Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Wikipedia:AutoEd.

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

Homunculus and The Sound and the Fury

No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User requesting enforcement AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Homunculus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) TheSoundAndTheFury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong#Consensus Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong#Point_of_view_editing 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 [1] and [2], 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: 21:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC) - discussion appears as concluded 01:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC) - edit 02:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC) - raising a new concern. (See bellow revert by SnF at 04:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)) 3. [3] - Homunculus Removes sourced material about Li Hongzhi place of residence with misleading comment: demographics circa 1990s The Sound and the Fury [4] - 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 [5] User:TheSoundAndTheFury removes a tag with personal attack in edit summary. [6] 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. [7] 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) [8] Warning by AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs) [9] Warning by AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs) [10] Last Warning by AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs) [11] 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], 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) @ 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) @ 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) @ 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) 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) @ 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) 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) 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. [12] [13] Discussion concerning Homunculus and The Sound and the Fury Statements by Homunculus and The Sound and the Fury Homunculus 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. [14], 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. [15] 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) 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[16] and after[17] 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[18] and after[19]). I’ll note that after I made these changes to the Tuidang movement, an admin familiar with the literature praised these efforts.[20] 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.[21] 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[22]). 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) 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[23], 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[24] (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) 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) The Sound and The Fury 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) update I think this guy had the right idea [25] (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: [26] I did engage in meaningful discussion on the talk page, and even apologized for the revert (I had misread the chronology of events) [27] 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. [28] 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) Comments by others about the request concerning Homunculus and The Sound and the Fury 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) 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) @AgadaUrbanit. Article in New York Times used by TheSoundandtheFury [29] 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) @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) Result concerning Homunculus and The Sound and the Fury 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) 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)

Note on Actor model

Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt#Post-case_clarification I semi-protected Actor model (again) for 1 week. Three Oakland, CA area IP addresses in 24 hours. If they come back after the week I'll increase the block length again. Posting here for transparency and review. Could use someone else to look at the article's talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It goes beyond Actor model. Maybe some articles, which do not meet our quality standards, should be WP:AFDed. AgadaUrbanit (talk)

The supporters of Carl Hewitt are confident that they possess the WP:TRUTH and there is no hope of a real discussion with them. Long-term semiprotections of three months or more can be tried. Two other articles where semiprotection has been used in the past are Logic programming and Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Usually a dispute will start each time there is a definitive new publication by Carl Hewitt which of course demands to be cited as a reference in the relevant Wikipedia article. According to Hewitt, in his Knol article on 'Corruption of Wikipedia,' Jimbo Wales should resign as a Trustee of WMF for the greater good of Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Soccershoes1

Soccershoes1 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from all Greece and Macedonia related articles and discussions, broadly construed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Soccershoes1 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC) 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 [30], [31], [32],[33] tedious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT debate claiming that people in Canada cannot possibly be of (Slavic) Macedonian descent if they have Greek-sounding surnames [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39] slow edit-war against consensus of several other editors, trying to remove names according to the POV issue described above. 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 [40]); similarly on Chris Kotsopoulos 22 April, following me around, retaliatory revert without any sign of understanding of the editorial issue in question 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: [41] by Charlesdrakew about disruptive edits to Alexander the Great [42] by Materialscientist about edits at Macedonia naming dispute [43] 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 [44] 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) 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 [45]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested done Discussion concerning Soccershoes1 Statement by Soccershoes1 Comments by others about the request concerning Soccershoes1 Result concerning Soccershoes1 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) 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) Support banning this user from making any edits related to Macedonia or Greece, broadly construed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

AnAimlessRoad

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

Request concerning AnAimlessRoad

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

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:

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

• [47] — using talk page as a forum

• [48] — using talk page as a forum

• [49] — restoring previous comment after deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• [59] — using talk page as forum

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

• [61] — 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)

[62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68]

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

[69]

Result concerning AnAimlessRoad

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

Oncenawhile

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

Request concerning Oncenawhile

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

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.... 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". Arab notables accused the Government forces of firing at Arabs exclusively."
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)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[70]

Local refs

Discussion concerning Oncenawhile

Statement by Oncenawhile

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)

Comments by others about the request concerning Oncenawhile

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)

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)

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)

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)

And I repeat: what action of another editor was undone or reversed by OnA's first edit today?[71] I don't see that it is a revert. RolandR (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Comments by Sean.hoyland and others. Collapsed to reduce the tl:dr factor of this report. Editors are free to respond to any comments here in their own sections.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment by Sean.hoyland - What a mess. The nonsense going on at 1929 Palestine riots is a perfect example of what is wrong with the topic area. Look at this sensible, open, honest comment by Oncenawhile Talk:1929_Palestine_riots#POV_tag. It fell on deaf ears. Why ? The only response was a complete failure to recognize that the root cause of the problem is people and how they behave in the topic area. Oncenawhile tries to build a bridge User_talk:AnkhMorpork#Hi and he gets an AE report instead. This is what I would like to see happen as the result of this report. The sentence in the lead that currently says "During the week of riots from 23 August to 29 August, 133 Jews were killed by Arabs and 339 others were injured. Jews killed 6 Arabs and the British police killed 110, and injured 232" is temporarily changed to "During the week of riots from 23 August to 29 August, hundreds of people were killed or injured" with no sources cited. It stays that way until agreement is reached on the talk page about what it should say and what sources are cited. Anyone who reverts it before agreement has been finalized on the talk page is blocked for 2 weeks. Alternatively, shut the article down and force people to walk away and edit articles about subjects they don't care about. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC) What you describe as a "sensible, open, honest comment by Oncenawhile" is an uncollaborative attack - rather than explaining what specific issues exist, he refers to "over zealous editors" with "techniques" that are "ridiculous". Please, this is not a content dispute and I await your usually measured responses that actually address the 1rr revert violation. Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 19:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC) I have to agree, first, that this is a dog's dinner and, second, that Oncenawhile did make an effort to do the right thing, both to discuss the tags and taking them to DR here. At the same time, I can now confirm that at least one of the things he removed in the second and third diffs, above, was the BBC reference which was first added to the article by AnkhMorpork in the first part of this edit, which would seem to satisfy RolandR's reservation expressed in his last comment, above. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Yes, and AnkhMorpork added a Daily Mail source here, which was sensibly removed, but restored by Brewcrewer here. I could go on. If anyone is going to be sanctioned over what is happening at that article I hope it doesn't just focus on one editor. Sanctioning Oncenawhile alone won't solve anything. It's about people not collaborating. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Sean, I note that you stated to a warning admin that, "I'll simply not comment at AE reports anymore unless I file them or they are filed against me." I am therefore somewhat surprised at your edits here? I hope that this too was an "open, honest comment". Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 19:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Yes, and I'm free to change my mind anytime about anything at all as I have already said elsewhere. I'm commenting here because I think your actions are wrong, as in right and wrong, wrong enough for me to comment. Oncenawhile and you are both editors who are quite capable of collaborating and improving articles, but for reasons that elude me, you have decided to go from, let's say, civilian (building an encyclopedia according to policy by working with other editors) to combatant (not collaborating and using AE as a weapon instead). That's your choice but it means, for me, that you should be treated like one. An editor tried hard to resolve issues peacefully through dialogue and you filed an AE report against him over a trivial thing that should have been resolved using the talk page. It's wrong and counterproductive. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Supplement: Those two edits by Oncenawhile (the second and third diff listed above) also at least removed the words "and 339 others" and the reference to Hadassah added by AnkhMorpork to the lede of the article in this edit. I do tend to agree that a stern final warning might be all that's needed in this case; as for the rest that you propose, I have to wonder if it's not just trading one form of control (a 1RR restriction to try to limit disruption and force discussion) for another intended to do the same thing, with the difference being that the control that's already in place affects all users who edit this article while yours just affects the ones in this particular dispute. Why not seek an amendment to ARBPIA which puts a 0RR restriction on all Arab-Israeli articles? — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• 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)

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 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)

Comments by Shrike: @Zero You analysis is wrong. The article was stable till Oncenawhile started his edits to "balance" the article at 15 april [73] their edit was revered they should have followed WP:BRD instead they reverted back [74].--Shrike (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

@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)

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)

Result concerning Oncenawhile

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)

• 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)

• 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)