Requests for comment/Blatant arbitrariness and abuse on the part of the Arbitration Committee of the Russian Wikipedia, harassment in Wikimedia projects

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The following request for comments is closed. The initiator has been banned.

I regret to state that the issue proposed for discussion concerns an extensive conflict, including one related to harassment in several Wikimedia projects. As recently as yesterday, a subsequently declined invalid request for global ban of my account was filed here on Meta. In this regard, I have serious reasons to initiate a request for comment since the following issues have not been resolved in other possible ways for almost two years. First of all, it concerns the arbitrariness and abuse committed by the Arbitration Committee of the Russian Wikipedia, and secondly, it is connected with harassment by Ymblanter, both on the English Wikipedia and Commons, and the fabrication of grounds for indefinite blocking and ban.

Blatant arbitrariness and abuse on the part of the Arbitration Committee of the Russian Wikipedia[edit]

The facts confirming my conclusions about the destructive nature of the actions of the Arbitration Committee of the Russian Wikipedia were set out in a letter that was sent to the WMF Legal Team.

From it you can see that the Arbitration Committee (Biathlon, Carn, Draa kul, El-chupanebrej, Oleg Yunakov, Всеслав Чародей) confirmed the absence of facts of violation of the policies of the Russian Wikipedia, for a non-existent violation of which I was indefinitely blocked by El-Chupanebrej. Thus, El-Chupanebrej considered the issue with other arbitrators in relation to himself. Indeed, what kind of arbitrator will punish himself for a recognized blatant arbitrariness?

After the Arbitration Committee sent me a reply on 9 March 2022 that I had not violated any policies of the Russian Wikipedia I repeatedly asked them to accept my unblock request. But instead of unblocking me the same arbitrators reblocked me indefinitely for the reason of "protracted wikilawyering". However, at the same time, having confirmed that I did not violate any rules and accordingly in the absence of the grounds for blocking it is unclear why those administrators who imposed completely unreasonable blockings on me avoided responsibility for those destructive actions.

Here is the email to WMF Legal Team (attn: AKeton (WMF)) and an excerpt from the response of the Arbitration Committee of the Russian Wikipedia:

Dear Legal Team!


1. Circumstances

On 20 July 2019 arbitrator Zanka blocked my account in the Russian Wikipedia, specifying the reason in the publicly available blocking log and on my personal talk page as "disclosure of personal information". In the opinion of the arbitrator Zanka, the personal information of the users were allegedly disclosed by me on the discussion page of the Case 1099. In order to understand further events, it should also be noted that the administrator El-Chupanebrej, as a party to the arbitration process in the Case 1099, stated the claim for the indefinite blocking of my account, agreeing with the similar claim of the administrator Wanderer777, despite the fact that there were no grounds for such a serious measure as indefinite blocking.

During the period of 11–14 August 2019, the involved administrator El-Chupanebrej continued to harass me. So, on my personal discussion page, he repeatedly incited administrator Wanderer777 to block me indefinitely.

On 22 August 2019, the administrator Wanderer777 imposed an indefinite blocking upon fabricated evidence.

On 14 October 2019, in order to challenge the indefinite blocking imposed by Wanderer777, the Case 1115 was filed. After 13 months of proceedings, on 22 November 2020, the Arbitration Committee found that the grounds for indefinite blocking of my account, to which the administrator El-Chupanebrej incited Wanderer777, turned out to be fabricated, and my account was unblocked.

On 13 December 2020, I submitted a request in accordance with the dispute resolution policy in the Russian Wikipedia, where I indicated that due to the fact that I did not disclose any personal information of the Russian Wikipedia users, the blocking should have been recognized as erroneous. I also notified the former arbitrator Zanka who blocked me for allegedly "disclosing personal information".

Later that day, on 13 December 2020, the administrator El-Chupanebrej blocked me indefinitely for allegedly "wikilawyering", making a derogatory comment on the administrators' forum that "at least he won't be bothering others while blocked indefinitely".

On 14 February 2022, the current convocation of the Arbitration Committee, in which El-Chupanebrej is currently an incumbent arbitrator (!), stated that when filing a request for unblocking with the Arbitration Committee, "I did not demonstrate an understanding of the reasons for indefinite blocking" imposed by El-Chupanebrej.

However, already on 9 March 2022 the attached reply letter from the current convocation of the Arbitration Committee, in which El-Chupanebrej is currently an incumbent arbitrator, stated that the edit, for which the arbitrator Zanka blocked me, did not contain (!) any disclosed personal information and it could be challenged!

My subsequent letters dated March 10, March 18, April 4 with a request to remove deliberately false defamatory information were ignored by the arbitrators.

2. Deliberately false defamatory information


I want to draw your attention to the fact that this unfounded accusation of disclosure of personal information corresponds to the signs of committing a crime under Article 137 of the Criminal Code of Russia "Violation of privacy" (Section VII. Crimes against the person). It is quite obvious that such deliberately false defamatory information can cause irreparable harm to me and my reputation.

However, contrary to the requirements of the Policy on the biographies of living people and the Resolution on the biographies of living people, the arbitrators, without explanation, do not remove deliberately false defamatory information about me from the pages of the Russian Wikipedia, although they must remove it immediately and without waiting for discussion.


3. Requesting sanctions

In my opinion, with the completely unjustified imposition of indefinite blocking, the use of phrases such as "wikilawyering" (in relation to challenging obviously erroneous blocking and defamatory information) and "at least he won't be bothering others while blocked indefinitely" indicate the arbitrariness of El-Chupanebrej's actions. I emphasize that even being elected as an incumbent arbitrator, together with the other arbitrators, it was recognized by the current convocation of the Arbitration Committee that I did not disclose any personal information and that the blocking imposed by Zanka could be challenged. But the arbitrator El-Chupanebrej did not admit his mistake that there were no grounds for indefinite blocking of my account and he still did not take any measures to resolve the situation and reconcile with me. In my opinion, this also indicates the dishonesty of his motives when he imposed an indefinite blocking on my account. Moreover, El-Chupanebrej's destructive actions, in my view, do not correspond to the goals of Wikipedia and have already caused it a lot of damage, having unreasonably suspended me as an active user from editorial work for almost 16 months, although the Arbitration Committee itself claims in a letter, sent me on 9 March, that I had every reason to challenge the blocking imposed by the administrator Zanka. The actions of El-Chupanebrej according to the circumstances from Section 1, I believe, also correspond to objectionable activities under Section 4 of the Terms of Use – "Harassing and Abusing Others". All this, together with the above, as I see it, points to the validity of imposing a global ban on El-Chupanebrej.

I also request to apply appropriate sanctions to Zanka for committing objectionable activities in accordance with Section 4 of the Terms of Use – "Intentionally or knowingly posting content that constitutes libel or defamation" – since the current convocation of the Arbitration Committee of the Russian Wikipedia is inactive in this matter as well.

It is also important to note that the current convocation of the Arbitration Committee misleads the community by claiming that "I did not demonstrate an understanding of the reasons for indefinite blocking" imposed by El-Chupanebrej, when at the same time, in correspondence, they say exactly the opposite that I didn't disclose any personal information and can challenge the blocking, although exactly for this I was indefinitely blocked by El-Chupanbrej who is currently an incumbent arbitrator!

4. Possible consequences of inaction or refusal to remove defamatory information

I ask the esteemed Legal Team to take into account that in Russia there is an out-of-court procedure "for restricting access to false information that discredits the honor and dignity of a citizen (individual) or undermines his reputation and is associated with the accusation of a citizen (individual) of committing a crime". This procedure was introduced by adopted Federal Law 260-FZ in 2021 and is applicable to the above-mentioned case.

5. Other relevant information



Alexander A. Motin (User: Александр Мотин)

An excerpt from the email from the Arbitration Committee of the Russian Wikipedia sent to me on 9 March 2022 (full text):

[...] The remark for which you were blocked by the administrator Zanka does not formally contain personal information and formally you can try to challenge it on this basis [...]

See also: Correspondence with the Arbitration Committee of the Russian Wikipedia.

Harassment in Wikimedia projects and fabrication of grounds for indefinite blocking and ban[edit]

Just yesterday, Ymblanter blocked me indefinitely on Commons for the remark ("to "physically" suspend me") said by me on the forum after one of the Wikimedia Commons users threatened "to physically stop me":

Amazing things, however. Recently threatening to "physically" suspend me, Brateevsky argued that disambiguation for categories on Wikimedia Commons is bad, and now he says that villages must necessarily have a word "village" in their own category names. And why only villages then? At the same time, it should be noted that Brateevsky himself created categories like Brateyevo District but later he unreasonably demanded that I stop doing this threatening to "physically" suspend me. Colleagues, am I to understand it correctly that current attempts of A.Savin and Brateevsky to fabricate the blocking of my Commons account are certainly the realization of that threat? --Александр Мотин 15:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC) [1]

Original text in Russian

Удивительные дела, однако. Недавно, угрожая мне на моей СО "физическим" устранением, Brateevsky доказывал, что уточнения на Викискладе это плохо, а теперь рассказывает, что деревни обязательно должны иметь уточнения в своем названии. А почему только деревни? При этом следует обратить внимание, что сам же Brateevsky создавал категории вида Brateyevo District, но позднее от меня безосновательно требовал прекратить это делать под угрозой "физического" устранения. Наверное текущие потуги A.Savin и Brateevsky по фабрикации блокировки моей учётной записи в Commons — это и есть реализация этих угроз, я правильно понимаю, коллеги? --Александр Мотин 15:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Even with all the desire, it is impossible to prove that I allegedly accused another user of threatening physical harm. But it turned out that Ymblanter decided to go for outright falsification of facts.

Despite the fact that I provided a direct link to that remark regarding me, Ymblanter blocked me indefinitely after in response to his ultimatum and aggressive demand I suggested him to submit an ANI request in order to consider his claims against me in a more constructive manner.

Before I was blocked indefinitely by Ymblanter, I did not have a single blocking on Wikimedia Commons, and my total contribution indicates that in recent months alone I have uploaded almost 10,000 free images and made tens of thousands of edits to the project.

Having blocked me for the remark ("to "physically" suspend me") Ymblanter himself openly uses obscene lexicon on Commons: "Russian government go and fuck yourself". It is very unfortunate that almost at the next edit after this obscene remark Ymblanter blocked me indefinitely on a far-fetched and fabricated basis after his aggressive and ultimatum demand on the forum. In my opinion, this is a clear example of the abuse of the administrator flag.

You should also pay attention to the following episode, when there was the first attempt to fabricate the blocking of my account on Commons, in which Ymblanter also took part. Just look and see that they wanted to block me on the basis of absolutely false grounds: Requests for comment/Global ban for Александр Мотин 2#The first attempt to block me on Commons on a false reason.

Ymblanter's intolerance of my reasoned point of view was especially clearly manifested in the English Wikipedia. In order not to overload the text of the request, below I provide a correspondence with the arbitrator of the English Wikipedia, Maxim, where I set out the relevant facts in great detail:

On January 19th, 2021, an infinite community ban was applied to my account at the initiative of the administrator nicknamed Ymblanter ([2]), who justified its necessity in connection with me renaming the article “Gorkovsky suburban railway line” to “Gorkovskoye line” which I did according to the official system map of Moscow Central Diameters in English (hereinafter - “the System map”) published on official Moscow Mayor website ([3]).

While renaming the article I referenced the sources on the basis of which I renamed the article and indicated a link among those sources to the System map. Ymblanter pointed out that my actions violated WP:CONSENSUS as we were not able to reach an understanding in the course of the relevant discussion ([4]). The discussion mentioned above was indeed automatically archived without any summary. However, that discussion contained suggestions for the universal translation algorhythms from Russian to English language, but it did not contain and therefore was not aimed to discuss the System map, which I later used as a basis for renaming the aforementioned railway line. I was pretty much sure that Ymblanter would choose to either agree or disagree with this revision ([5]), but I could’ve never imagined that I’d receive a community ban as a result of my actions which were based on the System map and other sources written in English language. I believe it goes against logic, and also violates policies and guidelines such as WP:NAMING ("Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.") and WP:BOLD ("Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it"). As far as I’ve always known WP:CONSENSUS policy directly demonstrates how a new consensus is reached upon ([6]), and as it is stated, in order to reach a new consensus you need to make an edit and see how other editors react. So in this situation I was hoping that Ymblanter would see this System map, which I added along with my revision while renaming, plus I provided additional sources to prove my point, and I was hoping that we could come to an understanding whether we had reached a new consensus on new article name or not. This is exactly what I did in the case of the other article “Line D1 (Moscow Central Diameters)”, pointing to the System map ([7]). So if we were able to reach consensus in renaming the article from “MCD-1” to “Line D1 (Moscow Central Diameters)”, I automatically assumed that other lines may be named according to the System map and it was acceptable to use the System map naming convention (as my revision mentioned above was not reverted by Ymblanter). So my question is why could I not use the same logic for “Gorkovsky suburban railway line”? I would’ve accepted an option in which Ymblanter would revert my revision from “Gorkovskoye line” back to “Gorkovsky suburban railway line” and I was totally OK with trying to work further in order to resolve the disagreement on this issue. But right after Ymblanter reverted my revision based on the System map (which had not previously been a topic for discussion on the WikiProject Trains page mentioned above), he then right away proposed to the community to impose a community ban on me. I believe it would be useful to link this Ymblanter’s edit as well ([8]), where the “citation needed” request initiated by me was classified by Ymblanter as “pure and obvious disruption”, despite the fact that the article did not provide a source in which the railway line would be named in such a way that Ymblanter named it. Therefore, I am convinced that the “citation needed” request in this case is not disruptive editing. So related to the above mentioned circumstances I strongly believe that there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion and in accordance with WP:UNBAN policy, I have decided to send a request to the Arbitration Committee with a request to consider canceling this community ban. I hereby ask the Arbitration Committee to consider my request.

Sincerely, Alexander Motin. (25 December 2021)

The Arbitration Committee has examined your ban and finds no irregularities in your ban that would justify our involvement. Furthermore, as the community has recently declined your appeal, it would be doubly inappropriate for us to get involved with your appeal. If you still intend to appeal, my recommendation would be to wait at least one year (maybe even two given how the AN discussion went), and come back with an appeal to the community that contains an explanation of the conduct which led to the original block, how you intend to avoid such conduct reoccurring and what productive contributions you would make instead

Maxim (31 December 2021)

Maxim, thank you for your reply. At the same time, I would like to draw the attention of the Arbitration Committee to the fact that among the grounds for the community ban was a topic ban on COVID-19 and Russian politics (hereinafter - «topic ban on COVID-19»). But in your response, since you claim that the Arbitration Committee examined my ban and finds no irregularities in my ban, there is no important information about how, in the opinion of the Arbitration Committee, a topic ban on COVID-19 and Russian politics with fabricated grounds can be the proper basis for a community ban.

Or, most likely, the Arbitration Committee simply did not examine the topic bans which, in the opinion Ymblanter who was the initiator of the community ban, were the proper grounds for imposing a community ban. Let me point directly to the facts of fabricating the grounds of the topic ban on COVID-19, which was used by Ymblanter to justify the site-wide ban.

On September 7, 2020, recently desysoped Rexxs initiated an indefinite topic ban on COVID-19 ([9]) indicating the following edits as violations that I made on September 4 and 6, 2020: [10] [11] As the arbitrators can see, with these edits I added a reference to a publication in the world's oldest and best-known general medical journal, The Lancet, (DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31866-3). Rexxs and Alexbrn reverted these edits with reference to The Lancet several times. However, on September 10, FrankBierFarmer again added the same text as me, with reference to the aforementioned publication of The Lancet: [12] But this edit with identical information was not reverted, and desysoped Rexxs did not even offer to impose a topic ban on FrankBierFarmer as well.

Despite this fact, 2 days later, on September 12, 2020, Rexxs continued to insist on imposing a topic ban on COVID-19 on me. How can it be that after punishing me for adding the aforementioned information from The Lancet, they did not even remove it and did not topic banned another editor for the same thing? Isn't this called fabricating the grounds for a topic-ban, which Ymblanter later referred to as the basis for a site-wide ban? Isn't this the proof that my edits didn't violate the content guidelines of the English Wikipedia?

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that now the link to the publication in The Lancet (DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31866-3), for the addition of which I was banned from editing the artciles about COVID-19 and Russian politics, is used in the current version of the article many times:
1) Gam-COVID-Vac was initially approved for distribution in Russia and then in 59 other countries (as of April 2021) on the preliminary results of Phase I–II studies eventually published on 4 September 2020.
2) Gam-COVID-Vac is a viral vector vaccine based on two recombinant replication-defective human adenoviruses: Ad26 (serotype 26) and Ad5 (serotype 5) replicated in HEK 293 cells. The viruses contain the gene that encodes the full-length spike protein (S) of SARS-CoV-2 to stimulate an immune response.
3) The production of the frozen liquid formulation was developed for large-scale use, it is cheaper and easier to manufacture. The production of the freeze-dried formulation takes much more time and resources, although it is more convenient for storage and transportation. It was developed with vaccine delivery to hard-to-reach regions of Russia in mind.
4) On 26 August, certificate No. ЛП-006423 (LP-006423) was issued for the lyophilized formulation "Gam-COVID-Vac-Lyo".
5) On 4 September 2020, data on 76 participants in a phase I–II trial were published, indicating preliminary evidence of safety and an immune response.

How can it be that now the source for which I was topic banned is used as much as 5 times in the article? Isn't this the basis to overturn this topic-ban on COVID-19, since the grounds for it were directly fabricated by Rexxs who was recently desysoped for many other violations? After all, if this topic ban is overturned, then this will be a new circumstance for evaluating the imposed community ban. I hardly believe that the Arbitration Committee would agree that after adding information from the The Lancet (DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31866-3), a topic ban should have been imposed on me since this publication from The Lancet is still used in the article about Sputnik V.

In addition, I ask you to pay attention to the fabrication of another accusation in the discussion of a topic-ban on COVID-19. So, Berchanhimez wrote:

Now this - misrepresenting the source to say that they had confidence, when the source actually says that only 32% had "high confidence" where 34% only had "some confidence" - that is an important distinction. This also wasn't a survey of this specific vaccine - it was a survey regarding any vaccine produced by the countries given - it is synth to apply it to this specific vaccine. This is another example of why this user cannot be trusted to edit appropriately in any topic area where Russia is involved - they are misrepresenting the sources to make Russia look better. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez 19:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

It is obvious to me that here this editor went to forgery when he claimed that me allegedly «misrepresented the source to say that they had confidence, when the source actually says that only 32% had "high confidence" where 34% only had "some confidence" - that is an important distinction»: [13] First, I would like to note that there is a press release of the RDIF, which explicitly states «that is why a recent survey revealed that 66% of Mexicans express confidence in the Russian vaccine.» ([14]). Secondly, grouping respondents who "expressed confidence" according to the answers "high confidence" and "some confidence" is absolutely normal practice. Please take a look at these Pew Research Center publications ([15] and [16]). In these publications, the statements "expressed confidence" are directly used for the survey results of respondents who "expressed a lot or some confidence". Does it mean that Pew Research Center «misrepresented the survey results saying that respondents had confidence, when they actually said that they only had a lot (high) or some confidence in Chavez»?

Well, you can see for yourself that this is just a banal fabrication of accusations against me by Berchanhimez who also unreasonably claims that me «misrepresenting the sources to make Russia look better». In addition these opponents could not provide any other proper evidence, and on the basis of these fabricated accusations, the community imposed topic ban on COVID-19 on me. Could the arbitrators confirm that the aforementioned accusations are not false and fabricated?

And in January 2021, these accusations formed the basis of a community ban initiated by Ymblanter, which referred to this topic ban on COVID-19. By the way here's what Ymblanter wrote in the discussion of imposing topic-ban on COVID-19:

We had this less than a month ago. We are having this right now (note how the discussion escalated as soon as Александр Мотин joined it). The problem with Александр Мотин's editing is that whereas their understanding of the policies is limited he is absolute sure that he knows everything. He is just unable to admit that he might be wrong and anybody else could be right. If people are unhappy with his edits, this is not because he is doing something wrong but because others either do not understand the policies or are biased against him. This is how they got an indef block (an analog of a site ban) on the Russian Wikipedia. This is how he got partially blocked from MH17 here. And every time the community spends an enormous amount of time to sort this behavior out. I would advocate a site ban just to save our time, but at the very list we need a topic ban on Russian politics broadly construed, or even on Russia broadly construed.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, here on the part of Ymblanter, at least, the correspondence of his actions to WP:CTDAPE is clearly traced, namely, campaign to drive away productive contributor took place. After all, it is assumed that Ymblanter is an experienced administrator, and if he were unbiased and objective, he would see that the accusations against me were fabricated. But instead of pointing out the absence of violations on my part according to the aforementioned claims of Rexxs and Berchanhimez, on the contrary, he fully supported these unfounded and fabricated accusations. Therefore, it can be concluded here that Ymblanter is not unbiased and objective, which in turn is another significant and new circumstance for considering the validity of the initiated community ban by Ymblanter.

I also draw the attention of the arbitrators that in the Russian Wikipedia, one of the administrators similarly fabricated accusations against me for editing MH17 article. In a similar situation, on the WP:AN page in the Russian Wikipedia, administrators unanimously supported those fabricated accusations and refused to overturn the indefinite blocking imposed on me: [17] After that, I sent an appeal to the Arbitration Committee (Case 1115), as a result of which the fabricated accusations were dropped from me, and the administrator who indef blocked me was subsequently desysoped (Case 1141).

The arbitrators of the English Wikipedia suggest me to appeal to the community again and again in order to overturn the community ban, but the Case 1115 in the Russian Wikipedia, where I was acquitted, directly indicates the ineffectiveness of the approach proposed by the arbitrators. In other words, the English Wikipedia community, having supported the fabricated accusations, is unlikely to ever overturn the community ban imposed on me. That is why community bans are not approved in the Russian Wikipedia, since, according to Russian community, they can be used for improper purposes such as reprisals against conscientious users. By the way, Ymblanter spoke out, precisely, against community bans in the Russian Wikipedia, indicating that community bans are unacceptable: [18]

Another proof of the ineffectiveness of appealing to the community is the biased consideration of my appeal regarding the topic-ban on COVID-19: [19] Despite the fact that I directly pointed out the bias when considering the issue of imposing a topic ban on COVID-19, the community refused to overturn this topic ban, despite the fact that results of Moderna vaccine trials were written based on publication in The New England Journal of Medicine (DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa2022483), while the results of the Sputnik V vaccine trials were added by me referring to the publication in The Lancet (DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31866-3): [20]
1) In July 2020, Moderna announced in a preliminary report that its Operation Warp Speed candidate had led to production of neutralizing antibodies in healthy adults in Phase I clinical testing.
2) On July 14, 2020, Moderna scientists published preliminary results of the Phase I dose escalation clinical trial of mRNA-1273, showing dose-dependent induction of neutralizing antibodies against S1/S2 as early as 15 days post-injection. Mild to moderate adverse reactions, such as fever, fatigue, headache, muscle ache, and pain at the injection site were observed in all dose groups, but were common with increased dosage.
3) The vaccine in low doses was deemed safe and effective in order to advance a Phase III clinical trial using two 100-μg doses administered 29 days apart.

Was someone banned or indefed for «pushing this primary study» (as per Rexxs’s accusations)? I'm... gonna guess "no"?

And here I ask you again to evaluate the claims of Ymblanter:

Note that this message itself is a topic ban violation, and the user must be blocked. Note also that he was recently unblocked by the Russian Wikipedia Arbcom and managed to survive4 only a few days before being indefinitely blocked (effectively site-banned) for wikilawyering and per NOTHERE.--Ymblanter 19:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

It can be seen here that Ymblanter, using any excuse, inclined the community to ban my account. Even though appealing the topic ban is not a violation of the topic ban!! And he knew it perfectly well. And if he didn't know, and wanted to ban me for an appeal, then how can he be an administrator? In addition, in order to persuade the community to impose a ban against me, he simply points to the fact that me indef blocked in the Russian Wikipedia without specifying details in order to present me in the most negative light. In fact, I was indefinitely blocked in the Russian Wikipedia by an involved fellow of that administrator, who was desysoped almost immediately after the fabricated accusations against me were dropped by the Russian Arbitration Committee (Case 1115 / Case 1141), which I mentioned above. Therefore, I believe that since the English Wikipedia community has repeatedly demonstrated that it is not able to consider my appeal impartially, then instead of walking in a vicious circle, my appeal should be considered by experienced arbitrators.

In view of the aforementioned circumstances I ask the arbitrators to overturn the topic ban on COVID-19 and Russian politics, since the accusations imputed to me were fabricated, and, in this regard, in view of the emergence of new material circumstances I ask to overturn the community ban, which in turn was based on the imposed topic ban on COVID-19 and Russian politics. Otherwise, I kindly ask the arbitrators either to confirm that The Lancet is a prohibited source for Sputnik V and similar articles related to vaccines and COVID-19 or give me the opportunity to file a case for consideration by experienced and unbiased arbitrators of the English Wikipedia per WP:UNBAN, WP:ADMINABUSE and WP:ADMINCOND policies. Well, in the end, the case involving Rexxs was eventually accepted by the Arbitration Committee and subsequently considered, and my claims, among other things, are related to his incorrect actions as well.


Alexander Motin (3 January 2022)


It will be necessary and useful for me to receive constructive suggestions and comments since harassment and abuse against me have taken extremely destructive forms, which does not correspond to either the Terms of Use, Universal Code of Conduct or the policies in local projects. It is also likely that, based on the results of the discussion, it will be possible to outline further steps to resolve the conflict.--Александр Мотин (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Too many words, sound and fury, signifying nothing. No. Global lock for OP is long overdue, but let's see first how Meta stewards too will become familiar with his unique style of debates. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 06:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support a global ban for the topic starter. SummerKrut (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    SummerKrut, this is not the place to discuss global bans for the person who started this RfC. If you really want the user to be globally banned, you need to start a new RfC with the name "Global ban for Александр Мотин". --Ferien (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The RFC for a global ban had already been initiated but it was closed due to formalities. SummerKrut (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      SummerKrut, perhaps another one could be opened, or that discussion could be reopened. --Ferien (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It is a place. See en:Wikipedia:BOOMERANG Carn (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Carn: I'm very aware of what WP:BOOMERANG is and I'm not defending the actions of the OP. But we have a global policy (Global bans) that says File a new request for comment on Meta. The title should have the username of the user nominated for a global ban. that must be followed. The bad behaviour of the OP can be discussed, but suggesting a global ban simply is not in the scope of this discussion. --Ferien (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Comment The RfC has been updated [21].--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The main goal of this participant is to bring the Kremlin version of the downed Boeing to the Russian Wikipedia. --Xedin (?!) 01:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Xedin — I think it's better to put your opinion here Carn (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I personally do not see any merit behind why the decisions of the ruwiki ArbCom or the Commons block should be overturned by the global Wikimedia community, especially when looking at the arguments regarding Ymblanter's block of the OP on Commons, given that to my knowledge, the OP has been blocked on multiple projects for battleground conduct and is banned on enwiki (which that ban was implemented by the enwiki community), and battleground conduct is something that is also being exhibited in this discussion in my opinion. Furthermore, when someone challenges a decision that they disagree with in an RfC, an OP would typically be concise about their explanations as to why they want a decision changed, rather than going on an endless waffle about it. Therefore, I would Oppose Oppose any action as a result of this RfC. Hx7 (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Considering Ymblanter's successive actions on the English Wikipedia and then on the Commons, I have to admit that such attention of the administrator to one participant in different projects does not look accidental. This case should be considered on the Meta. On the other hand, Motin's claims to the arbitrators of the Russian Wikipedia look poorly substantiated.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Comment The RfC has been updated [22].--Александр Мотин (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Russian wikipedia has a lot of problems to be quite frank. I didn't bother reading much about the details of your ban, which seem justifiable in your case, but as a whole I do agree that administrators on ruwiki abuse their authority. They do not take criticism or conflicting opinions well and far too often use their power to censor voices that conflict with the ruwiki official narrative, even if said banned user's actions wouldn't be seen as grounds for a ban in any other wiki. And they're not exactly well read up on Wikimedia copyright policies either - I was dragged out for a lecture by some angry Russians for having the audacity to nomination photos on Commons lacking required publication information for deletion. If they want someone banned, they will twist the rules to find a reason to ban that wouldn't fly past scrutiny in any other wiki. It's not exactly a secret that the environment of ruwiki is rather destructive to dialogue.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WP:FORUMSHOP. — Summer 18:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Expressing concern about ruwiki admins in a forum about ruwiki admins isn't forumshopping. It's providing insight to a problem.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]