Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2026/SIMPLE WP:ONESTRIKE can be a Troll’s Charter

This case is closed. If you have comments or a request to have it reopened, post a comment on the talk page.

U4C member alert: @U4C: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Luke081515, Denis Barthel, Ferien, PBradley-WMF. Martinvl (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

---

Martinvl

Description of the problem - (Martinvl)

The way in which the SIMPLE:WP:ONESTRIKE policy was implemented against me represents a failure to implement UCoC policy and the failure of multiple administrators to recognise this failure represents a systematic failure of UCoC policy.

This policy is a blunt instrument designed to root out trouble-makers who, having been blocked on other Wikimedia projects, are continuing to cause trouble on Simple Wikipedia. As it overrides the traditional Wikipedia en:WP:BRD process, an unintended consequence is that it can be used by malicious editors to target other editors who are making an honest attempt to re-establish their credentials. The technique used against me was that a malicious editor launched a sock-puppet to hound me and when I lodged a complaint, both the sock-puppet and I were blocked but the sock-master himself escaped without any sanctions. As such, the ONESTRIKE policy became a “troll’s charter”. Its fitness for use must therefore by questioned.

Following the publication of the UCoC I would like the sanctions imposed on me on 14 March 2014 to be re-examined in light of the UCoC and that those sanctions be retrospectively rescinded on grounds the way the ONESRTIKE policy was applied against me amounted to a contravention of the UCoC. In addition I would like the ONESTRKE policy itself to be re-examined.

Details of the original dispute

The background to this sanction was that I had been blocked on the English Wikipedia. Several months prior to my block I had been subject to harassment by User:DeFacto for which he was blocked. After he was blocked, he continued to harass me using a stream of sock puppets.

After I had been blocked on the English Wikipedia, I started editing on SIMPLE. When working on the article simple:Metric System with a view to submitting it as a good article, I was constantly harassed by an apparently new user simple:User:Centaur. The technique used by this user was very similar to the technique used by en:User:FishGF to sabotage my efforts to get the articles History of the Metric System and :International_System_of_Units adopted as good articles on the English Wikipedia. I suspected that both User:Centaur and User:FishGA were sock puppets under the control of User:DeFacto. As a result of this, I lodged a complaint against User:Centaur using the normal channels on the SIMPLE Wikipedia. Under the Simple Wikipedia rule of SIMPLE:WP:ONESTRIKE, both User:Centaur and I were topic banned without any further warning by User:Auntof6. On appeal, my allegation that User:Centaur was a sockpuppet under control of User:DeFacto was upheld, but my topic ban was upgraded to a full block by en:User:DJSasso. (For the record, Checkuser linked User:Centaur to User:DeFacto but failed to do so the case of User:FishGA). Although User:Cetaur was blocked as a sockpuppet, no sanction was placed on User:DeFacto, the real perpetrator of the incident. See [1] for the details. For the record, User:DeFacto was an occasional editor on Simple Wikipedia both before and after the incidents described in this appeal.

As soon as it became apparent to the administrators that User:Centaur was a sockpuppet, they should have rescinded the allegations of edit-warring. May I at this stage draw to attention that:

• If a situation is not covered by the SIMPLE Wikipeida rules, then guidance is taken from the English Wikipedia. (See SIMPLE:WP:RULES)
• On the English Wikipedia, reversions of postings made my sockpuppets is not deemed to be edit-warring (See EN:WP:NOT3RR).
• SIMPLE Wikipedia is silent on the issue of reverting postings made by a sockpuppet. I therefore deduce that the English Wikipedia rules apply.

As per the UCoC rules on hounding (UCoC 3.1), common sense dictates that the SIMPLE administrators should have taken this into account and ignored any suggestions of edit-waring.

Previous attempts at a solution - (Martinvl)

I have made four request to have my block removed.

• The first was made shortly after the block was originally applied.
• The second was made on 7 July 2017. In the The final paragraph on my response to my appeal having been declined was a request to Simple:User:Djsasso, Simple:User:Chenzw and Auntof6 to explain what they believed the reason for my original block on the English Wikipedia to be as the reason was not clear to me. None of them replied.
• The third was handled by Simple:User:BRPever (dated 5-August-2025). He declined point blank to consider the UCoC guidelines.
• The fourth was handled by Simple:User: Griffinofwales. In rejecting my appeal, User:Griffinofwales, asserted that:

• Rather than edit-waring I should have reported the matter. Will User:Griffinofwales please

• Identify which of my posts he considers to be edit-warring (as opposed to W:BRD)
• Explain why this statement was inadequate when reporting the matter.

• User:Griffinofwales also wrote “You were blocked for edit warring (which is not permitted, even when the other party is a sockpuppet)”. Will he please:

• Show me where the rules state this. Note that in the English Wikipedia, the opposite is true.
• Reconcile this statement with the UCoC policy that prohibits hounding.

Unless User:GriffinofWales (or any other administrator) can justify these comments, my block violates not only the Simple English Wikipedia rules, but also the UCoC.

User:GriffinofWales' rejection of my appeal awas supported by Simple: User:Fr33kman and Simple: User:Barras. In addition, User:Barras has furthermore prohibited me from making any further appeals for at least one year and removed access to my talk page.

Suggested solutions - (Martinvl)

1. My block of 14 March 2014 on SIMPLE Wikipedia be retrospectively annulled.
2. The removal of my talk page and e-mail access on SIMPLE Wikipedia be restored on grounds that these were consequential to the original block which has been ertrospectively annulled.
3. The WP:ONESTRIKE policy on SIMPLE Wikipedia be suspended until such time that it conforms to UCoC policy. In particular the process is to be rewritten to ensure that:

1. nobody is sanctioned without first receiving a warning.
2. nobody is sanctioned when using the WP:BRD process in an appropriate manner.
3. reversions of obvious vandalism and of postings made by sock-puppets are ignored for purposes of assessing edit-warring.

Initiator's Review of Responders' Input (Martinvl)

This section was written after input had been received from User:Barras, User:BRPever and User:Chenzw but before any input had been received from User:Auntof6, User:GriffinofWales, User:Djsasso or User:DeFacto.

All the input from others to date has been legalistic but has failed to address two issues:

• The prime issue concerning his case was that the way in which SIMPLE:WP:ONESTRIKE was implemented could have unintended [and undesirable] consequences.
• An explanation why this statement was inadequate when reporting the matter of hounding by User:DeFacto (aka User:Centaur). (See section “Previous attempts at a solution - (Martinvl)”)

For about three months after I was blocked on the English Wikipedia, I created and edited articles on Simple Wikipedia without any problems (over 500 edits). Then User:DeFacto created an account in the name of User:Centaur and started harassing me by interrupting my writing with subtle vandalism (EN:WP:SNEAKY). As a result of us both being subsequently blocked, his subtle vandalism has remained in place for ten years! Why! If we are building an encyclopaedia, this is counter-productive.

One example of his vandalism was the addition of the following in the article System of Units (where User:Chenzw asserted that edit-warring took place):

• The addition the following to the lead section of this article:

“An example of a system like this is one needed for the problems of the economic system.^[1]

[1]: Keynes, John Maynard (2006). General Theory Of Employment , Interest And Money. Atlantic Publishers & Dist. p. 35. ISBN 8126905913. ”

• A Wikipedian who has no knowledge of either metrology or of economics, might well be puzzled by this statement – an explanation of the example is clearly missing. I explained this at length on the article’s talk page, but User:DeFacto’s responses showed that he was doing his best to goad me for the purpose of disruption. (Note - The 2006 edition of the book is a post-copyright version of Keynes' 1936 book).
• A Wikipedian who has a knowledge of both metrology and economics would question why, in 1936, Keynes, an economist, was writing about a metrological concept. Whatever justification there might be, placing it in the lead of Simple Wikipedia rather than at the tail-end of the equivalent article in the more-academic en:WP is a clear case of en:WP:UNDUE.
• In short, this was subtle vandalism.

Every other interaction between User:DeFacto and myself involved me trying to root out similar subtle vandalism that he was adding to articles that I was writing. For the sake of brevity, I will not list them here, but will catalogue them if asked. Clearly User:DeFacto was using his alternative account as a troll account with the object of harassing me without revealing his real user-name. From my point of view, this statement is a clear indication that I was trying to get on with productive editing and avoid edit-warring with User:DeFacto(aka User:Centaur).

Finally, when User:Auntof6 and User:DJSasso blocked User:Centaur and myself, they were in reality “shooting the messenger” (n my case) and “shooting the perpetrator’s shadow” (in the case of User:DeFacto. In so doing the troll [User:DeFacto] won which is a clear violation of the UCoC policy. Hence my original assertion that an over-zealous application of the ONE-STRIKE policy without engaging common sense had the unintended consequence of unintentionally aiding and abetting a troll. Martinvl (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Final Comment by Martinvl

@Dbeef, Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, Ghilt, and Civvì: I am disappointed that so many members of U4C do not appear to have grasped the nature of my complaint. If we start off by accepting that trolls are bad for SIMPLE (as per UCoC policy) and that the ONESTRIKE policy is sound, but that I was driven out of SIMPLE by a troll who was harrassing me by replacing my work with subtle vandalism because the ONESTRIKE policy was rigorously enforced, it follows that something somewhere is wrong. Following the principle of Reductio ad absurdum one must deduce that either there is a fundemental problem with the ONESTRIKE policy or that there is a problem with the way it was administered. Martinvl (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Barras

There isn't much to say here. I'm mentioned here because I declined the third unblock request in a row. No new evidence has been brought up. I revoked talk page access again because repeatedly asking for an unblock doesn't help the blocked user. To prevent this from happening again, I restored the block settings to how they were before Ferien changed them, to give the user the chance to request an unblock. I don't mind the block settings being changed again in the future if needed. Regarding the sections below, I see no violation of the U4C by the Simple English Wikipedia's ONESTRIKE rule, so I have nothing to add at this time. Please ping me if you would like me to review this again. Regards, -Barras talk 16:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

BRPever

I don't know how to politely respond to a case that calls a policy—one that has been supported by the community and has been crucial in protecting the wiki from problem users—a “Troll’s Charter.” We already have a policy on edit warring, so the situation is covered by Simple Wikipedia’s rules. In addition, the English Wikipedia policy states: Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users. Based on what I read, the user whose edits were reverted was not banned on Simple at that point (and a reminder that bans and blocks are separate enforcement measures on most wikis). Our policy exception to 3RR is obvious vandalism (see simple:Wikipedia:Edit war).

Now, regarding the unblock request. A typical reciprocal block is easily lifted if the user manages to get unblocked on the original wiki after resolving the concerns there and submitting a decent unblock request. But in this case, their unblock request (at least the one I reviewed) did neither. They were essentially citing new rules while ignoring their past appeals and the reasons those appeals were declined. I think it’s common sense to look into those issues rather than point fingers. Had they done so, their chances of being unblocked would have been significantly higher.

I also think what I said about our policy helps justify Griffinofwales’s comment that they cited, and demonstrates that this has nothing to do with a conduct issue and everything to do with a weak unblock request and ignorance of local policy and practices.

Finally, regarding the suggested solution:

Their block can be lifted if they submit a solid unblock request through the appropriate channel—likely only after the original block is lifted—but I’ll leave that to another admin, unless we run out of admins who haven’t already declined their request.

They can contact our admin mailing list at simple-admins-llists.wikimedia.org. All blocked users without talk page access can use this address to make private requests.

I would argue that this block should simply be seen as an extension of their original block. If the original block is invalid or no longer necessary, they can make their case on the wiki where they were initially blocked and get it removed there, and then request an unblock on Simple.

Chenzw

Martinvl was blocked in March 2014 per the ONESTRIKE policy, with the blocking administrator stating, "for continuing the edits that had you blocked on en.wiki". I was the reviewing administrator for the first unblock request and determined that there was no attempt to address the behavior leading up to his own block. The unblock request's 2nd grounds on The WP:ONESTRIKE policy in Simple is an inappropriate remedy when one party is trying to contribute usefully to the project... is a subjective statement that I do not agree with. Another aggravating factor was the unsubstantiated accusations of "dirty play" in the editor's original ANI case on EN.

After re-reviewing the edits from 12 years ago, it is still my opinion that the edits spanning 9 March 2014 to 12 March 2014 (both inclusive) against measurement-related articles (simple:System of units, simple:Metric system) constituted edit warring, even if they didn't meet the hard threshold prescribed by 3RR. I will also note that the 3-revert condition is not a necessary condition for determining an editor's behavior to be edit warring. For the sake of argument, even if Simple English's policy is interpreted to allow for reverting of sock puppets, edits attempting to claim an exemption to 3RR should be explaining said exemption clearly in the edit summary or the talk page (which did not happen). Chenzw (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Other feedback

For people who are not parties, the following rules apply:

• Comments/replies may not be longer the 500 words and may not include more than 25 diffs/links. The U4C may, if asked, grant additional words or diffs/links.
• Comments/replies are permitted only in your own section
• Contributions that do not help clarify the matter can be removed
• All accusations and claims must be supported with diffs/links

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

Only the involved parties and U4C members may edit in this section.

First of all, apologies to all the parties for the "overnotification" on the local project, I must have messed up with the notification tool. Sorry! --Civvì (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• Please note that Djsasso has been inactive for over a year. He has been on IRC occasionally, but not actively, and he probably won't comment here at all. Regards, -Barras talk 16:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@U4C: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Luke081515, Denis Barthel, Ferien, PBradley-WMF Per policy it should've been decided by now whether the U4C accepts the case or not. I came back here to check that out. While I know there are more cases, it would be nice if you'd review this. -Barras talk 14:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

• I do not feel that Simple's one strike policy violates the UCoC. I also will note, as someone whose homewiki is English Wikipedia, that Bold, Revert, Discuss is not a policy or guideline on English Wikipedia. Calling it the "Traditional Wikipedia... process" misstates the role it plays on English Wikipedia let alone on a different project which may set its own processes and policies. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Decline votes

• I don't see anything in the one strike policy on SE that contradicts the UCoC. I strongly suggest that you carefully follow the advice given by all those who have reviewed all the previous unblocking requests. --Civvì (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
• Rules and guidelines beyond the UCoC are determined locally, e.g. the one strike rule. I do not see the one strike rule in conflict with the UCoC. The BRD rule has not been adopted by the simple English Wikipedia community and is therefore irrelevant for this case. --Ghilt (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
• Per my previous comments. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Sorry for the delay, I thought I had already responded to this. The fact that the complainant's appeal has been heard by multiple different administrators suggests a robust local process. I see no evidence of a systemic failure, and as such do not see a need for U4C intervention. The one strike policy does not seem to be at odds with the UCoC, and the ability to block editors for cross-wiki issues is a core moderation tool for projects staffed by transplants - i.e. projects where users do not usually start their wiki-careers, like Meta, Commons and Wikidata as well. – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• I don't see UCoC violations or failure to enforce the UCoC. dbeef (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Motions

U4C members may propose motions to resolve the case or as a temporary measure during the case.

Updates

This section is used only by U4C members and official designees (including WMF staff who support the U4C) to provide updates about the request.

• This has been seen by the U4C --Civvì (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
• BRPever has recused himself as a U4C member from this case. --Ghilt (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)