Request concerning SpicyBiryani[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIP :

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

1. 23:20, 31 May 2020: In their very first post on Talk:Kargil War, user commits an egregious violation of WP:ASPERSIONS by assuming nationalities of fellow editors: an Indian user has reverted this page....If any Indian editors have objections
2. 18:45, 8 June 2020: Refuses to respect the consensus of editors (reached here) and casts WP:ASPERSIONS on its participants: a 'consensus' doesn't really mean much anyway considering that India who has the largest internet presence in the world, the most fake news in the world, and IT Cells who actively spread propaganda in organised brigades for the government
3. 18:24, 9 June 2020: On being told how his inappropriate labelling of fellow editors as IT Cell and Indian government sponsored propagandist and his obstinate refusal to accept the consensus breached core policies like WP:NPOV, user doubles down on the violations and resorts to adhominem attacks to impugn the unanimous consensus: I have not targeted a single editor but given a reason to doubt the validity of any quantity based decisions made involving India on the internet...
4. 18:24, 9 June 2020: Same diff, showing that this same user further proceeds to personally attack another fellow participant in the discussion by accusing him of engaging in "chest thumping" and assuming bad faith and nationalities: I am not trying to engage in chest thumping for the Pakistani military if you believe chset thumping is the purpouse of these discussions. Ends the comment by seeking credibility for a chronic sockpuppeter PAKHIGHWAY by speculating the sockpuppeter's nationality after feigning ignorance about the sockpuppeter's past history: Their IP address indicates they are Canadian, a neutral nationality in this, eliminating any Indo-Pakistani bias.

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

User is aware of the discretionary sanction in effect in the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan topic area per their talk page, but all the same they were notified about it again on 31 May 2020.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

To begin with, the report is strictly confined to the conduct of the reported user, which on the whole has been lamentable. A persual of the relevant talk page discussion alone would show the user's repeated WP: IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, breach of core policies like WP:NPA, WP: ASPERSIONS, WP:BATTLE and last but not the least WP:CPUSH (in particular the part that reads, They will attempt to label others or otherwise discredit their opinion based on that person's associations rather than the core of their argument. See ad hominem.

Another thing important to mention here is that the user is essentially an WP:SPA who has obstinately refused to realize faults in their comments laden with policy violations (which have been adequate demonstrated above through a number of diffs), when pointed to them1, 2. User has been incivil from the get-go and has repeatedly attempted to personalize disputes by speculating ethnicities and nationalities of others, among other things.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

Discussion concerning SpicyBiryani[edit]

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 SpicyBiryani[edit]

User is aware of the discretionary sanction in effect in the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan topic area per their talk page, but all the same they were notified about it again on 31 May 2020.

Firstly, I had been notified of the sanctions well before I had edited the talk page, which you'd know if you'd bothered looking at the page history instead of resorting to WP:CHERRYPICKING as you have attempted to throughout the rest of your allegations. Do not make things up to discredit me.

Secondly, I have not speculated anyone's nationality. Here, you can see that User:Kautilya3, who is Indian, as you can see on their userpage, had reverted the page, to clear up un-neccessary discussion about the Kargil War, instead of the about the article. I had left a comment about the infobox that got caught up in this along some others. So, assuming it was a mistake as User:Kautilya3 is a seemingly competent editor, I re-addressed the issue on the talk page, and just to be on the safe side, changed it to remove as much commentary on the actual war as possible and to focus on the article more. Jingoism on such pages by Indian and Pakistani users is not new, the former being more common due to India having the largest (mostly uncensored) internet population in the world. Again, User:Kautilya3 seemed to be a competent editor, and did not further revert any of my comments, I did not attack or accuse or assume anything about them, nor did I even mention them any further. Additoinally, the fact that they did not revert any of my content again indicates that I was not the issue which caused the revert. I had only mentioned his nationality as people from India and Pakistan are obviously biased to their own country, whether they realise it or not. As you can tell, the comment complied with WP:TALKFIRST, and I had discouraged edit warring and refrained from editing the article itself, despite having the rights to do so at the time. So you could understand why I was initially disappointed that it seemed a biased Indian user had already began edit-warring. However, seeing that this revert was not targeted at me, and after seeing Kautulya3 was a competent editor, I realised this was not the case.

Refuses to respect the consensus of editors (reached here) and casts WP:ASPERSIONS on its participants I have every right to question the validity of anything quantity based involving India on the Internet. Yes, IT Cells and fake news in India do exist. No, this is not my opinion or WP:OR: Nationalism-fuelled^[1] fake news is rampant in India. In fact, India has the most fake news in the world.^[2]. And if you want to check yourself, go to any popular webpage about Pakistan, and you fill find more Indians than Pakistanis in the comment section/replies/whatever. For example, even when crickiter Shahid Afridi tested positive for Covid-19, they did not fail to politicise the situation and saw it as an opportunity to make racist comments. Anyway, moving on:

user further proceeds to personally attack another fellow participant in the discussion by accusing him of engaging in "chest thumping" and assuming bad faith and nationalities: "I am not trying to engage in chest thumping for the Pakistani military if you believe chset thumping is the purpouse of these discussions." Ends the comment by seeking credibility for a chronic sockpuppeter PAKHIGHWAY by speculating the sockpuppeter's nationality after feigning ignorance about the sockpuppeter's past history: "Their IP address indicates they are Canadian, a neutral nationality in this, eliminating any Indo-Pakistani bias."

Here is the piece written by this user. There is no indication of any sockpuppetery or bans whatsoever on their talk, nor on their userpage which they did not add anything to. A quick geolocation shows that it is a Canadian user, so it's not like they were a biased Indian or Pakistani, as I pointed out. Despite me asking for evidence of sockpuppetery multiple times, User:Aman.kumar.goel resorted to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and called the user 'sockmaster': You can't lend more credibility to sockmaster....

showing that this same user further proceeds to personally attack another fellow participant in the discussion by accusing him of engaging in "chest thumping" and assuming bad faith and nationalities: "I am not trying to engage in chest thumping for the Pakistani military if you believe chset thumping is the purpouse of these discussions."

I do not know what kind of mental gymnastics it takes to interpret that as a 'personal attack'. I stated that the as a result of the war, there were indeed territorial changes, whether they be in India or Pakistan's favour, and that I was not chest thumping and trying to make the Pakistani military look better, if that was the assumption other users had. In fact, I was agreeing with the person who you allege I was personally attacking.

Another thing important to mention here is that the user is essentially an WP:SPA who has obstinately refused to realize faults in their comments laden with policy violations (which have been adequate demonstrated above through a number of diffs), when pointed to them1, 2. User has been incivil from the get-go and has repeatedly attempted to personalize disputes by speculating ethnicities and nationalities of others, among other things. Where have I mentioned ethnicities? Other than my userpage, I have found no mention of any such subject. If you look at WP:SPATG, I do not fit the criteria to be labelled as such. And is there anything wrong with me editing articles relevant to my own country? The accusing user's page shows that they too have an interest in their country, so by their logic they too should be banned. Moreover, my account is younger than his, so obviously its edits have not grown to reach as much of Wikipedia, especially considering the fact that there is a Pandemic which makes it difficult to spend more time contributing to Wikipedia. Otherwise, I could just spam useless edits on random page to increase my edit count, editing rights and use other common deceptive if I created this account with malicious intent as Aman.kumar.goel alleges.

TL;DR:

• Aman.kumar.goel resorts to WP:CHERRYPICKING/WP:ICANTHEARYOU, refused to acknowledge facts related to the topic and called another fellow editor a sockpuppeter without providing any evidence, while blaming me for personally attacking others even when I agree with them. Proceeds to accuse me of being a WP:SPA because I edit articles which I am intrested in and don't take pride in artificially inflating my edit count.

If any of my actions are indeed leaning towards the wrong side then I will avoid committing them in the future and change my editing behaviour, if pointed out by an administrator.

SpicyBiryani (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Siddsg, Kindly avoid resorting to WP:MOREX. If you'd read what I actually said and didn't resort to WP:CHERRYPICKING, you'll see that not only is News-18 run in India by Indians and owned by Indian companies (it is affiliated with CNN) but it is also giving the same numbers as the Indian armed forces were. Therefore, this would be labeled as an Indian figure as it's provided by an Indian source. Additionally, if you researched about me properly, you'll see I've had a pleasant experience with some Indian editors and the opposite with some. Moreover, If I had created this account just to crib about Indians, I would be resorting to insults and vandalism a lot more, and would not bother defending myself to this extent if I didn't value this website and account and saw it as an insignificant platform for trolling and vandalism. SpicyBiryani (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I've stated above, I apologise for any of my actions which violated any policies and will do my best to refrain from repeating such actions in the future. I realise that my country (and related topics) are controversial subjects on Wikipedia, but unfortunately it seems that I found out the hard way. I'm pretty comfortable with computers and exploring settings and that kind of stuff, but I am new on Wikipedia if that caused anyone to doubt my account age. Additionally, my edits on 2020 China–India skirmishes are mostly attempts to stop edit warring and citing sources out of context.

SpicyBiryani (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Siddsg[edit]

So SpicyBiryani has only 38 edits and he feels that it is fine for him to misuse Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX against "Indians" because of his own perceived but very personal prejudice/hatred/bias against Indians. I see this to be a clear example of WP:CIR and WP:BATTLE. SpicyBiryani also misrepresented CNN and CNN-News18 as "Indian source" in order to sabotage the reliability of the source when he edited 2020 China–India skirmishes.[2] Maybe an indef block (topic ban upon return) would be worth it. Siddsg (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning SpicyBiryani[edit]

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

• A topic ban from the IPA topic area is probably in order. El_C 22:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Vanamonde93, I think starting the topic ban with IPA would be fine. I don't think the DS allows us to expand it, regionally, beyond that, in any case. El_C 13:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Vanamonde93, are you getting my pings here? Because this is the third time you've pinged me at AE in the last few days where I didn't get any alert and only caught it in passing. I'm wondering why that is. Anyway, on to your point: following your correction, if you feel IPA overall is not too narrow but rather too broad, I personally have no objection in erring on the IPA "armed conflict"-only side of leniency. Certainly, I don't see the harm of a more focused topic ban in this instance. El_C 23:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Vanamonde93, cool thanks. Makes sense — that did not occur to me. Yes, ping successful! El_C 00:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I think SpicyBiryani is editing in good faith, but their attitude requires a fundamental recalibration; a righting great wrongs approach to content isn't acceptable, and a battleground approach towards other editors isn't acceptable either. The topic is rife with POV-pushing and tag-teaming, but that's no excuse. I would recommend a topic-ban from armed conflict involving India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (really it ought to be all of South Asia, but the sanctions regime is not that wide; El C, thoughts on that?) and would be okay with an ARBIPA topic ban also, though it wouldn't be my first choice. I would make the TBAN indefinite, with the expectation that it wouldn't be lifted until the user showed a history of constructive engagement with areas outside their TBAN. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @El C: apologies, I didn't make myself clear; I'm not asking to expand the scope of the ban, because as we both said, the DS regime doesn't allow for it; I wanted your opinion on a TBAN from "armed conflict involving India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan", which I think would cover the area of their current disruption while allowing for productive editing elsewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @El C: Did you get this one? If so, that's my bad; I sometimes forget your username includes an underscore; with a space there instead, the ping still renders as normal, so I wouldn't catch it. If you didn't get this one, then I'm still baffled...I'm certainly getting yours. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• After this user made only 38 edits I don't believe we have enough information to specify a narrowly-tailored topic ban. Would prefer to close with the warning that if they continue to edit conflict-related articles in South Asia and keep making broad-brush assertions about typical behavior of editors of various nationalities, any administrator may issue an indefinite topic ban from all of WP:ARBIPA. Narrow topic bans can lead to arguments about the boundaries and can risk using up space on noticeboards. If other editors want to issue a topic ban I suggest the full domain of WP:ARBIPA. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Apologies for the late response; I'm fine with a warning. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I agree with EdJohnston. SpicyBiryani is in theory a new editor (though I have some nagging doubts there) and has chosen to pitch in to a complete minefield. We should be somewhat forgiving of newbie errors, but we should be pretty clear that this forbearance is strictly limited, especially given the belligerent nature of their response above. How about a 3 month no-mainspace restriction in this topic area? Guy (help!) 09:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @JzG:. Since part of the complaint is about tendentious editing on talk pages, I'm not sure that allowing them to continue editing this area but outside of mainspace is a good plan. Agree with you that their response to this complaint is unimpressive. I'd favor a 3-month topic ban from the whole domain of WP:ARBPIA. Either that or a warning. EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  EdJohnston, fair point, works for me. Guy (help!) 23:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm not optimistic about the future editing of User:SpicyBiryani, and the topic of the Kargil War is one of the most troublesome in the IPA topic area. The four diffs supplied above are all about the Kargil War. (There are also a number of hits in the SPI archive for the Kargil War, but so far SpicyBiryani himself is not implicated as a sock). So, if it is down to me to decide between a warning and a 3-month ban, I'm opting to impose a regular three month topic ban from the full domain of WP:ARBIPA. EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Appealing user

Shuki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Shuki (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sanction being appealed

WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces indefinitely, imposed at

      [3]

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

User_talk:WGFinley#TBAN_appeal

Statement by Shuki[edit]

Several years ago, I was TBANNed from the ARBPIA area. Since then, I made a few hundred edits but moved on to other interests off-wp. Recently, I have noticed that many articles that I created or improved have over the years become stagnant and information is outdated, whether in the direct sphere of the ban or indirectly. While I do not have the same free time to become to contribute actively, nonetheless, I'd like to return to create, update and edit even if infrequently in the area. Shuki (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The main topic I can contribute in where articles need to be desperately improved is about Israel. Virtually everything is affected by the ARBPIA and at any time for just editing any article I run this risk of getting sanctioned again (as I see others have been sanctioned even recently), including supposedly unrelated articles about local geography, people and politics. I've browsed around the current rules with regard to ARBPIA and frankly am not interested in going back to be involved that 'battleground' atmosphere. As already stated, I don't intend to go back to being as active as before, but also have enough integrity to request a restart by appealing with my old account, and not just the easy thing by creating a new account. Per Seraphimblade and El_C's comments, after the 2012 TBAN, since then I have almost two years of 100s of positive contributions until after the beginning of 2014 and I was assuming that that and the additional extended time by being self-distanced from WP for many years would be another reasonable sign of good faith cooling off. Shuki (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by WGFinley[edit]

Statement by Huldra[edit]

Shuki's last 50 edits goes back to February, 2014. I would suggest that for the time being they put whatever improvement to articles they would like to see on the articles talk-page, (I assume that is allowed?) Huldra (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, User:Seraphimblade: I did not know that. But is it possible to amend the topic-ban to let him suggest edits on the talk-page? Huldra (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]

Huldra: One of the purposes of a topic ban is to see how the editor responds to it. Do they make contributions in other areas which show that there an asset to Wikipedia, and can be trusted to be given a second chance when the opportunity arises, or do they fritter away at the edges of the TB testing its boundaries? Amending their topic ban so they can suggest edits on article talk pages, or on their own talk page, would defeat that purpose, and would just move disruption from article editing to talk pages. I don;t think it's a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Shuki[edit]

Result of the appeal by Shuki[edit]

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

• It looks like in addition to the topic ban, Shuki then had a block in July 2012 for violating the ban. (There was also a second block in November 2012 for a violation, but that was quickly reversed by the blocking admin as a mistake, so I'd disregard that.) Shuki then stopped editing regularly in March 2013, with only some sporadic periods of activity. That does not indicate, to me, enough positive editing outside the topic area to justify lifting the ban. So from me, while it's not a "never", it would be a "not yet". If Shuki would take six months to a year consistently making positive contributions in areas outside the topic ban, my answer would likely be different at that point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Huldra, no, that is not permitted, and your advice may lead to people getting blocked. This topic ban, as with most of them, forbids edits in regards to that topic anywhere on Wikipedia, whether article talk pages, user talk pages, or anywhere else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I agree. ~15 edits this year, and before that, the last edit being basically 2016 (with a single edit in 2017), is not enough. Please try again once we have more recent contributions outside the topic ban to weigh. El_C 20:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Shuki, ARBPIA has gone through quite a bit of transformation since 2014 —we are now at its 4th iteration— so I still would like to see more recent contributions outside the topic area. While that is taking place, I hope you would take the time to better familiarize yourself with the topic area itself. It has some arcane rules that you should probably, at the very least, take a passing glance at. El_C 23:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Decline The appeal statement does not address any issues concerning the topic ban and whether those issues remain. The passage of time does not indicate that a topic ban is no longer desirable. As mentioned by others, editing since the sanction is too low to assess the situation.. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Decline The appellant has not shown that the topic ban is not needed to curb disruption in the topic area --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Request concerning GizzyCatBella[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Notrium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive236#GizzyCatBella :

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

1. 18:39, 21 June 2020 Both the removed and the added parts partly concern and mention the Second World War. The article is about history of Poland.
2. 23:06, 23 June 2020 Added "World War II" link to the lead of an article about History of Poland.
3. 08:47, 17 June 2020 Deleted the only mention in Solzhenitsyn's article of Solzhenitsyn's sympathies for Hitler and Nazi Germany regarding WW2 (against the USSR). Note that Solzhenitsyn, too, is considered by some to be anti-Semitic[4]; and see Two Hundred Years Together.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 14:44, 26 April 2018 Blocked for violating an arbitration decision with edits on the "Collaboration in German-occupied Poland" article.
2. 20:09, 25 June 2018 Initial topic ban announcement on GizzyCatBella's talk page
3. 09:50, 18 May 2019 Blocked for violating topic ban

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

Not applicable, I think.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

04:48, 23 June 2020 This might also qualify as a violation.

Possibly also a bit relevant: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland

18 May 2019 discussion: [5].

There are quite some discussions on GizzyCatBella already in the Enforcement Archives (it seems most relate to this same issue); and the user has been warned many times about the topic block and violation on their page, including in April.

@RexxS: I object to this wording: "The ban was two years ago and the single sanction applied as a result of it was well over a year ago." - It implies GizzyCatBella abstained from editing through the topic ban except for that one instance in 2019, but in reality they violated the ban as recently as March this year, with the warning in April [6]. Notrium (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RexxS: I don't understand what you're getting at with the phrase "additional evidence"; I did now add a link to the previous AR case (to be more directly accessible), but other relevant links were also here when I initially filed the request (the link to the AE archives search and the link to GizzyCatBella's April talk page warning for violation). Notrium (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification on talk page.

Discussion concerning GizzyCatBella[edit]

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 GizzyCatBella[edit]

Yea... I missed that that one word looks like when I was reverting the user. [7] I didn't write that, it was a revert were I missed the word "WW2". The other diffs ate not TP violations. One important thing that I want to point out that here is that this report is an obvious retaliation for me commenting at this discussion [8] and a continuation of hounding [9] that further illustrates Notrium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) battleground behaviour. This should be dealt with as well.

• Maybe at the same time, I'll touch the problem of keeping users topic banned for too long (mine is two years old) as you can see topic bans are being used for retaliation as in this case of the most tin slip. The longer the user is topic banned, the easier it is to find something that can be used against the topic banned user. Seriously, this is something you guys should really think about in general. Now please sanction me if needed for that mistake accordingly to your judgment.

ALSO - I recently criticized a user that originally imposed a ban in 2018 on an unrelated discussion. [10] GizzyCatBella🍁 17:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@*Notrium No, I didn't suggest lifting this particular restriction. I pointed out to the fact that you are using this board as retaliation for me criticizing your behaviour here [11] were within 25 minutes you went on a hounding trip [12] and then you arrived here claiming topic ban violations were, in reality, it was me missing one word "WW2" in the portion of the article that was not related to the WW2 in Poland at all [13]. You arrived here even though I did't advocate for any sanctions against you despite you hounding my edits and edit warring. [14]. Now this is what I call an extreme battalground behaviour.

@RexxS - I undestand that, mistakes happen and I take full resposibility for it. It was not intentional, I just missed that one word, but please use your judmnet and perform any action that you think is nessesarry.GizzyCatBella🍁 18:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC) @El_C - yes, I will do my absolute best, thank you for your best wishes to navigate the ban.GizzyCatBella🍁 22:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning GizzyCatBella[edit]

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

• GizzyCatBella, indeed it looks like you contravened your ban by adding "World War II" to the article. El_C 16:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Notrium, I don't think Sandstein participates on this board any longer, and NealN has been away for years now. El_C 16:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• RexxS' proposal works for me. GizzyCatBella, you need to be as careful as you were in the first few weeks after the last topic ban incident, and you will need to be that careful all the time. Because, otherwise, at some point it won't be a 3-day block, it's going to be a 3 week or even a 3 month block. Please take note. As always, I wish you best of luck in navigating your topic ban successfully. El_C 21:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• GizzyCatBella, you violated your ban with that addition. I sympathise with the problem of long-standing topic bans being 'weaponised' in unrelated disputes, but that doesn't change the fact of the violation, sorry. --RexxS (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Notrium I don't think it's appropriate to blatantly canvass particular administrators to the discussion. That's not how AE is intended to work. --RexxS (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Looking at the diffs, I'm content to accept that it was a genuine mistake, but I don't think I can avoid supporting a sanction. The ban was two years ago and the single sanction applied as a result of it was well over a year ago. I'm going to suggest a 72-hour block and a strong recommendation to GizzyCatBella to be doubly careful in checking her edits when anywhere near the topic ban area. --RexxS (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Notrium, you can object all you want, but the facts are as I stated them. If there was additional evidence you wanted the admins here to consider, the onus was on you to present it when you filed the request. The process at AE is not a dialogue, but a presentation by a filer followed any responses and then consideration by uninvolved administrators. This is not ANI 2.0 --RexxS (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Notrium, you have a section titled "Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any". That's the place to put diffs of previous sanctions that you consider relevant when you file the request. If you thought the April warning was a relevant sanction, that was the place to put it. If – like me – you actually don't consider a warning to be a sanction, then there's no point in objecting to my assessment that "The ban was two years ago and the single sanction applied as a result of it was well over a year ago." I hope you understand now. --RexxS (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Request concerning Azuredivay[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia: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)

• Given an alert about discretionary sanctions by Newslinger on 15 March 2020.

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)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified.

Discussion concerning Azuredivay[edit]

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[edit]

Diff #1 has been misrepresented. Golwalkar's quote had been added by Arslan-San[15] 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)Reply[reply]

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.[16]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

Statement by (other involved editor)[edit]

Result concerning Azuredivay[edit]

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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
  • @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)Reply[reply]
    • 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)Reply[reply]
• @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)Reply[reply]
  • @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)Reply[reply]
  • That's good, thanks. I would go with "no action needed". Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Request concerning Mikola22[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sadko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Mikola22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:TOPICBAN

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 [17] [18]
3. Identical fringe viewpoints which were reported multiple times in the recent past (notice that there are ~10 RS presented on the article) [19]
5. Ignoring other user’s concerns [20] [21]
7. Complaints about prior “lost battles” which led to his/her ban in the fist place [22] [23]
9. 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) [24] [25]

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):

[26] [27] [28] (which is more often than not just wrong or taken out of full context) [29] [30] [31] [32] ! [33] [34] [35]

blunt removal [36] [37] [38] [39]

[40] (on the very same article WW2 fascists were used as "RS" by the same editor [41]) [42] (Marco Polo was Croatian) [43]

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. [44] 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)

• [45] 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 hr.wiki is not a bad thing. [46] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[47]

Discussion concerning Mikola22[edit]

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 [48] Mikola22 (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Mikola22[edit]

I answered here (most accurately)[49]

Statement and responses shortened due to far exceeding word limit. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Reply[reply]

• @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)Reply[reply]
• @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)Reply[reply]

Statement by Tezwoo[edit]

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. [50] 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" [51] 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 [52]. 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 [53] 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" [54]. 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 [55]

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)Reply[reply]

Boomerang?

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 [56]. The issue (novosti.rs article) had to be brought to RSN, which made it clear that it is not an RS. [57]

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 [58] [59] [60] and Griboski [61] 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Statement by Griboski[edit]

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 [62] 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 [63] 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)Reply[reply]

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. [64] --Griboski (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@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 [65]. 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)Reply[reply]

Statement by WEBDuB[edit]

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 [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72]. Most importantly, that included the violation of the 1RR rule [73] [74] and [75] [76]. To be honest, he later re-reverted one of his changes [77]. In another article, there is another violation of the 1RR restriction [78] [79] and [80] [81]

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 ([82] [83] [84]), he made changes to the article Milan Nedić for the first time, without previous contributions in this article in his history ([85] [86] [87]) When I contributed something on May 24 and 25 [88] [89] [90] [91] [92]), he soon made similar changes to the articles The Holocaust in German-occupied Serbia ([93], [94] [95]), Banjica concentration camp ([96]) and Chetnik war crimes in World War II ([97]) 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 ([98] [99] [100] [101] [102]) and Novak Djokovic ([103] [104]). 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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Statement by Sadko[edit]

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. [105]

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 [106] 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

Statement by Peacemaker67[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

Statement by Calthinus[edit]

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 [[107]] 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)Reply[reply]

I see that Peacemaker has clarified that the Marco Polo diff was this one [108] -- my bad, though that should have been made clearer. --Calthinus (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Santasa99[edit]

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 ౪^99° 18:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 ౪^99° 19:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 ౪^99° 19:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)).Reply[reply]

@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 ౪^99° 20:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@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 ౪^99° 01:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 ౪^99° 20:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Maleschreiber[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Mikola22[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• Thanks Peacemaker67, for looking into this matter. More depth and breadth from you would be welcome. El_C 08:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• Sorry, noting also Guy's exception from 21 June, which I have overlooked. El_C 01:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 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 [109] 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]

  No objections here. ~Awilley (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Request concerning Marvin 2009[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

PatCheng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Marvin 2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia: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 [110] 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 [111].
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. [112]

Discussion concerning Marvin 2009[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

PatCheng deleted Toronto Sun sources [113] 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. [114] 

3. [115].

4.[116]

5.[117] 

6 [118] 

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)Reply[reply]

Statement by (Horse Eye Jack)[edit]

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 [119][120] 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Statement by TheBlueCanoe[edit]

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:

• [121] 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.

• [122] – 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.

• [123] - 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)Reply[reply]

Statement by Pudeo[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Statement by Doug Weller[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Marvin 2009[edit]

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 [124] and [125]. Guy (help!) 08:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]

Doug Weller, mainly because he would not stick to the word limits here. Guy (help!) 12:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]

  Seraphimblade, Plausible. I say TBANs for both, based on edit history. Guy (help!) 23:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  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 [126] 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)Reply[reply]

  @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)Reply[reply]

  Guerillero, good shout. Guy (help!) 20:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  In addition, Marvin 2009, could you please explain why you removed a comment by Guy in this edit? [127] Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I would hand out topic bans to PatCheng and Marvin 2009 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Request concerning Urgal[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAPDS :

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

[128]

Discussion concerning Urgal[edit]

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[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

" 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)Reply[reply]

@Glen

"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: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=InfoWars&diff=prev&oldid=963878806&diffmode=source 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Statement by Glen[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Statement by JzG[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Urgal[edit]

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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• I would do an indefinite topic ban. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• I agree with my colleagues above, and will close in a minute. Bishonen | tålk 17:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]

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

Request concerning Arminden[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Makeandtoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Arminden

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is filed [129]

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAPDS :

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” [130]. I asked him politely to withdraw his statements but he doubled down twice and thrice with [131] 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)Reply[reply]

1. [132]
2. [133]

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[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Statement by Arminden[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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

@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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

Statement by Huldra[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Arminden[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]
• I think we need a pair of informal warnings and some side eye --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Request concerning Selfstudier[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/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 [134]
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 [135] 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)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Selfstudier[edit]

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[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Statement by Huldra[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Selfstudier[edit]

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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
    • 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)Reply[reply]
      • 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)Reply[reply]
        • @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)Reply[reply]
          • For sure, I'm in no rush to act. El_C 21:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • 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)Reply[reply]
              • @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)Reply[reply]
                • Logged warning works for me. Closing with that. El_C 23:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
  • @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)Reply[reply]
  • @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)Reply[reply]
  • @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)Reply[reply]
  • @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)Reply[reply]

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

Request concerning Roxy the dog[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ivanvector (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Roxy the dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

• Civility restriction in force at Talk:Ayurveda as a WP:ARBPS discretionary sanction

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)

• Discretionary sanctions alert posted at User talk:Roxy the dog yesterday

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)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [136]

Discussion concerning Roxy the dog[edit]

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[edit]

Statement by Kingofaces43[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Statement by JzG[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Roxy the dog[edit]

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)Reply[reply]
• Not actionable. There has to be some leeway for editors to express frustration about admin actions. El_C 01:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 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. Neutrality^talk 02:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]