< Wikipedia:Arbitration  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFAr)

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Requests for arbitration

Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms

Motion enacted and request archived. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by David Tornheim at 06:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Genetically modified organisms arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. David Tornheim's topic ban from topic of genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed is reduced to be a topic-ban from glyphosate, broadly construed. David Tornheim is further warned that any disruption in the GMO topic area after this appeal will likely result in additional sanctions, including but not limited to the restoration of the original topic ban as a new sanction. 17:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Remove restriction

Statement by David Tornheim

I am appealing my topic ban from GMOs imposed by Seraphimblade in July 2016—almost four years ago. I have not made any edits in the area since then.

In April 2019, I appealed this topic ban, and it was reduced by TonyBallioni to a topic-ban from glyphosate, broadly construed.

I have not edited articles related to glyphosate or GMOs since then. I would like to have this restriction removed.

After four years, this restriction appears to be more punitive than WP:PREVENTATIVE. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv and GorillaWarfare::
Can you comment on what kind of edits you plan to make in this topic area?
I mentioned this in my previous appeal last year, where I said, "If my topic ban is lifted, I will help keep the area up to date with the most recent science using the best reliable sources." I also commented on the fact that the science has fallen out of date, where a nearly 20-year-old report has been superseded.
I have a Bachelor of Science from University of Cincinnati and Master of Science from University of Southern California, and can bring a science background and knowledge of proper review of scientific literature to articles. I edit under my own name.
(a) understands the reason for their ban * * * (c) has a plan for doing things differently going forward
I explained that in my response to Seraphimblade in my previous appeal. In particular, I said that I will focus on content, not editor.
At the time of my 2016 topic ban, I had only made about 3,000 edits; now I have made over 12,000 edits. I am far more familiar with the policies and guidelines around casting aspersions and civility, and I now understand the importance of collaborative editing and how to resolve conflicts when there is disagreement.
I am now far more familiar with sourcing requirements than in 2016.
(b) can demonstrate a history of making productive edits in other areas
I believe my edit-history speaks for itself. I provided a number of examples of areas I was involved in, in my appeal of 2019 in the initial post. Since then, I have continued to work on vandalism reversion and created articles on the John Robinson Circus and Tillie (elephant).
I'm also curious to know why you haven't returned to editing GMO topics since the reduction in your topic ban scope.
(1) I wanted to demonstrate continued restraint. Often, editors who have been blocked or topic-banned immediately return to their past behaviors as soon as the ban is lifted.
(2) Shortly after the reduction in my topic-ban, I sought clarification on the scope of the topic ban. I was puzzled by the responses and simply stayed away.
(3) That almost any edit in GMO might be construed as related to glyphosate was a big deterrent.
I value my reputation on Wikipedia. Editing under my real name, my reputation at Wikipedia reflects on me personally and directly. In four years of the topic ban, I have learned from my mistakes.
--David Tornheim (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: Motion

@Bradv: @SoWhy: Thank you for the motion and vote of confidence, and for an opportunity to clarify why I did not edit in the GMO area and have not done so in the nearly three months since I opened this appeal.
@Joe Roe: I appreciate your saying I am a "productive and sensible editor".
I am confused as to why there was some expectation that I could only get the remainder of my ban lifted only if I successfully edited in the ambiguous area that includes GMOs but does not include anything related to glyphosate broadly-construed.
A reasonable person might argue that glyphosate broadly-construed includes anything related to GMOs. Our article Genetically modified organism says:

The majority of GM crops have been modified to be resistant to selected herbicides, usually a glyphosate or glufosinate based one…in the USA 93% of soybeans and most of the GM maize grown is glyphosate tolerant.

Because of the strong connection between glyphosate/Round-Up and herbicide-resistant GMO crops, the top Google search results for GMO (top 4), genetically modified organism (top 6), Google Scholar genetically modified organism (top 5), GMO Wikipedia (top 5) all mention either glyphosate, Round Up and/or herbicide-resistant GMOs.
Because glyphosate and the corporations that make it are so interconnected to GMO herbicide-resistant crops, I sought clarification on April 26, 2019 about the scope of the revised topic ban. However, the two of the admins who enacted the lessened restriction both gave responses that felt frosty to me:

  • I’m a little confused about what you wish to clarify, though, because it's fairly clear. Vanamonde93
  • I’m not sure what’s confusing here....If you think an edit may be related to [glyphosate], don’t make it. Pretty simple. Put another way: if a reasonable informed third-party thinks that an edit is related to glyphosate, you shouldn’t be making it. TonyBallioni

It appeared the two admins saw it as a problem that I was even asking for clarification about what was and was not okay to edit. It is not obvious to me what the scope is, which is why I asked.
If you received these replies, would you venture into the topic area and risk being accused or perceived of deliberately attempting to skirt the revised topic ban’s ambiguous boundaries?
In an abundance of caution and to avoid further annoying anyone, I took their advice:

(1) I did not ask further for clarification here at WP: ARCA or anywhere else.
(2) I did not edit anything remotely related to glyphosate, i.e. anything involving GMOs, pesticides, companies that make these products, etc.

I thought this approach a prudent and simple choice demonstrating patience and restraint that was being asked of me.
I edit under my own name and prefer not to have this restriction associated with me or my account, when I have not edited in the area in years. Thanks for your attention to this matter. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

To the arbs: Thank you for your votes in support of lifting my restriction. I really appreciate it, and I will make every effort to heed your advice. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by TonyBallioni

No real thoughts on this. I’m happy with whatever the arbs decide. My standard comment is that a sanction working should not be taken as evidence that it isn’t needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade

I was rather apprehensive about narrowing the original sanction's scope, but it appears that doing so hasn't had any negative consequences. I suppose this could be tried, with a clear understanding that if the problems occur again, the topic ban will be put right back in place. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

As someone who spent a lot of time trying to curate the GMO topic and deal with the disruption David Tornheim and other editors caused, I'm going to ask arbs to carefully read the comments (especially admins) from both David's original topic ban AE, and the appeal, especially in the context of how frustrated the community was with what David was constantly stirring up in this topic. A lot of David's actions outlined there more or less forced us to need a DS-enforced RfC on the scientific consensus for genetically modified food safety. There (and before) David frequently engaged in denialism on the consensus, and in the real-world, that is generally treated similarly to climate change denial, anti-vaccine sentiment, etc.[1][2] Such WP:PSCI policy violations generally require a significant demonstrated change in subject matter competence for sanctions to be not needed.

Even at that AE appeal less than a year ago, the topic ban reduction was pretty tepid among admins, and part of the expectation was that David could use it demonstrate they could edit appropriately in the broader GMO area. Instead, they haven't edited the area at all. That's somewhat akin (though not exactly the same) to the problem of an editor being topic banned, "retiring" for the length of it, then appealing it saying that haven't caused problems since. In the real world, fringe proponents have shifted the goal posts away from GMO safety to glyphosate to make that the new point flash pan controversy filled with fringe theories us agricultural/science editors have spent a lot of effort separating from actual science. That David wants to directly jump into this new controversy without any other GMO edits is a serious red flag. Contrary to their last appeal's comment I think this illustrates that I was a newbie who did not fully understand the rules and Wikipedia norms..., the kind of stuff they engaged in went well beyond being a newbie and shows disregard for what they actually were banned for. My specific comments at the appeal have more background on that.

Prior to the ban, David's main area of disruption was primarily in GMOs with serious WP:FRINGE and WP:ADVOCACY issues, which is documented pretty well at their original AE ban and the previous sanctions listed there. Part of the behavior issues that the topic ban was meant to handle was to keep David away from science curators in the topic such as myself in lieu of a one-way interaction ban. That has to do with a specific GMO principle we passed at arbcom on aspersions (e.g., the Monsanto shill gambit). There's a lot of other history behind that principle, but a major reason for David's ban was hounding editors and disrupting content discussion with that gambit and encouraging others as you can read about in their original AE ban that led to two others getting sanctioned at well. See David's Monsanto must be pleased thread for another example of what we had to deal with until admins finally stepped in.

If anything else, it still looks like the WP:PREVENTATIVE ban is still working, and David hasn't given us any reason to think otherwise given how serious their behavior issues were before the topic ban (most comments at the last appeal were very generic that struck me as a mix between empty and incomplete apologies). As I asked at the last appeal, why would David be so interested in coming back into a topic they were so dead set against the science on? Their last appeal really didn't address the problems they caused at all, and this appeal has even less. We really need a good reason given past behavior to let David into controversial areas on this subject beyond it's been awhile and the topic seems calmer now. If anything, that's because the sanction was working correctly. I might have different opinions on more periphery GMO editors that were banned/sanctioned (13+ at last count), but David was one of the core editors in this subject that led to the original GMO case and problems afterwards.

Obviously I've had to deal with a lot from David in the past I've tried to distill down into something manageable, but if you boil this all down into one line, if David still can't even directly address the serious behavior that led to their ban, then the appeal should be denied. They haven't said or done anything different since the last appeal, glyphosate is still controversial, and this appeal seems to be significantly lacking for establishing what would be considered low-risk upon return. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv and GorillaWarfare: Seeing David's most recent response, I'm concerned they especially skirt around one of the core issues. They say they have a science background, yet outright denied the scientific consensus and significantly disrupted the topic as part of it. The "updating" the science thing goes back to WP:TE type issues that came up in the GMO RfC I mentioned above. An issue there wasn't not using scientific sources, but cherrypicking low quality fringe articles and taking up community time pushing that. What David has said on having a science background doesn't differentiate them from before their topic ban, but I realize it's not easy for arbs either since you need to somehow assess subject matter competence changes to address the fringe advocacy history, especially with no edit history in the unbanned areas. I'm not sure how you could reasonably assess if the POV problems wouldn't come back.
On the old rejected change they do mention, the science hasn't really changed in that area significantly (I'll stay out of those weeds), so David's comment is already a red flag for me. It may seem minor at first glance, but those kind of edits using attribution or middling language to lessen the apparent weight of a source were a common problem back before the ban (normally something from the from a secondary source like the EPA wouldn't even need attribution). In reality though, that entire section was already since updated over the years looking for more current sources. Editors still decided to use the source in question (ref 80) along with a more current one in part because nothing was really superseded. This isn't exactly an area lacking attention. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Just a reminder since this is still open that group battleground behavior was an issue at David's original ban where Jusdafax was also sanctioned. Jusdafax's Unless one assumes bad faith comment is just continuing that same pot stirring from old disputes. That case partly shows why those of us science editors actually in the subject are so cautious about this all.
Otherwise Nosebagbear's comments are a fairly even-handed read of the situation. There are plenty of GMOs that don't deal with glyphosate. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Side note

  • Just a slight aside, but I also wanted to update arbs on the general status of the GMO/pesticide topic. Back at the original 2015 case, only a few editors were actually sanctioned just because of the sheer number of problems to sort through. Slowly over time, other disruptive editors were topic-banned (or some interaction bans) as I mentioned with the 13+ sanctions above. However, that left a lot of fatigue on the few editors who did remain trying to handle the tough content while also juggling with problematic behavior from editors and not wanting to run to AE each time giving the appearance of policing the topic. It wasn't until recently that things mostly settled down in 2018 and a flareup that took up a chunk of 2019. That's largely why I'm so cautious from a WP:STEWARDSHIP perspective now.
In general, agricultural topics don't attract as many subject matter experts, but in the real-world, the subject does attract a lot of WP:FRINGE stuff that finds it way to the encyclopedia when you get people coming in with advocacy issues. The volume of that may be higher in things like climate change or alt med, but there are also more editors to handle that in those topics. We've lost some good editors in part because of how long it took to really tamp down on behavior issues here, so I would ask arbs to consider for future GMO/pesticide discussions what their risk tolerance for an editor in the subject should be. I know I'd like to go from maintenance to fleshing out mode in the subject again now that it's been in a relative lull for a few months, but being stuck with new or old behavior problems has often put a stop to that for me. Those of us left in the subject have had a lot on our plates, and while the DS have helped take some unnecessary burden off them, I think I can speak for a lot of us that we shouldn't be handed something that has a decent risk of stirring up the subject again and ending back up at AE/Arbcom. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

On motion

On the other end of the spectrum in terms of WP:FRINGE though, which has been an already established issue with David, is that glyphosate has been treated as a sort of pervasive boogeyman in the subject by fringe proponents, similar to what we see with moving goalposts on vaccines "causing" autism pseudoscience. One of the issues in this subject is fringe proponents blaming all perceived ills on a topic of the day, namely glyphosate lately.[3]. When I see someone making an argument that glyphosate is so pervasive in the subject that it cannot be approached without needing to address glyphosate, that does throw up a red flag about continued POV mentality issues even after all this time of being banned.
I understand arbs are not going to be up to speed on all the fringe stuff that happens in this subject (apologies for my section length in trying to help with that over these months), just as how they may not immediately see red flags in the nuts and bolts of a climate change denial case, but those comments should add more concern, not less. I've said more than enough about the history with David previously, but this bit on what the subject matter actually entails did need to be brought up. As Capeo alluded to, such seemingly innocuous language can instead be major red flags to us subject editors who've dealt with it first-hand. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Nosebagbear, (and current commenting arbs Joe, SoWhy, Newyorkbrad, and Bradv) it's definitely the latter in this case on your comment speaking as a public sector agricultural scientist (i.e., no COI, etc.) since you ask . I mentioned all the GMO subjects above they could have edited, but I neglected to say the DS/topic bans don't cover just GMOs. They also cover pesticides, and many pesticides have nothing to do with GMO (or glyphosate) at all outside of a select few. I'll just link Pesticide#Definition as a start to that rabbit hole. Even giving the incorrect idea that someone couldn't edit after their GMO & pesticide ban without hitting on glyphosate a generous buffer for the sake of argument, I'd guess that at least 75% of articles would have no conflict with the glyphosate ban. We just cannot misrepresent the topic by saying that glyphosate is so pervasive, and I linked above how that mentality gets into WP:PSCI territory. Even Arbs cannot override that policy and endorse such a viewpoint without running into problems with that. That's just the inherent nature of the subject though.
The approach you do mention though is pretty much what was suggested at the last AE. Why the ban should be lifted without them following that advice with ample opportunity to do so is what concerns me given their previous focus on glyphosate. Let them demonstrate it in topics within the old ban they have nothing to do with glyphosate. Even I can't argue against that, and it shouldn't be difficult for David considering how much they used to edit in the subject (and should know better than to make the claim they did). Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Jusdafax and WP:ASPERSIONS

Sigh, I wasn't going to post here further, but since Jusdafax pinged me twice I'll briefly respond to the hounding (I don't like my section length, but it could be worse for being an active editor in the subject of a 3+ month ArbCom request). In short, Jusdafax had a warning logged in the AE sanction log for casting aspersions (a principle from the original GMO case) for their battleground needling in GMO topics in association with David's original AE case.[4]. It's an enforcement action regardless of how you try to split it, shouldn't be a red herring from why the warning happened, WP:SANCTION is clear to look at the logs, and it does seem like hounding to me when they try to paint such a small detail into "hostility", "locking down the topic", etc. against their warning.

I won't entertain the rest they mention here since that's been dismissed as misrepresentations of me previously and the aspersions principle is supposed to protect against repeated mischaracterizations that need a wall of text each time to debunk. That and this request is about David's ban. That kind of throwing shade is just getting needlessly tiring, so I would seriously welcome any advice from arbs/admins on stopping the harassment without reinforcing their lock down a subject narrative by needing to go to AE for help for continued sniping. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

This seems like a bad idea to me - the anti-GMO brigade are hammering hard at Monsanto right now after the capricious court award. Guy (help!) 22:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  • @Jusdafax: A formal logged warning is indeed a sanction. Wikilawyering quibbles over the precise terminology used to describe a thing that definitely happened is classic WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, so you should probably stop that about now. Guy (help!) 08:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie

It's a bit sad to see this stall. I thought the appeal had merit and deserved a bit more consideration. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

This is really a rather simple request. We are approaching 2 months since the filing. Hopefully this can be handled soon. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Nosebagbear

While there might not be a benefit to immediately become a hyper-active editor in a field that an editor was recently Tbanned in, not editing in any of it (but still planning to) is almost as problematic.

Certainly we could deduce that the editor is more patient than they were, which is a plus. But we can't tell that their editing has become any better, whether they can handle dispute in their controversial field and so on. Thus, I'd like to advise the following:

  1. David Tornheim's appeal to be declined
  2. A recommendation/request be made to Tornheim to get at least some activity in the now open bits of their original TBAN to show it as a viable field for them
  3. A shorter timescale than ARBCOM refused appeals are often suggested with to be given. I can't see any reason why 3 months of helpful contribution by Tornheim, after his lack of issues thus far, wouldn't be sufficient, so make that the timescale before a permitted re-appeal (rather than 6 months etc etc)

Nosebagbear (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Statement update post-proposal

  • Slightly oddly here, I'm going to have to say the above statement is somewhat conditional, and conditional on knowledge I don't have. If editors with a firmer knowledge of the sphere agree that it's hard to talk about GMOs without tripping a glyphosphate TBAN, then by all means this should be removed as the editor righly played it safe. If they could have edited GMO articles a bit more then I feel my above, hopefully moderate, suggestion still holds up. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Jusdafax

I am in agreement with Seraphimblade and Mr Ernie that David Tornheim’s restriction should be lifted. Four years really is a long time on Wikipedia.

DT’s statement here is direct. His answers to the questions are reasonable, regarding his not editing in the GMO field since he was partially unbanned in 2019: the conditions appeared to him to be open to interpretation.

A look at his User page and his last 500 edits, all made this year, show a diverse ongoing commitment to the project. Unless one assumes bad faith, I believe there is no good reason not to lift the remainder of the topic ban. Jusdafax (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Update, May 12, 2020 - I agree with Capeo that this now nearly two-month-old request is indeed "really not fair to David," who shows exemplary patience with the long-lasting process here. However, Capeo provides no diffs regarding DT's editing, and argues that DT should essentially be permanently topic banned, despite the fact that "David has been prolifically and constructively contributing." I would ask, what else exactly does David Tornheim have to do? DT has repeatedly proved his worth to Wikipedia in the nearly four years since he got his only block. Give the guy some credit, assume good faith, and let's move on. Jusdafax (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Update, June 15, 2020 - I am encouraged by the motion, the several additional favorable comments and by David Tornheim's further clarification yesterday, which is clear and precise, with appropriate diffs and reasoning. He exhibits both outstanding patience and prudence during this several month's-long process. A request for adminship lasts a week. His request here has now dragged on for almost a quarter of a year. I submit David Tornheim has more than passed the test, and I salute him and those supporting the end to his years of sanctions. Jusdafax (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding erroneous statements here and elsewhere by Kingofaces43

I can seldom focus on the walls of text Kingofaces43 posts. Few others here share his views. However, I notice that Kingofaces43 incorrectly states, in his mass of words on this page, that "Jusdafax was also sanctioned." As my log shows I have never been sanctioned with either topic ban or block. It is true I got an official warning, my one and only, I believe, but a warning is not a WP:SANCTION.

Since it's difficult to believe that Kingofaces43 does not understand the difference between a warning and a sanction, I have to conclude that Kingofaces43's comment regarding my being "sanctioned" is designed to damage my credibility. He has a documented history of doing this. Some examples: Kingofaces43 has misrepresented others on GMO topics in just the past few weeks, and this recent GMO thread on User:Levivich's Talk page makes for interesting reading, starting with Kingofaces43's inappropriate GMO templating of Levivich, and Levivch's strenuous objections.

In May, 2019, King was informally admonished by Administrator Vanamonde93 for this misrepresentation termed "patently untrue", again on October 29, 2019 for the same behavior "You've repeated that erroneous statement here." and the next day again calling King's statement "a misrepresentation."

So, right in front of ArbCom, Kingofaces43 escalates with claims that I have been sanctioned while he accuses me of "just continuing that same pot stirring from old disputes." My diffs show an ongoing pattern from Kingofaces43 of false assertions made with impunity. These are not aspersions I am making, these are stated facts with diffs.

The relevance here: I'm extremely concerned about David Tornheim's way forward on GMO's/glyphosate editing per Kingofaces43's open, unrelenting hostility towards editors he disagrees with. King's statement regarding this pending end to David's sanctions as "…stirring up the subject again and ending back up at AE/Arbcom," I take as a threat, and an attempt by Kingofaces43 to lock down a subject he claims special rights to as a steward and curator. As the committee prepares to close this request, I suggest King's behavior be noted per the above, and he be formally warned.

Again, I heartily thank the committee for their deliberations regarding David Tornheim, which have now reached an appropriate and nearly unanimous conclusion. Jusdafax (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Capeo

I haven’t been around for quite a while now, but I’ve still checked my watchlist with some regularity. This ARCA has been open for way too long and it’s really not fair to David. Decide one way or the other. My opinion, as someone who took part in the whole GMO blowout, is to maintain the status quo. I haven’t done a deep dive, but it seems that David has been prolifically and constructively contributing outside the GMO suite for some time, while avoiding the parts of it he’s not technically TBed from. That’s a good thing. What gives me pause is his contention that he wants the update these articles with “the most recent science.” Much of the conflict regarding David arose from selectively reading sources and insisting on primary and/or discredited sources. I’m not seeing much benefit to opening that door again. Capeo (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme

Four years is a long time for a t-ban. This editor has a single block dating back to 2016, so it isn't like the project has had to deal with a relentlessly disruptive editor. I recall a recent ArbCom case request wherein some of the arbs declined it because the episodes that prompted the filing are now stale - and they were only a year old. Continuing a t-ban that has since become a very narrow segment of the original t-ban seems rather counterproductive. David has responded positively to feedback, he comes across as sincere, and he has diligently honored his t-ban while it was in force, which to me indicates restraint and willingness to do the right thing. We aren't doing the encyclopedia any favors by continuing this narrowly scoped t-ban without any indication or evidence that removing it will present a risk of disruption to the topic area. Atsme Talk 📧 02:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by SandyGeorgia

This request seems to be stalled. One plus of letting DT back into GMO content is that his work there will be carefully watched, unlike the backwaters of editing Venezuelan topics, where he has been editing and where there are far fewer eyes and knowledgeable editors. If problems surface at GMO again, a more permanent solution can be sought, more quickly.
Otherwise, all these topic bans accomplish is to unleash problem editors on other content areas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Recuse. Katietalk 15:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • David Tornheim, can you comment on what kind of edits you plan to make in this topic area? Typically when topic bans are lifted we would want to see that the appellant (a) understands the reason for their ban, (b) can demonstrate a history of making productive edits in other areas, and (c) has a plan for doing things differently going forward. You claim in your request that you haven't made any edits in the GMO topic area since that ban was lifted, so why does it need to be lifted further? How would doing so benefit the project? – bradv🍁 19:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • David Tornheim Like Bradv, I'd like to hear what kind of editing you plan to do if the ban is lifted. I'm also curious to know why you haven't returned to editing GMO topics since the reduction in your topic ban scope; normally that would be a good path towards demonstrating that the remaining restriction is unnecessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Upon reading David's replies and the comments by others, I am agreeing with Jusdafax that lifting the ban after four years might be beneficial to the project. I also think David is sufficiently warned that any return to old behavior will swiftly result in sanctions again. Regards SoWhy 07:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry this has sat for so long. I was going to go on about how busy I've been but it really is inexcusable for a simple request to sit for this long. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Motion: Genetically modified organisms

David Tornheim's topic ban from glyphosate, imposed as a discretionary sanction on 28 July 2016 and amended on 23 April 2019, is rescinded.
For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive and 1 who has abstained or recused, so 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  1. Proposed. This has been open for quite a while now, and it wouldn't be fair to archive it without considering a motion. With regard to my question above, the assertion that all GMO topics may be related to glyphosate is a compelling explanation for why David Tornheim hasn't taken advantage of the reduced topic ban. – bradv🍁 02:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
    In response to some of the comments above I'll clarify my comment a bit further. I am by no means claiming that all GMO topics are related to glyphosate, as I am not qualified to make such a determination. However, the assertion that some admins may consider the entire topic area to be related to "glyphosate, broadly construed" is a reasonable explanation for why David Tornheim might be cautious about editing in this area, and why he has thus far avoided it. Additionally, looking at this from the other perspective, the topic ban has been in place for 4 years and no one has presented a compelling argument here for why this particular editor continues to pose a risk. The concerns I expressed in my original comment above have been answered. – bradv🍁 16:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  2. Per my comment above and bradv. Regards SoWhy 07:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  3. I was on the fence here, because I really would have liked to see some editing in the topic area when we loosened the restrictions last time. However, I also can respect wishing to leave a wide berth around one's restrictions, which is often wise. Let's give this a shot, and if disruption occurs the sanctions can always be reimposed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  5. It is a well referenced area. if problems occur then it can be dealt with readily Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  6. Weak support, which is why it's taken me this long to cast a vote, but four-plus years is a long time. Although I can see the counterarguments, I'm persuaded that we shouldn't hold it against an editor that he's stayed far away from the edges of his topic-ban, when that ordinarily is just what we counsel topic-banned editors to do. I urge David Tornheim to show the same caution if he now returns to editing on GMOs and related issues: start with less controversial aspects, use the best sources, avoid reverts, and engage in civil discussion where needed. If problems recur, discretionary sanctions remain available against this as against any other editor; I sincerely hope that will not prove necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  7. WormTT(talk) 17:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  8. With the understanding that if there are further problems in this area, the ban will be rapidly re-instanted and it will be extremely difficult to appeal it again,and there could be further sanctions. I say this in the sincere hope that it won't come to that and there will be no such problems. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  1. With apologies for the long delay, and thanks to the additional comments that have helped me understand this topic area. David, the narrowing of your TBAN from GMOs to glyphosate was really your opportunity to show that you can contribute to this topic without the problems from before reoccurring. I've seen you around at AfD and the Teahouse many times, so I know you're a productive and sensible editor, but contributing to contentious and fringe topics has its own set of challenges. If you can do some editing on GMOs and come back in a few months, I'm sure I could support this, but absent that evidence I think it's better to be safe than sorry. – Joe (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Given the time that's elapsed since this discussion began, I'm going to wait another couple of days for community input on the new proposed motion before voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles

Initiated by Zero0000 at 17:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Zero0000

In accordance with the ARBPIA General Sanctions, non-extended-confirmed editors are permitted to edit talk pages of ARBPIA articles under certain conditions. However, "This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.". My question is: Is a formal move proposal, as made using the {{requested move}} template, an example of "other internal project discussions"?

My opinion is that a move proposal is very similar to an RfC and so should be treated the same.

Thanks for your time. Zerotalk 17:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

To Bradv: I think your interpretation of "content" is narrower than intended. The very fact that the rules for talk space editing, AfDs, etc, are called "exceptions" proves that "content" is intended to include them. I believe that "content" just means "all content" in the ordinary English sense and it isn't a specific reference to article space. Zerotalk 04:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, there is nothing to stop non-ECs from discussing the topic of an on-going RfC on the talk page; they are only prohibited from taking part in the RfC itself. I believe this is important because of the number of new accounts or IPs that come out of nowhere just to "vote" in RfCs. I expect that a large fraction are socks, people editing while logged out, or people responding to off-wiki canvassing. Zerotalk 05:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by selfstudier

The question came up here, I thought RM is not allowed and at first @El C: thought it was OK and then decided it wasn't. Perhaps it should be made clear that it is not allowed (in practice, it is similar to an RFC).Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I see RMs as being very similar to RfCs in nature, so my feeling is that if RfCs are disallowed, RMs should be as well. The question of how to title an article is, after all, an "internal project discussion". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Can I Log In

I've been following this clarification request since the beginning, and it seems like bradv pointed out interesting information that the 500/30 restriction applies to editing content only. So as worded, non-500/30 users may participate in "other internal project discussions".

Now let's look at WP:ARBPIA3, finding of fact No. 3

3) The Palestine-Israel topic area has been continuously plagued by sockpuppetry. (Kingsindian's Evidence)

Passed 11 to 0 at 15:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that was from ~4.5 years ago, but when you consider this to be a long-term problem, it's likely that the problem persist.

So with this underlying fact and intention/principle, I think that the 500/30 restriction does apply to RM as well as other internal project or vote-like discussions in any ArbCom/community areas of conflict. Sockpuppetry is small, but when discovered, is huge. 01:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • My understanding of that clause is that "other internal discussions" refers to discussions that take place in locations other than the talk page of an article. Requested move discussions, as with other talk page discussions, can be managed by the methods listed in paragraph b, but only when disruption occurs. – bradv🍁 15:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
    GorillaWarfare, my understanding is that non-extended-confirmed editors are permitted to edit talk pages and other discussions, "provided they are not disruptive". They are only prohibited from editing the articles themselves. So they can contribute to RMs and RfCs, but if they are disruptive they can be banned from the talk page, but not from other internal discussions. – bradv🍁 16:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
    I suppose there's another interpretation of the General Sanctions that says that non-edit-confirmed editors are prohibited from participating in "other internal discussions". Perhaps someone can clarify the intent of the word "exception" in paragraph B-1, as I might be confused. – bradv🍁 17:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
    Follow up, having read this more carefully:
    ARBPIA General Sanctions, as currently worded, only applies the 500/30 prohibition to "editing content". There is an exception (extension?) to apply that rule to talk pages in the case of disruption, but that clause does not apply to "internal project discussions".
    As worded, this restriction does not prohibit new editors from participating in RMs, RfC, AfDs, or any other internal discussions, as they are not "editing content". If that was not the intent of the motion, it should be reworded. – bradv🍁 14:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm a little split on this one, given that they are very similar to RfCs. As to Bradv's point about discussions happening away from the talk page, RfCs fairly often happen on the articles' talk pages and my understanding is that non-30/500 users are not allowed to participate then either (though please correct me if I'm wrong—my particular editing interests do not take me into the area of Palestine-Israel articles very often). GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
    I don't think I agree with Bradv's interpretation of "editing content"—I don't think "content" is meant to refer to "article content", but rather is just a vague term to refer to any editing. I agree with my other colleagues that RMs would seem to be prohibited, as are RfCs. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the prohibition applies here, they're similar both to RfCCs, and AfDs; a title move in this area can be very consequential, and tend to be disruptive. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC) .
  • In the interests of a conservative reading to avoid disruption and the problems with the topic area, I'd agree that the prohibition would apply. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I see where bradv is coming from and I agree that interpreting that exception it seems to be limited to discussions that are about more than just a single page even with the "RfCs" wedged in there. Moves can be controversial, yes, but so can changes in content. It makes no sense to say "You are allowed to argue for the change of everything but the name is off limits". Consequently, I would argue that the "RfCs" reverse-exception currently does not cover RfCs that are limited to the page in question and are held on the talk page because those RfCs do not fit the "internal discussions" definition (unlike AFDs, WikiProjects etc.). To take another example: WP:DAILYMAILRFC was an "internal discussion" because it was about whether to qualify a newspaper as a reliable source. The RfC held at Talk:Daily Mail/Archive 5#RfC on adding substantial number of lawsuits was not an "internal discussion" because it was only about what to include in this specific article. Regards SoWhy 08:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • To me a Requested Move is short hand for Request for Comment on a Move. Seems fairly obvious that the rules should be the same WormTT(talk) 17:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I can't see how an RM discussion isn't an "internal project discussion." If that's the only question here that would be my answer. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Uphold prohibition/ restrictions in this case. Seems just as contentious as warring over content. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Amendment request: India-Pakistan

Initiated by Shashank5988 at 16:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. AE Appeal of Mar4d

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Appeal's result should be overturned

Statement by Shashank5988

As WP:ARE comes under the jurisdiction of Arbcom and Arbcom has the authority to overturn and/or modify any of the enforcement made on WP:ARE, I am bringing to your attention a case related to a topic ban appeal by User:Mar4d at the above-mentioned board, in which the evidence of a number of violations was not taken into consideration while granting the appeal.

It is important at the outset that I clarify that there are no issues with the closing admin's closure, as he merely carried out the agreement amongst administrators.[5]

However the problems, which are major in nature, pertain to the way the appeal was handled, which I deem to be not in consonance with the relevant Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I shall enumerate them below:

  • To begin with, the very first sentence of the user's appeal was not borne out by facts. It read, and I quote: "I would like to humbly appeal for lifting a topic ban restriction which dates back to May 2018. The restriction in question was applied collectively amongst at least nine other editors at the time, with the option to appeal in 6 months' time, which I did not choose to exercise until now."[6] (emphasis mine) The veracity of this statement was never tested or questioned and the user was taken at his words despite there was a glaring prevarication in what he stated because Mar4d was amongst the users who had collectively appealed their sanctions to Arbcom on WP:ARCA,[7] and was notified of the subsequent rejection thereof.[8] This revelation was never made in the appeal and the user thereby committed open perfidy; the failure of the admins to see through this betrayed a lack of due diligence on their part.
  • Several instances of unambiguous topic ban violations, misrepresentation of sources while adding text to articles committed by the user were bought to the attention at AE, none of which were addressed by the admins who took part in evaluating the appeal.
Recent topic ban violations and source misrepresentation as presented on AE
Note that the topic ban concerns "conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed" and "any further disruption or testing of the edges of the topic ban are likely to be met with either an indefinite IPA topic ban or an indefinite block".[12] WP:BROADLY is very clear in this topic ban from the beginning.
  • The very first comment under the section devoted to the "uninvolved admins" was made by RegentsPark, an involved party who commented in the aforesaid section in disregard of WP:INVOLVED, and even when the same was pointed out to them they didn't pay any heed to it and nearly all other admins who commented based their views on Regentspark's comment.[13][14]

The fact that the user deliberately omitted any mention of past appeals, and in fact denying having appealed in the past at all, coupled with a series of topic ban infringements, among other issues, and the failure of administrators to address these issues before granting the appeal makes this case ripe enough to be considered by the Arbcom. Shashank5988 (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Mar4d

@JzG: Please take a look at the closure of the said appeal dating to June 2018, of which Shashank5988 gives the impression that I was substantially involved in. Of all the editors who received the TBAN, I was the only user who didn't lodge a single statement there or verbally challenge the sanction. I could have easily chosen to get involved, but that's besides the point. Shashank5988 only got one part right, I did indeed add my name to the "List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request", and even that was a procedural edit and because the filer had left a message on my talk a week earlier. That was my only edit to the "appeal". Shashank5988's claim that I "committed open perfidy" is laughable at best. Mar4d (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear RegentsPark, El C, Black Kite, Bishonen, TonyBallioni, JzG, Vanamonde93 etc.: In my ten plus years of editing, I have had virtually zero direct interaction with this user (Shashank5988) across a single article, discussion, you name it, anywhere. That hasn't stopped Shashank5988 from appearing first at an ARBIPA-infested ANI thread in December 2018 to oppose me, then at my recent arbitration enforcement appeal out of nowhere, and if that wasn't enough, this fresh ARCA despite the admin who closed my AE advising them otherwise. Given this won't be the first or last time I've been frivolously hounded (to wit), I just don't understand why can't we topic ban this user already for wasting everyone's time? I hope I haven't committed blasphemy by suggesting so. I'm not even touching yet the other deliberate, obfuscating accusations. I've been largely patient, honestly. Mar4d (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@SoWhy: Thanks for your closing view. In my comment above, I had expressed concerns regarding possible hounding from the filer. Could you advise what would be the correct course of action if this pattern were to continue in the future? Many thanks, Mar4d (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
SoWhy: Noted, thanks. Mar4d (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark

I don't consider myself involved re Mar4d but do apologize to Shashank5988 for not seeing their comment on the AE page (I see a ping in there, which I somehow missed, so the fault lies with me). Regardless, doubtless the other admins did look into the various allegations I see on the AE thread and made their decisions independently. I don't really see a big issue with not removing the ban from Mar4d. As I said on AE, they've complied with the spirit of the ban and we can't ask for a whole lot more from an editor. --regentspark (comment) 19:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by El C

I don't really have much more to add beyond my evaluation at AE. The risk of further disruption by lifting the ban seems low enough to be worthwhile. El_C 17:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how some previous interactions with Mar4d make regentspark an involved party. That assertion has not been established to my satisfaction. El_C 17:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Black Kite that the basis for this request could be viewed as problematic. The Committee may wish to impose sanctions on the filer themselves for making a frivolous request. El_C 19:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

Just a thought, but perhaps the admins at AE did actually look at the alleged "several instances of unambiguous topic ban violations (and) misrepresentation of sources while adding text to articles committed by the user" and decided that they either weren't violations or were very minor? And perhaps they did look at the claim that User:RegentsPark was WP:INVOLVED, and dismissed it? As I said at the AE, I take a very dim view of people that spend a significant amount of their time on Wikipedia trying to keep ideological opponents banned from articles, something which the filer of this (and a number of other editors in this area) have done recently - though I certainly didn't expect them to double down on it by taking up many people's time with an ARCA request as well. It suggests to me a battleground mindset rather than one that is dedicated to actually improving an encyclopedia. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen

Black Kite puts it so well I can only agree with every word he says. Plus a technicality: sorry, but it itches me to see RegentsPark apologising for "missing" Shashank5988's ping, when the ping wasn't correctly done and therefore didn't work.[15][16] Shashank5988, please see Help:Fixing failed pings for how to fix a faulty ping. Bishonen | tålk 21:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC).

Statement by TonyBallioni

I’ll just say what I said on my talk page: I don’t think there are any procedures allowing the committee to overturn a successful appeal of a discretionary sanction if there’s actually consensus to do so (I guess I could see it if the closing admin badly misread, but this was unanimous.)

On the merits, this was an older sanction and there was consensus to lift it to give them another chance. I’m typically very anti-ROPE and think any argument that relies on it is usually a bad argument, but here we had a user who was generally constructive and demonstrated that the potential benefits outweighed the known risks. That’s my standard, which I think was met here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Surely the simplest thing is to let matters stand, and move for another ban should Mar4d resume disruptive editing in this area? If Mar4d is as deceptive as Shashank5988 says, surely they will be back at this board in short order, with past sanctions being taken into account. Guy (help!) 17:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Mar4d  note the word "if" in the above ;-) Guy (help!) 20:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Ivanvector

The original topic ban should be extended to Shashank5988 for this bad-faith request, which has no purpose other than to harass someone they perceive as an ideological opponent. What else could possibly be the point of this admin-shopping request? We have ARBIPA DS and WP:GS/IPAK general sanctions to stamp out exactly this sort of drama-mongering and battleground behaviour, which has plagued this highly contentious topic area for years and years; we should use the tools available to us here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero

Arbcom could theoretically impose the same exact sanction as the one lifted at AE as a sua sponte action of the committee, but that is the only way, under the current procedures, that a lifted sanction by a consensus of AE admins can be reversed by the committee. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Nosebagbear

This is already heading the general way I agree with, so I just want to make a more specific aspect: I question whether ARBCOM have the right to overturn appeals made on the grounds of misapplied factual judgements, as opposed to incorrect cited policy or a poor close. Still, that aside, I would generally say that ARBCOM not only should lead most judgements to AE but a higher limit must be reached before they start overturning successful appeals than either overturning blocks or unsuccessful appeals. That's somewhat on a reading of the applicable appeal policy but also on a sense of balance. The arb comments seem to suggest that it's hardly a bizarre viewpoint. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

India-Pakistan: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I trust the consensus of the five very experienced AE admins who reviewed the appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline. There is nothing to clarify or amend here. While I do not think ArbCom is completely barred from overruling AE as an ultima ratio, the whole system is designed to not have ArbCom interfere in the day to day operations. There is no evidence presented that was not already mentioned (and rejected) at the AE that would require us to step in and revert the consensus of these very experienced admins to lift the restrictions. Plus, as Guy mentions, lifting a topic ban does not mean it cannot be reimposed swiftly if the editor in question again displays the kind of behavior that lead to the first ban. Regards SoWhy 07:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Mar4d: If you believe there is a conduct issue, WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE outlines the possible steps to address this. As a last resort, you can request arbitration. Regards SoWhy 17:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't see a reason for ArbCom to get involved. The appeal got plenty of attention. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • If there was some indication that the appeal was mishandled, it might make sense for us to review it, but with multiple experienced admins reviewing the appeal in detail I see no reason for us to step in. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing this as falling within the admins bounds for decision. Decline. WormTT(talk) 17:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • There would have to be a very compelling reason for us to overturn a consensus from AE, and I'm just not seeing it here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


Requests for enforcement


No action needed --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 Azuredivay

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 04:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Azuredivay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 4 June 2020 very many things wrong with this diff. Adds 13kb (!) of content without an edit summary, and with no explanation on the talk page. Includes content about "separatist campaign", much of which the sources do not directly connect to Pakistani nationalism. This is particularly true about the sentences discussing Direct Action Day. The same edit adds a long quotation about Pakistan from M. S. Golwalkar, a leader of the Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Golwalkar isn't a historian or political scientist, and his views constitute egregious undue weight. In short, edit violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and basic behavioral norms. EDITED: Azuredivay has pointed out that the quote already existed, for which I apologize; the software highlights it when I view that diff the same way new content is highlighted. That doesn't address the rest of the problems with that diff, though.
  2. 4 June 2020 same article as above; removes tags without explanation; adds content without a source.
  3. 23 May 2020 changes "Pakistani Qawwal" to "Indian Qawwal" without a source and without an edit summary.
  4. 4 June 2020 Accuses another user of "revisionism"; refuses to explain himself further.
  5. 14 May 2020; adds redundant links to an article; after they are removed, Azuredivay was warned, to which he responded quite dismissively.
  6. Similarly, after edit-warring over the primary name of the article at Adam's Bridge (see this, and the previous revisions), responds in this manner to a warning on his talk page.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
No previous sanctions.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I find it quite strange that Azuredivay's command of English is far superior in the first two diffs linked above, than it is in discussions. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC) Addendum; two additional concerning incidents were brought to my attention via email by an editor who did not wish to get involved at AE; they further substantiate the communication issues I highlighted above. @El C: Would you mind taking a look at this? It's possible that all that's necessary is for someone uninvolved to tell Azuredivay to communicate appropriately, but this is languishing without attention. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Azuredivay

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 Azuredivay

Diff #1 has been misrepresented. Golwalkar's quote had been added by Arslan-San[17] not me. I just combined it with the previous para and you are free to remove it if you want. The same editor also added a large amount regarding how "Sindh" was different from the rest of India, which is not true. All of the citations I added to article are reliable and were taken from other places of Wikipedia like Direct Action Day article itself. What I added actually traces the origins of Pakistani nationalism, as Muslim nationalism that began in British India among the elite class of Muslims of UP and Bihar. The content also cited the Lahore Resolution that called for a separate state in subcontinent for Indian Muslims. Mentioning Direct Action Day is obviously important because it is after that event that communal riots spread to other parts of the subcontinent resulting in partition and the realization of the Pakistani state.

Diff #2: Per WP:ES, I provided edit summary where it was needed. For the rest it is very obvious that I am only adding the content.

Diff #3: Vanamonde93 has apparently ignored in this edit that I removed puffery, unsourced and unreliably sourced content. There was no Pakistan before 1947 so how a person who was born in 1911 could be called "Pakistani"? I planned to resolve this content dispute on talk page for later.

Diff #4 has been also misrepresented because I engaged as much as it was needed and I cited a discussion (see Talk:Channar_revolt#Scholarly sources for tax?) which mentioned the word "revisionism" three times and concluded that those views were revisionist in nature. Azuredivay (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Diff #5 happened nearly a month ago and has been poorly interpreted here since my final position on the matter was opposite as I had already modified my response and acknowledged the message appropriately.[18]

Diff #6 happened 2 months ago and at that time I wasn't aware of MOS:TITLE but after this I took time to read it and never added a non-title as main name. Azuredivay (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: Where did you observed that there have been "no acknowledgement"? I don't appear to be indicating that I am going to repeat any problems raised here, in fact I told how I have resolved them. You seem wrong with your claim that a DS alert is made to "avert editing problems by putting editors on their best behaviour", because occasional mistakes are possible especially when an editor is making 100s of edits though they should not be repetitive. Finally, none of the diffs provided here rises to the level of any sanction. Azuredivay (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: I am absolutely within my rights to point out the misrepresentation of the diffs, one of which has been already acknowledged by Vanamonde93 above per here. I was not aware of that page which you have linked, but then I would still like to know if there is even a single edit which shows that I am not putting "best behaviour" in the diffs coming within a week when this report was filed because the top note of this page alone notes that "Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale". Are there any diffs coming after this report where I am not putting "best behaviour"? I have acknowledged that I should provide more edit summaries as it reflects also in my recent edits, but I still think that a simple notice "provide more edit summaries" would have worked instead of filing this report. Azuredivay (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (other involved editor)

Result concerning Azuredivay

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Since I was pinged (but somehow didn't get an alert for it — sorry), I would agree with Vanamonde93 that improvement is necessary. If Azuredivay were to take these concerns on board, that would spare them from suffering any sanctions. In that case, a warning to do better would be recommended. El_C 10:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The whole point of discretionary sanctions is to avert editing problems by putting editors on their best behaviour. Once Azuredivay had the alert in March, they should have been scrupulous in avoiding controversial edits. As there seems to be no acknowledgement that they've fallen short of the requirements, I suggest a topic-ban from the India-Pakistan area until they can show they understand how they need to be editing. --RexxS (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @Azuredivay: I find all of those five edits problematic, not "careful and constructive", and all I see from you is a defence of making them. You've resolved no concerns that Vanamonde93 raised. You need to read accurately what other editors have written because it's the point of discretionary sanctions that I'm drawing to your attention, not the point of the alert. If you haven't bothered yet, please read WP:AC/DS #guide.expect, and consider all of it carefully before you tell me I'm wrong again. Finally, I'll point out that the uninvolved admins here decide if your behaviour rises the level of a sanction, not you. --RexxS (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I would want to see a precise reason for a sanction. For example, the edits at Pakistani nationalism have not been challenged—they have not been reverted or modified, and the last edit at Talk:Pakistani nationalism was in July 2013! The two edits at Adam's Bridge were misguided but that was a month ago without a further problem that I can see. Azuredivay should be aware that this topic requires collaboration and massive edits may not be appropriate, and are definitely not appropriate when not even an edit summary is offered. Further, it is necessary to engage with other editors even if convinced they are wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @El C, RexxS, and Johnuniq: Since I don't see a clear consensus and the bot just archived this, I am going to close this as stale in the morning if nobody objects --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @Guerillero: as Azuredivay seems to have taken to heart what has been said and has edited without obvious problems since, I'm content to see it archived as "no action needed" or however you choose. --RexxS (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    • That's good, thanks. I would go with "no action needed". Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


Mikola22 is warned to be more concise and to avoid bludgeoning discussions. Sadko is warned to not weaponize AE in order to eliminate opponents of content disputes. The warnings have been logged. El_C 17:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 Mikola22

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Sadko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 19:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Mikola22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

A user under 1RR sanctions is going on with the same sort of behaviour which led to his current status and continuing his fringe narrative and disruptive editing/lack of communications, which was just recently observed by another fellow editor - @Slatersteven:

  1. Removal of sourced content in the same manner in the same way before the imposed sanctions [19] [20]
  2. Identical fringe viewpoints which were reported multiple times in the recent past (notice that there are ~10 RS presented on the article) [21]
  3. Ignoring other user’s concerns [22] [23]
  4. Complaints about prior “lost battles” which led to his/her ban in the fist place [24] [25]
  5. Continuing to push questionable notions on the same page where edit-warring was taking place (the other editors involved has been permanently banned, so it seems that the editor think he has carte blanche for his actions) [26] [27]

Endless disturbing point-scoring (the intent seemes to be to paint the Serbian role in WW2 as black as possible, using questionable sources and logic):

[28] [29] [30] (which is more often than not just wrong or taken out of full context) [31] [32] [33] [34] ! [35] [36] [37]

blunt removal [38] [39] [40] [41]

[42] (on the very same article WW2 fascists were used as "RS" by the same editor [43]) [44] (Marco Polo was Croatian) [45]

It seems to me that nothing has changed and I would suggest a topic ban on the history of the Balkans.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. [46] Sitewide block, involved admin was @El C: with whom I had a discussion about this sort of editing on his TP.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • [47] Arbitration sanction
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Constant WP:NOTHERE and refusal to cooperate with other editors.

Not at all, diffs speak quite clearly about everything, rather than the pile of interpretations which have been presented above. Constant use of questionable sources, ignoring other users and than leaving comments on the TP which just repeat the previous points. That's the modus operandi, which is not bringing anything good.
I understand that you want to turn a blind eye. There have been several reports on the same user (not done by me) for promoting fringe theories and views.
I'm not hounding anyone (taking a look once in a while in order to see what some editor/s with history of promoting fringe theories are doing can't be called hounding; I should know considering that several editors are doing the same to me). Being vigilant and pointing out to potential canvassing, which was a serious issue from editors from is not a bad thing. [48] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


Discussion concerning Mikola22

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.

My additional answer and comment is here: User talk:Mikola22 #Answer.

Does anyone read my answers, false accusations of removing something from articles, false accusations me of using questionable sources and in 95% of cases no one deletes my information with that claim, accusations of adding links to the article or deleting mine information which was later returned by another editor which confirmed this RS as reliable, false statements that someone was banned so that I took advantage of it and the same editor received same punishment like me and I am not banned. Therefore I have explained everything and I ask that all his accusations be verified and not that I be punished for false accusations. I don't know how someone could come here and write false accusations without evidence. I thought that authorities of Wikipedia would punish editor Sadko for that. My evidence for stated are here [50] Mikola22 (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Mikola22

I answered here (most accurately)[51]

Statement and responses shortened due to far exceeding word limit. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  • @Santasa99: You don't see is that I'm on Wikipedia for a few more days and you're concerned because some editor asked me for advice? Don't worry, everything will be fine. Mikola22 (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Santasa99: Any punishment (except some minor) based on this mostly false accusation of editor Sadko if I get I will ask for a permanent block. And everything is going in that direction. Do you know how many books, scientific papers I had to read and translate even though I don't know English and that someone is falsely accusing me. How much forge informations I found without anyone thanking me. See Milan Nedić article before my edit, in year 2020? Not anymore. Mikola22 (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


Statement by Tezwoo

First, it should be pointed out that Sadko was recently the main subject of a large ANI regarding POV pushing in similar topics, in some of which he had disputes with Mikola22 too. [52] Since the ANI was too large, it was overlooked. Admin Number_57 noted back then that Sadko's edits look "clearly like classic nationalist POV pushing/point-scoring in a contentious area" [53] Due to a potential WP:BOOMERANG, it should be looked at now. Sadko also seems to have been WP:WIKIHOUNDING Mikola22, as can be seen at Mikola22's talk page [54]. Here's a closer look at the report:

1st diff (Slavonia) - the first false claim, as it was not "Removal of sourced content". Mikola22 added new information from a RS.

2nd diff (Statuta Valachorum) - nothing was removed there as well, he added new content.

3rd diff (Svetozar Boroević) - those are not "fringe viewpoints", both Mikola22 and other users provided multiple RS on the talk page [55] that show how the ethnicity of Svetozar Boroević is differently presented in various sources. A consensus was reached that the article should state both the sources that mention his Serb origin (which was strongly advocated by Sadko), and those that mention a Croat origin.

"Complaints about prior “lost battles”" - that is nonexistent in the diffs provided.

"Ignoring other user’s concerns" - 1st diff (Military Frontier). Nothing was removed here, he added sources which are in fact modern historiography. He discussed that on the talk page, and another user agreed that those are reliable sources. Regarding the 2nd diff (Eparchy of Marča), Mikola22 did not add anything to the article following that discussion, so he did not ignore others concerns.

WW2 articles - Again, he added sourced content, mostly about the holocaust. It is interesting that on the 2nd diff provided there, in the previous revert, Sadko reverted an edit that "Milan Nedić implemented Hitler's anti Semitic policies" [56]. That is the only contentious edit I see there.

"blunt removal" - in the 1st diff (Svetozar Boroević), he was right to revert the edit as it was not in the cited source. 2nd diff (Nikolaj Velimirović) is obviously a mistake as he thought this was mentioned already. 3rd diff, he started a section on the talk page and several other users also pointed out to the off topic content in that article. 4th diff, nothing removed there, he added cited information.

Diff no.50 (Marco Polo) is very misleading as he did not write that "Marco Polo was Croatian". For the last diff (Chetniks), the content he added was confirmed with an additional source by Peacemaker67 [57]

That is mostly it. I'll gladly provide additional sources for any of Mikola22's additions. This just seems as an attempt to get rid of an editor with whom the user(s) had some content disputes with misleading explanations of pilled up diffs. Tezwoo (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


Context is important. Regarding "questionable sources", Sadko defended the use of an internet portal article titled "Croats are hijacking our heritage" for an ethnic identity claim [58]. The issue ( article) had to be brought to RSN, which made it clear that it is not an RS. [59]

As for "fringe views", some of the above diffs are related to the Chetniks. There is an academic consensus that the Chetniks carried out genocide during WW2. Interestingly, both Sadko [60] [61] [62] and Griboski [63] have a very recent history of contesting or removing the mention of genocide as a statement of fact, contrary to the cited source(s). Tezwoo (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The actions of the reporter are evaluated too. If the user acted the same, or worse, in the articles in question, that significantly undermines the original report. In this case, that applies to all three users who are attacking Mikola22 (see the ANI of 30 April). And claims of breaking the 1RR for diffs where 1RR was clearly not broken, or claims of removal of content on diffs where nothing was removed, also undermine it. There is a much stronger case for a boomerang. If there are any doubts for WW2-related issues, you can ask Peacemaker67 to weigh in as a neutral observer. Tezwoo (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
It's hard to keep a condensed reply when 70 diffs are presented that imply you should be topic banned, coming from users that are directly involved in content disputes, clearly trying to gain the upper hand there. I hope @Peacemaker67: can give his view on this whole issue. Tezwoo (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Griboski

I can't speak to most of these article diffs as I was not involved in them. I can only comment on what I've observed. My main issue with Mikola22 is his unwillingness to listen to other editors' concerns and to try to understand what constitutes fringe viewpoints and reliable sources. For instance, in this [64] discussion it was explained to him why Ljubica Štefan is a fringe and questionable source to use. Yet he continues to say "but she is a popular Croatian historian" and asserts it is a RS. Here [65] he opened up a discussion contesting the exclusion of two clearly fringe sources which depict death tolls that stray away far from the consensus. Even though he's been blocked before and these types of issues have been explained to him, there's a continued resistance to acknowledging and addressing them. --Griboski (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Your reply proves my point as you double down and repeat much of the same points while refusing to acknowledge the concerns. If a source is questionable or controversial, statements should be attributed to them at the very least but a better source is preferred. No, you weren't specifically blocked for your use of fringe sources/theories but that has been a long-standing issue with you, related to your block. [66] --Griboski (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tezwoo Please don't misrepresent my edit. There isn't a consensus that the Chetniks carried out genocide but rather that some historians state it happened and that is what is reflected in my edit. @Mikola22 "Judenfrei Serbia/Belgrade" is a major talking point used by the Croatian right-wing to try to demonstrate that the Serbian collaborationist government was worse than the Ustasha regime. I'm not accusing you of holding that view but it is concerning then that you've added that bit to several Holocaust-related articles while at the same time adding things like this out of context which minimizes the Holocaust in Croatia [67]. Also your claims that the Milan Nedić and other articles were written "with flowers" (whatever that means) before you came along is not true and a case of self aggrandizement. Much of what you did is repeat a lot of the information already found in the article and re-emphasized it, including using a couple of unreliable sources, with some structural issues which needed cleanup afterwards. You did add some additional useful information that wasn't there before, congrats. I'm all for improving articles. What is troubling is the agenda-driven editing seemingly just to make a WP:POINT. --Griboski (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by WEBDuB

I think that one of the biggest problems with the user's work existed in the article Denial of genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia. He removed most of the article, the sourced content, without prior debate on the talk-page or warning using some of a template [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74]. Most importantly, that included the violation of the 1RR rule [75] [76] and [77] [78]. To be honest, he later re-reverted one of his changes [79]. In another article, there is another violation of the 1RR restriction [80] [81] and [82] [83]

Furthermore, I've noticed a strange form of WP:HOUNDING, which included some kind of “countermoves”. This was evident during my work on the article Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia, which was followed by similar changes to the articles that the user seems to have perceived as a kind of parallel events (which usually did not make sense). When I contributed something on April 27 ([84] [85] [86]), he made changes to the article Milan Nedić for the first time, without previous contributions in this article in his history ([87] [88] [89]) When I contributed something on May 24 and 25 [90] [91] [92] [93] [94]), he soon made similar changes to the articles The Holocaust in German-occupied Serbia ([95], [96] [97]), Banjica concentration camp ([98]) and Chetnik war crimes in World War II ([99]) for the first time. I really doubt that the articles about the Holocaust in occupied Serbia, Banjica camp and Milan Nedić are on the watchlist of the editor who work mostly with Croats-related pages. Of course, there are many examples of the direct following and making changes in the same article after my contributions.

In addition to a sensitive topic such as one of the deadliest genocides, his WP:POVPUSH and WP:CONTENTFORK can also be seen in the obsession with the most important and most famous Serbian personalities such as Nikola Tesla ([100] [101] [102] [103] [104]) and Novak Djokovic ([105] [106]). His focus on removing information about Serbs from Dubrovnik and Ragusa has already been shown in this discussion.--WEBDuB (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tezwoo: Honestly, I don't think it's Ok to deviate from the main topic here. You do a great job on Wikipedia, but here we are discussing the violation of rules and about one specific editor. So far, I've not made changes to the articles about the Chetniks, as their crimes have already been described extensively on Wikipedia. Especially, I didn't remove or minimize any crimes. However, I think that the two accused editors didn't advocate fringe views and "deny genocide", but were guided by the main title of the article and discussions on the talk page in which the academic consensus was not confirmed. Personally, I've seen many disputes, when authors compared to the Ustaša genocide, because the Chetniks didn't have a state apparatus and were a heterogeneous group, not unique organization. As I said, that shouldn’t even be a topic here.
@Mikola22: On this page, I didn't dispute your changes (your contributions on the Nedić and Holocaust pages are correct), but the broad context and the time when you entered them. However, the sources you added about Novak Djokovic were Serbian tabloids and Croatian portals that are indisputably not neutral. He is a world-famous star who is in the media almost every day, there would certainly be a huge number of reliable sources in many languages ​​for any important information about him. Again, I didn't wrote anything about specific changes and source, but about your evident intentions and WP:POVPUSH, WP:CONTENTFORK, WP:HOUNDING. I would understand if you “followed me” on the Croats-related articles because they were on your watchlist. Generally, this is not the first time that I've noticed that someone has taken “countermeoves” and created or expanded a “parallel article” with very similar structure. In addition, the WP:3RR and WP:1RR do not always involve just the use of the undo tool, but any type of change that reverts to the previous version. In your case, removing the same content.--WEBDuB (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Mikola22: You should stop with too long explanations, which are not related to the main topic. That can disrupt the review. We are not here to discuss each change and each source individually. I think I clearly explained everything I had.--WEBDuB (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade:, @TonyBallioni: @Awilley: I would like someone to pay attention to the arguments I presented, especially the violation of 1RR rule and (a strange form of) WP:HOUNDING, since no one commented on them.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

WEBDuB, looking very quickly at the diffs of the alleged 1RR violations, it isn't clear to me that the first two pages are restricted to 1RR. (There isn't a 1RR template on the talk page or an edit notice.) On the first page at least it looks like you also would have been guilty of 1RR violations if the article were under 1RR. For the 3rd and 4th examples, those edits could not have been 1RR violations because consecutive edits count as 1 revert. ~Awilley (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Sadko

I shall not comment attempts to spin the report on myself as the main drive behind those attempts based on free interpretations of my work is fear of being left without editors and support for certain edits, which have been called POV in the past. [107]

The same sort of pushy moves, Red herring, stonewalling, lack of willingness to discuss and present WP:RS and communicate with other editors can be seen on recent edits here [108] That's just tip of the iceberg, and this sort of editing has been present from the very beginning of this user's activity. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I did not know that you need to notify editors about something like that and I did not find it in Wiki guidelines (I'm talking about the reply by Santasa9). I find my question to be legit, and just not providing any answer is poor manners where I come from. Furthermore, I was never "almost banned" that is a half-truth at best (the rest is just a pile of text which comes out as a result of several disputes, nothing more). Other problems, like "following somebody", is imaginary. It seems like that some editors see this as an opportunity "to get even", which is not the first time I see this sort of thing. If anybody has any more questions I shall answer if needed, otherwise, I shall not post more comments here as I have stated what I had in mind and all outcomes are good with me. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 09:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Peacemaker67

I'll start by saying that there has been a significant uptick in disruptive and POV editing in the WWII Balkans space in the last six months or so, and there are several editors contributing to that disruption. Much of this report is just false or POV and can only be seen as being included in bad faith to load up the report in order to remove Mikola22 from the area in dispute. Yes, Mikola22 has made some problematic edits, yes Mikola22 has a case of WP:IDHT, but frankly, both are pretty common in this space because feelings are strong on all sides, and Mikola22 has made some excellent additions to articles on my watchlist as well. Regarding the diffs included in the report, point 1. is wrong, neither edit involves removal of sourced content, point 2 relates to an unobjectionable post on a talk page..., assuming good faith regarding the content of the edits being correct per the first diff used at point 3, they are reliable sources and the info should be in the article, contrasted with any reliably sourced information that contradicts it. Aside: This is part of the problem with the disruption in this area at the moment, some editors want only the version of a subject that fits their world view or POV, and therefore fail to compare and contrast where sources vary. The second diffs of point 3 is again an unobjectionable talk page post. Point 4 is unactionable, nowhere on Wikipedia is it said that people cannot complain. Point 5 has two links to the edit history of talk pages, this isn't specific enough to be actionable.

The diffs under "Endless disturbing point scoring" start with a diff [17] in which Mikola22 added that Stjepan Filipović was executed by the collaborationist Serbian State Guard, whereas the article had previously avoided mentioning that fact. Filipović WAS executed by the Serbian State Guard, and Mikola22 provided a reliable source for that information. The next one [18] was Mikola22 adding to the Belgrade article that the city was the first in Europe to be declared Judenrein (free of Jews), which came about due to the willing assistance of the collaborationist Serbian puppet government. Again, an entirely good edit. I haven't examined all of rest of the diffs due to space restrictions here, but if they are similar to the ones I have examined, then this report is extremely poor, and does not support action against Mikola22. I'd be glad to examine all the diffs, but would need dispensation from a reviewing admin to go over 500 words. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, I'll post more tomorrow Australian time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Continuing with diffs under "Endless disturbing point scoring", with the third one [19] Mikola22 added to the The Holocaust in German-occupied Serbia article, using a dubious source (vanity press), that the Chetniks captured and handed over Jews to the occupation authorities after which they were murdered. Which they did, the edit being better cited to a book from a university press by Mikola22 within a few hours when it was pointed out. Although the use of the vanity press book wasn't good, Mikola22 swiftly fixed their mistake. The fourth [20] and fifth [21] diffs are actually by Griboski so are irrelevant, the sixth [22] is on the Banjica concentration camp article where Mikola22 added that thousands were killed in specified killing areas. This was in one of the reliable sources already cited at the end of the sentence, so again, a good edit. The seventh [23] on the Judenfrei article involved the addition of some information cited to a mix of reliable and unreliable sources, I fixed some of this myself, but the article is a bit of a dog's breakfast and not my main area. The next [24] is to the Serbian Orthodox Bishop Nikolaj Velimirović's article, edits are relevant and cited to a work by a highly-respected Balkans academic, so good edits. The next [25] is another edit by Gribowski, [26] is an edit by me removing a duplink?

The four "blunt removal" diffs are [27] a change of Serbian Orthodox Church to Eastern Orthodox Church by Mikola22 when the cited reliable source says "Orthodox Croat", so looks like a good edit to me, [28] is actually me reverting a deletion by Mikola22 (which they didn't edit war over, and it was nothing egregious), [29] was a bad deletion, but Mikola22 immediately reverted themselves, [30] is a reliably sourced addition to Romani genocide which I have verified, [31] is me reverting an edit by Mikola22 six months ago with what appeared on face value to be reliable sources and directing them to the talk page to gain consensus due to scope creep on very sensitive article, Croatian Orthodox Church, and they did engage on the talk page and did not edit war, [32] is Amanuensis Balkanicus reverting Mikola22 on the same article for the same material prior to my intervention, [33] is a rather odd comment on the Marco Polo talk page about Polo's ethnicity, and [34] is an addition on the Chetniks article cited to a possibly questionable source, I replaced it with a better one.

So, all up, I count two uses of a dubious source [19][34] which Mikola22 quickly fixed themselves or I quickly fixed and they didn't quibble about, some questionable sources on [23], one bad deletion [29] which they immediately reverted themselves, and [31] is a bit weird but also six months ago and they went to the talk page and didn't edit war. That's it. Having spent quite some time drilling down into this over the last two days, I have to conclude that this is an extremely poor report which includes many diffs to edits by other editors, and precious little in the way of evidence that would justify admin action against Mikola22 at all, let alone a TBAN. What concerns me is that this report appears intended by Sadko to remove Mikola22 from an area in which they both edit, when a similar examination of Sadko's editing would most likely turn up at least the same amount of questionable editing and result in a boomerang. Mikola22 needs to be more careful with sources (they appear to be slowly getting that message), listen to experienced editors who strive to edit in a neutral way (this is also happening slowly) and drop the IDHT, and develop an increased awareness of their own biases. Frankly, the same could probably be said of Sadko's editing behaviour. The pitiful amount of evidence here and Mikola22's editorial development needs are not close to justifying a TBAN. Apologies to the reviewing admins for the length of this, but I felt it was such a poor report it needed to be properly picked apart, and even though I might be considered slightly involved, I am probably one of few admins who could do it relatively quickly because I know the subject area well. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Calthinus

I have had less interaction with Mikola than some here; I have largely found both Sadko and Mikola to be reasonable in my interactions with them; it is only understandable that one is passionate about matters that involve relations between countries that were quite recently at war. I do, however, ask Sadko to strike this part of his case, where he gives this diff [[109]] for the statement Marco Polo was Croatian (apparently attributing such a view to Mikola). That diff is an edit about Chetniks, and it is very clear that Mikola views Marco Polo as Venetian, not Croatian. --Calthinus (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I see that Peacemaker has clarified that the Marco Polo diff was this one [110] -- my bad, though that should have been made clearer. --Calthinus (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Santasa99

I would strongly suggest that you check the situation around both of these editors, that is, Mikola as well as Sadko, they both deserve careful scrutiny. I partly agree with the arguments and examples given by Tezwoo, only I wouldn’t go that far in defending Mikola. I have had very unpleasant experiences with both editors in many cases, only they tend to differ in "modus operand" to the extent that Sadko usually backs down from the disruption of obvious RS, although in most cases he will try to test you and RS to the extreme, backing down only at the very limits proscribed by policies and guidelines - Sadko was almost blocked because of the same thing they are now reporting on Mikola. However, much more unpleasant is Sadko's acquired taste for following the history of targeted editors. Because of this Sadko’s habit, I felt like I was walking through a minefield every time I came to edit, I would feel like I would be ambushed for sure. In the last six months, such behavior has intensified, so I noticed this and tried to leave hints in a few edited summaries, where Sadko appeared to be reverting my editing - suddenly they would appear just because of that. They tried to justify it with the "Watchlist", so I tried to explain to him that it was unlikely that his watchlist was alerting him, and that this could be easily checked. As I further complained, they also decided to take the initiative, specifically selecting the administrator and his TP where they complained why I was not topic-banned as well, and regarding the topic-ban of another editor, insinuating some relationship between that editor and me. Needless to say, the administrator refused even a simple answer. But what bothered me the most was that even that "report" was created behind my back, without an alert so that I could defend myself if necessary. This raised the unpleasantness of my experience by another notch, and as I didn’t want to constantly have to look over my shoulder every time I wanted to contribute something to a project, I decided to contact him directly on his TP. I tried three times and was rejected each time in an impolite and aggressive manner, while my posts were immediately archived. So, whatever you have in store for Mikola, you should also check the other side, because even if their bad habits differ to some extent, they reflect on the community to the same undesirable effect.--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

As I was writing my statement I did not see these additional ones written by Calthinus and Peacemaker. I would agree with Peacemaker in full. Both editors, Mikola and Sadko, are capable to contribute relatively good content when they want, with Mikola being even more consistent in that regard, in my opinion.--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I would also like if @Mikola22: could reassure us that things like these (also noted by Sadko) won't lead to some inappropriate collaboration with a banned user(s) somewhere outside project's pages, and that he can fully distance himself from invitations like these (above post is written in Serbo-Croatia and it needs translation, however it is fairly short and simple so machine trans. will suffice for whoever is interested--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)).
@Mikola22: there is no reason to be so disheartened and melodramatic, whatever happens here you will have the same treatment as any other user, and I may be overly optimistic, but this still does not necessarily mean that the resulting decision will be full enforcement with toughest and longest restrictions, but even such a full of enforcement would give you quite a bit of freedom to contribute and you would probably be given a chance for an appeal in the future. But first you should wait and see. Whatever happens, this should be a cautionary experience, hopefully for both Sadko and you.--౪ Santa ౪99° 20:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@El C:, thanks, but I would like to make important additional remark - that's just the obvious part of the problem with that report, and there is a less obvious and much uglier part as well, which could be and probably is the very reason why I was never alerted about it, and what really stunned me in the first place and annoyed me. He was trying to place on my shoulders reason and a blame for another editor's ban, but what he forgot to tell in his report is that in the dispute, that may or may not really be part of the reason, he was involved all along, and on the side of my arguments and rationals - every time the banned editor was in dispute with me Sadko was there, not as often as I was, but often enough, and "on my side" of the argument sort of speak. So, his report on whole thing, beside being dishonest, also begs the question, why the sudden change of heart. Now, can it really be stressed enough that the administrators who banned that other editor are indeed perceptive enough and intelligent enough to be able to analyze the situation and the circumstances, and make a decision on their own, without being underestimated by anyone.--౪ Santa ౪99° 01:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Hell, it was substantial enough for me, El_C, it was sneaky, it had similarly used diff's that were meant to illustrate my supposed transgressions, it had request directed at that admin to do something, which in context of noted topic-ban of that other editor and my supposed blame for that ban is quite suggestive request. But that's water under the bridge now, and hopefully they will learn to respect "don't follow" policy.--౪ Santa ౪99° 20:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Maleschreiber

I'm very concerned about how administrative measures and reporting functions because they can be weaponized in order to "get rid" of editors with whom anyone is involved in content disputes. I also understand the necessity of administrative measures in order to protect the integrity of the project. As other editors have shown, Sadko should be warned to not use reports as a tool in the content disputes he's involved in. But in the days since that was suggested, he has done the opposite. Now he's involved in a report regarding @Santasa99:, in which there is no 3RR violation by Santasa, although there is edit-warring on many sides. Santasa mentioned @Awilley:'s point about how Sadko should use reports and Sadko replied that One man's opinion is quite okay. Once again, take the time to read WP:BATTLEGROUND and do take your own burden for edit-warring rather then making it about other editors and their work, which is the only mature thing to do. The wider problem here is that if one editor keeps using community procedures in that way, then the wider long-term effect is that other editors will do so too because dispute resolution will be seen as a process in which you have to get other editors topic banned or blocked to get the desired outcome. The closure of this report should send a strong message about how reports should be used and if necessary move to warnings about topic bans if there is continued misuse of community procedures.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning Mikola22

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Mikola22, your responses are nearly 2000 words long. Please condense it to the essentials. Going a little over 500 is not a big deal, but that's much too long. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Mikola22, while in exceptional circumstances somewhat longer statements can be allowed, these are not such, and no one wants to read a massive wall of text to get to the important points. If you do not wish to condense your statement, it will be truncated at 500 words for you. The word limit is not a suggestion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Mikola22, if you ping me, you gotta link my username or I won't get an alert for it. I noticed it in passing this time, but next time I may not. El_C 05:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Mikola22, oh, okay. Yes, I knew this request existed, but have not reviewed it, mostly because of your statement's excessive length. El_C 15:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks Peacemaker67, for looking into this matter. More depth and breadth from you would be welcome. El_C 08:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Mikola22, Nicoljaus has not been "permanently banned." They have voluntarily retired and may, at their own discretion, resume their editing activity at any time. They also deny the socking claim. El_C 08:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I would like to acknowledge and reaffirm Santasa99's complaint about Sadko. Any substantive report by an editor to an admin requires notification (user talk page) of the editor featured in the complaint, no matter where the venue is. El_C 20:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I recommend a warning to both parties —to Mikola22 to be more concise overall and to Sadko not to weaponize AE (I agree with Awilley about that)— but am against sanctions being imposed at this time, per Peacemaker67's comprehensive account. Thank you for that. El_C 18:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Sadko, I apologize for misreading. Your report wasn't substantive enough to require notification. I thought you were circumventing AE, with an AE-type report, but on closer an examination, that was an error on my part. Sorry again. El_C 19:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Santasa99, I'm not saying the optics are great —they're not— but there is no notification requirement in policy. Because an editor is allowed to have a quiet word with an admin about a problem they're having. El_C 20:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Since Seraphimblade is like-minded with me, and Awilley has not objected, I'm prepared to close this with a warning to both (logged) as this is becoming stale. I'll give about a day for any objections before going ahead. El_C 01:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, noting also Guy's exception from 21 June, which I have overlooked. El_C 01:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I have substantial concerns with Mikola22's editing, especially in terms of bludgeoning, several edit summaries which could most charitably be described as "misleading", and aggressive interactions with other editors. However, on a review of some of the diffs presented here, Mikola22 is not the only editor who has these issues, either. (Not to mention that Mikola22 was bludgeoning even this discussion; see [111] prior to when I truncated the statement and responses since it was up to over 2300 words.) I would, based upon what is presented, be in favor of topic banning Mikola22 from the topic area, but I am not convinced that this alone will solve the issues present. I'll have to give that some more thought, or would be glad for any suggestions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1RR has not fixed the disruption Mikola22 causes in this area. It seems likely that a topic ban is necessary. I don't think he's the only one at fault, and I have reservations about effectively allowing one side in a dispute to remove another and thus "win", I'd be open to a limited exception allowing Mikola22 to log a single, neutrally worded request relating to others in this dispute, but it seems pretty clear to me that the complaint here has merit and that at least a timed TBAN of Mikola22 is warranted. Guy (help!) 09:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Peacemaker67, you’re probably our most respected admin who edits in this area. Of course you’re welcome to add additional commentary. You might be involved from a content perspective, but I suspect most people here would appreciate your thoughts. So yes; whatever dispensation is needed you have :) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Bassed largely on the analysis by Peacemaker I would close this with a warning to the filer about trying to weaponize administrative processes against ideological opponents. ~Awilley (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
    While I'm okay with a warning to the filer if warranted, I still think there is substantial cause for concern in Mikola22's editing as well. So if a warning to one is warranted, I would think at least it should apply to both. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    No objections here. ~Awilley (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Marvin 2009

Marvin 2009 and PatCheng are indefinitely topic banned from Falun Gong, broadly construed --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 Marvin 2009

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
PatCheng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 13:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Marvin 2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  • Note that Marvin 2009 now go by the name Precious Stone as a signature, but his user name remains Marvin 2009.
  1. 6 June 2020 Engaged in soapboxing, and proceeded to remove WP:SPA labels in a discussion page.
  2. 11 June 2020 Blanking the Falun Gong article page, accusing it of being biased, removing sourced material and and also misusing the Citation Needed tag over sources he dislike. Warned by admin User:Doug_Weller as a result.
  3. June 12 2020 In regards to Doug Weller's warning, he claimed that his previous warnings were the result of "biased activists", highlighting his battleground mentality. Further warned by admin User:El_C.
  4. June 3 2020 June 4 20205 June 2020June 5 2020 In a timespan of 48 hours, continued to insert and revert a paragraph suiting his POV, including several that fail WP:RS such as a Forbes contributor site and the personal site of a conservative activist. A 3RR case was filed against the user but seem to have gone stale.
  5. June 6 2020 Suggested another editor of being a Wumao (paid editor by the Chinese government).
  6. June 6 2020 Same as above, using an article from The Washington Times to suggest that the editor was paid.
  7. June 6 2020 Attempted to link supposed pro-CCP edits with real life Chinese spying, suggesting a moral obligation to out them.
  8. June 6 2020 Further suggestions that other editors are Chinese spies, using real life spies being caught as an examples.
  9. June 7 2020 More accusations of other editors of being biased against him and FLG.
  10. May 1 2009 This old edit on his user page, as well as since deleted uploads [112] showed that he attempted to advertise for Falun Gong affiliate New Tang Dynasty TV, possibly violating WP:SPA, WP:COI, and WP:PROMO.

The following were raised in my previous request:

  1. 16 June 2019 In my June 2019 ANI case, he dug up some of my old edits, and together some random news articles, engaged in soapboxing and slyly suggested that I'm a CCP spy, and that my behavior on Wikipedia of being "against the freedom of belief and the freedom of expression, those pillars of modern civilization".
  2. 22 May 2019 Soapboxing about the evils of CCP in a RFC comment about number of FLG members.
  3. 29 April 2019 Similar soapboxing on talk page, attempting to discredit sources critical of FLG.
  4. 31 March 2019 Calling for the removal of Chinese government sources, using a US-funded NGO as evidence.
  5. 31 March 2019 Same as above.
  6. 27 March 2019 Further soapboxing, accusing another user of being "50 Cent Party" (a slur against users deemed pro-CCP).
  7. 27 April 2019 Accused another user of being a "CCP apologist".
  8. 7 February 2016 Previously engaged in 3RR violations and demonstrated a clear disregard of WP policy, launching a 3RR case against the user who reported him [113].
  9. 6 December 2015 Accusing other users in the 3RR case of being "CCP sympathizers".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 6 Dec 2015 48 hour block for edit warring
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  1. March 2016 By Happymonsoonday1
  2. June 2019 By MrClog
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Marvin 2009 almost exclusively edit the contentious Falun Gong articles, pushing a POV that favors the practice. I previously filed a case against this particular editor in 2019, noting his problematic editing behaviors. He was warned by admins about the discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBFLG, but it's obviously that his behavior has not improved in the year since. Marvin 2009/Precious Stone displays a shocking lack of WP:COMPETENCE in his edits at Wikipedia, including problems with WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:RS, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:BATTLEGROUND and possibly WP:COI. I felt that a topic ban might be warranted due to his continued edit warring and disruptive accusations against other editors on contentious articles such as Falun Gong.

@Pudeo's comments: I have taken a self imposed WP:BREAK and WP:VANISH from WP for over a decade due previous bad experiences and not willing to be caught up in arguments and edit wars, plus some real life health issues. I still read WP, and I have noticed that the Falun Gong articles, despite having two arbitration cases WP:ARBFLGWP:ARBFLG2, over the decade seemed to be worse to wear with more and more single purposes accounts showing up. Marvin's behavior, especially his less than civil attacks against other editors, is what drove me to file the complaint. Furthermore, I do not edit Chinese WP, and only noticed User:Wetrace's edit patterns upon visiting the corresponding Chinese WP article for additional sources.
@BlueCanoe's comments: Using real life politics to indirectly infer that certain editors are CCP agents still breaches WP:CIVIL, not to mention WP is not a soapbox for politics per WP:SOAP.
@Admin Guy's comment: The editing tool is misleading in context. The only Falun Gong related article I have edited since I returned to Wikipedia is The Epoch Times, where I was commended for adding better sourcing to the article. As such I felt it's a false equivalence to compare me with Marvin, particularly since I avoided mass reverting of articles and battleground mentality in the talk pages, and I made efforts to seek outside opinions on sourcing.
@Marvin's comments: Your responses here demonstrates lawyering WP:PLAYPOLICY and a clear battleground mentality, and the fact that other editors may not have clean hands doesn't change your behavior which you continually attempt to justify, including calling my evidence "fake" right here, and that it's some "plot" against you. I called out your behavior in particular because they are in contradiction to WP policy, and you don't see me going after other pro-FLG editors (who while having ideological biases, at least attempt to adhere to WP policies and open to discussion). FYI, what the editor did to the CBC article was using the Wayback Machine to synthesize an argument which contradicts WP:NOR, when the editor's note is clearly on the current article, so I reverted it.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
  1. [114]

Discussion concerning Marvin 2009

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 Marvin 2009

Please see part A~E1 of my response at User_talk:Marvin_2009/AEresponse: A- Communication with admin Seraphimblade, B. Replying User Pudeo's comment, C. Responding PatCheng's fake accusations, D. Responding admin JzG/Guy's Opinion, E1. How WP:NPOV spirit lost in Epochtimes related – Response to PatCheng and other like-minded users’ POV driven editing

E2. Quoting Media Reports in Response to Doug Weller's POV & Edits

PatCheng deleted Toronto Sun sources [115] which reported: “Some postal workers misread the publication as being critical of ethnic Chinese and objected to its delivery. This sort of misreading is not much different from calling criticism of Trump anti-American.“ This view is opposite to PatCheng’s view: ET being anti-PRC. Isn't it the reason the report was removed? Only allowing sources supporting their POV is directly against WP:NPOV.

PatCheng viewed ET as anti-PRC (in reality ET criticizes CCP, not the country), but PatCheng is not alone. For example, admin Doug Weller's view on FLG related topic and Chinese government is shown in: 1.“I'm finding what appear to be Falun Gong adherents pushing edits on various articles, hence this notice, 2.“This came to my attention as there's been an upsurge of Falun Gong adherents editing articles here, possibly taking advantage of Covid-19 to push attempts as well as their own articles.

Please note there are so many reports from numerous reliable sources that have nothing to do with FLG, but all have criticized China’s communist party’s cover-up. To name some FYI.

1. NYT: CCP Crackdowns Coronavirus Coverage, Journalists Fight-back
2. [116] 
3. [117].
6 [120] 

Bloodofox violated WP:V, WP:NOR...For users who tried to prevent Bloodofox's damages, Doug often showed up for reverting, warning. 2 examples: 1 and 2.

After seeing Bloodofox and HorseEyeJack's disruptive edits: 3 (Not reasonable putting info of overseas FLG follower groups ahead of the FLG origin section), 4 (In prior discussion it was advised to make clear NYT/NBC reported ET was involved right-wing politics), Bloodofox's major change 5 (applied the lead section of the stable page under DS, with no discussion or consensus), I tried to address the issues. Right away i was reverted and warned by Doug, which partly led to PatCheng's report. Both the warning and report seem to be POV driven. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 03:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (Horse Eye Jack)

I’ve encountered the same problems with Marvin 2009 re POV pushing, threats, and aggression. They spammed my talk page with the copy-pasted discussions from their talk page [121][122] which remains a unique form of disruption, never seen anyone else do that. After I pointed out to them back in the day that they appeared to be an SPA only interested in the FG space they developed an intense interest in refrigeration although the quality of editing didn't improve (they were still adding unsourced information). I note that in out COI discussion they repeatedly said they had never been paid for their edits but never addressed the other aspects of COI, they appear to believe that without direct payments its not COI. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I tagged SPA’s as SPA’s if you disagree with my tag you are welcome to do so... On the appropriate talk page, not here. There is no debate that Marvin 2009 was a SPA when I tagged them. Given that you also appear to have a problematic edit history in regards to FG related topics I would watch it lest you get Bommeranged by your participation here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Even if PatCheng is sketchy the core point stands... Marvin 2009 is clearly WP:NOTHERE, I’ve discussed bringing them here with other editors before. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by TheBlueCanoe

At some point this dispute (the broader dispute) should probably be punted to ArbCom. But with respect to this application, the filing editor certainly has an unusual history: no edits since 2006, and then they return with unusual precocity and an apparent axe to grind.

It looks like the OP is really reaching here. Some examples:

  • [123] OP accuses Marvin 2009 of WP:Soapboxing. I don’t see any soapboxing. I see Marvin undoing a talk page edit by User:Horse_Eye_Jack, in which the latter had erroneously tagged every editor who disagreed with him as an SPA. Marvin 2009 was probably in the right here.
  • [124] – OP accuses Marvin 2009 of blanking content. The context is important: Marvin is undoing significant changes that had failed to gain consensus on the talk page. Although the material was sourced (badly, in some cases), it appeared to fail WP:NPOV, WP:LEAD, WP:WEIGHT, and possibly WP:V. Reverting an edit that being contested on the talk page is not, by itself, sanctionable behaviour.
  • [125] - OP says Marvin 2009 was trying to “advertise” for a Falun Gong-affiliated organization by, what…creating a page, whose content we can’t see? We can't draw inferences about an editor's intentions based on a deleted media file.

To the charge that Marvin was accusing others of being pro-Chinese government agents, I’m not seeing it in the diffs provided. I don’t know what the context was, but talking about the existence of a 50 cent army, and noting that the Chinese government engages in international influence campaigns, may be a legitimate matter for discussion. As long as he’s not making unsubstantiated allegations about specific editors, which doesn't seem to be the case (unless I missed it). TheBlueCanoe 21:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Pudeo

What's up with the OP making no edits at all for 12 years and 8 months (2006-2019), and then his first edits are reporting Marvin 2009 to ANI and AE in June 2019? Some comments by Marvin 2009 indeed do seem battleground-y, but it is troubling if the driving force behind this is some kind of a spillover from the Chinese Wikipedia (which Marvin edits according to his global contribs).

PatCheng refers to conduct in the Chinese Wikipedia in another comment directed at Wetrace: Your conduct on Chinese WP demonstrated that you have a very low knowledge of WP:RS and WP:V. However, according to the global contribs, PatCheng does not edit the Chinese WP. Something does not add up. --Pudeo (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Doug Weller

Marvin2009 seems to think that because I edited the same page that my warning doesn't count because I'm not impartial as I was taking part on the talk page. Any editor can give a warning, and being impartial is obviously not a criteria. I'm not impartial to BLP violations, editwarring, misrepresenting sources, etc, nor should anyone be (just examples, I'm not accusing Marvin2009 of them). As for El_C, his statement was" "Precious Stone, Doug might not block you, but I will. You cannot invoke DS as an editor involved in the page, only an uninvolved admin can do that. And I am doing so with you. Start discussing and stop reverting." That's clearly a warning, warnings don't have to use templates or say "formal". I endorse TBans for both editors. Doug Weller talk 14:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero, Seraphimblade, and JzG: what's happening here? I see that there's more recent discussion at User talk:Marvin 2009. Doug Weller talk 11:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning Marvin 2009

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • My view: PatCheng and Marvin 2009 both topic-banned from Falun Gong broadly construed as POV-warrior accounts after reviewing [126] and [127]. Guy (help!) 08:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
    FYI, I am doubling down on this following Marvin's responses which are very much along the lines of "I am right so none of this is a problem". Guy (help!) 10:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller, mainly because he would not stick to the word limits here. Guy (help!) 12:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Guy, in a recent enforcement request (I'll try to look it up and link it here) I noted how there seemed to be a lot of long-dormant accounts suddenly becoming active again when a Falun Gong dispute crops up. I think this is a pattern that might need to be examined more thoroughly; this is certainly not the first time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
    Here is the one to which I'm referring. That being said, Marvin 2009 also has a history of popping in and out of activity, and some of the behavior brought up here is genuinely a cause for concern. So even if there needs to be a boomerang here, I don't think that's all that needs to happen. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
    Seraphimblade, Plausible. I say TBANs for both, based on edit history. Guy (help!) 23:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
    Marvin 2009, first off, it always raises my antennae when someone is using a fake signature. Your username should be in your signature (though you could always do something like "Marvin 2009 aka Precious Stone" or "Precious Stone (Marvin 2009)"). If you wanted to actually change username, there is a process for that. That aside, you have been edit warring. I thought that the last discussion placed Falun Gong under 1RR, but I don't see that it was marked as such; if not I plan to swiftly rectify that, but I won't blame you for it since I don't see the notice. That aside, edit warring, even if under the "RR" limit, is still disruptive. You've also been casting a lot of aspersions, such as that other editors are some type of activists or agents. You seem to assert here [128] that one must open a discussion before making an edit, which is exactly backwards—everyone may edit, and if anyone else disagrees, discussion then is the way forward. Edits should not be reverted simply for not being discussed in advance. So, to be quite honest, I agree with Guy, in that neither one of you really have any business editing in such a sensitive topic area at this time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Seraphimblade and JzG: Since we got another round of reverts, I imposed 1RR on the article as an attempt to keep things from descending to edit warring again --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    Guerillero, good shout. Guy (help!) 20:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    In addition, Marvin 2009, could you please explain why you removed a comment by Guy in this edit? [129] Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I would hand out topic bans to PatCheng and Marvin 2009 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


Urgal has been indefinitely topic banned from post-1932 American politics, with an appeal to be entertained no sooner than in six months. Bishonen | tålk 17:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 Urgal

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 01:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Urgal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced


Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. June 22, 2020 - 1st Revert
  2. June 22, 2020 - 2nd Revert - Violates both page editing restrictions
  3. June 22, 2020 - 3rd revert - Undid most of this edit
  4. June 21, 2020 - Misrepresents a source to inject non-WP:NPOV WP:SYNTH
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. May 30, 2020 Blocked for edit warring
  2. May 31, 2020 Blocked for edit warring
  3. June 1, 2020 Block extended for sockpuppetry
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on May 30, 2020
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


Discussion concerning Urgal

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 Urgal

What's this even about? I self-reverted every one of the mentioned edits. whats the problem? Its just easy to forget about the regulation in the heat of the moment Urgal (talk) 01:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

" I suggest three months to see if they can learn how to edit more temperately elsewhere before being allowed back into this controversial area. I'm not impressed by their removal of part of MrX's evidence from this page either."

i removed it because i dont think it has any relevance when discussing a violation of the 1RR regulation; didnt know thats not allowed. (plus it says 'previous relevant sanctions'). regarding the topic, it was only 2 edits, and i re-reverted them myself, so i dont think a 3 month ban is appropriate Urgal (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


"then used multiple sockpupppets while blocked" i used ONE sock during the 3 day block, the other account was just a secondary account that i used from time to time when i was on another device. i didnt use it to edit while blocked

"while claiming he didn't know that was against policy even though he has been editing here for over ten years). i have been registered here for 10 years, but im only actively editing since like 2 months.

regarding this annoying edit: i asked Glen two times to explain why he removed parts of the infobox without an explanation; he didnt respond both times. and this part: "far-right, alt-right and fake news", is still there and was never touched by me

" and encounters with him on various political articles extremely unpleasant. " i literally had a total of one encounter with you on my entire time on here. im starting to think you're confusing me with someone. Urgal (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

edit: as mentioned earlier, even though i have been registered here for a long time, i am still relatively new in terms of actively editing and am still getting familiarized with the rules and regulations. an indefinite topic ban would be very harsh in my opinion, considering i dont have a history of disruptive editing, and the issues were mainly because of violations of the 1RR rule.Urgal (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Glen

Urgal's claims of "oh I didn't know" or "I forgot in the heat of the moment" are growing tiresome. As pointed out above Urgal was blocked for edit warring on Infowars, then used multiple sockpupppets while blocked which resulted in his block being extended (while claiming he didn't know that was against policy even though he has been editing here for over ten years). Within days of the release of his block he proceeded to attempt to insert the exact same edit on June 22, the same edit that he was trying to insert prior to his blocking back on May 30 and May 31 even though there is clear consensus on the talk page FAQs that Infowars is far-right, alt-right and fake news. His constant edit warring, use of socks to evade blocks and the passive aggressive edit summaries and YELLING result in him being very disruptive to the project and encounters with him on various political articles extremely unpleasant. He is clearly too emotionally invested in these articles to seek consensus or work collaboratively with other editors.Support topic ban Glen 04:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

For what it's worth, I think Urgal's edits display a lack of maturity that is incompatible with the highly charged atmosphere of current politics, and I would advocate at least a 6 month TBAN (past the November election) and I think an indefinite TBAN to be lifted only on appeal after not less than 6 months is defensible, per El C. Guy (help!) 08:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning Urgal

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • If Urgal can't stop themselves from breaking restrictions in the "heat of the moment", then they need a topic ban from post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, in any namespace, to ensure they don't. I suggest three months to see if they can learn how to edit more temperately elsewhere before being allowed back into this controversial area. I'm not impressed by their removal of part of MrX's evidence from this page either. --RexxS (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Probably too careless for such a sensitive topic area. And they didn't think it wasn't allowed to modify evidence on this board that concerns themselves?(!) That should have been intuitive. El_C 04:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Also, I think 3 months is too lenient. I was thinking indefinite — let them file a proper appeal at some point and let that appeal stand on its own merit. El_C 04:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I think we are ready to close with an indefinite AP2 topic ban. Ed, you wanna go ahead? (Or if you prefer, I could do it.) El_C 17:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I would do an indefinite topic ban. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with an indefinite topic ban of User:Urgal from WP:ARBAP2 after reading Urgal’s own statement above. They summarize their own edit warring followed by sockpuppetry, plus a removal of part of MrX's comment from the AE. (He believes this removal was OK because “I don’t think it has any relevance”.) EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with my colleagues above, and will close in a minute. Bishonen | tålk 17:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC).


Arminden and Makeandtoss are both warned to temper their language, focus on content, and generally, conduct themselves with utmost moderation when it comes to this (ARBPIA) topic area. Just because this is a more informal warning does not mean that, next time, sanctions won't be imposed. El_C 15:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 Arminden

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Makeandtoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 10:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Arminden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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


Notification of the user against whom enforcement is filed [131]
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
User started a section on the talk page complaining about something in an arbcom article (which is his right) but his statements included numerous inflammatory remarks such as “low IQ propaganda”, “idiotic junk” [132]. I asked him politely to withdraw his statements but he doubled down twice and thrice with [133] accusations that I believe “Jordanian propaganda” and racist statements implying I have bad editing because my country is “undemocratic”. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  1. [134]
  2. [135]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Such inflammatory remarks and incivility are inappropriate for editing in sensitive arbcom articles.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Arminden

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.

Arminden you are doubling down on your racism by suggesting that human rights violations in Jordan have anything to do with me or this discussion. Any democratic nation has its fair share of state-sponsored propaganda including the US. Every democratic nation also has its fair share of ignorance and of human rights violations. Screening users based on their country is not indicative of constructive wiki editing. I do not have anything to do with what some Jordanians think of Hitler not what some think about atheists (I am an atheist myself). Projecting your generalizations and preconceptions into sourced articles and onto other users is anything but good wiki editing. Makeandtoss (talk) 05:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Arminden

Makeandtoss, I sincerely apologise for upsetting you. I know and appreciate your work.

I have found this article on my phone, where I have no access to its editing history. It baffled and angered me, and I reacted w/o taking into consideration that whatever remark I'll make will be taken personally by somebody. For that I'm sorry and I regret it.

There can be no reason to presume racism as a cause for my comments. None whatsoever. What is then the reason I found the article so unacceptable and upsetting for? I have good personal reasons to deeply hate propaganda, institutional brainwashing and systematic stuffing of people's heads with deeply flawed claims, which have a huge potential of creating and perpetuating conflict and tribal hatred. Is this the case here? There can be no doubt about that.

My colleague M&T felt offended for what he describes as me claiming that "[his] country is “undemocratic”." Please take a look at Democracy Index#Democracy Index by regime type: Jordan scores 3.93 points (North Korea has 1.08 and the maximum is 10). This corresponds to the regime type "authoritarian". It's not me, it's objective analysis that leads to this conclusion. I have spent time in countries anywhere between murderous dictatorship to top-level "full democracy" and I know and truly appreciate the difference. I know Jordan quite well after spending relatively much time there: amazing country, lots of wonderful people, but terribly wanting in terms of political culture and historical awareness. I cannot count how often I've heard the comment "Germany good, Hitler good!" accompanied by bright smiles. Or "atheists and Hindus, who worship cows, are worse than animals and should be killed" (from a local high-rank civil servant). Not to talk of the Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in Arabic translation on sale all over central Amman. I was witness to policemen beating the hell out of a misbehaving felon held in the arrest cell of a police station in Downtown Amman, while the commanding officer was trying to have with me a polite conversation about the beauty of Petra. After the beating the man, covered in blood flowing from his head, was shackled next to me to the heating pipe next to the floor, forcing him to crouch - while the officer went on with his small talk. That much about democracy. Lots of wonderful people, generous and friendly? No question. Hard-working, proud, with many hard studying youth? Granted! Educated, morally impeccable officials with remarkable manners who helped me on numerous occasions? Absolutely! But widespread democracy and good knowledge of history and civic rights? Please give me a break.

I found the article after receiving a similar document from a concerned German Christian scholar: this is a brand-new White Paper published by the Royal Household. It shows where all this is coming from. A little taste of the content: Canaanites, Amorites, and biblical Hittites are all declared to be Arabs, used as proof for the presence and ownership of Arabs over Urusalim/Jebus/Jerusalem since "at least 2,000 years before the Jews". Quod erat demonstrandum. Never mind that Israelites probably evolved from part of the Canaanites, that no scholar in his right mind will equate any of those ancient peoples with "Arabs", and that such claims have no bearing on today's international law - neither the Jews', nor the Arabs'. This is what stands behind our article at hand. So yes, cheap, junk-level propaganda, over a century behind what is considered academic thought nowadays. Call a spade a spade. No offense intended for anyone except the active, conscious propagandists who know better, but brainwash and manipulate their co-citizens, pouring gas on the fire of tribal hatred (religion and ethnicity are just tools used for this end).

No racism, no offense whatsoever intended for my colleague whom I know well from other work done together and who's edited in absolutely good faith, but every intention to remove ideas and material rooted in baseless propaganda. Arminden (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree and I will. Matter closed, as far as I'm concerned. Arminden (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss:, hi. Please, please do read what I wrote w/o taking it as an attack against you, because it is not. Again: I first wrote what I wrote WITHOUT having a clue who's written the article. I did apologise and I'm again apologising for not realising that my comments will offend someone. Most articles are the work of many editors, but this one happens to be almost entirely yours, which makes it so much more likely that you'd take any attack such as mine personally - again, I didn't know this, I didn't think of it, and I should have, for which I again apologise. There is no racism standing behind my critique, just a deep allergy to propaganda: I've been exposed to a huge dose, and I'm sure to have passed on some, unwillingly. You have no fault whatsoever in what's less than perfect in your country. I wrote about my experience there just to answer to what you wrote at some point about democracy being relative or Jordan being as good as any other country: forget my "memoirs" and check that list, on which Jordan scores just 3.93 points out of 10. None of your fault, obviously, but still a fact. My point was: the Hashemite claims, like those from the recent White Paper and the Jordan Times articles you quoted, are maybe wise politically in the Middle East and thank heavens for the even-headedness of the Jordanian kings in more than one historical situation, when they helped diffuse dangerous conflicts, but they must not be measured with the "reality metre" we're using here. I'd much rather have King Abdullah calming down the spirits in Jerusalem than leaving it to the radicals on the ground, and he needs some positioning to be able to do that after 1967 and 1988, but that doesn't mean the White Paper statements are real. And Wikipedia deals in truth, not in wise political positioning. I wish all balanced Middle East arbiters lots of luck, we need all of them; but Wiki is not the press or the UNESCO (see Occupied Palestine Resolution, that piece of political expediency & power play - and nasty crap). Politics and diplomacy are not a good source for truth, and Wikipedia should be. Too many words, sorry. Take care, Arminden (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Huldra:, hi. This starts looking like a Kafka novel. I did one thing only: I looked up in the respective "editing history" pages, including on the talk-page, who's been involved in the topic and has made some contributions in the past, made a cursory attempt to ensure they seemed to represent both bloody "camps" (why we need to have "camps" on Wiki is another issue), pinged them all, and tried to get on with my life. Didn't spend on it half the time it takes me to write this. The article is almost invisible, and I wanted to have people join the discussion (there's hardly anyone taking note of this arbitration as it is, as you can easily notice). It never occurred to me they'd be blocked, blacklisted or whatever. I swear. I didn't know of any of them what "police file" they have at Wiki, not did it cross my mind to check. I'd much rather use the time to do research and add good, reliable info to articles - or, imagine my cheekyness, go and live offline now and then, rather than do background tests. I have no intention of offending you, I sometimes have a more colourful way of expressing myself, I just want to say: I won't study everyone's past, I won't study "Wikipedia Law", and I'll try to use my best judgement, common sense and sense of decency when I'm doing something here, with best intentions, which obviously won't be enough, but that's life. Thank you for offering me more credit than I deserve in this regard. I wish you a great weekend and I sincerely apologise if I offended or disappointed you, Arminden (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra

Seriously, Armiden; I had expected better of you that pinging NoCal100-socks, or blocked users, or topic-banned users, like you did, here and here. Please don't do that again, Huldra (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Arminen: I am not offended, I just think you were a bit..sloppy. (Which is not a good thing in the IP area. Sloppyness leads to time-waists and a LOT of words)).
I think El_C is right: you both need to chill, (But Armiden; you started it, you brought the temperate up, by your...hmf, undiplomatic language on the talk-page: please don't repeat that), Huldra (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Arminden

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I think you both need to chill. Go edit something else for a while, leaving the dispute to other editors. Espousing vitriol is not helpful, from either one of you, but I'm not sure the two diffs (linked twice for some reasons — but, no, there's only 2, not 4) show anything that is actionable at this time. El_C 11:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Unless another admin opines otherwise, I am ready to close this with a warning to both users to take more care when editing topics falling under the DS regime. As is customary, I'll give it about a day. I note that the page in question has not been edited since this report was filed, so my advise was heeded, which is good. I see no need to note the warnings in the log. But while these remain somewhat informal, please take note nonetheless. El_C 17:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I concur with El C, but I worry that when strong national feelings are involved, it is difficult for editors involved to edit dispassionately. I think both editors here must realise that further flare-ups are much more likely to be met with strong action. --RexxS (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I think we need a pair of informal warnings and some side eye --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


For having violated 1RR

Selfstudier is formally warned to better observe the restrictions of the topic area (ARBPIA). The warning has been logged. El_C 23:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 Selfstudier

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 14:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 12:48, 29 June 2020 1 Revert partial rv to this version [136]
  2. 11:12, 30 June 2020 2nd revert
  3. Date Explanation
  4. Date Explanation
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. Date Explanation
  2. Date Explanation
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In both reverts he removed words "It was annexed by Jordan in 1950".I have proposed the user to self revert yet he refused [137] by claiming that he entitled because some RFC but its not one of the exceptions given by ARBCOM to break 1RR *@RexxS: Actually if you read the RFC Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#RFC:_West_Bank_village_articles decision it says "2) In cases involving the Jordanian annexation, the wording came under Jordanian rule following the 1948-1949 Arab-Israel War and was later, in a move not widely recognized internationally, annexed by Jordan in 1950 enjoys widespread support" by removing the text he goes against the RFC decision moreover the decision doesn't require any enforcing of it. --Shrike (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC) striken probably I misread the decision --Shrike (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Selfstudier

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 Selfstudier

My latest edit is constructive, not a revert. I removed an easter egg and the consequent repetition, that's all. The repeated material was added recently by Zarcademan12345 (topic banned) with a request not to revert pending the outcome of an RFC. Said RFC is now concluded and not only does not support the addition of the material but also recommends removal of easter eggs such as the one I removed.Selfstudier (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I am not going to argue with an admin about this so have self reverted.Selfstudier (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I removed the easter egg as indicated by the rfc, specifically about this issue. I could just have stopped there and then presumably I would not be falling foul of the rules and the article would then have read as follows: " Aqraba came under Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. It was annexed by Jordan in 1950." I did not really regard the removal of the duplication as anything out of the ordinary but if that is what it has to be, so be it. I was not edit warring, it was intended as a constructive edit.Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
By "edit warring" I meant the bright line 3/4 revert thing not the 1R IP thing, which I do take seriously, I just didn't think that what I did was a breach of that, which is how we have ended up here. Now I know differently. I will try to hold my breath from now on. As you have seen, the "annexation" bit got mixed up with the other reverting that was going on and in which I had no interest as such.Selfstudier (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
As an aside (for Huldra, mainly) the annexation thing is quite complicated (there are several relevant discussions presently ongoing about it in different places it is not only the closed RFC already referred to) but the current title came in 2017 and has survived multiple attempts to change it to anything that includes "occupation" (directly or indirectly).Selfstudier (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

I just have to object to "that local RFC". RFCs at a centralized discussion closed by an uninvolved admin should have some force here, and if an editor is ignoring that explicit consensus, whatever that consensus may be, that editor should be reverted and sanctioned for disruptive and tendentious editing. That too is prohibited by the arbitration decision, and I would have thought been taken much more seriously than a 1RR violation (though yes that happened here and yes Selfstudier should have self-reverted when first asked). nableezy - 19:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

How is that not a centralized location? RFCs at IPCOLL have been the basis of, for example, naming conventions that were created under arbitration decisions. That is the centralized location for discussions in the topic area for changes that affect a range of articles. Its been treated that way for over a decade now by all sides. If RFCs at the WikiProject specifically established as a central discussion location for editors of all viewpoints that are closed by an uninvolved admin dont have any effect then what is the point of any of this? RFCs at IPCOLL have had some sort of force for literally ten years. nableezy - 22:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
And to be very clear, I am not saying that edit-warring is the method of enforcement of that RFC, but if an editor is editing against its consensus they should be reported and sanctioned. nableezy - 22:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra

Sorry, but count me as confused.

To re-iterate from my talk-page; any link directly to Jordanian annexation of the West Bank is in itself a sort of Easter-link, as that article contains two parts: the occupation phase (1948-1950) and the annexation phase (1950-67). If you link straight to Jordanian annexation of the West Bank ..then you leave out the occupation part.

The article Jordanian annexation of the West Bank recently changed name from Jordanian occupation of the West Bank to Jordanian annexation of the West Bank (and if you look at its talk-page: the title is continuously being discussed.)

My solution has been to "pipe" [[Jordanian annexation of the West Bank|Jordanian rule]], as "rule" encompass both "occupation" and "annexation".

If that is not acceptable, then please tell me what wording is acceptable?

I think we need a fixed "standard phrase" wrt to these (hundreds of) West Bank villages, we haven't got that at the moment (at least not that I am aware of!) Huldra (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Btw: when I did my revert here: that was a "whole-sale" revert: mostly I was upset that the (wholly uncontroversial) 1961 info was taken out, also that the 2014 was taken out (only Shrike was for taking out that, while 3 editors (+User:Rabobux) were for keeping it.) I inadvertently re-introduced a sentence (which Selfstudier later removed). I actually agreed with Selfstudier's edit, and if I hadn't been in such a hurry to reintroduce the 1961 +2014 info, then I would have done it myself. Mea Culpa ...:( Huldra (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I totally agree with RexxS that the "proper" procedure for Selfstudier was to have asked me to fix the "Jordanian era" info: which I would have done immediately. Again, sorry for my mistake, Huldra (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Selfstudier

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This is not a complicated report: Selfstudier reverted twice in 24 hours, having removed [i]t was annexed by Jordan in 1950 both times. They were given the opportunity to self-revert as is customary, but refused, preferring instead to have these edits examined here at AE. And so, here we are. I, for one, find their explanation to be insufficient and I recommend sanctions, which I am ready to impose sooner rather than later. El_C 17:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Selfstudier, you should not need an admin and an AE report for you to observe the rules. I am leaning toward a (logged) warning to drive that point across. El_C 18:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
      • RexxS, no objection to sanctions, either. If that is the consensus, I am willing to support that, too. Or a logged warning. Whichever. El_C 18:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
        • RexxS, thanks for magnifying. I agree that Selfstudier doesn't seem to be taking the discretionary sanctions seriously with that inexplicable "I was not edit warring" line. Sanctions it is, then. El_C 21:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
          • @El C: Can you wait a little longer, please? There has been some intractable posturing here by several parties. It's beginning to look like a "GOTCHA" by the OP, following a revert against the RfC consensus by Huldra - see my talk page and User talk:Huldra. If we're not getting any cooperation from either side of this dispute, it might be time to start handing out sanctions more broadly. --RexxS (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
            • For sure, I'm in no rush to act. El_C 21:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
              • RexxS, do you have a sanction or set of sanctions in mind? A week partial block to Selfstudier would represent my default for someone with an otherwise clear record. El_C 23:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
                • @El C: The to-and-fro has calmed down, and Selfstudier has displayed clear self-reflection above, so I'm less worried about the likelihood of future transgressions. Given Huldra's explanation of her mistake and honest acceptance of part of the blame, I now wonder if a logged warning for Selfstudier wouldn't be just as effective? Anyway, I'll go along with whatever you decide as I think we're very close to agreement. --RexxS (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • Logged warning works for me. Closing with that. El_C 23:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Editors working in articles subject to discretionary sanctions should familiarise themselves with the restrictions applying to the article. It's not acceptable to refuse to self-revert a clear breach until forced to by a complaint to AE. I support sanctions in this case, otherwise what incentive is there for others to edit within the limits imposed by the sanctions? --RexxS (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @El C: I've just spent some more time examining the contributions made by Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). It seems they have placed far too much emphasis on the results of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration #RFC: West Bank village articles, and not sufficiently understood the overriding requirement of AC/DS to avoid edit-warring. Attempting to enforce the consensus of that local RfC cannot be achieved by edit-warring, only by legitimate dispute resolution. If they can understand and accept that, then a warning will be sufficient; otherwise I'm afraid a topic ban will be necessary. --RexxS (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @Selfstudier: In response to my statement above, you state "I was not edit warring", but you were. You've convinced me that you don't take the discretionary sanctions seriously. --RexxS (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @Shrike: Please don't be disingenuous. You know very well that both of can read S Marshall's close on 17 June 2020: "1. It is not normal Wikipedian practice to include easter-egg links from relatively bland phrases like "Came under Jordanian rule" to our nuanced articles Jordanian annexation of the West Bank ... There is scope for editors to correct instances of this." That is exactly the link/text that Selfstudier objected to in their edits and it carries with it the consensus of that RfC. Huldra later restored the "easter-egg" link and text against the RfC consensus. That was the edit that triggered Selfstudier's revert against DS. But you are absolutely wrong to claim that "by removing the text he goes against the RFC decision". It seems to me that you are offering false evidence here and you should strike that claim. --RexxS (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @Nableezy: It was a local RfC per WP:CONLOCAL, despite your protests. Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration is not a centralised location, and decisions of Wikiprojects do not take precedence over project-wide processes such as WP:AC/DS: "unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." Nevertheless, I have just asked Huldra to reverse their re-insertion of the easter-egg link. That would have been the correct course of action by Selfstudier. It would be only after a polite attempt to get them to abide by the consensus that it would be appropriate to escalate the dispute resolution, and it was never appropriate to attempt to resolve it by edit-warring. --RexxS (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog

Not actionable --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 Roxy the dog

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Ivanvector (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 20:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Roxy the dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. Special:Diff/965678372 - uncivil commentary in edit request ("Rotten thing to do")
  2. Special:Diff/965680173 - personal attack described below
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. WP:AELOG/2018#Pseudoscience - Roxy the dog blocked for one week for edit warring on the same article.
    Sanction was overturned on appeal.
  • There are many more blocks for personal attacks and edit warring in Roxy the dog's block log, but none are marked as arbitration enforcement.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I protected this article earlier today in response to a request at RFPP regarding many established editors reverting a description of the topic as pseudoscience, in the midst of an active discussion about the same. No editors were named in that request, but at least nine had edited the material in dispute since the previous day. I chose to protect the page indefinitely, with advice that protection would be lifted immediately following either a resolution of the conflict in the form of an edit request, or consensus among involved editors that protection should be restored to the previous semiprotection for whatever reason they decided was appropriate. This mirrors a similar action on that article by former administrator John (nopinged because his user page says he's retired) several years ago.

In response to my notice on the article's talk page, Roxy the dog suggested I should reconsider protection immediately, to which I responded by repeating my second condition for lifting protection (simple consensus). Roxy's response to that was to call me "stupid", to say that I "can't count" (I'm not sure what they're referring to, my action is not based on counting anything, though Roxy may be referring to my user page indicating that I am an accountant), and a direct suggestion that I am incompetent to perform administrative duties. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Roxy the dog

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 Roxy the dog

Statement by Kingofaces43

Not involved in the subject, but dealing with pseudoscience topics in general, I took a look at what was going on at the page. Roxy's comments look like valid fairly civil frustration at the actions due to wider underlying issues going on there.

However, having that civility restriction without enforcing the rest of WP:ARBPS is just asking for trouble with good editors getting frustrated by advocacy, in this case, those trying to get the word pseudoscience removed or watered down. That's already a WP:PSCI policy violation, and the original ARBPS case goes into more detail that we're supposed to call pseudoscience as it is. If someone is trying to claim this subject isn't pseudoscience, it's probably better in terms of WP:PREVENTATIVE to have a lower bar for removing that editor violating PSCI from the topic rather than masking the problem with edit warring and other civility restrictions. Otherwise, you're inevitably going to get burnout from editors trying to both tread carefully and deal with disruptive advocacy, edit warring, etc. by others.

I won't go so far as to say Ivanvector was out of line with the restrictions they did put in place. However, more care should have probably gone into dealing with the behavior issues related to PSCI before or as part of protecting the page and telling everyone to get consensus since PSCI behavior issues tend to disrupt talk discussions. Tough to do on the fly I know, but good pseudoscience enforcement requires some time to look at advocacy issues.

That said, there is also the DS-enforced RFC route (i.e., WP:GMORFC). I wouldn't suggest a locked in language RfC like that one was, but maybe just the question "Is ayurveda pseudoscience?" Basically, something that can apply to the whole subject indicating it can be called such in Wikipedia's WP:VOICE. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Do people have nothing better to do? This is so far below actionable that it's not even funny. Guy (help!) 00:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Roxy the dog

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I see the offending comment as RtD calling the action stupid, not you. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Not actionable. There has to be some leeway for editors to express frustration about admin actions. El_C 01:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I would not classify this as actionable. The second diff is not what I would call an ideal mode of communication, but viewed in context it is within the permissible range of venting. Neutralitytalk 02:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I am always very hesitant to sanction an editor for objecting to an admin action, unless they're way out of line in it rather than just expressing frustration. While the comments weren't ideal, I would not impose sanctions for them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


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 USaamo

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 05:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
USaamo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:ARBIPA :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 7 June - Violates WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS by incorrectly accusing established editors of being sock/meat of each other: "I see the finding was WP:DUCK. I started an RfC there to get views over the matter from uninvolved and neutral editors but I see it was also flooded with comments opposing it by the same involved editors who actually indulged in this edit dispute with me except one or two. Same like that case WP:DUCK#Usage WP:MEATPUPPET."
  2. 9 June - "don't like it owing to their ultra-nationalist sentiments. Consensus is also not canvassing or meatpuppetry"
  3. 2 July - Violates WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS again: "meat puppetry was done to influence the RfC in democratic style which is against Wikipedia policies. Anyhow RfC is not a binding thing, I seek other way of dispute resolution in this regard."
  4. 2 June - Misrepresents sources by claiming that the subject "became the face of Kashmir independence movement and was widely compared with Bhagat Singh" and used the sources,[139][140][141] when none of them talks about any "independence" or a "movement".
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
Blocked on 9 June 2020 for edit warring on Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965, where he was just edit warring to enforce his own WP:OR as his one of the edit undoubtedly indicates.[142]
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


Discussion concerning USaamo

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 USaamo

The whole point of conflict is the edit dispute on Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 which the editor called original research. Why ain’t it be determined, I’ve presented sources [145], he's refuting them [146], why not someone decide on that and end this dispute once and for all. As to my conduct, I’m being dragged into all this. I didn’t mean it and is unintentional out of frustration since I’m not much experienced editor knowing just some necessary editing policies only.

  • The 1st and 3rd point where I alleged them to be meatpuppets, if you see the full comment [147], I said canvassing in either way meatpuppetry. My point on both the instances was not specifically directed but in general sense as I observed them all editing on pages concerning India Pakistan Military history pushing Indian POV. The same I saw on Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 page that they came one after one reverting my edit [148] most lately User:Trojanishere and when I started RfC [149], they came one after one commenting against it even being involved previously in the dispute and then pushing it as consensus to not include that. This was the point for which I alleged them for canvassing and meatpuppetry in some way. I don’t think it is that much personal attack since editors here even open investigations against other editors for sockpuppetry where they don’t come out to be a sock.
  • As to the 2nd point it’s subsequent to the 1st and 3rd points which I answered above that one after one they were appearing and reverting my edit while discussion was ongoing and trying to push the consensus formed by their own votes, so I said that generally in edit summary.
  • The 4th point is just the choice of words, the sources are mentioning it as Kashmir unrest, Kashmir militancy, Kashmir agitation, Kashmir problem which is part of Kashmir conflict to which the Kashmir independence movement is a redirect [150]. It’s the choice of a neutral words since it’s obvious that Indian media will mention it as militancy as per their government narrative while for Kashmiris and Pakistanis it is freedom struggle, any other neutral word if there can also be used but Burhan Wani definitely took up arms for Kashmir independence movement as per the article.

I was blocked for this edit dispute over edit warring for reason that they were stonewalling my edits, my changes were being reverted one after one by four of the editors involved in edit dispute and I was reverting their reverts, so the editor went on to get me blocked even though the edit reversion was started by them and I reverted them as many times they reverted me or even less but I came into admin’s radar somehow and got blocked. Now the said editor came here with some loopholes in my conduct but in all this edit dispute why only my conduct is being scrutinized, why not theirs, WP:Stonewalling, WP:DISRUPT, WP:EDITWAR, WP:CANVAS, and may be WP:MEATPUPPET as well. USaamo (t@lk) 21:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning USaamo

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Seems actionable. Yes, USaamo needs to take it down a notch. They cannot be interacting with other editors in this manner. That is not conducive to a collegial, collaborative volunteer project. At the very least, there will be a logged warning. And otherwise, sanctions are on the table pending further investigation. El_C 08:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)