Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive270

Aman.kumar.goel
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning Aman.kumar.goel

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 13:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ARBIPA :


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


 * Incessant violations of WP:EW and WP:OWN on Bangladesh liberation war
 * 1) 8 August 2020 Reverted an edit by Aditya Kabir in POV dispute over the interpretation of the sources
 * 2) 7 August 2020 Reverted an edit by Kmzayeem to remove citations added by the editor in a POV dispute
 * 3) 7 August 2020 Reverted another edit by Kmzayeem in a POV dispute over the result in the infobox
 * 4) 20 June 2020 Reverted an edit by DdBbCc22 in a POV dispute over the number of strength of the combatants
 * 5) 14 June 2020 Reverted another edit by DdBbCc22 in the same POV dispute
 * 6) 9 June 2020 Reverted an edit by Zarifobayed360 in a POV dispute over result in the infobox

There is no evidence of sock/block evasions in the edits. These diffs are just the most recent edit warring on Bangladesh liberation war, there are further cases of edit warring by Aman.kumar.goel in the earlier history of the article, all in content disputes. The edit wars in August have come even after a concern was raised at WP:ANI on Aman.kumar.goel's perpetual edit warring on this and other articles. Note that Bangladesh liberation war is only one example of the unabating edit warring tendency of the user. There are plenty of other articles in the IPA area where the user has engaged/been engaging in edit wars in content disputes, often tag teaming with others. A simple look on his contributions can prove it. If needed, I can provide more diffs if the limit allows.


 * Other conduct issues


 * 1) 7 August 2020 Violates WP:DE, WP:BULLY and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Left a DS alert on an editor's talk page who was already notified about the same discretionary sanctions on 8 July 2020, as the editor is involved in an ongoing dispute with Aman.kumar.goel. Made false accusations of dubious edit summaries and others.
 * 2) 17 July 2020 Violates WP:BULLY, WP:BATTLEGROUND by making false accusations of WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:Civility at a WP:ANI discussion. Another editor reviewing the case also validated the fact of false allegations by Aman.kumar.goel. Also misrepresented several diffs as WP:EW. The ANI discussion was filed without even discussing the contents in the article talk pages or seeking dispute resolution.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 13 February 2020 Blocked to prevent further disruption caused by his engagement in an edit war on Siddha medicine.


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):13 May 2020


 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
 * Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 8 August 2020


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

These are just the incidents that came into my notice. Aman.kumar.goel has a perpetual tendency to violate WP:BATTLEGROUND mainly to intimidate his ideological opponents instead of seeking effective dispute resolutions, a fact that is also corroborated by an admin with this statement. As it seems in different discussions, the user even refuses to admit that he has been engaged in an edit war. This only means that there wouldn't be any change in his disruptive conduct unless a sanction is enforced. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

In response to Aman.kumar.goel's statement : It is quite self-contradictory when Aman.kumar.goel himself says he made reverts in the ongoing disputed article and yet claims the allegation of disruption is false. Pedantic perusals like 2 or 3 reverts, partial or full revert don't matter when the gist of the report is the tendency to edit-war, not limits of reverts.

Regarding WP:VERIFY, I already provided the source in an earlier edit and the discussion was mainly about the false claim of consensus by Aman.kumar.goel at the user talk page.

WP:Gaming the system, WP:Wikilawyering by Aman.kumr.goel can be validated by the comments of different editors, this for example. It should be noted that before filing this report I tried discussing with Aman.kumar.goel here about his edit-wars and asked him to self-revert but the user refused to respond. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

In response to RegentsPark's statement : Sources are already provided as none of the edits look unsourced, the dispute seems to be over the interpretation of sources. But the content dispute is not the point here, the report is about Aman.kumar.goel's incessant edit-warring tendency, there is no way that the reverts he made could be exempted per WP:EW. And BLW is not the only article, here are some of his recent edit-wars on Ayurveda (2 July 2020) (article is placed on 1RR where he tag-teamed with others), Nathu La and Cho La (5 July 2020) (again tag-teaming with others on the same infobox POV dispute), List of administrative units of Pakistan by Human Development Index (26 July 2020, 26 July 2020, 30 July 2020) and countless others.

Also notice his WP:BULLY and WP:BATTLEGROUND approach, since multiple editors (including an admin) has corroborated the concern, there is clearly a pattern here. I have enough reasons to believe that the moment this report is closed without action, Aman.kumar.goel will continue his edit-warring and bullying, disrupting several articles. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Notified

Discussion concerning Aman.kumar.goel
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by Aman.kumar.goel
It needs to be noted that OP filed this report after he failed to WP:VERIFY his sources, and failed to implement his POV on the article per Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War even after his toxic attempt to poison the well by falsely alleging me of "totally disruptive ... WP:Gaming the system and WP:Wikilawyering" as clearly visible from his talk page message. I made 2 reverts on the article in question this month and these 2 edits should be technically counted as one revert, instead of 2 reverts.

Needless to say, such a misleading complaint which is nothing more than a clear attempt to weaponize a content dispute deserve WP:BOOMERANG. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Kmzayeem
I'm one of the participants in the current dispute at Bangladesh Liberation War.

I have had my share of editing disputes and I know these South Asia-related topics always tend to be a heated area but earlier at least I had seen there was a desire to have a peaceful resolution from both sides. The one here at Bangladesh Liberation War is quite unprecedented in my eight years of editing experience. When my edit was reverted, I tried to follow WP:BRD and continued discussing at the article's talk page without making any further edit. Suddenly, I discover Aman.kumar.goel's misleading warnings at my talk page with allegations of "dubious edit summaries", "blatant source misrepresentation" and "Misrepresenting "consensus"". These issues were already being discussed at the article's talk page and instead of continuing the discussion there, he left this bad faith message at my talk page which I found disruptive, not to mention the inappropriate DS alert notice already stated by the OP. Today, I found another warning by Aman.kumar.goel at my talk page, this time accusing me of WP:CANVASSING, pointing towards this message. As it can be seen, my message was entirely neutral and the editor I invited to the discussion was Aditya Kabir who is one of the major content contributors to this article (perhaps the only one currently active among them). Aditya Kabir was also involved in the peer review process of the article.

It does seem to me that Aman.kumar.goel is applying WP:POV railroad tactics with such antics, just to take control of the article. --Zayeem  (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark
I see this as more of a sourcing issue than a behavioral one and see no reason for action since OP hasn't really documented a pattern of behavior that is outside our norms. As a person with lay knowledge of the events in the article, I'm surprised that sources can't be found that support OPs position (I'm tangentially involved since I expressed that surprise on the talk page!), but Wikipedia is built on well sourced content and that's what counts. If there are sources, then I suggest WP:DR as a better venue. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The diffs that you've added do show aggressive editing on Aman.kumar.goel's part. Combined with the discussion on the Bangladesh Liberation War outcome, that is evidence of marginal battleground behavior. I don't think this rises to the level of sanctions, yet, but a warning is definitely worth considering. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Aditya Kabir
Sorry to drop in. But does this comment, made four days after this warning, count as "bludgeoning the conversation"? May be this counts as edit warring. Also, incivilities, threats, bullying and lawyering is being continued by what look like a WP:GANG now (I'll be happier if I'm wrong, of course). Asking help from WP:MILHIST editors made the gang even more aggressive and combative. Not a desired outcome. May be the whole discussion needs some moderation. Aditya (talk • contribs) 12:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * posted this.
 * posted this to the article talk, and this to my talk page.
 * posted a lot of incivilities: this, this, this, this, this and more.

Result concerning Aman.kumar.goel

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


 * The warning that Aman.kumar.goel left to Kmzayeem worries me. That being said, I agree with . I think all of you should try to establish a consensus about who "won" the war with an RfC. I am going to look dimly upon any of you bludgeoning the conversation, refusing to participate, on your return to this forum without an discussion started. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  13:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Kmzayeem
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning Kmzayeem

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 07:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan


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


 * 15 July: Edit misrepresented source. Source doesn't mention any "victory". While a quote from p.159 was cherrypicked and misrepresented by the editor, he apparently ignored the cited page no. 162 which says anything but "Military victory of Nawab of Bengal".

Note: Kmzayeem understands that "mention about ... victory" in the parameter should be supported by the source or else it is removable, but he himself continues to insert claims about "victory" of other side of the conflict without finding a supportive source and continues to WP:EDITWAR;


 * 9 August: Misrepresenting source when "victory" is not supported by the source.
 * 14 August: Same misrepresentation of source as above, cherry picked a quotation "could generally win victories" and ignored the full quotation that "could generally win victories in western Bengal" (but not the whole war)
 * 14 August: Accepts that he misrepresented source, but continues falsification of source. "Success of Nawab of Bengal in repelling the invasions" is still not supported by either sources.
 * 14 August: Doubles down with misrepresentation of source, falsely claiming sources justifies "military success of Bengal Subah" for the parameter, when they don't.
 * 15 August: Cherrypicking and misrepresentation continues.

Other pages:


 * 6 August: Misrepresented two websites, which make no mention of a "victory", while removing scholarly sources on the infobox.
 * 6 August: Doubles down with his misrepresentation of sources, and demands "WP:HISTRS" while himself sticking to unreliable websites per his own article edit.
 * 6 August: Violation of WP:CANVASSING by selectively notifying an editor.
 * 13 August: Falsifying credibility of reliable sources by calling independent scholarly sources to be unreliable.
 * 13 August: Keeps misrepresenting this scholarly book published by Rowman & Littlefield as "a technical dictionary and a tertiary source" even after being told against it.

While talk page disruption on Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War is seemingly endless from this user, the latest talk message that encouraged me to file this report is most egregious;
 * This book has made no mention of "victory" anywhere, but Kmzayeem claims it says "Bangladesh's victory".
 * Cites a novel with this book, and claims it says: "During the 1971 war... When the war ended and everyone... celebrated the victory of Bangladesh..." when the actual quote from the book is "When the war ended and everyone in the novel celebrated the victory of Bangladesh"(emphasis mine). Though he removed the word "in the novel" and replaced it with "..." which provided a false notion that the source is providing a scholarly analysis than discussing a novel.

Some other sources are unavailable so I can't confirm them, but the deceptive misrepresentation of the above sources seems very deliberate.

Most of these diffs come after he had been adequately warned on his talk page, for edits that involved similar extent of disruption, but evidently, it is continuing in violation of WP:COMPETENCE and WP:IDHT. Srijanx22 (talk) 07:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Kmzayeem
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by Kmzayeem
It's quite remarkable to see Srijanx22 decided to discuss the contents here with misleading allegations rather than responding at the talk page, despite being cautioned for not assuming good faith just yesterday.

The so called misrepresentations at Maratha invasions of Bengal were already refuted at the talk page. The sources indeed indicate that Nawab of Bengal had military upper hand on all the battles over the Marathas which imply victory, two sources were added with relevant quotations. I didn't "accept" the misrepresentation rather changed "victory" to "Success of Nawab of Bengal in repelling the invasions" as a compromise which also matches the lead description of the version restored by Srijanx22, so I'm not sure what is being disputed here that he reverted my edit and along with it, removed about 1000 bytes of sourced contents outside the infobox, the removal of which hasn't been explained by the OP anyway despite being asked to. That seems like a needless revert on what purpose I'm not sure.

In the 6th August edit at Bangladesh Liberation War, I added a "note" describing Pakistan's surrender to Bangladeshi-Indian joint forces to change the result in infobox to "Bangladeshi-Indian victory" and added some links containing the surrender document to cite the description within the note. So what misrepresentation the OP is talking about here? This also had already been explained at the talk page quite comprehensively.

The book clearly shows "Bangladesh's victory" in page 58 in my search. The OP neither waited for my response at the talk page nor tried to check any technical error.

The "novel" stated by the OP is actually a scholarly article titled "The Blame Game: War and Violence in Dilruba Z. Ara’s Blame" from Asiatic Journal, analyzing fictions on historic wars and conflicts, the quotation was the author's own words and not excerpt from the fiction. I already provided the volume and issue no. in the discussion, yet, I'm not sure why the OP is describing a journal article as a novel.

One of the diffs shown by the OP is not even my edit. The amount of falsification of diffs here is quite hideous.

The turn of events at the two articles also seem quite strange. Srijanx22 began reverting my edits at Maratha invasions of Bengal on 10 August, when the discussion at Bangladesh Liberation War was going pretty hot along with off-discussion "battles". The dispute at Bangladesh Liberation War was approaching a consensus on 16 August with mediation by uninvolved editors from WP:MILHIST and now the OP files this misleading case against me with pretty much identical false allegations that the opposing participants at Bangladesh Liberation War threw at me.

Leaving everything on the arbitrators, please do what deem necessary, including any action required against me.

Quite an eventful August for me, more to come I guess. --Zayeem  (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning Kmzayeem

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



श्रीमान २००२
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning श्रीमान २००२

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 16:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIPA :


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


 * 1) 15:12, 8 August 2020 Added unproved allegations to Tahir Hussain (politician) (Article currently in AfD)
 * 2) 11:42, 7 August 2020 Added controversial information about Hussain's confession
 * 3) 15:24, 6 August 2020 Created page with the line "who was instrumental in the 2020 anti-CAA riots"
 * 4) 15:26, 8 August 2020 (RevDeleted, visible to admins only) Added WP:BLP violations related to ex-AAP councillor Tahir Hussain's involvement in Delhi riots at Stone pelting in India
 * 5) 17:35, 25 June 2020 Added WP:BLP violations related to Harsh Mander at Shaheen Bagh Protests
 * 6) 17:39, 25 June 2020 WP:BLP violations on Harsh Mander
 * 7) 17:25, 27 June 2020 Removal of sourced information from Ramesh Pokhriyal

17:59, 25 June 2020‎
 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

User was warned about violating WP:BLP in June by and  over his edits (given above) regarding Harsh Mander. User was warned to not present statements made by the police as statements of fact. However, here we are again in August, with the user's new target being Tahir Hussain. Hussain's name has long been a point of WP:BLP violations in the article and the Talk page of 2020 Delhi riots (multiple admins have reverted multiple edits regarding Husain's involvement in the riots). He has repeated the same behaviour in this article, violating WP:BLP multiple times, showing no signs of stopping. I added a WP:PROD notice on Hussain's page today, which the user removed, without properly reading or addressing the relevant sections of WP:BLP and WP:NPOL that I had linked. SerChevalerie (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * User's contentious editing and WP:OR has continued, now on the article on National Women's Front. Created a whole section on "Love Jihad and Forced Conversation" (you read that right) which is based on a single unproved instance of the president of the organisation being linked to the case. No mention of the organisation itself being involved. SerChevalerie (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Notified user
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning श्रीमान २००२
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by Vanamonde93
I recommended this user be brought here after applying revdel to one of their edits (under IAR because I am tangentially involved). Jumping from "supporters of X threw stones at property" (which is what the source said) to "X threw stones" (which is what they wrote) is the sort of egregious OR that we do not need in an area under discretionary sanctions. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Tayi Arajakate
I should clarify that the problems with their editing on the Shaheen Bagh page go much beyond that violation of WP:BLP regarding Harsh Mander. In general, there was quite a bit of NPOV violation which inadvertently gets noticed more through its consequent BLP violations. They didn't pursue it further but it seems they have moved on to other pages with the same pattern of editing. Tayi Arajakate Talk 11:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning श्रीमान २००२

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


 * I think a topic ban from post-1947 Indian politics is in order -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  13:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what restriction would work best here, but post-1947 Indian politics probably comes closest from my reading of edits and talk page comments: the user has some hot button issues. Maybe a 3-month TBAN in the first instance? Guy (help! - typo?) 15:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * oops. I've topic banned him indefinitely from the entire IPA area. I hadn't looked here, just his contributions and of course he hasn't posted here. I prefer indefinite bans as they can always be appealed and that seems less time consuming then one where the editor can just ignore the area for 3 or 6 months and come back when it's finished. But if you all think I should change either the time or the scope, go ahead. Doug Weller  talk 12:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't disagree, it seems a little harsh but he is aggressively clueless in a number of ways. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I support Doug's ban. I've practically stopped using time-limited bans, especially for POV-pushing SPA's. It's more of a learning experience for them to be "forced" to edit other areas during the ban, in order to have constructive work to point to in an appeal. If they simply leave for three months and then return to their favorite area, they're most likely to be just as disruptive. Bishonen &#124; tålk 10:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC).
 * This works for me. I was going to do a more narrow slice of the pie, but all of India works -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  12:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Chartreuse&Puce
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning Chartreuse&Puce

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 22:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2 :


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) 21:31, 17 August 2020 Chartreuse&Puce added a statement to the article with a string of references; I examined the references and found that they all either contradicted the statement or did not support it, so I re-wrote the statement and dropped most of the references; Chartreuse&Puce reverted my changes soon thereafter in this diff. The latter action appears to violate the talk page restriction "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)."


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 19:30, 13 August 2020

This is the first time I recall encountering discretionary sanctions and I'm mostly just following the instructions on the article talk page which say, "Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard."
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

22:58, 17 August 2020
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Chartreuse&Puce
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by Chartreuse&Puce
I am not really sure what I supposedly did wrong here. I wrote, correctly, that the Supreme Court had not ruled specifically on the issue of the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents. Then, someone inserted dicta from the 1982 Plyler v. Doe case. The Supreme Court in that case specifically stated that its ruling was only applicable to K-12 education. Any dicta in the case, like that statement that was inserted in the edit by another editor, is not relevant to the issue of birthright citizenship. So, I reverted the language back to the correct language. Then, someone else stated, absurdly, that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling is "irrelevant" and reverted the language back so it now reads incorrectly.

Further, this is not a matter for consensus. Wikipedia editors are in no position to determine that the limited applicability of a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court is irrelevant. And they certainly should not be cherry-picking statements from dicta in a case which is not applicable to birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants in an effort to make a supposedly unbiased Wikipedia argument read the way they would like it to.

The reference to Plyler v. Doe statement needs to be removed from this article, and the language reverted back to the correct language. Chartreuse&#38;Puce (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The references I used were cut and pasted from the Wikipedia article on anchor babies. As for my ability to interpret Supreme Court decisions - they do not need to be interpreted by me or any other Wikipedia editor - the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the ruling in Plyler was limited to K-12 education; the ruling is simply not applicable for any other purpose.  To remove language from case dicta to support a statement about birthright citizenship is definitely cherry-picking, made worse by the fact that Plyler case is not about birthright citizenship, as clearly stated by the Supreme Court.  There should be no mention of Plyler in the Wikipedia article, in particular within the birthright citizenship section.  This isn't complicated, and it certainly is no reason to have me banned. Chartreuse&#38;Puce (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, you said you banned "them". Please be aware that there is only one of me.  Thanks.  Chartreuse&#38;Puce (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * English language grammar - the word "them" is a plural pronoun, regardless of what is discussed in the Wikipedia article. Please see my 2nd grade teacher.  :)  Chartreuse&#38;Puce (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Guerillero You list 3 reasons for banning me.


 * 1) My edits of Kamala Harris article.  I now understand that the accusatory language I used in the article Talk page is not to be used even in the Talk page of a living person article (unless you are referring to Trump as a liar and racist, then it's apparently OK). Once I saw that my suggested edit had been referred to, I ceased.  I was justly punished for my actions with a 3-day ban.
 * 2) My edit of the George Floyd protests article.  My edit was factual, well-written, and properly cited to a reliable source.  While the edit may be subject to a discussion on the Talk page, there was nothing problematic in the edit that should be cause for being banned.
 * 3) My removal of mention of a Supreme Court case from an article that the case was not relevant to.

Based on the reasons cited, there were no legitimate grounds for a ban, let alone an indefinite ban. And yes, I have of course heard that a number of people support use of "them" to refer to an individual rather than a group. Chartreuse&#38;Puce (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As requested previously, please explain the issue with the George Floyd protest edit. It was NOT original research - it was cited to a reliable source.  It WAS factual, based on the reliable source.  Please explain how that edit could be interpreted as a violation and grounds for a ban.

And - while I have no particular agenda, if you are really intent on banning every editor with an agenda, there are clearly numerous editors, including many long-term prolific editors, who should have been banned years ago. Indeed, there are a number of editors who revel in being contentious and editing with a clear agenda, as evidenced by their comments on Talk pages including their user talk pages. I am not seeking to have them banned - just pointing out that banning is not applied evenly. Also - someone editor had an issue with a "pointy" comment I made, and cited that as a reason for a ban. Seriously? I can't believe no one else has ever made a "pointy" comment, however that term is defined, without incurring a ban. Finally - As to use of "them" as a singular pronoun - that is simply not the way I was taught English grammar, but I am not here to fight about that. Please see the little smiley face at the end of my comment about use of singular "them". All in all, it seems like you are really grasping for legitimate reasons to ban me, and absent finding any, you still banned me, citing 1) issue with the Kamala Harris Talk page comments, which I was justly punished for and which will not be repeated; 2) issues with an edit (George Floyd protests) that was done correctly and in any event certainly did not rise to the level of a ban-worthy problem, 3) an issue with a non-serious comment I made regarding use of singular "them", and 4) a "pointy" comment - however that is defined. Just - wow. If these are the standards for a ban, and they are applied evenly to all editors, there wouldn't be too many editors without a ban. Is there any higher authority to which I can appeal this ridiculous ban? And - what is the duration of the ban? Chartreuse&#38;Puce (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Struthious Bandersnatch
I added the Plyler v. Doe quote from your source about birthright citizenship which you added to the article. If it was cherry-picked, your own verifiable and reliable source is the one that cherry-picked it.

If you can't interpret and follow the rule "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)" it doesn't say much about your ability to interpret SCOTUS decisions. -- ▸₷ truthious Ⓑ andersnatch ◂ 14:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning Chartreuse&Puce

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


 * I topic banned them from AP, but I really should have just NOTHERE blocked them. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You cite the NYT and [Politifact for your position, but Plyler v. Doe isn't even mentioned. The Green Bag article says the opposite of what you contend. That plus your edits on [[George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon]] and the BLP issue at Talk:Kamala Harris that you should not be allowed to edit about american politics. -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  13:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Please see Them (pronoun). --RegentsPark (comment) 20:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I endorse the topic ban. The George Floyd edits, the pointy note about Trump in the most recent statement, the they/them stuff, all point to an agenda driven editor. With the obvious agenda, I'll support a WP:NOTHERE block as well. And then there's the competence issue (how hard is it to figure out where posts should go?). --RegentsPark (comment) 21:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Tendentious editor is tendentious. A topic ban is good, a WP:NOTHERE block is better. Salvio 20:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I endorse Guerillero's action. This user needs to demonstrate that they can edit in compliance with our policy on no original research before they are allowed to edit a contentious area again, and I would not object to a block until they demonstrate a willingness to read and abide by our policies. Also, the notion that they have never even seen "them" used as a singular gender-neutral pronoun is absurd, which makes me wonder if they're trying to make some kind of point by insisting it doesn't apply to them. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good call by Guerillero. The ball is now in the editor's court: edit productively elsewhere, or go. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Zarcademan123456
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning Zarcademan123456

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 22:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:A/I/PIA :
 * topic banned for 3 months  09:44, 21 June 2020


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


 * 1) 19:07, 11 August 2020 clear violation of topic ban on Ni'lin
 * 2) 01:37, 21 August 2020 clear violation of topic ban on Hassan Nasrallah


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * last blocked in Dec. 2019
 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * topic banned for 3 months 09:44, 21 June 2020


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * I asked Zarcademan123456 to "Please undo your edit to Ni'lin, or risk a report to WP:AE"(link), this he did not do, instead he commits another topic ban violation on  Hassan Nasrallah, Huldra (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * My 2 cents: I much rather see Zarcademan123456's topic-ban be extended, than seeing him blocked. His contributions in the IP area have been, IMO, quite disruptive: (even pro-Israeli editors admit as much). If Zarcademan123456 learned/was forced to contribute to areas outside the IP area for an extended period, perhaps he would  would learn to co-operate more? Huldra (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
 * Notified, Huldra (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Zarcademan123456
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Result concerning Zarcademan123456

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


 * Clear topic ban violation. Recommend sanctions in the form of a short block — or, at the very least, a logged warning. El_C 22:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Clear violation. I believe this user should be blocked for it and the topic ban should be lengthened. Salvio 11:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * extend the topic ban to an indef? -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  13:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I was waiting to see if had anything to say, considering he hasn't edited since before this report, but yes, that was my idea.  Salvio 16:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Zarcademan123456 has now had ample time to respond, and we can't keep this open indefinitely in waiting for them to. That aside, I don't believe any response from them would change anything in any case&mdash;these are clear-cut, unambiguous topic ban violations. Accordingly, I would agree to the proposal of a block for the ban violations, as well as lengthening the topic ban to indefinite. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with my colleagues. The TBAN was very obviously violated, and the opportunity to self-revert was ignored. They've had a week to respond here, but haven't done so. Given their relatively low levels of activity, I don't think a time-limited TBAN would be very effective; a block and an indefinite TBAN is the most appropriate response. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

McNulTEA
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning McNulTEA

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 18:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons


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


 * 1) 14:03, 14 July 2020 Adds material to a WP:BLP sourced to a tweet.
 * 2) 19:39, 23 July 2020 Adds material tying another BLP (Steven Pinker) to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. While sourced, the material is highly POV because it didn't mention, as two sources did, that Pinker regrets helping Epstein's defense attorney and that he couldn't stand Epstein.
 * 3) 20:05, 10 August 2020 Using WP:SPS on the same BLP.
 * 4) 20:12, 10 August 2020 Attacking other editors' motives.
 * 5) 20:58, 10 August 2020 Attacks another editor with an accusation of bias. Edit warring.
 * 6) 15:16, 28 August 2020 Reinserting content on the same BLP from a self-published source. (I had removed it some days after another editor added it, citing WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS.)
 * 7) 15:37, 28 August 2020 Edit wars the same SPS content back in, in violation of WP:ONUS (which I pointed to), and attacks me.

N/A
 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
 * Diff on 16:20, 13 July 2020


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * On 22:34, 15 July 2020, McNulTEA was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring on Steven Pinker.
 * I believe the evidence above and their contribs show them to be solely focused on editing in a non-neutral manner in relation to BLPs, almost exclusively regarding Steven Pinker.
 * Of interest may be the fact that the self-published source (multi-author preprint with some anonymous authors) they are now trying to use seems to have an unusual familiarity with the goings on at Wikipedia, even citing a diff of a reply to McNulTEA.

Diff
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning McNulTEA
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by Schazjmd
I have reverted some of McNulTEA's edits and attempted several times to explain to them about reliable sources for BLPs (1, 2, 3, 4). McNulTEA appears to have an agenda (see the totality of their contributions). I've had to warn McNulTEA twice (1, 2) about edit-warring on Steven Pinker. This editor is not making an effort to understand or comply with WP:BLP requirements. At a minimum, I think McNulTEA should be restricted to 1RR on BLPs (if not topic-banned from them completely). Schazjmd  (talk)  19:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning McNulTEA

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


 * Tendentious single-purpose account is here to right great wrongs about Pinker. I indefed them as an admin action. If other admins think that it is worth trying a topic ban, just reverse my block. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  19:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The C of E
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning The C of E

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 17:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests_for_arbitration/The Troubles


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


 * 1) 10 July 2020 : The C of E is simply trying to get the word "Londonderry" on the Main Page through any means necessary, : You can deny you have a pro-Loyalist POV, but as long as you keep trying to plug Londonderry and the Royal Ulster Constabulary on the main page, nobody will believe you and that The C of E has a reputation now for pushing a particular POV on NI politics.
 * 2) 23 April 2019 putting such a politically explosive hook on Wikipedia's main page is just a really bad idea, and I can't possibly see how on earth this hook could ever be seen to be neutral, : this is already contentious, if not disruptive (it is), consider me triggered. The community is working to patch the shortcomings of an overtly pov user whose own signature disrupts discussion, and plays beautifully to a wish to repeat their messaging , *stares disbelievingly* That absolutely needs to be NOT on the main page, certainly for the forseeable future, and definitely not at the moment. And the author needs to have it made very clear to them that DYK is not here for them to push their political beliefs. WP:POINT violations are blockable, and they need to understand that very clearly , : This is not the first time that C of E has attempted to put up a hook that seeks to make a point... they are either not getting the point, or are getting it and doing this sort of thing anyway and we have had numerous discussions here about hooks you have nominated, all of which independent editors describe as pushing the same points of view that you express support for on your userpage , Ritchie333: You have a big userbox on your page that says "This user is a Unionist", and you're trying to put a hook about the Unionist name for Northern Ireland's second city on the main page at a politically sensitive time, and you're telling me you're not trying to push any views? You can't be serious.
 * 3) 21 July 2020 Whether Dail Éireann was a recognised body (or more to the point, whether it should be mentioned in the hook was very much a hot topic in the DYK review (e.g. BlueMoonset Why is the Dáil Éireann described as "unrecognised"? The council certainly recognised them. Something neutral is needed here, which he then shoehorned back into the hook even after it had moved to a prep area; this is still under discussion at WT:DYK, forcing to remove it again.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months:

Although not related to DS/The Troubles, The C of E's behavior at DYK has attracted negative commentary more broadly: see, for example this proposed hook, which insisted in Wikipedia's voice that a councillor compared herself to Jesus. Needless to say, it did not run. Then there was this, which in the words of one editor endorses the racist secessionist/segregationist viewpoint; and then this gem which would have seen the English Wikipedia call Muhammed a thief on its main page. And in this hook he attempted to get the N-word on the front page three times in the same hook.The most egregious case above, I imagine, was probably that of the Derry City Judicial Review, which The C of E intended to hit our main page less than a month after journalist Lyra McKee had been shot dead in an IRA–police shoot out in Derr itself. But as pointed out, This article could have been written at any time: the court case dates from 2007. The fact remains that The C of E wrote it on 23 April 2019, at a particularly sensitive time, and nominated it at DYK with a hook that was certain to be controversial... The C of E has long pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable, and it's past time that the DYK community said enough is enough. Demonstrating the persistence and consistency of The C of E's behavior wrt Irish hooks, quote, commenting how—regardless of the substance of the hook—The first thing I noticed is that this was a hook about Northern Ireland by The C of E, which provides a flavor of the expectations of their hooks among the broader community. .@ Arbclerks and AE admins—permission to go over word- and/or diff-length, please? I am making serious allegations which as we know require serious evidence. —— Serial  17:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * I get your drift. I think a Tban from all Troubles-related topics at DYK (including the talk pages) could work, although I emphasise talk pages as well, as much of the disruption is not just the hooks themselves but the subsequent massive threads that they spawn, both on the Template:DYK page and WT:DYK itself involving as they do the time and energy of multiple editors in a venue with a skeleton "staff", as it were, and perennial backlogs. I would oppose any measure, personally, that allowed others to proxy for The C of E in this area as it would just add another layer to the same issue.All things being equal, I generally favor keeping restrictions as simple as possible; any loosening could tempt or encourage envelope-pushing, or other games which in the worst-case scenario would be unfair on them and kicking the can down the road for AE.Incidentally, if the restriction is to be "broadly construed", then I suggest that it is clearly stated that it involves Ireland and Northern Ireland, their mutual history and relations since the latter state's inception (1922). This is sadly necessary because, as The C of E themself notes, many of these hooks are pre (1969) Troubles-era: it's the ethnopolitical POV-pushing that's the common factor. ——  Serial  13:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no: I think we're looking at something slightly more... robust? than telling 'em "don't file any more DYKs with Londonderry in the hook".  ——  Serial  13:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning The C of E
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by The C of E
I was not expecting to end up in court here but I feel that there are a lot of things that have been misinterpreted here. First of all, whenever I word any controversial topics, I word them so they are factual based upon what the sources say in the article and the majority of objections I get seem to be based upon personal feelings rather than direct interpretation of the DYK rules. Yes I edit in controversial areas but I do so with the aim of promoting topics that likely can get overlooked and working to improve the project as a while.

With regard to the allegation I am trying to push Londonderry on the main page, In 1946 Londonderry Borough Council election (which is not within The Troubles timeline as far as I am aware) the simple fact is that that was the name of the council at the time, before the 1984 renaming (something the final reviewer even stated was a historical snapshot of the world at the time). As for the Derry City Council Judicial Review one, the main arguments against it seemed to be based on the fact it was close to Lyra McKee's murder, which was a mistake on my part as I had not been thinking about that at all when I wrote it. Furthermore, I actually minimised the amount of times in that article where it said Londonderry/Derry and substituted it mostly with "the city" or "the council" as appropriate to try and keep neutrality. I really do think people were just jumping to conclusions here because I can assure you there was no malicious intent or sinister undertones.

As for the current Fermanagh Council article, the reason why I included "unrecognised" was because the fact is that the Second Dail was not recognised as a legislative body by the UK government that ran Ireland at the time. The context of the hook was pre-partition in 1921 before the Irish Free State was established. And in response to the accusation I am editing in a biased fashion, I also expanded John Brady (Sinn Féin politician) and SDLP Gerry Mullan (politician), the latter of which ran without any comment so I do find it rather interesting that a hook on a nationalist politician runs without comment whilst unionist related hooks get constant pressures on them.  The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 17:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * (Reply to Black Kite) A little bit excessive I have to say with that suggestion. It was 2 NI related hooks for the closest thing NI have to a national day. I think you might have got the wrong end of the stick, it wasn't intended to be inflamitory, it was simply the idea of having NI hooks on an NI day. No worse than having the FA Cup final on the day of the final or a hook, a national flag running on a national day on a historic actor running on their birthday.  The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 19:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * (Reply to Black Kite) Hence why I said closest, its the only day that is uniquely Northern Irish as far as I am aware of.  The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 20:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be prepared to submit to that one.   The C of E   God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 14:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In response to this (Vanamonde93), that is not true. I have no intent to push any POV, it just seems a lot of people jump to conclusions because I edit in controversial areas. Only a handful of my almost 500 DYKs have had any of these allegations and further, I have run articles on topics on the other side of my areas of interest Gerry Mullan (politician) for example, which proves I'm not pushing an opinion. Please believe me, I am only writing on topics I find interesting and I always try to report the facts as the sources say.  The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 18:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite
SN54129 actually leaves out (or perhaps hasn't brought up yet due to word count) what is by far the most disruptive part of the issue, and one which had serious possibilities that it could bring Wikipedia into disrepute.

The C of E did not only put 1973 Londonderry City Council election forward for DYK, he specifically asked for it to be run on July 12. For those unclear about the problem here, The_Twelfth is probably your first port of call. I was scathing about this to begin with, however unbelievably I then found out that The C of E had done exactly the same with the really incendiary Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of the Orange Order requested for 12 July three years beforehand. Luckily, two reviewers picked it up again and suggested that the 12th was not the best time to run it. The C of E then suggested the 11th instead, which was the date it ran on. This, though to be fair to the reviewers they probably didn't know, was almost as bad. (FYI, Eleventh Night is the night on which Unionists and Orange Order members create bonfires and burn the Irish flag - from our article "The tricolours on such bonfires are often daubed with sectarian slogans such as ... "Kill All Irish" (KAI)").

I realise the level of this issue may be difficult to those outside the UK and/or unfamiliar with The Troubles to gauge, so to give you an idea, I'll suggest that both of these July 12 nominations (especially the 2017 one) were similar to, for example, someone requesting that Mohamed Atta run as a DYK on September 11.

I actually posted at the time It is painfully obvious that the nomination was suggested for July 12th in order to get the inflammatory "Londonderry" onto the Main Page for that date. Just to give you an idea how much of bad-faith nomination it was, when I found out that the hook had been deliberately requested for the 12th, I was actually inclined to block The C of E for disruption, and I'm still not convinced that I shouldn't have. Yes, I nearly blocked them.

Given some of the other issues that SN54129 has raised, my suggestions would be that at the very least The C of E be barred from submitting articles about politics, religion or Northern Ireland/Ireland to DYK. There are many other topics to write about, and indeed the C of E has submitted many articles to DYK that are uncontentious and away from these two areas. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The idea of claiming that the 12th is anything like a Northern Ireland "national day" is completely laughable, and I amazed you have the front to even claim it. It is a sectarian commemoration for some (not all) of around 50% of the NI population, and a source of antagonism towards the rest.  Even Arlene Foster was comdemning some of the things that went on this year . Black Kite (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Ritchie333
Just a minor point, in one of the discussions above I confused the Royal Irish Constabulary with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, though my main point was The C of E gave the impression to multiple editors that he had pro-Loyalist POV and appeared to be on a mission to put "Londonderry" on the main page as many times as possible.

However, I'm not sure exactly what action people want to take here - the only realistic thing I can think of is "don't file any more DYKs with Londonderry in the hook". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde
Posting in this section because I'm narrowly involved with respect to The C of E and DYK. As I've said before, I think the issue is with the C of E misusing the structure of DYK to push a POV in a manner he'd never get away with in other places. However, the fact that he's been doing this so persistently with respect to Northern Ireland in particular means that I do not see how his other edits in that topic area can be trusted, and I would recommend a broader TBAN than just from "The Troubles at DYK". Furthermore, I think the issue is not limited to the Troubles, and as such a further discussion at AN is likely warranted. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have opened said discussion at AN; see here. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Narutolovehinata5
I would also like to point out another recent nomination by The C of E not mentioned above, which managed to pass and be promoted: Template:Did you know nominations/Rosemary Barton (politician), although to be fair the promoter indicated at WT:DYK that he was unaware of the concerns about The C of E's Ireland hooks and stated that he would have not done so had he been aware of them. Having had several experiences with The C of E throughout the years, one of the more egregious attitudes shown by him is the apparent insistence on certain hook wordings despite (and in some cases, apparently even because of) how controversial they are. The Sun of Unclouded Righteousness nomination mentioned earlier is a good example. Admittedly I have little knowledge about The Troubles and things related to it, but the apparent insistence on proposing certain kinds of hooks, which some editors including myself have interpreted as trying to push certain political or religious viewpoints, is at the very least worrying behavior. Perhaps the most glaring recent example was the aforementioned 1973 election nomination, where he stated at WT:DYK that the date request occurred so that itcould match up with those who celebrate the 12th, which given the controversy behind the date, sounds tone-deaf to say the least. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The incident that lead to the current proposal (see Wikipedia talk:Did you know) only occurred on the 28th. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning The C of E

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


 * The_C_of_E received the relevant DS alert on 5 August 2020 from : diff. Wikilawyers might enjoy debating whether WP:TROUBLES applies to DYK on the main page but I see discretionary sanctions as enforcable to minimize disruption regardless of the location. Accordingly I would support an indefinite topic ban regarding The Troubles broadly construed, including the main page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Concur with the above, an indefinite ban on the Troubles makes sense here. Obvious attempts at provocation in a hornet's nest are plainly disruptive. And as an aside, being an American with (among other things) Irish and English-transformed-into-French-Canadian heritage (just to boot, my father he is orange and my mother she is green), I don't get what people see in taking this fight to the internet; all it does is unnecessarily sow division, which is antithetical to the purpose of a collaborative project attempting to write a neutral encyclopedia. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 03:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not up to AE to decide what should or should not appear on DYK, but any reasonable person who edits in this topic area should well have known that proposing it to appear on that day was going to be needlessly inflammatory. Accordingly, I would agree with the above proposal for a topic ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I partially disagree with my colleagues. In my opinion a topic ban is warranted; however, the scope should be more limited. The evidence provided shows that, either intentionally or through tone deafness, The C of E has submitted DYK hooks that are likely inflammatory; however, I am not seeing evidence of generalised disruption in the topic area. For that reason, I'd be in favour of banning him from banning him from making any edits relating to Ireland and Northern Ireland, broadly construed, but only in the context of the DYK process. Salvio 10:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you insist but giving a talented person wriggle room is often a mistake (what if they polish another Troubles article with the implication that someone else might like to DYK it?). A topic ban would be due to disruption in a topic under discretionary sanctions and someone who causes disruption regarding the main page is unlikely to have the subtle hand needed for general editing in the area. Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But – and I ask – is there evidence of disruption or tendentious editing in the topic area, outside of DYK? From what I can see, the only problems seem to be due to the timing or wording of the hooks, which might be solved by, hypothetically, having other people submit them, if they deem it appropriate, as long as there is no gaming on The C of E's part. Then again, this is not a hill I intend to die on; I'm not going to stand in the way, if consensus is in favour of a "generalised" topic ban.  Salvio 11:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there is such evidence, and I would assume there is not because I don't see it in this report. However, I would deal with the question of what to do about improving an article in this topic area, but unrelated to the main page, separately. For example, there could be an appeal asking for a variation to work on articles a, b and c, or articles related to x. I think that would be quickly agreed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A more general version of the issue has been raised at Administrators' noticeboard. There is now a risk of stalemate with a couple of people there saying that the WP:AN discussion should wait until the WP:AE discussion here is concluded, and with the complexities of the paperwork encouraging us to put this off. Accordingly, I plan to close this as a full and indefinite topic ban from Troubles topics in around six hours if there is no further opposition in this section. If anyone wants to close this earlier, please do so. Johnuniq (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I saw this at AN and was getting ready to implement a topic ban by clear consensus of UNINVOLVED administrators (which would have read "The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed" which is the wording from ArbCom). However, I can find no awareness prior to August 5th and I can find no disruption since August 5th (mainly no new DYK hooks in this topic area). If there was disruption post-awareness then I think we can go back in time and consider all the disruption when making a fair decision. However, if there has not been any disruption following them reaching awareness then I don't think AE can levy sanctions. The community, of course, could. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That is definitely evidence of disruption. I missed it when reading through SN's evidence. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Alexiod Palaiologos
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning Alexiod Palaiologos

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 19:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 :


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


 * 1) 13:08, 27 August 2020 Adds text that attempts to downplay the deaths of black people, despite the reference making the opposite point. Detailed explanation below in comments
 * 2) 17:36, 27 August 2020 Adds text that has little resemblance to what the references are talking about. Detailed explanation below in comments
 * 3) 12:48, 28 August 2020 Adds original research to Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests, claiming protests relating to the shooting of Jacob Blake are part of the George Floyd protests, when obviously they are protesting a different incident entirely
 * 4) 13:08, 28 August 2020 Edit warring to repeat diff#3 despite being reverted


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

None.


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * Alerted here (they have since changed username, don't know if this will affect the automatic logging)

The first diff adds to Black Lives Matter the text Although records are incoherent, it is estimated that 13 unarmed black Americans were shot dead by the Police in 2019, compared with an estimated 25 white Americans shot to death. The first half of the sentence is referenced by USA Today and the Wall Street Journal. I can't see the latter as I'm not a subscriber, and USA Today isn't particularly important since it's the second half of the sentence that's the problem. The News Northeastern article referencing the second half of the sentence is even titled The Research is Clear: White People Are Not More Likely Than Black People To Be Killed By Police. And before anyone says I know headlines aren't that useful as references, but the article goes on to point out things like That’s only because there are so many more white people than there are Black people in our country and Although Black people represented 12 percent of the population in the states we studied, they made up 25 percent of the deaths in police shootings and perhaps more tellingly Many other studies have shown that Black people are more likely to be killed per capita by law enforcement than are white people in the United States. In fact the thrust of the entire article is that black people are more likely to be killed by police than white people, so to use that reference to construct a sentence that attempts to portray white people as more likely to be killed by police is clearly not NPOV.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

The second diff adds two sentences to Black Lives Matter. The first is At the same time, 89 Police Officers were killed while on duty (2019) referenced by an |access-date=2020-08-27 FBI press release. Obviously what the relevance of that is to Black Lives Matter is anyone's guess. The second sentence, immediately following the first is This could indicate both a racial bias in Police shootings of unarmed people, or a simple tendency for certain American cities to be extremely violent. The first reference is a USA Today article from 8 January 2019 that's titled The most dangerous jobs in the US include electricians, firefighters and police officers. There is no mention of bias, racial or otherwise, black people, Black Lives Matter or anything related. The second reference is a Forbes Contributor article, which isn't reliable per Reliable sources/Perennial sources (I'll be reasonable and say that's an innocent mistake). However that article doesn't reference the sentence either, not containing any mention of bias, racial or otherwise, black people, Black Lives Matter or anything related other than Experts are unsure of what is driving the trend but some opinions cited by Vox have pointed towards the protests in the wake of George Floyd's death as one possible explanation where distrust led to police departments pulling back from communities, causing a spike in violence, which obviously doesn't reference anything about a racial bias in police shootings of unarmed people. The third reference is the New York Times, which again doesn't contain any mention of bias, racial or otherwise, black people, Black Lives Matter or anything related other than But this year has been distinct in many ways, because of the pandemic and because of the protests and civil unrest after the death of George Floyd in police custody. Thus the entire sentence This could indicate both a racial bias in Police shootings of unarmed people, or a simple tendency for certain American cities to be extremely violent is unreferenced, as is the synthesis of adding it after the sentence about 89 police officers being killed while on duty.

The overall effect of the two diffs is to attempt to downplay the deaths of black people, making them out to be statistically lower than the deaths of white people despite the reference making the exact opposite point. FDW777 (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You should check page histories before claiming anything is a content dispute. Since I've never edited Black Lives Matter or its talk page, how is it a content dispute? FDW777 (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Notified
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Alexiod Palaiologos
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by Alexiod Palaiologos
I used citations from a neutral fact checker, a conservative article (WSJ) and a liberal article. So I'm not sure what you're claiming to say, you're claiming my citations prove me wrong when clearly they do not. They all agree on one statistic, but disagree on the implications of it. Under no circumstance is mentioning the number of people shot dead by the Police (when it is literally mentioned in the same paragraph of the article) some kind of offense. The second part of my edit again, also repeats something from the next paragraph, that more black Americans being shot and killed by the Police does not necessarily indicate racial bias. My citations referred to crime rates, since the other part (not necessarily racial bias) was already addressed in the article in the very next paragraph. The number of Police Officers being killed is very relevant, it provides context as to how violent the job of Policing can be, and large numbers of Police Officers being killed generally reflects higher crime rates, again touched on throughout the section. So it seems you looked at my edit with a confirmation bias of me somehow supporting black people being killed by the Police, and then reached a conclusion out of thin air without any evidence.User:Alexiod Palaiologos 20:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Pudeo
This is a content dispute. You can't really judge what's NPOV at AE. Not much else can be done except to ask everyone to stay calm in these contentious articles.

I also note that FDW777 has been a member only since September 2018 but has already filed seven AE threads. I think that is close to overusing AE to weaponize it in content disputes.--Pudeo (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning Alexiod Palaiologos

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


 * The first diff cited in the request shows a clear misrepresentation of a source by Alexiod: he cites a source stating that Blacks are more likely than Whites to be victims of police shootings to imply that the opposite is true. He omits key content and context from the source to imply the opposite of what it actually states. The second diff demonstrates clear inappropriate synthesis; Alexiod cites sources because they list a statistic that he deems important, but no connection to the topic is alluded to anywhere in the actual sources cited. The third diff (and fourth) show him repeatedly including material that is dubious or incorrect (attributing the deaths of two people shot by a right-wing extremist during the Kenosha protests to the death of George Floyd). I view the first diff as the most serious, since it involves clear misrepresentation of a source. The second diff shows original synthesis, which is against policy but not inherently grounds for sanction. I don't see evidence of previous blocks, warnings, or enforcement requests against Alexiod, so I would propose to close this request with a warning to Alexiod not to misrepresent sources and to avoid original synthesis, with the understanding that further such issues will lead to a block or topic ban. Regarding Pudeo's concern about the filer, I reviewed FDW777's previous AE filings. In each case, it seems that his requests were felt to be sound and based on valid concerns. I see no evidence of vexatious complaints or misuse of the AE mechanism. We can hardly fault someone for using existing dispute-resolution mechanisms appropriately, and it seems unfair to cast aspersions on FDW777 based solely on the number of requests s/he has filed without regard to their underlying merit. MastCell Talk 22:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with MastCell here, a strong warning is in order and any further violations should result in a topic ban. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 01:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I also checked through the AE requests submitted by FDW777. Of those, 3 resulted in a warning, 1 in an AE block, 1 in a topic ban, and 1 in the editor against whom the complaint was filed being determined to be a block-evading sock and blocked indefinitely. That clearly shows that there is merit in the requests filed by this editor, so simple frequency of them is not a particular cause for concern that FDW777 is filing groundless AE requests for harassment. I would agree with a logged warning that further behavior of this type will lead to sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I will give a warning, if nobody objects -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  15:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , make it so - I am involved or I would do it. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Request concerning Thomas Meng

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 21:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong (2007) and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun_Gong_2 (2012) :


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) July 21, 02:36. Thomas Meng added "truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance" to the Background section, citing scholar Benjamin Penny. This was now the third time in the Persecution of Falun Gong article that these principles were mentioned. This was not the the general topic article about the Falun Gong which should, of course, discuss the group's moral teachings.
 * 2) July 21, 02:45. Binksternet removed two of the three mentions, as off topic and promotional, leaving the instance where the moral principles were criticized, because it was relevant to the persecution topic.
 * 3) July 21, 18:19. Thomas Meng restored challenged text, "truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance", the three moral principles of Falun Gong, adding a partisan paid political statement as a citation.
 * 4) July 21, 19:01. Binksternet started a talk page discussion about truthfulness as a moral principle.
 * 5) July 21, 22:48. Thomas Meng argues that scholar Benjamin Penny affirms that Falun Gong adherents follow the moral principles, that they strive to be good people.
 * 6) July 22, 23:31. Thomas Meng restored challenged text.
 * 7) July 28, 20:25. Thomas Meng argues that WP:WEIGHT should determine how the Falun Gong moral principles are portrayed.
 * 8) July 28, 20:34. Thomas Meng argues that scholar Heather Kavan should not be cited per WP:WEIGHT.
 * 9) August 2, 00:03. Thomas Meng restored the challenged text, adding citations for support.
 * 10) August 3, 03:23. Thomas Meng restored the challenged text, removed the valid Kavan cite, and cast aspersions on James R. Lewis (scholar) by linking him to Wuhan U.
 * 11) August 3, 03:28. Thomas Meng restored the challenged text.
 * 12) August 4, 17:26. Thomas Meng violates Tendentious editing by casting aspersions on the cited scholar James R. Lewis (scholar).
 * 13) August 5, 02:34. Thomas Meng says lack of further discussion affirms his POV, states his intention to restore the challenged text. Previously, had said there was no consensus to do so.
 * 14) August 5, 17:30. Thomas Meng restored the challenged text, removing the Kavan citation.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
 * 1) May 18. Notice given to Thomas Meng about discretionary sanctions on Falun Gong articles.
 * 2) July 23. AE block on Thomas Meng by.

Thomas Meng has not been discussed in previous arbitration requests. He registered his username in April 2020. He was blocked by Daniel Case on July 23 because of a discretionary sanctions violation, tendentious editing at Li Hongzhi, an article in the Falun Gong area.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

In all of his edits and arguments in the Falun Gong area, Thomas Meng has sought to promote a positive image of Falun Gong, arguing against a very well-researched NBC News report because they failed to describe enough of Falun Gong's positive attributes. Thomas Meng has argued against the validity of scholars Heather Kavan and James R. Lewis who have published negative findings about the Falun Gong. Such arguments are further instances of tendentious editing, the part about disputing the reliability of apparently good sources. Thomas Meng has tried to retain or insert promotional material into the Persecution of Falun Gong, including an attractive photo of people meditating, and the three moral principles which cast the group in a good light. These are completely inappropriate for an article about persecution. In this topic area, Thomas Meng is behaving exactly like an activist for Falun Gong, and as such he is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
 * Notification of Thomas Meng

Discussion concerning Thomas Meng
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by Thomas Meng
Below are some points in response to Binksternet's accusations:


 * —I have pointed to the fact that Kavan's view lacks WP:WEIGHT (without dispute from other editors), since all 6 scholarship sources provided (+ ) contradict the content of Kavan's conference paper. Interestingly, Binksternet deleted all of this well-sourced content and replaced them with the Kavan source. More than that, he did not even present Kavan’s source with in-text attribution, and simply represented the content of that source as if they were facts.


 * —I pointed to the fact that the James R. Lewis source does not meet WP:THIRDPARTY.


 * However, I did not remove this source, or revert Binksternet’s edit as he did with mine. Instead, I had merely added a clarification that he works at Wuhan U. My edit was promptly deleted by Binksternet without any edit summary and without consensus. Note that none of my concerns about Lewis were addressed. Instead, Binksternet simply called my arguments baloney (without saying why) and accused me of having COI issues.


 * There were comments to the effect that mentioning FLG's three core principles is undue. I made a serious and thorough effort at addressing these concerns by citing many reliable sources that prove the relevance of FLG's tenets to the persecution. After waiting for 1+ days without further objections, I proceeded to edit.

Binksternet claims that FLG's tenets are challenged texts, but they are widely supported by well-established scholarship. The only challenges come from 1. Lewis, a professor at Wuhan U, an institution under the persecuting party's leadership 2. Kavan's conference paper that runs counter to the WP:WEIGHT of academic opinion 3. Binksternet's anti-FLG POV as demonstrated in his edit summaries here and here, which violate WP:ADVOCACY.


 * —I presented the relevance of this photo in this diff. Instead of disputing its relevance, Binksternet turned to arguing, without evidence, that the photo is "promotional".


 * —I proved that the photo conforms to scholarly findings and that it's not "promotional". Binksternet was unable to prove otherwise, so he simply asserted no promo photos, just no.


 * — I made detailed comments showing that the NBC article is not proper to cite in a BLP. Without engaging my comments, Binksternet simply dismissed my input, saying that it is not our problem, and that it's perfectly fine.


 * Despite Binksternet's bald assertion, I did not simply revert his edit. I left the NBC untouched, and instead, added a source from the WSJ, per WP:RSOPINION, that presented a response to NBC's accusations,.


 * Yet, – Binksternet promptly removed the RS content, asserting that it is a ridiculous reply, even though WP:NPOV says that all major viewpoints should be represented, which include the target attacked by NBC.


 * But I did not revert back, as our discussion carried over to another related article. Please refer to my talk page for the entire context of this dispute

So, I'm not the tendentious editor here. In all my edits, I have tried assiduously to abide by all WP:PG's, including WP:BLP, and have logically addressed every concern from other editors. I invite everyone to thoroughly read our conversations on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong#Proper_image_to_include_in_Background_section_for_letting_readers_know_what_Falun_Gong_is. these talk pages].--Thomas Meng (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Additional comments by Thomas Meng in response to admin JzG's misunderstandings
 Not promotional material

It is unclear what exactly is the information I've included that you consider "promotional". Assuming that you are referring to my addition of the central tenets of Falun Gong, "truthfulness, compassion and forbearance", I would disagree.Reliable sources overwhemingly agree that "truthfulness, compassion and forbearance" are FLG's core principles. In my statement above,I have illustrated 7 of them, and there are more.

Note that FLG's core tenets had been in the lead section since 2011, and it was Binksternet who removed this RS material without consensus in July 2020 , and stopped me from adding it back.

 I'm not the tendentious editor

It is not difficult to see that my edits consistently appeal to reason and RS content (e.g. ), while Binksternet's edits consistently appeal to his own opinion (e.g. ). My discussions are civil, while Binksternet's are dismissive. Below are a few typical comments made by Binksternet and me, and you can contrast them:

My comments concerning thedispute, moral principles relevance dispute anddispute

Binksrernet's comments concerning the image dispute,dispute (Binksternet did not comment on FLG's principles' relevance to the persecution)

If you do not disagree with my reasons and my usage of the sources (you appear to at least concede that there are "merits" to the content), then there is no room for the assertion that my edits are tendentious.

If you agree with the simple fact that civil and rational discussion is preferred over personal opinions and derision, then there is no reason why you should be ignoring Binksternet's behaviour in its entirety.

 Not promotional image

The type of image of FLG practitioeners that Binksternet considered "promotional" is in fact an accurate portrayal of FLG based on scholarly findings on demographics. Please see all the RS references I made in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong#Proper_image_to_include_in_Background_section_for_letting_readers_know_what_Falun_Gong_is. that talk page discussion]. Please also note that this kind of image had been on the page since 2015, and it was Binksternet who deleted it without consensus in June 2020, and stopped me from adding it back.

Ultimately, there are two questions to be asked. First, if an editor's edits are supported by reliable sources that are accurately portrayed, should the editor be sanctioned just because another editor disagrees with the content of those edits or the sources? Second, if an article has contained certain well-cited information for years, and editor B comes in to remove that information without notice or discussion. Editor A undid that removal and explained his actions, but editor B disagrees. There is certainly a lack of consensus. But is Editor A the one who edited without consensus, rather than Editor B?

Admin JzG, if your answer is no to both questions, then you would have probably concluded differently on this enforcement request.

Ni Yulan article

This article is completely backed by reliable source coverage. In fact, those RS media focus primarily, if not entirely, in reporting Ni's arrests and imprisonment. Please see a more detailed explanation here. Thomas Meng (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it would be more meaningful if you could, after reviewing my explanations to admin JzG, state more specifically why my edits are not constructive, since I have illustrated quite well that my addition of what Binksternet considers "challenged texts" and "promotional" is supported by well-established scholarship (with 7+ reliable sources), and that such material had been in this article for years before Binksternet deleted it without consensus. Thomas Meng (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Falun Gong's moral principles "truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance" had been in the lead section since 2011, and Binksternet deleted it without consensus in 2020. I tried to restore for several times this well-cited information, and along the way, demonstrated on the talk page many reliable sources that all affirm the material's importance and relevance. So saying that I introduced POV is incorrect. Furthermore, Binksternet did not respond to my discussions about the reliable sources, but simply reverted my edits and reported me here. Thomas Meng (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Would you please respond specifically to my points above? If you don't find it convincing, please point out specifically which argument I made is flawed. I really wish reviewing admins could thoroughly read my statements before proposing sanctions. Thomas Meng (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Horse Eye Jack
On the 30th I warned Thomas Meng for edit warring on Li Hongzhi. Their response was to immediately accuse me of talk page harassment (this was my first ever time posting on their talk page) and to claim they were only carrying over a settled consensus from another page. That consensus was apparently from the discussion in question here, I could not verify that a consensus had ever been reached and I believe their statement to be untruthful. The discussion can be found at User talk:Thomas Meng and adds strong support to the case for WP:NOTHERE. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Ian.thomson
I've been dealing with Meng at Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong over the moral principles bit. Other users and I have explained how it's simply undue for a tangent article to be going into their core teachings and how the sources don't really demonstrate that FLG is being specifically being targeted for claiming those principles (another pro-FLG editor could say they only "sort of" fit). He displays serious WP:IDHT issues whenever it comes to objections to his edits, reading any message to the contrary as affirmation of his desires (when he doesn't straight up ignore them). That doesn't work in a consensus based project. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by TheBlueCanoe
I don't recall ever dealing directly with this editor, but Ian.thomson referenced a comment I made above, so I'll make a quick note.

As a content question, there is actually good reason to cite Falun Gong's moral teachings in Persecution of Falun Gong, because several scholarly journal articles and chapters draw a direct connection between these things (e.g. some academic commentators believe that the persecution was precipitated, in part, by a clash of visions between the theistic Falun Gong and the materialist Communist Party. The Communist Party itself said that Falun Gong needed to be suppressed because its moral tenets of truth, compassion, and tolerant, were incompatible with Marxist ideas). I cited some examples on the relevant talk page, and there are more than that. Inclusion of relevant content on the page is fully justified. I'm frankly more concerned by the OP's repeated removal of this content and his apparent misrepresentation of sources on the same topic.

Anyway, content disagreement shouldn't be solved at AE. There are behavioural issues on these pages, but they implicate editors on both sides of this dispute, and should probably be referred to ArbCom. The Blue Canoe  01:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel Case
This is what I would have said if he had opened an appeal (which as he noted he couldn't have) when I told him I couldn't erase the block from his record:

As I had explained to him, I did not intend to get involved, when reported him to AIV.

I really wish people would not make reports citing arbitration enforcement to AIV. It is not the place for it. But whatever one might wish, it was reported that night, and I decided I owed it a look. As I told Thomas, indeed there was something there. Two weeks after Thomas's removal of some content he considered dubiously sourced led to a contentious discussion where two other editors strongly opposed the edit (and one briefly popped in to support him), he had retutned and restored it. This to me was clearly editing against consensus.

I would have let it pass because as Thomas does point out, the warning and report came after his last edit. And vandals get to walk in that situation. But there are discretionary sanctions on that article, and even though I looked at the sanctions log, where no new enforcement has been recorded for over a decade, it is still in force. So I decided to block him.

It's not often that I have the kind of cordial discussion with someone I've blocked that I did with Thomas, and I was certainly open then to the possibility I might have overreacted.

However, seeing what has happened since, I'm not surprised it has ended up here. Since only now have I been able to read his long explanation to me, I must say that he isn't doing himself any favors. In his position, I would have tried to explain that there was consensus for his edit, regardless of how it seems otherwise. But, instead, he basically says, well, he upset me so much that I had no choice:

"At that point, I realized the futility of attempting to logically discuss with Binksternet by using WP policies and RS evidence, given his unrelenting anti-FLG agenda demonstrated in both discussions. So, on that same day, I went to Binksternet's talk page and gave him a warning, at the same time, back to the BLP article and removed the NBC hitpiece despite his objection."

Even in an area not under DS, that attitude is asking for a block. I agree Binksternet's tone could have been less confrontational, that he could have entertained the idea that Thomas had a legitimate criticism of the NBC article and worked from there rather than a blanket assertion that everything NBC reports is beyond question (Not necessarily). But ... that's not something you resolve by completely disregarding the other person and going and doing what you want, especially after leaving a templated warning on their talk page. You don't do that and then wonder why you've forfeited a lot of good faith all of a sudden. Daniel Case (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by PaleoNeonate
My recent involvement is noticing disruption on Falun Gong related articles and occasionally having a look. I confirm that I've seen at least one instance of editing against consensus with a moment of silence after an objection on the talk page taken to mean consensus existed. This is a running-in-circles situation as other editors would have to revert and repeat over and over the same policy and source based arguments. At a recent ANI report I expressed my intention to eventually file AE reports, but considering the limited time I can put in Wikipedia and that a 0R sanction was already applied to some editors, it didn't seem as urgent. While admins are to take the decision, I would propose trying 0R first before applying a complete topic ban in the area. I wasn't personally familiar with this type of sanction until recently (vs 1RR, topic, partial or full blocks). It might allow discussion while also hopefully preventing reinstating edits when repeated arguments are eventually ignored by other editors, possibly breaking the loop.

For context: this is a difficult topic where good and bad exists on both sides of a complex debate that also involves human rights. China has a bad record of human rights violations; Falun Gong also accumulates a bad public record in relation to propaganda and exaggerated claims. A persecution complex exists and is used to promote and validate beliefs, while at the same time the group faces true challenges. An effort is done to select reliable independent sources that report about these.

One of the comments suggests this is a content dispute that should be solved at ARBCOM, but that's not the proper venue for that, we'd still be on the talk page or at mediation if AE wasn't necessary (and ARBCOM is also to address behavioral and policy violation issues and apply technical solutions). It seems that socking of long-term-abuse editors historically occurred on both sides as demonstrated recently at ANI (SPI).

Lastly, the argument was still presented here that the reason for persecution are tenets like truth, when it is clear that it is more perceived extremism allowing members to deny authority and feel above the law. It is of course debatable where the line can be drawn under a difficult regime and I think that most editors are sympathetic to this. In this case, the mention of those religious and philosophical tenets have their place at the main article rather than presented in the persecution article as being the cause of their ills, especially when scholars point out that they can be used as justifications. Unfortunately, the situation has also been exploited by other opportunistic groups with a political intent to foment public anti-Chinese sentiment and promote various conspiracy theories.

My word count is already near 500... — Paleo Neonate  – 11:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes
Thomas Meng started editing in April 2020 and made less than 500 edits in the project, a lot of them about music and other noncontroversial topics. I do not see his case would be in any way ripe/appropriate for the Arbcom. Quickly looking at his edits in the article in question, one can say that his edits are sufficiently well sourced.

Speaking about diffs brought to AE by Binksternet (Persecution of Falun Gong), I think the disagreements qualify simply as content disputes. In particular, one can reasonably argue that
 * 1) the image should be included to Background section
 * 2) that claims about moral principles can be included to Background section, and
 * 3) that the views of James Lewis is not something to be used here . I commented in the end of each section on article talk page.


 * Overall, after looking at the contributions by Thomas Meng in this subject area, were they "net positive"? For example, their editing of page Ni Yulan was definitely a significant improvement, and I do not see current version as anything problematic in light of BLP or whatever. "Persecution of FG" and Li Hongzhi? No, because his edits were reverted by other contributors. I would say he was mostly on the wrong side of disputes on these two pages, but not sure this rises to the level of a topic ban at this point. My very best wishes (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning Thomas Meng

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


 * I think it is time for arbcom. There aren't enough interested admins willing to get involved in the FG topic area -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  15:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Justice delayed is justice denied. On the face of it, Thomas Meng should be sanctioned for repeatedly adding promotional material without consensus. In practice these are some of the lesser POV-pushes on this topic lately, and we haven't fixed it yet. So maybe it is time for a third ArbCom, or, failing that, a logged warning. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't be the only AE admin working in this topic area. If other admins don't want to get involved, arbcom is the only shot -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  15:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree, the problem is that pretty much none of the requests are simple and obvious: behaviourally I would say this falls squarely into tendentious editing / POV-pushing / whatever, but there are complicating issue of the merits of the content that make it a tough call, otherwise I'd have chipped in before. I have been looking at this for days thinking "wtf do we do with this?". It's not just FG related. Look at Ni Yulan, largely written by Thomas Meng. There is outrage screaming from every line. This is a WP:RGW case where the wrongs are indeed great. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest a topic ban from Falun Gong, broadly construed. It looks like the editor is not capable to edit constructively in this area.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry Thomas Meng, but I do not find your explanations in the least convincing. Any independent observer would see a relatively new user who introduced POV into articles on a certain topic and when challenged starts edit-warring. This is a textbook definition of disruptive editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be okay with a warning or topic ban -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  15:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)