Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:33, 16 January 2010

Requests for enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331

Abd

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

Request concerning Abd

User requesting enforcement: William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Abd_editing_restriction_.28existing_disputes.29

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

[1] Abd involving himself in an AFD in which he has no interest, and turning that into policy discussions
[2] Ditto, plus expansion of the dispute to harassment

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

N/A

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

Abd to be told to engage in productive edits to articles rather than unproductive dispute-mongering

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Copied here from "requests for clarification" per arb request.

GR raises an interesting point, or possibly wikilawyer, depending on your POV. Is AFD a "poll"? Arbcomm's sanction is regrettably vague on this point. Is a "poll" something with the word "poll" in it's name? I would so argue. Furthermore, AFD isn't a vote, so I don't think it is a poll. Well, this is a point that the arbs will have to clarify - they wrote the text, presumably they know what they meant.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [3]

Discussion concerning Abd

Statement by Abd

Well, first WMC filed a RfAr/Clarification over this silly "dispute," then, since he was asked why he didn't file an AE request, he's apparently gone and done that. My editing restriction allows me to respond to polls. I'm not clear what "interest" in an article means. Am I required to have been an active editor of an article to respond to an AfD poll? That would be a strange interpretation of the restriction. I was aware of the article and the concerted effort to delete it from the second AfD, when I was blocked. In any case, I appreciate guidance from neutral administrators, and the issue of whether or not this was a violation was already asked of ArbComm. I certainly don't think so, nor do I think it even close, or I'd not have done it. I suggest we wait for an answer from ArbComm, but the sanction was quite clear, at least in this respect. It's been modified, the version cited by WMC is obsolete, so here it is in all its revised glory:

"Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls."[4]

If ArbComm intended for me to avoid commenting in AfDs, surely allowing me to "vote or comment at polls" was a strange way to do it. I think not. On the other hand, any uninvolved admin could issue me a warning pending clarification from ArbComm, if the admin thinks the edit was out of bounds. WMC, highly involved -- he lost his admin bit over insisting on his right to block me whenever he pleased -- should not be the one to "guide" enforcement by dredging up every imagined offense, or even real but harmless ones, and wasting everyone's time. What WMC has been doing is harassment. He even tried to reopen the last AE request, after it was closed by the one who filed it. I'm hoping ArbComm will address that, and suggest to WMC that perhaps he shouldn't track my every move, not that I mind being visible. --Abd (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re WMC's diff showing a claim of harassment. He fails to note that shortly after writing that, the editor who had commented on my Talk page apologized, and I struck the claim. The only tendentious debate coming up here is from WMC and Mathsci, who somehow seem to discover every edit of mine practically immediately and make maximum fuss from it. Yes, AfD policy was discussed there. AfD comments, in fact, are supposed to refer to policy and guidelines, it's part of the process. Excessive? That's arguable. But is it necessary to argue it? Here? I wasn't prohibited from "excessive discussion of policy" in a discussion where I'm allowed to participate. Not yet, anyway! --Abd (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the usual cast of characters shows up here, from the RfAr: all parties have now commented, plus Mathsci, who would have been a party if he and WMC hadn't edit warred his name out while the clerks sucked their thumbs. WMC making hostile edits to the filing of a case naming him? Really? But that was then, this is now.

I have not violated my sanction, the whole point of bans is to be clear, and unclear bans lead to more disruption. The ban clearly permits an AfD comment, not requiring that I be an 'originating party' for that, and my comment did not create any major disruption itself, compared to an RfAr/Clarification and AE request filed, both the same day. If I made an inappropriate AfD comment, then it would be an ordinary offense, and subject to ordinary process, not AE. There is no ongoing dispute from me over the AfD, I simply saw some problems there and commented as I have commented countless times in the past without problems. Mathsci brings up a host of issues that would take many words to address, and if people are tired of seeing my responses, perhaps they should stop provoking them, or stop allowing others to provoke them gratuitously. Mathsci is not some innocent editor, uninvolved, he was admonished in the subject RfAr for less than what he's been doing lately. 'Nuff said.

Ah, one more comment: my RfAr/Clarification was successful. The restriction was clarified. Isn't that the purpose of an RfAr/Clarification? Apparently not to those who think of this place as a battlefield. They have some idea, apparently, of winning a game by getting your "enemies" blocked. I'll say this: that's not my game, at all. --Abd (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai Thanks. Much agreement. "He has a way...." Yes. For better and for worse. As to backing off, I made a comment, not outside the envelope for AfD comments, pointing out a policy issue about AfD discussions, and many do this. The issues I pointed out aren't really controversial, not if directly faced. But it was taken as a personal criticism, and was perhaps clumsy in that sense, I might have written it better. There was response, and I responded in turn, and the result, in the AfD and on my Talk page, was that argument did not continue. I backed off, and they backed off. I'd made my statement, and so had they. Done. Not only no hard feelings, at least not on my part!, but possibly some good, and very little time wasted. But an RfAr/Clarification and an AE request were filed, by a party historically involved in contentious dispute with me, with support from another hostile party who was also subject to critical comment in the RfAr that created the subject ban, creating far more disruption and need to respond, and neither of them were actually involved or injured in any way by my comment. So there were two processes requiring response filed in one day? I have not presented the evidence that I could present on harassment, so my mention of it is dicta. If it does not continue, it's moot. It could be useful if these parties were warned that they, too, should Mind Their Own Business. But I'm not asking for sanctions, one might note that I almost never ask for them. --Abd (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Abd

Comment by GoRight

It should be noted that this matter was previously raised at [5]~~, which WMC curiously forgot to mention,~~ and that the discussion there has not been closed. --GoRight (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC) I somehow missed the stricken part on my initial reading of the request.[reply]

The text of Abd's sanction, as recently amended by Arbcom, currently reads:

"Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls."

Emphasis is mine. An AfD is clearly a poll and as such he is specifically ALLOWED to participate per the sanctions. This request and the one mentioned above are both frivolous and vexatious and WMC should be instructed that repeatedly raising such matters might lead to blocks. --GoRight (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Enric Naval

The problem is not that he comments into a AfD to provide sources or give his opinion on the article. The problem is that Abd enters a controversial AfD raising procedural objections and saying that deleting the article "wastes or even insults the work of all those who contributed" [6]. And he does this without making any comment on the merit of the article itself or its sources, aka he is commenting on editors and not on its contributions. That is the problem: he was inserting himself into the dispute about the article and the AfD, as opposed to simply commenting about the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mathsci

Abd still seems to be testing the limits of his editing restrictions. His edits to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Tylman_(3rd_nomination), and related edits on his talk page, go considerably beyond a simple vote and comments on the article in question. Offliner (talk · contribs) mentioned that Abd had joined the EEML in his ArbCom evidence. It appears that Abd probably found out about this slightly obscure EE-related AfD off-wiki (cf his editing history). Abd seems to be deliberately seeking out problematic areas on WP, first when he attempted to involve himself in the unsuccessful climate change RfAr and now in this AfD related to EE issues. [7] The manner in which he has done so seems to be against the spirit of his editing restrictions, even if technically it might not be regarded as an infringement. In the end, however, I would have to agree with MastCell below that no enforcement is required here and, whatever the special circumstances, this matter should be allowed to drop. Mathsci (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MastCell

I have to agree with GoRight here, inasmuch as I can't see how Abd's editing restriction was intended, in letter or spirit, to prevent him from commenting on AfDs (except cold-fusion-related ones). One could certainly question the constructiveness of his comment, but if we banned people for making inflammatory comments at AfD, you'd be able to hear a pin drop over there. I don't think the intent of the restriction was to bar Abd from participating in AfDs across the board; it was focused on abuse of dispute resolution, and AfD isn't part of dispute resolution. MastCell ^Talk 23:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ikip

"He would be allowed to vote or comment at polls." What in world is a poll? A petition? It seems like some clarification is needed.

Once again, I have no idea what Abd was trying to say. I am deeply disappointed that a mentor was not assigned to Abd, thus the section Abd refers to was changed, and the mentor section removed, this would have solved the problem, as Abd could have asked his mentor first whether posting on AFDs was okay.

RE: "AFD isn't a vote" Officially yes. But this is another one of wikipedia's legal fictions. One of many. About a year ago I found out this was once called WP:Votes for Deletion. When it changed names it magically was no longer a vote.

Clarification is needed on what a poll is.

Mr. Connolley did not mention this next edit: "editor apologized, "reference" comment struck" where Abd strikes the comment.[8]

MastCell: "if we banned people for making inflammatory comments at AfD, you'd be able to hear a pin drop over there." ha ha.

Comment by Loosmark

This is probably one of the silliest arbitration requests I have ever seen. "Abd involving himself in an AFD in which he has no interest" oh my god, unbelievable!!! everybody else who voted there has a demonstrated super interest in that page save for Abd!!! -irony mode off- Seriously this request should be scrapped and the editor who started advised to stop wasting everybody's time. Dr. Loosmark 01:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Abd

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

I should be sleeping, but I have enough time to do a bit of restriction interpretation using my uninvolved-administrator-voice. Skip to the three sentence summary if you don't want to be bored to death.

3.2) Abd is prohibited from participating in discussion of any dispute in which he is not one of the originating parties, unless approved by his mentor(s). This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution. He would be allowed to vote or comment at polls.

3.3) Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls.

The spirit of the above quoted restrictions seems to be "don't get involved in fights or arguments you're not involved in." With an exception carved out for "vote or comment at polls." I further quote from the workshop page:

MYOB = Mind Your Own Business? I agree in principle, but is this actually in any Wikipedia policy or guidleine and should it be? Or does it only apply to some people? I suppose the opposite of WP:MYOB (redlink left to be filled in if anyone thinks it is worth it) is WP:OWN. For example, what if Abd expressed an interest in giving third opinions following requests at WP:3O? Carcharoth (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - To answer Carch, no it isn't part of policy. I'd say he could vote at "comment/support/oppose" sections, and for the sake of simplicity and unambiguity, I'd leave 3O off limits for the time being. Yeah I think this one is good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I imagine the polls so mentioned include things like the recent Arbcom elections, constitutional conventions and straw polls, and perhaps even XfD debates. These polls by their nature invite comment from all, though preferably ones that are pithy, insightful, topical. This invitation does not however allow Abd to engage in the disputes of others using XfD as a medium - (s)he is banned from using all on-wiki media in that way. Similarly, Abd is not allowed to do any number of bad ideas, even as an originating party to a dispute, if these bad ideas are covered by other policies.

Abd's behavior on the XfD is suboptimal. It is passive aggressive ("I further become suspicious when a nominator or single editor argues tendentiously against every keep vote, but that, too, is irrelevant as to keep/delete."), argumentative and a bit patronizing ("Who originally created an article is completely irrelevant to the notability of the subject, and any !vote based on that argument should be deprecated."), but in this (s)he hardly stands alone at XfD. Where Abd does stand unique however, is that (s)he has been specifically prohibited from minding the business of others, an indicator that there is something about the way Abd makes arguments that is defective. Abd would be best served by the rule "unless there is an objectively compelling reason to speak, stay silent." As it stands, I do not believe Abd's behavior rises to the point that invokes sanctions.

As a separate issue, the word "harass" should be used with considerable care. I too am guilty of using the term in a more casual manner, but I've learned that there are certain buzzwords that carry extra baggage around here. Likewise, I am intolerant of re litigation and of AE complaints servings as vehicles for potshots at the committee, clerks, administrators, and random passerbyes in general. The only person who I really accept invective against is myself (which is not to suggest open season, as other admins may block you even if I won't).

The summary: the remedy allows participation at XfDs that does not otherwise constitute prohibited behavior. Abd has not engaged in the prohibited behavior. Abd is advised to back off anyway.--Tznkai (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal by Russavia

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

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

Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction: Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / Sandstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notification of that editor: [9]

Statement by Russavia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to Sandstein/Henrik/et al

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

Response re: diplomacy articles

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

Comment for Henrik

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

Statement by Sandstein

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

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

Comments by others about the appeal by Russavia

Comment by Vecrumba

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

Comment by MisterWiki

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

Comment by Martintg

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

Comment by Offliner

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

Comment by Varsovian

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

Comment by Mjroots

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

Question from Triplestop

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

Comment by Bwilkins

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

Comment by Ezhiki

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

Comment by Biophys

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

Comment by Henrik

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

Comment by The Four Deuces

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

Comment by John Z

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

Result of the appeal by Russavia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Simonm223

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

Request concerning Simonm223

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

User against whom enforcement is requested: Simonm223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

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

[10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] - These are all reverts where he did not engage in any meaningful content discussion
[16] [17] - His stated point of view is that all those edits where WP:Vandalism and he states that he does not want to engage into any content discussion
[18] - He was warned, that this kind of behavior is considered WP:DE
[19] - His response "Consider it as you will " and continues with personal attacks
[20] [21] [22] [23] [24]- Personal attacks
[25] [26][27][28][29][30][31] [32] [33] - Removing sourced materials that he does not like, without any discussion on the talk page, while insisting that he is right (but no sources, or policies)
[34] [35] - Something similar that I noticed on the Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes page.
[36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] - He likes to engage and insist on his particular WP:OR's without providing evidence WP:RS.

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

[42] Warning by HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs)
[43] Warning by HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: The main problem that I see with Simon223 is that he is unwilling to engage in any meaningful content discussion. He just carries out irrational personal attacks.

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

Discussion concerning Simonm223

Statement by Simonm223

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

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

Ok here is the most recent mass change made by Asdfg: [44] This constitutes 21 independent edits to the article by Asdfg, all without intervening editorial input. Every edit removes critical information or incorporates pro-FLG bias. He then goes to the talkpage and posts textwalls, insisting that his edits be addressed point by point. This is his standard MO and has repeated many times.Simonm223 (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here Asdfg reverts to his preferred version after Colipon (talk · contribs) reverts one of his mass edits. He insists Colipon address his edits point by point. He is promptly reverted by Enric_Naval (talk · contribs) [45] [46] [47] Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case Asdfg's edits are reverted by Colipon again: [48] As you can see with this difference link the version that Colipon reverted to was the same one that I reverted to prior to. [49] Simonm223 (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case Asdfg's edits were reverted by Ohconfucius (talk · contribs). [50] Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Asdfg's edit history to mine: [51] [52] as you can see he is essentially an SPA, I am not. Now, addressing the request by Sandstein, I appologize but I am a bit irate. I am getting attacked for Calling an SPA who constantly reverts good edits to POV nonsense a vandal..

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

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

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

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Simonm223

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

Statement by Enric Naval

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Colipon

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

Statement by Asdfg12345

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

Statement by Ohconfucius

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

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

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

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

Statement by HappyInGeneral

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

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

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

Statement by Seb az86556

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

Statement by Mrund

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

Statement by PCPP

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

Result concerning Simonm223

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

I have reviewed the evidence provided and find the request to have merit. The edits listed at (1) and (2) are numerous reverts of what is labeled "vandalism" (e.g. [53]), whereas in fact the reason for the revert appears to be a disagreement about the content. Per WP:VAND, vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia", and it is not at all clear how the content reverted would be such an attempt. Moreover, Simonm223's talk page contributions indicate that he has made no good faith attempt at finding consensus with his revert opponent(s) during the period of time covered by the reverts. The edits listed at (3) to (8) do not contain very much that is actionable apart from that; in particular, the "Mass killings" article is out of the scope of the cited arbitration case.

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

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

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

Asdfg12345

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

Request concerning Asdfg12345

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

User against whom enforcement is requested: Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article_probation

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

[54] Makes again the same edit as [55] after agreeing in Talk:Falun_Gong#Luo_Gan that the sources are not adequate. When he is asked for new sources he provides again the old ones, and then he keeps going on about how he doesn't understand why the sources are inadequate and avoids adressing any of the problems raised by other editors. The rest of the section is Asdfg12345 failing to acknowledge that he needs a secondary source that makes the connection that he wants to put into the article. Days later he restores again saying that "no reason was given for keeping them out" [56]
FG's leader has made homophobic and pseudoscientific remarks, which were added to Teachings of Falun Gong. Asdfg12345 first removed them claiming consensus in the talk page and asking that people discuss in the talk page[57][58][59], then he tries to soften it [60] and to remove criticism [61], then he tries to portrait the author of the commentary as a FG critic while removing the "dharma" part [62], then he removes "dharma" again[63], then he made OR to claim that FG's founder had never said those things and it was propoganda from the Chinese government adn the journalist didn't research correctly the evidence [64] and edits wars to keep it while claiming support from talk page and consensus [65][66][67][68][69][70] there is a AN3 report pointing out that the "consensus in the talk page" consisted of Asdfg12345 himself and Dilip Rajeev, both editors back each other's edits and reverts, and both editors being sanctioned in the FG arb case. After the protection expires he edit wars the same content claiming consensus and menacing with AE threads[71][72] removes parts of the quote [73] and reinserts the OR [74]. During all this time a lengthy RfC had been going on and it was finally decided that the info was good and the OR was bad, and in 20th August Asdfg12345 finally said that the problem had been solved amicabily [75]. However, in 28th he removes the sources that explain why the founder's quotes don't appear in the FG website [76] (this text was stilthis text is still lacking from the article, and I have now re-added it). In January 2010 he claims that the journalists only picked those quotes only due to influence from the Chinese government[77] and edits war to keep it[78] helped by HappyInGeneral[79]
At Teachings of Falun Gong, when using the claim from the FG website that the journalist is wrong, he replaces "claims" instead of "says" [80][81][82]. Let's remember from the point above that Asdfg12345 had removed some months ago a RS statement about how the FG website was purposefully misquoting the founder, which means that Asdfg12345 has to know that the journalist is correct!
At Falun Gong. He makes 18 consecutive edits all only explanations in the edit summaries [83] and asks other editors to discuss his edits diff by diff [84]. When he gets reverted he reverts his edits back demanding that other editors edit incrementally [85].
removes a belief that manking has been destroyed 81 times from under the "controversies" section because the source doesn't explicitily say that it's controversial [86]
removing the adjective "controversial" from Teachings_of_Falun_Gong [87] and from Falun Gong [88], despite having participated in multiple discussions to keep the word and source it, like the six discussions in July 2008 (one two three four five six) with Asdfg12345 being an active participant in #1 #2 and #4. He also participated in the discussions in August 2008 where I provided seven media sources using "controversial" in addition to the Brittanica here, he also participated in a discussion in April 2009 where he asked for sources for "the apparent controversies about Falun Gong" here and another discussion in the same month here. He also removes the word in his subsequent blanket revert to his version[89]

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

[90] Warning by Simonm223 (talk · contribs) 4 January 2010

[91] Followup by Ohconfucius (talk · contribs)

[92] Warning by Enric Naval (talk · contribs) 21 December 2009
[93] by Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) 4 October 2009
[94] by Edward130603 (talk · contribs) 1 September 2009
[95] by Maunus (talk · contribs) 22 August 2009
[96] by Maunus (talk · contribs) 8 August 2009
[97] by AGK (talk · contribs) 16 may 2009

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Topic ban from all Falun Gong related topics, broadly constructed. P.D.: I guess that 0RR could also work.

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

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

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

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

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

Asdfg12345 was issued a final warning just a few days after the Falun Gong case closed [98]. His behaviour has not improved at all, yet he was only blocked for 48 hours. Ever since then he keeps coming back once in a while, making a POV pushing edit and then disappearing for a few days. Never breaking 3RR, many times not making reverts but instead going back to the same issues weeks later and in slightly different edits, which is probably why he wasn't blocked again. In other words: slowly edit-warring variations of the same POV.

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

Almost every single edit by Asdfg12345 has been to Falun Gong related articles, see his edit count [99].

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [100]

Discussion concerning Asdfg12345

Statement by Asdfg12345

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to Sandstein

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

On NPOV

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

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

On comparisons with other editors

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

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

On editing other pages

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

Final part

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

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

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Asdfg12345

Enric Naval, while I won't dismiss this out of hand (as there may indeed be a case worth taking action here), this is not currently presented in an actionable form. Please understand that administrators will normally base their review on the evidence that you provide, and that evidence is currently limited to two diffs ([101], [102]), none of which is prima facie evidence of disruptive editing. The rest of your long comments about the supposed misconduct by Asdfg12345 are entirely unactionable as long as they are unsupported by diffs. Also, this is a board dedicated toarbitration enforcement, so any argument based on the premise that ArbCom was wrong will not result in any action here. If you think ArbCom is wrong, you would need to make a new request for arbitration and try to convince them. Sandstein 22:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223

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

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

As I write this Asdfg12345 has once more restored the POV-pushing edits that are at the heart of this issue: [103].

Statement by Ohconfucius

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

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

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

Statement by Colipon

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

Statement by Mrund

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

Statement by PCPP

I have edited with Asdfg since 2007, and my experience is a mixed one. Asdfg began editing Wikipedia with the intent of promoting FLG's agendas, as shown by his comments on user talks pages, [104] [105][106] [107], and here he claimed that he edits Wikipedia to "save people from the Chinese Communist Party before it's destroyed".

The problem is that Asdfg and Happy, as well as others like Olaf and Dilip, has formed a tag team that have de-facto control of the concensus in the FLG articles, and as such any attempts to add material critical of FLG would be met with reverts through the sheer weight of force [108] [109] [110]. His reverts are often blanket reverts, dismissing whole revisions because one or two sentences are not to his liking [111], and often anything that is sourced from the PRC government [112], and often wikilawyers his way out by dismissing them as propaganda. As such, I think a block of a set length would be appropriate so that he can understand wikipedia policies better and cool down about the FLG material.--PCPP (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Asdfg12345

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

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

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

HappyInGeneral

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

Request concerning HappyInGeneral

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

User against whom enforcement is requested: HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article_probation

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

In the last months he has started reverting back Asdfg12345 edits, in Falun Gong [113][114][115], in Li_Hongzhi [116][117], in History_of_Falun_Gong [118]. He is the only editor that restores Asdfg12345's edits, while the removal Asdfg12345's edits is being done by multiple editors.
after complaints that the sources are not adequate, he states "So you are saying that removing sourced information is somehow OK?"[119], this is the typical WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour at FG pages, where valid arguments are ignored by flooding the discussion with new invalid arguments.

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

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

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Ban on reverting back Asdfg12345's edits. 0RR restriction.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: HappyInGeneral has edited a great number of articles while vandal-fighting, but he is a still a SPA account, overhelmingly editing Falun Gong related articles, see edit counter [120].

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

HappyInGeneral is a self-declared practitioner of Falun Gong[121]. A person with this COI shouldn't be edit-warring stuff that os directly related to the reputation of the discipline that he practices.

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [122]

Discussion concerning HappyInGeneral

Statement by HappyInGeneral

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

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

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

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

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

And if you take a look at the rest of diffs presented: [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] you might notice the same behavior from my part while there is no discussion on the talk page, just strong minded reverts, without substantiated discussion. When blind reverts like this are happening, I can only come here to present my case, because there is no argument to be used at the NPOV, Reliable Source, etc. noticeboards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Administrator:

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

The latest example (food for thought):

Here is the section to discuss point by point 14 changes Talk:Falun_Gong#Changes_and_discussion_for_them comment added at 15:29, 14 January 2010. In these changes Asdf put some effort, 14 diffs, and if any of those would be objectionable it could be pointed out, it can be clearly pointed out.
However, even though request for discussion was clearly expressed on the talk page, and in the edit summaries there where 3 reverts [128], [129], [130] and no discussion about the actual changes.

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

Comments by others about the request concerning HappyInGeneral

Comment by Asdfg12345

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

Comment by Simonm223

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

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

As demonstrated by this [131] recent edit here Happy continues to operate under the assumption that other editors are trying to "defend the worst totalitarian regime". Now, notwithstanding the fact that this violates WP:AGF in all kinds of ways, notwithstanding the fact that the claim is baseless, non FLG editors want a neutral article, not one that defends China, the fact that Happy believes China to be the "worst totalitarian regime" (China is considered an authoritarian state in academic circles and is not, in fact, technically totalitarian at all) demonstrates the clear and systemic neutrality and COI issues that HappyInGeneral (and Asdfg12345) have with FLG articles. Simonm223 (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ohconfucius

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Colipon

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

Statement by Mrund

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

Statement by PCPP

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

Comment by Abrazame

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

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

Result concerning HappyInGeneral

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

As with Asdfg12345 above, the evidence submitted (especially the edit counter) and a review of his contributions indicates that, when HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs) is not making automated vandalism reverts, he edits articles with a view to making them more sympathetic to Falun Gong. Like Asdfg12345, he is also involved in edit wars on the topic, which matches the finding of a majority of arbitrators voting on the case back in 2007 ([132]). In addition, it is of great concern to me that in this very forum he is making comments ([133]) that can be reasonably read only as insinuating that those who disagree with him are agents or tools of the Chinese Communist Party. This is in direct conflict with the Committee's reminder, at WP:AFLG#Wikipedia is not a battleground, that "Use of the site for ideological struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive." For these reasons, if no administrator colleagues disagree, I intend to impose a six months topic ban on HappyInGeneral as well, with the additional reminder that any violations may result in an extension of the ban to indefinite, or lengthy blocks, or both. Sandstein 19:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 614: / Line 614: @@
 <hr/>
 @Administrator: Wikipedia, is not a battleground, I see, and I fully agree since I do believe in talk. Under this spirit, I'm sorry to have fueled such an environment. I think I did strike out all those remarks, however if I missed something, please point it out and I'll fix it. Thank you! --[[User:HappyInGeneral|HappyInGeneral]] ([[User talk:HappyInGeneral|talk]]) 13:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
+<hr/>
+@Administrator:
+No matter what the outcome may be, will you in the end have something in place that will reward discussion and discourage blind reverts? As I see it this is the only way to ensure to improve Wikipedia. Thanks. --[[User:HappyInGeneral|HappyInGeneral]] ([[User talk:HappyInGeneral|talk]]) 13:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
+The latest example (food for thought):
+* Here is the section to discuss point by point 14 changes [[Talk:Falun_Gong#Changes_and_discussion_for_them]] comment added at 15:29, 14 January 2010. In these changes Asdf put some effort, 14 diffs, and if any of those would be objectionable it could be pointed out, it can be clearly pointed out.
+* However, even though request for discussion was clearly expressed on the talk page, and in the edit summaries there where 3 reverts [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&action=historysubmit&diff=337815613&oldid=337808525], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&action=historysubmit&diff=337818516&oldid=337817824], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&action=historysubmit&diff=338129130&oldid=337907015] and no discussion about the actual changes.
+In my opinion Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia where we should evaluate the merit of the edits, not blindly push forward or defend a certain view. And that is why I would like to know if you consider to have something in place  that will reward discussion and discourage blind reverts. Thank you! --[[User:HappyInGeneral|HappyInGeneral]] ([[User talk:HappyInGeneral|talk]]) 13:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 ====Comments by others about the request concerning HappyInGeneral ====