Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial 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

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

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the subject of Eastern Europe, broadly constructed, imposed at AE. You were the uninvolved admin.

Administrator imposing the sanction

Guerillero ( 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.

Good afternoon, esteemed colleague. It has been several years since my editing privileges were restricted regarding topics concerning Eastern Europe. I am eager and motivated to contribute more productively and conscientiously than before to this area of our encyclopedia.

I acknowledge that mistakes, misjudgments, and communication failures occurred, which resulted in sanctions against editors who are active and productive in this field. It would be naive to deny these issues and my part in it. While it's natural to initially point fingers at external factors when facing adversity, I take responsibility for my actions and having given another opportunity I would do thing much differently.

Previously, I extensively edited topics related to 20th-century politics and history, recognizing the complexities and challenges inherent in these areas, especially on Wikipedia. However, I do not attribute fault to the subject matter or circumstances. Now, after a substantial hiatus, I have the time and strong desire to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia's development. Furthermore, I have thoroughly reviewed Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in order to enhance my work.

I previously contacted you with a similar request last summer, and you advised me to reapply after six months and explore other areas outside my primary interests. I waited nearly a year to gain perspective and reflect on my approach. And I have been editing actively. Also, during this time, I have successfully contributed to other English language projects, Commons, and Wikidata (patroller), without encountering any issues.

I sincerely hope for the opportunity to edit in this area again after this extended break. If necessary, I am willing to refrain from editing topics related to the history of 20th-century Eastern European countries until the end of the year.

My genuine intention remains to contribute to the creation of a comprehensive and free encyclopedia.

Thank you in advance G. — Sadko (words are wind) 10:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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.

For whatever reason, this followup to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive283#Sadko was held here, and I for one had no idea we're going to just let Sadko off the hook.

A few days later, I find out about this by way of reading his little escalation of a Balkans-related flamewar at [1]. We already have plenty of issues in that discussion, [2] [3] [4] and seeing another known troublemaker back in action is just disheartening. How can this unban possibly lead to better, consensus-building discussions? -- Joy ( talk) 04:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Editor with admin. privileges who was previously very vocal and eager to get me banned is lobbyng once again for the same result while at the same using this and another forum for harsh unfair comments about propaganda directed only at me and putting pressure on fellow admin, some 16 days after the topic was closed and sanctions lifted... That was the only RfC I have participated in, so far, and everything was done by the book and coments similiar to mine were repeated by a number of other editors ( one recent example). This is the kind of pressure some people face when editing CEE and I will fully understand if Guerillero changes his mind. Honestly, I've never seen anything like it in my 15 years of editing, but okay;. Another day in paradise. Still, I understand Joy's fears and I am sure that he has WP's best interests at heart. Best. — Sadko (words are wind) 09:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The cause and effect relationship between someone becoming vocal in having you banned and the fact that having to deal with you is making the work on encyclopedia so much harder should be fairly obvious.

You were given a second chance by Guerillero, and it took you that many days to find the next flamewar in the same topic area. We would be remiss in our duty to enforce the rules of decorum if this wasn't immediate cause for concern.

The fact that this other editor Binksternet has espoused views somewhat similar to yours doesn't mean much, because they don't (AFAIK) have a history of making things suck so much that they would get banned. -- Joy ( talk) 14:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Last year, @ Peacemaker67:, the admin who reported Sadko at AE, suggested that if the topic ban is lifted, it is done on the condition that Sadko is not allowed to edit historic or political Balkan stuff, especially of the 20th century. You said that [5] at the time. Idk if you forgot or changed mind. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 10:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Binksternet has a long history of problematic behavior on that page. Just search by his username through archives. I'm surprised that was tolerated without any sanctions, but his latest racist post is inexcusable. He posted "the Croatian location is a factor in evaluating their stance on this topic" [6]. Ok, I don't know about Sadko, I personally have no problems with him participating. He has just repeated what others have said before him, no problem there, but let's not get over racism on Wikipedia. 95.168.120.19 ( talk) 15:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

A small comment from my own side. IMO, since the topic ban was the result of the consensus of several admins at AE, the appeal should have been made at AE, or at least those admins should have been pinged here for consultation etc. For an editor who breached the topic ban zillions of times (and got no sanctions for that) and who did not substiantially contribute to other topic areas meanwhile (apart from small edits, mostly frivolous tp archiving), this especially needed consultation or keeping some of the restrictions in place i.e. doing only a partial lifting of the topic ban, at least as a first step. Anyways. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 10:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

• I'm not thrilled by the low edit count, but I am inclined to lift the sanction. I will give others a few days to leave comments -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Sadko: Seeing no objections, I lift the sanction I imposed on you -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Ty. G. Best. — Sadko (words are wind) 10:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply