Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1186

TairaMasakado108 (talk · contribs)

Noticed a brow-raising edit of theirs while patrolling new changes[1] with a misleading edit summary of"Cosmetic change, relevance." Upon reviewing their other edits a pattern emerged: vague or outright misleading edit summaries attached to edits which are plainly contentious, many unsourced, while failing to maintain neutrality.

The following quotes are some of the edit summaries and also serve as links to their respective edits:

• "Minor edits improving grammar, punctuation and flow."^(here) - non-neutral, changed internal links (ie. communism -> anti-communism), added inappropriate internal link which effectively results in editorializing (linking "White, Christian" to Christian persecution complex)
• "Updated relevant information, added punctuation."^(here) - large edit, non-neutral, removed sourced quotes, softened language ("among other factors", and up to 5 million died), changed meaning (occasionalmore frequent), all in what seems to be an effort to soften the severity of the presented information
• "Updated relevant information, removed unsourced claims."^(here) - non-neutral, removed many sourced claims
• "Updated relevant information."^(here) - non-neutral, dramatically changed meaning in text without changing sources
• "Minor edits improving grammar, punctuation and flow."^(here) - non-neutral, makes editorial content changes

and[2] not[3] just.[4] (edited 08:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC) to more clearly indicate preexisting diff links, no new content added)

Upon seeing this I left a warning and began working to undo some of the more egregious edits, with this edit to Kebra Nagast being amongst them. Described in the summary as"Brief minor edit for clarity.", I reverted it here with a rationale of"was not a "Brief minor edit for clarity.", is a substantive content change that makes authoritative claims that may be WP:OR."

User:TairaMasakado108 responded by undoing the revert, leaving a personal attack in their edit summary of"Re-applied previous edit, with reason: Previous editor has been targeting certain pages and users and undoing edits with implicit political biases. (Vandalism, bias?) Nature of edit is expanding upon introductory paragraph with one sourced from further below; the repetition of text on Wikipedia is a frequent occurrence and has not been criticized previously. Edit is necessary for thoroughness and clarity. Further edits should only be made by an expert on the subject."^{(emphasis mine)} and left a similar reply to the warning here.

This user appears to want to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and will make subtle, unsourced changes behind vague or misleading edit summaries to do so. And when this behavior was confronted in a most minor way, has resorted to personal attacks in the form of accusations of bias and vandalism. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

It appears that User:fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four is not only misrepresenting the nature and intent of my edits but is projecting their own knee-jerk reactionary biases in the process. The alleged "misleading summaries" are nothing more than standard editorial language, admittedly a bit lazily or hastily written, but which is otherwise commonly used across thousands of Wikipedia pages to indicate superficial or structural changes. In cases where more substantive adjustments were made, they were done transparently and, in many cases, with contextual relevance to the page in question.

Let us be clear: Wikipedia is not a refuge for ideological gatekeeping masquerading as "neutrality." The platform's policies on neutrality, sourcing, and relevance are routinely applied with double standards, particularly by the ideologically driven or less-informed. My edits—particularly those that challenge or re-contextualize historically loaded language—are well within the scope of critical historiography. Wikipedia's guideline WP:UNDUE explicitly allows for such contextualization, especially when dominant narratives erase or minimize counter-histories.

Furthermore, the reversion of the Kebra Nagast edit demonstrates a lack of subject-matter familiarity. The clarification I provided was not WP:OR, as the content referenced was directly sourced from the article itself—merely relocated for clarity and coherence. The charge of "authoritative claims" is disingenuous when those claims are directly lifted from verifiable sources already present in the article.

As for the accusation of a “personal attack,” it is not an attack to identify bias when it is evident. When an editor persistently targets contributions that provide necessary context or framing, while invoking dog-whistle terms like "contentious" or "editorializing," it becomes necessary to call attention to their pattern of behavior. This is not a personal issue—it is a matter of editorial integrity.

Lastly, the label of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is a tired rhetorical cudgel used to dismiss legitimate re-contextualization of historical or ideological narratives. The notion that restoring ideological balance or exposing implicit dogma is somehow against policy is absurd—unless, of course, the policy is being selectively interpreted to defend a personal viewpoint, as is the case with this user.

If there are concerns about particular edits, let them be discussed civilly and with credible reference to actual policy—not ad hominem smears and covert ideological policing. Further, if one is going to so poorly attempt to weaponize established rules, at least reference them correctly. TairaMasakado108 (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Horse manure alert. EEng 08:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The notion that restoring ideological balance or exposing implicit dogma is somehow against policy is absurd Except it is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a place torestore ideological balance orexpose implicit dogma. And the rest of your statement above is...I don't even know where to start. It could be a textbook example of "attempting to use policy to defend WP:CPUSHing by beating someone up with big words". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I cannot look beyond the fact that this edit characterised asMinor edits improving grammar, punctuation and flow does not, in fact, change grammar, punctuation or flow, but rather consists entirely of surreptitiously changing links to articles (in fact pointing to articles about the exact opposite topic!) or introducing new links altogether. The first diff provided by UP also describes a covert change of the underlying link from anti-communism to anti-fascism asCosmetic change, relevance. This is clear dishonest editing, and the fact that rather than own up to it you decide to claim thatalleged "misleading summaries" are nothing more than standard editorial language [...] to indicate superficial or structural changes indicates that you do not see anything wrong with it. The rest of your message can be safely flushed down the toilet, because there is no policy excusing dishonesty if the cause is believed to be rightful enough. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Just in case it was missed, changing the text to call Falun Gong a homophobic, racist cult in this edit seems especially bad Kaotac (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

For repeatedly making personal attacks, engaging in advocacy within article space, and using deceptive edit summaries – as well as showing a lack of interest in ceasing such disruptive editing – I propose that TairaMasakado108 be indefinitely blocked. — Newslinger talk 10:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I was actually about to indef them when I saw this. Do we need a full discussion for a fairly obvious case? Black Kite (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Black Kite I'm pretty sure I've seen someone get blocked mid-discussion as an uninvolved administrative action. It'd be a regular indef, not a CBAN, but that would still stop the disruption. I agree that a discretionary admin action is entirely appropriate. Just be brace for a flood of endorse block comments.^[Joke] EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Flush 'em. Absolute drain and not worth it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support indef. I was unsure that ANI would be a good first measure, so I erred on the side of temperance by posting a warning with examples and making descriptive, selective reverts.^{(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)} This response convinced me that this was an appropriate venue. And their subsequent doubling down and, in my view, continued dishonest characterization of both their and my edits at this ANI indicate that they have no current desire to help build an encyclopedia. If my vote here as as an involved editor is poor form then I apologize and will happily strike this. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  It's not poor form, not to worry. Ravenswing 18:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  It's much more the norm than the exception that an ANI discussion's OP would !vote in any resulting sanction proposals. A closer would be expected to weight the perspectives of any involved parties accordingly in assessing any resulting consensus on sanctions, but I don't think this is going to be a particularly close result. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support - I would have opposed initially for something milder, but how this editor has acted when being called out on these serious issues makes it clear to me that this is an editor who cannot be trusted to participate in a collaborative project with people they disagree with, at least at this point. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support Repeatedly writing false edit summaries is reprehensible. Doubling down on the falsehoods when called out is mind-boggling. Their underlying editing philosophy is incompatible with Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support: I would have phrased my POV pretty much as Cullen328 did. The very phrase "legitimate re-contextualization of historical or ideological narratives" stuck in my teeth; TairaMasakado108 can go "recontextualize" narratives on some other soapbox. Ravenswing 18:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I don't know that I've ever supported a full CBAN in an ANI discussion so quickly, but it is clearly necessary to arrest blatant disruption and leveraging of content to voice this user's ideological grievances--some of which changes are so sarcastically framed, it can't accurately be considered anything other than clear vandalism. Further, the obviously intentional misdirection in their edit summaries and their general approach is so pervasive and duplicitous (and their reaction to being caught out so aggressive, with their resulting WP:aspersions also showing clear efforts at manipulation), that it is hard to know whether this is a case of profound self-rationalization or if this whole account is just one large troll. What's more, this user's understanding of our policies and norms is far too deep to believe the small handful of edits on this account represent their entire history of engagement with the project, leaving the distinct possibility that this is an LTA back under a new sock account. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, but I would note that it is possible for a person with few edits to know and understand policies and norms, I understand a lot just by hanging around AN/I, AN and just reading any WP: links I come across whilst there or any new ones that I see in places. Just wanted to point that out. Fun Chaos (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree that is theoretically a possibility, which is why I framed my suspicions as I did ("leaves the distinct possibility that" vs."demonstrates that" or something along those lines). Mind you, from the entirety of the circumstances here--the behaviour, the rhetoric and other indicators I'm not going to voice for WP:BEANS reasons--I'd personally bet dollars to doughnuts that this is not this user's first time engaging disruptively on this project.

  But it's also the least essential part of the assessment of the current issues. Whether this user is an LTA or a completely new user, I just don't see where there is any other option but to CBAN in this instance: the conduct in question is so severe, obviously intentional, and irreconcilable with the most basic of content and behavioural policies. And the only response given to concerns about said conduct basically boils down to an effort to gaslight the community through a clumsy attempt to smear the OP, apparently hoping a word salad of community verbiage will cover for the fact that all of their claims are easily falsifiable. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support As per Snow Rise, it's pretty fast, but those edits and the defense here are so far beyond the pale that I don't see any other good options. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support - POV-pushing is one thing. POV-pushing while deliberately lying about it in edit summaries is an order of magnitude worse. Doing all of that and then responding to an AN/I thread against you with the rhetorical equivalent of "no u" is either too foolish to be allowed to remain editing or too audacious to be able to work on a collaborative project. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support indef per above, especially Cullen328 and Snow Rise. This is a NOTHERE and clear cut POV pushing. — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Lucas J. Goodwin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User persists in adding unsourced content, ignoring any warnings and continuing with what on his userpage he considers "upgrades". See for example this addition of unsourced hieroglyphic names, and this and this apparent fixation in adding unsourced birth and death dates. Every attempt at communication on his talk page has been ignored, as users Ifly6 and Ermenrich can also confirm. Lone-078 (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry Lucas J. Goodwin (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Lucas, could you speak more on the underlying issues? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I would also like to raise the possibility that this is a sockpuppet of Edgenut who similarly engaged in fictitious birth and death date (and location) insertions mostly in infoboxes on ancient Rome, ancient Egypt, and artefacts therefrom. The behaviours are consistent. Ifly6 (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

The recent series of mass edits to Egyptian and Kushite monarchs also inserts a pile of hieroglyphs which are also unsourced. I don't know anything on the topic so can't comment on their veracity but sources need to be provided for obscure facts of this type. If they are wrong or made up (see eg similar instances on low-viewership Wikipedias and pages: most of the articles in the Scots Wikipedia aren't in Scots; over 200 hoaxes on the Chinese Wikipedia) this would be indistinguishable from mass vandalism. Ifly6 (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I think Ifly6 is right. Compare this edit of Rantieres (a confirmed sock of Edgenut): it is hardly distinguishable from Lucas' edits. Lone-078 (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry, see here. Lone-078 (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Malin the railfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is WP:NOTHERE.

Moved a few Australian locomotive articles which I reverted due to breaking usual convention of naming after its original owner or original builder. I then informed them of WP:CONSENSUS and the need to discuss on the talk page (Special:Diff/1288027196). They replied, calling me a bitch, of which I informed them of WP:NPA. They have made another personal attack after this and threatening to ban other editors somehow, and continued to move pages without discussion. See the edit history of EMD (formerly Downer EDI Rail) GT46C-ACe and GE Transportation C44ACi for their reversion of my reverted moves. Fork99 (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Just to let you know @Fork99, your diff links are slightly mixed up. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 23:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Fork99 (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked Malin the railfan for one week for personal attacks and harassment, and claiming to have administrative powers that the editor does not have. Cullen328 (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Kind of a small issue and pretty straightforward, but User:Kashingggz, who has been blocked for about 10 days [21], has taken it upon themselves to "unblock" themselves and change @331dot's decline reason to an accept reason [22]. Obviously, it's ineffective, but I did want to call attention to it due to the editing of an admin comment. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. Your notification to them was also removed in the vandalism cleanup, but since they can't reply to the notification it's no big loss. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

It looks like their account is globally locked, but on the Simple English Wikipedia, they also "unblocked" themselves. I reverted their edit. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 04:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

They must have done that before the lock, as the lock prevents logging in to the account. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• 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. [34], [35], [36] 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,[37] when it was made clear by reading the sources that I wasn't pulling this from nowhere, [38] manyareasexpert declined to engage productively, instead saying one particular source "does not supports added content," not elaborating on why, and demanding I remove it.[39] He then demands I make the changes needed to align to the sources, and indirectly accuses me of WP:SYNTH. [40] 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 [41] 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. [42] 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" [43] Manyareasexpert goes even further in his interpretation of the source [44], 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)

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 [45] 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 [46][47][48] 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 likeNow, 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,[49] 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)

• 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)

• 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 ( [50] [51] [52] [53] , 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. [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] 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 [59] . 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 [60] . 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 ([61]), and the content not corresponding to the source was returned. I fixed the undisputed part per source after ([62]) . (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 [63] 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 ofvictimblaming 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 [64] 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... [65] 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 [66] 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'tgetting 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 [67] , 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)

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

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 [68] [69] [70] [71] , lead fix, issue raised and fixed by others , Azov Brigade [72] [73] [74] ) 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 toEastern 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 thatMelnyk 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)

12.74.71.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been making unconstructive edits to DDG (rapper) in an apparent attempt to "prep" it for a video. When I discussed this with them, they admitted they were part of his media team in violation of WP:COI. They then added that DDG was apparently threatening their job if the unconstructive edits were not made by a certain time. I brought up the possibility of using inspect element to feign vandalism instead of actually making unconstructive edits if it was needed for a project, but this was turned down: "He said he wants it to show for anybody who looks it up, giving that inspect element is only for one person to view. Also Epic records is pressuring me to get it done as well!" This is in clear violation of WP:BOSS. A while later, they also said that if we did not let the unconstructive edits stand for eight days, then DDG would make an expose video on us and have his fan base "attack" us. This is grounds for at least an immediate block per WP:SOS as it is unclear what they meant by "attack". Gommeh _(t/c) 18:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Tagging the other people that were involved in the discussion on their talk page: @Toast1454 @Perfect4th @Skywatcher68 @Seefooddiet and the blocking admin @Ponyo. If there's anyone I missed feel free to add them. Gommeh _(t/c) 18:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like 2600:382:1231:935F:2090:3503:A5F4:2C5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) may also need to be blocked - they did not make threats but are making the same type of edits to DDG's page in violation of WP:BOSS. Gommeh _(t/c) 18:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

This is just trolling. I've semi-protected the article.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Dominic3203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A play in three acts:

• Original edit 13 April,
• message explaining the error 27 April,
• makes the same edit 30 April without having responded.