User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Shrike (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users against whom enforcement is requested

• ZScarpia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WLRoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA

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

1. 10 April 2012 Restoration of clearly unreliable source by user:WLRoss with edit summary "per RSN"
2. 10 April 2012 Restoration of clearly unreliable source by user:ZScarpia

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

• User user:ZScarpia is frequent on the AE board so he aware of the case.
• User user:WLRoss is not a new user and he is frequent of the WP:ARBPIA articles so he aware of the case too.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The source is clearly unreliable as was determined by uninvolved editors please see those two discussion from WP:RSN

1.Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_95#Institute_for_Research_Middle_Eastern_Policy

Here is some quotes from the discussion:

• Not reliable.. by user:Itsmejudith
• ...this does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability or reliability. There are hundreds of websites which have colourful opinions about controversial issues, but Wikipedia is not a clearing house for such views.. by user:Hyperionsteel

2. Wikipedia:RSN#IRmep:_actual_reliable_source_evidence In second discussion most of editors were involved expect of two:

• ...There's lots of evidence of use of IRMEP material, but I didn't see an objective assessment of its reputation for accuracy Until then I would say it was a questionable source and advise against using it... by user:Cusop Dingle
• The user User:WhatamIdoing says "being biased or partisan does not make a source unreliable." It doesn't clear if he thinks that the sourse if WP:RS

• Even one involved editor that cannot be called Pro-Israeli thinks that this source have some problems:"There are two outputs from this organization, namely its commentary and the third-party documents it publishes. The former are unreliable and I don't think they should be used (except maybe as attributed opinions in some cases)." by user:Zero0000

3.Misleading edit summary by user:WLRoss claimed that he restored the source per RSN is clear example of WP:TE

Only recently User:Shuki was banned for wrong usage of sources.I think the same standard should be apply here.To the very least users should warned on WP:ARBPIA sanction

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1] [2]

1. First of all the case is not retaliatory and there no proof for it.I brought Shuki case only as example.Please assume WP:AGF. Second while the source is of course reliable for its own opinion it doesn't even matter we don't use unreliable sources even with attribution from WP:RS "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.".This source was found unreliable by uninvolved editors in WP:RSN like I showed earlier so I don't understand how this request can be considered frivolous.--Shrike (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. I have not asked that Wlross will be warned just because he edited A-I articles.I have asked him be warned because of his misleading summary.Or do you consider his summary not misleading?--Shrike (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But IRMEP is not reliable source even with attribution there are many sites in the web that criticize many things should we include it too?.Everyone can set up a page and call himself an "institute" it doesn't mean there are. Because of it in such matters WP:RSN should decide.And the decision of uninvolved editors was that the site is unreliable for anything and shouldn't be used in Wikipedia--Shrike (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC) I refer what GabrielF(involved said about this "institute":[reply]

:Like any non-profit, IRMEPs tax filings are available to the public. Here are their 2009 filings. The organization has a budget of less than $100,000 and while it has three board members besides the Director I don't see how it could support more than one researcher. (Crossposted from Talk:Middle East Media Research Institute.) GabrielF (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't change my claim.The source in unreliable to be included in Wikipedia as was decided by WP:RSN even with attribution. As far as I understand there is three types of sources according to WP:RS and WP:V

1. Reliable for statements of facts
2. Could be used only with attribution(usually because of the bias)
3. Couldn't be used in Wikipedia at all.

As far as I read the WP:RSN it 3rd type of source as was established by uninvolved editors

The violation of both editors is that they included this source against WP:RSN while one doing it with misleading summary.--Shrike (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the past four days, I have reverted removals of text (1, 2) made by Shrike in different parts of the MEMRI article twice (1, 2), the second revert being the one listed above. Both reverts were made because of an apparent misunderstanding of the reliable sources policy by Shrike. Shrike removed attributed opinions which were sourced to the attributees' own websites. In those cases, the only reliability issue arising was that it was shown that the attributees had actually made the attributed opinions. The sources given satisfied that requirement. Shrike seems to have difficulty understanding that an individual's own website can be a reliable source for that individual's opinion and that an individual or organisation do not need to be reliable in themselves, only notable as far as the subject matter of the article is concerned, in order to include their opinion. I have no particular views about the notabily of the opinions Shrike removed, my only concern was that Shrike made the removals on specious grounds.

Reference has been made to the AE request which I recently brought against Shuki. The claims of similarity between cases are false. I brought the case solely on behavioural grounds. Nowhere, either in the request or on the talkpage of the article concerned, did I refer to source reliability. Although others referred to source reliability, I think that it was Shuki's behaviour that the outcome of the case hinged on.

    ←   ZScarpia   17:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The talkpage discussions here and here may be relevant. Shrike made the following comment, which, I think, demonstrates his or her lack of understanding of how WP:RS and WP:V are applied: "Even if the site is reliable for its own opinion we don't use it unless it WP:RS. Please read WP:V."     ←   ZScarpia   19:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@A Quest For Knowledge: The WP:RS (see the Self-published sources section) and WP:V (see the Statements of opinion section) rules do not say that self-published material cannot be used as sources of opinion in general, only that it cannot be used as such when the subject is a living person. It doesn't really matter to me whether the opinions removed by Shrike are deleted from the article or not, so I don't have a dog in the race either. In fact, it looks to me as though the final consensus will come down in favour of removing the second opinion, an outcome which I will not be unhappy about. You'll notice that, on the talkpage, a very good case is made for retaining the first opinion that Shrike wanted to remove, even though it's from a self-published source which would not be regarded as a reliable source for statements of fact. All that concerns me is that, if the material is removed, it is removed for valid reasons. I reverted Shrike because the reasons he gave in his comments weren't sufficient justifications for the removals. If Shrike hadn't used the same reason for making his second deletion as he did in the first, I probably would have waited to see how things developed on the talkpage rather than reverting it quickly.     ←   ZScarpia   13:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WGFinley: I reverted Shrike's second edit prior to the talkpage discussion developing. I was going on the edit comment Shrike left, "I didn't see any agreement between univolved editors that this source is reliable," the same kind of reason Shrike gave for his previous deletion of text. Shrike didn't seem to appreciate that sources that aren't reliable for statements of fact can be reliable for statements of opinion. From the discussion taking place, it does look as though the IRMEP's opinion is not notable enough to merit inclusion. Shrike, though, didn't state that his reason for removal was notability, but reliability.     ←   ZScarpia   14:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike's quotations from the rules are selective and don't uphold his position. Whereas Shrike is now saying that "while the source is of course reliable for its own opinion," that didn't seem to be what he was saying in his edit and talkpage comments at the time. Shrike argues: "while the source is of course reliable for its own opinion it doesn't even matter we don't use unreliable sources even with attribution from WP:RS." So, a source which is reliable as a source of opinion but not fact cannot be used because it isn't reliable as a source of fact?     ←   ZScarpia   14:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WGFinley: An editor who reverts an edit which was done for invalid reasons was in the wrong if it turns out later that there were other, valid, reasons for that edit having been done?     ←   ZScarpia   15:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WGFinley: I did not know who the IRMEP was when I reverted Shrike. The revert was carried out before the talkpage discussion developed. I was depending on WLRoss's reasonable sounding talkpage comment for the IRMEP's respectability. The revert was based on that and Shrike's evident, repeated misunderstanding of the rules on source reliability (see Shrike's first deletion and the talkpage discussion which followed). As I commented after Shrike deleted Juan Cole's opinion from the article, a correct ground for deletion might have been notability. Questions of notability, though, are sorted out by talkpage discussion. That discussion had yet to take place for the IRMEP opinion when I made that revert. Presumably, one of the reasons that other admins find this request frivolous is because Shrike brought this request before any real discussion had taken place. You've talked about the kind of bickering which causes edit wars. I'm pretty sure that I've never been accused of edit warring. A reason for that is that I don't make the same reversion twice. If someone re-reverts a revert of mine, I don't re-revert them.     ←   ZScarpia   16:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WGFinley: Based on the wording of Shrike's edit comment and Shrike's previous argument that Juan Cole's website wasn't a reliable source for Juan Cole's opinion because it isn't a reliable source for statements of fact, I interpreted Shrike's reasoning for the removal of the IRMEP's opinion as that the IRMEP's website couldn't be used as a reliable source for the IRMEP's opinion because it, also, is not a reliable source for statements of fact, reasoning that is invalid. Based on that, I think my revert of Shrike's edit was reasonable. As with his or her previous attempt to delete an opinion, Shrike then had the option of taking the issue to the talkpage to try to make a case for the deletion on valid grounds, that is, notability. The IRMEP was being referred to as "the Washington-based Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy", which sounded like a reasonable-sized organisation to me. You'll notice that the discussion over whether the IRMEP is notable is still underway. You wrote: "Claiming you didn't even look into her claim before reverting her isn't helping your argument." But I did look at the claim that Shrike made, which, from appearances at least (personally, I find I have to make guesses about what Shrike's reasoning is), as I've stated, looked like it was a repeat of Shrike's invalid justification for deleting an opinion elsewhere in the article. By reverting Shrike, I expected that she would take the matter to the talkpage where a civil discussion such as the one which followed on from her previous deletion could take place.     ←   ZScarpia   (refactored: 22:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

@A Quest for Knowledge: The current discussion on the article talkpage is trying to settle the question of whether the IRMEP is a suitable source for an opinion, isn't it? If Shrike had given notability as his reason for deletion, I would have allowed the talkpage to sort out whether the deletion was justifiable, rather than reverting based on the reason he or she did give.     ←   ZScarpia   17:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WGFinley: The differences between the cases .... the ADL was being used as a source for a statement of fact, not opinion, which was contradicted by other sources. The ADL source was written 15 years ago, but was being used to assert that a condition is true in 2012. Shuki had broken the 1RR restriction on the article and made pointy edits. I didn't hurry here to file a request before a discussion had taken place.     ←   ZScarpia   17:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelNetzer: "ZScarpia and WLRoss were aware of the Noticeboard consensus on the organization and chose to edit-war over it irregardless." Presumably you're referring to the RS Noticeboard. I did not take part in any discussion on the IRMEP there. Judging from the discussion on the article talkpage, it sounds as though the discussion was inconclusive. Even if not reliable for statements of fact, sources can be reliable for statements of opinion, which is what was being given here. How many edits equal an edit war? Based on whatever your definition is, are you an edit warrior yourself?     ←   ZScarpia   18:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to re-iterate more clearly:

• Shrike has been deleting opinions because she believes that they cannot be included unless they are taken from sources which are reliable for statements of fact.
• I didn't revert Shrike because I believed that the opinions deleted should rightfully be in the article.
• I had no firm views on whether the deleted opinions were notable or not.
• I reverted Shrike because the reason for the deletions was based on a misinterpretation of policy.
• Looking at the deleted text and what comments had been made on the talkpage to that point, there was no indication that the IRMEP was not a regular organisation.
• Shrike was, incorrectly, basing her deletions on source reliability. WLRoss (Wayne) was, correctly, basing his reasons for retention on notability.
• I thought that, if there was a notability issue, it should be hashed out on the article talkpage.
• The notability issue is being hashed out on the article talkpage.
• Perhaps someone should talk to Shrike before she deletes more opinions on invalid grounds. Although, perhaps it's me who's got policy wrong, in which case I'm the one who needs talking to.

    ←   ZScarpia   11:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Various editors have been stating that Shuki got indeffed for using the ADL as a source, so let me run through the circumstances:

• The Settlements article, using an ADL webpage, on which no date or author were listed, as a source, stated that no new settlements had been built since the Oslo process.
• On the talkpage, it was pointed out that other, listed, sources contradicted that statement (meaning that the statement concerning new settlements in the article could no longer be expressed as a statement of fact).
• Over the course of a number of days, a discussion was held on how best to word the article neutrally.
• Three editors agreed that the best approach was to remove any mention of whether any new settlements had been built or not.
• The statement was removed from the article.
• Shuki then intervened and reverted the removal, even though at that point it was obvious that the original statement could not stand as an unqualified statement of fact as it had been.
• It was discovered that the ADL webpage was written in 1997. So, a 1997 source was being used to assert that a condition existed in 2012.
• After an editor made a second edit just outside the 24-hour 1RR limit, Shuki requested that editor be given a formal ARBPIA warning.
• I pointed out to Shuki that, whereas he was complaining that an editor had almost violated the 1RR restriction, it looked to me as though he, Shuki, had violated the restriction.
• Shuki made some pointy edits.
• Shuki demanded that evidence that he had violated the 1RR restriction be produced or the accusation (observation, really) be withdrawn.
• I listed three reversions that Shuki had made in less than 24 hours.
• Shuki listed a couple of reasons why two of the reversions didn't count. By looking at the version history and the changes made, anyone could see that what Shuki was claiming was patently untrue, either a naked lie or a delusion.
• Other examples of erratic, irrational or obnoxious behaviour followed, including the posting of an incomprehensible comment that looked as though it was made up of phrases cut out of random sentences and glued together (by pointing that one out as an example of rogue behaviour in the eventual AE request, I was called a dick, maybe even a fucking dolt, as though I'd just been pointing out spelling mistakes and a bit of iffy grammar).
• Shuki again demanded a retraction of the suggestion that he'd violated the 1RR restriction, pushing me to finally file the AE request.
• In filing the request, no mention was made of the source reliability of the ADL. That was unnecessary.
• Shuki behaved obnoxiously to the admins on the AE Noticeboard.
• At the time the request was made, Shuki had a current topic ban on a settlement-related article and a history of other blocks and bans in the AI area, which were taken into account when formulating the enforcement action taken.

So, what does everybody think? Is saying that Shuki was indeffed for using the ADL as a source a true representation of what happened? (Hope that listing all that wasn't inappropriate)

    ←   ZScarpia   00:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@A Quest For Knowledge: "I recommend a warning or reminder to editors that Self-published sources should only be used as sources of information about themselves, in articles about themselves." The rules section that you're referring to is about when self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, not about whether they may be used as sources of information about third parties.     ←   ZScarpia   07:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those querying the difference between straightforward factual statements and factual statements which present a view or opinion, see if you can see any differences between the following:

• Diego Garcia has played no part in the global rendition programme.
• Between 2005 and 2007, the British Government stated several times that Diego Garcia had played no part in the global rendition programme.

    ←   ZScarpia   07:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did use an inadequate comment for the edit but this was purely due to lack of space. I instead used Talk to fully explain the reversion I made: see here. As the editor who lodged this case replied to that post, it is rather unusual to critisize my actual edit comment for it's inadequacy. I checked both RSN cases regarding IRmep as a source and found them to contain no clear result either way which to my understanding of WP guidelines means we can still use IRmep as a source. The only consensus was that IRmep was biased which, according to WP, has no affect on it's reliability. I also looked at the IRmep reference for bias and found this particular article was supported by references to the raw data it used. The article was not targeting MEMRI specifically but using them as an example in an article critisizing all "think tanks" which includes itself. I found no particular bias so made the edit. Wayne (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@--WGFinley: I have no idea why you cant find IRMEP media. I found dozenss of news releases through Business Wire and PR Newswire, several articles in Reuters, several on Yahoo! News, many in Al Jazeera and other Middle East news sites and numerous court filings etc. I acted in good faith by reverting User:Biosketchs deletion of what was a long standing sentence from the article and have no problem removing the edit if the source is found to be unreliable however, regardless of reliability, User:Shrikes motivation in bringing this case needs to be questioned. I would point out that Shrike brought this case at the very beginning of a content discussion regarding the source, without any AE warnings, made a tendentious claim that I was using a "misleading summary" to support my edit when he had already replied to my detailed Talk page explanation for the edit and is making false claims that The source in unreliable to be included in Wikipedia as was decided by WP:RSN and later The source is clearly unreliable as was determined by uninvolved editors please see those two discussion from WP:RSN. A perusal of the current RSN case shows three editors supporting IRMEP as a RS, two editors supporting that it is not and one editor leaning to using the source with caution. There was no clear consensus. This is properly a content dispute. Wayne (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: How can you support sanctioning editors for using a source simply because it's reliability is under discussion on the RSN? A source should be available for use until such time as consensus decides it is not reliable. Wayne (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty ordinary content dispute that does not belong on this board. The complainant should be instructed to take the problem to some dispute resolution board. Zero^talk 13:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source is unreliable using such kind of sources that most of uninvolved editors think that is not suitable for Wiki is clear WP:TE.--Shrike (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could report someone here with similar validity at least once per day. You have a case, not an overwhelming case but still a case, that this source is unreliable. But others disagree with you and I don't see a reason to believe they are acting in bad faith. It is a content dispute like very many others. You should seek mediation, or something like that. Zero^talk 14:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This case is identical to one brought against Shuki a couple of weeks ago, by none other than Zscarpia, where it was found that "using the ADL, an organization with an obvious agenda (whether one agrees with their agenda or not is irrelevant), as the sole source for that kind of claim claim is plainly tendentious. " Shuli was indef topic banned for this. Let's handle these cases with some consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Who is it, really? (talk • contribs) 14:37 & 14:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC) ( Account indefinitely blocked at 17:24, 10 April 2012 UTC for abusing multiple accounts. See hidden text. )[reply]

I don't think you should comment here.--Shrike (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, the added material is inappropriate. Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves. In this case, it's not an article about this organization, it's an article about a third-party. Even if this was an article about the Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy, it would fail criteria #2 of WP:ABOUTSELF. To be honest, self-published sources should be avoided, especially for contentious content in contentious articles. If something is truly worth including in a Wikipedia article, a secondary source will have reported it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@T. Canens and @EdJohnston: First, I have no dog in this race. Second, that's fine if you think this RfE is frivolous. To be honest, this seems to me to be a typical, run of the mill, content dispute that shouldn't have been brought to RfE in the first place. Nevertheless, it's here. That said, I don't think you should leave a false impression over the actual policy. Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, in articles about themselves. This is clearly not the case here. Even if it were, it would fail criteria #2 of WP:ABOUTSELF. Glossing over this fact does not serve the project. If I were an AE admin (which I'm not), I'd recommend a warning or reminder to ZScarpia and WLRoss against using self-published sources about third-parties and to Shrike to not file RfE's over ordinary content disputes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to add that both T. Canens and EdJohnston have argued that IRMEP is reliable for its own opinion. Of course, this is true but no editor at that RSN discussion made this argument. The concensus reached at RSN was that this was an unreliable source. Shrike should not be faulted for following this consensus. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, we are not supposed to use self-published sources for claims about third-parties. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ZScarpia: No, WP:SPS requires that the author be an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. No such evidence has been presented that the author is an established expert. If there is such evidence, please present it. Otherwise, it falls under WP:ABOUTSELF which is very clear:

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. .the material is not unduly self-serving and exceptional in nature;
2. .it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. .it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. .there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. .the article is not based primarily on such sources."

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've placed three (hopefully neutral!) notices asking for more feedback regarding how this source is being used.[3][4][5] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: I recommend a warning or reminder to editors that Self-published sources should only be used as sources of information about themselves, in articles about themselves. Claims that involve third-parties violate criteria #2 of WP:ABOUTSELF. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WGFinley, I honestly cannot believe that you have the ability to come to this request and completely misrepresent the contents of an ArbCom statement to use in adjudicating an A/E case. You were rebuffed by ArbCom because you took the issue of source misrepresentation as a content dispute, and ArbCom made it clear to you that it was an issue of conduct. Please don't misrepresent an ArbCom statement to further sympathize with an editor who has plainly filed a frivolous A/E report against editors who's only fault was using an organization as a source to quote the organization. -asad (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One falsehood after another.

You said now, "I was chided for my position that we should not be evaluating sources."

ArbCom said in December, "Editors misrepresenting sources is a conduct problem, not a content problem, and as such can be handled under discretionary sanctions at AE or in other cases, at AN/ANI."

Unless you are somehow claiming the editors here are guilty of misrepresenting sources, than you ought to really retract what you said about ArbCom in support of your argument. Also, I don't find your comment "next up in the partisan parade" very helpful and becoming of an Adnmin. You of all people should be aware of the fundamental principle of WP:NPA, be it "comment on content not the contributor". Furthermore, seeing how it was myself who started the discussion on the AN that led to your rebuffing, I find it very appropriate that I may be allowed comment on the issue without you throwing out the silly claim of "partisanship". -asad (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In both WP:RSN discussions on IRmep, even supporters of the group agreed it is not a WP:RS for anything other than referencing the third party documents it stores on its site. Everyone agreed that their commentary on the documents was not reliable, with the exception, "sometimes", of being an attributed opinion (on the documents only). But everyone agreed the group had near zero notability to earn it an RS, including for opinions on third parties. The claims that what we have here is one organization opining on another peer organization fails because MEMRI is a notable agency that's often quoted and discussed in third party major media, while none of them extend such recognition of IRmep. IRmep is not a peer organization to MEMRI and is certainly not reliable to comment on it. ZScarpia and WLRoss were aware of the Noticeboard consensus on the organization and chose to edit-war over it irregardless. They should be reprimanded or sanctioned. Shrike should not be faulted for following policy, especially in wake of other recent AE decisions on WP:RS violations - lest we promote a perception of Wikipedia partisanship on the topic. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston and T. Canens, a question: Why is saying "(Israel) was innocent in the matter of creating new settlements" considered making a statement of fact? Such a statement could only be considered a statement of fact if it was said by a body with the authority to ascribe guilt or innocence to Israel, such as the ICJ. If they said it, that would be a statement of fact because the ICJ has the authority to make such a determination of innocence. The ADL has no such authority. Indeed, the ADL can only give its opinion about Israel's position - in the same way that Israel's position that it is innocent, is only considered an opinion of Israel, not a statement of fact.

If an editor in the topic was to say that EdJohnston and T. Canens were not guilty of being biased towards Israel-supporting editors, that would only be their opinion, not a statement of fact. But if ARBCOM issued the same statement, it would be more a statement of fact because ARBCOM has the authority to determine bias by its Administrators.

Seems the ADL is at the level of an editor in the topic area and can only state an opinion about Israel's innocence, not a fact. Also seems that the push to assert it's a statement of fact is a little extreme and inapplicable. Shuki was indeffed for using the ADL on grounds of the organization being an advocate group, not on a fair assessment that it intrinsically stated an opinion. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Cannes’ analysis of Shrike’s AE is very problematic on several levels and demonstrates insidious inconsistencies in the manner in which he deals with certain editors.

For example, let’s address his first comment:

"As a preliminary matter, we have never determined that editing A-I articles, without more, could constitute constructive warning for the purposes of discretionary sanctions. The attempt to bypass the warning requirement on WLRoss is not well taken." However, a similar argument for leniency for MichaelNetzer drew TCs wrath. I had argued that since Netzer had not been formally warned, enforcement action was unavailable.[6]. TC advocated otherwise arguing My view is that MN's history of participation at AE, especially when considered in conjunction with the ARBPIA banner on Talk:Jerusalem ("WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES"), compels the conclusion that he has been constructively warned and no additional warning is necessary.

The article in the instant case has same ARBPIA warning plastered on top and the editor in question edits in A-I. Therefore, Netzer and WLRoss present the exact same set of circumstances. Yet TC argues that one (Netzer) was constructively warned while the other (WLRoss) was not. TCs double standard and the contrast between the manner in which he dealt with Netzer and WRLoss demonstrates a certain degree of dis-ingenuousness.

But there is more. TC demands that Shrike "explain, in 400 words or less, why they should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous and apparently retaliatory request." This is not the first time that TC has demanded this type of disciplinarian-like punishment from editors perceived as being sympathetic with Israel. On at least two previous occasions, Biosketch had been on the receiving end of TCs “400 words or less,” threat.[7][8] By contrast, the SPA Nableezy has brought numerous AEs that have fallen flat and TC remains mum.

I brought these two examples to highlight inconsistencies in the way TC administers AEs. Editors who are perceived as sympathetic with Israel are dismissed or sanctioned while editors who are openly hostile to Israel are given free passes. TC should recuse himself from all matters pertaining to ARBPIA.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As my name has been mentioned in the course of this discussion, I'll say that at the very least User:WLRoss should be informed of ARBPIA sanctions, as he's an active participant in the topic area and it appears he hasn't been formally made aware of the discretionary sanctions that go along with editing in I/P. I don't identify any bad faith on the part of User:Shrike or User:ZScarpia, and I find it rather disturbing that an Admin would propose punitive measures against User:Shrike when it's clear it was more a matter of misunderstanding policy on his part than anything else. As in the case of blocks, the purpose of sanctions should be to improve editors, not punish them; they should be WP:PREVENTATIVE, not WP:PUNITIVE. In general, it would be beneficial to the project if editors would approach each other before seeking Enforcement and only come here when earlier efforts to resolve things proved ineffective, unless it's something exceptional that needs urgent attention. But it would also help the project if editors were more circumspect in their application of reverts. Not counting my initial removal of IRmep on 1 April 2012, there have since been five reverts of the same content by five different editors. That's counterproductive. User:WGFinley is absolutely correct about the destructive influence of revert wars on the topic area. Even though they aren't edit wars in the strict sense, they make it more difficult to reach consensus, which is what editors' energies should be invested in. In this regard, certainly User:Severino would benefit from at least a stern warning for reverting IRmep back into the article without even participating in the discussion. His behavior is actually the worse of all the editors involved in this case because he's completely flouted the earnest efforts of editors to discuss their way to an agreement and instead acted unilaterally to try to force his personal minority POV in.—Biosketch (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user feels entitled for self-righteous instructing and denuciating while he started edit warring, deleted a criticism he doesn't like WITHOUT discussing.--Severino (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, removing an unreliable source from an article after two RSN discussions determined IRmep to have no established credibility is the furthest thing from starting an edit war. Read WP:BEBOLD, and read the RSN discussion I actually linked to in the edit summary I left when IRmep was initially removed from the article. The assertion that I don't like IRmep is purely speculative on your part, as well as an indication you cannot assume good faith in interactions with editors whose judgments in relation to article content you don't share. Taken together with your participation in a revert war without any attempt at discussion, these are symptoms of uncollaborative editing. Editors who conduct themselves in this manner and won't even acknowledge that their conduct is problematic are an unneeded burden on the topic area.—Biosketch (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it rather strange that User:Shrike lodges this complaint here quoting and ongoing discussion on WP:RSN as if it is complete. That one asks if IRmep is a reliable source for use of its FOIA and other original documents as primary sources. See (new name) Wikipedia:RSN#IRmep:_actual_reliable_source_evidence_re:_FOIA_docs. While Shrike's two examples actually are of IRmep opinions, in such an ongoing WP:RSN discussion there always is the possibility the community might broaden reliability to include opinions. Or that some WP:RS source might be found quoting IRmep or its director with such an opinion. He does not mention the fact that in this discussion - unlike the first one which only mentioned assertions of IRmep's unreliability - there are almost two dozen WP:RS referring to or using IRmep or its director Grant Smith's FOIA documents, analysis of those documents, quotes from IRmep/Smith documents or reprints of IRmep/Smith articles or press releases. More than a dozen of those have not been contested by (User:Biosketch); it was his removing IRmep FOIA documents as sources which first drew my attention to the issue. In fact, there were so many WP:RS about the group and its activities, I decided IRmep deserves a Wikipedia article and I am working on it. Four editors besides myself believe IRmep can be used as a source of primary source FOIA and other documents (diffs can be provided if necessary):

• User:Zero's relevant statement here is: The documents might be problematic due to being largely primary source material, but if they are handled within the guidelines for primary sources I don't see why they should be considered unreliable. They are not less reliable than, for example, MEMRI's documents which are widely used on Wikipedia. The main problem with documents produced by advocacy organizations like this is their bias in choosing which documents to present, so any sort of AS Zero points out source material presented by pro-Israel advocacy groups such as MEMRI, Honestreporting, Palwatch etc is widely cited in Wikipedia. In my opinion any blanket ban on IRmep on the basis of it being an advocacy group should also apply to pro-Isreal advocacy organisations such as the ones I have mentioned. Dlv999 (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC) meta-analysis based on the selection has to be avoided. Zerotalk 01:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• User: Dlv999 writes: AS Zero points out source material presented by pro-Israel advocacy groups such as MEMRI, Honestreporting, Palwatch etc is widely cited in Wikipedia. In my opinion any blanket ban on IRmep on the basis of it being an advocacy group should also apply to pro-Isreal advocacy organisations such as the ones I have mentioned. Dlv999 (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• User WhatamIdoing writes: Directly below this writes: That's right: being biased or partisan does not make a source unreliable. It only makes it biased. Wikipedia does not require sources to be unbiased. Articles should be neutral. Sources need to be reliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• User: Kaldari writes: If the documents are U.S. Government documents obtained through FOIA requests, shouldn't the source be considered the U.S. government rather than IRMep? It sounds like IRMep is just acting as the host. If we were relying on IRMep to interpret the documents for us and we didn't have direct access to them, IRMep would need to meet a higher standard, but if we're just limiting coverage to the primary documents themselves, I don't see why we would need to establish anything other than the fact that IRMep is not a blatantly fraudulent organization (as the U.S. government is generally considered a reliable source). Granted, there may be extenuating circumstances I'm not aware of in this rather convoluted debate, but that's my opinion from the peanut gallery. Kaldari (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Not only does this look like a frivolous complaint, it possibly could be an attempt to subvert the WP:RSN process. CarolMooreDC 14:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a vigorous discussion currently under way at WP:RSN regarding the reliability of this source. Consensus has certainly not been reached. It so happens that I believe this has not been established to be reliable, and am correctly quoted above as saying so, but in the absence of consensus it would be quite premature to launch an enforcement action simply for using this source. I have no opinion on any other actions surrounding this request. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact there was already a consensus Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_95#Institute_for_Research_Middle_Eastern_Policy.Anyhow the admins' argument is different they say its not matter of WP:RS which I respectfully disagree--Shrike (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The existence of an active good-faith discussion while the edits, and complaints, were made, suggests that the edits are not "clearly" disruptive. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me like Shrike is over-stepping on this issue. Before getting involved in this dispute Shrike had removed an attributed quote from a highly notable critic of Israel, claiming WP:RS as a defense. As to the claim about WP:ORG, I don't think a source's notability is even remotely a valid argument for excluding information from it. Outside of reliability the only concern I can think of is WP:UNDUE, but that does not seem to apply in this case. The criticism of MEMRI as selective and agenda-driven is a significant POV.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is frivolous.

  As a preliminary matter, we have never determined that editing A-I articles, without more, could constitute constructive warning for the purposes of discretionary sanctions. The attempt to bypass the warning requirement on WLRoss is not well taken.

  Moreover, this request also fails on the merits. Even assuming arguendo that the IRMEP website is not a reliable source for facts (something we need not decide to resolve this case, although it does seem true), it is surely a reliable source for IRMEP's own opinion. Shuki's case dealt with using ADL publications to source a disputed fact. This case involves using IRMEP to source a statement about IRMEP's opinion. The former is unacceptable, the latter is not.

  Shrike (talk · contribs) is requested to explain, in 400 words or less, why they should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous and apparently retaliatory request. T. Canens (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Tim that the filing here is frivolous. The actual IRMEP source has various issues which the editors involved can surely work out through consensus. IRMEP may not be a reliable source for facts stated purely on their own authority but they are surely a reliable source for their own opinions. Whether their opinion is important enough to cite is up to editors to decide. You can work this out through normal WP:DR without any need for admin input. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@A Quest for Knowledge: WLRoss and and ZScarpia are trying to include the editorial opinion of the IRMEP organization about the Middle East Media Research Institute. It is not out of the question that one research institute's opinion of another research institute might be relevant or interesting. The two institutes seem to be acting as adversaries, so you might consider whether their views deserve space in each other's criticism sections.This would not run afoul of WP:RS because it's a question of opinion, not of facts. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree, IRMEP doesn't seem to meet the criteria for WP:ORG. I did a Google News search and it returned a grand total of three hits, a press release from PR newswire, an entry on MarketWatch with the same press release (verbatim) and a story from a Turkish website paraphrasing the press release. Even when I broadened the search to a decade it's less than 20 hits and all press releases and "news" sites that reprint press releases. While IRMEP may be a reliable source for its own opinion it doesn't seem to meet the WP:ORG threshold for an opinion worthy to cite in the article which seems to be what Shrike's argument is. --WGFinley (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may well be true, but whether an opinion is sufficiently notable for inclusion is usually a content question outside our purview. Shrike started out by claiming that ZScarpia and WLRoss have used an unreliable source, drawing parallels with the Shuki case (which dealt with using a biased source for a disputed statement of fact), a claim which is plainly not true. He ought not be allowed to play bait and switch, and change his argument to an entirely different (and in my view, equally meritless, but I accept that reasonable people can disagree on that) claim about the opinion itself, when it is clear that his original claim is gaining no traction and a sanction may be forthcoming. T. Canens (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds a lot like wikilawyering to me Tim. If I see someone beating someone over the head and call it "assault" instead of "battery" it doesn't change the fact a crime is being committed. Shrike is right that it doesn't belong even if her reasons are a bit off. --WGFinley (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • To use your analogy, it sounds to me like screaming "murder" when seeing someone patting someone else, and then switch to "battery" when they are laughed out of court. T. Canens (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Incorrect. This is no difference then us coming down harshly on someone presenting ADL as an unbiased source, this organization has nowhere near the standing of ADL. --WGFinley (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whether a source is biased is usually an easy, objective, inquiry that can be performed by uninvolved admins readily. The "standing" of a source and whether it is sufficient to warrant inclusion is a subjective inquiry, requiring research beyond our paygrade. T. Canens (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, this is definitely within of our purview. I held the position we shouldn't be evaluating sources and was chided soundly over it by ARBCOM no less. We can't suddenly now throw up our hands and say we aren't going to critically review sources. The case remains Shrike removed material and questioned it, it should not be restored to the article until the matter is settled, that's how edit wars start. --WGFinley (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can address misuse of sources - misrepresentation, biased sourcing, or similar issues. This is not a case of source misuse: nothing is being misrepresented, nothing is being falsified, no biased source is being used to support a fact. It basically involves whether mentioning this view is WP:UNDUE, something that should be the task of the community. If admins can decide what weight is DUE for each PoV and enforce that decision by sanctions, then they would have been effectively dictating content. T. Canens (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no difference between misrepresenting what a source says and presenting a source that misrepresents. --WGFinley (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course there is a difference. To determine whether someone is misrepresenting what a source says, one need to look no further than the source itself, a task that can be done by even someone unfamiliar with the subject at hand. You look at the source, and either it is being misrepresented or not. It's a narrow inquiry. To determine whether a source itself misrepresents something (and not merely whether it passes the guidelines for RSes), you would have to look beyond the source and do your own open-ended research into the subject and form a view as to the correct presentation of the matter. That goes well beyond what an uninvolved administrator can or should do, and should be reserved for editors of the article at issue. T. Canens (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ZScarpia - Frankly, given your intelligence, I think you are being very disingenuous. That is, you know the organization doesn't measure up to WP:ORG and shouldn't be included as a source of information in the article but you are happy to prop it up because Shrike isn't stating the objection the right way. This is the kind of partisan bickering we do not need in this topic area. The correct response would be to acknowledge the issue and the correct policy against its inclusion. The case is clearly made on the talk page IRMEP is utterly lacking legitimacy but you are playing WP:IDHT because the correct policy isn't being cited. --WGFinley (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @ZScarpia - claiming you didn't even look into her claim before reverting her isn't helping your argument. --WGFinley (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@asad (next up in the partisan parade) - I didn't misrepresent a thing. I was chided for my position that we should not be evaluating sources. I am evaluating the source in this case which happens to be presented as self-sourcing, that leads one to look at the organization that is presenting its opinion and the legitimacy of that opinion to be included as a valid source of opinion. That organization has no such legitimacy. I will not sit here and indef ban people for trying to use the ADL as a source of unbiased info and turn a blind eye when the same thing is being done here. It is the EXACT same thing. --WGFinley (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim - state for me the difference, in the Shuki opinion that you and Ed both agreed to where we evaluated the ADL as an inappropriate source for an article (rightfully so) and sanctioned that user for doing it and this. It is the same thing. The organization is a blatantly biased one with nowhere near the standing of the ADL. If I did a Google News search on ADL there Iould be scores of articles including their opinions, this one isn't even close to that and you want to give it a wider berth than the ADL. --WGFinley (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WGF: The difference I see is the fact versus opinion thing. Review the previous case for a moment. ADL has described themselves as an advocate for Israel, per their mission statement as quoted in our article. So in that case, we were asked to accept a statement by the advocate that the state they were advocating for (Israel) was innocent in the matter of creating new settlements. I.e. a factual claim about the behavior of Israel. It is not wise to accept the word of an advocacy group in such a matter of fact. IRMEP is a one-sided group also in terms of their views but we are only asking here whether including their *opinion* in the article on MEMRI could have value. I see that as being up to editor consensus to decide. (Personally I don't think it's valuable enough to be included). The analog here would be asking whether the ADL's *opinion* of IRMEP would have value in the article on IRMEP. I see no reason why not, but it depends on editor consensus. If your judgment of IRMEP's standing was gained only from your own Google search you should also see the list of mentions compiled in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#IRmep: actual reliable source evidence re: FOIA docs. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Ed says, using a biased source to source a fact is a straightforward no-no. Whether a source is a biased is usually a binary question with only one correct answer that can easily be determined. Using a biased source to source that source's opinion is acceptable. Questions such as the appropriate weight to be accorded to IRMEP's (or anyone else's) view point in the article involve complex editorial judgment that we, as admins, should stay away from. T. Canens (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though I don't think this had to be brought to AE, after hearing the arguments I would *not* be inclined to sanction Shrike for a frivolous report. Zero0000's comment to Shrike seems apt:

You have a case, not an overwhelming case but still a case, that this source is unreliable. But others disagree with you and I don't see a reason to believe they are acting in bad faith. It is a content dispute like very many others. You should seek mediation, or something like that.

It is disconcerting that there is so little agreement (even among admins) as to how to qualify the sources used in this case. I doubt we will be able to settle those differences any time soon. It appears that closing with no admin action is a viable option. AE cannot solve all of the world's problems, and there is no egregious misbehavior that I can see. Do any of the admins have anything else they would like to do here before closing? EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with EdJohnston. The source here is problematic, for reasons elucidated above, but I think it was being used to present an opinion as opposed to being used to support a factual claim. However, I don't think the request was without any merit (if I saw the same editors doing a similar thing again, I'd have no problem sanctioning then), so I don't think Shrike did anything worth of sanctions either. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Grandmaster 20:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

I included diffs in my comments

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

No warning is required, because both editors mentioned in my report were active in the discussion about the report on Nagorno-Karabakh article, and are well aware of AA remedies. Plus, soon after registering his account here Winterbliss already filed a report requesting AA2 remedy enforcement, which also demonstrates his familiarity with the remedy in question: [9]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a follow up to the recently closed AE request on the article about Nagorno-Karabakh: [10], which resulted in the article being placed under the 500 article edit restriction for the recent accounts. In particular, the remedy holds that "Editors with less than 500 article edits, less than three months old or are anonymous editors are under a 1RR per day restriction with no exceptions". Now my request is related to the activity of the 2 of the accounts that were covered by that remedy, i.e. Winterbliss (talk · contribs) and Dehr (talk · contribs). At the time they both had around 100-150 article edits. Now they have more than 500 edits, which they gained by making minor edits to just one article each, Melikdoms of Karabakh by Winterbliss: [11], and Ghaibalishen Massacre by Dehr: [12]

Both articles are written by adding 1 word at a time! See for instance:

[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

The same is with the article created by Winterbliss. What could be written in a dozen of edits maximum they wrote in 500 edits, by adding a 500 word text word by word. My question here is, isn't this kind of editing just gaming the system to gain the required number of edits? Maybe the remedy needs some adjustment so that it could not be so obviously gamed? Also, Dehr and Winterbliss edit in exactly the same manner, which leaves an impression that those accounts are related. Note that they never are active at the same time, usually when one is gone, the other one takes his place. This similarity of editing is also something to consider. Grandmaster 20:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[19] [20]

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

• Both indeffed. This kind of attempts to game the restriction, disrupting the encyclopedia in the process, is not well taken. T. Canens (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have also purged the disruptive revisions from the article history. Admins can look at Special:Undelete/Melikdoms of Karabakh and Special:Undelete/Ghaibalishen Massacre for the relevant edits. T. Canens (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBR&I#Decorum

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

1. 12:50, 12 April 2012 "lie"
2. 13:26, 12 April 2012 "trolling"
3. 13:40, 12 April 2012 "You wouldn't recognize a minority view if it was a yard up your butt" Edit summary: "troll"
4. 19:24, 12 April 2012 Maunus added this during the discussion on this page. Latin "praeterea censeo Miradrem esse delendam" = "furthermore, Miradre should be destroyed/annihilated/wiped out" or something similar.

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

WP:ARBR&I#Decorum: "Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited."

This has clearly been ignored here. This is not the first time Maunus is incivil. See earlier blocks for incivility as well as [21].

I ask that the Maunus should be warned.

I have not promised anything. I have stated that do not to intend to edit any of the core topics in this area due to this obviously being pointless with a very strong local group of editors here in Wikipedia vehemently opposing the biological view and everyone disagreeing with this view has been successfully banned by this group. Not very surprising when a Nobel Prize winner like James D. Watson can be fired for saying the not politically correct thing in this area. I have also stated that I intend to make occasional talk page comments. As can be seen and expected, the group now trying to get me banned also. I do hope that being civil still applies also towards those expressing unpopular views.

Hipocrite also brings up an edit regarding IQ research in China which has absolutely no mention of race. So obviously there is no advocacy of genetic racial differences as claimed.

Hipocrite has already called me a racist elsewhere so to clarify: I do not argue that there are proven racial genetic differences in IQ. Only that the issue is unresolved and that the biological arguments are not properly presented in Wikipedia. Furthermore, racism includes advocating discrimination which I certainly do not not. My view is the opposite: If there are biological advantages and disadvantages, then only by acknowledging this can those disadvantaged get proper help. See also the moralistic fallacy. Academica Orientalis (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding who is correct regarding non-US anthropologists and other scientists views regarding race, I have presented sources supporting my view at talk:Human, Maunus has not.

Maunus is making a claim regarding what racism is without any sources. I refer to the racism article which states, with sources (in the article body), that racism includes advocating discrimination. Also Maunus's definition is rather strange. It is racism to say that some groups may have higher genetic resistance to malaria than other groups? Academica Orientalis (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New reply to further arguments: Maunus has added a straw man argument regarding racial slurs. I have not made any racial slurs. Neither have I edited the definition of racism with sources in the racism article.

I see that Maunus has now have added some sources to the article. However, Maunus has still not presented any systematic study supporting his claims regarding the views on race by by non-US anthropologists. I have on talk:Human showing much greater acceptance of race by non-US anthropologists. There are also sources there stating that most US forensic anthropologists support the biological reality of race as well as the issue not being resolved in genetics and medicine. I agree that certain subfields in American anthropology completely reject the existence of races and that the American Anthropology Association has issued a statement, lacking scientific sourcing, to that effect. However, Wikipedia should mention all significant views, not just those vehemently argued by certain groups. Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New reply to further arguments: Again going back to the definition of racism, is it racism to say that some groups are better adapted to living at high altitudes than other groups (which applies to the Tibetan people in recent studies)? No, I would argue, there has to be some form of discrimination argued for also. I would argue that racial slurs more or less openly include an argument for discrimination which is what makes them racistic. Anyway, this is not just my definition, I again refer to the definition and sources (in the body) in the racism article. Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New reply to further arguments: The last edit [22] with the Latin phrase "praeterea censeo Miradrem esse delendam" ("furthermore, Miradre should be destroyed" or something similar) can only be considered new incivility. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Manus: Maunus has continually changed the text and improved the sources in response to my talk page criticisms showing that my criticisms has been constructive. If I have stated anything inappropriate I ask that will be given an opportunity to retract/fix this in the same way Maunus has been advised to and allowed to fix/retract his incivility. Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the content dispute I refer to my earlier statements above. Race (classification of humans) is under WP:ARBR&I as stated on the talk page of that article. The dispute regarding the Human article concern a section discussing the same subject. Mathsci, as could be expected since he belongs to the same group of editors (including also AndyTheGrump) who constantly show up and support one another on this topic and demands bans for those stating opposing views, is demanding that I should be punished for asking for some basic civility to be respected in this topic! Academica Orientalis (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[23]

I cannot assume good faith regarding user Academica Orientalis/Miradre. I have several years of experience with his editing style which is prototypical case of a civil POV Pusher. He repeats the same invalid arguments an mischaracterizations where ever he goes and no amount of contrary evidence makes him change his story. Among his favorite delusions is the idea that outside of the US most anthropologists thinks race is a valid biological concept, and that the fact that forensic anthropologists stubbornly stick to it means it has any scientific validity. It doesn't and this is demonstrated by mountains of sources literally. Miradre doesn't care - and keeps repeating his references to a few very low profile studies that have been generally criticized or ignored. Over and over and over. That is extremely tedious and tiresome to deal with and it causes frustration - for which reason I sometimes do tell him my opinion. In discussions apart from being repetitive Miradre is also routinely covertly incivil by twisting his opponents words or misrepresenting their arguments. I do not doubt for a second that it was a calculated strategy that made him arrive out of the blue at Talk:Human when he eyed a chance to goad me into insulting him so he could post this request.

Miradre as usual plays the victims card suggestion that he is a member of a stigmatized minority group persecuted for his viewpoint. Note however that I have been perfectly able to collaborate amiably with many other editors who share his viewpoint such as the now banned Captain Occam/Ferahgo and David Kane who have mentioned me as a particularly collaborative editor, able to compromise and engage in civil arguments in spite of differing viewpoints. My problem with Miradre is not and has never been his viewpoint but his editing behavior.

I stand by my opinion that he is a troll and a POV pusher who should not be editing and will not retract or apologize. The best solution for wikipedias integrity would be to permanently topic ban Miradre from editing articles related to Race and human psychology. I will gladly accept a mutual interaction ban.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have never been blocked for incivilty. I have only ever been blocked by my own request. User Lhb1239 was a trolling sockpuppet who like you worked hard to deserve the verbal treatment he received. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Racism by the most common definition of course does not require explicit argumentation in favor of discrimination it is simply any view that elevates one supposed racial group at the expense of another. The definition provided by Miradre is almost exclusively used by racialists arguing that since they just believe that racial groups should be kept separate politically and genetically they are not actually racists. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Miradre is as usual being disingenious to the point of disruption. Is it not racism to say "you are a stupid [Insert racial slur here]"? Or would it require to have the added statement "and I feel justified in discriminating against you for that reason". The racism article is of course simply wrong - I have not looked at the history but I don't doubt that you have a hand in that.

• He also states an untruth when he says I have not provided sources - I have inserted ca. twenty sources into the article following our dispute. I have not presented them on the talkpage because I don't want to interact with him anymore. Also not a single one of the sources state that belief in race is the mainstream viewpoint outside of the US. (it is also a false dichotomy to suggest that US anthropology is isolated from other anthropological traditions - indeed the AAA have members from all over the globe and anthropologists from the entire word participate in its meetings, publications and public statements). untruthes, distortion and disruption as usual.

• I am not accusing you of being a racist and I know you have made no slurs. I am showing the flaw in your proposed definition because slurs are obviously racist but do not "advocate discrimination".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Miradre misrepresents what the article on racism says, and has apparently not read any any mainstream literature on that concept. The Tibetan argument is also an obvious strawman since nobody has suggested that pointing out differences between populations is racism. I am going on an enforced wikibreak now and the next month. That does not mean that I am rescincding my case against Miradre or conceding as much as a millimeter - it just means that I need a break from the frustration of having to deal with him and other similar editors - they are distracting dfrom other more important work. I do hope and wish that he will be topic banned for a long time, as that in my view is imperative to maintaining wikipedias integrity. .·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much like Arbitrators to review Academica Orientalis' recent editing at Talk: Racism and Talk:Human. To me these are eminent examples of his disruptive strategy of filibustering, stalling, repetition, misrepresentation and tendenious reading of sources. If you find it necessary I could file a separate AE case, but it seems that these concerns do fall under the scope of this request. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if admins reading this also reviewed Academica Orientalis/Miradre's continued disruptive presence in article related (and not related but still related by him) to Race. Please recall that he was topic banned for 3 months as a result of [24], that he promised to leave the topic space alone recently (diff by request), and that he's apparently on a quest to make it appear that human races, are very, very different than each other and that some of those races are inferior in some ways to others - I wouldn't want to comment on his motive - see attempts to do this on articles as totally unrelated as Science and technology in the People's Republic of China. But, hey, he's supportive of a widely discredited theory mainly promoted by virulent racists (which he is CLEARLY not, lest I be accused of calling someone a racist), so how dare someone lose their cool at him! Hipocrite (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Academica Orientalis/Miradre repeatedly makes the same false claims regarding the supposed acceptance of 'race' as a valid scientific concept in non-US anthropology, I'd say that any statement to that effect is of minor significance, when compared to the " disruptive point-making" routinely engaged in by the complainant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I suggested to Maunus that he fix his three comments at Talk:Human that were cited as civility violations, and he has done so. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not really seeing anything actionable, especially as Maunus fixed his comments. I would also caution Academica Orientalis/Miradre about skating on thin ice in the topic area. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Unless someone else feels differently, I'd suggest that this request be closed as no action taken. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur per Ed and Blade. --WGFinley (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MastCell ^Talk 22:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Geremia topic-banned

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

1. 17:58, 18 April 2012: edit to Talk:Abortion and mental health

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

Not required.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Topic banned editor. Topic ban violated.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [25]

This seems to be a clear cut violation of the topic ban. However, I am sympathetic to the sentiment expressed here. Topic bans are not enforced by the Wiki software. Instead, they're based on the user's own self-enforcement. As a software developer, I find this situation ludicrous. As an analogy, if I'm developing an e-commerce web site and expect a user to enter a valid credit card number to make a purchase, the credit card number must pass a Luhn algorithm validation. If I fail to perform this validation, it's my fault, not the user's. If Geremia honestly thought it was OK to make this comment because the Wiki software allowed them to do so, this is an indictment against the Wiki software, not the user. Sorry if I went off on a rant, but bad software annoys me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Geremia's talk page has many block notices and warnings regarding abortion, starting in September 2011. When someone has shown that they are unwilling or unable to adhere to a ban, it may be time for escalating blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Yep, a block is in order. How about a month? T. Canens (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a one-month block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A block is clearly called for given the history here and the clear nature of the violation. But this is the first under the topic ban. I would suggested no longer than a week, per the enforcement provision included in the case. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There's also discretionary sanctions per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Discretionary sanctions, but I agree with you that it might be more correct to start with a one-week block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My thinking was based less on a lack of authority than on proportionality for someone who hasn't had other problematic edits in the months since the case. However, a closer look at his contributions shows [26] and [27]: edit warring on the article in January 2012, well after the ban was in effect. While such old edits aren't really actionable in themselves, I believe that they demonstrate a continuing pattern of ignoring the editing restriction and make the need for a longer block clear. I no longer oppose a 1 month block. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reviewed the evidence, and I agree with a 1 month block for the reasons elucidated above by Eluchil404, so I'll implement it. Will close in a moment. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

1. Homunculus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

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

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

Homunculus

1. Homunculus was warned about removing sourced material without explanation, with misleading edit summary: "Moving this into controversies, where it belongs. Will revisit to clean up more later." and about distortion on what sources say using neutral factual Wikipedia narrator voice [28] and [29], see Talk:Falun_Gong#Gallagher_and_Ashcraft_source.

2. Homunculus fails to adhere normal editorial process during Talk:Falun_Gong#Number_of_followers_in_1999 Chronology:

1. 21:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC) - discussion appears as concluded
2. 01:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC) - edit
3. 02:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC) - raising a new concern. (See bellow revert by SnF at 04:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC))

3. [30] - Homunculus Removes sourced material about Li Hongzhi place of residence with misleading comment: demographics circa 1990s

The Sound and the Fury

1. [31] - User:TheSoundAndTheFury reverts commenting : "as there has been no explanation by Agada about the change". The user did not engage in any meaningful content discussion
2. [32] User:TheSoundAndTheFury removes a tag with personal attack in edit summary.
3. [33] User:TheSoundAndTheFury engages in edit warring, removes a tag again, shortly after the verbose rational for placement was provided on talk page. Prefers personal attacks on talk page to meaningful content discussion.
4. [34] User:TheSoundAndTheFury removes material with strange edit summary: ll be the guy with the broom this time..... No discussion on the article talk page.

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

1. [35] Warning by AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs)
2. [36] Warning by AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs)
3. [37] Last Warning by AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs)
4. [38] Warning by Ohconfucius (talk · contribs)

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

Topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Both editors fail to adhere to normal editorial process.

On Talk:Falun Gong#Gallagher and Ashcraft source

Reading this discussion just puzzles me: the article is already sourced to the teeth, and the sourcing to Gallager and Ashcraft is being questioned again on the grounds that 'they are not scholars of Eastern religion', despite the fact that their publications appear in all the peer-reviewed journals and meet all the criteria that many editors on this article ask for ad nauseum. I find a degree of irony that Danny Schechter, who is about as far removed as one can be from being an expert on religion, China, or traditional eastern culture, is sourced so heavily in the article without any sort of careful scrutiny. -- Colipon+(Talk) 14:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think what's being pointed out is the tendentiousness of, on the one hand, fighting to exclude Falun Gong-skeptical sources like Maria Chang on account of their focus being more on politics rather than religion, while basing this article on Falun Gong-sympathetic sources with similarly (ir)relevant credentials, such as Danny Schechter. Now I'm not sure how much of a role Homunculus had in promoting Schechter, but he definitely added, for example, Ethan Gutmann's exoneration of Falun Gong on charges of homophobia, based on comparisons to "traditional religions" that Gutmann (of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies) has no scholarly credentials on religion to speak about. -- Shrigley (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

On Talk:Falun_Gong#Number_of_followers_in_1999

The quantum leap State General Administration for Sports equals Communist Party or China's government is still not reliable. Please see ref [37]^[1], cited multiple times in the article. Yuezhi Zhao outlines in Falung Gong, the Chinese State and Media Politics. see page 212 the affiliation of Li Hongzhi with this Sports Commission, when Falun Gong was legitimized by the state. -- AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Local refs

On Talk:Falun Gong#.7B.7BMultiple issues.7D.7D

Continued removal of an explained tag is a disruption of editorial process and an example of WP:TE. It is clear from talk page discussion that the removal does not enjoy a consensus. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ My very best wishes. Let's discuss this diff in more detail.

1. On "MICHAEL J. GREENLEE" -> JOSEPH KAHN change:

• summarizing cited with a primary source scholarly secondary impartial source is changed to what is arguably less valuable JOSEPH KAHN crisis time sensational news report.
• The Kahn source was specifically objected on the talk page : Lede's Joseph Kahn's source attribute the 70 millions number to "Beijing" or PRC government., such claim contains internal contradiction, since Kahn notes: "Chinese Government estimates has more members than the Communist Party". Well, even reliable sources contain bad material from time to time. see AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC).
• "Some" Wikipedia:Weasel words attribution when the Sports Commission attribution is agreed b all on the talk page

2. "MICHAEL J. GREENLEE" -> "Seth Faison" change:

• again the same scholarly vs. news value gap
• and again "widely cited government estimates" weaselly attribution.

Do I need to repeat myself? If this is not a WP:TE, then what is? Those are clear Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong principles violations.

Best wishes, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ My very best wishes - take II I disagree that the issue discussed is a content dispute. What I request to be examined here is the editorial process, whether or not there are evidences for disruption or we see here Wikipedia as usual pattern. The points of concern are:

• (H)(SnF) Reinstating content outside the consensus with weaselly attributions. There is also a strange discussing and editing pattern here. (I've thought about this diff and misattributed SnF edits as H's. It was my mistake.
• (SnF) Removing/edit warring multiple issues tag, which purpose is to improve the quality, before the discussion on talk page concluded.

I think that both editors Homunculus and The Sound and the Fury are positive for the project and wish them luck in this review. However, in their response, both on the article talk page and during this request I do not see acknowledgment of core failures and desire to seek positive issue resolution. Both editors were sufficiently warned.Therefore if WP:TE is detected by reviewing administrators, I believe those editor's energy could be invested more constructively outside FG<->CPC conflict topic. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Ed I've came to WP:AE only after SnF repeatedly disrupted editorial process (a) in Talk:Falun_Gong#Number_of_followers_in_1999 and (b) in Talk:Falun Gong#.7B.7BMultiple issues.7D.7D. See SnF diff #1 and strange comment for (a) and SnF diffs #2 and #3 for edit warring the tag for (b). When I re-read Talk:Falun Gong#.7B.7BMultiple issues.7D.7D I see more then one editor who is objecting the removal. (a) and (b) are text book examples for SnF's disruptive editing. On (a) See H's comment: I think it's best to allow the fellow a chance to respond before reverting.Homunculus (duihua) 04:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC). In order to resolve the dispute, I'd sugest all the points of disagreement listed in Multiple issues to be discussed and resolved. I personally reviewed the sources regarding the number of followers in 1999, the issue that was raised during talk page discussion elsewhere. I have found the current wording as WP:SYNTH and this is a content issue but I could explain this point again if I'd be requested. For the record, my motivation for editing and reviewing sources on the subject of FG is a pure curiosity. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've manually unarchived this discussion, since it was not properly closed. I also added more diffs

* H removes sourced material with a misleading edit summary. Again.

* SnF removes a material without discussion with a strange edit summary about the guy with the broom.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ H. Right, when I was looking for edit which removed without discussion sourced material about Li Hongzhi place of residence from the introduction the edit summary: demographics circa 1990s was really helpful. And hmm, not that you have not been warned before. My suggestion to you, H, is to break your edits into smaller pieces and give those appropriate descriptions. And there is no need to advocate for SnF, it might appear as tag teaming. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update Maybe those reactions (SnF and H) to presenting three high quality major news reliable sources: BBC, Time Magazine and Reuters during Talk:Falun_Gong#Chen_Fuzhao discussion and dismissing those as the government's propaganda could illustrate the problem. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

1. [39]
2. [40]

This is interesting. My patience with user AgadaUrbanit has been worn thin, so I shall be more candid and curt than usual. I do not believe this user has an adequate understanding of the concept of consensus, edit waring, or of “normal editorial process.” If he/she did, he might have the insight to recognize that it was he who was consistently editing against consensus and refusing to participate in a normal collaborative process.

When this user first appeared on this page, I attempted to engage with them in good faith, understand their concerns, and propose solutions. My attempts at collaboration were met with escalating sarcasm and threats, and I never understood why. Ultimately, when Agada’s contributions and ideas were not accepted, he sought to hold the page hostage by repeatedly and disruptively tag-bombing it, always with little to no explanation of the actual content problems he perceived. When editors removed those tags per consensus, Agada decided to escalate to AE.

I’ll quickly address the three specific issues Agada raised against me.

• [41], Agada says my edit summary was misleading. I certainly did not intend to mislead, though it’s true that I didn’t describe all the changes in the edit summary. In my defense, this was not an "unexplained" removal of sourced content. I did describe those changes on the talk page, both before and after making them, and I believe that most of the editors involved supported those changes.

• [42] With this edit, I sought to clean up and condense some material. Agada said I misrepresented a source. I didn’t think I did, and I asked for clarification on the talk page. No further explanation was provided by Agada.

• Agada said I did not follow normal editing process regarding Talk:Falun Gong#Number of followers in 1999. I think I did. I discussed the issue at length and in good faith with Agada and attempted to understand his ideas. I was polite throughout, even as Agada became sarcastic, rude, and started tag-bombing the page without explanation. I devised a proposal to improve the presentation of this subject on the page. Agada responded to my proposal with snarky comments I didn’t understand. I asked for him to clearly state his concerns, or suggest ways for improvement. Agada did not respond, and I implemented that proposal. I don’t know how I could have behaved any better.

For interested admins to wrap their minds around this chain of events, my best advice would be to read the relevant discussion threads on the talk page in their entirety. A warning: they are very long, convoluted, and even I frequently was at a loss for understanding what was going on. See Talk:Falun Gong#Number of followers in 1999, Talk:Falun Gong#Gallagher and Ashcraft source, and Talk:Falun Gong#Multiple issues.

I’ve already wasted a considerable amount of time trying to engage with this editor (for instance, I’ve had to explain why the New York Times is not original research, or why reputable magazines and periodicals are not ‘self-published’). Ultimately I believe this case to be frivolous. However, if the admins believe that there are serious issues here, I will happily provide a more thorough account of my actions. Please let me know if that will be required. Homunculus (duihua) 15:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General comments Regarding my involvement in Falun Gong topics

Another editor (who does not exactly have clean hands with respect to this namespace—blocks for edit warring, warnings for outside canvassing...) has commented that I am merely another “tiresome pro-Falun Gong” editor who likes to “nibble away daily in their own biased way at articles regarding their chosen organisation and its adversary, the dictatorship of the PRC.” I assume that the disciplinary admins reviewing this case have the judgment and experience necessary to determine that comments like this—which are completely devoid of substance or evidence—should be ignored. But just in case, I shall address the points raised:

• I am not a “pro-Falun Gong” editor. Nor am I am not an “anti-Falun Gong” editor. I furthermore reject that dichotomous paradigm as silly and childish. My interest in editing the Falun Gong namespace is academic; I am an expert in comparative Chinese politics, state-society relations and human rights. I publish on these topics in reliable sources and peer-reviewed journals (I don't cite myself, if anyone is wondering). The objective of my edits to this namespace and others has never been either to antagonize the government of the PRC or to promote Falun Gong, and a look through my editing history would turn up edits that might be construed as favorable to either “side”. Also, in case it wasn't clear, I edit a broad range of subjects related to Chinese politics and history.

• For several years, Falun Gong-related pages have been the scene of highly contentious edit wars, with nearly all the editors identifying along pro- or anti- Falun Gong battle lines. I have sought to move beyond this by ensuring that content is neutral, complete, and well sourced. I don't resort to personal attacks, or attempt to impugn the motives of other editors, as I believe this would damage the quality of discourse. I believe my presence (and that of a few others) has resulted in these pages becoming better and more stable. I also believe that if I were topic banned, the battleground would probably be resurrected, with few editors left capable of mediating.

• A representative example of my contributions to this namespace: Here’s a before[43] and after[44] on the page Tuidang movement. I do similar things on other namespaces, of course, such as Terrorism in the People's Republic of China (see before[45] and after[46]). I’ll note that after I made these changes to the Tuidang movement, an admin familiar with the literature praised these efforts.[47] Yet Mrund/Martin Rundkvist (who commented below) took exception. I can’t recall having any prior interactions with this user, or any interaction since, but he went to my talk page, left a note asking if I was a “Falun gong practitioner or sympathiser,” and told me to stop editing these articles.[48] This was quite extraordinary, and seemed to be an attempt to intimidate an editor based solely on a presumed religious affiliation or "sympathy" —the quality of their edits be damned! Imagine if Falun Gong were replaced with “Jew” or “homosexual.”

It is my observation that some of the partisan editors who frequent these pages don’t appreciate my presence. Presumably, having unaligned, knowledgable editors involved detracts from their ability to advance their respective points of view. It is also true that, because I try to watch over the Falun Gong page and engage with editors who make comments there, I sometimes end up offending the sensibilities of random interlocutors. Yet with very few exceptions, I get along with and can work well with everyone (here’s a recent example[49]). I have never been sanctioned or blocked, which is more than could be said for either of the two editors who have argued for my ban. That’s all for now. Homunculus (duihua) 19:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Status as of April 20

AgadaUrbanit has unarchived this page, and presented new evidence to attempt to indict myself and TSTF. I'm actually glad, because I'd like to ask the admins to consider whether action is necessary against Agada, whose relentless pursuit of this frivolous cause is itself tendentious.

Agada's new evidence against me is this diff[50], which he claims had a "misleading edit summary" and involved the alleged removal of "sourced material" relating to the place of residence of Li Hongzhi. On both counts, Agada is wrong. The edit summary provided was "demographics circa 1990s". This edit does indeed relate to describing Falun Gong demographics circa the 1990s (I'll also note that this edit was the result of a prolonged talk page discussion in which I had sought consensus for and described the rationale for this change). I made one unrelated change that was not described in the edit summary, which was to move (not remove) a sentence about Li Hongzhi's place of residence that I believed had been misplaced. It is insane that Agada thinks this is grounds to topic ban someone. Agada's new charge against TSTF is of a similar nature: namely, he doesn't like this edit summary[51] (never mind that TSTF was cleaning up primary source material and original research, and that he explained himself on the talk page). Homunculus (duihua) 18:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agada, hundreds of reliable sources describe the Chinese government's media offensive as a "propaganda campaign." Some have likened it to the Cultural Revolution in scope and intensity. My using that phrasing on the talk page is not evidence of anything other than a familiarity with the subject.Homunculus (duihua) 20:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to say, this is really strange. Anyone who looks at the diffs and the course of discussion will end up scratching their heads. Agada placed a series of tags on the page after a discussion with Homunculus broke down (he stopped answering questions/discussing about the sense of his ideas for improving the page; there was an odd disagreement about whether the State General Administration of Sports' estimate for the number of people doing qigong in China was representative of the Chinese government's estimate, or something like that). That discussion failed to make progress, so he tag-bombed. I removed the tags a couple of times, explaining why, including on his talk page. He didn't really answer. He went away for a week or so each time. I think at one point I got a bit annoyed and called the process "silly." I didn't attack him personally. I have no idea why this case is being brought. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

update

I think this guy had the right idea [52] (on the factual matters; I wouldn't adopt the sarcastic tone), but since he was reverted, I'll repeat. To each of AU's points:

1. [53] I did engage in meaningful discussion on the talk page, and even apologized for the revert (I had misread the chronology of events)
2. [54] AU says my edit summary was a personal attack. The summary was "Pls don't put tags etc. to make a point." I don't think that's a personal attack.
3. [55] AU says I was edit warring by removing these tags. My edits were more than a week apart, there was no clear reason for tagging, and involved editors were puzzled about them and appeared to agree with their removal. So I really don't think that could be classified as edit warring. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, Homunculus and The Sound and the Fury are members of the current crop of tiresome pro-Falun Gong editors that nibble away daily in their own biased way at articles regarding their chosen organisation and its adversary, the dictatorship of the PRC. I would greatly welcome any measure that directed their considerable wiki energies towards other subjects. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not know the whole story, but just looking at the diffs by filer of this request... Does that diff prove anything? It's pretty obvious that AgadaUrbanit and TheSoundandtheFury edit war overt tags in one of the articles, but there is nothing else. Unless this is an attempt to win a content dispute by filing a complaint, I do not see anything sanctionable.My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AgadaUrbanit. Article in New York Times used by TheSoundandtheFury [56] qualifies as WP:RS. It does tell information he included in the article. Everything beyond that is simply a content dispute, not a reason to bring someone to WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AgadaUrbanit. Do not you think that this, this and this parts of WP:TE you quoted might be applicable to you? My very best wishes (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This complaint is too thin to justify an AE report. AgadaUrbanit seems to take the view that any dispute about tag removal ought to be eligible for review at AE, since the page is under the Arbcom decision. At Talk:Falun Gong he stated:

  My point is there is a disagreement here and if someone, who removed the tag will not restore it, that editor would have to explain it on WP:AE. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The threshold for reporting someone at AE should be that they "repeatedly or seriously [fail] to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Why are we here if there has not even been a WP:Request for comment on the disputed points? Agada's statement at Talk:Falun Gong#.7B.7BMultiple issues.7D.7D does not, in my opinion, include actionable suggestions that might lead to removing the problems for which he thinks tags are necessary. This kind of thing could be hashed out in an RfC. An editing dispute that ends in tag placement is still an editing dispute. Neither Homunculus or The Sound and the Fury have ever been warned or sanctioned under WP:ARBFLG. Experienced editors should follow the normal steps of WP:Dispute resolution before coming to AE unless something egregious is going on. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven days have passed since my comment and no other admins have joined in. AgadaUrbanit has not taken the opportunity to start an RfC at Talk:Falun Gong and thus normal dispute resolution is still incomplete. The complaint he made at Talk:Falun Gong#.7B.7BMultiple issues.7D.7D lacks precision and it's hard to see what other editors could do concretely to address these concerns. A quick look at the talk page suggests to me that AU might benefit from more reading of the article's existing sources. If he did that it might help to reduce the gap between his position and that of Homunculus and S&F. At least he would be able to call upon a larger base of information when discussing with the others. Closing with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Soccershoes1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. [57], [58], [59],[60] tedious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT debate claiming that people in Canada cannot possibly be of (Slavic) Macedonian descent if they have Greek-sounding surnames
2. [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66] slow edit-war against consensus of several other editors, trying to remove names according to the POV issue described above.
3. Parallel edit wars on several individual bio articles: Michael Zigomanis (BLP violation, repeatedly replacing a sourced ethnic identification with an unsourced claim of Soccershoes' preference [67]); similarly on Chris Kotsopoulos
4. 22 April, following me around, retaliatory revert without any sign of understanding of the editorial issue in question
5. 22 April, following me around, retaliatory revert, in breach of WP:ARBMAC2/WP:NCMAC naming guideline

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

Several warnings:

• [68] by Charlesdrakew about disruptive edits to Alexander the Great
• [69] by Materialscientist about edits at Macedonia naming dispute
• [70] by myself, about Zigomanis issue
• earlier 3RR block for edit-warring at Alexander the Great in January 2011.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

A typical Macedonia-related tendentious editor stubbornly promoting Greek POV issues. What's particularly concerning is the fact that he has now started following me around to articles that are completely outside his normal editing profile (e.g. Greek primacy, where, despite the article's name, the dispute really has no relation at all to nationally-motivated POV disputes), simply for the sake of mechanically reverting me in obvious retribution for my reverting him elsewhere.

Update: This [71] response of Soccershoes1 nicely illustrates both the aggressive attitude and the lack of clue that have been characteristic of this editor's activities everywhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have a consensus of at least three admins for a sanction, could somebody please now enact this soon-ish? Because this person is still at it and it's annoying [72]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

done

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

• I don't think this is someone who needs to be editing in this topic area. I'd be for a topic ban from all Greece and Macedonia-related subjects, broadly construed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with TBotNL - this is beyond unacceptable behaviour from Soccershoes1 and warrants in the very least a topic ban. And I endorse the wording as specified above by TBotNL--Cailil ^talk 00:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support banning this user from making any edits related to Macedonia or Greece, broadly construed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

—Zujine|talk 21:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

User:AnAimlessRoad is rather new to Wikipedia, having joined in late January. He has few than 50 live edits at the time of request. In his short time here, he has proven to be a highly disruptive presence across multiple namespaces, including at least two (possibly more) covered by ArbCom (WP:AFLG and WP:ARBPIA). User has already entered into multiple edit wars with several different users, and he has been warned multiple times for inappropriate behaviour, including using Wikipedia as a forum, failing to adhere to NPOV, treating Wikipedia as a soapbox and a battleground, failing to adhere to standards of civility, and making personal attacks against other editors. I recommend this user be blocked from editing Wikipedia. For an apparently novice editor, this user seems to be preternaturally familiar with Wikipedia jargon and processes. To avoid possible sock-puppetry, I would also recommend admins consider blocking user’s IP range.

Diffs:

• [73] — editor uses religious slurs, unprovoked ad hominem attack on other editor

• [74] — using talk page as a forum

• [75] — using talk page as a forum

• [76] — restoring previous comment after deletion

• [77] — restoring own comment on Holocaust denial after it was deleted as “off-topic trolling”

• [78] Continues treating talk page as a forum after multiple warnings, makes comments on motives of involved editors

• [79] — proposing renaming article in contravention of NPOV policy (subsequently begins arguing with other editors)

• [80] — using talk page as a forum. Section title “Nice propaganda” is typical (other section heads include “a funny joke, “nice character assassination,” etc.

• [81] — using another talk page as a forum. Makes personal attacks against other editors, suggests they are being paid.

• [82] — makes highly contentious statement without a source. (edit was promptly reverted)

• [83] — restores highly contentious material with an unreliable source (edit was promptly reverted)

• [84] — restores same highly contentious material with another unreliable source (edit was promptly reverted)

• [85] — adds highly contentious characterisation of event as a massacre without a source (he was promptly reverted).

• [86] — using talk page as forum

• [87] - Adds link to a page that he appeared to have created. Page has since been deleted (I can only imagine why....)

• [88] — uses talk page as forum, makes religious slurs, personal attacks on other editors.

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

[89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The collection of diffs above is partial. I cannot find a single edit that actually appears to be helpful or constructive. Nearly all this user's edits have been reverted or deleted.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[96]

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

• I'm blocking this user indefinitely for a complete lack of effort to even attempt to conform to community standards. This should not be treated as an AE block, but rather a standard disruptive editing block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General_1RR_restriction

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

1. 01:56, 15 April 2012 Creates lede with phrases "During the week of riots from 23 August to 29 August, 133 Jews and more than 116 Arabs were killed and 198 Jews and more than 232 Arabs were injured.^[1]... According to the official report, "many of the Arab casualties and possibly some of the Jewish casualties were caused by rifle fire by the police or military forces".^[1] Arab notables accused the Government forces of firing at Arabs exclusively.^[2]"
2. 10:08, 24 April 2012 Reverts to previous wording. Removes sources.
3. 11:01, 24 April 2012 Reverts to previous wording a second time, less than an hour later. Removes sources.

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

1. Warned on 23:48, 15 January 2012 by Qwyrxian (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The page in question is the 1929 Palestine riots. The version reverted to is the April 15th edit, and two subsequent reversions were done today, on the 24th. The reversions modified the language and removed three sources that were being used to support the previous version. Oncenawhile has previously been officially warned about ARBPIA violations.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[97]

Local refs

Sorry for the late reply. Thank you to the other editors for supporting me in my absence.

So... I had no intention to overstep any bright lines. As TransporterMan kindly highlighted below, I had first tried the tagging route to stimulate discussion, which did not have the desired effect. This morning, I responded to TransporterMan's analysis on the tags with my views on the weakness of the policy around tags, which seems to render them useless in disputes - exactly the situation they are supposed to highlight and stimulate resolution of.... Anyway, then I had a bright idea, that maybe my point about tags was wrong because I was always within my rights to remove the dubious information because it hadn't got consensus (4 editors vs. 3). I believed my first edit was (to use my basic non-technical language) an "edit" rather than a "revert". Then Jayjg reverted me without a credible explanation (his edit comment was a copy of mine) and I reverted him (which I believed to be my only "revert" ever on this article). Then a few minutes later Ankh reverted me. I did not revert Ankh, because that's where I thought the bright line was.

So it seems that whether the accusation is fair boils down to whether Diff 2 above is a revert in they eyes of the consensus. My views on this are below:

• If I had thought it was a revert, I would not have reverted Jayjg in Diff 3
• Jayjg's edit comment suggested he did not think of it as a revert, as his edit comment seemed to suggest my edit was new content
• There were 118 edits in between Diffs 1 and 2, and the number of edits since the Diffs that TransporterMan refered to below is similar. All the changes in between blurred the line of "edit vs revert" in my mind - neither the policy or guidance pages are crystal clear on this as I read them. Perversely, I am looking forward to finding out what the official interpretation of this is at the end of this.
• Uninvolved editors in the discussion below also appear to be unsure whether this was a revert

A related question is, whether or not this was technically a "revert", was I actually edit warring? My views on this are below:

• I kept trying to find a way through the editorial dispute in various creative ways, and have remained committed to calm discussion all the way through
• An edit war is defined as when actions "repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion". I don't believe any of my edit history on this article and talk page suggests that my behaviour displayed this
• Since I first became involved in this article 10 days ago, not a single one of my other edits constituted a revert. I was reverted numerous times by Ankh and Jayjg, but I did not respond in kind. Instead, I always took it to the talk page.
• If I had been intentionally edit warring, or had otherwise not been respecting WP:1RR I would have reverted Ankh's reversion of my Diff3 which occurred 20 minutes later.
• "If an editor violates by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion." I was not given this opportunity, which of course I would have gladly taken.

In summary, I honestly don't know whether Diff2 was technically a revert or not. But I do know that I did not believe that it was, so the worst I could have done here was to have made an honest mistake.

Whatever the verdict, I will learn from it and won't make the same mistake again.

Oncenawhile (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to concluding suggestion: I am obviously disappointed with Ed's suggestion, and thanks to TransporterMan for your support in response to it. I can't put it as nicely as TransporterMan, but I do have two specific "objections" to Ed's suggestion:

1. Ed states "Oncenawhile should have realized he was risking a major ARBPIA upset". Please note that more than 2 weeks before my April 15 edits I added a POV tag to the article here and made a talk page comment at Talk:1929_Palestine_riots/Archive_1#POV_tag. With not a single dissenting view in over two weeks, was it not reasonable to assume that consensus might be with me before I began editing? I have not been accused by anyone of "edit-warring", in fact quite the opposite I believe. I don't know what I should have or could have done differently. To my mind, Ed's statement has a different complexion without this sentence.
2. Ed concludes that I violated 1RR. Ed, I am sure your analysis is right, but please could you help me understand the final analysis of how/why "Diff 2" above is definitively categorised as a 100% revert? The heart of the issue in my mind is whether my misinterpretation of whether that edit constituted a "revert" was a "reasonable mistake". I don't know the answer to this at the moment. I won't repeat my arguments above, but either way I would like to understand why there doesn't seem to be any room for error at all here?

Sorry for these objections but I feel a bit hard done by here as would obviously rather my clean record was not sullied by a block. Oncenawhile (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to our official policy, "reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed previously". Which edits were undone in Oncenawhile's first edit today, and to which version did this edit previously restore the page? This edit does not look to me like a revert, and thus OnA has only made one revert today. So there has been no breach of the arbitration decision, and this complaint should be rejected. RolandR (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, in the link that you cite for the 15 April edit, I cannot find some of the phrases you attribute to this edit. Please specify more accurately what you claim that OnA has added/removed, and when. RolandR (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote, some of the phrases you cite from today's edits do not appear in the link you give for the 15 April edit. Nor do I see where OnA has "undone the effects of one or more edits"; please indicate which edit s/he has undone today. RolandR (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Help:Reverting is not a policy, or even a guideline; it's a technical information page. The policy is WP:EW, which initially says a "revert means undoing the actions of another editor" and, later, in more detail, "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." (Even if we were to rely on Help:Reverting, the full quotation is: "On Wikipedia, reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of any editors." [Emphasis added.] But that's irrelevant, since it's not policy.) — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I repeat: what action of another editor was undone or reversed by OnA's first edit today?[98] I don't see that it is a revert. RolandR (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[99]--Shrike (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It reverted the content that there was there originally which had been edited by a previous contributor. I shall quote from the Wiki handbook, a "revert means undoing the actions of another editor".
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 18:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What content? Which editor? You keep asserting that this is a revert, but I can't see what it has reverted. Please stop making vague assertions, and goive a specific diff of the material which was reverted, or the version to which OnA reverted. RolandR (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The diff was provided by me.The line " Arab notables accused the Government forces of firing at Arabs exclusively" was removed.The users have restored it in his reverts.--Shrike (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I've provided two others, below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I'm wondering if RolandR does not have a point. Roland, are you saying that the material removed by Oncenawhile in those edits was material which Oncenawhile first added to the article, so that he was removing his own material, not someone else's? — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No; I'm saying that I don't know who added what, and what content OnA is supposed to have reverted. Without a specific diff, there is no way to assess whether or not the first edit today was a revert. And, despite my repeated requests, AnkhMorpork has failed to provide this necessary information. RolandR (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many amendments to the lede that altered Oncenawhile's original version. An example would include this. I have no idea what you mean when you state "Without a specific diff, there is no way to assess whether or not the first edit today was a revert." Please explain in which circumstances reverting another editor's work is not considered a revert, and why a specific diff is necessary to determine the undoing of the actions of another editor?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 18:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering the two edits Oncenawhile made today were the same material he tried to insert into the article a week and a half ago, I don't see how anyone could argue the two weren't reverts. This is classic slow edit warring. I think an admin should also address the reasons Oncenawhile gave for placing a POV tag (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1929_Palestine_riots#POV_tag) which include only comments about editors and no comments about the problems with the content that ostensibly prompted him to place the tag. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Zero0000: I don't have the patience to wade through all the diffs to decide what edits out of this very long sequence of aggressive edits are "reverts" or not. I'd just like to make some general remarks. This edit war was created by and driven by AnkhMorpork, who decided that the "Israeli perspective" was not adequately represented. As illustration of AnkhMorpork's methodology, despite her/himself quoting extensively from the report of the official enquiry he/she repeatedly deletes (and continues to delete, even during this case) statements from that report which conflict with her/his preferred (and rather weak) tertiary sources. (I call them weak tertiary sources because one is a newspaper article and the others are popular history books that cite no sources for their information.) My suggestion that both versions could go into the article (which I believe is what WP:NPOV mandates in such a case) fell on deaf ears. Regarding the nature of tags, I think that when there is an actual ongoing substantial dispute over content, then a tag noting the fact of the dispute is in order and removal of it by a protagonist while (as anyone can see very plainly) the dispute is still in full swing should be seen as edit-warring. I don't think a tag marking a dispute needs consensus from those engaged in the dispute, though a consensus from less-involved editors would of course be enough to add or remove it. Zero^talk 08:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by AnkhMorpork:The comment "This edit war was created by and driven by AnkhMorpork" is very inaccurate. I did not touch this article until on 15th April, Oncenawhile made a series of edits that substantially altered the article. After that, I began to contribute to the article, always mindful of other POV's. I made extensive use of the Talk page, discussed edits and sought a consensual version. I have queried users' personal Talk pages and have sought independent advice at notice boards. You yourself stated to me on 19 April 2012 in reference to this article, "I like the collegial attitude you bring to the editing task and hope you will continue even though your biases are different from mine". Oncenawhile acknowledged "I had previously been quite impressed with your editing style - particularly that you were happy to discuss things thoughtfully" though suggesting my standards were dropping. This volte-face is most unfair and seems retributive. I have been a collaborative editor and will continue to be one, and it is unfortunate that I have been forced to take this matter to AE. This incident was especially frustrating as Oncenawhile ignored all of the clarifying talk page dialogue and inexplicably reverted to an old version, deleting several sources.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Shrike: @Zero You analysis is wrong. The article was stable till Oncenawhile started his edits to "balance" the article at 15 april [100] their edit was revered they should have followed WP:BRD instead they reverted back [101].--Shrike (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: You can start the clock at the moment you like and claim it was fine before then. I disagree. In my opinion the real problem started with this sequence of major edits adding material (mostly selected from random places in the Shaw report and all emphasizing the Zionist viewpoint), while deleting the existing report of casualties from that report in favor of weaker sources. As an example of bias in selection, AnkhMorpork quoted examples of inflammatory articles in the Arabic press but not inflammatory articles in the Jewish press that the report also pointed to. (The report's summary of this issue: "Exciting and intemperate articles which appeared in some Arabic papers, in one Hebrew daily paper and in a Jewish weekly paper published in English." p.164) Mind you, I have seen worse editing than this and it is easily fixable. The problem is that AnkhMorpork is stubborn and refuses such elementary fixes as citing both what the report says as well as what other sources say. And no, AnkhMorpork, you were not forced to bother the good folks here at AE with all this. Zero^talk 12:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "inflammatory articles in the Jewish press" were already well documented in the article before my involvement. Have a look. And as for "AnkhMorpork...refuses...citing both what the report says as well as what other sources say", please see this and this.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 13:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comments by TransporterMan: Even though I would have made this report had AnkhMorpork not beaten me to it (and, indeed, I brought it to the warning admin's attention before I came to that realization) and even though I helped to make the case against him, I think a block is too much in light of the complexity of the edit history, Oncenawhile's relative newcomer status, clean block log, and lack of a lot of warning templates on his talk page even though he works in a highly disputatious area. His effort to get discussion started and attempt to use DR work in his favor. He's clearly stated that he gets it (and I would note that when he was given the ARBPIA warning he was not actually in violation of anything at that time, see the text of that warning). In my experience working in dispute resolution, figuring out how to best approach a situation like this is sometimes beyond the ken of editors with far more experience than Oncenawhile. I !vote to give him a walk this time, put a clear last-chance-result/warning on his talk page, and leave him with a clear block log. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I hope that Oncenawhile is willing to comment on this complaint. It is reasonable to wait a bit for his answer. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Can anyone suggest wording for a WP:Request for comment that would allow a decision to be reached about the 1929 Palestine riots? If you can't think of anything else, you could propose two versions of the lead and ask editors to choose between them. EdJohnston (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• At first sight, this complaint would lead to a routine block of Oncenawhile for violating 1RR. Since others claim that is not the whole story, I went into the history for a bit. Oncenawhile began an extensive revision of this article on April 15. His efforts encountered pushback. AnkhMorpork is one of the seven editors who made their first appearance at this article after Oncenawhile's changes on April 15. Editors of this article face some messy sourcing issues. How to place the Shaw Report (primary or secondary), and whether it is wise to augment or fill gaps in the story told by the Shaw Report using other sources. Some of the alternative sources may have their own limitations. These questions are up to the editors, but those who participate are expected to be sincerely working for a neutral result. Oncenawhile should have realized he was risking a major ARBPIA upset. Certain other editors should have used more caution as well. AnkhMorpork does not seem to have used diplomacy effectively when it was clear there was major disagreement. For instance, no WP:Request for comment was opened. At least Oncenawhile took the matter to WP:DRN, which was a reasonable step. My suggestion is a 48-hour block of Oncenawhile for the 1RR violation. The article would be fully protected for two weeks. I'll wait to hear responses. EdJohnston (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is already approaching tl;dr territory; would anyone happening across this please consider that admins aren't going to count how many words you use and make a decision based on that? This isn't directed at anyone specifically, but the size of this report is already getting out of hand. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  After reviewing things, I'd have to agree with EdJohnston on this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing. I am accepting TransporterMan's recommendation of closing with no block. Oncenawhile set the stage for the problem by making extensive changes at 1929 Palestine riots on April 15 that turned out to be controversial. His persistence in restoring some of his changes against opposition led to an unnecessary edit war at on that article, but other parties reverted improperly as well. For instance Oncenawhile, Jayjg and AnkhMorpork all made pure reverts on April 24 in a situation where it was obvious that none of them had consensus for their changes. The article is fully protected for two weeks. The parties are urged to use this time to create a WP:Request for comment on the talk page to reach a consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nmate (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Iadrian yu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

[102]

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

1. 11:57, 20 April 2012 The editor created unfriendly atmosphere (in particular, language like "Again a new problem with this user")
2. 12:01, 20 April 2012 The editor accused me of battleground mentality for block-shopping purposes. ("in this examples it is clear that Nmate violated the 3RR several times and of course the battleground mentality of edit warring")
3. 12:04, 20 April 2012 The editor came up with WP:DIGWUREN at the Edit warring & 3RR board that I am placed under for block-shopping purposes. Note that the 3RR rule has a little to do with DIGWUREN.
4. 12:33, 20 April 2012 The editor came up with arbitration enforcement and maintained unfriendly atmosphere (in particular, language like ("Ah, another sign of a constructive, friendly editing I guess ... after several arbitration enforcements on your account")

11:25, 20 April 2012 11:28, 20 April 2012. I reverted it-> 11:29, 20 April 2012. The banned user restored it-> 11:31, 20 April 2012. I reverted it again-> 11:34, 20 April 2012. The banned user restored it again-> 11:36, 20 April 2012 Then I reverted it yet again-> 11:43, 20 April 2012 Afterwards Iadrian yu involved himself in the case-> 11:57, 20 April 2012, and he also came up with WP:DIGWUREN that I am placed under->12:04, 20 April 2012 and arbitration enforcment there ->12:33, 20 April 2012 Additionally, he wanted to bait me into an edit-war by restoring the banned user's comment-> 12:10, 20 April 2012, knowning that reverting a banned user does not fall under WP:3RR but, if I should revert his reverting, that would already constitute an edit war.

It is possibly meat puppeting and violations of numerous principles of editing on Wikipedia including WP:CIVIL, WP:BATTLE on Iadrian yu's part.

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

1. Warned on 09:00, 27 August 2010 by Stifle (talk · contribs)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is not some exceptional slip: I do not remember when was the last time I have encountered Iadrian yu on Wikipedia until recently ,as I do not edit articles he does ,and still he has been on a continuous campaign to try to eliminate me from Wikipedia. At the aforementioned 3RR report, Iadrian yu appeared out of the blue to make an attempt to hoodwink the reviewer administrator saying that the fact that I reverted an obvious and self-confessed sockpuppet was because of my battleground behaviour to get me blocked.

• previous attempts at block shopping:

1. 09:04, 13 March 2011. There is not enough to warrant a block at this time: 18:48, 15 March 2011
2. 13:34 11 July, 2011 frivilous SPI case, I see no evidence that would warrant an investigation of the other mentioned users: 17:41, 11 July, 2011
3. 13:30 4 October, 2011 Calling my "involvement" - eager to block you is just ridiculous ..... in my opinion you should take a wiki-break.

It is worth to note that I indeed received 2 blocks under DIGWUREN last year, but I am reluctant to comment on the cases, following arbitrator SirFozzie's guidance: "in all cases (for example, it would be useful in showing a repeated pattern of behavior), but the evidence has to be somehow related to current events" [105] as all events in that regard happened more than 6 months ago.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[106]

What user Nmate is doing now is block shopping - as he calls it himself. His manners on Wikipedia are far from collegiality relationship. If we take in consideration only this last incident we can notice that his approach is far from friendly and acting against the permission of another editor(7 times in a row after I decided to join the discussion) when he manipulated his comments (what is supposedly the base for this report). Note that the report about edit warring was filed by another editor ( not me ). I only joined the discussion after user Nmate manipulated other people`s comments after 7 times, I am sorry if this user can`t tolerate me or other editors but that is not the base for this kind of reports against me or anybody else.

Also the warning issued here [107] - again at the Nmate-s request , after talking to the administrator it was obvious that it was far less need than in other cases [108]. I received this warning when Nmate accused me without any evidence based on his personal opinion.

I really dislike this approach when user Nmate accuses me that I am blockshoping in places when I am mentioned - and I simply responded with my personal opinion and evidence for my claims.

I said [109] - since it is archived I don`t know how to take diffs from it so I will paste the comments here.

To respond user`s Nmates accusation that are used for this report:

1. 11:57, 20 April 2012 The editor created unfriendly atmosphere (in particular, language like "Again a new problem with this user")

User Nmate at this point repeatedly manipulated other people`s comment with no reason.

1. 12:01, 20 April 2012 The editor accused me of battleground mentality for block-shopping purposes. ("in this examples it is clear that Nmate violated the 3RR several times and of course the battleground mentality of edit warring")

Nmate did violated the 3RR in this case ( 7 reverts). Deleted verified user comments: [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115].

1. 12:04, 20 April 2012 The editor came up with WP:DIGWUREN at the Edit warring & 3RR board that I am placed under for block-shopping purposes. Note that the 3RR rule has a little to do with DIGWUREN.

DIGWUREN has to do with Nmate`s approach and battleground mentality and his recent edit warring(his block log) is a clear evidence for my claim.

1. 12:33, 20 April 2012 The editor came up with arbitration enforcement and maintained unfriendly atmosphere (in particular, language like ("Ah, another sign of a constructive, friendly editing I guess ... after several arbitration enforcements on your account")

Please check your previous 2 comments (Has this anything to do with you? and In your dream, Iadrian yu, go elsewhere.) when I responded like this, and this is not an personal attack or anything any report can be based on. I was reminding you that on almost every comment you violate the AGF ( assume good faith ).

What Nmate calls "previous attempts at block shopping:" are not supported by any evidence or even a suggestion of an evidence. My every comment is substantiated with evidence(diffs) for my claims also the last "case" was October 4, 2011 - 8 months ago! And I participated there because my name was mentioned several times in bad faith by user Nmate and unfounded accusations[116]. After defending myself against unfounded accusations with evidence I am block-shooping????

It is very strange that Nmate accuses me of WP:CIVIL when I never insulted him or attacked him personally while he does that on almost every occasion.

First Nmate-`s friendly comment: will report you to the Arbitration Comitee if I have time, Samofi. - After manipulating other users comments with no reasonable evidence that he should ( all based on a presumption(at the time) that one user is a sock puppet) After I joined the discussion further friendly comments like after I did`t responded in a manner Nmate did:

• Note that Iadrian yu is block-shopping again based on frivilous reasons of which I will notify the Arbitration Comitee. Restoring a comment made by a site-banned user is not allowed. Second, I haven't encountered Iadrian yu on Wikipaedia for a while and still he is block shopping. It is disgusting. On the other hand, I am not placed under editing restriction in that saense that I am not allowed to make reverts, as I mentioned above.
• Has this anything to do with you? Note that Iadrian yu does not interest to edit the article; his only aim is block shopping. Second, I do not have to wait until it is confirmed by checkuser if said user admitted that he is a sockpuppet: which part of it do you not understand?--Nmate (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• "He is reverting obviously helpful edits made my banned users, like uncontroversial page moves" [340] Go elsewhere, Iadrian yu. What you do is quite disgusting--Nmate (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• In your dream, Iadrian yu, go elsewhere.--Nmate (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Other evidence of a friendly editing by Nmate or manipulating other people`s comments:

• [117]
• [118]
• [119]
• [120]
• [121]

Having in mind his recent block history [122], recent (and continuable) personal attacks and edit warring it is clear that the lack of good faith against everybody who doesn`t support his POV is a major problem involving this editor. After taking a look at this user contributions[123] I have a feeling that his main activity is block-shopping against other users and sporadicly make one or 2 fair edits once in a while.

Note that the administrator said Result: No action against Nmate; checkuser confirms that these were valid removals of a banned user's edits. Reporter blocked for long-standing pattern of breaches of a topic ban. All editors involved are admonished to avoid battleground attitude and avoid acting in an enabling role for long-term sockpuppeters. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC) conclusion for us other editors - to avoid battleground mentality. After everything Nmate said I could have written the same report as this one here, but I did`t because the admin here said what he said.

His aggressive approach is somewhat a normal situation - this are the examples from our last conversation only(not to mention others) and all this with constant WP:BATTLEGROUND(noticed by other users also) mentality when I joined the discussion after he repeatedly manipulated other people`s comments without their permission therefore I will avoid any further implication in this "pay-back" (since this is not the first attempt for Nmate to ban me under this restrictions(block shopping) [124]) report on his behalf. I hope that this demonstrates what is really the problem here. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am very curious why did this user waited for 8 days to file this report???? Adrian (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am on a holiday from tomorrow(4 days) therefore I ask for understanding if I don`t participate in this discussion during that time. Adrian (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

RA (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Matt Lewis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:TROUBLES#Principles:

Disruption

3) The editing of users who disrupt Wikipedia by aggressive, sustained point of view editing may be restricted. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.

Harassment

4) Editors who severely harass other users may be banned.

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions may also apply (Wikipedia:TROUBLES#Standard_discretionary_sanctions).

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

After a break of several months, Matt Lewis returned to WIkipedia, first contributing to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Muhammad images and then moving onto making sustained and aggressive comments against Irish editors across User talk:Canterbury Tail, Talk:Northern Ireland, User:Matt Lewis, Talk:Ireland and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles.

The thrust of the posts are that Irish editors ("nationalists") on Wikipedia are engaged in a semi-organised but deliberate scheme to undermine the (real-world) United Kingdom and to bring about its end through their contributions to Wikipedia. He thus feels strongly that it is incumbent upon those who oppose this to defend the national sovereignty of the United Kingdom from this threat. In a number of comments, I am singled out a particular ringleader of sorts in this conspiracy.

An example (one of the more lucid):

• 20:36, 17 April 2012 on User:Canterbury Tail:

..for me national sovereignty is an area that is simply bigger and more important than Wikipedia. Some things in life are. There are people out there who would say WP is subject to a kind of online terrorism - by which I mean misusing internet-based information areas to undermine the fabric of a state, in view of removing the state. It's not easily definable thing, but Wikipedia has been lax here, and could well pay a price for not being careful enough in its procedures.

My concern is at the sustained, aggressive and particularly sectarian nature of his posts. They have been in-coming for a week now without rest. Sometimes, they contain suggestions for improvements to articles, sometimes they are simply rants.

To date, reaction from other editors has been relatively calm and patient. However, I don't know how long that patience can last. Aside from the content of his posts, I am afraid that Matt's comments will spill over and incite the more hot-blooded editors and lead to the running pitch battles we have seen in the past.

Some examples:

• 02:29, 28 April 2012 on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles:

You either haven't read a single word I've written, or you're a slimeball, or you're troll. Either way, you'll scroll all this away to fight another day. As year after year after year you always do. You sad, sad, sad bunch of people. You major minor scoop of decadently committed people. You think I need a source to neolise the word "sovereign"? To conflate a little meaning to try and save a little space? To try and get an clear and obvious point across? There is simply no way in with you people - you would drive anyone to farce. Though in reality you all simply drive everyone away. These Troubled areas are like a Drive Out where the same C movie runs over forever.

• 21:52, 23 April 2012 — 02:19, 24 April 2012‎ on Talk:Northern Ireland:

This is the cabal to end all cabals - how did it get to this? Ghmyrtle - you should be utterly, utterly ashamed of yourself. And what have you all done with Canterbury Tale?
…
The problem is that you've 'balanced' sovereignty and COMMONUSE with people supposedly taking offence. Who exactly takes offence GHmytle - answer me that? Would it be nationalists perhaps? And you know damn well that this has been a war of attrition, with many people like myself happy for "country" here. It was here for a long, long time and you are all having to stick together to keep it from coming back.

• 13:46, 28 April 2012 on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles:

Northern Ireland should never be covered by IMOS - it's skewered the poltical context and given you people total control of it. Ireland still lays claim on NI, and this MOS clearly covers political areas (despite the endless bare-faced lie that it's island-only). It doesn't make any sense. NI is a British country, not an Irish one. It HAS to be part of a UK MOS. The calculated blurring of island/Ireland on Wikipedia makes this the single most corrupt area in the whole encyclopedia.

• 00:03, 27 April 2012 on User talk:Matt Lewis:

The Irish nationalists (and many have been at this for years and years) are experts at making every issue 'unionist vs nationalist', then demanding equal weight. It avoids all the policy issues, and is totally anti-sovereign too, but they will post day and night calling it a "no brainer" etc.
…
The nationalist editor RA has been even more effective since becoming an admin sadly it seems - I hoped it would go the other way (ie he would have to ease off a little), but he's been as single-minded as ever in his clearly lifelong pursuit. … Over the next couple of years every active nationalist in the UK is going to come to Wikipedia to push their river: there has to be solid guidelines or it will be mayhem.
…
Yes, the nationalists are instinctively organised - and consequently Wikipedia is a more beneficial place for them, as it is for all negative people it could be argued. Which makes focusing on adapting policy and guidelines the key. … If you lose this kind of thing, someone like RA will get a biased paragraph and a long moratorium into IMOS in two seconds flat. To a number of them it really will be like the war won.

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

Matt has been asked by one of the calmer editors to tone down his comments:

• 23:34, 23 April 2012 by Ghmyrtle (talk · contribs)

Other's have been more direct in giving their opinion on his posts. Examples:

• 22:27, 25 April 2012 by Fmph (talk · contribs)
• 22:34, 26 April 2012 by Bjmullan (talk · contribs)
• 08:44, 28 April 2012 by Bjmullan (talk · contribs)
• 08:51, 28 April 2012 by One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs)
• 12:36, 28 April 2012 by Domer48 (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 16:03, 29 April 2012

Firstly, RA (Sony Youth to Grahamzilch, an undisclosed IP editor for a long period, then Rannpháirtí anaithnid, or 'RA') is not uninvolved here. It is simply not possible for him to be more involved. This has always been his primary editing area (often sole editing area), and he has always held a different position to mine. Unfortunately we have always disagreed on matters. I thought it was agreed at his Rfa that if he became an admin he'd leave this kind of area-measure to other people? In reality he seems to have stepped-up in terms of being effectively (from his position) involved. I would certainly be 'happier' if someone else had started this.

Actually (with perhaps a tiny bit of embarrassment) I'm happy for people to read my comments and judge accordingly - but please read them. The quotes of my comments above are selected snippets, people really need to read in full to judge properly. One thing I've never done (and can never do) is be bullied over holding a valid position, in whatever way that bullying may take place. I do not personally consider the UK/IRE nationality area to be a 'no go area', or one that's been correctly sealed-shut by credible 'compromises' (always compromises). I may appear rude at times but please bear in mind who I'm speaking to, or about. I am honestly never 'trolling' - I always have at least one strong point (typically a number of points) with a connected solution in mind. I am never 'tendentious' (ie in the sense of being 'biased') - although I admit I am a typical British citizen, who happens to also be Welshman from Wales (the large majority of us are happily British - though you wouldn't think it reading Wikipedia talk pages sometimes). Only on Wikipedia am I ever called or labelled a "Unionist"!

The only thing I would apologise about is the trouble GoodDay has got into, as (mentors aside) I should have warned him myself, instead of eventually engaging with him on my talk. The two below were clearly ready to get him into trouble - and GD you've really got to stay away. GoodDay certainly did not "provoke" me in any way into losing my temper a little at times - other's have done that (and myself I admit - I come back into Wikipedia, see this stuff at the top of my 1,000 plus watch-list, and just get fed up with the regressive changes to hours of positive work). As far as I am concerned the angry conversation at IMOS has run its course - and I'm sure it's the same for everyone else who participated in it. It's clearly all RFC/Vpump stuff, and this request for enforcement has come a little after the event regarding that.

The various issues between RA and myself are clearly personal, and have gone on for years - it's hard to be objective, but I was strongly against him being made an admin (I still can't see the reason that he was, other than that Wikipedia clearly needs them right now). We just don't see eye-to-eye in anything I'm afraid, and I have been upset with the way he's continued pushing so hard for various positions on Wikipedia since he got the 'bit'. Like others, I spent a huge amount of hours bringing stability to the UK "country" matter when RA was almost a lone voice against - gradually he has turned it around by virtue of never giving up (his mantra being "consensus can change" - and he's right). And such is life. Many people like myself have off-line lives to deal with of course, and I wasn't around when the huge amount work by so-many people was simply de-linked away at NI. Again, I can't see the policy behind it - despite what some say. Sources I have being shown in these areas do not weigh up. For example the Government No.10 website has been revamped (and they do from time to time, esp as govs change) - and "four countries of the UK" no longer appears on the home page. According to the same-olds who removed term from Northern Ireland, the No.10 website-change means the government has revised its position! As much as anything, it's all WP:Point. Sovereignty is the only thing that can settle these matters. The protection of various positions in this area (on all sides) really is something to behold.

'Area banning' me (as seems to be the idea reading Domer's and K-Hackney's comments - which have appeared below before I have even had a chance to write this) would imo remove one of the few people who has stood shoulder to shoulder with a (in real-world terms) relatively small group of people who have protected the same position on UK/IRE for years and years.

I do not believe the various 'compromises' to be policy-based, and wish (as I always have) that the UK, the Republic of Ireland, and the island of Ireland can be totally freed from the shackles of compromise and special exception on Wikipedia. I genuinely believe that proper adherence to the hierarchy of policies (COMMONAME has it's place for example - and it's not at the very top), and a new guideline paragraph or two, can solve every single issue that the Troubles covers. I honestly do. Before we know it we'll have the Scottish referendum on our hands - it will benefit Wikipedia hugely to sort this out beforehand. That is not a "conspiracy theory" - as we all know in the UK, it's just a plain fact. Wikipedia simply cannot allow the evenly-Weighting of nationalist vision with incumbent reality.

Would a 'topic ban' stop me from starting a UK MOS (freeing Northern Ireland from the hugely-restricting and supposedly-unpolitical Ireland IMOS)? I doubt it. I'm planning to do it, and it will be very useful in large number of areas outside of Irish matters. No vote on it first imo, allowing people who have already said they don't want it to line up again - I'll just do it, like with the various task forces I've set up in the past -- where Domer and Hackney did everything they could to stop me, claiming they would be 'anti consensus'. But what actually is consensus here? Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be an 'upstairs in the pub' numbers game in matters that are ultimately this important.

My language is sometimes strong - but the fact that countless admin and editors have said that they "simply do not got there" proves that it's a difficult area to navigate and get a fair point across. It's not because they are weak in any way - it's because they've got better things to do be disagreed with whatever they say. I'm not going to be held to blame for any 'bad atmosphere' (now or whenever) - I wasn't part of 99% of its life (unlike others here, who have been around for pretty-much all of it) and was not part of the TROUBLES ruling at all. In the past I've given God-knows how many hours of my time trying to be constructive, while others have simply repeated the same lines again and again. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add that looking back at all my edits recently (even out of this area), they have been a bit high-pitched wherever I've been - so I do apologise in general for that. It's not ideal - I can't disagree with RA (or anyone else) on that. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the diffs above, when replying to me Matt Lewis says "How about you stop making it your life's aim to abuse Wikipedia? This is not any "subject" - the UK is a sovereign state constantly under nationalistic pressures in these areas" (which is disagreed with by plenty of people at Wikipedia_talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Proposed decision#Proposed Finding of Fact 2 for the record, and I'm sure the 1 FA, 4 GAa and countless DYKs all in the Troubles area speak for themselves about my "life's aim". Matt Lewis's conduct is just pure battleground, anyone who disagrees with him is part of some imaginary Irish nationalist conspiracy. I see no benefit in allowing his further participation in the topic area. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to put a break on the escalating abuse by reminding editors that these discussions are subject to active arbitration remedies and discretionary sanctions. As has been pointed to above, there is a clear battleground mentality coupled with a level of abuse of editors which is way above the norm. While the subject articles have been quite for awhile now (due to the blocking of a number of sock abusing editors) there is always the potential for a flare up. This editor could be just the catalyst that is needed. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike The editor is aware of the Troubles Arbcom and has commented on it.--Domer48_'fenian' 17:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no excuse for User:Matt Lewis behavior and conduct...none what-so-ever. He's been warned plenty of times so there is no excuse and I feel the community has lost pateince. I've been observing what's been unfolding and it's a very sorry state of affairs indeed. If i were a new editor, thsi would certainly off-putting but that might be because I'm a little sensitive? Haha. I don't care what the Derry article is called, or how the new lede for NI is layed out (tough i admit I like it and don't see any POV-issues with it) but the conduct...urhhhhhg yuck, even to an uninvolved editor such as myself. (Ps, sorry fpr any spelling mistakes I'm on a tablet PC ;c) --Τασουλα (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without making any comments about the user behavior he should have been warned about discretionary sanctions according to WP:AC/DS before applying sanctions to him.He of course could be blocked for incivility but that should not be AE block.--Shrike (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't condone Matt's use of invective and his targeting of certain editors such as RA who, whatever else might be said of him, has always struck me as a fairly reasonable person (even though I don't agree with many of his views). However, uninvolved editors should be aware of a couple of background and underlying issues. Firstly, this complaint stems from Matt's comments at Northern Ireland. This article is about British sovereign territory but it is, by and large, "controlled" by editors whose allegiance is to the Irish Republic and so ensure its primary perspective is that of Ireland rather than the UK; this is a significant problem for Wikipedia. Secondly, regarding Derry/Londonderry, we have the quite scandalous situation that in this matter Wikipedia is in direct violation of its own core principle of WP:NPOV. Both terms can and are used in the wider world, but Wikipedia (or more precisely, its dominant editors in this matter) force a single usage for the city (Derry) and also for the county (Londonderry). This means that Wikipedia is pushing the POV that for the city, Derry is right. Few, if any, exceptions are permitted, and we have the situation of certain editors regularly trawling the entire project replacing any instances that don't adhere to this POV. It is against this deplorable background that Matt's frustration and anger has surfaced; and it's entirely understandable that it has. I urge caution in setting any sanctions here. Van Speijk (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cailil: I wonder why, Cailil, you single me out for criticism and make no mention of any other user? Maybe it's because I've been severely critical of you in past. Interestingly, I levelled that previous criticism against you for the exact same reasons as are apparent here, namely singling me out for special admonishment. Van Speijk (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having read both the comments by Matt and the only editor to support him I can only see editors with an us (and we are right) and them battlefield mentality. Wikipedia and Irish article in particular needs editors like that like I need a hole in my head. In recent days I have accused Matt of soap-boxing , battleground mentality and personal attacked on other editors. In addition to this he seems to think he has some sort of magic bullet called sovereignty which will solve all problems relating to NI articles. This is borne out by his statement: "and a new guideline paragraph or two, can solve every single issue that the Troubles covers". And by the way he honestly believes this! Perhaps Matt in your defence you could reveal this paragraph? Bjmullan (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All in good time Bjmullan - these things have to be presented properly or they get crushed by the same old people. I don't think you three and Van Speijk (who looking back, I said when he appeared is an obvious 'pro-British sockfarm' sockpuppet - just to show I'm not biased, I've always pointed out socks from all areas) - represent a platform for you to boast 'consensus' from. Also, I have a slight issue with CANVASS here. RA didn't properly inform me on my talk page, but informed the people I was disagreeing with via a general message on IMOS. I'd actually left the discussion by then, as we'd all said our piece. I haven't once edited any of the articles (just an attempt at modifying IMOS so it no longer calls the Derry/Londonderry 'compromise' an "NPOV position", which is just needlessly silly and wrong - it's just a compromise) - it's all been discussion in different places, stemming from a change at Northern Ireland you all new was unpopular and dramatic (so why do it?). This idea that the people who are now here have been "giving" to me (as presented in this rfe) is nonsense imo. I've been spoken to largely as I've been spoken to here. We are all experienced editors - I've not been hard with anyone new. Whatever the result of this is (even a block for troubles-whatever or civility) I would appreciate this not being too drawn out. It's kind of just carrying it on. Almost everyone present has spoken now anyway I think. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I don't see any formal notice under the rather new discretionary sanctions that have been authorized for WP:TROUBLES. But I suggest this request be kept open for a while to see if Matt Lewis will respond. Whatever he has to say here would be educational. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned Matt of the discretionary sanctions under WP:TROUBLES. Given his response, I think this can be closed now. EdJohnston (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with Ed, the warning for Matt seems sufficient to me.
  However I have concerns about the behaviour of others here - User:Van Speijk who has been warned already of community sanctions[125] in an adjoining topic area and told to stop casting aspersions about others. This falls outside WP:AE but is worth noting that this user has attempted to use this forum to soapbox and on investigation has been in breach of that community sanction[126][127][128] and the Troubles 1RR within the month[129][130].
  Given these instances are older than 2 weeks I suggest we add Van Speijk to the list of notified users re WP:TROUBLES and sanction further breaches--Cailil ^talk 14:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to agree with Cailil here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Warned Van Speijk here of the Troubles discretionary sanctions. Closing this AE request with warnings to Matt Lewis and Van Speijk but no other action. EdJohnston (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]