Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Johnuniq (talk | contribs) at 02:55, 31 August 2020 (→The C of E: template fix). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against an editor violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted an editor who engages in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with fewer than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. Reports are limited to two individuals: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Thomas Meng

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 Thomas Meng

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Thomas Meng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Neutral_point_of_view (2007) and Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun_Gong_2#Neutral_point_of_view (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 Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing#Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources 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, Horse Eye Jack 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 Daniel Case (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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.

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 and , 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 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 these talk pages.--Thomas Meng (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: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 the dispute, principles relevance dispute and dispute

Binksrernet's comments concerning the 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 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. 

@Ymblanter: 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)

@Ymblanter: 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)

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)

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#Edit warring at Li Hongzhi 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.TheBlueCanoe 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 Binksternet 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 Misplaced Pages 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... —PaleoNeonate – 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, hence this not an obvious case of WP:RGW. Yes, he does appear to POV-push on certain issues. But I do not see this as rising to the level of an immediate topic ban. This seems to be more a matter of insufficient experience at this point. My very best wishes (talk) 17:09, 19 August 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 | 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)

  @JzG: 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 | Parlez Moi 15:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  Guerillero, 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)

Zarcademan123456

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

FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Alexiod Palaiologos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) :

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#Awareness and alerts)

• Alerted here (they have since changed username, don't know if this will affect the automatic logging)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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.

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 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 Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Forbes (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)

@Pudeo: 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)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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)

Statement by (username)

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  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 02:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

McNulTEA

The C of E