• Talk archive: 2007–10
• Talk archive: 2010–16
• Talk archive: 2016–20
• Bot generated notices: 2010

The following sanction now applies to you:

indefinite topic ban from Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

You have been sanctioned for continued disruptive editing

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that the partial block hasn't helped, I am topic banning you from Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 for continued disruptive editing as seen in these ANI threads [1] [2] [3] [4]. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Could you provide diffs, please, which prove "disruptive editing"?--Александр Мотин (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing for original research about social media posts despite being told that it isn't permissible has been highlighted in the ANI thread. Your volume of editing on the talk page has also been flagged as disruptive. There was a pretty clear consensus that either a topic ban or block was appropriate. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: What are talking about? A publication of the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation [5] is the original research??? That is a ridiculous accusation! Have you read this thread BEFORE banning me? Maybe THIS is the original research with a link to a photo of a Buk launcher posted in 2011? What's next? Maybe this proposal is a disruptive editing? Tell me. --Александр Мотин (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Hey there! Bellingcat claims @dnrpress as "the separatist-linked Twitter account" but not "The Donetsk People's Republic claimed... in a tweet" So where is exactly a disruptive editing in my proposal on this thread to use neutral wording? Wow, and this tweet cited by Bellingcat is in Russian [6] (as I said) but not in English as the article and the opposing editors said! Why don't you say something? Are you against neutral wording on Wikipedia? --Александр Мотин (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nil Einne: could you check on this, please, since you seem to be an uninvolved user? So they say that my proposal to use neutral wording is disruptive but the thing is that on WP we MUST use neutral wording and when we say "The Donetsk People's Republic claimed... in a tweet" it is at least illiterate or ignorant (DNR could claim nothing since it is NOT a person (an official) or any department of this self-proclaimed state), biased (since other sources say it is only "the separatist-linked Twitter account"), not neutral and not encyclopedic wording. Moreover we have lots of the sources which say that the press office of the DNR claimed in the official commentary, at least, to the Russian media the possession of the missile launchers on that day (this is an in-article source). But what is the reason and purpose to use this claim of a questionable tweet in the article then? Why is my proposal considered disruptive? --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I will not address any article content proposals since as El C said you are now allowed to make such comments with your topic ban. However I will address your topic ban itself. As I noted on the talk page, and which you've clearly read although I strongly suggest you stop doing so lest you are tempted to break your topic ban; your comment was confusing. You seemed to keep insisting that sources had claimed the tweet was in English even though as I said, no source ever seems to have said that. If you had focused on the actual issue i.e. that one of the sources we are using seems to be relying on a machine translation and has not made it clear it's a machine translation indeed it's not even clear if they're aware it's a machine translation; then editors may have been willing to engage in a meaningful discussion about whether we should still be using that particular source. However instead you chose to focus on something which doesn't seem to be true (that a source claimed the tweet was in English) which just confused the whole situation. It's not surprising that editors find your conduct frustrating if instead of focusing on actual problems, you focus on made up ones. Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: If a news reporter says "he claimed that ... in a tweet" and hyperlinks this text, that means that he said it to be in English since the tweet itself was shown in English without any disclaimers. That's what I said! That is why I suggested the opposing editors to use the original snapshot of that tweet in Russian since it was in Russian. I just can't imagine why they think it is normal to use sources which cites machine translated or photoshopped tweets! So maybe their edits, in this case, are disruptive? --Александр Мотин (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: Thank you so much for your principled, honest and unbiased stand on the MH17 talk page. I'd like to draw attention that I just, inter alia, suggested to remove from the article something what it seems to be fake, since in May 2014 the authorities of the DNR clearly stated that @dnrpress had nothing to do with them ([7] by RIA Novosti), long before that so-called "deleted tweet by DNR" was posted (29 June 2014). So, as I said, that passage in the article about "a since-deleted tweet by the Donetsk People's Republic" (DNR) smells like "propaganda bullshit" (it is a citation of what the Russian administrator Ymblanter likes to call something I do) and that's why I said it straight out in that way. And instead of getting into the situation, the opposing editor Slatersteven filed a false report against me. So who is a disruptive editor amongst us? (a rhetorical question). --Александр Мотин (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Александр Мотин, unless you appeal the ban, you are not allowed to discuss the content covered by that ban, which you are contravening above. El_C 12:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: How do I know what exactly I was banned for? How should I appeal if you don't let me even explain my actions and try to understand what I was doing wrong in your opinion?--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The instruction on how to appeal are in the template above. El_C 12:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I don't understand what I'm being charged with? I was banned for this proposal or this one?--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. You can query that in your appeal. El_C 12:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I find out BEFORE appealing?--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if that's possible. Again, if you deem that to be a key component of your appeal, you should note it accordingly. El_C 12:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to distract people with this appeal without even knowing what exactly I was blocked for. You will then say that my filing an appeal is disruptive and that I should be banned from English Wikipedia. This is how I see it. I just want to discuss why my suggestions, arguments, and my point of view are considered disruptive since my suggestions will definitely help to improve the article. --Александр Мотин (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The act which I would like to apologize for is that I used the term "propaganda bullshit" but I don't like it when my edits are called "propaganda bullshit" by the Russian administrator Ymblanter and "almost gibberish" and "Kremlin-ophilic" by the opposing editors, because I never insulted these people.--Александр Мотин (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were not blocked, you were topic banned. Please don't words in my mouth. You have no idea what I would say, or even if I would say anything at all, if you were to file an appeal. El_C 13:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

when I said "you" I didn't mean you personally.--Александр Мотин (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you were responding to me, so... El_C 13:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Александр Мотин, Calm down. You are in that period where you think everyone on Wikipedia is trying to harm you. If you just calm down and listen to these people then you won't be "harmed". {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 13:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@3125A: What would you say if you were banned just for the suggestion to use neutral wording in the article and to find really reliable sources without biased claims? They accused me in "high editing volume" but I was just responding to the opposing editor to clearly articulate my point of view. Is that normal? Does the "editing volume rule" apply to me only? --Александр Мотин (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Александр Мотин, when I blocked you from the mainspace article, I noted in my closing summary how close I was to topic banning you (or alternatively, blocking you from the talk page as well). Since having been given that boon, you have directed some rather bizarre queries at me which, frankly, made me regret not having done so from the outset. El_C 14:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well look, as you see I haven't even asked to unblock me from editing the article's page yet in order not to irritate you (not you personally). And now you you banned me just because the opposing editor hasn't got sufficient arguments? And you say "I don't know what suggestion you were banned for". I think that before you accuse me we need to figure out what's wrong with what I suggested. It's a fair request, isn't it? --Александр Мотин (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has become circular. You are free to launch an appeal of the ban at any time. I don't think there's much more to say beyond that. El_C 14:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, you were banned for "continued disruptive editing", in your appeal you need to explain (in your appeal) how you did not disruptively edit, or explain how you will not do so again. Its as simple as that. As in "I did not disruptively edit as I was trying to improve the article with well source facts" or "I understand my tone and communications skills may have caused confusion and will try to make my case better in the future". note (as this has caused confusion in the past with some users) this is not what you should say, just examples of the tone you need to use. I cannot see how this can be any clearer. I had better add, any appeal must be solely about you, and no one else So "because user69 said I was a loathsome spotted reptile" will just earn a rejection.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Александр_Мотин, I'll forgo a one month sitewide block, because I think I can still reach you. You cannot add or —as you did a couple of minutes ago— modify any content covered by your ban, for any purpose whatsoever. You are done with those discussions until an appeal to repeal the ban succeeds. Needless to say, there will be no further warning. Thanks in advance for your close attention. El_C 11:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of saying "thank you" for identifying and trying to correct false information, factual misstatements and significant omissions in the article, you are threatening to block me for a month? As far as I can see, you didn't even try to understand the situation. That's what upsets me the most, frankly. --Александр Мотин (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're not getting it after all. This warning is a boon for you. Don't squander it. El_C 11:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's something to be thankful for. I will appeal later. For now, I just want to see what the opposing editor and the reporter (Slatersteven) will do with all those facts about false statements in the article, in order to be more convincing upon appealing the ban. Anyway, I hear you loud and clear, despite the fact that I have questions about your actions and attitudes. --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have questions about my actions and attitudes might as well bring that up. Light is the best disinfectant. El_C 12:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a small comment.--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sure. But if you have something to say just say it. El_C 12:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I would just like to draw your attention to the manifestation described, in the context of Wikipedia, as "Systemic bias". In this way, their, your and my actions and attitudes on the Wikipedia are, in some ways, a subject to this manifestation. But, given the background, it concerns you and the opposing editors most. And, please, don't be offended by what I'm saying because this manifestation is evident in our everyday life and not just on the Wikipedia. That is why I'm not at all surprised by your desire to block me and to banish me from the English Wikipedia. --Александр Мотин (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. I have no desire "to block ... and to banish" you. I would have blocked you for today's violation if that was what I desired. I also don't have a strong opinion with regards to the crux of the content dispute. Just to put it in context for you. El_C 18:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ты, это, держись там. --Winterheart (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions - such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks - on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Salvio 14:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Александр Мотин". Thank you. — RexxS (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked "your" thread up.

Apparently, people fight over words like "guinea pig" as if it's neutral. Instead of fixing it with basic English right away, please ask me to try and fix it with a witty, "stand-up comedian" way.

Because, once you spend your time to fix a mistake in English Wikipedia, you are not doing it in time-effician manner; you only begin to look as if you are "acting alone". Не будь мотом ))))) и из тебя не будут делать моти)))) Uchyotka (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]