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

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

Result concerning Paul Siebert

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• Can everyone please cut it down to 500 words in your statements? Some of you have twice that amount of text and I've noticed that the longer the complaint (or response), the fewer admins who participate in these sort of proceedings. Trim to just the basics of your arguments, please. Here is a Word Count Tool Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hours later and still no other admins have commented. Get the message, everyone? Brevity is your friend. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @My very best wishes: As far as I can make out, Icewhiz's characterisation of this is broadly correct. This IP edit removed a large amount of material that had been in the article for a long time. This IP edit restored that material. This edit of your then removed that content with the edit summary, "rv edit by an IP 174.61.151.138. If a regular contributor wants to check these sources and properly re-write, that's fine." Is that a reasonable summary of the sequence of events leading up to this? If so, your edit summary looks rather as though you just didn't bother to check the page history. GoldenRing (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• concur with Liz, please edit your statements to be concise and clear, thank you so much. KillerChihuahua 13:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Given Paul's repeated doubling down and endorsements of personal attacks in the below section, I'm inclined to endorse either a block or TBAN here. Paul makes it clear that he feels that aggressive, incendiary conduct, rising to the level of calling other editors Nazis, is acceptable, as long as he feels such characterizations are accurate. This approach is fundamentally incompatible with editing in a contentious DS area. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appealing user

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

two month block at AE.

Administrator imposing the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging

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

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

Statement by Sandstein

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Icewhiz

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

The trigger to the original complaint was MVBW removing 70% of Icebreaker (Suvorov) - [37] saying an IP added it (the IP reverted another IP that removed it diff) - content that has been present in the article for over a decade. Icebreaker is a book that transfers responsibility for WWII from Hitler to Stalin. This article in Slavic Review sees this as "overarching conspiracy theories". The book is mainly known for this controversy. The version created by MVBW - permalink is problematic from a NPOV and PROFRINGE standpoint - this version is absent anything critical on this book - presenting it as seemingly mainstream (when it is very much not so). Icewhiz (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by ZScarpia

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

Statement by My very best wishes

The cases of TTAAC and Paul (previous thread) are closely related, because Paul came to the talk page of Sandstein to defend the TTAAC and repeated exactly the same accusations without any evidence in the process [38] with claims like "pro-Nazi proxy" [39], "proxy of antisemitic IP" [40], etc. (see diffs in the request about Paul). I can't imagine how TTAAC would be viewed as engaged in the personal attacks (which seems to be a consensus of admins), but Paul would not. My very best wishes (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the reply by Paul in the request about him above [41] and would like to notice:

1. He provided zero evidence that my Wikipedia contributions "whitewash Hitler". And what my "actionable misconduct" he is talking about?
2. His reply to diff #5. He tells about "Solzhenitsyn claims that gas van was invented by Jews". Under no circumstances I suggested to include such things anywhere. Please check my diff #5-3 [42] and my comment Paul responds to [43]. I quoted Solzenitzyn directly from the page: ""I. D. Berg was ordered to carry out the decisions of the NKVD troika of Moscow Oblast ...". Does it tell anywhere that the "gas van was invented by Jews"? No. What it "tells about me"? Saying that, I agree that the book by Solzenitsyn currently cited on the page is unfortunate choice and some other passages from the book do can be regarded as antisemitic, in my personal opinion (it was not me who included this book for sourcing). I would rather cite The Gulag Archipelago or something else.
3. Paul make it clear that he is going to submit another AE request about me, and he could do it already, but he did not. Why? Because there is no any "actionable misconduct" by me.
4. His response (no response) to my diff #6. Note that Paul included in the article claim about "one case of gas van usage". This is also a part of his misrepresentation because all sources tell about usage of multiple gas vans over a period of time, as was correctly describe in the older version [44].
5. His response to diff#7. The comment by Paul was made on a talk page of another contributor, and it is hostile. Paul tells in essence: You (Americans) would be dead, unless We (Russians) helped you. Not only this is wrong statement/a propaganda cliche, but this is "you and us" in WP context. My very best wishes (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz. Yes, Suvorov claimed that Stalin tried to use Hitler as a proxy to attack Europe, which would allow the Red Army to “liberate” the Europe from Nazi occupation. This is a provocative idea and something debatable, but not a reason for committing personal attacks. My very best wishes (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul (reply to this). It is appropriate to call someone "a Ukrainian nationalist", as one of admins did in the thread below, because he provided a large number of diffs, from which it is obvious for everyone that the user is indeed a Ukrainian nationalist. But it is something completely different to repeat personal accusations on noticeboards and talk pages without any strong evidence. That is what you do. My very best wishes (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul Siebert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@KillerChihuahua: as you can see from my above post, I said that TTAAC made a correct statement in an incorrect place. That is in agreement with what you say: instead of calling someone "Hitler's defender" on regular pages, one have to come here and present evidences (which I did). You must agree that "Hitler's defenders" are not mystical beasts, unfortunately, they sometimes come to Wikipedia, and AE pages is an adequate place for discussing them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KillerChihuahua: I am a little bit puzzled: my hostility is directed just at a single user, and all my messages about their misconduct are limited with the pages that are specifically devoted to the discussion of that. Why the wording "Ukrainian nationalistic POV pusher" is allowed here, but the wording "Hitler defending POV pusher" (actually, an exact wording was: "was definitely acting as Hitler's defender", i.e. that was a characterisation of the actions, not of a person) is considered a personal attack (here, on this page)? Can you explain me, please, which wording would be an appropriate description in the latter case (I am asking specifically about the wording that can be used here, on the AE page)? --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TheTimesAreAChanging

Result of the appeal by TheTimesAreAChanging

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• Good block, which was well substantiated in the original AE report.[45] Per that report, the user violated Eastern Europe sanctions by making personal attacks (accusations of Nazism at that) in the subject area ("deleted again by known WP:EEML troll User:My very best wishes ... in an effort to bolster WP:FRINGE nonsense defending Nazism" and "Stop defending Hitler!). User also violated an American Politics TBAN by editing Civilian casualties from U.S. drone strikes, United States involvement in regime change, Korean War, and Operation Freedom Deal. While AP does not inherently cover the entirety of American history or military history, these articles are obviously all highly controversial and politically charged aspects of US politics and foreign policy. This seems cut and dry, and 2 months might be severe if there was only one violation, but we're looking at repeated violations in multiple DS areas. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 15:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If I understand Paul's argument, it's that calling MVBW a Nazi troll is okay in this context, because MVBW is a Nazi troll. Paul, if you continue to argue in support of personal attacks and cast aspersions, you're going to end up blocked as well. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed with Swarm. These were violations and violations made while making personal attacks, to boot, and following a block for disruptive socking. I agree with both the block and the length of it, and would also warn that we're on a pretty swift track to an indef, especially if there's any more socking. Stay well clear from articles that could even be considered to have anything to do with US politics. We have millions of articles totally unrelated to that subject; go work on them instead. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Pile on support of block, and chastisement of Paul - personal attacks are not excused because they are "accurate". There are other ways of making your point. KillerChihuahua 13:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  My very best wishes, apologies. My statement was not meant as a judgment on the accuracy or not of any personal attack; it was to inform Paul that arguing that a personal attack is "accurate" is pointless, because that's not a valid defense. KillerChihuahua 18:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Paul Siebert, you'd find better use of your time trimming your verbose statement in your case, also on this page, rather than pinging me to read you still defending your personal attacks of another editor. You are not impressing me with your desire to be a civil, responsible Wikipedia editor - quite the contrary, I am very concerned about your hostile behavior. Doubling down on your personal attack violations is not helping your position. KillerChihuahua 18:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning KHMELNYTSKYIA

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

KHMELNYTSKYIA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list :

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. [46] POV edits on Roman Shukhevych, January 2019
2. [47] [48] [49] [50] and further reverts documented at the page history, in total 15 reverts within a month, against two different users: Edit warring on Dmitry Bortniansky, all reverted, one message on the talk page
3. [51], [52], [53] Examples of edit-warring at Vladimir Borovikovsky, edit-warring against two users, 10 reverts in total, no attempts to discuss at the talk page
4. [54] [55] Move-warring at Alexander Dukhnovych, against two users, no discussion at the talk page
5. [56], [57], [58] examples of edit-warring at Ivan Kozhedub, 13 reverts in two weeks, only showed up at the talk page when I said I will be submitting this enforcement request.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [59] Block for 24h for edit-warring on Vladimir Borovikovsky (non-AE block)

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

DS alert

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

KHMELNYTSKYIA is a Ukrainian nationalistic POV pusher. This is ok, we have a large number of nationalistic editors of all sorts. The problem is that their main conflict resolution method is edit-warring. I noticed them sometime last year; in January, after they made unhelpful edits on Roman Shukhevych, I gave them a DS alert. Most of their edits, in any articles, were reverted. In the Summer, they went through a number of articles of people who were born in the Russian Empire but in the areas which are now Ukraine, and added in the lede that they are "Ukrainian" (example: [60], the guy was born in the Russian empire, they instead write "Ukrainian-born"). I reverted all of these edits, referring to WP:MOS. They went to my talk page, I provided an explanation [61], referring again to WP:MOS, they were clearly unhappy but did not start edit-warring against me. Now, a couple of days ago, they edit-warred at Vladimir Borovikovsky against yet another user, but on exactly the same point, Ukrainian vs Russian. I gave them a 24h block. Now what did they do when the block expired? They went to Alexander Dukhnovych to start move-warring and to Ivan Kozhedub to continue edit-warring interrupted by my block. Their editing history mostly consists of reverts. I can block again, but I think it would be much easier for all of us to topic-ban them from everything related to Ukraine broadly construed.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning KHMELNYTSKYIA

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by KHMELNYTSKYIA

Statement by Thomas.W

I feel there's a need to point out the level of nationalistic POV involved, because, as can be seen here, KHMELNYTSKYIA not only changes the nationality of historic people from Russian (as well as other nationalities/ethnicities) to Ukrainian, but also, through POV pipes like "... painter of [[Ukraine|Ukrainian]] origin", linking to the article about the modern day country of Ukraine, claims they were citizens of a country that didn't even exist until hundreds of years later. They also make undiscussed moves of articles, or in the case of moving Adam Kisiel to the modern Ukrainian language form of the name, Adam Kysil, moving an article in spite of there being a move discussion on the talkpage opposing the move, and the text of the article saying he self-identified as a Pole (and the area where he lived was also Polish at that time). That is applying nationality retroactively, seeing everyone who was born, or lived, in areas that now belong to the Ukraine as having been Ukrainians in spite of living long before the name Ukraine applied to any political entity (the first official use of "Ukraine" was AFAIK in 1918...). Adam Kisiel even lived before the Ukrainian language and concepts of a Ukrainian ethnicity existed (they instead spoke the Ruthenian language and saw themselves as Ruthenians). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KHMELNYTSKYIA is unfortunately not the only one who makes nationalistic POV edits on virtually all articles that are related to Ukraine, however tangential that connection is, because it has been a major problem for many years now, ranging from endless requested moves of Kiev to the name preferred in the Ukraine, Kyiv (see Talk:Kiev/naming), to repeated claims that Vladimir the Great (a name that is being constantly changed to Volodymyr the Great...) was "king of Ukraine", with a link to the modern-day country, in spite of Vladimir living a thousand years before Ukraine existed. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul Siebert

I was having the same problems with this user too and gave her this advice. She seems to have ignored it. By saying that, I would object to severe actions against this user. Two factors should be taken into consideration:

• Recent political situation in Ukraine led to a rise of a wave of nationalism of a worst kind, and the overall informational background there is totally different than in the outside world. It seems she thinks her country is surrounded by enemies, which falsify Ukrainian history. By permanently banning/topic banning her, we just confirm this belief.
• This user seems to rely too much on domestic literature, which is currently of a terrible quality. Partially, the reason is that good literature is not available in Ukraine. I think this user needs mentoring, not a permanent ban, although some reasonably short break would not harm.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KillerChihuahua:, let's approach to it as to a technical problem. The ban is not a punishment. It is a chance to reconsider one's behaviour. In connection to that, may I at least ask you to exclude a discussion of Ukraine related topics on my talk page from the topic ban's scope? I believe by allowing KHMELNITSKAYA to do so we would help her to look at the subject at different angle.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KillerChihuahua:, that would be even better. Although, maybe, article talk pages should be excluded, for article talks include a consensus building process, and I am not sure she is ready for that. Let's allow her to address to any user on their talk pages, and open article talk pages in 6 months.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Comment by My very best wishes

The history of Ivan Kozhedub does show obvious edit warring. But it takes two to tango. Her "opponent", User:Ушкуйник does the same and has been alerted of discretionary sanctions in this area [62]. At the very least, his behavior should be considered in this request. Speaking about their disagreement, it appears that KHMELNYTSKYIA removes source that is indeed a disputable primary source and was not properly referenced (no title, no pages, etc.) [63]. I did not check anything else. My very best wishes (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning KHMELNYTSKYIA

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• I'm leaning towards a one year topic ban, but am open to other options. I look forward to hearing from other admins on this. KillerChihuahua 13:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  If we're to limit the ban so KHMELNYTSKYIA may discuss and learn, as opposed to edit elsewhere and learn, then all talk pages would be appropriate, IMO. Not just one. KillerChihuahua 18:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm good with an indef topic ban. It should be made clear that this applies to both article and talk pages - no mentoring or discussion regarding Ukraine. Review filing allowed after 6 months but not before. KillerChihuahua 12:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The edit-warring is extensive and KHMELNYTSKYIA appears undeterred by a 24-hour block. For those reasons I can't see the value in a time-limited topic ban – it's wasteful of editors' time to impose a TB that can be waited out and followed by a return to previous behaviour. If KHMELNYTSKYIA can learn to edit collaboratively and demonstrate that, then I can see the point of removing a topic ban. That leads me to conclude that there should be an indefinite topic ban, reviewable after six months. I suggest that any topic ban should be from articles and article talk pages related to Ukraine, leaving user talk available for mentorship. --RexxS (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Paul Siebert: The primary purpose of a topic ban is to protect the encyclopedia; the opportunity to rehabilitate an offender is a secondary consideration. Naturally, I agree with you that keeping KHMELNYTSKYIA away from Ukraine-related article talk pages is preferable. --RexxS (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with RexxS and endorse an indef TBAN. Accepting a voluntary mentorship would be a great additional component of that, and would be a great path to have the ban lifted in the future. However, speaking from experience, there's no guarantee that mentorship as a gentler alternative will not be a complete waste of time, and our priority is preventing disruption to the project, not behavioral therapy. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I think a regular TBAN is in order on all pages related to Ukraine. Any mentoring or remedial efforts should happen in a completely different topic area, and when they can demonstrate an ability to edit collaboratively they can apply to return to this one. – bradv🍁 01:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]