Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 23:43, 22 February 2011 (→PCPP: closed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:43, 22 February 2011 by Sandstein (talk | contribs) (→PCPP: closed)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages:AutoEd.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Shortcut

    Click here to add a new enforcement request
    For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
    See also: Logged AE sanctions

    Important informationShortcuts

    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}}.

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

    All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

    The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

    Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

    A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

    An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

    • The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
    • The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
      • the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
      • the restriction was an indefinite block.

    A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

    • a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
    • a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
    • a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

    Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

    Standard of review
    On community review

    Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
    On Arbitration Committee review

    Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
    3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
    1. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
    2. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
    Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

    Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

    No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

    Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

    Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

    Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

    Important notes:

    1. For a request to succeed, either
    (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
    (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
    is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
    2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
    3. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
    4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
    Information for administrators processing requests

    Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

    A couple of reminders:

    • Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
    • When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
    • Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
    • More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

    Closing a thread:

    • Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
    • Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
    • You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
    • Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

    Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346

    Vandorenfm

    Vandorenfm topic-banned one month from AA. Twilight Chill already blocked one week. EdJohnston (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    User requesting enforcement
    Twilightchill t 21:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Vandorenfm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy that this user violated
    Misplaced Pages:AA2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. revert with inappropriate edit summary
    2. subsequent unsubstantiated revert
    3. further revert with the "vandalism" considerations
    4. new revert with the accusations of "disruptive editing"

    The continuous reverts look like an attempt to win the ongoing dispute. Seems to be a breach of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Edit warring considered harmful and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Assume good faith

    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warning by Twilight Chill (talk · contribs)
    Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
    Revert restriction or any other sanction deemed appropriate
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Regarding Sandstein's comment below on request's reasons, I would note that because the aforementioned reverts fall under AA2 case, this board seems to be more appropriate rather than WP:ANEW, where edit-warrings are commonly reported. Given that WP:TBAN does not explicitly ban the AE requests and the AE notice that "most editors under ArbCom sanction... should be treated with the same respect as any other editor", I think this report is warranted: Vandorenfm's (as well as Gorzaim's) edits create unhealthy editorial atmoshphere in the Caucasian Albania article for a couple of days. Twilightchill t 22:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Vandorenfm

    Statement by Vandorenfm

    I do not see any reason for this request. User: Twilight Chill has been edit warring for which he was recently topic-banned for one year. In essence, he is trying here to accuse me in responding to his disruptive actions for which he got eventually banned. His removal of large portions of texts was courteously reverted with proper explanation and suggestions to cooperate. User: Twilight Chill refused to explain his actions , . In other words, he continued his unexplained “naked” reverts, claiming with no evidence and explanation that the text he kept removing violated WP:NPOV. And, as a result of his actions User: Twilight Chill was topic-banned for a year. His hands cannot be more unclean for this request.

    Regarding the entire business of removing chapters from the article Caucasian Albania, the sysop/admin User:John Vandenberg wrote to User: Twilight Chill: “Twilight Chill, wrt your NPOV concerns, edit warring and removal of entire sections isn't appropriate. Historical revisionism is relevant to Caucasian Albania; maybe the section should be trimmed down a bit, but that should have been discussed on talk, noticeboards, etc., or a RFC if consensus can't be found. Removing it wasn't the right approach” . By this User:John Vandenberg confirmed that:

    1. User: Twilight Chill was edit warring
    2. Removal of entire sections isn't appropriate
    3. Discussion of historical revisionism is relevant to the article on Caucasian Albania (in contrast to what some editors claim

    I was simply following the admin User:John Vandenberg recommendation when I was trying to deal with “removal of entire sections,” that’s all.

    When User: Twilight Chill got banned for one year for edit warring, “removal of entire sections” was being done by the veteran Azerbaijani editor User: Grandmaster. User: Grandmaster is a confirmed disruptive editor in Russian Misplaced Pages, currently blocked for 6 months: . User: Grandmaster was accused by Russian admins in being a mastermind behind a syndicate in which he coordinated actions of a dozen of Azerbaijani editors to disrupt multiple articles in Azerbaijani/Armenian topic area . I appeal to the admins to deal with User: Grandmaster in English-based wiki as well, and stop him asap because he may practice the same tricks here. And one of User: Grandmaster’s accomplices in Russian wiki was the same User: Twilight Chill also known as User: Brandmeister, . User: Twilight Chill has been banned from editing any topics related to Armenia/Azerbaijan in Russian wiki .

    User: Twilight Chill’s first accusation called “revert with inappropriate edit summary” is baseless. Everyone can see that it was unclear why he removed an entire good and well sourced chapter from the article. He never explained what he was doing and why.

    His second accusation called “subsequent unsubstantiated revert” is a false claim. “Unsubstantiated revert” was Twilight Chill’s, not mine. I corrected an unexplained disruption. I substantiated this revert on talk pages. And it was clear that User: Twilight Chill was edit-warring since he did not explain why he was reverting, for which he eventually got topic-banned for one year.

    His third accusation called “further revert with the "vandalism" considerations” is unfounded. In “Types of vandalism” , under “Sneaky vandalism,” we read that vandalism is “reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages.” The history of Caucasian AlbaniaI is an obscure topic by itself and, as, testified by numerous sources, people care about it because this issue is misused for political reasons in Azerbaijan. Azerbaijani authors were accused in the West and Russia of manipulating historical texts, and world readers should be aware of this phenomenon, and should know why that happens. Robert Hewsen, a historian from Rowan College and the acknowledged authority in this field, wrote in his volume Armenia: A Historical Atlas, published by Chicago University Press:

    Scholars should be on guard when using Soviet and post-Soviet Azeri editions of Azeri, Persian, and even Russian and Western European sources printed in Baku. These have been edited to remove references to Armenians and have been distributed in large numbers in recent years. When utilizing such sources, the researchers should seek out pre-Soviet editions wherever possible. Robert Hewsen. “Armenia: A Historical Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001, p. 291

    By removing this chapter without any explanation User: Twilight Chill and User: Grandmaster were both “hindering the improvement of pages” as explained in “Types of vandalism” . In fact, I did not accuse anyone in vandalism directly, just hypothesized and warned that this, theoretically, can be seen as vandalism. But my courtesy remained unanswered.

    The forth accusation “new revert with the accusations of "disruptive editing" unfounded as well. User: Grandmaster was indeed engaged in disruptive editing, removing an entire chapter several times , . Instead of detailing out what is wrong with the chapter and giving examples why what he says is true, User: Grandmaster explained his actions with this: “wiki articles are not a place for propaganda” . This is a violation of WP civility code. I suggested twice that User: Grandmaster may modify content if he feels it is incomplete or lopsided. But User: Grandmaster was not listening.

    Overall, I was following/enforcing User:John Vandenberg’s assessment of the situation. User:John Vandenberg’s text is this .

    I strongly disagree that "Vandorenfm's contribution history suggests an account created solely to make warlike partisan edits in the AA topic area." I have been unduly busy with this issue only because of disruptive behavior of banned members of Russian wiki like Grandmaster and Twilight Chill. They slow me down. I am a new user but have already create a page on Nor Varagavank.

    Vandorenfm (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

    Additional Comments No 1
    • My actions cannot be considered as edit warring since I was reverting bad faith edits of the banned User:Grandmaster, Russian Wiki's most notorious disruptive editor of all times , . The decision of the arbitration committee of Russian wiki says: "Арбитражный Комитет постановляет заблокировать учётную запись Grandmaster на 6 месяцев. В течение 6 месяцев после разблокировки на участника будет наложен запрет на редактирование спорных статей и ограничение на редактирование пространств Википедии, как описано в пункте 3 данного решения." That means: "Arbitration Committee decided to block the account Grandmaster for 6 months. During 6 months after the block is lifted, this participant will be banned for editing disputed articles for 6 months, per point 3 of this decision."
    • To User:Sandstein: I took a seminar of how to edit Wiki run by a group of American volunteers. That's why I was brought up to speed so quickly, and could edit Wiki easily. Such seminars are a common practice on university campuses these days. Vandorenfm (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning Vandorenfm

    This is just to note that, unrelated to this request but because of the continued edit-warring which it partly reflects, I have applied article-level discretionary sanctions to Caucasian Albania, as described at Talk:Caucasian Albania#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  21:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

    Something is clearly wrong here. We have 4 strange accounts, Xebulon (talk · contribs), Vandorenfm (talk · contribs), Gorzaim (talk · contribs) and Oliveriki (talk · contribs). They all started appearing one by one since November, and edit the same set of articles in AA area, the main focus being that about Caucasian Albania. Oliveriki is clearly a throwaway account created for the sole purpose of reverting, while Gorzaim is the one used for controversial editing, and the rest seem to be used for reverting and posting support comments for Gorzaim. It is interesting that Caucasian Albania is the same article that was a favorite target of a well-known sockmaster Verjakette/Paligun, and these CU results might give some idea about the scale of disruption: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Erkusukes and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Paligun/Archive. Even the CU clerk noticed that something strange was going on, but the CU showed no connection between those accounts: However behavioral evidence is too strong to dismiss suspicions. Verjakette used open proxies to evade CU detection, so the socking was established only after a number of checks. It is also of interest that Gorzaim and Vandorenfm mostly do not edit on the same days, when one is gone, the other takes his place. It could be that it is one person changing his location, which allows him to evade CU. But the edits of those accounts are absolutely identical. I think the activity of these 4 accounts needs a thorough investigation, and in my opinion they clearly fail a duck test. Btw, yesterday this SPI request: proved that another puppeteer was involved in Caucasian Albania article, so we might be dealing with more than one sockmaster. Also, I think the article needs to be protected on a neutral version, and controversial parts can be included only when a broad consensus with involvement of third party editors is reached. The arbcom decision was clearly about consensual editing in AA area. Grandmaster 11:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    If it is a problem that this request was filed by the topic banned user, I can sign up for it, or resubmit it, because I think that the conduct of Vandorenfm deserves consideration. Grandmaster 08:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
    2 days after the protection, the article reverted again by Gorzaim (talk · contribs), without any consensus. . As I understand the decision was that everybody is banned from that page. Grandmaster 20:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

    Comment by BorisG

    I find it quite extraordinary that admins consider request by a topic-banned user. This rewards and encourages violations of the topic bans. Yes admins also block the filing party but this is clearly a penalty they are prepared to pay for having the rival party topic banned for a long time. We should avoid encouraging such behaviour. - BorisG (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

    Since this editor was banned from the entire area of the conflict, rather than from only editing articles on the subject, I agree with Boris. This should not be encouraged. Vandorenfm is clearly an SPA, but I am not sure if we have a clear policy about SPA, especially when they also make some constructive edits, as Vandorenfm did. Biophys (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    I will look at wp:ru over the weekend. Feel free to move my comment. - BorisG (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    Nothing of real interest except an article about Armenian terrorism and many other subjects that are much better developed on ruwiki than here. Rather than fighting, these editors should simply translate good materials from Russian.Biophys (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    OK, I am of the firm opinion that contributions from topic banned editors should not be considered, and this includes this request. I also note that it appears that this request was files after V commented on twighlight chill's appeal. I therefore think we should NOT be looking at the substance of this request. It is also not clear to me whether admins want me to look at wp:ru and what exactly they are interested in. If you want me to look, please pose specific questions, if any. Otherwise I will do something more useful. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
    I have read the entire case and checked which of the sanctioned users are present on enwiki. I have e-mailed the list to EdJohnson. As for the translated version, obviously it is not proper English but should be clear in the main. I cannot edit the whole translation; I think it is unnecessary. If anyone is intersted in interpretation of a particular section or passage, I am happy to give one. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

    Result concerning Vandorenfm

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
    • Waiting for a statement by Vandorefm, but at first glance this looks like sanctionable edit-warring. But I note that the requesting editor is topic-banned from this area of conflict (User talk:Twilight Chill#Arbitration enforcement topic ban: Armenia and Azerbaijan), and this AE report is not one of the exceptions recognized in Misplaced Pages:BAN#Exceptions to limited bans. I ask him to provide reasons why he should not himself be sanctioned for violating his topic ban by making this enforcement request.  Sandstein  21:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I suggest that Vandorenfm be topic-banned from AA for three months, and that Twilight Chill be blocked one week for violating his own topic ban. Vandorenfm's contribution history suggests an account created solely to make warlike partisan edits in the AA topic area. Longer-term, putting full protection on Caucasian Albania for two months might be considered. Admins could still perform any edits which had consensus if they were requested via {{editprotect}}. A search of the AE archives for Caucasian Albania gets 23 hits. EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Accounts "created solely to make warlike partisan edits" should get an indef topic ban, if not an indef block. I find the recent number of ARBAA2 reports to be concerning. T. Canens (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure that Vandorenfm can accurately be described as a disruption-only account. They have created one useful article, Nor Varagavank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - but one wonders that a user only registered since December 2010 and with very few other edits would be able to create such an article. At any rate, the evidence shows that Vandorenfm has been edit-warring to win a content dispute, by reintroducing a contested section four times, and his statement does not rebut this. The merits of the arguments for or against the section's inclusion are not relevant; one does not resolve such disputes by edit-warring. I support a topic ban on that basis. I am also issuing an enforcement block to Twilight Chill.  Sandstein  09:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Vandorenfm has made reference to ruwiki. I wonder if any enwiki admins have been following the AA disputes on the Russian wikipedia. It is not out of the question that we could pay some attention to the events there, especially regarding groups of people coordinating their edits, if there is a person fluent in both languages who can explain them. There was a Russian arbcom case that closed in August 2010, called 'Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Azerbaijani mailing list'. I see that the list of case participants includes some familiar names. Can anybody help interpret that case for us? EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Reading the Gtranslated version, it seems to be an EEML-style mailing list used for coordinated edit warring and canvassing. T. Canens (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Can you post that translation somewhere? (It's an automated derivative work of CC-BY-SA text, so ought to be CC-BY-SA also.) I can't get Google to translate the full page.  Sandstein  18:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
          • User:Timotheus Canens/sandbox. T. Canens (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Thanks. I'm not sure how this Russian case applies to this request, or falls within the remit of AE at all, unless somebody can show evidence that the same people are coordinating their edits on this Misplaced Pages also. Although the Wikimedia projects are normally considered separate for dispute resolution purposes, I believe we should take ArbCom-established misconduct on another project into account when deciding how to address misconduct on our project.  Sandstein  21:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
              • I'm not sure that we should. For the purposes of sanctioning editors, we historically have considered only evidence of misconduct on the English Misplaced Pages. This is because: 1) editors can behave differently on different projects (because whilst, for instance, on one project he might be being hounded by a troll gang and thus have been banned, on this one he might not be working with such problematic peers); 2) allowing misconduct on one project to affect an editor's standing on another ruins the paradigm of allowing editors to prove their good intentions on another wiki (much as commons and simple does for us).

                I would make an exception if, per above, there are possibly cross-wiki tag-teams; but I am unconvinced that we could explore such a complicated allegation in a simple thread on AE (without at least creating a sub-page). AGK 14:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

      • I suggest we go ahead and close this with a warning to Vandorenfm that he may be topic-banned from AA unless he shows by his actions that he is willing to work patiently for consensus. (The warning will be logged in the case). TwilightChill should, as I suggested above, be blocked one week since filing this report was not allowed by his topic ban. The brief mention of the Russian arbcom decision above will, I hope, cause editors who may have been involved in AA disputes on the other wikipedia to use caution here. Sandstein has imposed article-level discretionary sanctions at Caucasian Albania which ought to help with the disputes on that article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I am closing with a one-month topic ban of Vandorenfm from the AA articles. TwilightChill was already blocked one week by Sandstein for violating his AA topic ban by filing the enforcement request here. A complaint at AE about edit warring by someone else is not among the exceptions to topic bans allowed at WP:TBAN#Exceptions to limited bans. (Twilight could have asked at AE about his own sanction without penalty). An article-level sanction was imposed on 10 February at Caucasian Albania by Sandstein, which ought to help with the constant edit warring there. EdJohnston (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

    Tentontunic

    No action against individual editors, but the article is placed under additional restrictions instead.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Request concerning Tentontunic

    User requesting enforcement
    TFD (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Tentontunic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy that this user violated
    Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 20:07, 16 February 2011 (And remove POV tag, silly to have had it here since 2009.)
    2. 23:33, 16 February 2011 (Absolutely no justification for this given. Pure hyperbole.)

    Edit-warring on article covered by Digwuren sanctions under 1RR. I set up a discussion thread in the article talk page.

    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. "Not applicable."
    Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
    Block or warning
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    I note that Tentontunic has self-reverted. I therefore no longer see any need for further action. TFD (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
    Reply to Sandstein:

    Although Tentontunic says "The Four Deuces edits appear to be to remove content", the edits were to restore POV tags that had been removed without consensus on July 10, October 3, Dec 1 and Feb 16. In all cases there was discussion on the talk page in which I participated. None of these discussions led to a consensus to remove the POV tag. There is currently a new discussion about the neutrality of the article. Since the article has been nominated for deletion 5 times, has 25 archived talk page discussions, is under 1RR (and Digwuren), and has had administrators attempting to resolve disputes, it would seem that there is a dispute over neutrality. The tags have been in place since the article began, and numerous other editors have replaced them when they have been removed. TFD (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

    I will now look through the edit history of the article. Could you please allow me time to find the examples. TFD (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

    Below are examples of other editors restoring the POV tags during the period under discussion. I do not know if this is an exhaustive list.

    • July 10 - Verbal
    • Sep. 5 - Big Hex
    • Oct. 3 - Igny
    • Oct. 3 - Giftiger wunsch
    • Oct. 4 -Igny
    • Oct. 12 - Igny
    • Dec. 3 - Petri Krohn
    • Dec. 3 AndyTheGrump
    • Dec. 9 - Igny
    • Dec. 9 - Igny

    TFD (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

    The POV tag had originally been posted by Russavia 5th August, 2009, two days after Joklolk created the article. After the POV tag was removed, Paul Siebert restored it 29th January, 2010. TFD (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

    Reply to Tentontunic - Igny was blocked 3 minutes after the 1RR violation. I did not log into Misplaced Pages on that day. TFD (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

    Reply to Martintg - your account of my previous report to AE is incorrect. I had not "also reverted" and in fact had not edited that article for four weeks before the edit-war leading to the report. While there was edit-warring on both sides involving four editors, I only reported one editor because he was the only one who had been issued a Digwuren warning. I did not for example report User:Mamalujo, although he had made the same edits as the user I reported. TFD (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

    Comment on Administrators' recommendations. You might considering widening this to include editors who have received sanctions for any topic area. This article attracts editors from a wide range of topic interests. Also, the article Communist terrorism might be added. It is tagged for neutrality, has been nominated for deletion 3 times, has 12 pages of archived discussions, is considered an Eastern European article, is subject to 1RR and is currently protected from editing until March 15th. TFD (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

    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.

    Discussion concerning Tentontunic

    Statement by Tentontunic

    Is removing a tag which has been forcibly kept on the article since 2009 really a revert? The Four Deuces appears to have ownership issues on articles relating to communism. Having now looked at the article history it seems he has had a slow motion edit war going since at least july 2010 In fact all of The Four Deuces edits appear to be to remove content. Now contrast this behaviour with his actions on left wing terrorism. He removes a POV tag within hours of it being added to the article This is an article he has edit warred uncited content, including BLP violations into the article. I would ask administrators to look at the Communist terrorism article history as well. Tentontunic (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

    I have also self reverted Which makes this request moot. Tentontunic (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

    It appears IGNY has one less than The Four Deuces. The Four Deuces, might I ask, did you report IGNY for his breaking of the 1R on the 9th of december? Tentontunic (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning Tentontunic

    Considering TFD's problems above (where he narrowly escaped sanctions), this is not an action which could remotely defuse anything at all. It looks more strongly like "I escaped, but I will make sure you don't" than anything else (a neat variety of Wikilawyering at best, and an example of the problem noted in the prior case at worst). Note also the relative size of the article in 2009 and its current size. Collect (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

    I agree with AGK that editing this article has become a problem. Some people even place the jokes by Ann Coulter that Darwinism was responsible for the killings . This should stop.Biophys (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

    Another article to which an AE report lodged by TFD against an editor resulted in an article based sanction when it was found that TFD and others had also reverted. Given TFD's apparent propensity to report only his opponents for reverting while ignoring the behaviour of his allies, indicates a certain tendentiousness in making these complaints. I've lost count of the number of AE reports TFD has submitted in the past year, but this excessive use of this board to get an upper hand in content disputes seems to indicate a certain battleground mentality. Perhaps some kind of restriction on submitting AE reports for TFD may be in order here. --Martin (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

    I think that any sanctions on any individuals involved in disputes over this article are likely to be counter-productive, simply because they distract us from actually addressing the root cause - the article itself, or more accurately the article title. Simply put, it is a conclusion dressed up as a topic. To describe it as 'synthesis' is to give it more credibility than it deserves. It is little more than propaganda, with no attempt to analyse, or even define, it's actual topic. That millions have died under Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot is self-evident, but to simply attribute this to the actions of 'Communist regimes' amounts to nothing more than political name-calling unless it is accompanied by a meaningful analysis of the wider circumstances - something the very article title precludes. I'd suggest that the best solution would be to impose a 'topic ban' on the topic, and let us deal with state-imposed killing on a proper analytical case-by-case basis, free from cheap slogans. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    I think this is a good point. - BorisG (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    Eh. There is a basic disagreement between editors as to whether this article should exist at all. It's been to like four hundred fifty seven AfDs, fifty one point eight article name moves and has a thousands and ninety one archives of the talk page. One group refuses to even entertain the possibility that this is a viable topic and wants the article deleted or at least completely gutted of content no matter what. The other group thinks otherwise. They fight. They fight. Fight fight fight. Fight fight fight. It's like the Itchy and scratchy show. They use this very board as a tactic in this fight (one group more than other, IMO), just like they use AfD and RMs. Any editors "in between" get caught in the cross fire and end up moving to the corner solutions over time. The administrators on this board facilitate and enable this ongoing conflict by floating the possibility that one side can "win" by getting the other side banned, which in turn encourages further fighting. Andy happens to be in the first group and his comment above is him just saying "don't impose sanctions, let's "us" delete it even though we couldn't get that done at AfD" - by "imposing a "topic ban" on the topic".
    Normally I'd say, just declare it a "free for all zone" and let them go at it, but that won't work in this case since it's easier to delete than to create. So rather I think that every two weeks a random editor who has made an edit to the article should get a completely arbitrary two week ban. That way only people who are really really passionate about the subject will actually make edits and risk the ban. And then they will get banned. And then the problem will be solved.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    As always, the problem is not the subject but the people. Subjects do not revert. Yes, some articles will never be good, but that's because of people who are engaged in soapboxing, original research, censorship, debates to nausea and arguing reductio ad absurdum, instead of simply making their reference work. Another possible solution: just ban all people who recently edit-war in the article from editing this particular article (there is a list of participants above), and do the same in other cases on a regular basis. I do not argue in favor of such approach, but this is something to think about.Biophys (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

    Comment by Volunteer Marek

    Slap discretionary sanctions on the article itself but put this warning way up on top so that everyone can see it. That way they can't say they haven't been warned.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

    Well Sandstein's article discretionary sanction had an interesting impact on London Victory Celebrations of 1946. A recent move request was successful achieved through "silent consensus" because anyone with any interest was not able to discuss it due to the article sanction. I'm not sure that was the intended result since the aim should be to encourage discussion, but perhaps for those who wish to delete/move this article it may well be their preferred outcome. How ever, given the high level of conflict in the current article such an article sanction would do nothing to stop any potential sock puppetry I'm afraid. A better solution is to simply fully protect the article for a year, which would stop any sock puppetry and at least enable talk page discussion on potential improvements that could be implemented through requests to admins after consensus is achieved. --Martin (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    Anyone wanna take a bet that in the event that AGKs/Sandstein's proposal goes into effect, particularly if it goes into effect with T.Canens' "extensions", the article's gonna wind up at AfD within two months, for the like the 80th time, or be turned into a redirect, or a disambiguation page, and the sanction will successfully achieve what five previous AfDs and numerous other disruptive activities (obviously not everyone who opposes the article's existence is disruptive, but some are/were as these AE requests demonstrate) have failed to achieve in the past two years?
    Personally I've given up on the article, haven't edited it in long time, and I'm just watching this whole thing out of morbid curiosity.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

    Comment of the idea to prohibit more than one revert

    The prohibition to revert the same action more than once would become a hidden form of a poll: if you have N editors who shares the POV #1 and M editors sharing the POV #2, then the edits shared by the first group will automatically prevail if N > M+1 (if the first edit was made by the editor from the first group), and if N≥M+1 (if the second group editor made the first edit). In this particular case (when the editors working on this article are separated on more or less equal camps sharing the opposite POVs), such a scenario is highly probable. I don't think that would be in accordance with WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    You have obviously given much thought on how Sandstein's proposal could be gamed, how would the first part of his proposal play out? --Martin (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    The AGK's clause #1 in its present form can and will be gamed, because it treats different editors sharing the same POV as different editors, whereas in actuality most editors are split onto two groups sharing essentially the same POV. The editors from the same group revert each other very infrequently, and, when they do that they are perfectly able to resolve the dispute by themselves, so it never leads to edit wars. By contrast, if some user reverts some edit made by a member of the opposite group, that revert, as a rule, is supported by other members of his team. As a result, the current state of the article depends on the relative number of currently active users belonging to these two teams. In other words, we have the same poll that inevitably leads to the victory of the POV supported by simple majority of the editors (or, if the groups are numerically equivalent, by the group that started first. For instance, the 3 : 3 situation will develop as "edit - revert 1/2 - readd 1/1 - revert 2/2 - readd 2/1 - revert 3/2 - readd 3/1 end; all six editors exhausted their limits, the new edit stays.) The AGK's clause #1 just will make this process slower.
    I am afraid that arbitration is the only way to resolve this issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

    So let me get this straight...

    ...the current proposal is that "This complaint is dismissed without action against Tentontunic or The Four Deuces", i.e. the two people that were apparently edit warring and causing trouble on the article, but that a whole bunch of editors, many of whom have not edited the article in months, have not caused trouble at the article and have not edit warred over POV tags or anything else, are made subject to sanctions? Ok, even by usual AE/Enf standards that sets some kind of a record.

    AN/I is the proper place to have these kind of decisions reviewed by the community, right?Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

    • Sanctions can be appealed. I am not aware of an appeal process for lack of sanctions. If you think AE closers are not following the spirit of the Arbcom decision, you could ask Arbcom to review the matter by filing a Request for clarification. Or, if you have nothing else to do for the next few months you could file a new Arbcom case. This article seems fated to cause endless suffering, but we can't get rid of it. It is not surprising that new remedies are being proposed by the admins, since hardly anything seems to work. EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    I'm not asking how to appeal anything, since this doesn't concern me. I'm asking for oversight of a particularly wrong headed AE decision which arbitrarily sanctions uninvolved parties for no good reason.
    It is not surprising that new remedies are being proposed by the admins, since hardly anything seems to work. - ok, can you explain to me how letting the people who are causing the trouble off scot free, but instead sanctioning a bunch of people who have done nothing wrong will actually improve the situation? I was joking above when I suggested that editors just get banned at random, but it seems you guys managed to top even that. And what do you think the practical outcome of this sanction will actually be? TFD is already trying to use the proposed sanction to further ensure a successful future AfD procedure and also trying to extend it to another article he'd like to have deleted . Way to reward edit warring and battleground behavior. Has anyone actually bothered to think through beyond the step of "swing the ban hammer in the wrong direction"?
    If you want a serious suggestion on how to improve a situation, here's one: look through the AE board requests relating to this article from the past six months or so and make a list of all the people who were either subject of these AE requests or filed these AE requests. Sanction THOSE editors. There might be some innocents there but at least the "nuke'em all and let God sort them out" strategy will at least be in the correct general area.
    I got to say that I am truly amazed at how, um, "misguided", this proposal is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

    And I also got to ask, has anyone who's proposing these sanctions actually bothered to look at the revision history of the article in question ? The only people related to Digwuren case who made edits to it in the past six months or so (going back to June 2010) are Petri Krohn, Mark Nutley and The Four Deuces, and the first two of these are no longer editing the article and haven't for awhile. Aside from TFD, all the people making edits (good ones or bad ones) to that article have nothing to do with Digwuren or any other case. So how is this exactly going to help?Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

    • I object to this proposed sanction in the strongest possible terms. The Four Deuces and Tentontunic edit war over a POV tag, you admins propose to let them off without any sanction what so ever while banning a whole group of people who for the most part haven't edited this article for well over a year and have absolutely nothing to do with the current dispute. What possible justification can there be for such a thing? --Martin (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    I do not think I was edit warring, I reverted once. The tag has been there since 2009 I honestly did not think removing it would count as edit warring, since I have now looked more closely at the article history I have seen the same editors who wish to delete the Communist terrorism article have much the same stranglehold on this one. That The Four Deuces has a battleground mentality is obvious in his most recent edits, even going so far as to propose for deletion an article I created. I shall go on a voluntary 0RR on the mass killings article, it is unfair that others be punished for my transgression. Tentontunic (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

    Comment by Nanobear

    There seems to be evidence indicating that Tentontunic is a sock of User:A50000. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Tentontunic. This is probably relevant to this thread. Nanobear (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

    Comments by AndyTheGrump (Comments below moved from the results section,  Sandstein  22:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC))

    You what? "Armenia/Azerbaijan-related sanctions"? WTF has this to do with the article in question? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    This is getting silly

    Sorry, but it is. If we carry on like this, we'll end up with 'Mass killings under Communist regimes - the Misplaced Pages article than nobody can edit'. At what point are people going to admit that the problem isn't the editors, it is a system that actively encourages the preservation of contentious articles: if you come up with abject nonsense/synthesis articles, they get deleted, but if you come up with politically-loaded nonsense/synthesis articles, they get edit-warred, protected, and smothered in sanctions. The old hands circle like vultures, looking for anyone to make a slip so they can be dragged through AN/I or wherever, while the article itself remains in its same boobytrapped state. I'd like to suggest we start thinking about finding a process to remove such articles, not because they are 'wrong', but simply because they cannot ever be made 'right' - they are magnets for controversy, and incapable of being written in a neutral manner using the processes that Misplaced Pages relies on. We need to accept that there are some subjects better left to other forums, and that the endless warring over the same issues is usually a good indicator that a subject is in this category. Eventually, we'll have to admit defeat, and accept that this is a topic we can't write a sensible article about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

    Result concerning Tentontunic

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
    • In view of the self-revert I do not think that a sanction is needed at this time, but may well be imposed if the situation repeats. I invite The Four Deuces to give reasons why he should not himself be sanctioned for slow-motion editwarring as per the diffs provided by Tentontunic (I note that the most recent revert, , took place a few days ago).  Sandstein  14:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I see that, somewhat recently, the POV tag has been added and removed by users other than Tentontunic and The Four Deuces (hence TFD). To every editor of the Mass killings under Communist regimes article, I would stress the importance of focussing on the actual content of the article and of never edit-warring over unimportant things like an "Article has POV problems" messagebox. Having done a brief, preliminary evaluation of the recent history of this article, it seems to me that a drastic re-focus is needed: I see copious reversion—all of which is quite vociferous—when measured talk page discussion (or alternative methods of dispute resolution, such as mediation or requests for comment) is what is needed.

      I am inclined to say that we ought to apply discretionary sanctions of some form to this article, such as a novel form of probation that would allow us to immediately ban from the article any editor who uses reversion over discussion more than once (as the standard 1RR, that results in short blocks for violations, seems to not be working). AGK 17:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

    • That'd do the trick, I think. It's nicely crafted; is that your work, Sandstein? I'm inclined to include add something positive to that sanction, just because there's rarely anything in discretionary sanctions other than "BEHAVE OR BE BANNED!" - which isn't really conducive to a positive editing environment. See below for my proposal. AGK 00:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

    Proposed: That the following discretionary sanction be applied to the Mass killings article:

    Under the provision of the Arbitration Committee decision at Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, the following discretionary sanctions now apply to the Mass killings under Communist regimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article:

    1. No editor may make more than one revert (as defined at WP:EW) per week on this article;
    2. An editor who makes more than one revert per week to this article may be banned by any uninvolved administrator from editing the article for a period of four months;
    3. All editors with Armenia/Azerbaijan-related sanctions are banned from editing this article and its talk page. For the purposes of this ban, these editors are all who have at any time been the subject of remedies, blocks, or other sanctions logged on the case pages Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN, irrespective of whether or not these sanctions are still in force or whether they were imposed by the Arbitration Committee or by an uninvolved administrator;
    4. Editors banned for four months under the above provisions can after two months request at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement that their ban be lifted. Bans will only be lifted if, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, the banned editor is capable of contributing constructively to the article. Bans may not be lifted if a majority of uninvolved administrators contend that the ban should persist for the entire four-month term.

    Where an editor makes more than one revert per week, this should be reported at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement in the ordinary way. This sanction can be appealed as described at Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions.

    Also proposed: This complaint is dismissed without action against Tentontunic or The Four Deuces. AGK 00:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

    Are you sure you meant "All editors with Armenia/Azerbaijan-related sanctions"? Also, WP:EEML and WP:ARBRB should likely be included as well. T. Canens (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, I wrote the Caucasian Albania sanctions. I agree with T. Canens but am not sure that sanctions 2 and 4 in this proposal are useful or consistent with the others: In the event of any violations of the revert restriction (no. 1), an AE sanction of some sort will ensue, which automatically leads to an indefinite article ban per sanction 3. No. 4 also looks a bit like instruction creep (whether a ban is lifted after 2 of 4 months is not very important), and it is at any rate not clear to me that we can by discretionary sanction impose binding procedural rules about the appeal of those sanctions. The idea of encouraging editors to edit constructively is worthwhile, but I'm not sure that it's worth the additional hassle of appeal discussions, etc.  Sandstein  01:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I support the closure of this report with no action againt Tentontunic or TFD, and recommend approval of Sandstein's article-level sanction. In AGK's proposal I think he meant to write 'Digwuren' instead of 'Armenia/Azerbaijan.' EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks for the input. To address certain objections above, the basis of these sanctions is that the history of this article shows that it has been the subject of so much contention and conflict by so many previously sanctioned editors that the best way to stop the conflict is to remove most previous players from the game, so to speak, which allows editors who are less emotionally invested to work on the article. This is more productive than simply sanctioning one or two of the combatants.
    On this basis, I am closing the request with these sanctions:
    In application and enforcement of the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, the following discretionary sanctions apply to the article Mass killings under Communist regimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):
    1. No editor may make more than one revert per week on this article (see WP:EW for the meaning of "revert").
    2. All editors with Eastern Europe-related sanctions are banned from editing this article and its talk page. For the purposes of this ban, these editors are all who have at any time been the subject of remedies, blocks or other sanctions logged on the case pages WP:DIGWUREN, WP:EEML or WP:ARBRB, irrespective of whether or not these sanctions are still in force or whether they were imposed by the Arbitration Committee or by administrators.
    Violations of these restrictions may be reported to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard and may result in blocks or additional sanctions without further warning. This sanction can be appealed as described at Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  22:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    These sanctions are logged on the article talk page and the case page, and are displayed to editors in the article and talk page's edit notice. They supersede the previous 1R/day restriction also noted there, which I assume is not a problem because the new sanctions extend rather than overturn the previous sanctions.  Sandstein  22:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

    Ryoung122

    Not an actionable request.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Request concerning Ryoung122

    User requesting enforcement
    David in DC (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Ryoung122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy that this user violated
    WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Ryoung122_topic-banned
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    Announces potential source material for longevity lists and bios

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

    Not Applicable

    Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
    Strongly-worded admonition and reminder of topic ban. Especially the phrase "broadly defined".
    Deletion of the edit and oversighting of the diff.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    This appears to be an effort to suggest a source for longevity articles. It appears to be an effort to continue to "lead" the World's Oldest People wiki-project. It appears to be an effort to determine the limits of an envelope specifically labelled "broadly defined". Occuring so close in time to the topic-ban, it suggests the need for simple, declaratory, public admonishment. If heeded, no further action will be necessary. If not, and someone needs to cite prior warnings in a subsequent enforcement request, (s)he'll have a record to work with.
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    I have notified the editor. David in DC (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    Comment. Please, this is a blatantly obvious violation of the topic ban. Do please review the history and take action. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

    Discussion concerning Ryoung122

    Statement by Ryoung122

    Comments by others about the request concerning Ryoung122

    • As the arbs users who have commented so far below say, writing that census data coming out soon is a violation of a longevity topic ban how? Looking at his edits following that statement, the note seems to be for new population numbers for cities, which is not even close to violating anything. Make an enforcement request when he actually violates something. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, what arbitrators have commented on the request :P? And yes, nobody had mentioned that the context of his comment was probably population numbers for cities; that convinces me even more that the request is not actionable. AGK 17:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

    Result concerning Ryoung122

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
    • I don't see how an unspecific announcement of the availibility of census data is longevity-related. I suggest closing this report without action.  Sandstein  14:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree with Sandstein that no enforcement action is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I concur that this request is not immediately actionable because Ryoung's comment was not unquestionably related to Longevity (from which he is topic-banned). But it is clear why the filing party could argue that the comment did constitute a topic-ban violation, and I would accordingly caution Ryoung against attempting to evade his topic-ban by means of a comment on an unrelated venue (such as his talk page). Editors who are topic-banned often find that leniency is rarely showed by administrators in complaints about ban evasion, and Ryoung must be especially careful that he is never participating in a discussion relating to longevity. That aside, this complaint is not actionable, and so I will with this edit close this thread. AGK 17:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

    PCPP

    PCPP and Asdfg12345 are topic-banned.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    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
    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.

    • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    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)

    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:
    • 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)

    Shrike

    Both Shrike (talk · contribs) and Passionless (talk · contribs) placed under various restrictions. T. Canens (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    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)


    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Passionless

    Unblocked by blocking admin. T. Canens (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

    Appealing user
    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)
    1. Reuters, || 162,000, Remarks on the 10-year anniversary of the Falun Gong persecution, chaired by Edward McMillan-Scott, Foreign Press Association, London. accessed 2/12/10