Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive54

Appealing user

Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 21:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

a broadly construed Soviet/Russia discretionary topic ban under WP:DIGWUREN.

Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / Sandstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notification of that editor

[1]

Since 10 September 2009, I have been under a broadly-construed "Russia topic ban". I accept responsibility for my edits, and I hope that the community will understand that my "wikistress" had been unacceptably high at that time, and I may have come across as combative. I sincerely do want to be part of a collegial project, with the aim of producing an encyclopaedia, and want to rid Wikipedia of the battleground mentality as much as anyone else.

A proposed remedy at the recent WP:EEML arbcom, whilst it didn't pass, has given me some encouragement to "appeal" to the community in relation to my topic ban. Since I have been under the "Russia" topic ban, I have been working on numerous articles, and the following is a list of those which are my major expansions/new articles since then, and which have appeared at DYK.

• Fucking, Austria
• Embassy of Russia in Copenhagen - I developed this article on Simple Wikipedia, and an editor who knew I was editing on Simple transferred it to enwiki under GFDL/CC.
• Flag of Bhutan
• Air Botswana - I had to omit some information from this article on a possible takeover by Lebedev, due to it being covered by the topic ban.
• Air Malawi
• Air Madagascar
• Albert Sylla
• Heli Air Monaco
• John Albert Axel Gibson
• Bechuanaland National Airways
• Botswana National Airways
• Spantax
• Transporte Aéreo Rioplatense - I had to omit some information on one of its aircraft being shot down in Soviet airspace
• Pokémon Jet
• Lina Congo
• Air Zaïre
• Air Mali (1960–1985) - I had to omit some information on the airline's operation of Soviet-built aircraft, which another editor has had to go and fill in the gaps on.

Articles I am working on, in various stages of development, include:

• simple:User:Russavia/NYC - on Simple Wikipedia for placement at Consulate-General of Russia in New York City
• various list articles on special edition coins issued by the Central Bank of Russia, e.g. simple:User:Russavia/Coins-1993, simple:User:Russavia/Coins-2009, etc
• simple:User:Russavia/Airlines - an article on the history of the airline industry in Russia
• simple:User:Russavia/Ambassadors - a list article on Ambassadors to Russia
• simple:User:Russavia/Motherland - a complete rewrite of The Motherland Calls article
• numerous list articles on Soviet/Russian ambassadors, e.g. simple:User:Russavia/Bukhara, simple:User:Russavia/Argentina, simple:User:Russavia/Brazil - these will eventually follow the same format at List of Ambassadors of Russia to Austria which I wrote and got promoted to featured list status.
• various articles on the bilateral relations of Russia — e.g., User:Russavia/Australia–Russia relations - for placement at Australia–Russia relations
• User:Russavia/DipRel - for placement at Dates of establishment of diplomatic relations with Russia
• User:Russavia/Ghana - for placement at Ghana Airways

Given that my editing of aviation and diplomacy related articles is not a problem, as far as I am aware, I would like to ask that the topic ban that I am currently under which precludes me from editing anything on the Soviet Union, and its now independent constituent republics, be narrowed to allow me to edit and include information into articles related to Russian/Soviet aviation and Russian diplomacy (ambassadors, diplomatic missions, bilateral relations), whilst leaving the rest of the topic ban in place. I recognise that my behaviour was inappropriate, I take responsibility for and apologise for it, and recognise that the sanction was meant to be coercive rather than punitive.

As I mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision/Archive_4#On_Proposed_Remedy_12_and_the_sanctioned_editors_from_the_other_side, I will not "officially" proceed with this appeal until 2 or 3 admins feel that I would be able to edit within the confines of restrictions, so I guess bringing this here is part of fulfilling my own words.

Apart from that, I am not too sure what else I need to address, so I am only too happy to answer anything that may be asked of me. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 21:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to the Air Guinée article, and the issue raised at WP:ANI, this was an honest oversight on my behalf. I had been working on the article in question at User:Russavia/Guinee, and due to an IRC conversation which was had with User:NuclearWarfare (and others), in which he said it would be ok to include the names of aircraft, etc, I still did not want to do that, and worked on this article in order to show within this request how difficult it can be for me to able complete articles under topic ban. I didn't check the article before or after placing it into namespace nor before doing the DYK. I am currently working on around 20 different airline article expansions, and it was Air Bissau which I meant to update in namespace and do the DYK for. It was completely an oversight on my behalf in this instance, my apologies. Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 03:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created and expanded many of the bilateral relations of Russia articles. Examples of these include Kuwait–Russia relations, Russia–Swaziland relations and User:Russavia/Australia–Russia relations (this one is not yet in namespace). I would welcome editors review those articles, and they can see that they are for the most part WP:NPOV - this is something that I strive for in all of my editing, no matter what the subject. I was also the editor in question who expanded Russia – South Ossetia relations on 5 August 2009. This was done by myself in order to have the article appear at WP:DYK in time for the first year anniversary of the war in South Ossetia. This particular article was put thru a somewhat disruptive AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia – South Ossetia relations in what editors, including myself, thought was an attempt to keep it off the front page at DYK. I would urge editors to review this article for themselves, and they will see that I have included views in the article from those who oppose this particular relationship; i.e. I try to write in an NPOV-way as possible. Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 03:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the articles I work on are on subjects that are of "little" interest on WP. By this I mean, instead of editing and working on Qantas, I will instead work on and expand articles with lesser followings, such as say Air Botswana or Air Malawi (and those articles I have linked to above in my initial appeal post). The same goes for many of the diplomacy articles I work on - Russian diplomacy, whilst important on the world stage, is not covered very well on Wikipedia - a sad fact yes, and most of the articles I work on in this area, I do so alone. In addition to the articles linked to above, other examples are Consulate-General of France in Saint Petersburg, Embassy of Germany in Saint Petersburg, Konstantin Umansky, and most of the articles at User:Russavia/articles - that last link hasn't been updated since 2008 only due to the sheer number of articles I have created in this area, and they are generally articles that I work on alone. It is primarily these areas that my interests lay, and generally speaking I am the only editor working in such areas. Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 03:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I recall, I originally imposed a more limited topic ban, and then widened it after it seemed to me that Russavia was aggressively wikilawyering about the original scope of the ban, as well as violating it. This would make re-limiting the ban appear ill-advised. But this is an exceptionally (for AE standards) well-reasoned and encouraging request, and I have no reason to doubt that Russavia means what he says. While I have not systematically followed his editing since imposing the ban, I am not aware of any major editing drama he has since been involved in. For these reasons, and also because new sanctions can easily be imposed in the event of new disruption, I am not in principle opposed to granting this appeal and limiting the ban as proposed by Russavia. But as I said in the most recent (long and frequently incivil) ANI discussion about this topic ban, I am also not opposed to the sanction being lifted or superseded by any other uninvolved administrator acting on their own discretion and taking responsibility for supervising Russavia's subsequent conduct, so I'm leaving the decision in the hands of my colleagues.  Sandstein  22:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Update, after reading WP:ANI#***** Overload)

I don't know what to make of this Jan. 15 edit by Russavia, except that I do not think that replacing words relating to the topic ban with the characters "******" is a constructive approach to the situation. One, the subject of the ban are not words, but a topic, and substituting nonsense for words has no impact on whether or not an edit infringes the ban. Two, causing a live encyclopedia article to read like this, for whatever reason, is vandalism. Is this meant to make some sort of WP:POINT about the topic ban? If no very good explanation for this erratic behavior is forthcoming, I must recommend that the ban not be relaxed.  Sandstein  21:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I myself have commented on Russavia's positive contributions outside the portrayal of the Soviet legacy (political, historical, current events involving the official Russian position,...). As Russavia recognizes their egregious behavior leading to and particularly in reaction to their topic ban, I see little purpose in a ban which prevents Russavia from contributing in areas where they have consistently produced positive and informative content. I would still consider certain items pertaining to the Soviet legacy, e.g., Australia-Russia relations which discusses the short-lived recognition of Baltic annexation by the Whitlam government (actually, a personal decision by Whitlam made without consultation), to be part of the topic ban.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  21:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Russavia's ban is bizarre and unfair. The user has a lot of info related to Russia and I am against this ban. --MW talk contribs 00:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia is asking for the topic ban to be narrowed to allow him to edit Russian/Soviet aviation and Russian diplomacy topics. He has made some good contributions to the Russian/Soviet aviation topic space and Russian diplomacy generally. On the other hand, certain areas of Russian diplomacy like Russia/South Ossetia/Georgia and Russia/Estonia relations may remain hot buttons for him. However since Russavia's topic ban is due to expire in March anyway, I have no problem with Russavia's topic ban being relaxed, so long as he voluntarily refrains from editing certain Russian diplomacy topics like Russia-South Ossetia relations or Estonian-Russian relations. --Martin (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not completely understand where Russavia's topic ban extension came from; many users thought it was a harsh decision. I have not seen any problematic edits by Russavia in these two topic areas (diplomatic relations and aviation), in which he has also created a significant amount of new content. I also have not seen any problematic edits by him in the last few months in general. Offliner (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to go into the rights or wrongs of Russavia's topic ban extension but I would like to say that I've had a look thru his editing for the last couple of months and it does seem that he makes useful and positive contributions to the areas he is asking to be allowed to edit. He has also made an extremely well-written and reasoned request. On that basis I would very much support the two-month trial unban mentioned below by NuclearWarfare.Varsovian (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that it was necessary for Russavia to censor words like Soviet Union or Ilyushin when expanding the Air Guinée article. This was raised at WP:ANI. Can we be clear here that there is no need to censor these terms when they are legitimately part of an article. Mjroots (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia's explanation is noted, and accepted. Mjroots (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia, you have many good edits to aviation related articles. However, these are relatively uncontroversial subjects. Per the concerns raised by Martin above, how can we be sure that you can edit harmoniously in more controversial areas? Triplestop x3 17:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of the ban was not to prevent the usage of the words "Soviet Union". There was a scope of topics that were at issue, and although the term "broadly construed" might have been used, the 2 words themselves were not at issue. Russavia is fully able to edit hockey, soccer, airline, etc articles involving the words "Soviet Union", except where they intersect with the topics covered by the ban. Forcing others to do extra work by using ***** instead of the real words is not a good editing practice, and was obviously not the intent of the ban. Diplomacy-related topics may be getting too close politically-charged issues. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was strongly against Russavia's ban (either in its original form or in its current, broader form) last fall, and I still believe that lifting the ban would be a good decision. If lifting it is not possible, I am at least lodging my support for this easement. This topic ban does nothing except preventing Russavia from contributing good-quality content. I foresee no disruption resulting from the relaxing of the topic ban.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:23, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

I support lifting all bans for Russavia and all other editors involved in EEML case. Few people edit in this area and project suffers.Biophys (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If writing Ilyushin Il-14 is in violation of a ban, so is Il****** I*-14. If writing Soviet Union is a violation, so is S****t U****. From a topic ban perspective, they are equivalent. I'll award one point for creativity, but I would take a very dim view of anyone else trying that same stunt in the future. I would hope Russavia can offer an extremely good rationale for this very pointy action. henrik•talk 22:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the EEML case has shown an ongoing attempt to have Russavia banned, I think that actions by Russavia from that time should be forgotten. It must have been traumatic for him to have had a dozen people who wrote hundreds of e-mails back and forth about him. He should be judged only by subsequent actions. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little work a while ago on Russian diplomatic articles and came in contact with Russavia. I also explored the circumstances of and argued against the topic ban just before the EEML mess. I believe the ban was agreed then to have been confusingly worded at first. I think he is a good editor, working largely alone in some important areas, and a real asset to Wikipedia. I accept his explanation above for the Air Guinée edits referred to in the ANI thread - I don't think that kind of pointiness would be his style. Relaxing and eventually removing the ban should have completely positive effects.John Z (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have monitored development of many articles edited by Russavia and tried to resolve a few conflicts connected with them. Based on my experience I should say that Russavia is an extremely valuable editor. He has very deep knowledge on aviation topics especially Russian aviation and Russian diplomacy. He is also reasonably informed in wide area of other topics involving Russia and the Soviet Union. He is very active as an editor volunteering tens of hours of work per week (he was even a subject of a unique checkuser request: somebody suspected that he is not a single person but a collective of users). Russavia has been doing a lot of wikignoming work for WP:Russia project. Unlike many editors working with Eastern European topics he is a native English speaker with a good command of the language. In short his banning from Russia-related topics is a very significant loss for Russia project and probably for the whole en:Wiki development. I also guess it is strong and unfair embarrassment for a good and devoted contributor.

As I said before Russavia has a long history of non-controversial contributions. He also has a better than the mainstream opinion about Soviet and modern Russian government and sometimes he likes to show that some Cold War era and modern stereotypes are not entirely correct. Often it is useful: his edits fix the bias and offer additional less know facts. Sometimes it also lead to some pretty dramatic conflicts especially if on the other side are editors determine to show the stupid left-leaning westerners the truth covered by Soviet propaganda. Those conflicts lead to mutual incivilities, edit warring and other drama. We know from the EEML arbcom that some otherwise good editors coordinated their efforts to harass and provoke Russavia and eventually that led to his banning from Eastern European topics entirely. During his ban Russavia behaved reasonably well.

If the decision was mine I would take my chances and lift Russavia ban but I would allow uninvoled admins or admins that are active in Russia project (like myself and Ezhiki) to ban Russavia from narrow defined topics (e.g. from Soviet Story and related articles) whether his contributions would appear to be unhelpful or cause unnecessary drama.

Alternatively we can significantly narrow Russavia's ban. E.g. ban him from history of Baltic states and from Russian apartment bombings, Alexander Litvinenko and related articles. It covers most of the conflicts with Russavia's participation. including those that were the reason for Russavia's ban Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not a result, but more ground rules setting, I'd like the following:

• Short and concise statements as to Russavia's editing abilities
• Comments from those who have worked with Russavia
• An avoidance of character attacks
• An avoidance of dredging up the evidence at, the proposals, the findings of facts, and so forth from EEML.

--Tznkai (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Russavia agrees to follow the latter two points that Tznkai brought up, I would be willing to consider a trial unban for perhaps two months or so? Does anyone have any objections to that? NW (Talk) 00:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could use some more input over the course of a few days before deciding.--Tznkai (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fair. I looked through Russavia's edits myself, and I didn't find too much that was concerning, but I suppose additional statements couldn't hurt. NW (Talk) 00:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the latter two points were meant for everyone commenting at this request? The topic ban is due to expire in roughly two months in any case. This request is well-reasoned and Russavia seems to has accepted that his behavior was problematic earlier. I think this request that the ban be relaxed in these two specific areas (aviation and diplomacy), but otherwise remain in place, reasonable. As Sandstein says, it can be reimposed easily enough if the need arises, and positive steps should be encouraged.

But before deciding anything, let's wait for more comments. Comments from more editors who have previously interacted with Russavia would be welcome (from those not under arbcom interaction restrictions). henrik•talk 13:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have a growing consensus for easing the topic ban. Lets wrap this up in about 24?--Tznkai (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been well over 24h. Time to close this now and allow the appeal? Mjroots (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the consensus is there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to close this now, I think there has been enough discussion for a rough consensus to emerge. Russavia's request for the ban to be lifted from aviation and diplomacy topics is granted, under the hope that he will edit noncontroversial articles and stay away from any contentious areas which are likely to result in conflict (for example Baltic-Russia relations). The self-censoring of certain words in a live encyclopedia article was a really stupid idea, and Russavia is duly trouted. Don't do it again. henrik•talk 09:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Simonm223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

1. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground
2. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong#Consensus
3. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong#Point_of_view_editing
4. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong#Neutral_point_of_view

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

1. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] - These are all reverts where he did not engage in any meaningful content discussion
2. [8] [9] - His stated point of view is that all those edits where WP:Vandalism and he states that he does not want to engage into any content discussion
3. [10] - He was warned, that this kind of behavior is considered WP:DE
4. [11] - His response "Consider it as you will " and continues with personal attacks
5. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]- Personal attacks
6. [17] [18][19][20][21][22][23] [24] [25] - Removing sourced materials that he does not like, without any discussion on the talk page, while insisting that he is right (but no sources, or policies)
7. [26] [27] - Something similar that I noticed on the Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes page.
8. [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] - He likes to engage and insist on his particular WP:OR's without providing evidence WP:RS.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. [34] Warning by HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs)
2. [35] Warning by HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The main problem that I see with Simon223 is that he is unwilling to engage in any meaningful content discussion. He just carries out irrational personal attacks.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) is a vandal who persistently makes mass edits to the Falun Gong articles with substantial damage to the neutrality therein. I will provide diffs momentarily. HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs) is an admitted member of the religion and although not a vandal does tend to protect the vandalism of the former user. My reverts on the FLG article have been restoring the consensus version of the article. I do now WP:OWN the article however neither does the FLG. This arbitration request is merely an attempt by FLG proponents to block me from editing so that they can revert to a non-neutral version. They have already chased out one other editor with their tendentuous editing tactics. The burden does not lie on me to justify reverting persistent vandalism.

I hereby request that Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) be topic banned. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here is the most recent mass change made by Asdfg: [36] This constitutes 21 independent edits to the article by Asdfg, all without intervening editorial input. Every edit removes critical information or incorporates pro-FLG bias. He then goes to the talkpage and posts textwalls, insisting that his edits be addressed point by point. This is his standard MO and has repeated many times.Simonm223 (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here Asdfg reverts to his preferred version after Colipon (talk · contribs) reverts one of his mass edits. He insists Colipon address his edits point by point. He is promptly reverted by Enric_Naval (talk · contribs) [37] [38] [39] Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case Asdfg's edits are reverted by Colipon again: [40] As you can see with this difference link the version that Colipon reverted to was the same one that I reverted to prior to. [41] Simonm223 (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case Asdfg's edits were reverted by Ohconfucius (talk · contribs). [42] Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Asdfg's edit history to mine: [43] [44] as you can see he is essentially an SPA, I am not. Now, addressing the request by Sandstein, I appologize but I am a bit irate. I am getting attacked for Calling an SPA who constantly reverts good edits to POV nonsense a vandal..

What I have been trying to demonstrate is that my actions are not different from those of most of the other active editors on the article, excepting the fact I use the word "Vandalism."

I have not violated WP:3RR I have not edited contrary to established consensus. The closest I've come to violating WP:CIVIL is calling Asdfg a vandal - which the information I've provided demonstrates him to be!

Basically I find this complaint to be not only baseless but ludicrous and offensive. What I want to know is why I must defend myself for protecting neutrality on Wikipedia from the actions of people with clear conflicts of interest and major axes to grind! Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be appealing this when I have calmed down somewhat. I am appaled that recommendations of this nature were made so quickly - when other involved editors have not yet had a chance to weigh in on the matter.Simonm223 (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Sandsteins' modified terms I will not be appealing at this time. Honestly, considering the current editorial dynamic at the Falun Gong pages I am confident that the pages will continue toward improved neutrality quality over the next six months. Simonm223 (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simonm223, please stop editing your statement continually. Think about what you want to say and then say it all at once. Also, please amend your statement to address your own conduct as described by HappyInGeneral. If you request action about the conduct of another user, please make a separate request on this page or another appropriate forum about that other user. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Falun Gong article has been seeing persistent POV pushing that keeps happening by two editors with a COI: Happyingeneral and Asdfg12345. They have kept trying to remove all criticism from FG articles and inserting anything that could possibly make FG look good. Other editors have to keep reverting them, and discussions become all convoluted with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour.

Sandstein, punishing Simonm223 is completely wrong, when he was just trying to preserve the balance in the FG articles. The opposite should be done: topic banning Happyingeneral and Asdfg12345 from FG articles, so other editors don't have to keep reverting the bleedingly obvious POV pushing.

My last complain was at Talk:Falun_Gong#Stopping_blanket_reverts, when Asdfg12345 keeps trying to place the burden of proof in other editors. I was quite annoyed by the constant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour at Talk:Falun_Gong#Luo_Gan, where editors keep playing silly and pretending that they don't understand why other editors oppose them.

The Arbcom dropped the ball big time when they failed to ban Asdfg12345 here and HappyInGeneral here and here The behaviour of these editors has not improved at all since then, and it's obvious that the mediation by Vassanya at Talk:Falun Gong is not working at all. That they are now trying to get other editors topic banned is outrageous, and it will only help to them to remove all criticism from FG articles.

Again, topic ban Happyingeneral and Asdfg12345 and let's end the ridiculously blatant POV pushing that has been going on for months. Do I neek to make a request for amendement at the Arbcom page, or can an admin enact restrictions on these two accounts using the probation? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.D.: OK, so this need a separate request. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imposing a 'topic ban' on Simon223 would be a grave mistake. Here we have two single-purpose accounts (formerly four), Asdfg and HappyInGeneral, who have made it their life's work to make the Falun Gong articles appear as favourable to Falun Gong as possible. Simon is but one of a few brave souls on this encyclopedia who is willing to step up and treat this blatant POV-pushing for what it is. Simon's conduct is within the realm of any neutral editor who has grew tired of lengthy Falun Gong advocacy. The spirit of WP:AFLG was to prevent POV-pushing and disruptive editing on Falun Gong articles. Simon not only did not violate the spirit of the arbitration but in fact is trying to uphold it. We see that during Simon's involvement on the articles, the POV-pushing and disruptive editing has only come from Falun Gong SPA users, and Simon was merely trying to remedy this imbalance. Indeed, if Simon ought to be banned for his actions, it implies that all other neutral editors who have reverted Falun Gong POV-pushing edits also ought to be banned. Make no mistake - unlike the Falun Gong users, Simon is not an SPA, and has no activist agenda at the expense of this encyclopedia. Like myself, Ohconfucius, Enric Naval, and various other users, Simon is an outside observer who at one point got tired of SPA abuse on these articles and decided to step up and do something about it. The reason Simon has become more aggressive with reverts is not because he did not try to engage in civil discussion, but because repeated calls for civil discussion has only led to persistent wikilawyering from Asdfg and repeated instances of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Asdfg asks for discussion and then rehashes the same tired arguments that have been brought down by almost all neutral observers. (All the discussions are available at the Falun Gong talk page, one read through and it will be clear that it is Asdfg that should be banned). Colipon+(Talk) 23:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pages are complicated, the issues are complicated. It doesn't do to cast such generalities. The main issues with Simon is that he doesn't discuss anything, makes a lot of accusations, and is really revert happy. All bad things. Colipon, in my view, misrepresents much of the situation. Basically, the proof is in the pudding--the pudding of edits, sources, and discussion. And whenever things should actually get down to that business, what happens instead is the above: accusations, generalised complaints, etc. etc. I just hope the people evaluating this look at the evidence and are not swayed by (what appears to me as, at this point) the invective. The case that brought all this to a head kind of epitomises the whole thing: I made a series of edits, numbered them all, expanded on the edit summary when necessary, and invited discussion. Simon reverted the whole lot and called me a vandal. Still no one has actually responded to the issues.--Asdfg12345 01:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are frequent edit wars which are initiated by Falun Gong practitioner HappyInGeneral ('Happy') and asdfg12345 {'asdfg'). I have made a substantial number of edits recently to Falun Gong articles, and have also been frustrated to see some of them being reverted by Happy (mainly), on some flimsy justification that I have removed sourced material (as if sourcing somehow renders relevant something which is impertinent). I find many of his accusations somewhat disingenuous because it is well documented by academics (Palmer, Ownby, Kavan, Ostergaard) that Falun Gong are extremely sensitive to criticism and practitioners will step up to its defence as part of their mission. Here, they (the FLG SPAs) use all manner of arguments in an attempt to win content dispute. For example, one of the edits Happy complains of above is exactly that - claims something Simon supports as being OR when it is backed up by a peer-reviewed academic paper (Heather Kavan's article). Other times, he removes text which is unflattering to Falun Gong because it is 'not sourced', and not because it is not sourceable but because he cannot be bothered to find a source (and there are usually plenty) which justifies a position or wording he does not like. Sure, the onus is on the one inserting material to source it, so a {{cn}} tag is much less provocative than a revert.

This AE case is a bit of a time-waster in that it has obliged me to spend this morning analysing all the points of contention than doing other things. Nevertheless, I will go through the edit summaries and comment on these:

• 1. he does not engage in meaningful discussion: Hardly. Anyone who has been following these articles will know that there is discussion in abundance, together with a good dose of wikilawyering and 'I didn't hear that' from the FLG editors. Just look at the talk pages. Simon might be criticised for not discussing enough on the specific points subject to his reverts, but the generalities have been well established if not covered ad nauseum. In any event, there has been some discussion (see points 6 and 8 below)
• 2.On the whole, I think Simon's use of the 'V-word' was not entirely unwarranted bearing in mind historical behaviour. In the last few months, Happy has been editing mainly in the background. Since the return of asdfg (and even so, his presence has been quite sporadic), and it appears to me that Happy is riding shotgun – his actions have become bolder. There is even the more than occasional tag-teaming.
• 5. is completely spurious. Other that stating his opinion, with explanation as to why he sees certain edits as vandalism, there are no personal attacks. In fact, like this one, they can be construed as warnings against disruptive behaviour.
• 6. the assembled edits under this point are, again, content dispute. FLG editors constantly argue for inclusion or exclusion based on sourcing, confusing 'sourced' with 'relevant'. This often eds up being a tug of war of sources – taking some of the above as examples: edit 123 (current numbering) is a weasel phrase; 124 is not directly relevant; 125 is excessively verbose and falls foul of WP:UNDUE; 129 is non-biographical soundbyting in which Simon reverted Happy undoing an edit I was responsible for.
• 8. Arguments advanced in a discussion can never be considered OR. Edit 138 (current numbering) defends the inclusion of Kavan, an unflattering study which FLG practitioners argue, incorrectly, is fringe and not peer reviewed.

I see that a case has been opened up against asdfg below, so I'll keep it brief here. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity since the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior was mentioned before, could you please provide a diff/link something what topic did I conveniently refused "... to acknowledge others' input or their own error"? Thanks. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Seb: I'm not sure that I fully understand what you say here: "since when does writing lengthy edit-summaries (as Asdfg does) and creating a fait accompli serve in lieu of discussion?" but I would think that if anyone is genuinely does his best to engage in rational discussion, with the sources on the table, rather then just muscle his way forth, then that is the correct way and then it is possible to improve this encyclopedia. Do you think any other wise? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a more complete statement from me here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_HappyInGeneral_2. Just for keeping stuff in one place. It's more neat that way. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something's odd... since when does writing lengthy edit-summaries (as Asdfg does) and creating a fait accompli serve in lieu of discussion? Can anyone and everyone now take that as an excuse to change the meaning of any article, and then take the "reverter" to ArbCom. Beats me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am secure in the conviction that if Simonm223 should be found guilty of any behaviour worth banning him for a time, then it will be easy to get perennial FG propagandists Asdfg and HiG permanently topic-banned. We got rid of the Chinese government propagandists some time back, so we need to finish the job. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to find any merit in this case, considering that Simon largely reverted the undiscussed changes made by Happy and Asdfg to earlier versions. Most of the edits by Asdfg and Happy violates WP:NPOV and failed to reach concensus with the other regular editors, so why should Simon be singled out? Unlike the two FLG activists, Simon is not a SPA and have in fact edited other articles constructively, and as such I find associating him with the long term abuses by Happy and Asdfg, and issuing a blanket ban, to be unwarranted.--PCPP (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have reviewed the evidence provided and find the request to have merit. The edits listed at (1) and (2) are numerous reverts of what is labeled "vandalism" (e.g. [45]), whereas in fact the reason for the revert appears to be a disagreement about the content. Per WP:VAND, vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia", and it is not at all clear how the content reverted would be such an attempt. Moreover, Simonm223's talk page contributions indicate that he has made no good faith attempt at finding consensus with his revert opponent(s) during the period of time covered by the reverts. The edits listed at (3) to (8) do not contain very much that is actionable apart from that; in particular, the "Mass killings" article is out of the scope of the cited arbitration case.

If discretionary sanctions were available here, I'd impose a one revert per week restriction, but the operative remedy, WP:AFLG#Article probation, imposes article probation, which only allows editors to be banned from a topic. For these reasons, unless other admins disagree, I intend to impose a six month topic ban from Falun Gong and related topics on Simonm223 for edit-warring and other disruptive editing. I'd probably be inclined to lift the ban after a month or two of entirely problem-free editing in other topic areas.

This does not mean that the revert opponent(s) of Simonm223 may not also have engaged in disruptive conduct, but if they have, that should be made the subject of a separate request, as noted above.  Sandstein  18:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See now also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Falun Gong, where I ask that the ArbCom enable discretionary sanctions for this case.  Sandstein  22:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A majority of active arbitrators now support doing so. Thanks!

For the reasons given above, Simonm223 (talk · contribs) is hereby made to an 1R/week revert restriction for six months as follows: He may not make more than one revert (as defined at WP:3RR) to any page or with respect to any content related to Falun Gong within any period of seven days. Because Simonm223 has had difficulties distinguishing between vandalism and content disagreements, reverts of vandalism, WP:BLP violations and other disruption are not excluded from this restriction (but he may and should report them to the appropriate noticeboards instead of reverting them). This restriction shall come into force when and if the motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Falun Gong passes, but the six months' duration begins now.  Sandstein  19:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

Enric Naval (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article_probation

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

1. [46] Makes again the same edit as [47] after agreeing in Talk:Falun_Gong#Luo_Gan that the sources are not adequate. When he is asked for new sources he provides again the old ones, and then he keeps going on about how he doesn't understand why the sources are inadequate and avoids adressing any of the problems raised by other editors. The rest of the section is Asdfg12345 failing to acknowledge that he needs a secondary source that makes the connection that he wants to put into the article. Days later he restores again saying that "no reason was given for keeping them out" [48]
2. FG's leader has made homophobic and pseudoscientific remarks, which were added to Teachings of Falun Gong. Asdfg12345 first removed them claiming consensus in the talk page and asking that people discuss in the talk page[49][50][51], then he tries to soften it [52] and to remove criticism [53], then he tries to portrait the author of the commentary as a FG critic while removing the "dharma" part [54], then he removes "dharma" again[55], then he made OR to claim that FG's founder had never said those things and it was propoganda from the Chinese government adn the journalist didn't research correctly the evidence [56] and edits wars to keep it while claiming support from talk page and consensus [57][58][59][60][61][62] there is a AN3 report pointing out that the "consensus in the talk page" consisted of Asdfg12345 himself and Dilip Rajeev, both editors back each other's edits and reverts, and both editors being sanctioned in the FG arb case. After the protection expires he edit wars the same content claiming consensus and menacing with AE threads[63][64] removes parts of the quote [65] and reinserts the OR [66]. During all this time a lengthy RfC had been going on and it was finally decided that the info was good and the OR was bad, and in 20th August Asdfg12345 finally said that the problem had been solved amicabily [67]. However, in 28th he removes the sources that explain why the founder's quotes don't appear in the FG website [68] (this text was stilthis text is still lacking from the article, and I have now re-added it). In January 2010 he claims that the journalists only picked those quotes only due to influence from the Chinese government[69] and edits war to keep it[70] helped by HappyInGeneral[71]
3. At Teachings of Falun Gong, when using the claim from the FG website that the journalist is wrong, he replaces "claims" instead of "says" [72][73][74]. Let's remember from the point above that Asdfg12345 had removed some months ago a RS statement about how the FG website was purposefully misquoting the founder, which means that Asdfg12345 has to know that the journalist is correct!
4. At Falun Gong. He makes 18 consecutive edits all only explanations in the edit summaries [75] and asks other editors to discuss his edits diff by diff [76]. When he gets reverted he reverts his edits back demanding that other editors edit incrementally [77].
5. removes a belief that manking has been destroyed 81 times from under the "controversies" section because the source doesn't explicitily say that it's controversial [78]
6. removing the adjective "controversial" from Teachings_of_Falun_Gong[79] and from Falun Gong [80], despite having participated in multiple discussions to keep the word and source it, like the six discussions in July 2008 (one two three four five six) with Asdfg12345 being an active participant in #1 #2 and #4. He also participated in the discussions in August 2008 where I provided seven media sources using "controversial" in addition to the Brittanica here, he also participated in a discussion in April 2009 where he asked for sources for "the apparent controversies about Falun Gong" here and another discussion in the same month here. He also removes the word in his subsequent blanket revert to his version[81]

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. [82] Warning by Simonm223 (talk · contribs) 4 January 2010

1. [83] Followup by Ohconfucius (talk · contribs)

1. [84] Warning by Enric Naval (talk · contribs) 21 December 2009
2. [85] by Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) 4 October 2009
3. [86] by Edward130603 (talk · contribs) 1 September 2009
4. [87] by Maunus (talk · contribs) 22 August 2009
5. [88] by Maunus (talk · contribs) 8 August 2009
6. [89] by AGK (talk · contribs) 16 may 2009

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Topic ban from all Falun Gong related topics, broadly constructed. P.D.: I guess that 0RR could also work.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Asdfg12345 is a WP:SPA with a conflict of interest in Falun Gong articles. He has been for years trying to remove negative stuiff from Falun Gong articles and trying to insert anything that could possibly paint it in a good light. This editor is supported by HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs), who has the same problems. I have yet to see a single edit by Asdfg12345 (or by HappyInGeneral) that paints FG in a bad light, adds a negative fact, or removes something positive.

Talk: Falun Gong is full of comments where Asdfg12345 keeps having a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour, playing silly at why other editors are so pised off at his constant POV pushing. He also places the burden of proof in editors. by making bold reverts and then insisting that other editors show him wrong when he gets reverted, point by point. Now he has the nerve of asking that he is not reverted again, at Talk:Falun_Gong#Stopping_blanket_reverts

Examination of the edits since I have started watching Falun Gong has led me to be convinced that this is ridiculously blatant POV pushing, and that this could not possibly be based on good faith misunderstandings.

Asdfg12345 has exhausted the patience and good faith of other editors to the point where, in the last weeks, the other editors have finally resorted to blanket reverting the bleedingly obvious POV pushing that Asdfg12345 has been trying to insert into Falun Gong. He them complained Talk:Falun_Gong#Stopping_blanket_reverts It's our fault for believing that we could handle this matter without having to go into lenghty arbitration.

Two years ago the Arbcom was not capable of deciding that Asdfg12345 was edit warring, in this finding of act The behaviour of Asdfg12345 has not improved at all since then, he has been becoming bolder and more demanding with his reverts, and it's obvious that the mediation by Vassanya at Talk:Falun Gong is not working at all.

Asdfg12345 was issued a final warning just a few days after the Falun Gong case closed [90]. His behaviour has not improved at all, yet he was only blocked for 48 hours. Ever since then he keeps coming back once in a while, making a POV pushing edit and then disappearing for a few days. Never breaking 3RR, many times not making reverts but instead going back to the same issues weeks later and in slightly different edits, which is probably why he wasn't blocked again. In other words: slowly edit-warring variations of the same POV.

There have also been two separate section in the conflic of interest noticeboard here here, which had exactly zero usefulness in solving the problem. Many editors have been piling up complaints against Asdfg12345, like Bobby Fletcher here.

Almost every single edit by Asdfg12345 has been to Falun Gong related articles, see his edit count [91].

In short, Asdfg12345 is a disruptive POV-pushing SPA with A COI, who has failed to keep a NPOV stance for years. He has exhausted patience and good faith from other editors (except HappyInGeneral, who seem to be part of a team), and the FG articles will be much better without him.

P.D.: I have added diffs of violating edits. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[92]

Hi. I'd be happy to respond to the points above at greater length, here's something short. haven't meant to do anything wrong, and in the end, I don't understand the accusations. I mostly edit Falun Gong articles because I'm most interested in the topic, and don't have the luxury of having a lot of leisure time where I can edit wikipedia. So in the time I have, I have been spending it on this topic. I know I should branch out and be more active, and I am kinda trying, I just get busy with real life and two jobs. I also want to edit a wide variety of China articles. Even so, I don't see anything wrong with editing mainly Falun Gong articles. I've dabbled with other things. In any case, I think my edits in this area should be evaluated on their own terms, in the context in which they were made, and in the way any edit would.

I've done my best to engage in discussion with everyone, been scrupulous in my sourcing, and have attempted to make the articles conform to WP:NPOV (Enric Naval obviously has a different view, and I'd be happy to either give a general response, or discuss specific edits). I don't see what rule I have broken, and I am definitely not editing in bad faith. I think there might be a flaw in the reasoning Enric writes above, though. Simply adding information that is positive about Falun Gong, or removing information that is negative about Falun Gong, doesn't particularly mean anything. What if it was positive information in the context of a section showing third party reception to Falun Gong's teachings? Or, where a number of academics concur on some point, and it happens to be positive, but also helps the reader understand the issue? And what if the negative information is unsourced, poorly sourced, wrongly placed in the article, or a kind of original synthesis? I don't see how positive/negative are the most useful categories per se. And for sure I have added negative stuff and removed positive stuff--do I need to find examples? Or make some? This may not even be the most useful criteria, because it would be easy to do such edits in a showy kind of way--no real substance, but parading anti-Falun Gong credentials. In particular, often other editors take care of the anti-Falun Gong perspective. I'm capable of "writing for the enemy," but most of the time it's already been done. And I'm definitely not trying to come here and do pro-Falun Gong propaganda. A lot of the time my edits are neither pro or anti, and I don't even think that that's the most useful way of conceptualising things anyway.

As I say, I've done my best to explain all edits I've made, encourage discussion, add referenced material, and whatever else I can think of. In the latest instance that caused this commotion, I explained and numbered each edit and made a space on the talk page to discuss them all. I thought that would reduce disputes and make the paper trail very clear. On other occasions I had asked for discussion, but ad-hominem, rather than the issue at hand, was the only thing forthcoming. So I certainly then started asking that people discuss things and not just do a one hit revert. I don't know, but maybe Enric just does not like it? I'm not here to make enemies, by any means. I have repeatedly requested that any problems with my edits be explained in terms of wikipedia policy, and tried to be as transparent as possible in my edits, sources, and explanations. Anything further, please let me know.

PS: Regarding Bobby Fletcher, see this. --Asdfg12345 00:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: Regarding the Luo Gan thing, see here. Unfortunately, this does seem a bit typical of how the discussions go. Not all the time.--Asdfg12345 01:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Sandstein (or someone), can you please advise whether I should look carefully at the examples Enric provides and give a response? I can make it brief. I have a suspicion that some things may not be exactly as portrayed (that response was so expected, right? In some cases, I could well be wrong though.)--Asdfg12345 12:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Update 2: looking again, I think there's some things I should respond to. Can I have 12 hours? It's late here, and I can do it before lunchtime tomorrow.--Asdfg12345 13:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks. Since I guess you just looked at the situation, thought about it, and came up with what seems like a reasonable response, I would like to offer you more food for thought. The following are just some questions and thoughts. I hope they are useful.

How could it be shown that I'm dedicated to showing Falun Gong in a positive light, rather than "balancing a negative POV," for example? I think I should get a chance to dispute this, or at least see how the decision was arrived at. I acknowledge that many contributions recently could be interpreted in this way, but when we are talking about balancing an existing POV, then doing so would be totally correct by wiki standards. I've added a lot of critical stuff, previously, but mostly find it's already been taken care of. I’d just like to know the way this conclusion was arrived at, what the information sources are, and the different factors (like, the context, other editors, what’s on the pages already, etc.)

My purpose for editing the Falun Gong articles is in line with wikipedia's content policies--it is to make the pages conform to those policies. Is there evidence that I have not done so? If, (let's do the hypothetical), there was lots of criticism already, and I only added positive content (I'm simplifying it terribly here for the sake of argument), then adding that would be NPOV, wouldn't it. And if they weren't adding negative info, I'd have done it, at least in part. So I’m trying to get clear on how this side of things is worked out. Every single person editing the pages has their own point of view of the subject, and their editing will inevitably reflect it. The keys to balance this are just sources, and discussion. When we are talking about people who are just unreasonable and won’t discuss, that’s a big problem, but as far as I know, I’ve been neither. I even got a barnstar once for being humorous in times of great tension.

Do Colipon, Ohconfucius, Simon223 etc. have to show they put pro-Falun Gong information in? Is the context of our editing environment being taken into account at all? Do I need to make more edits that include criticism of Falun Gong, what is the threshold, and how is "criticism" defined? Also, is it being considered that other editors in question add almost only (what I'll define as) negative content? Should this meet with sanction? Do I need to show the enormous amount of deleting of content related to the persecution of Falun Gong, all sourced to academic journals? I have never deleted large swathes of properly sourced content like that simply because I think it’s critical of Falun Gong. I of course would say I try to make the pages NPOV, like they do, I’m sure, but if you look at the edits you’ll find a pattern opposite to mine: mostly negative. This isn’t actually the problem. The problem is when discussion breaks down and people don’t engage in it seriously. If you handed the pages over to Ohconfucius and I, they would probably end up looking quite reasonable after a while.

You have proposed the same ban for me as Simon, but is there a genuine parity? I mean, look at his edits. Some of them are outrageous. I’ve never done anything like that, I wouldn’t even dream of it. I mean, I’m actually trying to edit intelligently and with discussion. And I never make those sorts of accusations against people. Does my only editing Falun Gong pages mean I should be punished that much more severely? For something that many editors would not even consider problematic? It just seems like the decision is hard to evaluate or break down into its compontent parts and analyse, cause it’s like “this seems reasonable.” I don’t have a problem with that, I think Wikipedia should be like that in large part, but I hope you can add all these issues into the mix.

I made it clear that I would like to edit other articles, but that I don't have much time left at the end of the day, and that these are a priority. It was never said to me in a serious way, only as a smear, that it was any problem to only edit my main area of interest. If someone had clarified this, I could have actually done some other useful things in my wiki time. I've got a couple of dozen books here on Chinese politics, governance, and history, and I'm keen to contribute in those areas, but since the Falun Gong pages have been such a biased mess recently (historically it has swung back and forth, and part of that is my fault) I've been spending a few spare hours every couple of days to work on them to the exclusion of other issues. (note: the strong interest in China and China topics is relatively recent for me. I came to wikipedia to edit the Falun Gong pages. Some years later a lot of things have changed and I want to make a broader contribution.)

Originally you thought there was nothing actionable, but after Enric provided a series of points and diffs, you thought it was actionable by a six month ban. However, I didn’t get the opportunity to present my case on those points. I don’t understand that. Shouldn’t I have been given the chance to respond to those issues? Should I respond now? I would be happy to. The decision making process just seems a little opaque right now. I would maybe gently suggest that a larger body of arbitrators be called on to look at the evidence, and discuss it together to see if this is really the best way of handling the situation. This isn't just my case, but for many different editors, and the Falun Gong pages long term. And I will probably consider opening an AE against Colipon along the same lines as this one when all this concludes. It's a wider kind of issue at play. Anyway, now for the good part.

I have a suggestion that is maybe a little unique but I think could really work. Please consider it carefully. Since it was not known to me that it was actually a problem to edit only my main area of interest, and there's no real evidence that I've done anything actually wrong in terms of content or whatever—or, let’s say, I’m at least on par with anyone else who has bothered to stick around—and since sanctions are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive, then why not just make it that I have to have some certain ratio of substantive non-Falun Gong edits? If this is the only actual issue in my editing, then just fix it. I would really like this, because it would motivate me to edit these other areas which I really enjoy, but which I keep putting off because I use my wiki time on the Falun Gong articles, which I consider a priority. This would put me in the same category as Ohconfucius and whoever else, who, when editing the Falun Gong pages do so from their own version of NPOV, not often breaking rules--but the only difference is that they edit other stuff. So just make me edit other stuff. It's going to be a net loss for the encyclopedia otherwise.

And please let me know whether I should respond to the points Enric raises.--Asdfg12345 00:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enric Naval, while I won't dismiss this out of hand (as there may indeed be a case worth taking action here), this is not currently presented in an actionable form. Please understand that administrators will normally base their review on the evidence that you provide, and that evidence is currently limited to two diffs ([93], [94]), none of which is prima facie evidence of disruptive editing. The rest of your long comments about the supposed misconduct by Asdfg12345 are entirely unactionable as long as they are unsupported by diffs. Also, this is a board dedicated toarbitration enforcement, so any argument based on the premise that ArbCom was wrong will not result in any action here. If you think ArbCom is wrong, you would need to make a new request for arbitration and try to convince them.  Sandstein  22:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The SPA Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) is a textbook case of WP:TEND. Asdfg constantly makes mass reverts to the FLG group articles and then throws up text-walls, insisting that before any reverts happen his points must be addressed in full. This is not how Wikipedia works. It is the responsibility of the editor making changes to justify edits. When 21 edits are made to an article, by a single editor, in under an hour this is even more the case.

I will be honest. I have given up on trying to work with Asdfg12345. There is no working with Asdfg12345 unless you are willing to accept the FLG is entirely right and the PRC is a bunch of evil, organ stealing demons. If the goal of wikipedia is to have neutral articles based on the four pillars this will not be attained on the FLG articles as long as Asdfg12345 is editing FLG articles. I entirely support this requested action regardless of what happens to my own ability to edit FLG articles. Simonm223 (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I write this Asdfg12345 has once more restored the POV-pushing edits that are at the heart of this issue: [95].

I have previously enjoyed a fruitful, if occasionally tense, editing relationship with asdfg, which enabled Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident to be taken to GA in late 2008. He is generally less prone to advocacy and edit-warring than the other Falun Gong SPAs I have dealt with, and also less likely to engage in filibustering and lawyering. That is not to say he is not often verbose to get his point across, and I have acquired a certain respect for him.

Asdfg has been away from editing for 3 months, and has only been partly active for 3 months prior to that. During his absence, and free from the disruption and hindrance of Olaf Stephanos and Dilip rajeev to ensure that the articles are totally non-critical of the Dafa, considerable effort has been made by me and others to improve the articles with new sources, and to redress the very obvious pro-FLG bias. The articles need a lot of attention, as do all growth-phase articles do. Asdfg has returned, and has since begun to roll his sleeves up. However, due to the presence of other editors new to the topic, the editing dynamic is quite different. I note that asdfg has been frustrated on several counts recently, which I fully understand, and left him a friendly note informing his actions might be construed as drive-by reverting. Usually, when I worked with him previously, he stops when I point out when he has been excessive. Although his reverts may have abated, he has been quite insistent on some points which he seemed to want to push through despite opposition. It's not always helpful that Happy is always there riding shotgun with his reverts with considerably less discussion, making it seem like tag teaming, and always answering you with a question.

This is all I can say for now, because I dropped Falun Gong articles from my watchlist after realising that I needed some distance from the subject. I informed him of this, and he gave me the impression he would follow my lead. I intend to stay away a little while longer, so with the exception to giving evidence about Happy, this may well be the last I have to say on the subject for a while. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason Asdfg should have been banned a long time ago is that he has a conflict-of-interest with the subject. In the end, he is not interested in improving this encyclopedia, but to advance the interests of Falun Gong. This is why he has come into conflict with so many previously uninvolved observers on these articles. Despite his civil facade and repeated denials, it takes at most one or two threads of discussion before an outsider to the Falun Gong wikispace realizes that Asdfg is not editing in good faith. Recently, since the ban of fellow Falun Gong adherent Olaf Stephanos, Asdfg has become more careful in not violating the letter of the arbitration while willfully violating its principles. Only those who haven't dealt with the Falun Gong articles will believe his defences. It would be naive at this point to not carry out a topic-ban. Colipon+(Talk) 13:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asdfg12345 is an unabashed single-purpose account dedicated to polishing Falun Gong's image. He does so with such round-the-clock dedication that I can only conclude that his employer allows him to patrol Wikipedia during office hours. It would not hurt Wikipedia in any way if he were banned. My opinion of HappyInGeneral is similar. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited with Asdfg since 2007, and my experience is a mixed one. Asdfg began editing Wikipedia with the intent of promoting FLG's agendas, as shown by his comments on user talks pages, [96] [97][98] [99], and here he claimed that he edits Wikipedia to "save people from the Chinese Communist Party before it's destroyed".

The problem is that Asdfg and Happy, as well as others like Olaf and Dilip, has formed a tag team that have de-facto control of the concensus in the FLG articles, and as such any attempts to add material critical of FLG would be met with reverts through the sheer weight of force [100] [101] [102]. His reverts are often blanket reverts, dismissing whole revisions because one or two sentences are not to his liking [103], and often anything that is sourced from the PRC government [104], and often wikilawyers his way out by dismissing them as propaganda. As such, I think a block of a set length would be appropriate so that he can understand wikipedia policies better and cool down about the FLG material.--PCPP (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Much of the evidence now provided is difficult to recognize, at least for me, as the sort of disruption that normally results in sanctions. Editors should remember that arbitration enforcement, like the arbitration process itself, is a venue for discussing conduct, not content, and administrators will not impose sanctions in order to decide content disagreements.

It becomes clear, though, that Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account dedicated to editing articles related to Falun Gong so as to make that movement appear in a more favorable light, and that he has repeatedly participated in edit wars to that purpose. In his most recent 500 edits I cannot see one that is unrelated to Falun Gong. In view of the ArbCom's findings at WP:AFLG#Wikipedia is not a soapbox and WP:AFLG#Point of view editing this general mode of editing constitutes disruptive conduct. It also indicates that Asdfg12345 is more committed to promoting Falun Gong than to our encyclopedic mission, which makes his contributions detrimental to that mission. For these reasons, unless other administrators disagree during the next day or so, I intend to impose a six month topic ban on Asdfg12345.  Sandstein  19:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to various statements by Asdfg12345 above:

• The reason why I am considering a topic ban is a combination of three problems: edit-warring (less aggressively than some of his opponents, but still), single purpose account (editing only FG topics) and advocacy (editing only to present FG more favorably). If there are other users that exhibit similar problems, that should be discussed in separate requests concerning them, but misconduct by one editor does not mitigate or excuse misconduct by others. Everybody is responsible only for their own edits and may be sanctioned on the merits of these edits alone. While in practice Wikipedia may attain a measure of neutrality as a result of conflict and compromise between groups of POV-pushers, that does not mean that it is a good thing to be a POV-pusher. Instead, every editor is required to make their contributions conform to WP:NPOV, individually and in aggregate, no matter what their personal convictions may be or whether there are any opposed POV-pushers. If they fail to do so, especially in topics subject to arbitration cases, they may be sanctioned.
• On my talk page, Asdfg12345 argues that "In particular, given the wider context of the articles and editing environment, and the impact it will have to the NPOV of the pages if certain editors have a free hand--just to put it bluntly." Per WP:AGF and WP:OWN, one should never assume that one is individually irreplaceable for making sure that Wikipedia contains the unsullied WP:TRUTH (indeed, such beliefs are often a hallmark of disruptive SPAs). Our fellow editors can maintain NPOV without us just fine.
• While discretionary sanctions are now set to become available, I do not believe that there is a practicable sanction short of a topic ban that would address the problems outlined above. A revert restriction would not limit the advocacy SPA problem, and an editing throttle (e.g. setting a ratio of FG edits to non-FG edits) would require constant administrator attention and would be too impractical to supervise and enforce.
• With respect to procedure, there has been ample time and opportunity for Asdfg12345 to present his case here. In my opinion, he has not done so convincingly. As to his suggestion "that a larger body of arbitrators be called on to look at the evidence, and discuss it together", he is free to appeal the present sanction to the ArbCom, who may or may not consider his appeal at their discretion.

For these reasons, and because no other admin disagrees, under the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article probation, Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) is hereby banned from editing Falun Gong and related article or template content (such as about beliefs of, or persons, groups and events related to Falun Gong) for six months. He remains free to edit talk pages and other discussions (but should remember that his conduct on these pages, if disruptive, may result in additional sanctions). This sanction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee, or as provided for by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions should the Arbitration Committee enable discretionary sanctions in this case.  Sandstein  22:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

Enric Naval (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article_probation

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

1. In the last months he has started reverting back Asdfg12345 edits, in Falun Gong [105][106][107], in Li_Hongzhi [108][109], in History_of_Falun_Gong [110]. He is the only editor that restores Asdfg12345's edits, while the removal Asdfg12345's edits is being done by multiple editors.
2. after complaints that the sources are not adequate, he states "So you are saying that removing sourced information is somehow OK?"[111], this is the typical WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour at FG pages, where valid arguments are ignored by flooding the discussion with new invalid arguments.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. here Warning by Ohconfucius (talk · contribs)
2. here Warning by Cazort (talk · contribs) about editing only Falun Gong pages
3. ANI thread

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Ban on reverting back Asdfg12345's edits. 0RR restriction.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

HappyInGeneral has edited a great number of articles while vandal-fighting, but he is a still a SPA account, overhelmingly editing Falun Gong related articles, see edit counter [112].

The 2007 arb case failed to pass a finding that HappyInGeneral was edit-warring, by one vote, here, and a one-year revert parole also failed by one vote here.

HappyInGeneral is a self-declared practitioner of Falun Gong[113]. A person with this COI shouldn't be edit-warring stuff that os directly related to the reputation of the discipline that he practices.

HappyInGeneral supports Asdfg12345 in all the edits that he makes and in all the discussions. They behave like a tag team, they revert back the edits of each other. Nobody reverts back Asdfg12345 edits back into the articles, except for this account. HappyInGeneral insists that other editors must explain why they revert Asdfg12345, while no demand is ever made that Asdfg12345 explains his bold edits after he gets reverted.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[114]

Hello, I reviewed the diff. I read the comments.

In my experience and based on WP:TRUTH people on Wikipedia will come with different point of views. Which is all fine. And we can all work together as long as we discuss the content of the article rationally.

In my case against Simonm223 above, I complained with substantiated diffs exactly against the fact that he comes only with a strong point of view with quite some original researches, but he does not discuss the blanket reverts that he makes based on the merit of the content and the sources used, instead he makes comments about the contributor, over and over again, which naturally goes against WP:NPA.

And now the diffs that Enric give as evidence against me, well I think that shows exactly how I ask from time to time for such a discussion to happen.

For example in the latest diff presented I'm asking Simonm223 to engage in discussion of the content rather then blind reverts, and I even point out to him where exactly can he do that.

And if you take a look at the rest of diffs presented: [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] you might notice the same behavior from my part while there is no discussion on the talk page, just strong minded reverts, without substantiated discussion. When blind reverts like this are happening, I can only come here to present my case, because there is no argument to be used at the NPOV, Reliable Source, etc. noticeboards.

Regarding WP:COI: To put things into the right perspective read this: "I wander if mechanic should not edit the pages related to mechanics, even if he sources them with reliable sources just because he says he is a mechanic." The point is that people edit the pages they have interest in. Everybody has a POV and as long as the Persecution in China is going on and it is fueled by the biggest and meanest propaganda machine on earth, there will be no shortage in critics of Falun Gong, only on Wikipedia we might have a chance ask them to play by the rules. So who really has COI in this case? Well to find that answer I guess the right question is:

• On the article talk page, who is evading the discussion of the content, by discussing endlessly about the contributor?

I think Simon is one such person so I did provide the diffs for it. Maybe you can form an opinion about 2 other such editors present on this page, based on their comments, and I can assure you there are a few more.

After all the directive from the CCP is: "Destroy their reputation, bankrupt them financially and annihilate them physically." (Understood)

Please don't take this against me. I have said before and I'll say it now, on Wikipedia there are all kind of people with all kinds of ideas, per WP:NPOV and WP:RS all the relevant ideas should be presented, this makes this encyclopedia healthy. For this all I'm asking is a rational point by point discussion and not blind reverts.

If I got something wrong, please point it out. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Enric: Regarding the IDIDNTHEARTHAT thing: This is an excellent point to bring up. And actually this is a better diff. Basically Enric failed to point out how have I failed answer him, and if you do read that section you will notice that I did answer every point that I should have, while I did take my time to repeat the question to the point it out the best as I can my question to him, to which he just dismissed the question as it would a "game".

So my question is who is playing the IDIDNTHEARTHAT thing? If you have time please evaluate and let me know. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Enric: Just now I noticed, you used this diff to show that I'm a self declared Falun Gong practitioner. It is a bit curios why you didn't you just not use my User:HappyInGeneral page, that statement is up there since I joined Wikipedia, and I view that as being honest. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Simomn: Sorry if you took that personally. I did not say a word about you, I only gave an official source from the House of Commons who are saying that the directive from the CCP is: "Destroy their reputation, bankrupt them financially and annihilate them physically.". Considering how huge the CCP propaganda machine is I would be surprised if there would not be anyone at least influenced by it to further it's message. Now you will notice that I'm only speaking my mind, and I'm not providing any evidence against you or anyone here in particular. I'm just pointing out what is the context of the subject is right now so people who might not have lived in or near mainland China can understand the context. Best Regards. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohconfucius: Quoting you "The deceptively large number of different articles".

My question to you: How did I deceive anyone? This edit counter shows precisely which are the article that have my main interest.

My problem with your edit is that you are continuing to engage in bad faith negative comments against me, holding against me even air if you could. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Colipon: Can you give me an example where genuine NPOV edits is difficult because of me? Thanks.

@Administrators: Please check out the massive content loss at the Persecution of Falun Gong page. The Diff looks like this because at one point the persecution page was even renamed into History of Falun Gong. The persecution page survived, only because in it's deletion no consensus was reached, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persecution of Falun Gong and that is because I invited a few more uninvolved editors to join the talk. Otherwise I alone might have been successfully gunned out.

The same pattern of deluding the fact happened while moving out of the view the:

• Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China to Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China, see the talk: Talk:Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China/FG poll
• Human rights torch relay to Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong, here is the talk behind it: Talk:Human_Rights_Torch_Relay#Notability (here is mostly my fault because even though there are so many source I have not have the time to build up a stronger article there.)
• and maybe more, of which I'm not aware of right now.

This kind of behavior is basically defending the worst totalitarian regime, by hiding, moving out of scope the WP:RS related to it, thus damaging Wikipedia and it's credibility, with brute force. Sometime I truly wonder if people are payed by it or just influenced by it's massive propaganda. Still do a headcount of the sides that you manage to identify, and then do a time count, and the picture will be extremely clear. It does not matter if somebody agrees with me or not, all that matters to me if a rational discussion can be conducted based on the principles of Wikipedia like WP:RS, WP:N, etc...

Thus if it is possible to get more neutral editors to this topic, I would be immensely appreciative. But until then let's at least keep civil and discuss the content not the editor. If that is achieved, Wikipedia will win and I don't care then if Simomn223 is banned or not. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon I understand that I was complaining that you where talking without any base, so I guess should not do the same. See here some sources:

• Google to end censorship in China over cyber attacks | Technology | The Guardian
  • Official Google Blog: A new approach to China
• Hacking The Regime | The New Republic

And again even if you get upset about this you should have no reason, because I'm not saying that this source relates to you. On the other hand I'm saying that these things exist per WP:RS.

And I'm saying another very important thing. You will see me providing this "context" only on the arbitration pages, on the talk pages you will see me only discussing about the content and about the sources. If we can get into this cycle we can do something good for this encyclopedia. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Administrator: Please let me know if there is anything I missed and I should clarify. Thanks --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Administrator: Wikipedia, is not a battleground, I see, and I fully agree since I do believe in talk. Under this spirit, I'm sorry to have fueled such an environment. I think I did strike out all those remarks, however if I missed something, please point it out and I'll fix it. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Administrator:

No matter what the outcome may be, will you in the end have something in place that will reward discussion and discourage blind reverts? As I see it this is the only way to ensure to improve Wikipedia. Thanks. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The latest example (food for thought):

• Here is the section to discuss point by point 14 changes Talk:Falun_Gong#Changes_and_discussion_for_them comment added at 15:29, 14 January 2010. In these changes Asdf put some effort, 14 diffs, and if any of those would be objectionable it could be pointed out, it can be clearly pointed out.
• However, even though request for discussion was clearly expressed on the talk page, and in the edit summaries there where 3 reverts [120], [121], [122] and no discussion about the actual changes.

In my understanding Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia where we should evaluate the merit of the edits, not blindly push forward or defend a certain view. And that is why I would like to know if you consider to have something in place that will reward discussion and discourage blind reverts. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing substantial to add. Basically, what we are seeing are content disputes. But calls for discussion are being ignored, and instead things are being reverted and labels being thrown around. This isn't what wikipedia is about. People have to discuss things, refer to sources, etc. I'm confused by this whole thing, really. I'm not aware of what rules HappyInGeneral has violated; Enric doesn't list them. Reverting reverts of my edits? Is that out-and-out wrong? What if that was justified? What if I added relevant, sourced material and someone removed it without discussion? I don't see how this is a criteria. Of course, tag teaming and bad behaviour should be sanctioned, but it's totally unclear what's wrong in these cases. Show me some policies he's broken. Show me some diffs of disruptive editing. If HappyInGeneral was restoring mindless deletions of anyone else's edits, I'd support him there, too. The complaint seems quite vague to me, and appears to be based on a kind of feeling rather than solid evidence of wrongdoing. Some specific points: HappyInGeneral doesn't have a COI; I've explained all my edits, both on talk page and in edit summary, and done my best to encourage discussion. Both of us should edit a wider variety of pages, I agree. But there's no evidence of wrongdoing here.--Asdfg12345 01:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to Asdfg12345's statement HappyInGeneral has a very strong CoI. Although Happy has participated productively in other areas of Wikipedia, whenever it comes to FLG articles the pro-FLG POV takes over. Although not as disruptive as Asdfg12345 HappyInGeneral has not assisted in bringing neutrality to the FLG articles. Simonm223 (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having just reviewed this thread again I noticed something sadly typical. Happy is now implying I am taking "directives" from the communist party of china. Simonm223 (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As demonstrated by this [123] recent edit here Happy continues to operate under the assumption that other editors are trying to "defend the worst totalitarian regime". Now, notwithstanding the fact that this violates WP:AGF in all kinds of ways, notwithstanding the fact that the claim is baseless, non FLG editors want a neutral article, not one that defends China, the fact that Happy believes China to be the "worst totalitarian regime" (China is considered an authoritarian state in academic circles and is not, in fact, technically totalitarian at all) demonstrates the clear and systemic neutrality and COI issues that HappyInGeneral (and Asdfg12345) have with FLG articles. Simonm223 (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deceptively large number of different articles edited by him are the result of his acquiring and using automated tools to perform gnoming tasks around WP. However, in terms of actually contributing to content, Happy is, to all intents and purposes, a single purpose account. One very good example of his advocacy is above. Then, there is this series of edits which was used material from SPS or COI (e.g. Epoch Times) sources. However, I would give him some credit for not rolling it back to this final version created by fellow practitioner in which all the criticism was expunged.

To illustrate the dynamic on most of the FLG articles, I cite a conflict has been going on for quite some time—over the exact date of birth of Li Hongzhi, and thus the appropriateness of using the word 'claim':

This is one edit in which Happy changes the word 'claims' to 'says'. I change it back, but it is gone again in the next edit (asdfg). I undo it.

A few months later, asdfg changes it again as part of another larger edit, which is reverted by PCPP, and a tug of war ensues. Asdfg restores it, to be restored by Simon. Happy moves in swiftly to undo Simon.

I once again restore 'claim', but it is removed by asdfg in this edit, which coincidentally shows the propensity of Falun Gong editors to insist on substituting, where convenient to them, the word 'persecution' for all other synonyms such as 'suppression', 'crackdown' etc. In this version of History of Falun Gong from June 2007, when Falun Gong editors held the upper hand, I count 13 appearances of 'persecution'. The current version has two occurrences (although it would be fair to disclose that the article was entitled 'Persecution of Falun Gong' in June 2007).

In other cases, an evangelical tendency will not generally brush with WP:COI. However, as mentioned elsewhere on this page, the propensity of Falun Gong practitioners to go out and proselytise and defend the Dafa with zeal and force is a trait which needs to to be experienced to be comprehended. Happy's vociferousness in this connection is harmful to the editing ambiance at these 'paroled' articles because (I suspect) he feels he embodies the Dafa. While I can handle one Falun Gong editor at a time, I find the presence of a second, operating as Happy does, extremely distracting and disruptive. The reason why I am less sympathetic to Happy and more so to Asdfg is that I feel the latter can edit with sufficient detacthment, whereas Happy cannot. It would do Happy no harm to spend short time away from Falun Gong; he should gain some experience contributing content to other articles instead of point-pushing when he is too close to the subject. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to the "massive content loss at the Persecution of Falun Gong page", it must be noted that instead of one article, there are now two, one called 'History of Falun Gong', and a newer 'Persecution of Falun Gong' article. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there may be misunderstanding the point I was trying to make about the dynamic interaction. I just picked out the word 'claim' because it is a good illustrative example which is easily missed if not pointed out. The sensitivity of Falun Gong practitioners to any criticism of their master's teachings is legend. Of course there are major disagreements about text and sources and what constitutes a reliable source. I wanted to illustrate that quite a lot of the warring takes place on a low, semantic level too. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt in my mind that HappyInGeneral has always been a single-purpose account, despite his recent leanings towards automated wiki-tools, which was ostensibly set up to curb the notion that he is a Falun Gong SPA. While Happy has certainly been less destructive than Asdfg in his edits, the presence of both editors makes NPOV editing extremely difficult.

HappyInGeneral is an unabashed single-purpose account dedicated to polishing Falun Gong's image. S/he does so with such round-the-clock dedication that I can only conclude that hes employer allows hem to patrol Wikipedia during office hours. It would not hurt Wikipedia in any meaningful way if s/he were banned, as all the constructive work s/he does is automated cleaning. My opinion of Asdfg12345 is similar. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is little to say about this editor, who does not try to hide the fact that he is a FLG activist. His user page is basically a violation of WP:USER by advocating for FLG propaganda, and his editing history concurs. Even in this very page, he is involved in WP:ADVOCACY and WP:LAWYER, showing that currently he is obviously not interested in editing the FLG articles in accordance with WP:NPOV. --PCPP (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why the change from someone claiming they have a certain birthdate to someone saying they have a certain birthdate is the sort of thing one notes in support of what ultimately seems to be shaping up to be a six-month topic ban. "Claim" sounds to be the more POV phrasing in this case, and HappyInGeneral's choice of the other phrase seems perfectly reasonable (he apparently referenced the change to a Time magazine interview that gave the date context). I'm not intimately involved in any of this, but after viewing some of the diffs here it seems that there should be some more productive way to arbitrate this. I presume there have been short-term topic bans; is there a way to limit the number of edits per article per day or week? Isn't that really what is desired here?

My only experience with this issue was a Neutral point of view/Noticeboard thread where it seemed that the POV was going in decidedly the opposite direction than is currently being claimed (or, as some surely prefer, said), HappyInGeneral being the forthright party accurately representing refs and definitions and coming up against the enforcement of a POV party line. With topics so profoundly loaded, we need to take extreme care to ensure that we aren't prohibiting a user who is a balancing force on a scale that would in his absence tip further askew — especially as an allegedly similar editor seems to be about to be topic-banned for the same six months in the previous thread here. I note the respondent in the administrative section below and hope that those administrators officially weighing in on this will take the time to understand the sensitivity of this issue and the substance of the argument against HIG, and see if there isn't any more constructive way of getting it through to all parties involved that reverting claims to says and back sounds more like a petty interpersonal issue deserving a reprimand than it does a problematic edit justifying a six-month topic ban. I don't know if every point in this diff included by the OP was discussed on that article's talk page as HappyInGeneral requested, but most of the changes he makes do not strike me as objectionable POV. Again, if the idea is that HIG reverts too frequently or makes more edits than can reasonably be reviewed, perhaps the best answer is to limit the number of edits he's allowed to make per day, so that he learns to fully and concisely state his case about a change (and, in return, his edits need to actually be objectionable POV to be castigated and reverted as such). Abrazame (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

As with Asdfg12345 above, the evidence submitted (especially the edit counter) and a review of his contributions indicates that, when HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs) is not making automated vandalism reverts, he edits articles with a view to making them more sympathetic to Falun Gong. Like Asdfg12345, he is also involved in edit wars on the topic, which matches the finding of a majority of arbitrators voting on the case back in 2007 ([124]). In addition, it is of great concern to me that in this very forum he is making comments ([125]) that can be reasonably read only as insinuating that those who disagree with him are agents or tools of the Chinese Communist Party. This is in direct conflict with the Committee's reminder, at WP:AFLG#Wikipedia is not a battleground, that "Use of the site for ideological struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive." For these reasons, if no administrator colleagues disagree, I intend to impose a six months topic ban on HappyInGeneral as well, with the additional reminder that any violations may result in an extension of the ban to indefinite, or lengthy blocks, or both.  Sandstein  19:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tentatively endorse this on the battleground behavior alone. I have not examined the evidence in depth, so I cannot stand behind the rest, but there is certain stuff that just doesn't - or at least shouldn't - fly around here.--Tznkai (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons given above, and with reference to my comments regarding Asdfg12345, under the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article probation, HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Falun Gong and all related discussions and other content (including talk pages and process discussions, except only for legitimate and necessary dispute resolution involving himself) for six months. This sanction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee, or as provided for by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions should the Arbitration Committee enable discretionary sanctions in this case.

A few additional comments: Because of his previous battleground-like conduct, HappyInGeneral's topic ban, unlike that of Asdfg12345, also includes all discussions concerning Falun Gong. With respect to his question "Will you in the end have something in place that will reward discussion and discourage blind reverts?", well, you're looking at it. We can't hand out rewards, but we can sanction editors who cross certain lines of disruptive conduct, including edit-warring. The rest, as always, is up to the community of editors.  Sandstein  23:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

 Matthead  Discuß   18:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Editors_warned and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list#Radeksz_topic_banned

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

1. 13:01, 21 January 2010 Radeksz (for you: new section) Crude rant on my talk page by Radeksz, mentioning Eastern European places like Olsztyn/Allenstein and Danzig, and closing with "If you assholes didn't get all quasi-Nazi ..."
2. 12:57, 21 January 2010 24.197.219.130 (Seriously: new section) Preceding very similar rant by 24.197.219.130 (talk · contribs), which was very likely Radeksz, too.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. [126] Notification about EEML case by Mailer diablo (talk · contribs)
2. [127] Notification about Digwuren case by Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

As a topic ban is already in effect, a block seems necessary.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I was kind of puzzled by these provocative edits to my talk page (and Radeksz' user page), and gave him a couple of hours to retract them.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[128]

Go ahead and block away. The posts on Matthead's page should've been sent as personal emails and were meant as a "let's be honest here" kind of frank talk.radek (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:henrik. Yes.radek (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pantherskin

Is this request really necessary. It is evident from Radeksz's recent edit history that he not only fully abides by his restrictions, but also contributes in a very positive and commendable way to topic areas in dire need of attention. Pantherskin (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Henrik

Radeksz has redacted his comments[129], which is commendable. Radeksz, can we get an assurance that you'll phrase yourself more politely in the future? (i.e. not using terms like "assholes" or "quasi-Nazi")? henrik•talk 20:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Martintg

Matthead's behaviour has been rather provocative of late in the Polish topic space, for example, contentiously disputing on Talk:Poles and Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus that Copernicus was not Polish here and here, even though the authoritative Encyclopedia Britannica clearly and unambiguously acknowledges Copernicus to be Polish [130]. My reading of Radek's comment on Matthead's talk page is that it was a plea that it is possible to collaborate more substantively and meaningfully with Polish editors rather than persist in these petty nationalist claims that mainstream sources do not support nor add value to the encyclopedia. --Martin (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Varsovian

Radek's comment was most probably a plea for Matthead to co-operate. However, calling other editors "quasi-Nazis" is entirely unacceptable, especially when addressed to a German editor. I also feel it is unacceptable to claim that Matthead was somehow 'asking for it' as Marting does in his statement above.Varsovian (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Loosmark

A very shocking provocation by Matthead designed to bait Polish editors [131] Copernicus was about as Polish as Jesus was Italian - or less.  Dr. Loosmark  12:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The user talk comments at issue were probably not technically in violation of the ban, since the ban only applies to articles, article talk pages and process discussions concerning these. They have also been undone. Therefore I don't think enforcement action is required here. But the comments were aggressive and violate the purpose of the topic ban, which is to get Radeksz to disengage from the subject. Radeksz is therefore warned not to pull such stunts again or he may be made subject to more comprehensive and/or longer sanctions.

The commenting editors Martintg and Loosmark are also warned that they may be banned from commenting in Eastern Europe AE threads not concerning themselves if they continue to make statements that are not useful for the single purpose of helping administrators determine whether sanctions are needed against the editor who is the subject of the request. In particular, allegations of misconduct by the reporting editor are not relevant to an AE thread, but should be reported in a separate request if (and only if) they require enforcement action, or else they belong to dispute resolution, for which AE is not a forum. AE is also not a venue in which to pursue or discuss silly nationalist content disputes such as about the nationality of astronomers.  Sandstein  14:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

Grandmaster 14:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

517design (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

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

1. [132]
2. [133]
3. [134]
4. [135]
5. [136]
6. [137]

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

# [138] Warning by Grandmaster (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

revert limitation of 1 rv per week

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Nagorno-Karabakh is a highly sensitive article, and was a subject of a number of arbitration cases. The intro of that article is based on consensus, reached after many months of discussions, mediation, etc. 517design (talk · contribs) shows no intention of working towards consensus, and edit wars to have the article to reflect his vision of the situation. Despite my warning about recent arbitration case on the article's topic, and possible sanctions, he continues to edit war. He reverted the article many times within the last 3 days. According to Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement, Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. In the view of the above, I suggest that 517design is placed on a revert limitation, as despite the warning he continues to edit war and shows no intention of reaching consensus with other involved editors, or following the dispute resolution procedures. Grandmaster 14:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[139]

Once again the lamentable failings of Wikipedia administrators rear their ugly heads. Long ago, rather than properly address the issue, they concocted the disgraceful AA2 sanctions. And how they love those sanctions, it gives them the excuse to swing their tiny little banhammers around like a baby with its toys. The result is that anyone who regularly edits articles related to the sanctions will INEVITABLY find themselves under AA2 sanctions and then be severely limited in their editing. Parallel to this, complete newcomers to the subject (or to Wikipedia) can come and make as many reverts and additions as they like - good or bad, but all sanction free. This is the core reason behind Grandmaster's complaint. It is not that the edits by 517design are disruptive, it is that 517design needs to be put on the same level as all other editors working on AA2 related articles. Meanwhile, the same old problems continue, but at a rate of 1 revert a week rather than 3 a day, and articles are always at risk of drive-by anonymous edits that regular editors can't revert because they would be breaking sanctions. Administrators think that is a good solution. What I think of administrators can't be said here. Meowy 17:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Meowy, here you can download the complete database of all of Wikipedia. If the administration of this site is not to your liking, you are free to set up, run and administer your own site. While you chose to remain here, please limit yourself to on-topic comments about the question in hand at these requests. henrik•talk 18:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was going to wait until 517design had a chance to reply here, but given this comment on the talk page of the affected article, I think I'm just going to go ahead and conclude this report. 517design is hereby placed on civility supervision, supervised editing, and revert limitation pursuant to the remedies of the above-linked arbitration case. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notified and logged. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

WP:ARBAA2

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

1. [140], First revert of controversial material

2. [141], second revert, made within 24 hours of the above, in violation of his ArbCom restriction

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

[142] Warning by Moreschi (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Left to the discretion of administrator (block, along with tighter restrictions perhaps?)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It's probably inconsequential that I say this, but Neftchi's edits are usually characterized by the "hitting and running" of articles. His comment that there has been no talk on the article in question rings hollow when he completely refrains from doing so on any article. I feel that far more tighter restrictions be imposed so that he is encouraged to use the talk page to resolve disputes, rather than clicking on the revert button to undo whatever he dislikes.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[143]

I undid the removal of a large section of sourced material from the article, which was not discussed and agreed at talk, and such removal is pretty much the same thing as vandalism. See here for the removal by MarshallBagramyan. I just restored sourced material that was removed without any discussion or consensus, and invited those who removed it to discuss it at talk first. Admins should not encourage such POV edits as removal of large chunks of text without consensus. Neftchi (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not constitute the "same thing as vandalism" by your simply saying so. The sources that are being used in that section are highly parisan and clearly unreliable. At least two established users (Meowy and myself) have expressed our reservations on the inclusion of that same material on other articles in Wikipedia. You, on the other hand, have yet to offer counter-arguments with perhaps the exception of crying "vandalism". You were explicitly warned by Moreschi to refrain from making drive-by-reverts and no sooner had I removed the contentious material, you reverted me, in clear violation of your 1RR (per 24hr) parole.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This request seems odd amid traditional edit-ninja pattern, practised by several Armenian users. The article history of Azerbaijani culture is one of the examples when a new Armenian editor appears out of the blue to revert another without reply at talk. I don't think this particular request is the best way to settle such disagreements. Brand[t] 08:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The revert restriction was imposed for a reason - precisely to curtail and prevent the edit wars that you so fervently decry.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of material can't properly be addressed. The unique selling point of Wikipedia is its usefulness in the dissemination of lies and propaganda, and those that run Wikipedia seem happy for that to remain the case. A whole publishing and PR industry is being built to use Wikipedia for that purpose. For this particular example, as long as Armenians at state level continue with their total disregard for anything approaching media management (excusing their inactivity by saying that these sort of Azerbiajani lies are such obvious lies that they can be ignored), and as long as all Armenian organisations are interested only in producing their same, tired old "by Armenians for Armenians" responses, this particular chunk of lies and propaganda is going to be difficult to counter. But I'll try. So much that is done on Wikipedia is done for purely personal reasons - like the satisfaction that is gained through kicking other editors where it hurts them the most. Time to put on my heaviest pair of kicking boots. Meowy 16:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's now two unhelpful, aggressive and battleground-like WP:AE statements in one day from Meowy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a user with an unfortunately long topic-related block log. I've had enough. Under the authority of WP:ARBAA2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement Meowy is hereby indefinitely banned from commenting on any arbitration enforcement request (on any page) related to Armenia or Azerbaijan where he is not either the requesting editor or the subject of the request.  Sandstein  19:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reverting without discussion is one of the more destructive things one can do to the collaborative spirit needed to successfully build articles, especially in areas of nationalistic or ethnic strife. All recent editors have shown a lack of collaborative spirit, using terms like "propaganda" "obnoxious" and "lies" in edit summaries of Azerbaijani culture, while the talk page has astoundingly had just one single edit since June, made after this request was posted. I hope all parties will reconsider their own behavior.

However, this is a clear violation of the revert restriction imposed by Moreschi, and Neftchi's statement does not give a convincing rationale why this violation was necessary. Per Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement I have suspended Neftchi's editing privileges for 72 hours. Also, Neftchi is for the duration of the revert restriction required to post a note on the talk page explaining his rationale whenever he reverts any article in the subject area, excepting cases of blatant vandalism. henrik•talk 21:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

O Fenian (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ashill55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

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

1. [144] First revert
2. [145] Second revert in less than 24 hours, thus a violation of 1RR
3. [146] Third Revert.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

# [147] Warning by O Fenian (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Unsure

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Both edits are a revert to a wording the same editor has previously added, ie "Warnings never reached" which is not what the source says

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[148]

The same editor was editing as 88.108.156.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) prior to creating an account. The editor is a single purpose account dedicated to inserting the same unsourced wording that is seemingly contradicted by the reliable source already cited in the article, and edit warring to retain it. I am not interested which methods administrators use to deal with this matter, providing the editor stops edit warring to add unsourced content. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This appears to be a new user, please try explaining the issue to him before coming here. New users are not expected to immediately understand all our policies and procedures. A personalized message is usually more successful than posting templates (especially multiple copies of the same template). henrik•talk 15:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

Athenean (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

WP:ARBMAC#Principles#Decorum

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

Back in December, this user was placed under the following 3 month civility supervision [149] by User:Moreschi for outbursts such as these [150] [151] [152]. Since then, he has continued posting trolling comments such as these [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] (the "Trojan Horse" is a reference to Greek editors), calling me a vandal [171], while here [172] he is making the false accusation that Albania had to be protected because of "vandalism" on my part, when in fact it was *I* who requested semi-protection [173] because the article was plagued by IPs. Here is talking smack [174] [175] [176] [177] in Albanian with the indef-blocked User:Lceliku (translation available on Google Translate).

Particularly odious is his restoration of this TOV by User:Lceliku [178] with the mendacious excuse that the guy "welcomed" me and I "banned" him. When I became irate [179] [180] over this, his response was to mock me [181] [182].

Lately, he is also now falsely accusing me of breaking 3RR [183] [184] when in fact I did no such thing.

Here he is trying to disrupt an SPI I have filed [185] [186] by somehow implying that I'm anti-Albanian and that therefore the checkuser should take this into account.

The final straw, however, was that even though Moreschi explicitly warned him that further accusations of vandalism against me would constitute a breach of his revert parole and hence would be blockable [187], he has continued to do so [188] [189]. There is a clear pattern here of incivility, bad faith assumptions, trolling, and personal attacks since he has been put on civility parole. This is intolerable and has got to stop. I originally posted at ANI but was told by Sandstein to come here. Athenean (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

# [190] Warning by Moreschi (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

1 week block per the terms of his civility parole [191].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Even after I posted at ANI and he should have gotten the hint to back off, now he is continuing with this [192]. I mean, he never misses a chance to make a dig at me even when welcoming a new user . This is unbelievable. Athenean (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[193]

Just to save time I'll copy from what I said on AN/I after seeing this: I have to admit looking at all of the diffs (and digging through contributions for quite a while) that it looks like both of you have been a little hot headed and it may be better served for you guys to just back away from each other. Sulmues may be throwing words like vandal around a bit loosely but I can't deny that it does appear you are following him around a bit as well (just recently accusing him of being a banned user here) and taking barnstars off of his userpage is a bit much. Too much wikilawyering is not good in the longrun.

While as Athenean said he was not under civility warning and Sulmues was I have to admit that looking at everything I'm kind of shocked they both weren't under one. There is no doubt that Sulmues has been a bit hot headed but there the fact that he is under a warning does not give someone the right to fan the flames and try to get a response and then cry foul if you get one. In many ways the new user welcome you just linked does not seem far from the mark. If it is decided that Sulmues needs a short block because of the previous warning I can understand that but to be honest I think what is most needed is a strong warning for both editors to back away from each other and they should both be held accountable when they do not. While Athenean has been quick to claim he is being harassed by Sulmues it strongly appears that it goes both ways and very well may be that Athenean is doing more. I'll repeat what I said when this was only at AN/I why don't you both sit down. James (T|C) 19:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it wasn't me who fanned the flames to get a reaction. This whole started when I undid [194] this series of POV edits by Sulmues using bogus sourcing [195] [196] [197] (he replaced a perfectly good source with one source that doesn't have an ISBN or page number, and another one that is a website, not to mention all the stuff about "protecting their country from greek invadors"). He then went to Moreschi saying that I am "continuously" vandalizing articles, not once, but twice, and even though he was explicitly warned by Moreschi that further accusations of vandalism would result in a block. At that point I had had enough and decided to post on ANI. Granted, the barnstar thing was a bit silly on my part, but I was incensed at that moment. Now that I have calmed down, I see that it was wrong-headed of me. But that's not what this is about, the barnstar thing is tangential. It's about him calling me a vandal and accusing me of being tendentious on Albania-related topics, which I very much resent. First, my edits to articles such as Epirus (region) and Himare (and many others) have greatly improved articles that were a cluttered ungrammatical mess before I edited them. I invite anyone to look at them and tell me. Second, as my contribs log shows, I edit a great variety of articles, not just Albania related ones. In the last few days alone, I edited History of democracy, List of cities by time of continuous habitation, Anatolia, Turks of Western Thrace, Greeks in Turkey, Kabylie, Berber people, Heliocentrism, just to name a few off the top of my head. Sulmues' accusations are mud-slinging designed to inflame the atmosphere, and it seems he has succeeded. If anyone is fanning the flames to get a reaction, it is him, and this is the reaction. Athenean (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What really impressed me in User:Sulmues is when he failed to promote his nationalistic agenda on several articles (Evangelis Zappas, Souliotes, Moscopole etc) due to lack of arguments and sources, he initiated a policy of wp:npas violations and wp:incivility in discussion pages, as a last resort. Having a great desire to battle with this 'national injustice' his userpage became a field of propaganda accusing contributors of beeing paid by enemy governments [198] on the same time he declared that 'the Greek-Serbian mafia blocked a number of ex Albanian contributors' [199] [200] [201]. In general, according to him, wikipedia hides the truth about his country [202].

The most annoying fact is that he awarded User:Lceliku [203], after he posted this unacceptable comment [204].Alexikoua (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover his edit count [205], on talk pages is mainly focused on irredentism views (Albanian_National_Army, Greater_Albania, Moscopole, Souliotes, Pelasgians, John_Kukuzelis-edit warred with Bulgarian contributors.) The same 'battlefields' of some ex- Albanian contibutors (now blocked).Alexikoua (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Sulmues (block log) blocked for 1 week for multiple breaches of decorum in direct contravention of the civility suspension which he was placed under by Moreschi.
• Athenean (talk · contribs) is encouraged to limit interaction with Sulmues as much as possible. I recommend that if civility is breached by Sulmues that you do not respond at all, but instead simply come here and file an enforcement request.

Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to specifically mention it, but Sulmues' block resets his 3-month civility suspension which will now end on April 26, 2010. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notified and logged. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

User requesting enforcement

Tiamut^talk 17:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles, specifically the sections on Editors reminded and Editors Counseled.

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

1. [206] In this edit to Muhammad al-Durrah incident, Jaakobou reverts additions I was in the process of discussing with another editor on the talk page. Besides the summary revert, it was the edit summary I found problematic ("undo POV and muqawama apologetics.") Why?
2. I asked Jaakobou not to use the word so frequently three weeks ago here. In this extended discussion on his talk page, he agreed not to. Following his edit cited above, and given his earlier pledge, I ask him if he is trying to provoke me [207]. I also ask him to self-revert given that he has altered unrelated content. He refuses to do so and accuses me of provoking him [208]. To which I respond [209].
3. [210] Then, in this edit to his talk page, he accuses me of provoking him by "pushing the attacking Jews is legitimate "unrest"[211] angle" (?!?). Both another editor (RomaC [212]) and myself [213] take issue with that characterization and ask him to strike. He does not, instead choosing to slightly modify his comment, justifying his personal attack by further misrepresenting my position and the article content under discussion. [214].
4. [215] On the Muhammad al-Durrah incident talk page, he reuses the exact phrase that prompted me to go to his talk page in the first place, writing, "You've been editing wikipedia for long enough learn what balance is and these muqawama apologetics are inexcusable."
5. [216] He then goes to the article Avigdor Lieberman. Citing a "soft talkpage consensus and merit-less note by Tiamut", he restores a WP:SYNTH addition that was earlier objected to by at least two other editors besides me, threatening to restart an edit war that has since abated. This singular focus on me, when I hadn't commented or edited there since December 31st (and when I wasn't the last to comment either), also comes off as WP:Hounding, which a review of some of the AE requests filed will show is an issue that has been raised previously (under the name "stalking" or "unhealthy obsession").
6. [217] His talk page comment explaning his edit describes Hamas as an "anti-semitic muqawama group".
   
   

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Arbitration Enforcement requests involving Jaakobou (2008-2009):

1. 02.2008: AE complaint filed by Eleland re Jaakobou (No result)
2. 02.2008: AE complaint filed by Jaakobou against Number 57 (No result)
3. 02.2008: AE complaint filed by Jaakobou re Eleland (No result)
4. 02.2008: 2nd AE complant filed by Jaakobou re Eleland (Result: Jaakobou received a final warning about using AE as a weapon for block shopping)
5. 03.2008: El C's complaint regarding Jaakobou mocking of my user page contents (Result: Jaakobou apologizes and no action is taken)
6. 03.2008: Tiamut's first AE complaint re Jaakobou (Result: Jaakobou is banned from all Israel and Palestine related pages for a week for inappropriate talk page behaviour.)
7. 03.2008: Jaakobou's AE request "other editors' activity, specifically Tiamut, Nickhh, Sm8900 and Nishidani, should be given proper examination and possible sanctions should be considered when their activity is placed in comparison with my own." (Result: Discussion closed by Thatcher with "THIS ENDS NOW"]
8. 04.2008: 3rd AE complaint by Jaakobou re Eleland (No result)
9. 04/05.2008: 4th AE complaint by Jaakobou re Eleland (No result)
10. 06.2008: Pedrito's AE complaint re Jaakobou (No result)
11. 11.2008: Tiamut's second complaint at AE re Jaakobou (Result: Jaakobou given a final warning about soapboxing. While there was no clear consensus on the subject, the issue of his stalking me was raised at this time.)
12. 05.2009: SlimVirgin complaint at AE re Jaakobou (No result)
    
    

A couple of other related threads (2009):

1. 10.2009: Wikiquette alert filed by George where uninvolved commentators suggested opening an RfC to deal with racist commentary
2. 12.2009: [218] WP:AN complaint by Jaakobou against SlimVirgin that turned into a discussion of whether or not he should be community banned

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

The problem (this time and almost every time) is inappropriate talk page behaviour and soapboxing accompanied by a WP:BATTLE attitude on Israel-Palestine related article talk pages, directed largely towards editors who edit there whose POV is not his own. (There is a case to made for WP:DE and WP:TE as well.) The solution? Perhaps a lengthy topic ban as these problems only seem to emerge in the Israel-Palestine editing arena. He has done some good work on digital media and in helping new editors by responding to their request for help.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:Ynhockey has found a diff attesting to inappropriate talk page commentary of my own at another page from about 10 days ago. I admit that comment was needlessly belligerent and that the personal anecdote, while interesting, is not relevant to article improvement discussion. I apologize for having degraded the quality of the discussion. Tiamut^talk 18:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Henrik, thank you for the clarification. I wasn't implying that Sandstein had no right to be involved. Only that I would prefer that he didn't handle the case himself. He is of course free to refuse that request. Tiamut^talk 18:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest to anyone reviewing this case that they take the trouble to read through at least some of the AE requests, and the two most recent threads (Wikiquette alert and WP:AN complaint). I realize it is a lot to review, but the background is relevant. Tiamut^talk 18:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Pantherskin, I'm not trying to harass Jaakobou. This is the third time I've filed an AE complaint regarding his behaviour, but the first request was acted upon and the second resulted in a warning, so its not exactly like they were frivolous complaints. Its possible that I'm reading more into Jaakobou's comments than is there because of our lengthy and rather toxic history of interactions. But its also quite possible that my complaint of being hounded by him, for being a Palestinian and not sharing his POV, is a legitimate one. If you look at the AE complaints filed by El C and by me and review the Wikiquette alert, I think you will see that there is evidence for a pattern of harassment characterized by bigoted talk page commentary that is designed to push buttons. I have tried my best to ignore this over the last little while, but its happened too many times for me to just turn the other cheek. Tiamut^talk 19:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question to the admins watching this page: Are the normal rules of engagement suspended at AE? Because in the comments below by editors (four of whom I have had content disagreements with), I see an awful lot of bad faith speculation bordering on personal attacks, with a dash of soapboxing just to spice it up a little. I'm trying to be gracious, but its gotten a little out of hand, no? Tiamut^talk 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Ynhockey, "bigoted talk page commentary" is a fair description, given the conclusions made by uninvolved editors in this Wikiquette alert. Tiamut^talk 14:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein, as to why the use of "muqawama" is a problem, as Gatoclass perceptively points out, to Jaakobou, the term is equivalent to "terrorism". So when he is calling me a "muqawama apologist", he is actually calling me an apologist for terrorism. Much as Okedem, in his comments, suggest I am a Hamas apologist. These are bad faith assumptions as to my motive in editing and amount to personal attacks. Furthermore, when he uses the term three time in two days, after he agreed not to use it three weeks previous, it is, as Gatoclass notes, a form of harassment. Tiamut^talk 14:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Cptnono, I started User:Tiamut/muqawama after discussions with Jaakobou made it clear that it was being misconceived as solely a synonym for terrorism. It actually covers a wide spectrum of resistance actions, as you can read there (its still a work in progress though). As for the res of your comment, I would once again like to remind you to stop using my user page (or identity) as evidence of bad faith on my part, as you have in the past [219].

While Jaakobou claims that my primary contributions to the Avigdor Lieberman article have been to revert him, a quick review of my edits there will show this description is rather incomplete, as I made an effort to forge compromise formulations, and participated heavily on talk to that end. A review of Jaakobou's last 6 article edits there, show that 4 were either wholly or essentially reverts to include the words "which advocates the destruction of Israel", after the words "Hamas". [220] [221] [222] [223] This sentence fragment was first added by Jaakobou on April 9, 2009 [224], with the edit summary "rm death sentence hyperbole and clarify the context of Hamas' agenda with the accusation of treason". Please note that the source cited does not use these words to describe Hamas, and reports without mincing words that Lieberman explicitly called for the execution of Arab MKs who met wih Hamas.

With the alteration of his statement here, Jaakobou also accuses me of using "a euphemism" to describe violence against Jews at the Muhammad al-Durrah incident. This is a misleading statement that assumes bad faith, despite the fact that I explained the reasons for my change of "rioting" to "unrest" in the lead of the article on the talk page. Please further note that the sentence in question is not explicitly discussing violence against Jews, but rather refers to the general climate on the day that Muhammad al-Durrah, a 12-year old boy, was shot and killed.[225] That said, I have no intention of whitewashing anything, and in light of the substance of Jaakobou's edits to the Avigdor Lieberman article, such an accusation seems rather hypocritical. Tiamut^talk 20:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[226]

For starters, I couldn't have hounded Tiamut to Muhammad al-Durrah incident, where I've contributed over 160 edits while she contributed less than 15. The same goes for the Israeli politician (Avigdor Lieberman) page where I've made about 150 edits while her contributions amount to 6; mostly reverts on the Hamas descriptive.[227][228][229]

I have found Tiamut to be disruptive and confrontational on multiple Israel-related articles recently. If it were this anti-Zionist/Israel commentary on the Israel talkpage here, or a pro-Hamas/Hezbollah (antisemitic organizations[230][231][232]) attitude on talkpages[233] and article space (see above) and her userpage.[234][235]

Also, Tiamut is making a very serious misrepresentation here on arbitration enforcement by neglecting to mention vital information.

• "This is the third time I've filed an AE complaint regarding his behaviour, but the first request was acted upon and the second resulted in a warning"[236]

In the second case she filed, there were 5 admins objecting any action, supporting that my conduct was well within proper etiquette and PhilKnight's quick move to ignore them and file a warning to me was just as quickly noted as a faulty assessment of the case by two other admins.[237][238] Similar misrepresentations occur too often whenever Tiamut mentions me which makes for a very uncomfortable feeling.

Tiamut is also erroneous in her understanding of Arabic. 'Muqawama' is a culture of popular sentiments and not "actions" as she states here. Knowing the full breadth of cultural meaning behind the term, I do not use is as a synonym for terrorism. It is an extremely common term and there's nothing to take offense from its usage. My use of the word "apologetics" in reference to an edit I was in strong disagreement with was probably not optimal though. Tiamut inserted an inherently improper euphemism - here 12 - for assaults made on Jews in Israel by Palestinians (Second Intifada) and I was trying to make a clear and precise note of the issue without writing endlessly about it.

This complaint seems to be about a wiki-hounding and harassment claims over two articles Tiamut barely touched and a common Palestinian terminology used in reference to content discussions. The complaint uses a big list of events from as far as 2 years ago, most of which between me and banned editors -- friends of Tiamut. This list neglects samples where Tiamut was warned by 2 uninvolved admins for improper behavior[239] and her being chastised by 2 other high profile contributors (both are admins as well) for poor talkpage conduct.[240][241] Putting these together, I feel some form of breach of the final decision had occurred.

Comment regarding Gatoclass' notes:
Gatoclass interprets bad faith not just with me but also with Cptonio as can be seen here. The keeping of close contacts between Tiamut and Gatoclass can be observed here. Gatoclass, who shares the same POV as Tiamut, made superficial observation into my comments. Defending a friend is a valiant act and I think everyone should have friends like you, Gatoclass, but there is no history of harassment here. Certainly not on articles Tiamut has barely touched and almost exclusively to revert me, at that.

This request lacks a signature and a notification diff and cannot be processed. It is strongly recommended to use the template {{Sanction enforcement request}} for such requests, as instructed in the header. Also, the specific remedy that was violated or under which action is requested should be cited if possible.  Sandstein  17:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I tried to to use template, but the coding would not work for me. I left all the text therein as is (there was no diff of notification field, but I've added it now). Give me a second to point to the exact remedy. In the past, we only had to cite the case and the other AE request that garnered warnings to have a request considered. Tiamut^talk 17:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've added them. And Sandstein, I hope you don't take offense to this, but given that we had a pretty heated run in with one another over Nableezy's case and it wasn't that long ago, I'd appreciate it if someone else handled this request. However, your opinion, should you care to share it, is more than welcome. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 17:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is no "case", as such, to be handled by one person; enforcement actions are individual actions and if I do not respond to this request, another administrator may or vice versa. But if you do not want my assistance with your request, that is certainly your prerogative.  Sandstein  19:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm sorry if I've offended you with my request. Perhaps it was ill-advised. As I said above, your comments would be welcome. I just felt that in case there was any lingering bad feelings about how I handled your response to the request against Nableezy, it might be better if someone else took up this request. Forgive my impetuosity. Tiamut^talk 19:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've looked at the evidence that Tiamut provided and honestly don't know what ought to be done. Much seems to turn around the use of the word "muqawama", apparently translating to "resistance" and possibly having the connotation of "terrorism", but since I don't speak Arabic (or Hebrew) I don't really understand what the problem with the use of that word is. Arbitration enforcement is neither a venue for resolving content disagreements nor is it a substitute for dispute resolution. As to conduct issues, the only thing that's evident is that Tiamut and Jaakobou have a long history of conflict, but I can't tell who (if anybody) bears most of the blame for that. I can't immediately think of an enforcement measure that would be appropriate to the situation. My inclination would be to refer both editors to dispute resolution, but if these conflicts continue, a mutual interaction ban or something similar might be considered.  Sandstein  06:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went to thank Jaakobou for some help on a link I wanted to add and noticed a link here. A look at Tiamut's personal page goes to show that they are organized to provoke anti-Isreali emotions, with links to articles hostile to Israel and some Palestinian apologetics, not based on facts. IMO, Jaakobou is 100% correct reintroducing the text he did and that Tiamut is pushing propaganda by suggesting that attacks on Jews are 'unrest' and then he complains against Jaakobou after the talkpage comments support Jaakobou. That is not an attitude of respect for historical truth and promotion of peace through mutual understanding. Lies will never enable peace. Thomasbraun321 (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Tiamut is trying to turn a content dispute into another attempt to ban Jaakobou, just so that in the next attempt it would be possible to add another diff of "look, he was complained against so many times, so he must be doing something wrong" (note also that some of those complaints were made by banned editors). None of the "offending" diffs Tiamut posted break any policy, and the only traces of soapboxing I can see are actually in discussions between Tiamut and Jaakobou on user talk. By contrast, Tiamut does her share of soapboxing and often displays belligerent behavior on article talk. Here's one recent amusing example. Someone who makes a comment like that doesn't really have room to complain against problematic talk page behavior. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: It appears that now Tiamut is calling Jaakobou a racist bigot, hopefully this makes it clear who has a WP:BATTLE attitude (emphasis mine):

But its also quite possible that my complaint of being hounded by him, for being a Palestinian and not sharing his POV, is a legitimate one. If you look at the AE complaints filed by El C and by me and review the Wikiquette alert, I think you will see that there is evidence for a pattern of harassment characterized by bigoted talk page commentary that is designed to push buttons.

Although, it is possible that I'm reading more into Tiamut's comments than is there because of our lengthy and rather toxic history of interactions.(copied comment) I apologize if my comment transmits a WP:BATTLE attitude of my own, but I felt it was important to show the doublespeak involved here. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've reformatted this request into using the standard format for readability. I will wait for further statements before expressing an opinion.

@Tiamut: As a general matter, having taken previous actions in arbitration enforcement cases does not mean that you are disqualified from taking actions in other cases involving the same editor or group of editors. If errors have been made, they can be addressed in appeals, which will be closed and reviewed by other administrators. henrik•talk 18:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am an uninvolved editor having never edited the article or articles in question. I have reviewed Tiamut’s complaint and I believe that it is baseless, grounded in bad faith and wholly without merit. Rather than being based on a legitimate grievance, Tiamut’s complaint appears to be an insidious attempt to censor content and silence Jaakobou simply because his view does not comport with hers.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that anything can be worked out here. Whether Jakoubou violated the spirit of remedy 4) and 5) is apparently in the eye of the beholder. There is no clear-cut violation, and it seems that his main offence was having a strong point of view. That of course is not forbidden, in fact it can be helpful in ensuring balance and quality in controversial topic areas. What I see though is a pattern of using arbcom enforcement request to harass one's opponents, thus ironically being in violation of the exact principles that are invoked in these requests.--Pantherskin (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen nothing in the diffs that breaks any rules. Jaakobou sometimes uses strong language, but often that cannot be avoided. I find Tiamut's sixth claim particularly amusing (regarding [243]); is Tiamut here to defend Hamas' honor? The people who so often sent suicide bombers into buses and restaurants? This organization's charter cites the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and in article seven, clearly calls for the murder of all Jews ("[...]the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."). Are we supposed to call them "freedom fighters" or something? I think that claim puts Tiamut's complaint in the proper light. okedem (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "muqawama" - I find it particularly troubling that Tiamut is trying to create the impression that the word "muqawama" is derogatory or biased. It is not a term like "terrorist", applied to some groups, which vehemently dispute it ("we're freedom fighters"). It is a word used by the people themselves, in a positive connotation (from their perspective). In fact, to call Hamas a "muqawama group" is even quite redundant - as their article can tell us, Hamas is "an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, meaning "Islamic Resistance Movement"". Al-Manar, Hezbollah's TV station, calls itself "qanat al-muqawama" ("Station of the Resistance"). A couple of very simple examples for context - an Al Jazeera opinion column, praising the Muqawama, and an article explaining Hamas' rage when the Palestinian Authority dropped the word as a core principle. To pretend this word is derogatory is insulting to all of us. okedem (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anything actionable in the differences provided. It appears to be two editors getting on eachothers' nerves. The one concern I see is the use of edit summaries to make comments that come across inflammatory. Jaakobou (along with everyone else) should take care to not use edit summaries to make a point. A quick reminder and some monitoring should suffice.

I can't tell if "muqawama" is a dirty word or not. A quick Google search shows Tiamut's subpage that does not make it look all that bad. He also refrained from using muqawama in regards to Tiamut and was instead applying it to a group that might be (I haven't watched the video so don't know). I see nothing wrong with the other differences. An editor is allowed to make edits even if others are discussing or have discussed it previously. I didn't see any edit warring or blatant (enough to require AE) breaches of content guidelines.

Although turning this around to blame Tiamut might be appealing: this AE is regarding Jaakobou. He is accountable for is own actions. I think Tiamut should take notice of all the editors counter punching though. An editing style that draws so much criticism might mean something.Cptnono (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@FormerIP. I'm not terribly familiar with it. Maybe it is like Zionist where it can be used with a derogatory tone but is not necessarily? I guess it would be helpful if Jaakobou explained its connotation in the last edit difference mentioned. A little more caution/using something else if the term comes up in the future would be good.Cptnono (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Striking out bits after Okedem's explanation. Continuing to call Tiamut an apologist might be a bad idea but using in reference to a potentially related group seems to be just fine.Cptnono (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut has an infobox on her userpage supporting violent resistance and a sandbox creating an article based on the term. "muqawama apologetics" was inappropriate but I can't say I blame him for feeling that way. I think FormerIP is right on. It can come across offensive and it is easy enough to not use it. The same should go for those that use Zionist in a way that may be perceived as derogatory but that strays a little to far off topic for here.

The other diffs still don't jump out at me as being actionable.Cptnono (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Gatoclass: Several people have expressed concerns over the user page recently. It doesn't matter why she has it the way she does it matters that it encourages a battlefield mentality amongst users. That is something for a another AE. I was simply pointing out that Jaakobou has reason to think she is apologetic to the cause (I unintentionally misrepresented him there since it was her edit that he was pointing too). After learning more trough my AE, I understand that it is not OK to make such a charge but I honestly don't see how any objective person can fault him to the extent Tiamut is attempting here.Cptnono (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to apologize for misrepresenting Jaakobou. I am also truly not trying to pin the blame on Tiamut. However, I do believe her actions should be considered in the conflict especially if a sanction is imposed on Jaakobou. I think both editors should steer clear of strong words just to be extra careful.Cptnono (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to me that "muqawama" is meant here as a derogatory epithet and it is reasonable for Tiamut to object.

Regarding Cptnono's comment based on looking at her subpage - yes, but it is not entirely clear what the subpage is for. The term appears to me to have a literal Arabic meaning "resistance" and a different meaning as an adopted term in English, which is more akin to "terrorist", perhaps with additional connotations of ignorance and dogma thrown in (happy to be reliably corrected on this).

Whilst Jaakobou has repeated the epithet, it is not entirely clear (AFAICT) that he has subsequently directed it at Tiamut in particular. However, given Tiamut's objection, I can't see why repeated use of the term is helpful. Perhaps the issue could be resolved by Jaakobou agreeing to use English where English will do. --FormerIP (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@okedem and cptnono. Yes, clearly the word itself is widely used in the context of Palestinian politics. However, it also seems to be used in English to describe a certain type of mindset [244]. I may be wrong, but it doesn't seem widely used to denote a factional tendancy or similar except when it is used in English, in which sense it seems to be used mainly in sources that can broadly be described as "anti-Palestinian". So, it looks to me similar to "Jihadi" or "Zionist" (as suggested above) - capable of being applied neutrally, but also capable of being derisory. --FormerIP (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaakobou has a history of harassment with Tiamut, most notably with his parroting of an image Tiamut left on her talkpage that almost got him sitebanned. Tiamut apparently feels Jaakobou is using the word "muqawama" as a euphemism for "terrorism", and Jaakobou's own comments regarding the term indicate that is the case. Accusing Tiamut of "muqawama apologetics" is thereby equivalent to accusing her of "terrorist apologetics" which is a clear breach of WP:CIVIL. I think Jaakobou needs to stick to his commitment not to use this term, which is not at all necessary since there are plenty of English alternatives that do not carry such offensive overtones. Continuing to do so after repeatedly being asked not to is going to look very much like another case of harassment in my opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono, the userbox on Tiamut's page to which you refer was placed on a number of userpages a long time ago, as a means of expressing solidarity with a user who was told to remove a more explicitly political userbox. It's been there a long time, on a number of userpages, with no-one complaining about it, and your bringing it up in relation to this case can only serve to deflect attention from the issue at hand. Gatoclass (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one other thing. Jiujitsuguy, please don't describe yourself as an "uninvolved editor" when your editing history demonstrates otherwise. As you ought to know by now, "uninvolved" on this project does not mean "I haven't edited this particular article in the topic area yet." Gatoclass (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

First of all: This is not a discussion of Tiamut's behavior. If an editor other than Jaakobou has breached provisions of an arbitration case, open a separate enforcement case. Otherwise take it to a dispute resolution forum.

After having read this, I'm inclined to close this as not actionable. While Jaakobou's remarks did not reach the collegial nature I would expect of wikipedia editors, the cited remarks don't reach the severity where blocks or sanctions are merited. I would strongly urge Jaakobou to not use the term muqawama, and instead choose to use English terms, with more plain meanings. Likewise avoid discussing the outside motivations of editors and organizations.

For what it is worth, I read the AN debate here as having a rough consensus for a three month topic ban, but it appears to never have been enacted. I would, again, urge Jaakobou to reconsider his editing approach, and preferably try to be a model of civility and collegiality, even and especially with editors with background and views from the other side of the I-P conflict. While individual cases and posts may sometimes not be individually actionable, a large number of cases of borderline conduct can over time amount to grounds for sanctions.

I will await any comments from colleagues. If none are forthcoming, I intend to close this as no action in a reasonable timespan. henrik•talk 15:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having followed this since it was opened, I am inclined to agree with your assessment, henrik, and second your recommendation for closing with no action. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well and endorse the above recommendations.  Sandstein  17:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]