Misplaced Pages

• Administrators
  • Main
  • Incidents
• Bots
• Bureaucrats
• Centralized discussion
• Closure requests
• Education
• Interface admins
• Main Page errors
• Open proxies
• VRT
• Oversight
• User permissions

• Biographies of living persons
• Copyrights
  • Questions on media
  • Problems
• Dispute resolution
• External links
• Fringe theories
• Neutral point of view
• Original research
• Pending changes
• Reliable sources
• Resource requests
• Scalable vector graphics
• Spam
  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist
• Style
• Titleblacklist
• Translation

• History merges
• Mergers
• Splits
• Moves
• Protection
• Importation
• XfD
  • Articles
  • Redirects
  • Categories
  • Templates
  • Files
  • Miscellany
• Undeletion

• Conflict of interest
• Contributor copyright
• Edit warring and 3RR
• Sanctions
  • Personal restrictions
  • General sanctions
  • Contentious topics
• Sockpuppets
• Usernames (Requests for comment)
• Vandalism

• Arbitration
  • Committee noticeboard
  • Requests
  • Enforcement
• Edit filters
  • Requested
  • False positives
• Questions
  • Help desk
  • Teahouse
  • Reference desk
  • New articles
• Requests for comment
• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous
• WikiProject proposals
• Discussions for discussion

• WP:AE
• WP:ARE

Please use this page only to:

• request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
• request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
• request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
• appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Request concerning PCPP

User requesting enforcement

Asdfg12345 21:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Falun Gong discretionary sanctions

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

(See below.)

I apologise for the length. Well done to the people who read this, examine the dispute, and make judgement. I give a sampling of diffs below. There are many more compiled here, on the RfC I opened against this user. I recommend whoever judges this to look into the background there and read the remarks. That background is pretty crucial to understanding the evidence here.

We are talking about what are often quite complicated discussions and disputes. There are any number of ways to present what the dozens and hundreds of sources say about any given topic. And particularly on a topic like this, which has proven to be quite controversial on Misplaced Pages, there are multiple possible presentations. The key thing is, however, that PCPP has no interest in any other presentation than his own. And he asserts it emphatically, and does not shy away from engaging in revert wars against multiple editors to advance his view. Except for perhaps the recent case and a few other egregious edits, most of the time it is hard to put your finger on precisely why what PCPP is doing or saying is a clear violation of the rules: everyone is allowed to remove inappropriate content, or question sources, or rephrase things, or reduce things. But when he does it constantly, including revert wars, all centering around removing negative information about the Chinese Communist Party, it becomes a troubling pattern. And it is infuriating for editors who want to do serious research on the pages.

Thus, PCPP is guilty of violating the central tenets of Misplaced Pages: he is a biased, tendentious editor who edit wars to remove or reduce information he perceives as negative about the Chinese Communist Party, and does not engage in meaningful discussion or research. Most of the diffs below fit into this rubric.

Recent dispute: Explanation: In these edits PCPP goes against an emerging consensus to simply blank information that accords with RS and is relevant to the topic in question. Why? Only he knows.

Tiananmen square self-immolation page:

• -- blank content under discussion. Typical expanation "disputed." Never mind who is disputing what.
• -- this is a typical edit: vast changes, pushed through unilaterally, all meant to promote one point of view. See the corresponding discussion on the talk page and it quickly becomes obvious how much effort other editors (including myself) put into explaining themselves, and how PCPP simply ignores it.
• -- Another, along the same lines. Many of the reverts he did during this time were similar: they involved sweeping reversions of content that had been much discussed and debated by multiple editors on the talk page. And then he put up an RfC and proceeded to revert back to his version, claiming that the outcome of the RfC had to be resolved (in some cases, yes, you can see how this would make sense, but it was very hard not to view this as anything but a ploy)
• -- another example, followed by more along the same lines: . That was reverted by another editor:

Persecution of Falun Gong page:

• -- mass blank. Reason? Because I did not discuss the edit previously.

Falun Gong page:

• -- rv, no discussion, no edit summary (this particular edit had been discussed extensively, but was supported by multiple editors and had multiple sources--the problem is not with there being a dispute, but with PCPP's means of "resolving" it)
• -- this is a good example. That line needed a source, but it was missing one I guess because it is just such a basic and common accepted fact. In any case, he did not delete it because it had no source, but because of what it said. When looking at the corresponding discussion, PCPP is often not to be found.

Organ harvesting page: -- each of these would be potentially OK, the point is that he did not really discuss properly and always much tendentious edits meant to change what sources say when it comes to something about the CCP. In the edit about the Amnesty info, when you check the ref 56 on that page, it is a different thing Amnesty says--so there was not a duplication, as he claimed. Each of these edits, isolated, would be potentially fine. The point is that they are strokes in a large picture.

The point is this: the views that PCPP holds, and even his editing with them in mind, is not in and of itself something he can be prosecuted for. Theoretically, if he states his point clearly, bases it on fact and good research, and argues it elegantly, he could get away with much. The trouble is that he is aggressive and uncommunicative, he ignores long and careful discussion in favour of the quick revert. He has contributed little to the pages except frustrating the efforts of those who want to do good work.

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

1. previous AE report 2010-03
2. notification of sanctions by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. I made a series of notes to him asking him to stop:  ; he began deleting them:

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

Indefinite topic ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

(Moved to #Comment by filing editor concerning PCPP.)

I suggest the indef topic ban because this has already dragged on for so long, ever since PCPP began editing Misplaced Pages. If you look through the RfC you will note this clearly. If he is allowed off the hook this time I assume he will simply become more sophisticated and waste a lot more of other editors' time in the long run (unless they give up editing Falun Gong pages first, which is a possibility). It is clear that he is not here in good faith. Others have already come to that conclusion. He turns every discussion into a battle, immediately polarising the debate, making the editing environment simply an opposition, a battle. He is not here to work intelligently, but to fight for his point of view, and he does not stint from edit warring to promote it. If more evidence is needed to substantiate these claims, please advise me.

• A final note, regarding my own conduct: I reverted PCPP twice in the recent dispute. I slightly regret the second time. It was not necessary. Three editors had expressed support for the information, it was reliably sourced, and it fit with the requirements of the page. So often one feels helpless in the face of PCPP's senseless explanations for his edits that the "revert" button becomes the one concrete assertion of truth over nonsense. But it is not the best, and should be used with more judiciousness than I used it today. --Asdfg12345 23:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Comment by filing editor concerning PCPP

For a long time now PCPP (talk · contribs) has been engaging in disruptive editing activity on Falun Gong related articles and any articles that include content related to Falun Gong. He does it with other articles related to the Chinese Communist Party, but Falun Gong appears to be his forte. As for evidence, his edit history is probably the best possible example: most Falun Gong-related edits are disruptive, very few of them are about adding new information, and nearly every single one of them is about degrading or simply deleting information that is unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party. I suggest simply looking at his history.

But the specific "incident" I want to highlight here happened on the List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll. See the history and discussion. The point is this: he is opposed by three editors who find it legitimate to include information about the persecution/genocide against Falun Gong in the article about alleged genocides. A judge ordered an arrest warrant against Jiang Zemin and Luo Gan, leaders of the persecution, and called it a genocide. That is in this article. There was other media, too.

PCPP has already done three reverts on this page within a few hours.

He has been doing this for a long, long time. Please check his edit history on this topic. His primary method is to be aggressive and edit war. When he does discuss things it is never substantial. He throws out a few sentences, sometimes irrelevant, and continues in the same vain. Meanwhile other editors (including myself) present long explanations for their thinking and changes. He ignores it all and just deletes the stuff he doesn't like. Editing the pages becomes extremely tiring.

Here is a long list of his biased editing that I made a long time ago. Since then he has done much of the same. He came within a hair's breadth of being banned a couple of years ago, and has only gotten worse since then. It is my neglect that has allowed this to simmer for so long. I think it is extremely clear that this editor should no longer be involved in anything related to Falun Gong, and I believe the other editors, when they hear of this motion, will be greatly relieved that something is finally happening. I know of at least three other editors who take an interest in the Falun Gong articles that, from what I can tell, are fed up with PCPP's disruptive behaviour.

Falun Gong is one of the articles on probation. PCPP is a longtime disruptive editor who has now just done three reverts against the consensus (two explicit, one implicit) of three other editors for including reliably sourced information. He should simply be banned indefinitely from the pages, and I don't think anyone who edits the articles will disagree.

Background

• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive57#PCPP

Comments by other editors

(I take the liberty to simply collect these from different places and present them here, but I hope others take a look and weigh in directly.)

• PCPP, your edits to this page recently are uniquely disruptive. I cannot but wonder what your intention is; if you desire to see the page contain a level and honest description of events and views, I must inform you that your participation so far is not conducive to this end. Instead, the level of aggression and persistent POV-pushing that you display derails any substantive conservation and leads other editors to turn on you. Prior to your arrival here, we were in the midst of a substantive discussion on how to improve the article, and were in the process of reaching agreements on some changes. You then proceeded to revert these changes without discussion. They were restored and explained, but before the discussion could continue, you then reverted wholesale again. This time you offered minimal discussion in which you made several specious arguments that you failed to substantiate or defend... I similarly do not appreciate that you cannot be taken at your word; I realize now that it is necessary to check your edit summaries against your various difs. You also misrepresent the rationale cited by other editors for their changes. Now, I can assume good faith and believe that these are innocent mistakes, and part of me is inclined to do this. But I am beginning to suspect that there is a certain amount of deliberate disruption and deception here. You may consider taking a step back from these articles and going for a nice long walk. Homunculus (duihua) 16:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• I just saw this after the shock I got in the recent kerfuffle. Completely agree. I actually wish he would just go away. All PCPP does is POV-push, and he's done it for years (looking at the RfC someone compiled a while ago). I will actually stop editing that page if it keeps it up, so you can't say his tactics don't work. —Zujine, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• A final note, just to make sure this is not forgotten: I appreciate Silk's positive view of things, but I was monitoring the page before I began editing and commenting, so I saw how it unfolded: PCPP has been absolutely disruptive all the way along. You'll notice the amount of ink other editors have spilled tripping over themselves trying to explain their highly reasonable edits, and the throwaway remarks PCPP makes in response, along with either constant reverts, or what cumulatively amount to reverts. I have been frustrated by this editor, and I can only imagine others have. I know we're not supposed to name names, etc., but this must be pointed out because I don't want a repeat of it. All the changes that he/she resisted have actually been made, they are entirely reasonable, the only difference is that X amount more time was wasted because of his/her stubborn resistance. I won't say more on it for now, but if the problem flares up again I will even more unimpressed. —Zujine, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I urge someone to look into the matter and make the appropriate judgement. I will alert PCPP now. --Asdfg12345 20:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have copied the above from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing on topic on probation. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(Administrative note) I've moved the above content to its own section due to your statement's length. Having all that squashed in at the top alongside the request information wasn't pretty at all. Hope that's okay with you, Asdfg and 2/0. AGK 21:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion concerning PCPP

Statement by PCPP

Sigh, I consider this a bad faith attempt by Asdfg to rid of me. He was previously given a 6 month topic ban on the Falun Gong articles by AR on the evidence of numerous editors, in which Sandstein found him to be 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" and is "more committed to promoting Falun Gong than to our encyclopedic mission, which makes his contributions detrimental to that mission." Clearly, his editing patterns still reflect that.

The edit war on the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll article was again instigated by his problematic editing. The ordeal of Falun Gong in China is a contested topic, and Asdfg inserted controversial material classifying the repression of FLG as "genocide", a term not agreed by any serious sources on the topic such as scholar David Ownby, and human rights organizations such as Amnesty International. The source he used comes from a local court decision in Argentina and Falun Gong's own website, which fails RS. I noted these on the talk page, but Asdfg joined in by issuing personal attacks against me during a talk page discussion with another editor . He referred to me as a "disruptive troll that does not care about the encyclopedia or any objective standard of research" and that I'm "here to push CCP propaganda and that's it."--PCPP (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning PCPP

Personally I find all this very unsavory. But I am involved, so I should probably speak up.

In my various interactions with PCPP, I have tried to hold my tongue and avoid accusations of bad faith. This is not because I have the slightest regard for this individual, though, or for his intentions. I have encountered this editor on several articles related to either Communist Party history or Falun Gong, and have found him to be exclusively concerned with massaging the image of the Communist Party and maligning Falun Gong, in spite of any facts that may stand in the way.

I cannot recall one instance in which he contributed in a productive way, let alone an objective way, to these articles. He mainly deletes content, and when challenged, he is typically unable to offer a reasonable defense for doing so. He does make numerous weak attempts to justify his edits, consuming much time; his recent reverts on List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll is a good example of how he’ll delete with one excuse, and when it is shot down, he will simply embrace another justification for deletion, and another, and another... By the end, he is arguing that Falun Gong should not be on a list of genocides because the National Endowment for Democracy is an American propaganda agency, or because David Ownby has not said it is a genocide (even though Ownby states that he is not an expert on the human rights issues related to Falun Gong, but instead on the religious and historical context surrounding it). It's exhausting.

As inhumane as it may be, my problem is not with this editor’s ideological bias per se. Nor do I care that he has recently taken to accusing me of bad faith. My problem is with the means he uses to advance his point of view, which include blanket and repeated reversions without discussion, editing against consensus, leveling personal attacks against editors who disagree with his aggressive behavior, misrepresenting sources, cloaking controversial edits under innocuous edit summaries, and deleting anything that does not comport with his view of the world.

I can imagine that cognitive dissonance is a difficult thing to live with. It’s hard to accept that Mao Zedong is not a saint, and that innocent people are victimized by the Communist Party. But I would recommend that the best way to cope is to try accepting facts, rather than deleting them from wikipedia in a vain and annoying attempt to shape the world to accord with one’s personal beliefs.

Asdfg was concerned that in filing this request for arbitration, PCPP would attempt to distract from his own behavior by drawing attention to Asdfg’s history. I was prepared to file this request in his stead, because I do not want the conversation to be derailed. I have wasted enough time unpacking the specious arguments that PCPP offers to support his indefensible position on these topics. Homunculus (duihua) 22:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Timeline and analysis by Asdfg

There is some important information that I would like to bring to the discussion. I hope it can be evaluated in an impartial light. Consensus and discussion are fundamental to Misplaced Pages: even if the editors in a discussion were discovered to be wrong on a fact, or a source, or a statistic, in a post-hoc analysis, does not mean that the discussion at the time was not important or should not have been participated in. Such errors could have been corrected through the process of consensus and discussion, rather than revert warring. But in this case I think any errors have been magnified and can be easily fixed.

Firstly, it is important to note that the talk page discussion was ongoing, and that there appeared to be a consensus between three editors that the content should be there. The talk page discussion was not belated. Secondly, it was said that I made personal attacks: (go away, troll), and also that I added content that was not a reliable source because I cited Clearwisdom and a blog (by Ethan Gutmann, an expert on the matter).

On the first, I am wrong. The best I can point out is that PCPP does the same, and that the atmosphere he has created is already poisoned. But that is no excuse. I assume that I do not have to pretend he is editing in good faith, but should refrain from statements like troll, etc. I will seek clarification separately on what is permitted, but I have had worse things said of me (see my userpage, with no consequences—and nor should there have been consequences.) Is it the case that editors should not be allowed to share their views about the character of another editor?

On the second, PCPP cited the quality of these sources (in no great depth) to delete the entire row, rather than offer a solution about the sources. We sought discussion on the talk page and were reaching a consensus, but he reverted repeatedly. I added in information that may not have had a reliable source, and we may not have come up with one: but that does not justify repeatedly deleting an entire row of content. Please note that "personal attacks" seem now part and parcel of editing these pages with PCPP.

Regarding Homunculus saying that Chinese officials had been found “guilty” rather than “indicted”: that’s clearly a technical mistake and a good faith edit. If that had been discussed, those words simply could have been changed rather than the whole line deleted. It seems to cheapen the discussion to pick him up on what was clearly a good faith mistake that can be corrected by the change of a word.

But ultimately, please simply note this timeline of events. I think this best demonstrates what happened.

1. I add Falun Gong to list of genocides and alleged genocides
2. PCPP removes the entire row of information with a terse explanation asking for reliable sources
3. Homunculus puts it back with “Reuters as a reliable source, both for low estimate of death toll and for reference to genocide.” (Reuters piece cites, but does not itself endorse, the low-end death toll estimate).
4. PCPP reverts wholesale again, removing all information. He leaves another terse edit summary saying “Reuters simply quoted FLG Info Center,” and thus is not a RS
5. Homunculus leaves a note on PCPP’s talk page to discuss why he removed the information twice, and suggesting that if he takes issue with the quality of one reference, the solution is not to delete an entire row of content. Threatens to revert back again.
6. Homunculus reneges on threat to revert, and instead notified PCPP that he will attempt to find solutions through a discussion on the talk page
7. Homunculus starts talk page discussion, seeking feedback on the questions of whether Falun Gong should be included in list at all, and if so, how to solve the RS issue.
8. PCPP says to Homunculus on his talk page: “Oh great, appearing merely 4 hours after my edits and begin reverting, you're obviously up to something...The material is added simply to prove a POINT.” He then goes on to expand on his comments, saying to Homunculus: “I don't know whether you're here to edit an encyclopedia or help spread FLG propaganda.”
9. Homunculus seeks input from {user|SilkTork}, who has been a mostly neutral and careful administrator, to weigh in and attempt to quickly arrive at a solution before matters escalate.
10. SilkTork writes on the talk page: "Use one of these sources, and if anyone reverts you again, let me know and I'll talk to them.”
11. 14:37 Seeing that there is a consensus that Falun Gong should be included in the list of alleged genocides (i.e., Homunculus, SilkTork--PCPP had said nothing on the talk page and had only attacked Homunculus so far.) Asdfg12345 reverts PCPP for the first time (the notorious ‘go away’ remark. DOH.)
12. 14:42 PCPP reverts, again removing entire row of content on Falun Gong against consensus.
13. 15:05 Asdfg reverts again, with some handwringing.

The rest is history, the talk page discussion can be seen here: -- clearly it was not belated, at least on the part of other editors. But one could say it was belated on the part of PCPP, because only after he had reverted three times did he begin trying to talk in a normal manner about the inclusion of the material.

The question of reliable sources was discussed on the talk page. The best solution the editors who were actually talking about it suggested was to simply cite Falun Dafa Information Center, or something. We didn’t come up with something better for the moment. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. That’s not wrong. But where there are problems, or imperfect sources, I would hope that interested editors can discuss and work together in a good-faith manner to arrive at solution. Deleting all content when one source or one word is off creates a needlessly hostile editing environment.

The complaint about Gutmann as a source is also a separate matter: it doesn’t seem to make sense for an outside admin in a post-hoc analysis to determine that a source is not reliable and then read that decision into the proceedings. Gutmann as not reliable was not properly thrashed out on the talk page. It is, at the very least, something that can be discussed. But in the end he is an established expert who has conducted years of research on the topic and has been invited to Congressional panels to share his research. The information I cited was the transcript of a testimony he had given, as an expert, on the topic. It was republished on his blog. PCPP gave no substantive reason for disputing the Gutmann as a reliable source; he charged only that Gutmann’s relationship with the National Endowment for Democracy disqualified him. I hope the above helps to put things into perspective.--Asdfg12345 15:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Analysis by Sandstein

I'll be taking a look at this if I have time over the next few days. This space is for my notes about the contested conduct.

• List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): The conflict between PCPP and Asdfg12345 concerns content added by Asdfg12345 that lists the persecution of Falun Gong among "genocides and alleged genocides". PCPP reverted this addition thrice, arguing that the sources were not reliable (and once without rationale), and Asdfg12345 reverted that removal twice. There has been belated talk page discussion. My opinion is that both editors are at fault, but that the conduct of Asdfg12345 is more problematic:

• PCPP made the three reverts cited in the evidence with a very terse (or no) rationale, and without engaging in talk page discussion, thereby edit-warring.
• Asdfg12345 made personal attacks against PCPP at and at (edit summary: "Go away."). Also, he added (and reverted to add) content that does not comply with WP:RS, because the sources he cites to support the estimated death toll, http://clearwisdom.net and http://eastofethan.com, are self-published and appear to have an agenda in the conflicts surrounding Falun Gong and/or the Chinese Communist Party, which makes them patently unsuitable as sources in this context.  Sandstein  08:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Broadly agree with the above. I'll add that I find this edit by Homunculus (talk · contribs) to be a violation of our biography of living people policy, inasmuch it states that certain Chinese officials are "found guilty" of certain crimes when the sources, even if reliable, state merely that they were indicted/ordered to be arrested. Accordingly, in accordance with WP:BLPSE, I'm removing that sentence from the article and I'm further formally warning Homunculus on the relevant discretionary sanctions. T. Canens (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• I concur.  Sandstein  17:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): A featured article, generally stable from April 2010 to January 2011, describing a locus of conflict between the Falun Gong movement and the Chinese government. As far as I can tell, the conflict at issue here is mostly about the prominence that should be given to the claim that the incident was staged by the Chinese government – a claim that was mentioned only briefly thrice in the previous and in the featured version. The outline of the conflict is:

• On Jan 23, Asdfg12345 edited the lead and the article body so as to give much more prominence to the claim that the incident was staged and to describe the persecution of Falun Gong resulting from the incident as much more intense.
• On Jan 25, PCPP edited the article to revert most but not all of Asdfg12345's changes.
• This was reverted within the hour by Asdfg12345.
• PCPP re-reverted on Jan 26 and was in turn reverted by Homunculus.
• PCPP made further edits substantially reverting the article back to his preferred version, only to be reverted again by Asdfg12345, who was in turn reverted back by PCPP on Jan 27.
• Then PCPP was reverted by Zujine (talk · contribs), whom PCPP reverted back.
• Complicated editing, including at least partial reverts, ensued between PCPP, Homunculus and Zujine, until Asdfg12345 made another edit that is clearly identifiable as a revert on Jan 28, which PCPP followed up with a minor revert on Jan 29.

• But for an unopposed change by Homunculus, the article has been stable since and retains much of the content added by Asdfg12345 on Jan 23. There was talk page discussion throughout the dispute.

Again, I think both editors under discussion here are at fault:

• PCPP engaged in intensive edit-warring, making at least five major reverts of Asdfg12345's changes within a few days, even though it appears that his position was not supported by any other editors.
• Asdfg12345 made at least three major reverts of PCPP's removals.
  His editing is also otherwise problematic. I am particularly astonished by the edit summary of his first revert, "restoring to consensus version before PCPP's unilateral revert action", which misrepresents the situation: it had been Asdfg12345 who had made extensive undiscussed changes to a stable featured article, so if there ever was a "consensus version", it was the one PCPP reverted back to.
  I am also concerned that Asdfg12345's extensive changes may violate the WP:UNDUE part of the WP:NPOV policy by giving excessive prominence to the (apparently minority) opinion that the incident was staged. I do not say this because I know anything about this opinion, the incident or indeed Falun Gong itself (I don't), but because I note that this opinion was mentioned only briefly in both the featured and the previously stable version. It is therefore reasonable to presume that a massive change in the perceived prominence of this opinion substantially upsets the balance of the article and would need extensive consensus-building before being made (or, per WP:BRD, before being re-added after the first revert).  Sandstein  17:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Persecution of Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): The diff submitted as evidence is of Dec 2010 and thus rather stale. But I note with surprise the following exchange on 18 Feb 2011:

• PCPP: , edit summary: "Restored POV intro"
• Asdfg12345: , edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by PCPP (talk); Bad PCPP! Bad PCPP!. (TW)"

These edit summaries are very odd, and the one by Asdfg12345 is strongly incivil, because he addresses PCPP as though he were scolding a dog.  Sandstein  17:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): The diffs submitted as evidence are of November and April 2010 and therefore stale. There seems to have been no recent conflict between Asdfg12345 and PCPP with respect to this article.  Sandstein  17:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by BorisG

From a brief look at the diffs provided, there appears to be a pattern of tendentious editing by PPCP (talk · contribs). Like in so many ideological and ethnic disputes, no party is without fault. However, to me, it seems that PPSP is less willing to seek and respect consensus and compromise than Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) or Homunculus (talk · contribs).

1. At the request of Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) I have read the entire talk page Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident. I think this is a lot more effective than reading individual diffs. I have come to a radically different conclusion to that of Sandstein. I think Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) is an editor who has his POV (who doesn't?) but who is constantly willing to seek compromise. He has indeed engaged in some incivil behaviour, but I reject the view that he is unable to edit constructively and seek consensus. I did not find any sustained pattern of disruption on the part of Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) that would remotely warrant a long-term sanction. I urge admins to reconsider.
2. One other point. I do not agree with the logic that since Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) has changed the relative weight of one POV as compared to a stable version as evidence that he has given it an undue weight. There are many articles on Misplaced Pages that are stable and yet extremely biased. For example, the article on Lenin reads, for the most part, as communist propaganda. For example, the only accounts about Lenin's personal life are those of his closest associate Trotsky and his wife! If someone came to that article and tried to make it more balanced, would you classify it as giving negative comments undue weight? Furthermore, official and government controlled Chinese sources should be treated with extreme caution. - BorisG (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

On your second point, there's a strong presumption that a featured article, at the time it was featured, complies with our basic policies such as NPOV. T. Canens (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Enric Naval

Wow, not a bad solution. Asdfg has been needing a perma-ban from Falun Gong for a long time, and PCPP might finally learn to be less aggressive. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by The Resident Anthropologist (talk)

Having observed both individuals in action neither is a benefit to the topic area. A Sandstien has observed PCPP is overly aggressive in editing style as to include a negative portrayal of FLG. Asdfg12345 has the same issue but with the opposite POV. I think the 6 months for PPCP is acceptable but a year would be my recommendation with an opportunity for appeal at 6 months. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the Evidence SandStien provided more closely the more I am convinced that PCPP need a perma-topic ban. The basic violations of WP:EW which are recurring issue. The Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident Edit War Sandstein brought up showed that it is not just Asdfg12345 vs PCPP issue but rather PCPP's POV versus NPOV. The Restore POV Intro is the most disturbing since I can see no reason to suggest it was sarcasm or other such attempt at humor. I think a full indef Topic ban may be appropriate with a chance to appeal after one year. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I must concur with others that the long term topic banning would not be Terribly helpful in this case. I agree with Zujine on Asdfg12345, my experiences have been rather limited with both but I think Zujines observations are in accordance with my own on Asdfg12345. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, makes a good point about below "I have also seen and experienced enough concert parties, aggression and lawyering at FLG articles to drive me away from editing that topic for good." This is our enemy here those who show "aggression and lawyering at FLG articles" tend to drive others away the topic. Behavior that causes people to be driven away from "editing that topic for good." are what we are dealing with here. Looking over old talk page discussions this seems to be the the issue. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Its also worth noting that Asdfg12345 claims to have retired likely to avoid sanctions. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I retired because of what I perceived to be the unfair way the adjudication was carried out. In my view important evidence was ignored and other evidence used selectively and magnified to the point of creating a false picture of my engagement with the articles in question. Simply examining, for example, the history on the 'List of anthropenic disasters' page shows that I was putting back reliably sourced, consensus material. If you look at the talk history of the Tiananmen page, too, you see that I was participating in discussion and hashing things out in a productive manner. But if you are biased then what you see is: tag-teaming (with some other guy that has no dog in the fight whatsoever?) and POV-pushing, and in the latter case: vigorously subverting NPOV for a political cause. Either way, both views require blocking out large amounts of evidence, to the extent of ignoring thousands of words of talk page discussion. The analysis of BorisG, and the even more concise statement of Biophys, are what it comes down to. That's why I felt the adjudication was, in my view, wrong and simply unfair. That's why I put the retired tag there. I regretted it, actually, because I thought it would more likely result in a harsh sanction. I appreciate everyone taking the time. As volunteers taking part in the maintenance of a virtual community, my overall assessment is very positive. Banned or not, I intend to take a break, so I will leave the tag a while. I've seen people do this before. --Asdfg12345 16:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Maunus (talk)

I agree with Enric Naval and Resident Anthropologist. Asdfg does not have sufficiently clean hands in this topic area to be granted enforcement against others with no blame coming on to him/herself. It does seem that PCPP is also in need of a topic ban. In short I recommend a round of topic ban's for everyone involved. (I briefly attempted to mediate Falun Gong related articles ca. 2 years ago - I left because of the enormous amount of civil pov-pushing from the pro-Falun Gong side then (among them asdfg)- most anti-Falun Gong editors were banned in that period)·Maunus·ƛ· 21:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Ohconfucius

Falun Gong articles have been a hot and disputed area, polarised by the omnipresence of Falun Gong activists (mainly) and their opponents editing this series of articles in a more or less SPA-fashion.

Following the Arbcom case, after Samuel Luo and Tomananga got themselves indeffed for socking, the FLG SPAs have been in ascendancy. I and a number of others got involved for several months, but the path is strewn with carcasses. Today, all that is left to buttress the relentless advocacy of the FLG cabal is PCPP. I advised him not long ago to abandon the FLG articles, and he appears to not to have taken up my advice. The reason I suspect he remains there is not that he enjoys the conflict, but that he feels deeply that there ought to be some counterbalance to the FLG cabal. I was able to collaborate sufficiently with asdfg to help build 'Self-immolation', but it only truly achieved FA status through the efforts of respected editors SilkTork (talk · contribs) and Jayen466 (talk · contribs), who helped put the WP:NPOV issues into sharp focus. A quick glance of the article in its current state – as has already been observed by Sandstein – indicates that the strong pro-FLG bias has once again been restored. That alone says enough.

PCPP is not at all easy to work with, and the FLG editors a little less so – but there are more of them. Their very strong and persistent advocacy of their cause amounts almost to conflict of interest editing. PCPP is over-reliant on the revert button, whilst the FLG cabal relies much more on saliva and lawyering. In addition, since his topic ban, asdfg is visibly much more bitter at the way WP works vis a vis the FLG viewpoint.

Just looking at the edit history to 'List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll', it seems that there may have been tag teaming against PCPP's revert button. This is a case of six-of-one and half-a-dozen-of-another. They need a big dose of something stronger than a trout. --Ohconfucius 10:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I know relatively little on the subject, but let's just quickly look at the 'List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll', as you suggest . PCPP repeatedly removes relevant text sourced to Reuters: . Asdfg12345 restores it. Then Homunculus places other relevant information sourced to Reuters . This looks like a single user (PCPP) fighting against WP:Consensus by removing relevant and reliably sourced information. He is definitely at fault here (agree with BorisG above). Biophys (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes and no. We're not so much talking about vandalism here but a serious difference of opinion. WP:EDITWAR makes no distinction to a 'good' revert and a 'bad' revert, so anyone engaging in such behaviour is unacceptable. I have also seen and experienced enough concert parties, aggression and lawyering at FLG articles to drive me away from editing that topic for good. I didn't post any diffs, but just thought some context would be useful. --Ohconfucius 01:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No one talks about vandalism here. But removing relevant and reliably sourced materials is a stronger indicator of NPOV violations. Yes, I can see that one of PCPP opponents does not know the difference between "being indicted" and "found guilty" by a court (this is very common in such disputes; sometimes they indeed do not know). One should simply replace "found guilty" by "was indicted".Biophys (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Biophys, the "relevant text sourced to Reuters" does not reflect what is in the source which you may read here. The fact that a claim has been reported by Reuters does not make it a fact and part of the section removed was sourced to the Falun Gong website, which is not a reliable source. TFD (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No, this is publication by Reuters, and it is responsible for their publications. It tells that famous Mr. X. was indicted by court in the country of A. This is factual information that can be easily verified by other sources. I would be very surprised if Reuters published an easily rebuttable disinformation. Not a reason for edit-warring any way. Biophys (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we encountered a problem deciding what to cite for the low-end estimate. This was one of the two questions I raised in my first comment on the talk page, and at the time the best solution we could arrive at was to agree that Falun Gong sources could temporarily suffice (whether the Falun Dafa Information Center is a RS is somewhat debatable; human rights organizations regard it as one. In most cases I would say it is not, but I want to problematize this a little by pointing out that it may not be so clear-cut in this case). What was disturbing, to me, was that PCPP deleted all content on Falun Gong, ostensibly because he didn't like one source (it becomes clear when you read his later talk page comments that his real problem is with the categorization of the Falun Gong suppression as a genocide, and he was merely grasping for any excuse to have it deleted from that list). After the second time he did this, I left a note on his talk page proposing that he try to constructively offer solutions, or ask other editors to seek a better source, rather than deleting the entire row of content over one problematic reference. He responded with a personal attack, and continued to revert thereafter, ignoring the talk page discussion that was taking shape. So, regardless of whether we count the Falun Dafa Info Center as a RS, he did delete other sourced content three times with no discussion.Homunculus (duihua) 14:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"at the time the best solution we could arrive at was to agree that Falun Gong sources could temporarily suffice (whether the Falun Dafa Information Center is a RS is somewhat debatable; human rights organizations regard it as one. In most cases I would say it is not, but I want to problematize this a little by pointing out that it may not be so clear-cut in this case)" – I'd just comment that that statement is self-contradictory. On one hand, you believed that the FLG source could not be considered reliable, yet you conceded – for some reason that you did not explain and that I do not want to go into– that it "could temporarily suffice". I believe that you were letting your guard down: I have experienced years of these FLG accounts, some of whose of wikilawyering could convince even many hardened sceptic that their claims were true and their advocacy was reasonable. asdfg is the mildest but the most verbose one of them all, lacking in the disruptive aggression of Dilip rajeev and the arrogance and personal attacks as Olaf Stephanos. asdfg's dedication to the FLG cause, his verbosity and eloquence are all a great credit to him, but equally strongly demonstrate his advocacy and the proselytism that Falun Gong is well known for. No, none of that entirely legitimise the actions of PCPP, which I think we are agreed were improper. However, I would just state that I have occasionally undone reverts of FLG editors made by PCPP, and he has not once reverted me. --Ohconfucius 16:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

How wrong I was! It seems that Olaf is now encouraged to stay. <sarcasm>Happy editing! </sarcasm>--Ohconfucius 17:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, I hope you will forgive me for not wanting to wade into the interpersonal disputes you allude to here. I'm sorry you've had such negative experience. But you asked me a question, so I will here answer to resolve any confusion that my 'self-contradictory' statement may have caused regarding the use of the Falun Dafa Information Center as a source on the low-end estimate (or rather, using a Reuters article that cited the FDIC estimate). What I meant to say in my comment above is that the FDIC is not an ideal source, precisely because its use will also be susceptible to challenge and doubt. Wherever possible, I think we should seek a better source if one is available. However, it is regarded as a legitimate and reliable source of information on Falun Gong human rights issues by more mainstream human rights organizations; I have seen its estimates used without qualification by groups like Amnesty International, for instance. The reason, as I understand it, is that Chinese authorities deny access to human rights groups and foreign diplomats to Falun Gong adherents in China, making independent corroboration of rights abuses nearly impossible. In the absence of independent verification, these groups have apparently concluded that the FDIC is more or less reliable, or is at least the best available source. We were in a similar position here; until Asdfg pointed one out, I could not find an alternative for a low-end total death toll estimate. In the absence of a better source, I used a Reuters article citing the FDIC estimate, and started a talk page discussion to see if anyone could think of a better source. In the short time that the discussion was ongoing, no alternative was suggested. I hope this answers your question. If you want to talk more, I would be happy to, but perhaps we can take it elsewhere. Homunculus (duihua) 18:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Biophys: Here is the edit removed by PCPP which you call: a "relevant text sourced to Reuters":

| 3,000 || Persecution of Falun Gong || China || 1999 || ongoing || A nationwide persecution led by the Chinese Communist Party against the spiritual group Falun Gong. The decision to "eradicate" the practice was made by then paramount leader Jiang Zemin in 1999. The practice had grown extremely quickly and was popular among a large cross-section of society, implicitly undermining the Communist Party's control of society. Means of persecution include arbitrary arrests, torture, forced labor, and, it is alleged, organ harvesting. For the source describing the persecution as genocide see: Falun Dafa Information Center, "

The Reuters article does not claim that 3,000 were killed, but that Falun Gong makes that claim. Furthermore, the notes are entirely sourced to the Falun Gong website.

TFD (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Zujine

I hope my comments do not come too belatedly, but I see others continue to weigh in on this matter, so I will add my piece. I was not involved in the edit war at List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll, but I have read through the diffs and the timeline provided by Asdfg, and am not surprised at PCPP’s behaviour. The patterns of editing he displayed on that article — to delete large amounts of content without discussion, and to do so repeatedly against consensus — is consistent with what I have observed elsewhere. I would favour a lengthy, if not indefinite topic ban against PCPP.

As to Asdfg, there is little doubt that he has an emotional investment in the subjects he edits (namely Falungong), and while this usually finds manifestation in very active editing and discussion, it can turn to incivility when it comes to PCPP. I have also been extremely frustrated by PCPP, though I express it quite differently, so I can emphathise with Asdfg on this point.

Crucially, when PCPP is not around, I have found Asdfg to be easy enough to work with. I do not always agree with his edits, nor he with mine, but we are nonetheless able to hash things out and move forward on editing pages. If he is not banned, I hope that he will learn from this experience and be more circumspect in the future. If he is banned, the editing environment on Falungong articles might be more relaxed, but I would also count it as a loss, as Asdfg does bring in good quality research and is probably more intimately familiar with the relevant sources on Falungong than any other editor. —Zujine|talk 18:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning PCPP

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

• The instructions for AE requests require that a list of diffs of allegedly sanctionable edits be provided. Because this request does not include any such diffs, I intend to close it as not actionable without any consideration on the merits.  Sandstein  22:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that, paraphrasing one of my favorite analogies, admins "are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in" editor contributions, in this case the allegedly sanctionable diffs is readily accessible from the page history of List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll at . I therefore do not consider the omission fatal to this request. However, I think it is necessary for us to consider the conduct of all parties here. T. Canens (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Based on my analysis in the section above, I evaluate the conduct of the two editors at issue here as follows:

• PCPP (talk · contribs) has engaged in intensive edit-warring in order to make Falun Gong-related articles read less favorable to Falun Gong, in violation of WP:EW. PCPP has previously been blocked for 48h and a week in response to Falun Gong-related problematic editing. I believe that a time-limited topic ban is appropriate in this case to prevent him from continuing to edit-war.
• Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) has engaged in more moderate edit-warring in order to make Falun Gong-related articles read more favorable to Falun Gong, in violation of WP:EW. In this context he has also violated Misplaced Pages's policies WP:RS, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and it is likely that he has also not complied with Misplaced Pages's policy WP:UNDUE. He has previously received a 24h and a 48h block, as well as a six month topic ban, in response to Falun Gong-related problematic editing. Because this severe sanction has now been shown not to be enough to deter him from continued problematic editing in this topic area, I believe that an indefinite topic ban is appropriate.

If no admin disagrees, I intend, in application and enforcement of WP:AFLG#Motions, to sanction these editors as follows:

• PCPP is topic-banned (as per WP:TBAN) from Falun Gong for six months.
• Asdfg12345 is indefinitely topic-banned (as per WP:TBAN) from Falun Gong. I will consider lifting this sanction on appeal after at least a year of unproblematic editing.  Sandstein  17:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• I broadly concur with Sandstein's assessment of the situation and the proposed indefinite topic ban of Asdfg12345. I'm adding only the following:
  • Given the discussion here, I believe it is more appropriate to view PCPP's second block as 24 hours instead of 1 week.
  • More generally, especially given that the edits of Asdfg12345 are violations or likely violations of our content policies and guidelines and PCPP's sparse history of sanctions (the last AE thread is almost 1 year ago in which the proposed sanction was a 2-week topic ban; the last actual sanction imposed is from 2008), I think a four month topic ban would be a better starting point, with the caveat that if edit warring or other disruption resumes after the ban expires, the length would likely be quickly escalated.
  • WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy. (This is pretty much nitpicking in this context, though.) T. Canens (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the feedback; I agree. PCPP is therefore topic-banned for four months and Asdfg12345 indefinitely.  Sandstein  23:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Request concerning Shrike

User requesting enforcement

Passionless -Talk 08:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Remedies

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

1. One in a long list of complete reverts, hours later, Shrike was formally warned of ARBPIA -assumptions of bad faith, edit warring
2. This revert was made less than 24hours after Shrike's last revert by User:Banu hoshech who was quickly blocked as a suspected sock of Shrike's as seen here-Breaking 1RR.
3. Reverted my work when I broke no policies -assumptions of bad faith, edit warring
4. Reverted my work when I broke no policies -assumptions of bad faith, edit warring
5. Canvassing a few days before warning
6. Blanking - disruptive, not working towards consensus
7. One of his first reverts of my work- he called me a vandal in his edit summary. He has also called Pixise a vandal here, and Usama707 a vandal twice- , , among other editors-,.-Personal attacks

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

1. Warning of policies he was breaking on the article Refaat Al-Gammal by Passionless (talk · contribs)
2. Warning of general disruptive edits by Pexise (talk · contribs)
3. Warning of calling edits vandalism by Duk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
4. Warning of ARBPIA by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

Permanent block, or permanent topic ban, the latter probably more appropriate

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'm not sure how much detail is needed, so I only posted the diffs that happened after or very soon before his warning from HJ Mitchell. By looking at the revision history of Refaat Al-Gammal, one will see this has been going on between Shrike and I for awhile, and before that between Shrike and Usama707. I realize I was edit warring, but while this was happening I was adding compromise text to the article to try and settle it, I added the sources, , , , , , , shrike demanded even though I can only speak English, and I went to Third Opinion, while I saw absolutely no good faith at all from Shrike. If relevant, but old edits of Shrike's would be appropriate to add, or if you want all reverts done by Shrike to Refaat_Al-Gammal posted here, let me know and I will come back and do that. Thanks, Passionless -Talk 08:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Served

Discussion concerning Shrike

Statement by Shrike

First of all the claims of the User:Passionless are not true there was no edit warring between me and user:Usama707 becouse I accepted his last version.As time passed by various anonymous users deleted the information so I reverted the vandalism then User:Passionless came and reverted me back to the vandal version. deleting all the information and against the consensus that we reached with user:Usama707. The diff that he claims that he proposed as a "compromise" wasn't proposed in talk in any way and there was no discussion about it.Also I tried to incorporate all the sources thatuser:Passionless brought as could be seen in the last version of the article.The claims about that user:Banu hoshech is my sock puppet was based on one edits that he reverted user:Passionless disruptive edits, there were other users that did the same for example .It only natural that Israeli(I am not sure if it is) will revert from POV version to more NPOV version on this matter and like I said before he was not the only one

The deletion of material in United Nations Human Rights Council was done after another user deleted part of the subsection so I thought the best alternative would be deletion of the whole subsection and just redirect to the main article.

About the canvassing I was not familiar with the rule and I wasn't aware of it as it was pointed I just wanted to bring other people to the article I understand now it was mistake the way I did it.

The user:Passionless was too warned by ARBPIA for his edit warring The User:Passionless was engaged in edit warring in the same article.,, and many more as could be seen from the history of the article.

I am asking that if the request is accepted it will be case against User:Passionless too as he broke ARBPIA guidelines.If not I will file separate case latter.--Shrike (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Shrike

Please note I never abused WP:Rollback- each time I used it I was undoing multiple edits and I did leave a message in the talk page each time too. This is in following the guideline- "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page". Passionless -Talk 01:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, what is gaming the topic area? The diffs listed show where I had broken 1RR, than self reverted a minute later, than later reinstated my explained edits. And can someone please tell me what sanctions are against me so I can edit again? Passionless -Talk 06:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Despite the three-month topic ban, Shrike continues to edit on contentious pages, where he has previously edit-warred . RolandR (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If I am not allowed to edit talk pages I will delete what I have written.I want clarification from admins--Shrike (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I have undone my edit if it will be allowed I will re-add it latter.--Shrike (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Passionless have broken sanctions against him and created new I/P article the article should be deleted.Also he tried to circumvent the ban and asked another user to write article for him .--Shrike (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The sanctions have been changed since that old diff Shrike...and when I asked NightW to help write I only meant write, I was begging anyone to help me write until the end,.Passionless -Talk 20:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You are both blocked for 1 week for violating your topic bans, not even 24 hours after they were instated. It's rare to see that kind of disregard for discretionary sanctions, but there ya' go. AGK 23:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Shrike

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

• The ArbCom remedy that authorises discretionary sanctions for this topic area requires that any editor sanctioned must first be notified that that remedy exists. Shrike and Passionless have both been notified as such. The edit warring over the ABC reference and the POV tag between Shrike and Passionless is damaging to this article and is not how we edit on Misplaced Pages—and especially on a contested topic such as Palestine–Israel. The result of this request is that I am banning both editors from editing this topic, for a period of three months. AGK 00:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This request primarily concerns long-term edit warring on the Refaat Al-Gammal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. To somewhat simplify consideration of the matter, I'm considering only edits made in 2011, except to the extent that older edits are considered when needed for contextual purposes and in determination of sanctions. There appear to have been a series of reverts made by Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Passionless (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

1. In this edit on 15 January 2011, Shrike reverts the article to an version they edited on 16 September 2009 (See ) using an edit summary of "Restored deleted information". The revert was performed indiscriminately, as evidenced by the fact that it removed the {{PERSONDATA}} information, the "See also" section, an interwiki link, and changed section title "In popular culture" to "In Popular Culture" in contravention of the Manual of Style.
2. The interwiki link was subsequently restored by a bot. On 17 January 2011, Passionless reverted Shrike's edit with the summary "bad format, spelling, and changed facts". This was followed by a series of reverts: Shrike, 18 January 2011, Passionless, 7 February 2011, Shrike, Passionless (using rollback)
3. At this point Shrike added a {{POV}} tag to the article.
4. Then, Why Me Why U (talk · contribs) (which I just blocked as a sock/meatpuppet per WP:DUCK) made an edit that was essentially the same as Shrike's previous version with only certain minor differences.
5. This is followed by a series of reverts, with occasional intervening edits that are subsequently reverted: Passionless, Shrike, Passionless, Shrike, Passionless, Shrike, Passionless, Banu hoshech, Passionless, Shrike, Passionless, Shrike. Each user reverted 6 times in a 7-day period.

A sockpuppet investigation concludes that Banu hoshech (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is a sockpuppet of Shrike (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) based on behavioral evidence, which was not contradicted by technical evidence. Having reviewed the matter, I concur that it is more likely than not that Banu hoshech is either a sockpuppet of Shrike, or someone acting in concert with Shrike.

I conclude that both parties have engaged in sanctionable misconduct.

• Shrike (talk · contribs) has abused multiple accounts, used inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete edit summaries (), made spurious allegations of vandalism (), made indiscriminate reverts to his preferred version from 2009 without regard to intervening changes (), and engaged in long-term sustained edit warring (diffs linked above; see also pre-2011 edit warring on the same article), in contravention of WP:SOCK, WP:EDITSUMMARY, WP:VAND, WP:NPA, WP:EW and WP:OWN.
• Passionless (talk · contribs) has engaged in sustained edit warring, misused the rollback tool on edits that are not clearly vandalism (), and attempted to game the topic-area 1RR ().

In addition, Shrike (talk · contribs) has also engaged in edit warring on the United Nations Human Rights Council article () and has a history of edit warring, dating to at the latest 2007, in this topic area (e.g.,).

Accordingly, unless another uninvolved administrator objects, I intend to impose the following sanctions per WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions:

• For Shrike (talk · contribs), a six-month topic ban from the area of conflict, followed by an indefinite topic ban from Refaat Al-Gammal and an indefinite 1RR/week restriction in the area of conflict.
• For Passionless (talk · contribs), a three-month ban from the area of conflict, followed by a three-month 1RR/week restriction. a three-month topic ban from Refaat Al-Gammal, with a concurrent six-month 1RR/week restriction in the entire area of conflict.

T. Canens (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what happened there: I didn't get an edit-conflict notice when I posted that most recent comment of mine, and I didn't notice yours until I'd banned both editors and logged my decision. I would have deferred to your judgment had I read your comment before instating my bans. I am happy to combine your proposed sanction with mine, or to remove my sanctions and allow you to apply yours. Please accept my apologies, T. Canens. AGK 00:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh, yet another case of the broken edit conflict resolution system :| I'm amending my proposal slightly - and it looks like my revised proposal pretty much subsumes the ones you imposed, with the exception of Passionless (unlike Shrike, the disruption seems to be more limited in that case, and I'm willing to see if a page ban could work). Though, I'm interested - do you think mine is too severe? T. Canens (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that six months is justifiable but perhaps too long for a first sanction. I can be a little eccentric in my choice of terms for topic-bans, though: I tend to be lenient for those who have never before been topic-banned, but severe on those who have previously been topic-banned. So I'll defer to your judgment on the matter of how long Shrike's ban should be. I would agree with your proposal for a 1RR I/P restriction but think it should be for six months (not indefinite), and am fine with the indefinite topic ban but would rather it be limited to five months (ie. two months after his three-month topic ban expires). Just my thoughts; and, as you got here first, I'm happy to lift my sanctions and let you deal with all of this, if that's what you'd prefer. AGK 00:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I generally start from 3 months as well, but Shrike's history is quite bad - well beyond the ordinary first-time offender, and I also do not have much tolerance for socking - speaking of which, I'll add a formal single-account restriction, I think. I think we can consider an appeal (of the 1RR and the limited topic ban) later, if there is good conduct elsewhere, but I don't think it's a good idea to pre-set an expiration date in this instance. If you can lift your set of sanctions, I'd like impose mine. T. Canens (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, I'll let you simply replace mines with yours; that way the editors won't so much be released of their sanctions then re-sanctioned as have their sanctions modified by another administrator by general agreement. So go ahead and just replace mines with yours on the case page log, and then I think we'll be done here. By the by, I intend to action the above reports of sanction violation. AGK 23:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Closing this. Per AGK's agreement above, and under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions:

• Both parties are admonished for using Misplaced Pages as a battleground, and warned that escalating sanctions may be imposed if the disruption continues.
• Shrike (talk · contribs):
  • is banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces, until 00:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC), and thereafter banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions and other content related to Refaat Al-Gammal, broadly construed across all namespaces;
  • is limited to one account (the account "Shrike"), and may not edit using any other account, or while logged out;
  • is indefinitely limited to one revert per page per 168 hours on all articles and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces.
• Passionless (talk · contribs):
  • is banned from all articles, discussions and other content related to Refaat Al-Gammal, broadly construed across all namespaces, until 00:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC);
  • is limited to one revert per page per 168 hours on all articles and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces, until 00:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC).
  • is admonished for misuse of the rollback tool, and warned that the tool will be removed for future misuse.

These sanctions replaces the three-month topic bans imposed by AGK; the one-week blocks imposed by AGK remains in effect. T. Canens (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Appealing user

Passionless (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Passionless -Talk 01:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

WP:AEBLOCK

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

Statement by Passionless

At the time of my 'breaching edits' the WP:AE which put the sanctions on me was stated that my sanctions were "a three-month topic ban from Refaat Al-Gammal, with a concurrent six-month 1RR/week restriction in the entire area of conflict." I followed these rules, yet I get blocked for writing my ITN. And look at User:Shrike too, no one told him talk pages were off limits too, but when he was told so he went and reverted his edits. The sanctions are fine and I don't mean this as a personal attack, but the blocks on both me and Shrike are a case of assuming bad faith.

Further statement by Passionless (copied here from their talk page at their request - JohnCD (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)):

AGK told me I was banned from I/P articles per what was written in the WP:AE as seen by this edit. I went and saw it was soon changed so of course I would think that since the ban was changed where AGK told me to look, it was actually changed. Anyways, how is this block even in line with WP:BLOCK, this block is 100% for punishment purposes, it is NOT preventing any damage or disruption, or was my article for a future In The News, really that terrible, and is the currently messed up current events portal really better than normal. Passionless -Talk 08:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by AGK

During the initial Arbitration Enforcement thread, there was an edit conflict between T. Canens and I. We both actioned the request at almost the same time—he first, me a moment later—but I got to the case log of sanctions first, and then notified both users first. Once I'd informed both users that they were sanctioned, I then noticed that T. Canens had already done so (having not had an edit conflict notice because of MediaWiki's edit conflict auto-resolver) and suggested that we replace my sanctions with his.

Nothing further came of the discussion, because we kept missing one another when we were next online over the next day or so, and so the discretionary sanctions stood. It is understandable but not excusable that Passionless saw the discussion here about modifying the sanctions and thought that my sanctions were no longer in place or were being challenged. But I wonder why he thought that he could still make the edit he did, when T. Canens' proposed sanctions superseded mine in that they were less lenient. I cannot help but feel that Passionless' edit was a last-ditch attempt to squeeze in a last few edits before my sanctions were replaced by T. Canens', but that is of course speculation. What I can say without speculation, however, is that the sanctions, whilst under discussion, had not been lifted or modified and were very much in place. On that basis, I would recommend that this appeal be declined.

I would be willing to lift my block early on the basis that there was an understandable misunderstanding, and I am of course happy for my block to be reversed by a consensus of uninvolved administrators. For whatever it would be worth, I would request that, in either case, the block be lifted only if Passionless accepts that the topic ban still applies, and that, if he is found in violation of it again, he will be again blocked. On a slightly different note, I see that Sandstein is proposing that it be lifted as redundant because my topic-ban is being superseded by T. Canens'. I reject that thinking and think to lift a block in such a way would be rather odd and somewhat pedantic: what is happening here is that my signature on the topic ban is being replaced with T. Canens', as a courtesy to the fact that he got there first and that it was my fault for not noticing that there was an edit conflict, and that some additional sanctions (a 1RR, a per-article topic ban, etc.) are being placed separately by T. Canens.

Tl;dr: The new sanctions are a modification of my previous ones, and do not nullify all enforcement made under my sanctions when they were in effect (as seems to be assumed below). Likewise, as a matter of principe, we should not waive the enforcement of a legitimate discretionary sanction on the basis that the sanctioned editor wrongly believed that his sanctions had invisibly been lifted. Any reasonable person would at least have asked for clarification, if the obvious reality was not clear from simply reading the discussion, instead of creating a brand new I/P article. No? Respectfully, AGK 11:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

EdJohnston: Per my third paragraph above, so would I. If Passionless indicates that he would agree to that arrangement, I will happily honour it. AGK 19:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Passionless

It appears that the sequence of events is thus: (1) Passionless is made subject to a wide topic ban , (2) he violates this ban possibly because he believes that the ban had been reduced in scope, (3), he is blocked in enforcement of the ban , (4) only then is the ban actually reduced in scope . On this basis, it would appear logical to lift the enforcement block, because the topic ban it is intended to enforce no longer applies – based on the principle that blocks are preventative and not punitive. For these reasons I think that the block, while certainly correct at the time it was issued, is no longer necessary and should be lifted.  Sandstein  10:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Passionless

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

Note: Moved from . T. Canens (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm of the view that the appeal should be declined. My initial comment at the AE thread is explicitly a proposal, and has no binding effect whatsoever; therefore the operative sanction at the relevant time is AGK's broad topic ban, and the edit is a clear violation of that ban. The original sanction was replaced with a narrower ban and a 1RR/week restriction after AGK has already issued the blocks. T. Canens (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• I recommend declining the appeal. If this were not AE, we might consider lifting the block, and accepting that Passionless might have been confused about the restriction. But the editors who are named here are usually quite experienced, and it's fair to expect them to carefully read what is left on their talk page. Passionless had previously managed to get himself notified under I/P, so he should know the rules. If it were just my decision, I'd accept him agreeing to abstain from the I/P topic area for one month in lieu of this block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• I reported this unblock offer at User talk:Passionless#Comment regarding appeal, but he did not accept it. From the language he used, I sense that Passionless is not following all the nuances of our process. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Request concerning Fifelfoo

User requesting enforcement

Tentontunic (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

WP:ARBRB

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

1. Personal attack in calling me arrogant. and failure to WP:AGF
2. After I requested he remove his personal attack he responds in similar fashion in calling me arrogant again.
3. In this section Fifelfoo displays a battlefield mentality, his first post is highly combative, with no attempt at meaningful dialog, this of course eventually lead to his personal attacks.

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

{{{Diffs of prior warnings}}}

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

Told to be cooperative, not combative.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I do not see how I have been arrogant in any way on this talk page, I asked a question and was met with outright hostility, the source for my statements meets WP:RS. In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World. State University of New York Press by Carol Winkler and I fail to see why I have been attacked for making a suggestion on the article talk page. Fifelfoo is displaying a WP:BATTLEFIELD approach in editing the Mass killings under Communist regimes article, he refuses yo WP:AGF and engages in WP:NPA.

If this is the incorrect notice board for this please remove the complaint and let me know were one does complain about this form of behavior. Tentontunic (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Fifeloo now appears to be looking for support for his actions from other editors who share his POV. Tentontunic (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

.

In response to Fifelfoo`s four points.

• 1. So asking a question is IDHT aggressiveness
  2. This content is also mentioned in Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century by Valentino see p86. This book is already a source in the article. The definition of mass killings under these circumstances is already in the article.
  3. See above.
  4. The editor has been counselled on policy, I would beg to differ, what you have actually done is adopt an aggressive stance in response to perfectly reasonable questions. Tentontunic (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

One final thing, Massacre at Huế Dak Son Massacre To say I did not look in the archives is another bad faith assumption, neither of these issues have been brought up on the article talk page before now. Tentontunic (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Fifelfoo

Statement by Fifelfoo

Process

ARBRB doesn't appear to have coverage for this request; the attempt to resolve this dispute was perfunctory and "gaming"; the editor has avoided the most basic dispute resolution processes suggested on the talk page such as familiarising themselves with the page's archives, the literature, and the article itself.

Content

The editor listing this request is playing IDHT games on talk; and, does not understand basic policy including SYNTH, OR, Reliability. They have been repeatedly advised of this behaviour, and continue in it. This behaviour is arrogant, tendentious, and highly aggressive.

• 1. The editor's IDHT aggressiveness can be summarised by their statement, "... Valentio`s estimates? He is but one scholar, why do we not estimates by others?" two hours and fourty minutes after Valentino's centrality to the article was explained, "It does not meet the criteria for the only source presented in the article that defines "mass killings under Communist regimes"."
  2. The editor is proposing that a book on US presidential media strategy, analysed as discourse theory, is a reliable source for cross national comparative demography of deaths under communist regimes. Previously they have suggested literary criticism as reliable for historical works. This is a combination of google scholar cherry picking with an inability to understand the purpose of an encyclopaedia.
  3. The editor is producing original research definitions of what "mass killing" constitutes, when the only cross cultural analysis of communist caused large demographic removals very clearly defines mass killing; and, persists in IDHT after this
  4. The editor has been counselled on policy, and has failed to change their behaviour. Their problem is currently a behavioural one: a conduct issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Fifelfoo

I would suggest that Fifelfoo be strongly cautioned as to language. In particular, the use of accusing others of "not hearing" when the same complaint might be easily laid at Fifelfoo's feet. It is always amusing to see a "defense" make clear the problem. Meanwhile, the source is WP:RS under WP policy - the issues on the article talk page are strongly reminiscent of some other pages where only "right" information is allowed, and "wrong" information is disallowed. WP readers are expected to be able to examine the references, not to have "correctness" determined by any group of editors. Collect (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am in an ambiguous situation: from one hand, I have been informed by Fifelfoo about this case, and, as a result, I ought to abstain from participation in this discussion, however, from the another hand, I am watchlisting some key pages that make me aware of these type events even despite the Fifelfoo's post. Therefore, I decided to express my opinion.
Let me point out that the whole discussion is moot: Tentontunic requests Fifelfoo to be non-combative, but they are doing that by rather combative means. I concede that the wording used by Fifelfoo is not too friendly, however, it can be easily re-worded to meet formal criteria, but the main idea would be preserved. For instance, instead of

"The level of combativeness is pretty much a correlation to your arrogance and holding your personal opinion as if it is reliably sourced in the scholarly literature"

Fifelfoo could write:

"The level of combativeness is pretty much a correlation to arrogance of your posts that reflect your personal opinion as if it is reliably sourced in the scholarly literature"

Whereas the first version is a comment on a contributor, the second one is a comment of a contribution, which is absolutely in accordance with WP policy. However, everyone will agree that the main idea (a correct idea, btw) is preserved in the last version. Therefore, if Tentontunic wants Fifelfoo to formally meet WP behavioural criteria, this result can be easily achieved by slight re-wording of the Fifelfoo's posts (the step I would strongly recommend to do in any events). However, if Tentontunic is interested in a genuine collaboration, they will never achieve this goal by posting here. What I would recommend to Tentontunic is to make a short break, and during this break to read the archives of the Mass killings under Communist regimes talk page (I concede the archives are very long, and I am ready to explain how to find a relevant section).
Let me also point out that, whereas newbies have some privileges, they are expected to observe some minimal rules of politeness. For instance, they are expected to familiarise themselves with the history of a discussion they have joined.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fifeloo that not all sources that adhere to WP:RS are equal. Peer reveiwed articles and books are preferred to non-refereed sources, especially on matters requiring complex research. However even if he is 100% correct on the sources issue, that does not negate the need to AGF and adhere to Misplaced Pages civility policies, the policies that he dares to violate on this very page. He needs to describe comments and edits, rather than editors. BorisG (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Fifelfoo

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

Discretionary sanctions require a prior warning about the possibility of discretionary sanctions ({{uw-sanctions}} or equivalent). Because no diff of such a warning is provided in the enforcement request, it is summarily declined without examination on the merits. The editors involved should use normal means of dispute resolution. However, in reaction to the personal attacks in evidence here, I am issuing a formal arbitration enforcement warning to Fifelfoo myself.  Sandstein  16:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)