close if applying a sanction: If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator closes the discussion, notifies the subject accordingly, and enacts any blocks called for. That's prescriptive language: don't see a need for further wording. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.