Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive45

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

Pmanderson[edit]

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

Request concerning Pmanderson[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Ohconfucius (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Date delinking#Pmanderson_topic_banned "31.1) Pmanderson is topic banned for 12 month from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions."

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
The user has edited the policy page 6 times since the case closed (1 2 3 4 5 6) In the fifth edit, he remove a link to the WP:Manual of Style and replaced it by a link to an article, with a possibly deceptive edit summary. This undiscussed change may well have been contentious (it has since been reverted) and appears to involve just the scope that Remedy 31.1 refers to

addendum
Since I opened the request for clarification, PMA has made 1, 2, 3 edits to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) as well as 1, 2 edits to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names).

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

  1. Not applicable

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
I am seeking clarification as to what was covered by the restraining order – I am under similar editing restraint and would gladly like to know whether same freedom applies to me. If he has been in breach, a brief spell on the benches or a strongly worded warning would be in order.

Additional comments by Ohconfucius (talk):
moved here from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification following advice from clerk.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Discussion concerning Pmanderson[edit]

Statement by Pmanderson[edit]

To reuse my statement, when Ohconfucius made the same appeal to ArbCom, here:

This is the result of the quarrel over date-delinking, once brought to ArbCom, and settled at WP:ARBDATE. So far, the appeal to ArbCom has been ignored, except for Mbisanz recusing himself from clerking it; understandable, since Ohconfucius made a big deal about his commenting on the original case, when he wasn't clerking on it.

What does any of this evidence have to do with date-delinking? Why am I being dragged back into the date-delinking case?

Ohconfucious appears to have missed has now inserted this edit (which should, by the "logic" here, be the most outrageous), in which I inserted a space between two paragraphs.

As for the edit summary complained of, it says, in full: refer to article, with sources; there are advantages to working on an encyclopedia. There are; these include access to articles on English grammar when we want to indicate what that grammar actually is; they have citations and sources; MOS doesn't.

As Roger Davies wrote, now on the talk page of WP:ARBDATE, topic bans are intended to give severely disrupted topics a break from disruption and to give topic-banned editors an opportunity to get used to working in less contested areas. The naming conventions are in fact much less contentious; it was with relief that I returned to discussing them, as I have been doing for years. Applying them is less so, as the recently concluded Macedonia case will show; I have been discussing that also, and its consequences, with several admins and some arbitrators. Nobody suggested that this topic ban applied in any way.

It may indeed be possible to apply this decision mechanically, so that it will amount to a site ban; did ArbCom mean that? (And if so, did they mean it, somehow, just for me, or does it apply to all parties alike?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


The Greek patriot Xenovatis, or (as he now calls himself) Anothroskon, is one of the participants in the Macedonia ArbCom case, who deeply and emotionally believes in the use of FYROM and several other -er- debatable points of Greek history. As I said, the application of naming guidelines can be controversial. The use of procedural complaints to settle points of content is commonplace among such editors; this case, however, appears to have been largely touchiness on his part. Observe one of his last edits under his old username, which shows a calmer spirit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I also see that Ohconfucius protests that this effort to get me blocked, in two different forums now, is not about me. The gentleman doth protest too much; if what he wanted to know was whether he could edit the Naming Conventions, he could simply have asked. I also object to his persistent assumption of bad faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I have assumed this ban (as the others of the same wording) was limited to {{style-guideline}}s (this would include other templates transcluded into such guidelines, which was what I did wrong), because the express reason for not limiting them to discussion of date-delinking was that the actual wording would be easier to administer. The interpretation Ohconfucius suggests is not.

In addition, my restriction was suggested in the last days of the case, on limited evidence, and passed by a close vote. It never occurred to me that it was meant as a ban from most of Wikipedia space; if ArbCom had meant that, wouldn't they have been clearer?

(And, as said above, I have edited and discussed the new naming convention on Macedonia, in company with clerks and Arbs; surely one of them would have warned me if I had been in violation of a just-passed arbitration?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Sandstein: Please go to ArbCom instead; I have left messages with two Arbs myself. I will appeal any such interpretation immediately, and I have better uses for my time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
To Sandstein: Can we not simply wait for an Arb to notice one of the (now three) requests for their opinion? If it is as Ohconfucius would like, the Arb may be able to express their collective opinion better than anyone here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
(Moving the above comment from the admin section and replying) I see no harm in waiting, but it might be a good idea for you to refrain from editing the page at issue until the matter is resolved, to avoid further complications.  Sandstein  21:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I have other things to do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Two Arbs have now commented on the original discussion here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    • And more have commented since. We now have four Arbs saying "does not fall under the restriction's scope". Ohconfucius' action in calling this back from archive all by himself seems, at least, unauthorized and peculiar. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Thank you, "unauthorized and peculiar"...? That case is still hanging in limbo, and this thread was archived by bot and not properly closed. What I did was to undo a bot action. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Who authorized it? Is there any parallel to persistent plaintiffs bringing back such a case when it has died for lack of admin interest? Peculiar, therefore, and unauthorized; since it is also now contrary to the clear intent of ArbCom, what reputable motive was there for this recrudescence? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius[edit]

  • with regard to the "outrageous edit" which I allegedly missed, please see this correction diff Ohconfucius (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe I have already explained (relative to my first at Clarification) why I am posting this and why it has been moved here. I note that the sniping continues but will not allow PMA to indulge in this style of questioning of my motives. He may be forgiven for believing this is about him, but it's really not. Greg L's participation in the WP:DATEBOT was questioned although I did not see the relevance at the time either, and I was proven wrong. My reason is now highlighted in red above. An official can ignore or dismiss this for all I care, but don't then come after me when I start editing similar editing guidelines, because I will come and say "I did ask" (referring to this query, of course). Ohconfucius (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • On the "much less contentious" guideline which is WP:NAME, PMA appears nevertheless to have created some ripples of his own. His behaviour over the naming of certain articles was the subject of a complaint which graced these very pages only ten days ago; User:Xenovatis has asked for his talk page to be protected against PMA's unwanted attention. Therefore, it is not as "uncontentious" at WP:NAME as PMA would like to suggest. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "The gentleman doth protest too much": WP:NPA; "if what he wanted to know was whether he could edit the Naming Conventions, he could simply have asked.": I did. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, but editors usually only work on specific areas of interest to them, and what they do best is usually in that area they care about the most. Please note that, in the same decision, Lightmouse was banned from using any form of automation - an area he excels in. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC) (Non-admin response to Fut. Perf. moved from admin section.  Sandstein  05:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC))
  • It appears that PMA continues to edit the Naming convention guidelines in recent days: 1, 2, 3, 4, and pending clarification evident from Arbcom, I have therefore unarchived this thread as not closed. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to Ohconfucius[edit]

I see that Ohconfucius has compared me to Lightmouse; there seems to me a clear differentiation: Until this matter arose, I left dates alone, as ArbCom wished; Lightmouse (a sockpuppet of the infamous Bobblewick) refused to. Ohconfucius has indeed spent his time in article space, not only delinking dates (redundantly, a bot is being built to do it) but switching articles from one dating format to another, a violation of MOS and of the Jguk ArbCom decision to which it refers.

This is Date Warring. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

<sign> I can't say I wasn't expecting this return of fire.</sigh> Ohconfucius (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
You chose to throw stones while sitting in a glass house. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors[edit]

Just a correction to one thing dragged in falsely by Ohconfucius above: The protection of Xenovatis' talk page had nothing to do with any complaints against Pmanderson, as far as I can tell (and if it had, it would be a breach of protection policy); the talk page was merely abandoned because the editor chose to move to a new name. Also, whatever conflict there was between Xenovatis and Pmanderson, it wasn't over style guideline edits, so what has it to do with anything here? Fut.Perf. 13:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I apologise that it may have been a false conclusion, but it is pretty obvious, from the state of said talk page before it was blanked and protected, that some serious accusations were being made by PMA to the displeasure of Xeno. Furthermore, although I am not making any such accusation, it does not preclude a user seeking the upper hand in a content dispute on WP by changing the relevant guideline. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
If I were them [ArbCom] and didn't want much trouble, I'd state a clear-cut restriction such as "is prohibited from editing pages in Category:Wikipedia style guidelines and talk pages thereof". --A. di M. (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC) (Non-admin comment moved to here from section below.  Sandstein  13:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC))
  • Agree that precision is clarity. However, my belief is that Arbcom would not have chosen to be so 'vague' if it wanted a narrow interpretation of the remedy. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Note There is a request for amendment that may or may not affect this request for enforcement. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Pmanderson[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Pmanderson topic banned, "Pmanderson is topic banned for 12 month from style and editing guidelines". His edits reported by Ohconfucius were to Wikipedia:Naming conventions, a policy that is not part of WP:MOS (which was the area of conflict in the case). I would appreciate comments by arbitrators or other uninvolved editors whether the naming conventions are "style and editing guidelines" for the purpose of the topic ban. I would tend to agree that they are.  Sandstein  05:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If I read that correctly its a ban from "style guidelines" and "editing guidelines". The case (in Styles locked in dispute) found that problematic behavior had spilled out of the MOS which may explain the broad wording of the remedy. I would tend to agree that Naming conventions, though policy, would fall under the remedy (in fact, the way I read it, any policy about editing or style would be covered). Perhaps an clarification from the Arbs about whether they meant things to be that broad or limited to the MOS would be helpful? Shell babelfish 13:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
This was already moved here from the clarification requests page. Unless others disagree, I will close this with a warning to Pmanderson that we understand his ban to also include Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and that he will be blocked should he edit it again.  Sandstein  13:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The wordings of arbitration remedies, because of the way they are processed, don't always reflect the spirit and intent behind them very well. Though I might be in the minority, I would be very strongly in favour of interpreting the ArbCom remedy here narrowly, unless instructed otherwise by arbs through a clarification. PMAnderson's work in naming conventions is usually very good and most of it is philosophically and wikipolitically unrelated to the disruption around the date delinking case. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Deacon. It would be a pity to lose Pmanderson's work on what he does best. Fut.Perf. 14:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually this is still open under clarfications - since there does seem to be a disagreement about what the remedy was supposed to cover, maybe we should wait and see if an Arb comments? Shell babelfish 16:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it appears that I am now in a content disagreement with Pmanderson in a naming conventions-related issue ([1]), I will recuse myself from any further action with respect to this issue if he so requests.  Sandstein  20:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am on record as stating that the Naming conventions are not content guidelines and I have argued that the naming conventions should not stray the content of articles and the content guidelines (such as the MOS) should not stray into the naming conventions, eg with the use of hyphens and dashes in page names. There are two exceptions (1) The naming conventions should use WP:V for the definition of what is or is not a reliable source and (2) the section WP:NPOV#Article naming could be in either policy, and for historic reasons is where it is. --PBS (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


Sarah777[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request concerning Sarah777[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
MASEM (t) 21:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Sarah777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Sarah777 restricted

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

  1. [2] First (modification) of Sarah777's profiling speadsheet on the talk page of the poll
  2. [3] Sarah updates this "spreadsheet"

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

  1. [4] Warning by Masem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (note that no warning is required by the ArbCom, but as a moderator for this other ArbCom case, I felt a warning here was necessary.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Block per remedy.

Additional comments by MASEM (t):
As part of the Ireland article names ArbCom case, I've been appointed moderator to help resolve the issue. The users of the Ireland Collaboration Project have agreed to use a wiki-wide single transferable vote to resolve the issue after years and months of discussion did little to bridge the gap. That poll recently opened. Sarah777 has since started creating a spreadsheet on the poll's talk page that attempts to sort out the votes by who is admittedly Irish, British, or otherwise indeterminable. This itself is a questionable approach and I am currently seeking AN/I input as to whether such profiling is appropriate, as it has already caused two people unassociated with the project to remove their votes to avoid being profiled. However, in Sarah777's specific case, she is already under restriction per the above remedy "from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks." I believe that her reasoning for using this poll (as can be seen in her comments about it here) are indicative of what the remedy was to deal with and that a block is necessary. (I will note that she has voted in the poll, so a block at this time would not silence her input to the results). --MASEM (t) 21:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[5]

Discussion concerning Sarah777[edit]

Statement by Sarah777[edit]

This has absolutely nothing to do with any Arbcom ruling, I propose that this request be refused. I also don't think analyzing the voting patterns should be banned. That is censorship, but I have already pointed out to the Moderator that if he engages in censorship I will not revert his actions. Arbcom said: Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks.

  • (1) This had nothing to do with any edits.
  • (2) I have made no anti-British remarks.

Sarah777 (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors[edit]

  • Comment by HighKing Let's keep calm. The emerging consensus appears to be that profiling should be banned while the vote is in progress. The profiling is based on public information, and collated. Like other editors here, I don't believe the case has been made that this could be seen as "imtimidating". I believe she set out to demonstrate that a majority of primarily British editors vote one way, and a majority of primarily Irish voters vote another, and that since there are more British voters than Irish, getting things changed can be problematic. Now it's a fact that this has resulted in some editors removing their votes, but the primary issue is intent and knowledge. Did Sarah set out to imtimidate voters and could this have been foreseen? I think not. The obvious solution is to simply ban profiling while the vote is in progress, and I believe any sanctions are unnecessary. --HighKing (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment by Jack forbes HighKing has said almost everything I would have. I believe this was taken here too quickly and could have been dealt with without any drama or fuss. There would have been a quick consensus not to profile voters and that would have been that. Jack forbes (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment by GoodDay Howabout we just have the 'speard sheet-in-question' removed from the Polling page-in-question. PS: Ain't nobody gonna intimidate me, at that page. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment by Bastun I'd support oversight of the profiling and a ban on it recurring on Project pages or userspace, but would oppose a block or ban on Sarah at this time. Reintroduction of her mentoring/civility parole may well be in order, though. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC) (Edit to add: please note Sarah777 has now added the profiling to her own talkpage... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC) )
  • Comment by BritishWatcher - This sort of profiling should be banned for sure, people need to consider if they would accept a method of profiling people based on Skin colour (if possible on wikipedia) in a dispute on racial matters, it is basically exactly the same thing. Sarahs actions on the ballot page are disruptive and considering her previous blocks were related to anti British POV, her actions on the talk page seem linked. We should also remember that people are allowed to change their votes throughout the 42 days, there for she has something to gain by trying to put people off voting a certain way and instead of doing it in a positive way of arguing the case for change, she chooses to do it in a negative way by claiming bias within the first 24 hours of the vote.
Sarah should not be allowed to continue trying to change peoples minds in such a negative way on the talk page. She clearly went against the moderators wishes by reposting her spreadsheet after Masem had removed it and replaced it with a box explaining why it was removed. This is clearly disruptive and whilst her vote should count, if she continues she should not be allowed to contribute on the talk page of the ballot. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment by SarekOfVulcan re-adding the "little spreadsheet" at her talkpage after it was deleted twice from the poll talkpage shows a clear intent to be disruptive, regardless of what her original intentions may have been. Recommend blocking.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment by RashersTierneyif a block is imposed on Sarah777 as things stand, I will withdraw from this process entirely. I strongly recommend a de-escalation all round. RashersTierney (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment by Domer48 per HighKing, Jack forbes, BigDunc and RashersTierney. Move along now, there is nothing to see here.--Domer48'fenian' 08:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment by Tfz per Domer48, HighKing, Jack forbes, BigDunc and RashersTierney. The spreadsheet is of interest to many, has been done before, and there were no problems. Why here? Move on. Tfz 10:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Sarah777[edit]

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

The "profiling" may be unhelpful, the editor's behaviour might be disruptive, but that is not relevant to the arbitration measure in question. In the diffs supplied, only the inclusion of figures as to how the poll would stand "[w]ithout the [perceived] British input"[6] comes anywhere close to the behaviours proscribed by the remedy, and falls quite short of "engaging in aggressive biased editing" or "making anti-British remarks". Furthermore, the remedy does not allow for the enforcement requested (a block), only a page-ban. So, in sum, perhaps hypothetically Sarah777 ought to be blocked or page-banned, but certainly not for the edits in question under the remedy cited.  Skomorokh  07:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah777's "My little spreadsheet" is harmless, IMO. If you find Sarah's "little spreadsheet" helpful, you can analyze it; if you find it unhelpful, please ignore it. Sarah777 has not violated the ArbCom sanction imposed on her, so there is no need to take any action. AdjustShift (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Lvivske[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Request concerning Lvivske[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes#Editors_reminded, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions

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

Anti-Polish comments and some personal attacks:
  1. [7]
  2. [8]
  3. [9]
  4. [10]
  5. [11]
Personal attacks:
  1. [12]
  2. [13]
  3. (post ending)
  4. [14]
Other ethic-based comments:
  1. [15]
  2. [16]
Refusal to back down and behave in a civil fashion:
  1. [17]

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

  1. [18] Warning by PasswordUsername (talk · contribs)
  2. [19] Warning by AdjustShift (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Since it seems that comments on his talk page and in discussion asking him to tone it down and be more civil are failing to be effective, something else needs to be done. This user is creating much bad blood between Polish and Ukrainian editors, adding him to Digwuren's sanction list and a stern warning from AE admins may, hopefully, give him a pause. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC) PS. Considering his repeated bad faith towards Polish editor and biased editing of Poland-related articles, a topic ban seems could be helpful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments by

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [20]

Discussion concerning Lvivske[edit]

Statement by Lvivske[edit]

  • I just hope that whichever admin reads this protest actually looks at the links posted above and realizes how minor they are, and that Piotrus is just grasping at straws. This is just another attempt by a pro-Polish editor with an agenda to censor editors from trying to improve the article in question, and provide a NPOV.--Львівське (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors[edit]

See also the other disputant at #Poeticbent. Sciurinæ (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

→ The above report by a German user Sciurinæ (talk · contribs) includes also a stunt by Lvivske (talk · contribs) who yet again, presents himself there as an opinionated problem user insulting Polish Wikipedians at large with descriptive language. --Poeticbent talk 16:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with Piotrus' request, it's high time this editor gets a slap on the wrist. Today he continued with his provocations: moved the Wołyń Voivodeship (1921–1939) article to Volhynian Voivodeship (1921–1939) without any discussion, reverted on the Ukrainian Insurgent Army article with the disgraceful comment that he's "reverting vandalism" [21], shockingly advocated blanket reverts for combating "biases" [22] and so on and so forth. Loosmark (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Excsue me, but User:Paweł5586's edits were vandalism. He reverted needlessly the order of the article, and put blatant bias back into the piece that I had just removed. What is this kangaroo court you guys have set up here?--Львівське (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Even if Paweł5586 added something you disagree with it, that's completely not vandalism. Also please stop using insulting language as "kangaroo court", the decision here will be made by an uninvolved Admin. Loosmark (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
What's insulting is that its 5 editors ganging up on 1 who's merely trying to keep articles unbiased. It's clear as day to any passer by what you're trying to do here. It's sad...--Львівське (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll just add that the move was carried despite consensus on talk not to move.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:DRNC...--Львівське (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Consensus of you and 1 other person? And the other person is under dispute too? That's not consensus! Nonetheless, the spelling I moved it to had twice as many google hits, 4x as many on google scholar. If done Boolean looking for "Wołyń Voivodeship" on google scholar it yeilds NOTHING. I was very justified in my move to be WP:BOLD and improve the article.--Львівське (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
And I'd also like to point out to Lvivske repeated attempts to disguise reverts as minor edits, after he has been asked not to: [23]. This is getting disruptive quickly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I disguise reverts by starting talk page sections on the change I made (re: "quote about terror"). I'd be horrible in espionage...--Львівське (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Marking reverts as minor edits is disgraceful in any case, it is against the basic wikipedia etiquette. Instead of inventing excuses coupled with cinism i suggest you stop with such behavior. Loosmark (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Tell you what, I'll stop "inventing excuses" when you stop inventing infractions. Deal?--Львівське (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Now you are going to lie in the face of the obvious? Do you really think the admins won't see that you deleted a big chuck of text and marked it as "spelling"? You are not helping your cause but do as you wish. Loosmark (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In the last few days, since the initiation of this report, this user has actually shown quite a considerable willingness to discuss the topics and he's toned down a lot of the extreme anti-Polish rhetoric which he manifested initially. Basically the relevant topics are by their nature controversial and so can involve emotionally worded strong statements (and I understand that). As a result I think this report should just be closed with no action as long as Lvivske continues being constructive. Basically, let this one go, though keep it in mind - just remind Lvivske to discuss his edits and the edits of other editors he disagrees with. Lvivske, just keep in mind that I - and probably other Polish editors - are very willing to listen on these difficult topics, just don't call us "Polish propagandists" or the like and your input will definitely be considered and appreciated. There is plenty of room for cooperation here. Thanks.radek (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Radek there is a small problem with your reasoning, and namely as you can see from the discussion above Lvivske refuses to admit there was anything wrong with his behavior, blames others on ganging him, accuses others of vandalism, lies that about his edits etc., etc. it is true that his behavior improved on the talk page of the massacres article but my bet is if he "survives" this report he'll revert to his old behavior. Loosmark (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
If he reverts to his old behavior then we can refer back to this report and it'll be still here. In that case the admins in charge will see that this was a problem in the past, that he got a pass once already and will take that into consideration. I think it'd be fine if the a note to that effect is made along with the 'no action' in the results section.radek (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Lvivske[edit]

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

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Spanishboy2006[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Request concerning Spanishboy2006[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Cinéma C 01:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Spanishboy2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Probation

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

  1. [24] Listed Kosovo as a disputed state, despite Wikipedia consensus to call Kosovo a 'disputed region'. Both 'disputed country' (or 'state') and 'disputed province' are Albanian and Serb POV respectively.
  2. [25] Listed Kosovo as bordering Serbia, pushing POV by claiming that Kosovo's independence is not disputed.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

  1. [26] Warning by Cinéma C (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Indefinite block or topic ban from Kosovo related articles

Additional comments by Cinéma C:


Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[27]

Discussion concerning Spanishboy2006[edit]

Statement by Spanishboy2006[edit]

Comments by other editors[edit]

A possible sockpuppet of Sinbad Barron (ie. the Mr.Neutral gang). This user has constantly pushed for Kosovo to be presented as a "country" despite a heavy range of issues raised by a wide number of users asides Cinema C. This "block of users" seems to carry with it an unhealthy obsession with using Noel Malcolm sources and basing the articles according to the publisher's opinion. Compare this edit by Spanishboy[28] to the following on a non-Kosovo article but where the Kosovo topic is instrumental: [29] (which was traced by following the trail of a user who had already taken an interest on Kosovo here[30]). Malcolm is not credited on his Kosovo piece but is so in his South Ossetia speech, as well as on the article[31]. The evidence which blocked these users also resulted in the block of another terrible user called User:Metrospex. There had been similarities between these users but only when Noel Malcolm was raised after a period of silence did it strike me that this may be the case. The only other user who has insisted on using Malcolm is Aigest who I have to say, does so more cautiously and on other pages. So I'd check the IPs on this one, and carry out whichever other methods are used to established puppetry. Evlekis (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Spanishboy2006[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Note: Editor was blocked for 2 weeks under WP:ARBMAC by User:J.delanoy. Fut.Perf. 17:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems like we should see what happens when the block expires. We don't want to pile on multiple sanctions. If this user is a possible sock puppet account, I strongly suggest filing the evidence at WP:SPI and specifically asking a checkuser if these accounts can be linked with any others. Make sure to do a thorough job of finding all related accounts. Jehochman Talk 03:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Zvartnotz2[edit]

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

Request concerning Zvartnotz2[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Grandmaster 06:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Zvartnotz2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

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

  1. [32]
  2. [33] The first 2 are diffs of edit warring at arbitration covered area
  3. [34] And more edit warring using the sock accounts of OrionAryan (talk · contribs) and Orion3hor (talk · contribs) on an article which is not formally covered by arbitration, see history of the article Great Pyramid of Giza.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

  1. None

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Permanent ban, topic ban or at least revert resctriction.

Additional comments by Grandmaster:
The account of Zvartnotz2 (talk · contribs) was created about the same time as that of Apserus (talk · contribs). Both were used for edit warring at the article duduk, where they tried to remove the information supported by reliable sources. Zvartnotz2 did not make any attempt at any discussion, and I made a CU request Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apserus/Archive, which showed that Apserus and Zvartnotz2 are unrelated to each other, but that Apserus used an IP to rv the article (maybe forgot to log in), and that Zvartnotz2 used 2 sock accounts to edit war on another article. Zvartnotz2 appears to be an SPA, which was created for the sole purpose of edit warring, and I don't think that any reformation is possible. He is currently blocked for 24 hours, [35] but I expect him to resume the edit war when he is back from the block. It is also possible that the activity of Apserus and Zvartnotz2 on the article about duduk is coordinated outside of wikipedia due to similarity of their actions. Grandmaster 06:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The same article about duduk is now reverted by 67.150.124.123 (talk · contribs), an obvious SPA and possibly a sock of Zvartnotz2. An admin intervention is needed to stop disruption. Grandmaster 12:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

CU says that it is possible that the IP is the same person as Zvartnotz2: [36] Grandmaster 19:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[37]

Discussion concerning Zvartnotz2[edit]

Statement by Zvartnotz2[edit]

Comments by other editors[edit]

Duduk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should be reverted and semi-protected if IP disruption begins. It would be easier to determine the socks then. I gave Zvartnotz2 a warning. Brand[t] 19:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that disruption on Great Pyramid of Giza also continued today. The article was reverted a few times by IPs that are also located in California, same as the IP reverting duduk, and the article about Giza Pyramid was semiprotected: [38]. Obviously, it is a disruption by the same person. Grandmaster 19:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Article semiprotected. Grandmaster 21:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Zvartnotz2[edit]

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


Olaf Stephanos[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Request concerning Olaf Stephanos[edit]

Note: I have been preparing this over the space of a few days. I am still trying to familiarize myself with arbitration. Never done it before and hope to never do it again. Apologize for the length or mistakes in format, I tried my best.

User requesting enforcement:
Colipon+(Talk) 15:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Point_of_view_editing
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox

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

  • Central to these diffs is one pervasive, consistent issue - the editor's tendency to always want to tip the article POV towards Falun Gong's favour, no matter the situation. This user certainly goes out of his way to remove, restructure, move, or otherwise tone down reliably sourced content critical of Falun Gong followed by extremely lengthy argumentative rants on the talk pages.
  1. [39] Serious POV editing. This was the user's first comprehensive rewrite of Falun Gong after article probation - he adds undue weight to the article's intro, highlighting Falun Gong's "plight", and then adds an entire section of selective academic sources, advocating the "good nature" of Falun Gong in the section "Theoretical background", while removing all well-sourced information about Li's claimed supernatural status and apocalyptic claims - claiming it was to "rv Sam Luo's ravings". Modified "Criticism" heading to "Third-party views". Deleted several paragraphs of critical information; replaced it with favourable information.
  2. [40] Serious POV editing. Attempting to discredit the source of the critical content, not a legitimate refutation or rebuttal against critical commentary. Also, another paragraph is awkwardly inserted (copied from another article, originally also drafted by himself) its only purpose seems to attack the American Anti-Cult Movement in defense of Falun Gong. User did not attempt to seek consensus before or after the edit, merely attempting to justify it with a long rant that he is "right". A chronic issue is that whenever any critical content is added to the article, he POV edits with "criticism of the critics" to "balance out" the article.
  3. In the same edit, he also forcibly inserts that Patsy Rahn is a "Bachelors of Arts" to discredit her published works (he lobbies for it here, discrediting her ad hominem with "Patsy Rahn is a former B-class soap opera actress, who has nothing but a BA in political science". On the talk page, Olaf continues to allude to a single source to justify that the Anti-Cult movement in the United States as "unreliable" and a "lackey of the Communist Party of China".
  4. [41] [42] Other attempts at discrediting sources critical of Falun Gong, very clear POV editing similar to previous instance.
  5. [43] Another instance of discrediting sources critical of Falun Gong in article body, an unsourced POV edit that aims to "balance out" criticism.
  6. [44] A deletion of various critical sites, including all Chinese government-related sites in "External Links", saying it gives "undue weight". (Eventually almost all critical links were deleted, but by other users - see below).
  7. [45] Inserting paragraphs about human rights reports on Falun Gong, including a selective claim from a UN report which was later refuted. These edits aim to advocate for Falun Gong's "plight". Note also he adds quotation marks around words like "illegal act" to make them sound less credible.
  8. In Sujiatun Thrombosis Hospital, an article that has been a focus of Falun Gong advocacy (and since deleted/redirected after attention from uninvolved editors):
    Restored removal of peripheral comments about whether the allegations are considered by FG to be closed, with the comment "disagree; no reason to remove only this paragraph and leave the three others intact; are you sure you didn't try to make the case look 'closed'?" effectively giving Falun Gong 'the final word' while the dismissed allegations are left hanging - a common tactic by FG editors.
    Blanking entire section because he cannot get his way.
    Covert edit warring under guise of restoring "balance", by introduction of a weaseley phrase, and misrepresentation of source that the allegations have been "found credible by Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine", and re-adding removed problematic material with no substantive discussion (relying on edit summary).
    Introduction of material tangential and not specifically related to the article's subject as a method of 'counterbalancing' the removal referred to immediately above - again, so he could have final say on what is "right".
    All of these edits reflect POV and disruptive editing, aimed at stalling neutral good-faith edits by User:Ohconfucius.
  9. [46] Deleting Mrund's edits about Falun Gong's controversial aspects from lead sourced from TIME and James Randi Educational Foundation. Here is his justification for deleting, and here he deletes it again without consensus.
  10. [47] This is a lengthy talk-page response to an uninvolved user who suggested that the article was extremely biased in favour of Falun Gong and there have been efforts at erasing critical content. This is a form of very direct advocacy, which is prohibited according to the arbitration. Other talk page advocacy edits include [48] [49] [50] (Rants about personal experiences, personal meeting with founder Li Hongzhi, calling him a "humble man" etc.), (Extremely lengthy advocacy about why the word 'cult' doesn't belong in article, despite reliable sources, and other dissertations); advocating for Falun Gong through blockquotes taken from official Falun Gong website faluninfo.org, with attached personal experiences; More advocacy on the talk pages against the Anti-Cult movement.
  11. [51] Removing NPOV tag on a revision that clearly favours Falun Gong, while the NPOV dispute has not been resolved, with justification: "The disputed content and concrete alternatives have not been explicated on the talk page."
  12. Here Argues that James Randi, another critic of Falun Gong, is "partisan" and "not an expert on Falun Gong", branding Randi's educational website a "personal blog", saying it cannot be included in the article. Here he calls Randi a "good illusionist" and "does not have an academic background", and that "sometimes he's just plain wrong".
  13. [52] In one of his few edits outside the realm of Falun Gong-related articles, he inserts unsourced lines ("imprisoning Falun Gong practitioners to detention centers and labor camps and torturing many of them to death") on the page of Chinese president Jiang Zemin, when the paragraph already has a "citation needed" tag. In contrast, his edits ([53] [54], as part of a protracted edit war with User:Simonm223) on Li Hongzhi, founder of Falun Gong, promote Li's benevolence and positive image. These edits clearly reflect pro-Falun Gong, anti-Chinese government POV editing.
  14. [55] Removes quote directly sourced from Li Hongzhi to hide Li's more outlandish dissertations, with justification "it doesn't fit in well with the other [quotes]".
  15. [56] This edit is a restoration of Original Research conducted by User:asdfg12345, in defense of Falun Gong's more 'outlandish' claims, reflecting clear advocacy.
  16. [57] The user persistently edit wars to keep Falun Gong critic and cult expert Rick Ross out of the article, labelling him a "self-contained cottage industry"; here he deletes Ross again using the term "former criminal" to discredit the source. In this typical revert, he modified all instances of the word "repression" or "ban" to "persecution" and added praise for Falun Gong including: "while others say 'there could no gentler religion than the Falun Gong.'[...] In 1999, the Chinese government said it considered Falun Gong to be a cult; though scholars see this as merely a 'red-herring'." This reflects pervasive anti-critic, pro-Falun Gong POV editing by said user.
  17. [58] Delete well-sourced content on "homophobic" teachings, justifying with "Anonymous IP inserting a new section, using substandard sources and ignoring criticism just doesn't work.".
  18. He expressed that 'forced labor camp' or 'brainwashing center' are in general appropriate "plain English words" to describe prisons to which supposed FG practitioners are sent, aiming to sensationalize these events.
  19. He harasses me while I prepare for this very arbitration case, first posting a lengthy pre-emptive defence on Talk:Falun Gong; he then brings it up in an unrelated disucssion stating: "[Colipon] is at this very moment preparing to lose his face by blatantly misusing the arbitration enforcement process against me to gain an upper hand in content disputes..."
  20. Numerous diffs on personal attacks, which severely violate WP is not a battleground listed below:

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

Additional comments by Colipon+(Talk):

My first impressions with the article was that it was similar to ongoing disputes at Scientology, with a group of dedicated apologist editors making blatant POV and disruptive edits and making real work on the articles very difficult. Falun Gong is a bit more complicated. There is a protracted, large-scale propaganda war between the spiritual movement and the Communist Party of China. Two polarizing sides of the issue make it much, much harder to deal with, as there are activists on both sides. Both sides use exaggerated 'evidence', borrowed 'experts', sensationalist claims and other forms of propaganda to attack each other. Because both sides clearly have an agenda against the other, "NPOV" becomes very delicate - there will be routine disruptions from both sides. No revisions of articles is ever stable.

The propaganda war manifested itself on Wikipedia in 2006, with anti-Falun Gong activists and pro-Falun Gong practitioners constantly opposing each other and engaging in disruptive editing. To my knowledge, after arbitration, all of the anti-FLG editors (Sam Luo, Tomanada, etc.) were banned or have left. As a result, since June 2007 and until mediation in July 2009, the Falun Gong family of articles have become unmistakably dominated by pro-Falun Gong activists. These articles all suffer from serious POV issues heavily biased in favour of Falun Gong, are readily being used as a direct form of advocacy for the Falun Gong movement, and users from all backgrounds (including those who are anti-Chinese gov't) have raised concerns - but all have been either discouraged by the drama, or their attempts at other means of dispute resolution have failed.

Conflict of Interest
The user I mentioned above is undoubtedly a single-purpose account and has been editing Falun Gong-related articles since 2006 (along with a team of 3 other very easily identifiable FLG activist editors - asdfg12345 (talk · contribs), Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs), and HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs)). After the ban of Anti-FLG users Sam Luo and Tomanada, he and a very consistent group of Falun Gong practitioners have seemingly taken over all Falun Gong-related articles. All four users, to varying degrees, erase critical content, engage in lengthy advocacy commentary on talk pages, tag-team against other editors, and two users in particular (Olaf, dilip rajeev) show very little respect for any users who wish to bring balance to articles, hurling ad hominem accusations and personal attacks.

They are also known to invoke Wikipedia policy whenever it works to their favour. Misrepresentation of sources has been endemic, and these four abovenamed editors are known to engage in tag-team edit warring, and backing up each other's problematic edits, but occasionally conceding when it is clearly demonstrated that the misrepresentation has occurred. More often than not, the neutral revision provokes another flurry of introducing "highly sourced material" ostensibly to restore the balance of bias in favour of Falun Gong. Adding, removing, restructuring, moving, or otherwise changing any material that appears to upset the pro-FG bias in any of the articles is met with the same tactics.

Pervasive personal attacks; hostilities
User:Olaf Stephanos has become especially hostile of late and severely violates the principle that "Wikipedia is a not a battleground", constantly attacking other users. Just in the last month alone, for example, he cagily disparaged the efforts of new non-aligned User:John Carter by alluding to the fact that he edits "things that are widely considered either as parodies or otherwise ridiculous topics"; he made numerous personal attacks against me, including telling me to "stop being a martyr" and calling me "one raging anti-FLG bull", and when I asked him to stop his personal attacks, this was his lengthy reply accompanied with more personal attacks; On the same talk page, Olaf tells User:Mrund: "I have not attacked you personally"; in the same edit, he writes, "The face of your ideological struggle just looks so much better with a faux moustache and a gargantuan plastic nose". He later asserted his personal attacks to be "satire" and "humour".

In addition, Olaf persistently disparages my character and neutrality by repeatedly making references to my post over two years ago on the talk page of now banned user (and anti-FLG activist) Sam Luo, and wrote a sarcastic comment which began with:

I merely proved through direct quotes that your shining helmet of neutrality seems to be made of cheap Chinese tinfoil. If you weren't peacocking around with phrases like "neutral-minded editors calling on the pro-FLG side to adhere to NPOV", there would be no need to point out your double standards. Why don't you start playing your cards openly?.

Moreover, in response to my call for investigation on Falun Gong articles and related commentary from a wide range of editors that the article is poorly written, biased, and whitewashed of any criticism, Olaf wrote a lengthy 4-paragraph rebuttal which opened with:

"Guys, guys, here's a handkerchief to wipe your foaming mouths [...] I will be here keeping you in check, and there is no way to get rid of me, because I know what I'm doing [...] I'm not going to burn myself, nor is there anything in my edit history that would incriminate me."

All Falun Gong related articles are currently on probation, this is by no means the first time I have encountered problematic users who violate terms of the arbitration. Because serious arbitration enforcement cases are time consuming, they have not been filed until now. This cannot go on. It is imperative that any or all problematic conduct should result in conclusive action against any guilty party. My suggestion is that admins conduct a thorough investigation on Falun Gong and its related articles, investigate all the regular users who edit the pages, and enforce a wholesale ban on any user (including myself) that they find possess a clear activist agenda, whether on behalf of the Chinese gov't or on behalf of Falun Gong. My belief is that because of the chronic nature of the problems and because activist users are increasingly becoming adept at weasling out of WP policy violations, that a ban will be the only effective measure to end these chronic problems.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
User has been notified here.

Discussion concerning Olaf Stephanos[edit]

Statement by Olaf Stephanos[edit]

First of all, I would like state what I suppose will be obvious by examining the diffs provided above: this is an attempt to misuse WP:AE to gain an upper hand in a content dispute.

I have been editing these articles for several years, and my stated intent has always been to respect the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Whenever there have been problems or disagreements, I have engaged in extensive discussion; I have taken matters to the community noticeboards, especially after the latest mediation case was initiated; I have absolutely no intent to keep away "critical" sources just because they are critical, as long as they are given due weight and meet the requirements put forth in WP:RS and WP:V; and I have done my very best not to break WP:3RR, or to engage in prolonged edit warring, even though the articles have faced numerous assaults and occasionally even outright vandalism.

I assume there will be a group of editors leaving their comments on me before the ArbCom gives its final judgment. Some of them will probably try to make me look negative; others will undoubtedly defend me. My argumentative and articulate style of speech, along with my knowledge of the policies and guidelines, has made me a demanding opponent in the eyes of those who support direct action and try to take over these pages by force, or who insist on substandard sources, undue weight, and original research. (On a side note, the main Falun Gong article was recently protected after our mediator's WP:BRD model was breached.) I also initiated the original Falun Gong arbitration case that ended up with the topic ban of User:Samuel Luo and User:Tomananda. In my view, these are the real reasons for singling me out.

Before I go into details about the accusations against me, I would like to point out that Colipon is blatantly misrepresenting some of the diffs (such as this one), and that it is not an accident on his side, because already on August 7 he has read an initial list of rebuttals that is now available on my talk page. In addition, he knows that many of the removals (such as Rick Ross) have been approved on a community noticeboard, but he still chooses to use them as "evidence".

I will also highlight the fact that the following diffs are relatively old: #1 (8 June 2007), #5 (21 June 2007), #6 (12 June 2007), #7 (14 June 2007), #9 (10 March 2008), #10 (2nd & 3rd: 12 January 2008, 4th: 10 March 2008, 5th: 11 March 2008, 6th: 14 July 2008, 8th: 7 March 2008), #11 (15 July 2008), #12 (1st: 12 March 2008, 2nd: 12 March 2008), #14 (15 July 2008), #16 (4th: 4 July 2008), #18 (17 March 2008).

Point-by-point discussion of the alleged violations[edit]
  1. I don't think there's much to say here. User:Free456 is a sockpuppet of Samuel Luo, and I reverted him.
  2. In this edit, I have merely pointed out that Margaret Singer cannot be taken to reflect the academic consensus on the matter. She had been given an extremely prominent place in the "Reception" section. There was discussion on this wording, I took part and did not try to enforce it, agreed to removing all the references to the court decisions, and have even spoken on behalf of Singer's inclusion as a significant minority viewpoint here. I still think it is acceptable to mention her, as long as she is not given undue weight and is presented in the proper context.
  3. Pointing out Patsy Rahn's academic credentials with a sourced reference to her biography (on the website of the host of the conference in question) shouldn't be a problem, especially since I did nothing to enforce that edit. Just a little while earlier, Colipon had inserted this edit that appealed to Margaret Singer's credentials, but apparently he doesn't see any problem there (frankly, I don't, either). Lastly, I have not called the ACM a "lackey of the Communist Party of China"; I have only mentioned that a peer-reviewed source discussing the ACM discourse and Falun Gong contains these words: "By applying the ['cult'] label and embracing theories that posit passive followers under the mental control of a dangerous leader, the government can aggressively destroy the group, all the while claiming to be protecting religious freedom. In this respect, the Western Anti-Cult Movement has served, unwittingly or not, as a lackey in the party's efforts to maintain its political dominance." [59]
  4. The first diff is admittedly an attempt to restore the primary sources about Singer and her expertise. This was my only revert. See point #2. On the other hand, posting the second diff as a piece of "evidence" is preposterous. In my next edit five minutes later [60], I revert my changes and say "Sorry, my bad. Seems like another organisation has taken over the name "American Family Foundation"." Colipon knows this by reading the rebuttals on my talk page, but he still chose to include this diff. In my humble opinion, that is quite indicative of his approach to this arbitration enforcement case.
  5. This is nothing but a link to a section that discusses the anti-cult movement in light of reliable sources.
  6. My rationale is apparent, see the edit summary. At the time of the edit, the External Links section looked like this.
  7. Adding sourced information shouldn't be a problem. Adding quotation marks around the words "illegal acts" means that they are the words of the Chinese Communist Party.
  8. All of this is done in good faith. See the edit history of the article to see what User:Ohconfucius was doing, as well as the article's talk page. Also note my words, "I'm not going to start an argument. Let's see what they say here."
  9. The edit summary directly points out the problems: "1) The word 'controversial' is not even found in the article. 2) James Randi website is a personal website; see Wikipedia:Sources. 3) The third sentence was not attributed to anyone." In addition, I don't see what's the problem with my talk page justification that was mentioned by Colipon.
  10. I see this as good faith discussion on the talk page, pointing out issues with undue weight, among others. I admit that some of these edits are not directly discussing the article contents; but they are argumentative replies to people who have raised questions, or to personal attacks such as User:Mrund's "Please just act like a grownup, Olaf, OK? I suggest you go and insert some useful material into some other article instead of sabotaging my attempts to improve this one." (The latter comment was related to edit disputes surrounding point #9.) The "advocacy" for what faluninfo.net says about the issues at hand is directly relevant to this article, as self-published sources can be used as sources about themselves. The "advocacy" against the anti-cult movement simply presents some academic arguments against the ACM ideology, and ends with the words, "But here we mostly focus on a careful scrutiny of the editors' contributions and evaluate them against the official policies. I wrote the above to introduce some of my own views on these matters, and I am ready to continue discussion, but we shouldn't stray too far from the actual purpose of this talk page."
  11. The tag was removed simply because tagging an article must be followed by discussion on the talk page. On these pages, it has been almost a norm that editors have refused to discuss the bones of contention, yet they want to leave a tag and never tell others what exactly needs to be done to get it removed.
  12. Randi's website is subject to WP:SPS. As long as his views on Falun Gong haven't been published by a reliable source, I don't see why they should be included in an encyclopedia.
  13. The first one is a good faith edit on the Jiang Zemin article – never reverted by anyone and apparently not contested (it's still there!). In the first diff on the Li Hongzhi page, my edit summary expresses the intent: "Some edits were justified, such as removing mentions of some obscure proclamations. But systematic removal of positive third party references is not acceptable. The things I restored are notable." I tried to engage User:Simonm223 in discussion here, but he wasn't really up for it.
  14. The section is named "Theoretical background", and the rest of the references deal with academic issues. [61] Apparently, nobody considered this quote very important, since it hasn't been restored to this day.
  15. The idea of this edit was to point out the discrepancy between the sources. It was discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard, and third party editors approved of it. [62] There might have been a better way to express the same thing.
  16. First of all, Rick Ross has been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard in this thread. It was agreed that his personal website is subject to WP:SPS, and that his inclusion can only be considered if his views on Falun Gong have been published by a reliable source. Secondly, I did not label Rick Ross "his own self-contained cottage industry"; it was quoting User:Vecrumba who said these words on the RSN. The "typical revert" is merely restoring sourced content whose removal was not discussed on the talk page. The word "persecution" had been changed by User:PCPP in his previous edits. [63] [64]
  17. I was trying to get the anonymous IP to discuss these changes, instead of adding a new subsection and presenting a synthesis of material from various sources (including a private website). Needless to say, the IP wasn't really up for discussion.
  18. A short comment I wrote on the talk page. Falun Gong practitioners are imprisoned in brainwashing centers and forced labour camps; there's nothing "sensational" about it, it's just extremely frightening. See the article Persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China. I feel that choosing this diff as "evidence" against me really expresses something profound about Colipon's mission on Wikipedia.
  19. I quickly moved the "pre-emptive defence" posted on the Falun Gong talk page to my private talk page, as soon as I was pointed out that Talk:Falun Gong was an inappropriate location. However, as I said before, some of the fallacies in Colipon's evidence were clearly indicated in this version, yet he chose to ignore most of them. As for my comment regarding the misuse of WP:AE, I think the ArbCom can decide for themselves.
  20. Comments on the so-called "personal attacks":
  • there is absolutely nothing that can be interpreted as hostility towards User:John Carter in this diff.
  • "Yeah. Stop playing a martyr, Colipon, and stick to the work at hand. I'm not going to get involved with your strawmen. Let's just agree to disagree." was a reply to this rant posted by Colipon on the article's talk page.
  • "raging anti-FLG bull" was a humorous allusion to a 1980 film by Martin Scorsese. The whole thread is available here. My comment reads in its entirety: "Do you expect to convince me, Colipon? Actions speak louder than words. In my eyes you have come across as one raging anti-FLG bull – but let's leave open the possibility that I'm wrong. Whatever the case, that doesn't mean you wouldn't be welcome here, as long as you follow the rules."
  • Colipon left out the strikeout in my comment "The face of your ideological struggle just looks so much better with a faux moustache and a gargantuan plastic nose", another example of carnivalesque Bakhtinian satire that I've found an amusing way to point out the sheer absurdity of some arguments.
  • the reason I have reminded Colipon of this edit are my simple requests to make him retract his words. Despite numerous attempts, he has refused. Personally, I think it is somewhat worrying that Colipon has openly expressed sharing a similar agenda with User:Samuel Luo, who was banned indefinitely during the previous arbitration case.
  • originally, Colipon finds my comment "I merely proved through direct quotes that your shining helmet of neutrality seems to be made of cheap Chinese tinfoil" humorous, as intended ("haha. I like it. :)" [65]), but now uses it as evidence against me.
  • when I turn User:Mrund's insinuation of pro-FLG editors being similar to banned scientologists, and Colipon's comment "After reading the archives and history here it is a little naive to go on believing that if we keep this group of Pro-FLG users on this page, that it will be possible to improve it. Therefore my opinion is that a "wholesale ban" is more than necessary" [66], into full-blown satire by beginning my reply with a link to a humorous picture that is so overboard that it's clearly a joke, he takes the whole sentence out of context and even claims it is a response to something different, namely to the "commentary from a wide range of editors that the article is poorly written, biased, and whitewashed of any criticism".
Final words[edit]

I find this arbitration enforcement case a real waste of my precious time. I suggest that the ArbCom issues a warning to User:Colipon to prevent him, as well as other like-minded editors, from further misusing the dispute resolution process in the future. Olaf Stephanos 12:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. A lot of accusations were hurled at me in the comments below. I would point out the following:

  • No additional evidence was presented against me, and the Falun Gong "critics" mainly relied on vague rhetorics and spurious claims (such as saying that I favour the Epoch Times or Clearwisdom as sources).
  • The few diffs that they offered merely recycled Colipon's arguments above, or had absolutely nothing to do with the description they gave (for instance, see the link offered by User:Edward130603 that allegedly "turned away a newcomer to the FLG discussions"). My words: "I'm afraid that any discussion on other matters (apart from improving the article) is bound to carry us further away from our goals. It might only lead the regular group of editors to hurl accusations at each other of misrepresenting the difficult issues, i.e. 'whitewashing' or 'denigrating' Falun Gong."
  • A perfectly matching description of the 'wikilawyering' allegations can be read here: Wikipedia:Wikilawyering#Misuse of the term. Their offenses are not argumentative, but generalising and dismissive. Instead of producing evidence, the term is used as a mere shortcut to some unidentified behaviour.
  • Being the defendant in an arbitration enforcement case, and in light of the patent frivolousness of the "evidence", I find this comment extremely bizarre: "I believe his targeting of Colipon in this way is to create wriggle-room for himself and his fellow FG practitioners/advocates."
  • User:Vecrumba's comment was attributed to the RSN, and a link was given: "See the discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard." [67] Looking at the thread, there is no way anybody could interpret these as my words.
  • Looking at the talk pages of the editors who have excoriated me, it appears they have exchanged e-mails outside Wikipedia and discussed their tactics in this arbitration enforcement case. See the following comments:
  • Seb az86556 on Ohconfucius' talk page: "you did well in keeping the this Olaf-guy at bay, and I can see now why the Falun Gong thing you emailed about will be "total war"..." [68]
  • Colipon on Edward130603's talk page: "Anyway, do you have e-mail?" [69]
  • Colipon on Mrund's talk page: "I'd sent you an e-mail today. Please check! :)" [70]
  • Ohconfucius on Mrund's talk page: "I'm glad you're back. Drop me an email, I'd like a private chat with you." [71]
I will take no stance on whether such behaviour is inappropriate; I just want to make sure that the ArbCom is aware of it.

Olaf Stephanos 08:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors[edit]

  • Olaf's style in discussions is extremely hostile and supercilious. He constantly works to present Falun Gong in a positive light, justifying his POV-pushing edits with endless wikilawyering. He hardly touches any non-FG articles though, which means that a topic block and a complete block would amount to the same thing. Either would be most welcome. I support Colipon's suggestion. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment by PerEdman I can't get my head around this editor. He occasionally inserts quirky comments into ongoing discussions where it's very unclear to me what he's trying to say, but if I try to ask for clarification, I get more of the same. He would also post long ..harangues with multiple references to more or less relevant policy or guidelines without specifying how he believes those references are relevant. I would classify this style as disruptive to the constructive discussions of the talk page, making consensus-building very difficult. I have believe I have seen a propensity to more strongly oppose the inclusion of anything potentially critical of Falun Gong, than he opposes the inclusion of anything positive, sometimes even when dealing with a single author/source who has both positive and negative comments on Falun Gong. His arguments against such sources are occasionally contradictory or irrelevant. PerEdman (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Clarification: If this were any other article, I would suggest no action taken. But the articles in which this author is active are on probation, which for me puts the behavior over the limit of acceptance. PerEdman (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pretty much a compilation of distortions are what I see in what User:Colipon presents above. I am not getting into even trying to refute them point by point. Looking into individual diffs, the larger context of the edits, their sourcing, etc., ought to convince the evaluating admin(s) that these are legitimate edits and the majority positive, highly sourced, well-written contributions to the wikipedia project. Further, these distortions are are based on stuff nit-picked from the user's contributions which span a couple of years at least. I request admins to kindly evaluate things in depth and, if found necessary, to please let User:Colipon and a few other users running this campaign of attack against editors know of its inappropriateness. Also, I see the user making an allegations against me as well claiming that I "show very little respect for any users who wish to bring balance to articles, hurling ad hominem accusations and personal attacks." I request admins to please go through my comments[72][73][74] on the talk of the article and judge for themselves how my interaction with other editors on the topic have been. If colipon's allegation is found baseless, kindly urge user Colipon to refrain from repeatedly making such attacks.Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • What is there to say, really? This is a content dispute. I am sure in the time to come, given the current editing on the pages, that there will be real Arbitration Enforcement cases brought to the committee. Yesterday's blatant violation of the WP:BRD model springs to mind, where one third (about 20kb) of the article was blanked with no consensus, then reverted several times, until the page was locked. I was going to make some remarks about Martin and PerEdman's responses, but I suppose there's no use.--Asdfg12345 13:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment by Edward130603 I agree with Peredman and Martin. Olaf is a single-purpose account who often uses satirical comments to mock and confuse his opponents. For example, recently, his comments have turned away a newcomer to the FLG discussions as you can see here, [75]. User:Seb az86556 who has just followed the discussion for barely 24 hours. Olaf constantly uses these tactics to keep Wikipedia showing FLG in a positive light.--Edward130603 (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment by HappyInGeneral This is Wikipedia so there are some rules. The first I would like to mention is WP:NPA. Now I would not even like to mention who started it (although I guess a much better case could be easily built against Colipon, PCPP, Bobby Fletcher, Martin Rundkvist, etc...) yes, this is stroked through because if we would go on this route we would do nothing else but fuel WP:NPA and generate a destructive editing environment and that is BAD!, because it's much more important to see who is keeping it alive. With this in mind I would prefer if our mediator User:Vassyana and/or some of the uninvolved editors like: User:John Carter‎‎, User:Maunus, User:Richardshusr (who are also administrators, with some recent edit history on the talk pages), would issue warnings with notes, basically educating each user who they notice that is engaging in personal attacks (or reply's with other personal attacks to a personal attack), making them thus aware, that yeah, this can actually be seen as a personal attack, so better refrain from it and better foster a consensus based building of the articles, like one that is suggested here, and which basically would come to ease the WP:BRD process. As I see it what Colipon did here is just another example of WP:NPA by misusing evidence, proven by Olaf above, to influence the ongoing content dispute. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment by Seb az86556 Since I was mentioned in one of the above comments, I feel obliged to give my own view. On the one hand, this user's comments have not "turned me away;" I am merely not into sitting here 24/7 answering every personalized comment thrown at me since the time I have completed kindergarten. Having said that, I have been witness to a style of argumentation and evasion that quickly borders on what is maybe not personal "attacks" but rather personal discrediting in the manner of who-are-you-and-what-do-you-know-anyways. The fact that the user discribes himself as a "demanding opponent" (see above) can be taken as either confidence or arrogance. As for his self-cited "knowledge of the policies and guidelines," I can testify that even though I followed this tit-for-tat spiel for barely 2 days, it has become obvious to me that the user frequently insists on legalistic wikilawyering, which can at times, no doubt, be warranted, but can at other times be disruptively abused as a form of filibuster. In addition, the user insists on bringing in "uninvolved editors" but brands anyone new to the talkpage as involved or partisan within a matter of just a few short hours. This fate is likely to strike anyone who wishes to join the discussion, and this tactic makes any attempt to neutralize the environment futile. As I said in the beginning, I am not quick to leave because of one or two remarks, but others might be, and in the interest of bringing some neutral voices to the editing-process and in the interest of wikipedia, this has got to stop, no doubt. As I see it, this report was filed in order to find out how. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment by Ohconfucius:Fully endorse Seb's commemts directly above. Olav has proudly admitted that he instigated the Arbcom case which removed his dedicated but not so clever opponent Samuel Luo, giving Falun Gong devotees a free run of Wikipedia. Olav seems to be implying that a CCP-led assault on FG is happening again, and is trying to discredit Colipon whilst trying to claim all the good faith for himself. The reality which he finds uncomfortable, is that several editors with solid track records (thus a lot harder for him to discredit than just Colipon alone) on other articles have seen the problems with the FG family of articles, and appear to be out to correct the problem. I believe his targeting of Colipon in this way is to create wriggle-room for himself and his fellow FG practitioners/advocates.

    I stopped editing Falun Gong family of articles back in the third quarter of 2008 because I was stressed out by the single purpose accounts running around which were hell bent on giving Falun Gong a whitewash with added peroxide. I was one person fighting three or four dedicated followers, and that was before I had any experience dealing with him (Olav). Now that several 'rational' WP editors have reacted to this blatant point pushing by Falun Gong, I am not going to take a back seat. This edit encapsulates the problem well: "I will be here keeping you in check, and there is no way to get rid of me, because I know what I'm doing. I know how dispute resolution works, what are my rights as an editor, and what kind of behaviour entails punishment. I'm not going to burn myself, nor is there anything in my edit history that would incriminate me." He categorically states that he knows the system inside-out, and implied he will will outsmart any editor/enforcer out to get him. His biggest weakness, IMHO, is his arrogance and his propensity to make personal attacks. Olav is a wikilawyer par excellence- His attempts to sidestep allegations of personal attacks by saying he was quoting someone else is just gutless; saying he was exercising "humour" or "satire" are just lamentable tactics where ownership of words typed out on his own keyboard suddenly morphs into someone else's when his balls are on the block. Note how, all of a sudden, User:Vecrumba (and not he) now said to Colipon that Rick Ross was "his own self-contained cottage industry". All WP editors know the importance of attribution.

    Brevity is the enemy of the Falun Dafa – it's a common tactic by Falun Gong editors to demand that everything be sourced to the hilt; they resist any attempt at removing text which praises or defends FG because it is sourced, and it soon becomes a tug of war as to which side is capable of flooding the article with enough sourced coatracks, creating undue emphasis. The other side of the two-pronged approach is to discredit sources offering the opposing viewpoint. In one sentence, Olav objects to sourcing James Randi's comments to his blog on the grounds that it is a WP:SPS, and then he happily defends citing Clearwisdom (CW) or The Epoch Times (ET) when it suits him (as if these latter were highly respected sources and not SPS). Incidentally, FG devotees apply arguments to Xinhua that they ought to be applying with the same fervour to CW or ET; needless to say, they don't. The Falun Gong machine churns out numerous "studies", "reports" – which are hard to match for any editor in competition to add text from reliable sources – and the FG editors manage quite successfully to sideline criticism through a liberal application of WP:UNDUE. I would add that the misuse of sources and the use of ironic quotes is endemic. My allegations of misquoting of sources is from personal experience; these are however easy to sidestep because it's the encyclopaedia which 'anyone can edit'. I am not saying that Olav is directly responsible for all the above, but think it important that Arbs realise the general unhealthy climate which exists in FGverse, and the game which is being played out within these servers.

    These two edits and this revert are another example of the FG approach. The allegations have been found to be somewhat wanting in hard fact, yet the Dafa continues to voice opposition to it (as if this opposition is sufficient to render the accusations valid) - this goes with the maxim: 'you throw quantities of mud often enough, and some of it is bound to stick'. When he failed to repel my reasoned deletion, and to avoid breaching WP:3RR, he inserted this paragraph with no direct relevance, without comment. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment by John Carter - In the comparatively short time I have been involved in the article, Olaf has regularly violated the talk page guidelines, which probably qualifies as disruptive editing as per the Arbitration Committee ruling. He also rather often indicates that he is a practicioner of the movement, indicating a very realistic WP:COI concern. He gives the impression to me, frankly, of a rather boorish college boy who has developed a bit of a following and on that basis thinks he can get away with what he wants. This includes being opposed to content which I belive wikipedia content guidelines demand. I ascribe at least part of this to the fact that based on his editing history, he has never really edited anything which is not related to Falun Gong, and I believe that this lack of understanding of the project here may well be one of his most serious and basic problems. My own history of what some might call leniency regarding bans and blocks is one which might well indicate to others that I believe virtually any editor with a history with the project is someone we would prefer not losing, and this is true. I think Olaf might be one such editor. On that basis, for what little it might be worth, I think that what might be the best option here would be for an indefinite ban to be placed on the subject, which could be reviewed and reconsidered after the editor involved has spent a possibly predetermined length of time involved in working on any content not related to this topic. If over that time he displays improvement in his current problems, which seem to me to be an almost self-righteous arrogance and what I can only call truly appalling interaction with other editors, particularly those he disagrees with or dislikes, then the ban might be lifted. It might not be unreasonable to ask of him that he seek a mentor as well. Alternately, if such an arrangement is too complicated, I wouldn't myself have any serious objections to a topic ban of six months or so, with the proviso that should his conduct continue in like manner thereafter the ban be restored. John Carter (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Olaf Stephanos[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Six month topic ban from Falun Gong and related articles. I would suggest that Olaf Stephanos use this time to experience other areas of Wikipedia and focus on calmly and civilly interacting with other editors. If the hostility and POV pushing are not resolved, it is likely that the topic ban will be extended or reinstated. Shell babelfish 16:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

DoingWell and 170.206.224.50[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Request concerning DoingWell and 170.206.224.50[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Cirt (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas [76]

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

  1. 08:29, 9 August 2009 Edit to article David Miscavige, related to Scientology topic, as leader of Church of Scientology
  2. 08:31, 9 August 2009 Edit to WP:BLPN board, in subsection about David Miscavige

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

  1. 07:22, 9 August 2009 Topic ban by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) imposed on 170.206.224.50 (talk · contribs)
  2. 07:22, 9 August 2009 Topic ban by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) imposed on DoingWell (talk · contribs), account associated with 170.206.224.50 (talk · contribs)
  3. 07:25, 9 August 2009 Topic bans of both DoingWell (talk · contribs) and associated IP 170.206.224.50 (talk · contribs), by admin Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs) = logged at WP:ARBSCI case page in Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

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

Additional comments by Cirt (talk):

  • Comment: Violations of topic bans on WP:SPAs and associated SOCKs imposed under WP:ARBSCI should be enforced, or else there is little point in imposing them in the first place. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Cirt (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning DoingWell and 170.206.224.50[edit]

Statement by DoingWell and 170.206.224.50[edit]

Comments by other editors[edit]

This editor did show signs of a pro-scientology advocacy position, but he or she adopted a named account when requested to by other editors, and didn't have that account long enough to do much one way or the other before being topic banned. In other words, while this editor should be alerted to the impropriety of coming in as a single-purpose advocate, I wonder whether there isn't room for a bit more extension of the assumption of good faith when the editor did at least take a step in the right direction. I suggest that the user be offered at least a few more days to demonstrate their fitness or lack of it as named-account editor before issuing a long-term ban. BTfromLA (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not in dispute that the topic ban was already instituted per WP:ARBSCI Single purpose accounts with agendas, at 07:25, 9 August 2009, however the user in question then decided to violate the topic ban anyway, at 08:29, 9 August 2009, and at 08:31, 9 August 2009, despite the fact that the user had been notified on his talk page about the topic ban at 07:22, 9 August 2009. Cirt (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I guess that means he (or she) violated the letter of the law. But the punishment seems a bit too swift and draconian to me... I realize that this is a particularly hot question regarding scientology articles, but I still think folks should be given an ample chance to adjust their edits to the requirements of Wikipedia before they get banned. Doesn't seem like the user in question was allowed time to acclimate. If there is a history with this user that I don't know about, I might change my mind. BTfromLA (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand the point you are making, but this is enforcement of decisions, not review. Even if the ban were wrong, it should be appealed not evaded or dismissed. Unless a very clear consensus changes the topic ban, then the user is topic banned and the only question left is whether the user has violated the topic ban. Cirt (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
To my eyes there doesn't seem to be much real question regarding violation of topic ban. I guess the only question I do have is regarding the nature of the block requested and what his reasons for a block of that length are. John Carter (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning DoingWell and 170.206.224.50[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Blocked, 48 hours. Given the close proximity of the ruling and notification I've chosen not to give a long block, however, if DoingWell doesn't take the hint, I'm sure escalating blocks will follow. Shell babelfish 16:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hudavendigar[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Request concerning Hudavendigar[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

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

  1. First revert
  2. Second revert, which was a revert of this edit, [81]

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

  1. [82]
  2. [83]
  3. [84]
  4. [85]

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Given Hudavendigar's numerous blocks, his propensity to simply label all those who oppose him as deluded individuals who are hellbent on defaming the name of the Republic of Turkey, and his attempts to equivocate and falsify the historical record of the Armenian Genocide with the use of unreliable sources, perhaps a topic ban on Armenian-Turkish articles is warranted here, if not another lengthy block.

Additional comments by Marshal Bagramyan (talk):
It might be helpful to administrators to understand the sort of atmosphere Hudavendigaar is fomenting on Wikipedia. On the talk page of the Van Resistance article, most recently, he left the following message, apparently because it does not conform to his views: "This article, like many others Armenian nationalists and extremists got their hands on, has become so propagandistic, it is comical, and I will try to contain myself from correcting it or balancing. It should stand as a monument to Armenian self-deception. It is entertaining actualy. Not a single mention of the fate of the Muslim inhabitants of Van for example. A whole ethnic war rages, city's Turkish population is decimated, ethnically cleansed, but not single word is left about them in this pathetic article. Nice!"

Attempts to discuss his controversial edits, which are supported by otherwise highly partial and unreliable sources, are met by other editors with scorn, impropriety and absolutely useless statements such as the aforementioned quotation, as well as the following: "You need to stop foaming at the mouth and limit the discussion to facts here. Removing all that you do not imporve [sic] is not a way to defend facts, one does that only to protect propaganda. The very fact that we are having this so-called discussion here is the reason the tag is there in the first place" [86]. Recently, he has been creating new articles, with all the usual nonsense that is found on (usually Turkish-sponsored) websites and blogs denying the historical reality of the Armenian Genocide (e.g., see the wording on Armenia used here)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Notification to Hudavendigar

Discussion concerning Hudavendigar[edit]

Statement by Hudavendigar[edit]

I actually had to read this a few times to understand exactly what I was in violation of. The restriction placed on me by an admin over a year ago states:

"any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions"

Concerning this particular revert, it simply restored a whole section and paragraph, which was fully referenced and rather devoid of any inflamatory description or language, that an editor (who has been also following me on these pages) simply deleted without any cause and explanation or discussion. The deletion itself violated numerous Wikipedia rules and policies.

I am at a loss so as to how I was "uncivil" and "aggressive" in the above matter.

On the other hand one or more of the editors who have stalked me and were on the same list (Meowy), have right in the article in dispute have shown aggressive and hostile attitudes as I will show below.

Deleted section was itself an improvement on a previously deleted version, where I had added actual Armenian sources and references that proved the point about the Armenian rebellions, which is certainly a central element of an article named "Armenian-Turkish Relations". The undo simply restored a version that I had edited last, and did not erase or undo any other editor's contribution.

As such I did not think it was in violation of any restrictions put on myself. In retrospect, it seems it was an intentional trap that I should have avoided.

For many months, maybe a dozen different versions of this paragaraph I had edited, with extensive archival research and back up, have been wholesale deleted. Repeatedly. Now, that is what is "uncivil" and "aggressive" in any book.

Never taken to arbitration by the way!

Every time I had improved it, and still met the same fate. It seems those who complain about me here are subject to a different set of Wikipedia rules.

In general though, in the short time I had contributed to Wikipedia, a short list of editors, have continued to stalk and revert almost any contribution I have made. It is a well know group, and contrary to the claims against me above, I have been the party abused, stalked, harassed, insulted as shown below:

Your lies are just going to get reversed. Don't you have anything better to do with your time? Meowy 21:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The NY times citation is a fake, there is no such article (all NY times reports for that period are available online, and nothing for Bitlis exists for that date). ... Meowy 02:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC) (It is not!)

BTW, reading that http://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/Niles_and_Sutherland.pdf the initial feelings are one of amusement and astonishment that someone could come up with such breathtaking lies.

All you seem interested in doing is inserting out-and-out lies into articles, using as "sources" extreme nationalist Turkish propaganda. Little wonder nobody chooses to engage constructively with you. Meowy 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

More skillful propagandists of Hudavendigar's ilk realise that in some articles it is better to let sleeping dogs lie. However, he has chosen to awaken this article, so let's now tear him apart by telling in the article the full horror of the history he wishes to rewrite and whitewash. Meowy 20:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You're like a broken record. Stop removing sources and replacing verifiable info with your Turkish fairy tales about rebellions and revolts; people have warned you enough times already and you're still acting like the village idiot.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You, as well as most other users, know that's a blatant lie. ....--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

...Litteracy of denialists did not changed since Ataturk. Only changed was denialists become more uncivilized, as they become more illiterate. The book you are using (you did not even use the facts inside the book) is full of crap. I bet, You "User:Hudavendigar" did not spend your single "dime" on it, a by product of illiteracy. I bet you have not even read it. You can not tell us what is stated in the page 20 at the 3th paragraph. If this book is the proof of your lie (you claim: "I am not forcing any conclusions" without adding any facts), you are supporting the title of a book without even reading it. --Seemsclose (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"Editor Murat, the main culprit for this article's lamentable state, has inserted and reinserted a section titled "Armed Armenian Revolts Against Ottoman Rule", which is full of fabrications. There were no "Armed Armenian Revolts Against Ottoman Rule"". Meowy 01:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"your 6Dec post is a POV diatribe that could have come from a card carrying MHP fanatic"..."Your Turkish nationalist propaganda sources"... "straight from a Turkish propaganda website"..."Murat's obscene misuse of the word "revolt""..."which is actually a tawdry pack of lies" Meowy 01:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This level of harassment, intimidation, ethniclally charged slurs and insults have been continuous and frankly I had so far received little protection from various admins I have raised this with. I am not some irresponsible editor intent on spreading fabrications and instigating edit wars. I have utmost respect for truth, whatever color it is. I have never included any material that is not true and backed by proper references. If that was the case, someone would have challenged them properly. So far no one did. I have always responed to every criticism and complaint by improving my edits and providing back up, hoping, maybe naively, truth will prevail. Same with this particular article.

This seems to be main reason why it is so important to this group that I am silenced here.

I have also noticed in the history of this article that any editor not part of this activist group or who has dared to contribute in any way contradicting the general pov slant of the the piece has been reversed and intimidated away.

If my edits were "all lies", then it should have been taken to an impartial panel or admin and let the facts stand and lies fall, instead of deleting it incessantly and hoping the paragraph and the editor will disappear.

Comments by other editors[edit]

  • His last block was for a whole week, another block isn't going to change much. A topic ban is in order.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 17:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think admins should protect those controversial articles and urge users to find a consensus. Otherwise this edit wars will not stop. Both parties are pushing their own POVs, and blocking them will not help us to find a solution to this problem. I hope everybody understands what I mean. --Turkish Flame 05:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Hudavendigar[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Blocked for one month. Clear violation of 1RR restriction. I have also left a message to the user indicating I would be willing to change the block to a lengthy topic ban (likely 6 months) if they have interest in editing any other areas of Wikipedia. Shell babelfish 08:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
PS. Next time you report someone who's been put on 1RR please mention that in the description; the AA log is huge so helpful pointers will make things go more smoothly. Thanks! Shell babelfish 08:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Dbrisinda[edit]

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

Request concerning Dbrisinda[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Enric Naval (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary_sanctions

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

  1. [87][88][89][90] adding POV tag and re-adding after several editors reverted and said in the talk page that there is no basis for the tag
  2. [91] JeanandJane also restored the tag once

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

  1. [92] Warning by Brunton (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
topic ban or something that stops the disruption.

Additional comments by Enric Naval (talk):
For JeanandJane (talk · contribs), the decision requires that an uninvolved admin gives him a warning in his talk page with a link to the discretionary sanctions decision), so please someone make the honors.

Both editors started placing the POV tag and arguing for it when they failed to convince other editors of their proposed changes. Both editors have been pushing flawed interpretations of sources and cherry picking sources for weeks now in Talk:Homeopathy, to the point where good faith fails and one starts suspecting pure naked POV advocacy. JeanandJane already displayed this behaviour in Talk:Oscillococcinum. Both editors try to squeeze every positive remark from sources beyond reasonable limits while ignoring the equivalent negative sources, which goes against WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT.

Notice that this article has seen heavy edit warring, advocacy and POV pushing in its talk page the past, in addition to edit wars in the article with POV tags.

P.D.: talk page has had 150 comments in the last 4 days, with many different topics conflated together instead of being in separate sections.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Discussion concerning Dbrisinda[edit]

Statement by Dbrisinda[edit]

Comments by other editors[edit]

This appears to be a straightforward WP:3RR violation, but without more, doesn't seem to me conduct that rises to the level of Arbitration Enforcement. —Whig (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is not even a 3RR violation. (Only 3 edits in total to the page in 24 hours, and only 3 reverts at all on the page by this user.) This is simply continued biting against an intelligent and competent new user who threatens to disturb the (improved, but still unduly anti-homeopathic) status quo at the homeopathy article. The first act was when on the first day that he edited the article some of his edits were reverted with the completely unfounded claim that he was a sockpuppet of Dr.Jhingaadey. It continued with an SPI, ANI, and now he is being dragged here. This is disgusting. I would say it's immoral, but I know Enric a bit better and suspect it's just carelessness. Hans Adler 19:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You're correct, the first time he added the POV tag was not a revert. —Whig (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
@Hans, you mean Wikipedia:ANI#DanaUllman? That one is about banning DanaUllman, not about these two editors. I think that the SPI case is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dr.Jhingaadey? It only mentions one IP, so I guess that Brangifer realized that Dbrisinda was not a sock. Has there been a new thread somewhere? This is getting difficult to follow. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Enric, I understand you couldn't know this. BullRangifer seriously screwed this up: He suspected (plausibly, as I now agree) that Dr.Jhingaadey edited under a certain IP, and very implausibly that he also edited as Dbrisinda. He tried to create an old-style checkuser request and was confused that it didn't work. It didn't occur to me to check for this error, so I commented there without noticing the problem. My comment led him to seriously refactor the report, removing all references to Dbrisinda.[95] Then someone showed him the proper place at SPI. As a result, the original report concerning Dbrisinda isn't even in the history of the SPI. Hans Adler 01:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand how this could happen, since I have made similar mistakes when trying to catch reincident sockmasters, like NisarKand and Beh-nam (in Afghanistan-Pakistan articles), getting two innocent editors accused while trying to nail down all the socks from Nrcprm20260 (in Cold Fusion). I really need to fine-tune my sock-sensing sense since this annoys mightly the incorrectly accused users. Anyways, this is unrelated to the matter at hand: Talk:Homeopathy becoming a battleground since these two editors entered the fray. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Since these two editors have done nothing meriting Arbitration Enforcement, your bringing the matter here is really evidence of your own battleground mentality, in my opinion. Neither of them have engaged in bad behavior. —Whig (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
To be fair, I think Enric doesn't have a battle ground mentality so much as an idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:TALK and unusually low tolerance for chaotic discussions. Hans Adler 19:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
True, and I should not comment on another editor's state of mind. I'd rather say though that this AE request is not well considered. —Whig (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
There has been a lot of pointless edit warring over tags, so I think a 1RR for tags could be considered. PhilKnight (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Would you seriously consider imposing a 1RR penalty on a new editor? —Whig (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
General comments: I am of the same mind as PhilKnight. Edit warring over an article tag has to be one of the most counter-productive, silly actions a Wikipedian could undertake in the mainspace. Ideally, tagging should not be a Big Deal: if you tag an article and are reverted, then open a discussion on the talk page. If consensus there supports the tag, then fine, re-add it (and subsequently take steps to remedy the underlying weaknesses in the article); if no consensus is garnered, then just tackle the underlying problem—a tag is hardly needed to do that. (I am here delicately ignoring the issue of persons who uses article tags in order to damage a given topic or subject's reputation.) I would happily place any article that is the subject of a tagging war on a 1RR-for-tagging (edits made as a result of consensus-building discussion excepted, of course) restriction, and/or ban any user who engages in a tagging revert war from the parent subject area. AGK 17:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Disclaimer: I admire Dbrisinda 's edits: S/he has great ability in analysis, s/he is precise, s/he has clarity and demonstrates a rare kind of higher intelligence which combines sense, sensibility, honesty and nobility. This kind of refinement is rare - not only in Wikipedia -and I think that all editors ( regardless of their point of view ) should recognize and appreciate. If "edit warring over an article tag is one of the most counter-productive, silly actions a Wikipedian could undertake in the mainspace" it certainly requires two sides to make it happen. I did not see any comment about the other side. The problem is that the current dispute on the neutrality of the article is not recognized as such by the anti homeopathy editors. From their point of view Homeopathy is debunked by scientific evidence and the editors who disagree with this view are simply homeopathy's advocates. The reality is very different if someone bothers to read the unreadable talk page and check the mainstream journals and reliable sources which describes the topic as controversial. The only fair solution is to protect the page with the neutrality dispute tag as long the dispute lasts and not trying to ban the editors who think that the article is biased. In short, Dbrisinda, as a new editor read the wiki policy about the dispute tags and concluded correctly that the situation requires it. --JeanandJane (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
An option that's perhaps worth considering is imposing a 1RR restriction for tags on the article, instead of on a specific editor. PhilKnight (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

All of this seems quite silly to me. When a new editor tries to fix a perceived problem and the edit is reverted, and when subsequent discussions don't end in consensus, it's perfectly normal to put a dispute tag on the article. If you think about it, it must be quite surprising for a new editor that drawing attention to a bona fide dispute can even be considered disruptive. This only makes sense once you understand that in Wikipedia we don't solve disputes as they arise, but instead we let them smoulder until one side gets banned or loses through a technicality such as bad behaviour. A new editor can't know this. I certainly didn't know this when I made this mistake at a language related article in my first month here.

Punishing Dbrisinda for falling into this common trap is not OK. And a general 1RR for dispute tags is also not appropriate because it would only give the stronger party in this dispute a tool to get new members of the weaker party into serious trouble for innocently breaking a surprising technicality. Hans Adler 22:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As a general comment, I think it would be helpful for people whose primary or sole focus is on homeopathy to branch out and explore the encyclopedia a bit. First of all, it provides useful perspective and insight on how this place works. It's not healthy for one's introduction to Wikipedia to be on a deeply controversial article like homeopathy, where there is a preponderance of poor role models. Also, the long history of abusive editing there, and the discretionary sanctions in place, mean that a newcomer is likely to be cut less slack than they would elsewhere. Secondly, it's essential for one's sanity to occasionally visit uncontroversial corners of the project. Third, given the lengthy and unfortunate history of single-purpose agenda accounts at homeopathy, it's probably worthwhile to demonstrate that one has some interest in the project beyond simply promoting a specific narrow view of homeopathy. Just my 2 cents. MastCell Talk 23:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved admin go to JeanandJane's talk page and place a link to the discretionary sanctions? --Enric Naval (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have done so ([96]). MastCell Talk 06:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Dbrisinda[edit]

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

Arbitration Enforcement request in the Sathya Sai Baba article[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request Concerning Activist Editing[edit]

Previous Arbitration Case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2

User requesting enforcement:
Radiantenergy Radiantenergy (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:

Sanction or remedy that these user violated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Conflict_of_interest

  • On August 5th 2009 I removed the BLP violating material as per RS recommendation here [97] from the article. [98]. Following that I had seen strong opposition by the above Anti Sai Baba activist. User:ProEdit edit-warred and added back the BLP violating material inspite of knowing that its as per the WP:RS recommendation here [99]
So far I asked for help from 2 administrators [100], [101] with no results. I have come here hoping for some help in implementing WP:RS recommendations and to stop Activist from hindering the BLP fixes to the article.

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

User:Andries: User:Andries was banned from the Sathya Sai Baba article due to his WP:COI. He is allowed to write in Sathya Sai Baba talk page. He misused this and wrote comments in WP:RS Sathya Sai Baba discussion forums.
User:Andries opposed the WP:RS recommendation in the talk page and also removed the 'Resolved' tag from the WP:RS discussion and wrote comments challenging the conclusions of other wikipedians in the WP:RS.
  • Andries edits removing the Resolved Tag here - [102],
  • Andries comments challenging WP:RS decision about removing BLP violating material here -
[103]
[104]
[105]
I have a question? Is User:Andries allowed to write his views in the Reliable source noticeboard discussions inspite of his WP:COI?
User:ProEdits: I looked at his userpage and contributions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ProEdits. In 'Robert Priddy' talk page discussions he used the first person pronoun "I" meaning he is Robert Priddy. Robert Priddy is a well known Anti Sai Baba activist in the web. If he is Robert Priddy why is he allowed to editwar in the Sathya Sai Baba article and talk page?
  • User:ProEdits due to his WP:COI editwarred and added back BLP violating material [106] there by he violated the remedies of the Second Arbitration. He also added his strong opposition to removing the BLP violating material from the article here - [107].
User:Ombudswiki:
  • User:Ombudswiki has been writing extensively telling other editors what they have to do in the Sathya Sai Baba article. His user page says he is 'Brian Steel'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ombudswiki. 'Brian Steel' is another well known Anti Sai Baba activist in the web who has negative attack page criticising Sathya Sai Baba. User:Ombudswiki edits and contributions fixing 'Brian Steel' website links in the Sathya Sai Baba article [108], [109] and his repeated recommendation to use Dale Beyerstein book (though declared unreliable in RS) to other editors in talk page [110] and his other contributions convinces me that he is likely to be the same Brian Steel. Being an Anti Sai Baba activist I don't see how Brian Steel will let other editors fix BLP issues in this article with out conflict.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Activist_editing

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

I request either topic ban or other sanctions other sanction) for these activist for editwarring and removing BLP violating material from the article due to their WP:COI. With out the arbitration enforcement on these activist I don't see how the WP:BLP issues in the Sathya Sai Baba article can ever be fixed.

Additional comments by Radiantenergy (talk):

I would sincerely appreciate if some one could look at this case. I am fed up fighting with one activist after another with WP:COI in trying to implement a RS recommendation. At the same time BLP issues have to be fixed in the article. We cannot leave BLP violating material in the article simply beacuse its opposed by the activist. I would like to remove the BLP violating material as per WP:RS recommendation with out going into edit-war with these activist. I am just frustrated seeing how difficult it is to fix the BLP issues in this article. Letting well known activist edit Sathya Sai Baba related articles and talk pages is not only against core wikipedia principles but also is against the remedies proposed by second arbitration rulings. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: I notified all the 3 editors who are involved in this case here [111], [112], [113]

Radiantenergy (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

General discussion concerning the enforcement request with respect to Sathya Sai Baba[edit]

I see some serious problems here. The original RS question posted by radiantenergy had serious factual inaccuracies. It was misleading and inaccurate.

Andries pointed out many of these problems, but they never really got corrected or even properly discussed.

The question being asked is really a BLP policy question rather than a source reliability question. radiantenergy refused to consider raising the question on the BLP noticeboard.

While Andries may have a COI, radiantenergy seems unconcerned with factual accuracy, downplaying the difference between a California superior court - the lowest level of state court - and the California Supreme Court.

So, in my opinion, the original RS question posted by radiantenergy is fundamentally flawed and should be ignored. Sanctions on the basis of it would be ridiculous. Bhimaji (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bhimaji, You may not agree with me on all issues. Of course everybody is entitled to their opinion. Regarding BLP violating material it was discussed by very respected experienced wikipedians in the WP:RS where they concluded that BLP violating material has to be removed from the article. We always try to implement WP:RS recommendation in the BLP articles no matter who objects it. This is not just a discussion about BLP violating material but its more serious issue about well known 'Anti Sai Baba' activist popular on the web editing the Sathya Sai Baba article and talk page. This is not only a serious violation of the Wikipedia's core principles but as well as violation of the second arbitration remedy of 'Conflict of Interest' mentioned in the above discussion. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
You started the WP:RS discussion with inaccurate and factually incorrect claims. You mislead the WP:RS noticeboard. This is not about opinions, it is about basic facts. It doesn't matter how experienced the Wikipedeans were; if they didn't know the facts then the conclusions are unsafe. Bhimaji (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Bhimaji, there were no factual incorrect claims. The cout name was immediately changed in the WP:RS even before the main discussion started. I will recommend you to read the WP:RS discussion again as you were not involved in this discussion. Its easy to miss the main details of the long WP:RS discussion. Again here the case is about Activist editing. From your perspective its clear that you don't care about Activist editing the Sathya Sai Baba related articles. But this is a serious violation of Wikipedia core principles and cannot be allowed. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Stop, plese. This discussion does not belong here. We only concern ourselves with arbitration enforcement.
  • I request you not to close this case - I have looked at only a few of these activist contributions so far and I need some time atleast another day or two to look at all their contributions so that I can present the case as you requested above. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Andries, ProEdits and Ombudswiki[edit]

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

Closed without action. The requesting editor has not cited, despite being asked to, an actual remedy or sanction by the Arbitration Committee that has been violated and that administrators can enforce. The principles cited in arbitration cases are not, by themselves, subject to arbitration enforcement because they are just restatements of general policy or practice. This means that this dispute is unsuited for this forum. To the extent that this is a dispute about the application of WP:RS, please use WP:DR.  Sandstein  05:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Dailycare[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request concerning Dailycare[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Ynhockey (Talk) 23:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions

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

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modi%27in_Illit&diff=308550197&oldid=308217125 (random example)
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modi%27in_Illit&action=history (history)
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ma%27ale_Adumim&action=history (history)

The user is engaging in tendentious editing by constantly inserting controversial material on which there is no consensus to the article, despite the discussing being active. The user posts a message on talk, after which he makes pretty much the same edit (with slightly different wording) every time. The user has not been notified of this case (WP:ARBPIA) as far as I am aware, but has been notified that his edits are disruptive.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADailycare&diff=304713870&oldid=303924476 – original warning (might be slightly harsh) before the user joined the discussion on the talk page. No other warnings have been given.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
According to the text of the remedy, he should be warned and if this does not help, eventually blocked.

Additional comments by Ynhockey (Talk):
Just another reminder that the content dispute is not the issue here, and I hope that the content dispute with the user is settled on the talk page, which has an ongoing discussion.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Discussion concerning Dailycare[edit]

Statement by Dailycare[edit]

Comments by other editors[edit]

I don't know anything about Dailycare's editing, and Ynhockey may well be right about it; I don't want to interfere with the report as such. However, one of the examples of the tendentious editing is this. As far as content goes, Daily Motion is correct. It is not only "opponents" who regard Israeli settlements as illegal, but everyone other than successive Israeli governments, the settlers, and their supporters. This issue has been dealt with many times on Wikipedia over the last few years, and the outcome has always been that we should frame the issue the way most reliable sources do, including the UN. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin! I ask you to please keep the content dispute off this page and comment on Talk:Modi'in Illit if you have an opinion on the content. If you see a conduct issue with my edits, or those of Dailycare, please feel free to comment on that. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I suppose it's quite difficult to separate the content issue from the behavioral one, because no one should be adding material that goes against the view of practically all reliable sources on the issue. If we give equal space to Israel on the one hand, and practically all governments on the other, as you seem to want to, as though it's just a question of differing but equally valid views, we're violating NPOV, V, and to some extent NOR. Can you show where Dailycare's edits have crossed the line into becoming tendentious? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem with Dailycare's edits, as I pointed out earlier, isn't the content dispute, which is a separate issue. It's the fact that he makes edits that he knows do not have consensus while the talk page discussion is still ongoing. This is not just tendentious, but disruptive editing. Several users have reverted him (especially myself), but none of us have introduced new controversial content or made any controversial change for that matter (except reverting Dailycare). I have personally made a very serious compromise (IMO, anyway) on the content, but this is, again, the content issue, which is quite easy to separate from the behavioral issue. When a user seeks to make a controversial change in an article, it's their job to attain consensus for the change, not everyone else's job to attain consensus that the change doesn't need to be made. That's how all processes on Wikipedia work, like requested moves for example, where no consensus defaults to the original version, not the proposed change. Same with XfD, etc. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, just speaking of that one issue, that edit does have consensus—wiki-wide consensus, as it's an issue that has been discussed many times in the past. It can't be overturned by a small number of editors on the talk page, because it's based on NPOV and V. His edit is not even slightly controversial; yours is.
My only concern about Dailycare is that he turned up out of the blue in June this year and is editing only sporadically, but then that applies to a number of other I/P accounts too, all of whom should be checkusered in my view—in fact, I'm fast coming to the view that everyone editing I/P articles should be randomly checkusered, but that's no doubt beyond the scope of this report. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I would very much like to hear your opinion on the legality of Modi'in Illit and Ma'ale Adumim, but this is not the place to discuss that. Please post something at Talk:Modi'in Illit. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I am baffled by this edit just made by you. You have not only not discussed it, but also made it at a time when a related behavioral dispute is ongoing (this AE case). This is not really nice of you, and if you wish to get involved, for the 3rd time I invite you to the talk page.Ynhockey (Talk) 00:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I had already commented on talk when you posted the above. [114] The point is you're forcing people to re-argue the same issue on the talk page of multiple Israeli settlements, telling them the edits violate SYN because the sources don't specifically name that settlement, and telling them they violate LEAD because it's UNDUE. With respect, that is arguably tendentious editing. You've reverted entirely, or removed from the lead, or rephrased as "opponents claim," that Modi'in Illit is an illegal settlement seven times since July 27. [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] But the edit is accurate, and clearly it's highly relevant (not UNDUE), given that the presence of the settlements is one of the major obstacles to peace in the area.
I make no comment on any other issue; I've looked only at this one. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Brewcrewer[edit]

I'm not familiar with the underlying tendentious editing issue, but I have a greater concern: This user's first edit included some fancy ref formatting and some fancy block quotes formatting, strong evidence that this user has has a previous account. I guess we can run CU, but a negative result should not make a difference. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LuvGoldStar/Archive stands for the precedent that negative CU results do not make a difference when a user is "obviously" a sockpuppet. Unless of course there's a good reason to distinguish between editors that are seen as pro-Israel and editors that are seen as anti-Israel.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Dailycare[edit]

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

Not actionable. No discretionary sanctions can occur at this time because Dailycare's warning did not include a link to the arbitration decision as required by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions. Moreover, only one actual diff is provided of the allegedly objectionable conduct, and that one diff is on the face of it not disruptive. Any sockpuppet concerns should be discussed at WP:SPI.  Sandstein  05:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Lida Vorig[edit]

Request concerning Lida Vorig[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
--NovaSkola (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

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

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FAzad_Asgarov&diff=308434162&oldid=308434162 (Flagging Azerbaijani Articles, by saying not notable for English wikipedia)
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FBahram_Bagirzade&diff=308435224&oldid=308435224 (another example)

The user is flagging Azerbaijani articles by inserting that, it is not notable in English wikipedia on which there is no consensus to the article, despite the discussing being active. The user flagged at least 10 Azerbaijani articles for no reason, and in six of her Azerbaijan-related AfD nominations today, Russian-language sources were easily located, or were in fact already in the article at the time she nominated it.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALida_Vorig&diff=306433572&oldid=306431464 (notification about editing restrictions by User:Nishkid64)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
According to the text of the remedy, he should be warned and if this does not help, eventually blocked.

Additional comments by NovaSkola:
Just another reminder that the content dispute is not the issue here, and I hope that the content dispute with the user is settled on the talk page, which has an ongoing discussion.

Also user's anti-Azerbaijanism could be traced throught this site, in which clearly states anti-Azerbaijanian view of this user. This user also has same IP http://www.pracuj24www.info/kraj-hy-show-Սպասարկող:Տեղեկամատյան

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lida_Vorig

Discussion concerning Lida Vorig[edit]

Statement by Lida Vorig[edit]

Hi again :)

While browsing, I found some articles that I didn't think meet the WP:NOTABILITY guideline. From a previous experience I knew articles can be deleted, so I searched and found the AFD. User:NovaSkola lists all the articles he created on his page, while he created a lot of notable articles, the 8 in my opinion are not notable.

  • DJ eXe Hosts weekly internet radio show in Baku, where he plays his music.
  • Elşad Xose rapper. Got arrested for heroin use.
  • Kamil Jalilov musician. Toured with a band in the 70's
  • Salakhat Agaev 17 year old goal keeper from Baku
  • Baba Punhan author, biography section of whom is made up from a single sentence. "He served in the military "
  • Geysar Alakbarzadeh single sentence article about a football player in Khazakhstan.
  • Azad Asgarov wrestler with questionable record, mostly supported with self published sources.
  • Bahram Bagirzade was part of some team in Russian TV during the 90's. Note that the team itself doesn't have an article

Since the nomination, Azad Asgarov was proven to be a president of some federation in Azerbaijan. So I would like to withdraw the nomination, but don't know how.

That being said, I really would like to know how this (http://www.pracuj24www.info/kraj-hy-show-Սպասարկող:Տեղեկամատյան) proves that I'm Anti-Azerbaijani and 100% armenian (capitalization belongs to NovaSkola, he seems to have a problem with that word). I keep looking at it, but can't figure out what it is. My name isn't there, my ip address, which NovaSkola claims he traced, isn't there. This is whole experience is just another proof that cleaning up is never easy Lida Vorig (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors[edit]

I'm the editor who first noted these problematic AfDs by Lida Vorig and added them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Azerbaijan. Of a total of 8, IMO there's 5 which are clearly notable, 2 which are borderline, and 1 which seems non-notable. It seems to me that Lida Vorig can also speak Russian [122], so even if these aren't bad-faith nominations, they're a clear example of being unable to follow WP:BEFORE --- my Russian is rather poor and I can't even speak Azeri at all (just have basic conversational knowledge of a distantly-related language written in a different script) but I was able to find at least some sources for almost all of these articles. cab (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  • The links provided in the request are not diffs as described in WP:DIFF. Please provide diffs, or this request may be closed without action.  Sandstein  05:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Fixed". The conduct NovaSkola objected to is the aggressive creation of AfDs with spurious rationales on Azerbaijan-related articles --- diffs seem rather superfluous. Also I added the diff of original warning given to Lida Vorig about the editing restrictions. cab (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I see nothing spurious about the rationales - the nominated articles do seem rather non-notable, imho. I've seen far more notable articles given AfD's. Creating a big list of AfDs at the same time is unwise - it can give rise to suspicion against the nominator, not allow editors to give due consideration to each individual AfD, as well as attracting trolls who will simply methodically go through the list voting "yes" or "no" according to their pov. However, "unwise" does not equal "problematic", and cab's "aggressive creation" claim is surely a wild exaggeration for what is just an editor being overly bold in an editing situation where boldness is not really appropriate. This can be solved by advising Lida Vorig not do it again because it is counter-productive. He/she is a new editor: don't bite the newbies, give them advice. WP:BEFORE should be given as advice and not cited as a reason to impose editing restrictions. I note the complainant's disturbing use of phrases like "anti-Azerbaijanism" and "anti-Azerbaijanian view" - hints that that NovaSkola has an agenda. Nor is there such a thing as an "Azerbaijani article" - they are Wikipedia articles that are related to Azerbaijan, that is all. Meowy 02:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see what's "wild" about describing eight AfDs at once by an editor already on notice about editing restrictions as "aggressive". It seems you're attempting to paint me as another partisan in this ethnic war, which is rather confusing to me as my ancestry is from Southeast Asia and I have no connection to the Caucasus at all. Furthermore, in the past when NovaSkola made equally-biased AfDs on Armenia-related topics like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Armenian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian Brazilian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenians in Greece, etc., I opposed deletion of those too and criticised him for his hastiness in nominating them.
I already advised Lida Vorig about Wikipedia policy [123], specifically WP:NOTENGLISH, but his only response is to keep responding on AfDs with the same denial that Azeri news sources are valid for establishing notability [124][125][126]. And Lida Vorig is not new --- his IP was placed under AA sanctions and blocked in the past for edit warring in this topic area [127].
On the other hand, NovaSkola is not helping matters by creating more AfDs on Armenian articles while this discussion is ongoing, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pailadzo Captanian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raphael Patkanian, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pietro Kuciukian. But I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill with your objection to NovaSkola's phrase "Azerbaijani articles" (you're assuming WP:OWN issues?) First he's not a native English speaker either, and second all the articles are biographies of Azerbaijanis, so they're reasonably described as "Azerbaijani articles" in the same way that Bo Obama is a dog article and Socks Clinton is a cat article. cab (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
O boy, what happened to NovaSkola? That's really childish and immature. I'm gonna stay away from those, I don't want to make matters even worse. Ali, I want to withdraw two of the nominations, how can I do that? Should I just delete the voting page? Lida Vorig (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page. cab (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Cab, I think your use of the phrase "partisan in this ethnic war" is almost as unwise as those more blatant ones made by NovaSkola. It is only you and NovaSkola who are claiming that there is some sort of "ethnic war" element behind these AfDs - actually there is no evidence of this: the deletion nominations were made on the grounds that the articles were non-notable, not that they were to do with Azerbaijan. However, I do think what NovaSkola wanted to imply by using the words "Azerbaijani articles" was that they were the property of Azerbaijanis and so anyone who proposed to remove them was by definition anti-Azeri. Lida Vorig has not been "denying Azeri news sources are valid". He has been making the perfectly valid points that one-off news articles are not in themselves a basis for establishing notability, and an extremely localised notability does not mean notability on a scale that justifies a Wikipedia article. If only such points were more widely accepted, we would see a lot less of the countless, almost empty, pointless stubs that are everywhere on Wikipedia. Meowy 20:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Meowy 20:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Lida Vorig[edit]

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

Mythdon[edit]

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

Request concerning Mythdon[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Motion 2 based on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Mythdon monitoring users' use of Rollback

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

  1. [128] Mythdon undid a rollback I performed for the mere reason that I performed a rollback on that edit. This is in some way a violation of his restrictions within the case.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
"Not applicable."

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Block of some sort, per the case remedies

Additional comments by —Ryūlóng (竜龙):
As I state above, Mythdon only undid the rollback that I performed because it was a rollback, and that is confirmed by his response to me on his user talk.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Discussion concerning Mythdon[edit]

Statement by Mythdon[edit]

If I get blocked for this revert, then I'm perfectly fine with that. Nothing else needed to say, but please look at my talk page. Mythdon (talkcontribs) 03:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors[edit]

Myth did it for more reasons other than it just being a rollback. This is evidenced by his statements on the talk page, and anything saying otherwise is misleading.— dαlus Contribs 03:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Without commenting on a possible remedy, because I haven't looked at the arb case, Ryulong shouldn't have used rollback in that case, it's use is limited to bad faith edits only (vandalism etc). If Ryulong continues to use it like that it will be removed. Mythdon's claim of having previously edited the page, and therefore having it on his watchlist (and not therefore necessarily following Ryulong's edits for the purposes of catching him out like this) is correct, he edited it approximately 3 weeks ago, removing a piece of unreferenced information. Given the history however, Mythdon is far from the best person to undo the rollback by Ryulong, incorrect use of rollback or not. ViridaeTalk 03:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm recused from this case since I presented evidence against Ryulong, but it seems clear Mythdon violated Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong#Motion_2 by edit warrning with Ryulong and not showing better communication skills (discussing the undo beforehand). Also, while I don't think he was directly sanctioned for it, Ryulong seems to have violated the meaning of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong#Ryulong.27s_misuse_of_rollback. Possibly this thread should result in a block on both users. MBisanz talk 05:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    • On the basis of a failure to use rollback correctly despite considerable warning to do so I am removing Ryulong's rollback privileges. Block of both sides is probably warranted per MBisanz. ViridaeTalk 05:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Removal of the rollback privileges on my account is enough of a punishment in this case. No block should be made on my account, as there are no sanctions regarding my use of rollback (as it was removed with my administrative tools). I did nothing else except bring Mythdon's activities to the attention of this board because I felt he was violating the sanctions against him.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Good move on Viridae's part. And if I was not somewhat involved, I would block both of them myself. Tiptoety talk 05:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I still fail to see how any of my activities warrant a block. The removal of the rollback rights should be enough.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Why would you block Ryulong? Mythdon (talkcontribs) 05:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Mythdon[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Ryulongs rollback access removed, he can no longer violate that so per the blocking policy any block now would be punative. Mythdon I have just blocked citing "Arbitration enforcement, reverting edits by Ryulong, general disruptive, combative editing", Basically for ramping up the dispute all over the place and intentionally and disruptively needling Ryulong. ViridaeTalk 05:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Monlonet[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request concerning Monlonet[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Grandmaster 16:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

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

  1. [129] rv without any discussion at talk
  2. [130] rv without any discussion at talk
  3. [131] rv without any discussion at talk
  4. [132] rv without any discussion at talk

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

  1. [133] Warning by Brandmeister (talk · contribs)

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

Additional comments by Grandmaster:
The account of Monlonet is used solely for edit wars, to revert contentious articles such as Duduk and Mount Ararat. On Duduk he already made 4 rvs within the last 2 days, removing sources which he did not like, and making no attempt to discuss his reverts at talk, while telling other users to check the talk, to which he never ever contributed. In addition, he is canvassing, trying to mobilize other users for edit warring. [134] [135] [136]. Tries to exert pressure on users who haven't joined his edit war: [137] Now he joined an edit war at Urartu: [138] and reverted Urartu to the version of 76.232.252.180 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), after the article was semiprotected. That IP is almost identical to 76.232.252.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which is used for canvassing. It is possible that he is related to Zvartnotz2 (talk · contribs), who was engaged in edit warring on the same article about duduk.--Grandmaster 16:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The CU results on this user: [139] It is possible that he is connected to Zvartnotz2 (talk · contribs). See my report on Zvartnotz2 (talk · contribs), which was archived without any action: [140] Grandmaster 08:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It is also interesting that today Zvartnotz2 added an image to his user page, [141], and then removed it: [142], and 1 minute after Zvartnotz2 added the image Monlonet added the same image to his user page, [143] and removed it a few minutes later: [144] It is the same person using 2 accounts. Grandmaster 06:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[145]

Discussion concerning Monlonet[edit]

Statement by Monlonet[edit]

Comments by other editors[edit]

This account is quite close to SPA and has been meatpuppeting recently. Brand[t] 07:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Monlonet[edit]

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

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Interfase[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Request concerning Interfase[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

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

  1. First revert of Tzitzernavank Monastery article
  2. Second revert
  3. Third revert
  4. First revert on Amaras Monastery article
  5. Second revert
  6. Third revert
  7. Fourth revert
  8. Fifth revert
  9. Sixth revert

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

  1. Warning of AA2

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Left to the discretion of administrator. Perhaps a week-long block, or a slight topic ban.

Additional comments by Marshal Bagramyan (talk):


Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[146]

Discussion concerning Interfase[edit]

Statement by Interfase[edit]

Comments by other editors[edit]

Result concerning Interfase[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Edit warring is continuing since this report; since this is the first block, I've made it 48 hours. Shell babelfish 04:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Dilip rajeev[edit]

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

Request concerning Dilip rajeev[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Ohconfucius (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs) has been editing Falun Gong articles (almost exclusively) since February 2006. He has a habit of disappearing (i.e. not editing in article space or talk space) for weeks on end. When he returns, he frequently reverts to the last version he feels comfortable with irrespective of the individual merits of each of the changes because the changes which took place were not to his liking. Such reverts are usually done without due reference to the discussions which have taken place during his absence. Some diffs immediately below, show this modus operandi

  • this one single edit, made following an absence of 12 days, undid 36 intermediate edits made by others during this time.

His habit of making radical reverts is a matter of historical record. Some examples of this tendency are below:

  • This is his first intervention as Diip rajeev since the blocking of Inactive user account. He reverted 43 edits made by others while he was away for 26 days' absence.
  • reverted 44 edits by others in one fell swoop after 7 days' absence

For myself and a number of neutral editors who have joined the Falun Gong wikiproject, Dilip's latest reverts to the 'Self Immolation' and 'Organ harvesting' articles have become the last straw in our tolerance of his disruptive behaviour.

NPOV at Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

The following is a brief history of the significant edits which took place after the article was declared a Good Article through collaborative work by me and User:asdfg12345. The radical changes put through by Dilip rajeev to a good article were all done within a period of about a week, without prior substantive discussion to speak of:

  • This exchange shows clearly how Dilip rajeev railroaded changes against all other opinions, including that of asdfg. The information about the victims deleted was just one of many very overtly biased changes made to the article. That information was sourced from Xinhua in much the same way as Dilip rajeev's stuff sourced from Faluninfo, and has every right to exist in the article. To omit it introduces undue bias. Furthermore, of the material which I "blanked", there was considerable repetition. We only need grouped representative opinions, and there is no rhyme or reason why we need to collect each and everybody's opinion. Below, I have a collection of the significant diffs where the unacceptable bias has been introduced, comments and objections, as well as his accusing EgraS and me of engaging of sockpuppetry:

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

  1. Dilip rajeev block log
  2. Inactive user account 001 block log

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
He is a habitual disruptive editor whose aggressive and partisan edits have been the subject of numerous comments and complaints from other users, including fellow practitioner User:asdfg12345. Dilip rajeev has been warned repeatedly against edit-warring, and has been blocked a number of times - the last time was a 3 month topic ban; prior to that was a block of 55 hours. I believe that, in view of his continued disruption since the topic ban and the total lack of any mitigating collaborative successes, an indefinite ban from Wikipedia editing Falun Gong-related articles or their talk pages. would be in order; he should also be banned from any edit which potentially touches on Falun Gong on the Communist Party of China, Jiang Zemin, Cult suicide, Censorship in the People's Republic of China etc.

A ban on editing Sathya Sai Baba articles should also be considered to minimise Dilip rajeev's disruption to the project overall. As Dilip rajeev appears to possess some less than prudent tendencies, such a move may also safeguard his personal safety and that of his family against the wrath of Baba supporters.

Additional comments by Ohconfucius (talk):[edit]

Background

There is a protracted, large-scale propaganda war between the spiritual movement and the Chinese regime. The polariation makes it much, much harder to deal with, as there are activists on both sides. Both sides use exaggerated 'evidence', borrowed 'experts', sensationalist claims and other forms of propaganda to attack each other. "NPOV" becomes very delicate - as both sides clearly have an agenda against the other, there will be routine disruptions from both sides. No revision of articles is ever stable.

The propaganda war manifested itself on Wikipedia in 2006, with anti-Falun Gong activists and pro-Falun Gong practitioners constantly opposing each other and engaging in disruptive editing. To my knowledge, after arbitration, all of the anti-FLG editors (Sam Luo, Tomanada, etc.) were banished. As a result, since June 2007 and until mediation in July 2009, the Falun Gong family of articles have become unmistakably dominated by pro-Falun Gong activists. These articles all suffer from serious POV issues heavily biased in favour of Falun Gong, and are used as direct advocacy for the Falun Gong movement; users from all backgrounds (including those who are anti-Chinese gov't) have raised concerns - but all have been either discouraged by the drama, or their attempts at other means of dispute resolution have failed.

Conflict of Interest

Dilip rajeev is a Falun Gong practitioner, and edits Falun Gong articles almost exclusively since 2006 along with a team of 3 other very easily identifiable FLG activist editors - asdfg12345 (talk · contribs), Olaf Stephanos (talk · contribs), and HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs). After the ban of Anti-FLG users Sam Luo and Tomanada, this group of Falun Gong practitioners have seemingly taken over all Falun Gong-related articles. All four users, to varying degrees, erase critical content, engage in lengthy advocacy commentary on talk pages, tag-team against other editors. Rajeev in particular shows very little respect for any users who wish to bring balance to articles, by sundry disruptive tactics and tendentious editing. These 1

  • 2 attempts (amongst others) by fellow activist asdfg to rein him in have never had much effect.

In my experience, Rajeev has shown great animosity when non-FG devotees edit this article. There has been a long history of unchecked edit warring, even over the placement of {{NPOV}} tags. Such tags are routinely removed (as here) with not so much as a 'how do you do', as if the contents suddenly become neutral when the tag disappears. Reverts are usually very provocatively done - blind and wholescale, often destroying many intervening edits which have accurate and well-reasoned edit summaries - and any ensuing discussion makes clear that the user is always 'right' and anyone who opposes him 'wrong'. Anything which is sourced from sources he approves of have a right to stay and any sources he disapproves of are "CCP propaganda" or somesuch. Dilip rajeev's tendency to introduce ironic quotes (like here) and weasel words are already mentioned above. Not only is he completely and blindly partisan, Dilip rajeev often expresses points of view which are unique; his style and content introduced have been frowned upon from time to time by most others, and also by asdfg.

In all Falun Gong articles, misrepresentation of sources has been endemic, and these four abovenamed editors are known to back up each other's problematic edits. They occasionally concede when it is clearly demonstrated that misrepresentations exist. However, more often than not, the neutralising revision provokes another flurry of introducing "highly sourced material" ostensibly to 'restore balance', but which usually tilt bias back in favour of Falun Gong; some such introductions give their cause the last word. Adding, removing, restructuring, moving, or otherwise changing any material that appears to upset the pro-FG bias in any of the articles is met with the same tactics.

Dilip rajeev's stated view that nothing from the Chinese authorities is worthy of citing because it is unreliable propaganda demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of what is WP:NPOV. He is known to endlessly pontificate on moral questions, and lawyer around citing paragraphs of WP:RS and WP:NPOV to support whatever position he favours in regards to a certain link or source. He maintains a website which he uses as Falun Gong advocacy. It seems that he passionately believes the persecution of Falun gong practitioners at the hands of the Chinese authorities, and is unable to put these views to one side when he is editing; and when he edits, it is with such great fervour and aggression that leaves little or no place for others who wish to contribute.

  • pontification of 'Persecution of Falun Gong practitioners.
  • Here, he uses moralistic arguments in an apparent defense of denying platform for the "lot of mis-information and lies on Falun Gong" spread by the CCP
  • again here
  • In this edit, he apparently argues "highly sourced" is sufficient to achieve WP:NPOV
  • here is another example.

I would add that the above edits from the 'self-immolation' article demonstrate a pattern of behaviour which can be seen throughout his editing in FGverse. Whilst there is nothing inherently wrong with inserting text favouring one viewpoint, to continue to do so and to ignore the other viewpoints (and all those who support it) when an article manifestly lacks balance is problematic. There are numerous discussions in which he openly advocates Falun Gong, the principles of "truthfulness, compassion and forbearance". He appears only to able to observe only twoone of the three 'virtues' ("truthfulness"), and even so, he appears to do it with his rose-coloured spectacles.

Sathya Sai Baba

Arbcom will already know about sockpuppet account. From this, it can be seen how he ran User:Inactive user account 001, the sock apparently to protect himself against members of the Baba cult.

  • this edit in Jan 2009 demonstrates the same modus operandi (insertion of bias, use of ironic quotes) as in the Falun Gong articles. The account was blocked indefinitely in May 2009 after edit warring which resulted in his real identity being outed here by his adversary there.

After said sock account was blocked, he continued to repeatedly edit war at Sathya Sai Baba

  • 1 2 3 edits in an edit war in Baba article (he crushed 13 explained changes with revert number 3)

Dilip rajeev creates an ambiance of intolerance and hostility, leaving behind a trail of breaches of WP:NPOV, 3RR and other guidelines wherever he goes. He is responsible, in whole or in part, for driving away a number of neutral editors from the Falun Gong articles. His editing Sathya Sai Baba demonstrate his propensity to be controversial; his forays there are nothing short of spectacular drama. He has demonstrated that he is incapable of working with others who do not share the same views as himself, and I am regrettably of the conclusion, after observing numerous attempts by myself and other editors to discuss, negotiate and mediate, and after many months of suffering his various antics and POV-pushing, that Wikipedia is best off without him. A wholescale indefinite ban is warranted to end this editor's disruption of wikipedia, once and for all. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Arbitration enforcement

From: oh confucius (ohconfucius@hotmail.com)
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 4:19:41 AM
To: dilip_rajeev@msn.com

I wish to inform you that an arbitration enforcement case concerning your behaviour has been filed here.

Ohconfucius (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


I continue to be baffled by the discussion below concerning the scope of authority of admins in this matter. I would just point out that in January 2008, Dilip rajeev was topic banned for 3 months without coming to AE; prior to that was a block of 55 hours. Olaf Stephanos was also given a 6 month topic ban recently here at AE for just such a violation. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


Per Shell's comment, I have now realised that Samuel Luo was only topic banned indefinitely, but though it was a site ban. I have now amended the request above. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


Reaction to asdfg's comments: My only ideology is WP:NPOV. If Dilip's latest reverts to the 'Self Immolation' and 'Organ harvesting' articles are part of Dilip's latest "improvements", I would hate to see what getting worse is like. He may be good at sourcing, but note that he frequently hides behind the "highly sourced material" as defense against removing any text which he wants to stay. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Dilip rajeev[edit]

Statement by Dilip rajeev[edit]

Well, a lot of accusations and all of them absolutely baseless.


1. Clarifying the Sock Accussation[edit]

I'll start with the sock accusation regarding the Sai Baba page. The "Sai Baba" topic being an extremely sensitive topic here in India, and any criticism of which could potentially result in threat on my safety as well as my family's safety, I had wanted anonymity when contributing to the pages( Ref: BBC Documentary, Secret Swami)( Even 70 year olds have been attacked in the very state where I live for exposing critical information on this person.) All my contributions there has been well sourced - to the BBC, The Times, The Guardian, The DTV, etc. It was a legitimate alternate account. Admins had also agreed there was no evidence of abusive socking from that account. Further, I had informed the arbcom, in a mail in February, regarding the account.

A newly registered editor, wanting to find out the real identity of the alternate account, started an SPA case against me - admins who were mislead by the manner in which the user presented the case initially mistook my account for a sock, revealing the identity of my alternate account. Shortly following this revelation of info, people related to the sai baba group had a large scale attack launched against me on several blogs and website.

Admins suggested that I rename the original alternate account and I did. That I "returned to edit warring" on the pages is a baseless mis-characterization. It is not uncommon on wikipedia for editors to get cornered and attacked when their contributions are not in- line with other's POV.

The above user had attacked me with claims along the same lines here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dilip_rajeev/Archive

And he was clearly told by the admins that I had not operated any abusive socks.

2.The Tiananmen Square Page[edit]

The article had remained stable in this version for over a year : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident&oldid=300212095

The above User, Ohconfucius, came and and reverted it to a two year old revision - ignoring the pages of discussion that resulted in the newer version.

The user refuses to focus on the content being blanked out by his revision while attacking, personally, editors like me who bring up concerns on such a revert - chosing to base it ona "good article" comment.

The information and sources that got blanked out in the revert to the two year old version includes:

And above are among the best sources and most notable sources available to us on the topic.

None of this removal was on the basis of any consensus. I had raised my concerns to the effect on talk, pointed things out clearly, requested that if any well sourced info from the two year old version ( which is extremely biased on builds on CCP propaganda ) be missing in the newer version, it be identified and incorporated into the newer article. PLease see my comment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident#Carification_from_Dilip

I attempted a single revert to the stable version with the comment:"Please see talk page. The revision of the stable article to a two year old version, with no consensus/discussion, had blanked of several prominent 3rd party sources. Kindly see talk."

I was quickly reverted back by the above user, who, refusing to focus on the content, cast a set of baseless, distorted and misleading accusations against me. I refrained from any further revert to avoid a meaningless revert war.

3.The Organ Harvestation Page[edit]

It is true that I reverted to an approx. 10 day old version. But I was unaware of the discussions going on talk when I did the revert. Over 40 KB of centrally relevant, well sourced information as from Amnesty, Kilgour Matas, US COngress, etc., I had noticed, was removed in a series of edits. All images on the pages, showing statistic from the KM reports etc. had gotten removed as well.

I brought up the issue on the main page of Falun Gong article. I reproduce my comments, requesting admin attention, in their entirety below. I had pointed out I did the revert and was requesting admin attention to the revert as well as to the current state of affairs in the article.

Requesting admin attention on the organharvesting sub-page

Kindly review the flurry of changes that have happened in the the past couple of weeks: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China&diff=309220914&oldid=309152359

A 66 KB article, every sentence in which had been highly sourced, has got reduced to a 26 Kb stub. Could admins kindly review such changes - the article comes under the probation placed by the ArbCom on these pages.

I have attempted to restore the page as of around Aug 8th, when this flurry of removal started -and not just info sourced to Amnesty, Congressional Reports, Kilgour Matas reports, etc. have been blanked out but several centrally relevant images from the KM reports have been blanked out as well.

Requesting kind attention on the issue. Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


Kindly see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident#Carification_from_Dilip. The page was reverted to a two year old revision - in the process blanking out several pages of content sourced to western academia. I merely restored this removal of info on a stable article, requesting that we discuss and make changes based on consensus - incorporating stuff from the two year old revision that might be missing in the stable article. While the user accuses me of "blanking two weeks of work" on The Tiananmenn square page, he choses to ignore that what I did was merely undo the user's revert to a two year old version ( an edit that ignored completely years' of work on the page).

I request admins to kindly go through/ compare the revisions and see for themselves.

The same pattern has occured on almost all related pages - and by the same set of users in the past two weeks. Li Hongzhi article has had info removed , addition of several paras of info irreleavent to the individual's notability, in violation of WP:BLP , etc. Persecution of Falun Gong article has undergone such changes as well.

I'd also like to point out that these flurry of changes started at around the same time as these comments were made by the same users involved in the changes. The "discussion" and "consensus" that resulted in the removal of all this info has been largely between the editors engaged in the below exchanges.

  • Seb az86556 on Ohconfucius' talk page: "you did well in keeping the this Olaf-guy at bay, and I can see now why the Falun Gong thing you emailed about will be "total war"..." [147]
  • Colipon on Edward130603's talk page: "Anyway, do you have e-mail?" [148]
  • Colipon on Mrund's talk page: "I'd sent you an e-mail today. Please check! :)" [149]
  • Ohconfucius on Mrund's talk page: "I'm glad you're back. Drop me an email, I'd like a private chat with you." [150]


I'd also like to point out that am not accusing all editors involved in the conversation. Mrund, for instance, just received these comments on talk and there is little evidence of him being involved in the recent removal of info on these pages.

As regards the removal of info on a 66KB stable article - reducing it to a 26 KB article, another stable page being reverted to a two year old revision ,etc. I'd like to point out that the very majority of info removed in the process are material centrally relevant- sourced to western academia, Human rights bodies, etc. - Amnesty, AP, Congressional Reports, a Yale Univ Thesis, Kilgour Matas Reports,etc. I point this out because, in the past, we have witnessed such blanking being covered up by claims to the effect that it was primary sources such as ET or Faluninfo.net that was removed. Demonstratably, and very clearly, it is reliable 3rd party sources being blanked out here. In all of these pages, primary sources such as Faluinfo.net are very sparingly used ( despite that they are identified as being reliable by scholars such as David Ownby.)

Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I was reverted by Ohconfucius , whose edit summary ran: "rvv - where's the discussion?". I pointed out I had brought up the issue on the main page [151]. When I was reverted again, I refrained from doing any more reverts, again to avoid an unnecessary edit war and thought would bring up the issue in detail on the article's talk when I find more time.

The 10 day old version I reverted to is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China&oldid=309225056 ( 66KB article, content stable for a almost a year )

The version from which I reverted ( the current version, after removal of 40 K info and ALL images) is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China&oldid=309223036 ( 26 KB article )

If reviewing admins even causally compare the two versions, what motivated me to attempt restore all the info removed would be apparent.

Comments by other editors[edit]

Comment by antilived[edit]

I cannot express how much I appreciate User:DilipRajeev's effort to copy his rant verbatim to here, it makes life so much easier. As he himself said it, he was unaware of the talk page discussions (which should mean he is aware now?) and reverted a whole bunch of well discussed changes on the organ harvesting page. That itself is typical of WP:OWN behaviour, which seemed pandemic across all the FLG pages. But not only that presumably after he has become aware of the discussions he did not revert back his own edit, did not participate in the discussion, and instead posted a long winded rant on an unrelated page requesting admin intervention. The same thing happened last time I dealt with him, moving the issue right up to the WP:AN/I, accusing me of "adding in material from a clearly propagandistic video", "vandalism", "dis-information", the lot, while we were carrying out a conversation to resolve the matter. This, in my opinion, is clearly disruptive, inflammatory (that incident partly caused my hiatus on Wikipedia) and completely without remorse. --antilivedT | C | G 09:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to Asdfg12345 If by having an ideology of that an encyclopedia should have a neutral point of view opposes Dilip's ideology, I'll gladly be his "ideological opponent" (unless you are accusing every one of us being CCP propagandists?). The only criteria for his edits is to improve the outlook of FLG in Wikipedia articles (I can go add lots and lots of poorly written, poorly sourced text that praises FLG and he'd have no problems for it). By his criteria there can never be enough "discussion" to warrant a change that puts FLG in a more negative light (although I can hardly say it's specific to him, it's certainly the most prominent).

a small side-note: Asdfg12345 raises a good issue here, it's quite obvious that all the people that regard Dilip highly are FLG-practitioners. Maybe it IS an ideological issue after all? --antilivedT | C | G 07:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by PerEdman[edit]

Dilip rajeev states that he was unaware of discussions going on in talk when he reverted two weeks worth of good-faith collaborative edits. He could have investigated it and being the one who performed the revert, he should have created such a discussion, but he did not. Because this is not the first time he has done so, it is far too late to claim ignorance as a defense. I don't know what to make of this. I suppose it's possible, as Ohconfucius writes, that he's a devoted Falun Gong practitioner who cannot bear to see other sources represented and therefore acts in this way. What I can say is that it's disrupting a volatile subject matter. The terms in which he defends himself above are sadly typical. The edits made are "attacks", he is being "attacked" when demands are made that he follow WP:BRD or WP:NPOV. Such partisan behavior can be handled on many subject matters, but in the Falun Gong articles, on probation, with a very strong partisan conflict between the Chinese Communist Part and Falun Gong, it is extremely disruptive. I'm sorry to say that I believe the editing climate on these pages will be improved without the poorly-motivated reverts and deletions repeatedly made by Dilip rajeev in the past. As a final note, I do not believe a blanket ban is necessary at this point - an indefinite subject ban from all articles on Falun Gong and possibly China subjects would allow the editor to grow into a well-rounded, constructive Wikipedia contributor in areas where he can maintain a semblance of objectivity.  / Per Edman 09:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to comment by HappyInGeneral
If Dilip has the time to be Bold and Revert, it is not unreasonable to expect hir to take the time to Discuss as well. To revert without discussion can obviously be quite disruptive to a probationary article that needs no more drama.  / Per Edman 21:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Respose to comment by Asdfg12345
This is not a place of discussion, but the claim that critics are "ideological opponents" of Dilip rajeev begs the question: what ideology would that be?  / Per Edman 22:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Enric Naval[edit]

Confirming that there is a group of editors resisting the insertion of any criticism in Falun Gong articles, that this has stalled editors who keep trying to balance that articles (myself I tried to make a few changes), and that the articles have benefited from boldly ignoring unreasonable objections raised by these users. A topic ban of Dilip rajeev from anything related to Falun Gong would help improve those articles and would reduce the level of persistent advocacy. Topic ban should include making any edit that makes reference to Falun Gong stuff in any article or talk page in any namespace, broadly constructed. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

See clarification, admins can impose topic bans of their own. Can someone hand the topic ban to Dilip rajeev and close this? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by PCPP[edit]

I was involved in long term edit disputes with Dilip, who has has demonstrated his lack of good faith previously by:

  • [152] has a habit of continued edit warring
  • [153] running false checkuser claims against Ohconfucius
  • [154] accused me of being an "vandal" and "propagandist" over content dispute at FLG articles
  • [155] bad faith attacks against Antilived, accused of being a PRC propagandist
  • [156] another bad faith attack against bobby_fletcher, using an external source that accuses him of being a Chinese spy.

Most of the other issues were already mentioned by Colipon and Ohconfucius above. Basically, his method of destructive editing involve:

  • Persumed ownership of articles. He often adds large chunks of material without discussion, while revert edits he doesn't like on sight. This often involves simply article tags, particularly in the Tiananmen Square self-immolation and organ harvesting articles. He cannot seem to grasp the concept of discussion before inserting controversial edits.
  • Wikilawyering. He demonstrates a clear disregard for wikipedia guidelines, particularly WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. His arguments often involves soapboxing [157] and the such. He also has a habit of removing anything from Chinese sources as "propaganda" [158], while hold FLG sources as the gospel truth.

Since mediators become involved in the FLG articles, the users of both sides have became more cooperative, and dilip's continued disruption and violation of the arbcom ruling damages on the mediation, and as such warrants a topic ban or block .--PCPP (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Mrund[edit]

The best that can be said about Dilip rajeev, and the one thing that makes him only the second most disruptive editor on everything having to do with Falun Gong over the past few years, is that he isn't there all the time. His contributions take the form of drive-by shootings. He cares only about Falun Gong, which in his mind is all good and whose reputation must be boosted, and the Sai Baba cult, which he used to fight on Wikipedia. Dilip is not primarily interested in making a good encyclopedia. He actively disrupts attempts in that direction. I am not optimistic about his willingness or ability to do any productive work here. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Sandstein[edit]

It is not clear to me that this is a case for arbitration enforcement. Which remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong allows uninvolved administrators to enact the requested "indefinite ban from Wikipedia"? Unless this request is amended to cite an actual arbitration sanction or remedy that has been violated (as of this writing, it cites only principles enunciated by the Committee, which are not by themselves enforceable), it may be closed without action.  Sandstein  15:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article probation, which has now been added to the request, places the article on article probation (which would allow topic bans by admins), but also states that "The articles may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review." I understand this to mean that under this remedy, any topic ban may only be imposed as a result of action by the Arbitration Committee. If so, admins on their own can't do anything here and a request to the Committee would be required.  Sandstein  15:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In reply to John Carter below and Ed Johnston on my talk page, yes, a case can be made that ArbCom meant to enact standard article probation, but if so, why the confusing extra text about review by the Committee? On the face of it, that would appear to be a lex specialis limiting the terms of article probation for this case. Absent clarification by the Committee, I am not ready to enact a sanction that is not authorized by the remedy (assuming any sanctions are required at all; I've not looked at the merits of this request).  Sandstein  16:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Edward130603[edit]

I would support a topic ban or a block of Dilip rajeev. He is a disruptive editor and often edit wars to get his way. Dilip simply has no care for the good faith work of other editors if they don't match with his POV.

Sandstein, I think that the Article Probation remedy allows blocks/restricted editing for disruptive editors. --Edward130603 (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This enforcement case has been out for quite a while now. Can a administrator come and close the case now?--Edward130603 (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Seb az86556[edit]

I find it difficult to convince myself that a Francophone soccer-player, a piano-player from North Carolina, an archaeologist and convinced atheist, a Hong Kong resident, and an art-instructor with a staunch belief in Judeo-Christian deism would manage to agree on and produce one-sided, slanted revisions — unless one subscribes to the notion that all those who do not cheerfully support every source which celebrates the accomplishments and wisdom of a controversial religion must be part of a great heathen-conspiracy led by Hel and the time of Ragnarök has finally come to pass.
I have yet to become familiarized with the new rule which explains to the underlings exactly how long they would have to wait before Dilip descends from his watchtower to approve of the changes that had been thoroughly discussed before being implemented to the articles he apparently owns. It becomes terribly frustrating when, upon finally coming to some agreements in the course of tough discussions, one knows that said debates take place under the auspice of an omnipresent divine eye that will fire its wrath-filled flames of destruction down to earth should the inferiors' actions fall into disfavor. Just as there should be no cabal, there should not be a god-like Übermensch with no need for explaining or justifying his actions, either — especially when he himself has been warned and informed of the fact that not everyone in the pool of unworthy minions follows the creed of Dilipianity.

The behavior is clearly disruptive and violates remedy 1) of the Arbitration Case closed on 06:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC) which states "Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review". Seb az86556 (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Jayen466[edit]

Sandstein is correct: as written, the remedy does not appear to support direct admin action, but asks for a review by the arbitration committee following a corresponding motion; bans or restrictions should result from such a review. --JN466 15:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  • John appears to be "more correct". The remedy links to WP:Article probation which in turn redirects to Wikipedia:General sanctions, authorising the community to place sanctions. I'll shut up now and leave it to smarter heads to sort this out. --JN466 16:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • As it appears that this may be falling under AE jurisdiction after all, I would like to add that I and several other otherwise uninvolved editors found Dilip Rajeev's editing at Sathya Sai Baba deeply problematic, as attested to by several WP:BLPN threads (e.g. the two Sai Baba threads in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive60, both of which centred around material introduced by this editor). --JN466 00:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment by John Carter[edit]

The existing remedy includes a specific link to Wikipedia:General sanctions, which, in the second paragraph, specifically does allow for parties other than the ArbCom to impose general sanctions, although it also permits such sanctions to be revoked later if so desired. I have to assume that the presence of such a link indicates that it would be possible for uninvolved administrators to place sanctions, effectively at the community's request, on such topics. John Carter (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to Sandstein: I understand your reservations about placing such a ban without a clear mandate in the existing ruling. I am therefore requesting clarification of the existing ruling, specifically regarding whether uninvolved admins would be acting within the ruling placing such a ban, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. John Carter (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment by HappyInGeneral[edit]
  1. Ohconfucius claims that Dilip is disruptive, but if he only edits once a week, how disruptive can he be? As I see it Dilip wants to contribute to these pages, just that right now he does not have the time to keep up with the huge amount of changes that are happening and that are driven by about 10 dedicated people. Plus Dilip did not engaged in any revert wars he only made some WP:Bold changes which correspond to the WP:BRD cycle.
  2. If the admins would like to understand how the team play is played, please see here: Talk:Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China#The_Situation:_A_Summary reading even just this thread alone will give a good idea. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Contrary to what PerEdman suggests, I see that he engaged in talks: Talk:Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident#Carification_from_Dilip. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Vassyana[edit]

My comments are mainly procedural.

  • The remedy has been treated as a standard probation with an additional option for ArbCom review. See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Log of blocks and bans. This interpretation has generally been upheld by ArbCom at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Falun Gong.
  • The editor under scrutiny received a "final warning" over three months ago.[159]
  • If reviewing administrators feel the editor in question has engaged in explicit misconduct, contributed to a poor editing environment, or otherwise inhibited productive discussion and editing, he should be sanctioned to permit continued improvement in the topic area.
  • Reviewing admins may find that other editors' conduct raised or exhibited here, or noted through examining the evidence of this request, is problematic and counterproductive to the topic area. If this is so, I implore the reviewing admins to issue final warnings to help future enforcement in the Falun Gong topic area. Anything that helps highlight and resolve counterproductive behavior is a boon for the area.

Thank you for considering my comments. --Vassyana (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

  • The drafting arbitrator has clarified the intent of the arbitration remedy, in line with my interpretation.[160] --Vassyana (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Colipon[edit]

Dilip Rajeev is a very difficult user to work with. He was the primary user that drove me away from working on Falun Gong articles in 2007. After my two-year hiatus from the FLG zone, my first attempts to make good faith changes over at ‘Organ Harvesting’ in July 2009 was directly met with a horde of personal accusations from dilip. Dilip’s style of disruptive editing and disrespect for users who do not share his POV has been a serious detriment to improvement to Falun Gong articles. Note in his defense, he writes “But I was unaware of the discussions going on talk when I did the revert.” I am baffled he is able to utter these words as a form of defence. This type of blatant disregard for other contributors' edits is not acceptable. He also often throws poorly argued but very offensive accusations at people who are displeased with his disruptive behaviour.

Although there seems to be an on-going debate about the semantics of sanctions, a long-term topic ban for Rajeev serves the basic spirit of the arbitration – that is, to foster a more cohesive and productive editing environment. Dilip’s past behaviour has undoubtedly turned away and frustrated many good faith editors and significantly hindered progress in the Falun Gong articles - to a degree no less severe than now topic-banned user Olaf Stephanos. Olaf and Dilip's argumentation on talk space differ in that Olaf responds directly to comments by other users while Dilip simply uses overarching statements to conclude that he is 'right', and then engages in edit-warring and reverts regardless of other users' input (as shown in evidence above) - this is the reason dilip has many more warnings against him than other Falun Gong SPAs. In all this adds up to make dilip the most destructive user on these articles. Similar to Olaf, if dilip was truly interested in working on the project rather than pushing his views on two controversial movements, he can still remain a valuable contributor outside the realm of Falun Gong and Sathya Sai Baba. Colipon+(Talk) 19:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Outside Editor:Radiantenergy[edit]

I have n't followed the Falun Gong article closely. However I will like to share Dilip Rajeev's role in the Sathya Sai Baba article. Dilip Rajeev using the account 'White_Adept' added several unreliable sources and material banned by second arbitration commitee in the Sathya Sai Baba article since Jan 2009. He made 200+ edits in 10 days and changed a neutral article to NPOV nightmare. He always edit-warred with other editors who tried to remove the unreliable sources which he added. I had put an arbitration enforcement case here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive36#I_seek_Admin_help_in_this_case:_White_Adept_and_Arb.com_rulings where he was warned of sactions if he added questionable sources into the Sathya Sai Baba article.

Even after this case Dilip Rajeev still continued to add the same banned material in the sub-article '1993 murders in Prashanthi Nilayam'. I have always wondered why Dilip Rajeev was not afraid to break wikipedia rules or even arbitration enforcement rules. Many co-editors had become frustrated unable to stop his POV pushing and edit-warring in the Sathya Sai Baba article.

If you ask me if Dilip Rajeev disrupted the Sathya Sai Baba article? My answer is definite Yes. He did a lot of damage to that article. It has taken me and other editors almost 6 months to get rid of the unreliable sources Dilip Rajeev added into the Sathya Sai Baba article and bring it back to the original neutral state. Lately in the last 1 and 1/2 months after Dilip stopped interfering in the Sathya Sai Baba article the article has tremendously improved and has become more neutral and well balanced. I hope that the Sathya Sai Baba article will stay that way in the future instead of becoming a NPOV nightmare once again. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Outside Editor: J929[edit]

Hey, sometime in 2008 i came upon the Wikipedia Sathya Sai Baba page. The page at best was poorly written and lacked any real coherancy and information. Sometime later, in 2009 i read the page again and was disgusted with the way Sai Baba was presented. i know people have different opinions but it seems there lacked any human dignity or neutral presentation of a living person. That is when i signed up for a wikipedia account. 16:07, February 15, 2009 . i couldnt make any changes as the page had been blocked.
i'm not familiar Dilip Rajeev or his writing as he stopped around the time i began, but i do know the article in early 2009 was, in my opinion, horrendous. you will have to consult the history of the page to see who made the contributions.

J929 (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Asdfg12345[edit]

I've been involved with these articles for a long time. I believe Dilip is editing in good faith. Much of the calls for a ban here come from Dilip's ideological opponents, who of course find his presence a nuisance. I agree that Dilip's editing is unthoughtful in the cited instances, and I don't know why he annoys people like that when he doesn't have to. On the other hand though, he is improving, and he has made good contributions to these pages in terms of research and finding sources, and that shouldn't be discounted. His once a fortnight changes that get reverted in ten seconds aren't what is making or breaking the editing environment on these pages--they are minor, and he only did it a couple of times, and I'm sure he won't keep doing them after this incident. He notes, in his defence, that he was undoing changes that he felt had been pushed through without discussion, and were often cases of vast deletions of material referenced to reliable sources. There is actually nothing wrong with doing this. This is merely the bold-revert-cycle. It would only be a problem if he edit-warred, and I see no evidence of that. Mostly this seems like a difference in taste. People disagree with each other all the time. There should be a plurality of views on wikipedia. If there was some genuinely disruptive activity coming from Dilip's corner I would want him banned too, but I don't see evidence of it.--Asdfg12345 18:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Dilip rajeev[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • We can't site ban someone as nothing in the Arbitration case went that far, however, a topic ban could be considered. Sandstein, there's an open amendment in which another editor was topic banned as a result of this case; not sure why the funny wording, but the Arbs seem to support standard discretionary sanctions here. I've asked Vassyana if he wants to comment on this request as well. Shell babelfish 20:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    Also, given the repeated blocks for 3RR on these articles and a prior topic ban (logged here), a revert restriction might be appropriate as well. Shell babelfish 20:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Meowy[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Request concerning Meowy[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement Meowy has been under these sanctions since October 2007. [161]

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

  1. [162], [163] Violation of Revert limitation (formerly known as revert parole). You are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. User did not attempt to explain the removal clearly until the second revert either. [164]
  2. [165], [166], [167], [168], [169] Not assuming good faith by making sudden and unjustified accusations against editors. I have made clear my concerns at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision including suggestions on how to fix the problems [170], and have notified other talk pages so a discussion can happen in a central location [171], [172], [173], [174], [175]. Other editors have not accepted Meowy's interpretation of my actions either [176], [177], [178], and also think they represent a failure to assume good faith [179]. Also engaging in incivility by behaving aggressively and with unneeded hostility, in particular to quote the civility policy, Quoting another editor out-of-context to give the impression that he or she holds views they do not hold, or to malign them, given that the evidence makes clear that I do not hold the views that Meowy has suggested. These actions collectively are applicable to the restriction under Civility supervision (formerly known as civility parole). If you make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then you may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses.
  3. A look through Meowy's edits suggests that he has been repeatedly ignoring his editing restrictions on other pages as well. These include violation of 1 revert per week restriction on Azerbaijan with [180], [181]. Failure to assume good faith and personal attacks at User talk:MarshallBagramyan [182]. Severe incivility on Talk:Armenian Highland [183], particularly, to quote the civility policy again, Rudeness: insults, name-calling and excessive sarcasm and Using derogatory language towards other contributors or, in general, referring to groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, religious groups, or others in a derogatory manner. It is clear that another user was offended by such comments [184] and Meowy's response shows that he has not acknowledged the damage that such comments make to Wikipedia and the editing environment [185].

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable, Meowy was warned about conduct like this when the sanctions were placed originally, further warnings are not required in the remedy.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Meowy has been blocked a total of five times for violation of editing restrictions, this excludes overturned blocks or block setting adjustment. [186]. According to the editing restrictions Enforcement: Violations of limitations, supervision, or bans imposed by the remedies in this case may be enforced by brief blocks of up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year. If any block is given the exact time is down to the discretion of administrators, however it is clear from the block log that short blocks have failed to correct Meowy's behaviour. A topic ban may also be appropriate as many Eurovision Song Contest articles, such as Eurovision Song Contest 2009, would come under articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area as Meowy's conduct suggests that disallowing him to continue editing such articles should be considered.

Additional comments by Camaron · Christopher · talk:
Lida Vorig (talk · contribs) is also under editing restrictions ([187]) from the same Arbitration Committee case and has violated them by also failing to assume good faith [188]. While the evidence suggests that Lida Voring's behaviour has not been as severe as Meowy's, particularly less aggressive, Lida Voring should probably be warned that such comments are not assuming good faith, and that making such accusations without evidence disrupts dispute resolution and can also be considered incivil.

Note that I am an administrator myself, but have not taken any enforcement action as I would be considered an 'involved administrator' for this remedy.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Notification of Meowy, notification of Lida Vorig.

Discussion concerning Meowy[edit]

Statement by Meowy[edit]

Additional comments by User:AlexandrDmitri (User talk:AlexandrDmitri)[edit]

I endorse Camaron's statement as a party who attempted to interpret the purpose behind the tag. Meowy has again responded asserting bad faith on Camaron's behalf, citing issues of ownership of the page, understanding of the purpose of tagging, and questioning Camaron's role as an administrator. [189]

Comments by other editors[edit]

Result concerning Meowy[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • The evidence here seems quite clear. I note the 1RR violation mentioned at Camaron's point number one and severe violations of AGF and CIV as exemplified by points two and three. The edit warring at Azerbaijan seems a bit too stale to act upon, but the rest of the examples are quite recent.
  • Meowy blocked for a month (the violations aren't so egregious as to go higher, though I understand that the maximum in this case is a year). I shall decline to topic ban for the time being, but one should go into effect if this comes up again.
  • Lida Vorig notified to remember to assume good faith. NW (Talk) 22:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.