From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dlthewave[edit]

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" 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 
Dlthewave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) – –dlthewave 17:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Sanctions being appealed 
Administrators imposing the sanctions 

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

Notification of those administrators 



Statement by Dlthewave[edit]

  • I feel that the closing statement "Springee, Trekphiler, RAF910 and Dlthewave are warned not to misuse Wikipedia as a forum for polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities.", which appears to be copy-and-pasted from WP:POLEMIC, is not an accurate assessment of consensus among the admins who participated in the discussion. Among other things, it implies that all four editors are equally at fault, which does not appear to be what the admins intended in their support for a logged warning. Although Goldenring did delete a page in my userspace under WP:POLEMIC, there was no discussion of my "attacking" or "vilifying" anyone and one admin even stated "Dlthewave is in fact engaged in appropriate editing and discussion." There was no proposal to issue a logged warning to Dlthewave. (As a sidenote, I also feel that issuing a polemic warning to the other three involved editors instead of a warning related to talk page conduct was entirely out of left field, but that is something for them to address in their own appeals if they choose to pursue them.)
  • I feel that Goldenring's deletion of a page in my userspace, User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing_of_firearms_articles, has a chilling effect on my ability to document and share what I view as a long-term pattern in the gun control/gun crime topic area. This documentation plays an essential role in addressing current problems that are, in my opinion, a continuation of that pattern. My intention is to demonstrate a pattern and not to attack the individual editors who have been involved in that pattern. This removal is especially concerning when the "opposing" attacks and accusations which I documented are allowed to remain in full view at WP:Firearms and other talk pages. I would be open to discussing ways to do this that would not be viewed as an attack page, since similar pages maintained by other editors have passed MfD.
Although this deletion may have been within Goldenring's editorial discretion, I would like it to be reviewed by other admins and preferably discussed by the community at Miscellany for Deletion. –dlthewave 17:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I've opened a Deletion Review here as suggested. –dlthewave 21:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein[edit]

After rereading User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles, I agree with the appellant that the page was not (quite) a violation of WP:POLEMIC because it did not name editors and did not make allegations of misconduct, except as implied in the title ("whitewashing"), but that alone probably doesn't merit a warning. Because that page was the reason for my warning, I am striking it and recommend that GoldenRing (talk · contribs) undelete the page. A case can perhaps be made for its deletion on grounds of copyright / attribution, but that's a matter for the deletion process. Sandstein 18:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Per my comment here, I've also withdrawn the warning with respect to Springee. Clearly I should have read the enforcement request more carefully; sorry for that. I think that we should be more careful in the future as to whether or not to entertain enforcement requests directed at multiple editors. Sandstein 22:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
In response to Bishonen, GoldenRing is correct that an action that has been labeled as an AE action may only be reviewed by way of the process described at WP:AC/DS#Appeals, that is, here at AE, or at AN or ARCA – but not at DRV. Bishonen, I recommend that you undo your temporary restoration of the page for the purpose of the DRV, or you may be desysopped for undoing an AE action out of process, as described at WP:AC/DS#Modifications by administrators. Any admin who acts on the currently ongoing DRV by overturning the deletion may likewise be desysopped. Sandstein 15:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Springee[edit]

I'm clearly an involved editor. As I said before I think Dlthewave has a very strong POV on this topic and I frequently disagree with them. However, when push comes to shove, I don't think on good faith they viewed the page as a POLMIC. For what it's worth, I would support reverting Dlthewave's warning. Springee (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing[edit]

I disagree with Sandstein above and stand by this action. Dlthewave has stated right here that the purpose of this page is to document long-term problematic editing and policy is clear that such material is allowed only for dispute resolution and when used in a timely manner. I don't see the practical difference between, "so-and-so said this" (which the appellant seems to admit would be disallowed) and "someone said this and here's a link showing who it was" which is what they've actually done. GoldenRing (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bishonen: I'm not sure why you've suggested deletion review here. AE actions cannot be overturned at deletion review, only at AE, AN or ARCA. Have you also not just unilaterally undone an AE action? GoldenRing (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dlthewave: I will reiterate here what I've said on the deletion review: if you wish to use this material for valid dispute resolution (probably either an ANI or arbitration case request) and can outline a reasonable timeline for doing so (either on-wiki or privately by email), then I will self-revert my enforcement action. GoldenRing (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I would like to add, for what it's worth at this point, that I agree a formal warning to Dlthewave was not warranted. GoldenRing (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Please note that I have requested clarification from the arbitration committee regarding my deletion at WP:ARCA. GoldenRing (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223[edit]

Marginally involved. I just found out about the removal of DLThewave's excellent summary of the challenges faced to bring firearms into compliance with WP:N including the way that a wikiproject has tried to present their MOS suggestions as policy. I've said as much at another venue, but this is definitely not a violation of WP:POLEMIC and should be undeleted for the valuable resource it is. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

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

Result of the appeal by Dlthewave[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I commented in the initial thread, so I'm not sure whether my response should appear in this section, or above with GoldenRing's and Sandstein's. The deletion of Dlthewave's userspace subpage was arguably appropriate under WP:POLEMIC, and within reasonable admin discretion on GoldenRing's part. While I'm not sure I would have done the same, I'm comfortable leaving the page deleted. That said, I don't think a formal warning to Dlthewave is warranted; there wasn't really any support for such a warning amongst uninvolved admins in the previous thread, and it seems like overkill. The proper response to a potentially polemical userspace subpage is to delete it, which has been done. There wasn't any convincing evidence of a pattern of behavior warranting a logged warning on Dlthewave's part, at least not that I saw.

    Regarding the logged warnings, I do take Springee's point that they perhaps paint the remaining 3 editors with an overly broad brush. There are clearly gradations of concerning behavior, with Springee on the mild end and Trekphiler/RAF910 showing a much more sustained and problematic battleground attitude. I'll leave it up to other admins whether we should modify the warning to exclude Springee, but it is worth considering while we're here. MastCell Talk 21:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Hmm. This is definitely a confusing situation. Reading the deleted page, it does seem borderline WP:POLEMIC so, perhaps, GoldenRing was right in deleting it. But, Dlthewave brings up a good point. If they do plan on making a future case then how else can they keep a record of the edits they see as forming a pattern? They could do it off-wiki of course, but isn't it better to be open about one's activities? While the deletion was within admin discretion perhaps, in cases of this nature, it is better to leave them as is with a note to the editor that they can't leave it sticking around for too long. Imo, the warning should be withdrawn. --regentspark (comment) 00:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about deleting the whitewashing essay; I can't seem to make up my mind. Suggest dlthewave take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. An admin should be asked to temporarily undelete the page for purposes of discussion as soon as the DR is opened. But I don't have any trouble agreeing with Sandstein, Springee, MastCell, and Regentspark that dlthewave's warning should be withdrawn and struck from the log, and Sandstein has already done so. Bishonen | talk 01:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC).
  • @Dlthewave:, I've temporarily undeleted your page for the deletion review. Bishonen | talk 22:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC).
  • Your deletion can't be overturned at Deletion review, GoldenRing? Are you sure? In that case, obviously I suggested it because I didn't know any better. A bit of bad luck that apparently nobody who did know saw my suggestion for Deletion review here at AE, some 20 hours before Dlthewave actually opened the deletion review. I'm not sure what should be the next step, considering there is quite a lot of discussion at the review already, and some disagreement about how to proceed. But whatever action is taken, rest assured I won't feel "undermined" by it, as somebody suggested there. I'm personally fine with whatever, although I want to apologize to Dlthewave for potentially complicating his situation. As for "Have you also not just unilaterally undone an AE action?", no, I haven't. If you're referring to my temporary undeletion of the page, for the deletion review only and with the front page covered by a template, per the instructions here, I can only ask you not to be so silly. If you're talking about my giving Dlthewave bad advice, well, I've explained how that came about (=ignorance on my part). Bishonen | talk 12:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC).
  • What an absolute joy you are to work with, Sandstein. It's a wonder more admins don't flock to help out at AE, where honest mistakes get met with immediate threats of desysopping. I do want to point out that there's a pretty clear consensus at DRV that the page doesn't violate WP:POLEMIC. @GoldenRing:, do I understand correctly that you are not going to recognize that consensus because it is being discussed on the Wrong Page(TM)? If this is the case, then I suppose we should tell everyone at DRV their opinions are not wanted there, re-delete the page, and then have the exact same discussion here. Or alternately, GR could rescind the deletion.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I not only agree that restoring the page for deletion review is not an abuse of process, but that deleting the page via AE would be an abuse of process. The way to remove userspace essays that are contrary to policy is MfD., and review of decisions there is at Deletion Review. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
GoldenRing, do you intend to delete under AE every page in an area subject to DS (such as AP or PIA) that you think might arguably be the result of an action that violation an arb ruling,? DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
And I have just noticed, Sandstein, that your closing at the AE Discussion used the wording of the arb case "for polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia, " but the entire discussion above about whether it violated POLEMIC is irrelevant, because the page is obviously related to WP. And the arb com wording continued " attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. " I do not see any editors named on the page in question. It was discussing edits. (Of course the editors were implied, because the statements wee linked, but nothing about the editors is question is said on the page, only about the edits. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


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

Request concerning FeydHuxtable[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 19:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
FeydHuxtable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_aspersions : An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. . .
  2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Discretionary_Sanctions: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. March 14 2019 GMO aspersions principle violation (more in comment)
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. Jan 29 2019 Warned for violating GMO aspersions principle and uncivil behavior.
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.[1]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 


In the last AE concerning FeydHuxtable, they cast WP:ASPERSIONS in violation of the GMO/pesticide behavioral DS. Because disruptive editors frequently used things like shill gambits to cast doubt over editors in content disputes or further battleground behavior, a principle was passed in the GMO/pesticide case. Admins, please be sure to read that in the listed sanctions above. ArbCom specifically said this is a problem in this topic area and cannot be dismissed as non-sanctionable behavior when it continues. That especially goes for when editors have been notified of the DS, including trying to game the principle by not "exactly" calling someone a shill, etc.

There was also confusion in that last AE, so let me be clear that the talk page content did involve pesticides, and these were the types of edits that do involve pesticides as main cause for insect declines, the center of the underlying content dispute, being worked on at multiple articles. More on application of the DS here.

Current issues

After that, I'd been trying to work with that same battleground behavior I reported that absolutely did not let up. Feyd filed a declined ArbCom case request against me accusing me of pro-corporate POV editing and linking that to pesticides with absolutely no evidence. Arbs pointed out that it was largely meritless and that a motion for sanctions against Feyd could be considered. Feyd also said there, I'm not suggesting he's a shill. But one doesn't need CoI to make overly pro-corporate edits., and accused me of "weaponizing" the DS which is also clear gaming of the GMO/pesticide aspersions principle. Editors who bristle at the DS in this topic like that has usually are the ones that need to be removed in some fashion. Ironically, I was saying in the underlying dispute that pesticides were actually a cause of insect declines, but it seems like their battleground mentality kept leading to Feyd repeatedly painting me as some pro-pesticide or pro-corporate editor and encourages others.

I could go into more on gaming the 1RR restriction and dealing with a litany of WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior from them. For brevity unless asked, I'm going to stick to the blatant violation of the aspersions principle since that establishes the continued battleground mentality most succinctly. Due to being warned in the last AE and continuing it yet again in an ArbCom request of all places, I'm formally requesting either a topic-ban from topics where pesticides and insects are involved or else a one-way interaction ban in order to prevent future disruption and harassment. I have never run into Feyd before this, and I don't expect to see them outside this topic either, so either might work without future issues.

Feyd has made a very clear battleground mentality known here for this subject, so some sort of sanctions are needed to prevent additional disruption from them so the rest of us can actually get back to work on content since these issues above scuttle attempts at doing that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Procedural comments

  • Sandstein, admins cannot override Arbcom and call a direct violation of the aspersions principle "frivolous". The case was declined, and arbs said to take to to the admin boards. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Just a note that Joe Roe did say it was fine to file this at AE too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Vanamonde, the aspersions principle was crafted to be very strict to prevent comments exactly like yours because some people would always waffle on it. Arbs at the declined case also mentioned that the evidence was lacking to justify the claims, violating the principle. The original GMO/pesticide case was started in part because ANI does not handle these violations well. It was meant to be explicit that such behavior is not tolerated anywhere where pesticides/GMOs come up because not removing it makes the environment toxic and disrupts content discussion (or dispute resolution), but instead encourages the battleground behavior I've been receiving here trying to paint me as also disruptive for following the DS and getting battleground behavior removed. We're reaching a point if admins keep ignoring that and contradicting ArbCom, this will become an ArbCom matter to discuss ways to further prevent what's happening in this discussion (including what it does to editors who report the violations). It shouldn't need to be though since this is supposed to be a cut and dry violation as we hammered out at the original case, so I'm only asking for the standard protection editors who are following the DS are supposed to get from that principle, which has so far failed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Vanamonde, my position is quite clear the the DS and related principles are supposed to be enforced with some things that are not really debatable here without ArbCom changing certain motions (that discussions on pesticides are covered by the DS, and no aspersions, especially of the nature mentioned here). Arbcom's wheelhouse is defining the scope and what behavior is severely disruptive to the subject, and this discussion is running directly into issues with some of that. There is nothing battleground about that (don't shoot the messenger afterall), and I've made it clear in my comments at Goldenring's talk page that I despise any sort of cry WP:INVOLVED tactic. As for the declined case, arbs did not consider the aspersions principle as that was not the focus of what Feyd filed. That's why we are here as recommended since AN is not particularly for DS requests.
My comments to Goldenring are about direct misrepresentations accusing me of trying to drag a DS topic into an unrelated conversation in order to win a content dispute. I have to call that out since it is accusing me of something blatantly false with any reasonable understanding of the topic (and already mentioned as a good faith mistake that can be fixed). Pesticides came up almost right away in edits that had to be proposed because reviews covered, and Feyd mentioned, environmental stressors causing insect decline. The page already had plenty mentions of insecticides too prior. Feyd had been calling it "Fringe POV pushing" at the time, but once we started discussing what reviews actually said, then they switched to a you're editing from a Fringe pro pesticide POV. That's when I knew I had to stick to the DS strictly, and Feyd has been egging on these misrepresentations I mostly try to ignore up to this day.
I'm the last person to say I'm immune to criticism, but there's been too much directed at me that's also way out of line in this admin discussion. In addition to the sniping I've been subject to by Feyd, both those create an illusion of battleground behavior when one simply sticks to the DS and related principles. If the tables were turned and I as a long-term editor in this topic was the one casting aspersions about a "pro-corporate editor", I would be quickly sanctioned not only for that, but also for trying to game the DS by claiming things mentioned here like the DS not applying, especially if I did it at an admin or ArbCom board, a related page not having pesticide in the title, etc. Please be mindful of that double standard I'm currently being placed in because I've been following the DS carefully, so while I have very reasonable frustration over the current situation, calling that battleground, frivolous, or otherwise is not appropriate here. All I can do here is be extremely clear on what we worked on at the original ArbCom case so I can get back to working on the topic without these disruptions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • GoldenRing, I never called you WP:INVOLVED by acting at AE even before I fixed my typo that you would have seen before your post. I was saying an uninvolved admin should not be directly misrepresenting an editor as I explicitly told you that you were doing, and that it was fixable. Continuing down that path is what causes problems. We're at a point though that so many aspersions (shill-type or more general) have been cast about me and not been tamped down per the principle that I cannot address them with the current word limit outside of these procedural comments. I'm just asking the principle be enforced due to the explicit violations so I can go back to editing those articles again and work on fixing some of the underlying issues there (including some of Feyd's edits) without having to deal with the toxic behavior Feyd has been following me around with there and here already outlined at the declined case Feyd made. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning FeydHuxtable[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 FeydHuxtable[edit]

I see King's just made an excellent talk page post concerning the subject of our dispute. IMO it's a different class to anything I've seen him post before. King had telegraphed he was going to launch this AE, so I already have diffs ready that hopefully demonstrates much of the above is not entirely accurate. (And possibly to make a case that King's the one who warrants a topic ban. In fairness Im unsure about this, my own conduct hasn't been perfect, it's hard to be objective when you're personally involved.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Golden Ring
FWIW, IMO DS is now applicable to Insect Decline. I've no objection to a 2-way iban, though I agree with Sandstein it may not be needed. Other editors have started to weigh in strongly for the mainstream view. and I doubt even King will try to edit war against the emerging consensus. I don't think there's been much personal animosity in the dispute. That said, Im also not impressed with yesterdays edit to your talk. If this goes to round 4 I'd switch to supporting sanctions for King. Considering his past conduct, I can't see a trip to ANI ending well for him. That said, King also has many fine qualities, and IMO he doesn't quite yet warrant a sanction. ( I can post a more detailed diff rich expansion if you're interested in my take on this.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish[edit]

I have a general concern, as opposed to a specific comment about this filing. @Sandstein: as a long-time watcher of AE complaints in the GMO area, it seems to me that you have a blind spot when it comes to GMOs. I'm not questioning your good faith by any means, but I think that this has become a problem in the way that you have been responding to these kinds of requests. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sandstein, thank you, yes, I'll go to your talk page soon. @All admins, if you have questions about whether or not insecticides fall within the scope of the GMO DS, perhaps the best way to resolve that would be for me to file a request for clarification to ArbCom. I was thinking about doing that, and will if you would like me to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@GoldenRing: Thank you for clarifying that, as well as for saving me the trouble of filing a request for clarification, which I can see is now no longer useful. I was going from where you had just said here that I am still dubious that the content at the base of all this actually falls under the scope of GMO DS. I do understand your point that the content did not include explicit mention of pesticides. However, that content was summarizing source material that attributes a large percentage of the decline in insect populations to the agricultural use of pesticides (which are obviously "agricultural chemicals" as the words are used in "genetically modified organisms, agricultural chemicals, and the companies that produce them, broadly construed"). And in fact, there are GM crops that have been designed specifically for the purpose of changing how insecticides are used on those crops. Consequently, it is inescapably true that any dispute between editors about how to summarize that source material must necessarily get into what the sources say about agricultural chemicals. And therefore, it is inaccurate to claim that an editor who points that fact out is somehow "weaponizing" the GMO DS to be used outside of their intended scope. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning FeydHuxtable[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This is a frivolous request. The alleged misconduct consists of filing an arbitration case request. If arbitrators find the request problematic, they or their clerks will take appropriate action. We should close this without action. Sandstein 20:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Tryptofish: Your comment surprises me. I'm not aware of treating GMO issues that come to AE (which is not often the case) different from any other issues. Please contact me at my talk page to explain your concerns. Sandstein 10:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Editors are generally given more latitude with their language when filing requests for arbitration, because such requests necessarily involve allegations of misconduct. If every allegation was accurate, ARBCOM could be dissolved, because there would be nothing for them to examine. I do not see FeyHuxtable's comments straying beyond what is acceptable for an ARBCOM request. Furthermore, ARBCOM is able to impose sanctions (via motions) on editors filing vexatious requests. Only one arbitrator suggested such an action, and a motion was not even proposed. Even if I found merit to this request, I would hesitate to second-guess ARBCOM. Kingofaces: the request was not declined as "meritless". It was largely declined because other forms of dispute resolution had not been tried yet. AE is not a form of dispute resolution; nor have you brought evidence here from the original dispute. In conclusion, I see no basis for action here. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Kingofaces, your last comment is concerning, because your language suggests that any admin who disagrees with your interpretation of what happened is neglecting their duty, which itself smacks of a battleground mentality. You've also initiated or participated in discussions with six editors involved in the arbitration request or this one, essentially asking them why they didn't support your position in its entirety. We are not ignoring the evidence you've presented; we're judging it differently from you. Additionally, your comment is missing the point of what most of the arbs said. Most of them did not comment on the evidence at all; they recommended that other attempts at dispute resolution be attempted first. This isn't such an attempt, because you haven't brought forward any evidence from the initial dispute. Finally, since you ignored this point above; AE is not meant for policing the arbitration pages. The arbs and the clerks are more than capable of acting on any violations there themselves, and have done so in the past. This dispute needs to be examined in its entirety. I recommend that that happen at AN, but if you wish to present additional evidence here instead, please feel free. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sandstein and Vanamonde93 above - there is no basis for action in this particular request and the clerk team is capable of maintaining order at A/R/C without needing requests at AE. I'm also not particularly impressed with the claim that somehow having acted at AE makes me involved. However, stepping back a bit, there is clearly a dispute between these two that needs resolving. An interaction ban seems a good outcome to try; my only query is whether it can be done under GMO DS or whether we should send this back to the community at AN. I am still dubious that the content at the base of all this actually falls under the scope of GMO DS. @Sandstein and Vanamonde93: what say you? GoldenRing (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • An interaction ban is perhaps within scope of the DS, but I'm not seeing clear evidence that it is required - i.e., that the conflict between these two is disruptive to the work of other users. Sandstein 10:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @GoldenRing: I would hesitate to impose an interaction-ban here, because I do not think the behavioral issues have been explored in enough detail. Furthermore, behavioral and content-related issues tend to run together in some topics where reliable sources are not unanimous; this is one such situation. As such I think the community is better equipped to deal with this at the moment, and I think kicking this to AN would be the better option. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Tryptofish: I don't see any question over whether insecticides fall under GMO DS; they unquestionably do. My hesitation here is that the content that kicked all this off was a strict, quantitative description of insect population decline without any mention of pesticides. Since both parties now accept that DS covers the discussion, it's a moot point. GoldenRing (talk) 09:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


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

Request concerning Mountain157[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
MrClog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 17:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Mountain157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 3 March 2019 After someone originally removed the content, which was then reverted, Mountain157 reverts it again without any explenation (not on the talk page, nor in the edit summary), violating WP:TALKDONTREVERT. This issue had been raised by another user on the talk page on 26 Feb already. Mountian157 also removes Pakistan as opponent of ISIL, whilst that edit had been sourced (including an article of The Indendent).
  2. 6 March 2019 Here a user removed Pakistan as ally, but got reverted by Mountain157 again. Whilst the user that originally removed Pakistan as ISIL ally didn't provide a good reason to do it (but at least attempted to), Mountain157 provides no information, whilst the listing of Pakistan as alledged ally was backed up by 3 articles of 1 Afghani news site (and Mountain157 also removed Afghani as the country that alledged Pakistan of supporting ISIL in diff 1) and seems pretty WP:UNDUE to mention as alledged ally in the infobox, whilst actively removing many other countries as alledged ally (see diff 3).
  3. 28 February 2019 Here the user removes India, Afghanistan and the US as alledges allies, keeping Pakistan in the infobox, whilst at least the US's allegation was backed up by the Washington Post and Al Jazeera.
  4. 26 February 2019 Here, the user that is being reverted by Mountain157 explained there edit on the page's talk page, whilst Mountain157 reverts the edit and doesn't respond to that talk page message.
  5. 13 December 2018 Here, the user removes sourced information regarding possible human right violations against Pakistani citizens, falsly claiming there is no evidence and calling the alledged killing of 2,000 citizens "neglectible".
  6. 2 January 2019 Here, the user tries to keep Pakistan as a confirmed ally of Al-Qaeda, reverting other people's sourced edits based on a false accusation of being a sockpuppet.
  7. 18 December 2018 Here, the user adds Pakistan, Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia as confirmed allies of ISIL, citing questionable sources for at least Pakistan and Turkey allegations.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 23 February 2019
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I, as a West-European, really had no opinion on the India-Pakistan(-Afghanistan) conflict and didn't touch the issue until I saw a dispute on WP:DRN about it. This issue has been closed because it is premature (no discussion, as Mountain157 refused to discuss it) and because it seemed like the user wasn't interested in participating, as they removed the message informing them of the dispute from their talk page ([3]). Whilst no mediation work was necessary from me as a result, I did decide to dive into the issue and it became apparent to me that the user I am filing an enforcement request for had been editing disruptively, whilst WP:AC/DS are active on the page. The user has been blocked for editing disruptively before, for 48h at Dec 25 2018 by Black Kite.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[4] (- The user has removed the notice from their talk page. It is unclear if Mountain157 wishing to make a statement. 08:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC))

Discussion concerning Mountain157[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 Mountain157[edit]

Statement by Legacypac[edit]

Based on Mountain157's general conduct against other users (mainly I've seen issues at ANi) it ie time to do something. Legacypac (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Wikiemirati[edit]

Reported user has multiple occurrences of abusing infoboxes, which is itself a sanctioned action. Diffs:

  • [5] 5 February 2019 - Removing Pakistan as opponent of Haqqani Network
  • [6] 24 January 2019 - Adding Pakistan as allied to Taliban
  • [7] 17 December 2018 - Adding Pakistan as allied to Al Qaeda

I discussed OR changes extensively with reported user, he has demonstrated to be able to cease edit warring behavior. However, user clearly demonstrates battle ground behavior User_talk:SharabSalam/Archive_1#Wikiemirati and I was reported by him at both ANI and AN3 but reports were taken down with no action. Wikiemirati (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Mountain157[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • These diffs are quite concerning. Adding the claim that Pakistan supports ISIL, based on statements from within the Afghan government, is already questionable: contentious claims require exceptional sourcing. Removing similar claims about other governments based on similar sources is unacceptable after having added such material about one government smacks of editing with an agenda. I would like to hear from Mountain157 before proposing any specific course of action. I will note that this editor has been a regular at the admin noticeboards, and that their editing there has frequently demonstrated a battleground attitude. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)