Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive58

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

Contents

Tasbian[edit]

Blocked 55 hours by Tim Song (talk · contribs)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Tasbian[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
-- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Tasbian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Discretionary_topic_ban
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [1] Unsourced, POV edits, at article, Scientology and hypnosis
  2. [2] Removal of word, "controversial", at article, Purification Rundown
  3. [3] Again, removal of word, "controversial", at article, Purification Rundown
  4. [4] Removal of word, "controversial", at article, Scientology and abortion, and replaced it with wholly unsourced material.
  5. [5] Unsourced, POV changes, at article L. Ron Hubbard
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. [6] = Warning by UberCryxic (talk · contribs), regarding WP:POINT use of word "controversial" in unrelated articles
  2. [7] Warning by Cirt (talk · contribs) = warning regarding Scientology arbitration case remedies.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Discretionary_topic_ban = requested, topic ban from articles related to topic Scientology, then log at WP:ARBSCI.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[8] -- Cirt (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Tasbian[edit]

Statement by Tasbian[edit]

In every single case the inclusion of the judgement 'controversial' itself is unsourced. Where's the < ref > ? It is a word to avoid, and on that basis it will be avoided. And don't suffer the originator to "thank [you] for your time": thank him for wasting your time .. with the reminder to avail article talk pages as he's utterly avoided to approach doing.Tasbian (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Tasbian[edit]

As shown by Cirt above, he has been consistently makeing bad faith edits to several articles over a wide range or topics. this action that I made was to remove a POV pushing and in reality, untrue statement. Regardless of how this is handled, he needs to stop one way or another.--White Shadows you're breaking up 02:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Tasbian[edit]

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

Not sure a discretionary topic ban can be applied here, as that remedy requires a detailed warning to the user to be given in advance. Instead, I'm going to block the user for disruptive editing given the pattern of behavior noted here. This is pursuant to the administrator's power to prevent disruption, not an AE action. Tim Song (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I also notified the user that further disruption will result in a topic ban. Tim Song (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Biophys[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Discussion now occurs at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Russavia's request for arbitration enforcement concerning Biophys.  Sandstein  20:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning Biophys[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
--Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 19:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground
Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned
Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
Despite several prior sanctions and warnings, Biophys has in recent months massively conducted edit warring and POV-pushing. When he has a spare minute he now proxies for an indefinitely banned editor. In the most tenacious revert war, Biophys's only source, which he aggressively tries to enforce as the truth, is a known propaganda website of Islamist anti-Russian extremists, in spite of protests by several users.

Background

Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a persistent POV-pusher and edit-warrior who has been blocked several times and whose disruptive behaviour has been discussed in several reports on admin noticeboards:

Many of these reports resulted in Biophys being sanctioned and warned, yet Biophys has chosen to ignore all these warnings and has continued his heavy disruption. In addition, Biophys has already been sanctioned with a 1RR per the WP:DIGWUREN sanctions. [19]. However, the 1RR sanction was later lifted for the technical reason that "no prior warning was given." According to a June 2009 finding by now arbitrator User:Shell Kinney, Biophys is a regular edit warrior. [20] He is also listed as one of the warned editors at WP:DIGWUREN. [21] Biophys has also been discovered as a member of the WP:EEML, and participated in the cabal's campaign of disruption.[22]. Further evidence of disruption caused by Biophys can be found at WP:EEML/Evidence. Several members of the EEML were found by ArbCom to have proxied for banned users, so Biophys knows that proxying is not allowed. Biophys has been proxying for the community banned User:HanzoHattori in several articles (see evidence below).

Edit warring Massive edit warring at Russian apartment bombings

Biophys has already been blocked twice for edit warring on this article.[23],[24]

Nevertheless, Biophys continues his persistent and massive edit warring.

Revert wars of Biophys in 2010:

Edit warring at Battle for Height 776

Here Biophys is edit warring heavily to keep a known Islamist propaganda source (http://www.kavkazcenter.net) in the article.

This is a terrorist website similar to the illegal Al-Qaeda websites the United States keeps closing down around the world. Their fact-checking is not just zero but they enjoy publishing politically-motivated false rumours like against Gordon Brown and the "European Union's elite pedophile commissioners in Brussels" [45] or the bogus story about Israel trying to harvest organs in Haiti.[46] They continue the episode with their own lies and report about "the fact that "Israel" has brought some 25,000 Ukrainian children into the occupied entity over the past two years in order to harvest their organs." [47]

Russians are always insulted as "invaders", "minions", [48] "infidels" [49], "apostates", "the enemy"[50], "hirelings", "puppets", especially in reports about bombings and other violence against them. Russian victims are purposefully dehumanized.[51] The web site's original affiliation was with Shamil Basayev, [52] who Washington too declared a terrorist and a threat to the United states. [53]

All this is known by Biophys, who has backed the Kavkaz writer Boris Stomakhin since the early days of his account, yet he keeps edit warring to keep this terrorist source in the article to push his POV. After users complained about it, he just accused them all falsely of sockpuppetry.[54]

Human rights in the Soviet Union

Again, this is not the first time Biophys has edit warred on this article (see [76] ).

Red banner

Cyberwarfare by Russian state


Invasion of Dagestan (1999)

Proxying for banned editor HanzoHattori

HanzoHattori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is an indefinitely banned POV-warrior and sockpuppeteer. His main interest was terrorism and warfare in the Caucasus.

List of HanzoHattori sockpuppets, based on Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of HanzoHattori:

Biophys had tried to help the sockpuppet RamboKadyrov by a warning how to avoid getting CheckUsered.[99] Biophys was also already suspected of proxying for HanzoHattori half a year ago. He answered with a non-denial denial, stressing that he checked the sources.[100] Biophys said that he finds the banned HanzoHattori "the best WP editor" and "a fantastic expert": [101] On the mailing list he revealed previous mail contact with HanzoHattori (20090624-0311) and, moreover, tried to protect a sockpuppet of HanzoHattori and prevent it from being detected: [102] Biophys and his EEML friends then tried to organize a comeback for HanzoHattori: [103]

In recent months, Biophys has visited several little known Caucasus-related articles previously edited by HanzoHattori and his socks, and performed massive edits on HanzoHattori's behalf.

For example:

  • Riyad-us Saliheen Brigade of Martyrs
  • This article was created in 2008 by HanzoHattori sock RamboKadyrov.
  • No other editor had made major edits on this article.
  • Biophys then arrives to do a massive edit: [104]

Between 7 March and 9 March, Biophys performed several edits on behalf on HanzoHattori. All these articles were previously edited by HanzoHattori and his socks. Biophys did not do any edits of his own during this period.

  • Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis [105]
  • Previously heavily edited by HanzoHattori, who has the 80 edits on this article. [106]
  • Also edited by the socks Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (13 edits) and Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (3).
  • Other editors do not even come close to HanzoHattori and his socks (and now the proxy Biophys).
  • Vympel [107]
  • Chief editor is the HanzoHattori sock Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog [108]
  • Salman Raduyev [109]
  • Chief editor is HanzoHattori. Together with the socks User:84.234.60.154 and Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji they have over 150 edits. No other editors come even close. [110]
  • Biophys never edited this article before.
  • Siege of Tripolitsa [111]
  • HanzoHattori has 4 edits on this article. [112]
  • Biophys has never before been interested in Turkish history.
  • Biophys never edited this article before.
  • Operation Bürkl [113]
  • A little known article heavily edited by HanzoHattori socks RamboKadyrov and Captain obvious and his crime-fighting dog. [114]
  • Biophys has never shown much interest in World War II history of Germany and Poland.
  • Biophys never edited this article before.
  • Ludolf von Alvensleben [115]
  • Previously edited by HanzoHattori.
  • Biophys has never shown much interest in German history. His edit is a massive change which requires knowledge of the subject. It is highly unlikely this edit was written by Biophys himself.
  • Biophys never edited this article before.
  • Teruto Tsubota [[116]]
  • Created by HanzoHattori sock Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog in 2008. [117]
  • No other editor has made major edits in this article.
  • Biophys has never before displayed any interest in Japan or Japanese people - one of Hanzo's main interests
  • Biophys never edited this article before.

Please note, that Biophys edited all these articles sequentially. It is highly unlikely he would suddenly get interested in all these articles edited or created by HanzoHattori. It is unlikely that Biophys would suddenly (after performing sequential edits on several HanzoHattori articles), get interested in a little known Japanese person (whose article just happens to have been created by HanzoHattori.)

There is yet another sequential row of proxy edits by Biophys on the evening of 5 March.

  • Ruslan Labazanov [124]
  • HanzoHattori is the most active editor. The socks have also edited. [125]
  • Biophys never edited this article before.
  • Russian-Chechen Peace Treaty
  • This article was created on 5 March by Biophys. [126]
  • It is unlikely the text was written by Biophys himself. The English is almost perfect, while Biophys usually makes many mistakes.
  • The structure is similar to what HanzoHattori used: just a single chapter. (Compare to this HanzoHattori-created article: [127]
  • Ref formatting is similar to what HanzoHattori used. Please compare this to [128] or to any other HanzoHattori edits.

Yet another row of proxy edits in the early hours of 7 March:

Other evidence:

  • There are also many other articles where Biophys obviously proxied for HanzoHattori, but the evidence presented above should be more than enough.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
The infamous WP:EEML case resulted in several highly disruptive users being topic banned from Eastern European articles by ArbCom. These topic bans have worked well and have helped to pacify the topic area. For some reason (perhaps due to his "retirement" tactic), Biophys managed to escape sanctions even though he was one of the chief disruptors of the EEML cabal. Massive edit warring and proxying for an infamous banned POV-warrior cannot be allowed to go on. Biophys has already received multiple sanctions and warnings, yet he has learned nothing, has only accelerated his disruptive behaviour after the closure of the EEML case.

A 1RR restriction is not enough. Biophys has already promised to follow 1RR: [142] ("I will also try to stick to 1RR").User:Sandstein replied: "in particular, I expect Biophys to adhere to his promise to "try to stick to 1RR"." [143] In September 2009, Biophys still had a userbox "this user follows 1RR" on his now-deleted userpage. The above diffs of edit warring show how well Biophys kept his "promise."

The necessity of topic banning Biophys from Eastern European articles in line with the other EEML sanctions should be self-evident. However, since Biophys has also proxied for HanzoHattori in other articles (such as Teruto Tsubota), this topic ban is not enough. I request a one-year block followed by a EE topic ban for continued heavy disruption despite several sanctions and warnings.

This is what admins had to say during the last AE report about Biophys:

  • "The involved editors have been warned extensively. Let's try to make a decision here, or else we should go to arbitration." -- Jehochman [144]
  • "I generally support some sort of restriction on Biophys, as I have warned them previously, and they appear to be continuing with battleground behavior." -- Jehochman [145]
  • "I am beginning to warm to Shell's suggestion that if we continue to see reports and discussions like this (including some recently at ANI, I think), topic bans all around may be the best way to prevent continued conflict." -- Sandstein [146]
  • "...but I would not want to impose a full topic or specific article ban for issues that were more than a month old" -- Thatcher [147]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Having been "involved" in the WP:EEML case, I have been actively watching participants in the EEML for evidence of continued disruption, and all of the above is very recent evidence which seems to demonstrate that the user in question still does not get "it".
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
diff

Discussion concerning Biophys[edit]

Statement by Biophys[edit]

This is largely a harassment campaign by a group of like-minded Russian users, most of whom participated in EEML case. This is also an attempt to re-litigate the EEML case since Russavia and others frequently quote this case and provide links to comments made much earlier. Here is the proof:

  • This AE request was filed by User:Russavia. I did not comment about him almost for a year except asking to lift all his sanctions. But he came back with vengeance, immediately after the end of his editing restrictions. The restrictions had nothing to do with me. He started some time ago from outing me (hence his first block by Moreschi) and he now continue the "battle".
  • Recent personal attack by User:LokiiT: "Who are serving?" [148] (I have to provide link to my talk page [149] because LokiiT distorted a lot of things in his comment below).
  • Personal attacks by YMB29 [150],[151], [152]. He even tells to Altenmann: "I am trying to get the admins to finally do something about him... don't tell me that I should be cooperative with him and that we should work together" [153].
  • Recent threat by User:Saiga12 ("may be we can meet you in Moscow...") [154].
  • User:Ravenssx also came to personally attack me (see edit summary): [155]
  • Two more people came through proxy servers to talk page of User:LokiiT to blame me of being a "terrorist supporter" and out Future Perfect - see this supervised record [156]. According to this SPI request [157], all of them are different persons.
  • Vandalism accusations by User:Igny in response my quotes from a book by a notable philologist Sarnov [158].
  • Wikistalking by User:Ellol and User:YMB29 who reverted whatever I did (see diffs in this link [159])
  • Saiga12 copycats a previous threat by User:Ellol [160].This is bad because they know who I am in real life, and there are bad posts about me off-wiki.
  • I received a mildly threatening email to my work rather than to wikipedia address during the EEML case signed by "Filatov". This is real life name declared by Ellol at his user page. I deleted this message as garbage. Eloll said it was his impostor [161] and maybe it was [162].
  • There are now at least four accounts, Vlad_fedorov (talk · contribs), Saiga12 (talk · contribs), YMB29 (talk · contribs), and Ellol (talk · contribs) who do little beyond wikistalking my edits, reverts and other disruption. Please examine their edit history.

Nevertheless, I in fact collaborated and negotiated with User:Ellol in "Bombings" article (see below) and I can continue doing the same with any of the users involved (see the "Proposed conflict resolution" section below).

The reverts. Many diffs by Russavia are not reverts to older version, but changes to a compromise version, or simply significant changes during a single edit. Yes, there are many reverts, but they are usually done in the framework of one or at most two reverts per day (or less frequently). The exception was vandalism fight in one article. I had problems mostly with Ellol and YMB29 who followed my edits and aggressively reverted whatever I did (see diffs in this link [163]).

The alleged proxy editing. I had an email exchange with another person who suggested to make specific changes in a number of articles. Since I was well familiar with the subjects, I agreed to look at the matter (I previously edited many articles in this area [164] [165]). I looked at the suggested changes, agreed with some of them, rejected others, and modified whatever was necessary. But I did not act as "meatpuppet". "Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus" according to WP:SOCK. But I made only such changes I would like to make myself. I did not even touch some articles because I disagreed with all changes he suggested. I also checked the sources.

Everyone is welcome to examine each my single edit (see evidence by Russavia above) to see that they improve the content. I honestly believe these my actions were fully consistent with WP:IAR and other policies, such as WP:RS and WP:NPOV. And I am ready to answer any specific questions about these my edits: [166]. None of the edits was in support of any terrorist organizations. For example, they complained about using Kavkaz Center as a source. Fine, I remove cat "News agency" but keep cat "Propaganda organizations" in the article: [167]. And all other edits considered by Russavia as incriminating evidence are essentially like that and very much noncontroversial.

I just saw this policy (I did not read it before). Well, I am "able to confirm that the changes are verifiable" and that I "have independent reasons for making them". The reason is obviously improvement of the content.

Russian apartment bombings. Here, I had extensive discussions with User:Ellol, and it was me who started a number of topics that needed discussion (please take a look): [168], [169],[170], [171], [172]. I was also looking for the 3rd opinion from User:Alex_Bakharev, who is not "on my side": [173], [174], but unfortunately he was not there. Yes, I believe the mediation by someone like him is the way to go. If you look at my edits, I mostly tried to develop a compromise version. I hardly made even a couple of "blind reverts" in this article.

Battle for Height 776. That was mostly a struggle with a vandal who did such edits: [175],[176],[177]. Vandal or not, but I fully explained everything to him at article talk page: [178]. Yes, "Russian invaders" are insulted at the Islamist web site, kavkaz.org, exactly as Russavia tells. However, they are not insulted in the wikipedia article. The article is written in full compliance with our NPOV policy, as one can see from the diff [179]. Kavkaz.org was only used to source the statements by Chechen fighters, exactly as in hundreds published books [180]. Saying that, I am very open to the idea of removing any references to kavkaz.org (and other sources that refer to kavkaz.org) if they contradict more reliable sources, as I did yesterday [181].

Red Banner. Everything was explained several times at talk page [182]. I agree with last version by User:Altenmann: [183], who modified my version as follows: [184].

Cyberwarfare by Russian state We had some heated debates, but finally came to consensus, including the new title (I did not even edit there for a long time).

Invasion of Dagestan. Here is the discussion. [185]. User:HistoricWarrior007 does OR by claiming that something is "geographically impossible", although tons of publications claim that very much possible.

Human_rights_in_the_Soviet_Union. I discussed and tried to find some compromise here, but User:YMB29 repeatedly removed a lot of text sourced to books [186], and the discussion went confrontational [187]. I asked an advice from User:Altenmann: [188], and he was really helpful, but we did not resolve our differences with YMB29. I finally stopped editing this article a couple of weeks ago. You may look at the contributions of YMB29 (talk · contribs). If you think he can do the job better than me, I have no problem leaving this article to him.

  • Altenmann. That was an extremely offensive comment. I do not have anti-Russian, anti-Chechen, anti-Polish or other "anti-national" attitudes. That is why I had good relations with Ukrainian, Polish and Russian (like Colchicum or Muscovite99) users. It's only natural if a modern-day German does not like Nazism and Gestapo. And it is just as natural if a modern-day Russian (like me) does not like the Soviet system and the KGB.
  • LokiiT: I do not have any current content disagreements with you. You made a big story from two my edits in one article by coming at my talk page and claiming me to be a "terrorist supporter" [189]. You did the same previously with regard to another user [190]. The entire conversation can be found at my talk page: [191]. See also links given by FPS. I did not stalk you at all, but simply went through a large number of Chechnya-related pages (see the examples by Russavia), and certainly could not miss the article about their current separatist leader.
  • To Skäpperöd:No, I am not familiar with any policies that prohibit productive collaboration by email. The problem in EEML case was the alleged cooperation against other users and inappropriate canvassing. There was nothing of that kind here. No one asked me to vote or revert anyone. Besides, for how long can you haunt me with EEML case? You collected a number of diffs that show my frustration during this case (some of them are taken from old versions I deleted). I made no official promises to stop editing in EE area. Neither I was officially asked to stop editing. Yes, I had an intention to abandon my current account and edit only science. And I indeed marked my current account as "Retired" and opened an alternative account, User:ATMH. However, after making several edits [192], I realized that doing so is deception, no matter what my reasons might be. So, I marked this new account as my second account [193], fixed some of the old edits like this: [194] and left a notice about this to Arbcom [195]. Why I am not editing science from my current account? One of the reasons: I feel uncomfortable editing anything related to my work because of the outing and WP:COI accusations by Russavia on-wiki and similar accusations off-wiki.
  • Re to Vlad fedorov. Most of your claims are very old. As about new issues, that is what I said:[196]. Please do not blame me of something I never did without supporting diffs. No, I did not write much about Putin, but what I wrote was fully sourced and consistent with our policies.
  • Re to YMB29. At the talk page of Red Banner I said that "I do not care if you are doing this yourself or someone asked you" [197]. I did not mean myself. I have no idea who was user you are talking about. I did not ask him about anything. Please do not quote my words on a totally different subject.

Proposed conflict resolution[edit]

  • Offer to Russavia. Russavia, I voted to lift all your sanctions. But you ask sanctions for me. I think the problem is article Litvinenko, the only one where we have serious disagreements. You just reverted it to your favorite version, immediately after coming from your editing restriction. I suggest the following. 1. We start from last stable version. 2. We create a list of our disagreements if any. 3. We ask Alex, Ezhiki or any other administrator of your choosing (or any established member of Mediation Committee) to be our judge rather than mediator. 4. He/she looks at the list and decides each disagreement one way or another. I agree in advance with any his/her decisions. Would that be working for you? Would you agree to withdraw this AE request? Biophys (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Offer to User:saiga12. We keep last most complete version but indicate strength and losses as follows: ... per Russian side and ... per Chechen side. And let's discuss any other specific issues. Seems to be resolved, thanks to User:D2306. Biophys (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I do not have any other disputes with other editors.Biophys (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • None of the users involved responded positively to this offer so far, although I left them a notice five days ago. So, who does not want the collaboration? Russavia, do not you want some help even from the most friendly administrators like Alex or Ezhiki (if they agree of course)? Biophys (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Biophys[edit]

user:Altenmann : disclaimer[edit]

I amware of severe anti-Russian attitude of Biophys. I have no problem with this: everyone is entitled to their position. I see no problem it promoting this anti-Russia attitude into wikipedia articles as long as it is clear who is the bearer of this attitude (and this bearer is notable enough for their opinion to be reported) and it iss not presented as truth about Russia.

At the same time I disagree with usage of my name by Biophys as any kind of validation of his actions. For example, his phrase "I agree with version by User:Altenmann" does not mean that this version was somehow endorsed by me: it just randomly happened that I was the last one to edit this page.

I do remember finding a number of Boiphys's editing habits as problematic, but I have bad memory and don't really care about modern East-European political issues to waste my time on editing/personal conflicts. - Altenmann >t 23:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

user:Celasson : just thoughts[edit]

We are not a debating society. We are Wikipedia which is based upon WP:FIVE; one of those being WP:NPOV. And the title is NOT NPOV. --Russavia Dialogue 01:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

People,we can not tolerate phrases such as We are not a debating society it is horrible that somebody dare he? I think lot of guys here have to learn that various points of view can be integrated in a particular Wiki article.And you can say it about Biophys and about his opponents.But We are not a debating society is unacceptable.Celasson (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

user:DonaldDuck : objection[edit]

I object to use of my name and our limited recent interaction by Biophys as any kind of justification for his actions. After my indefinite block (which was result of coordinated efforts by EEML cabal to remove me from Wikipedia, and Biophys was member of the EEML group), I avoid articles on controversial topics such as terrorism/Chechnya, so we just edit in different topic areas with Biophys.DonaldDuck (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Fut.Perf.[edit]

I'll just point out that Biophys and two of his opponents, LokiiT (talk · contribs) and Ellol (talk · contribs), were recently on my talkpage bitterly complaining about each other, about issues related to the ones raised here. The threads are at here and here. I also observed him edit-warring persistently against HistoricWarrior007 (talk · contribs) on Russian apartment bombings, in a situation where my impression was that both editors were behaving in a heavily tendentious way. For various reasons I couldn't muster the energy to judge the situation and take action at the time, and so I think it will be better if I abstain from such action now too; however, it appears to me that the time may be ripe for at least a revert limitation, possibly not just on him but also some of the editors on the other side. Fut.Perf. 07:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by # Grey Fox-9589[edit]

I'm pretty amazed Biophys is actually still editing since hes endured some of the worst stalking and herassment himself. If I recall correctly, he got outed and threatened even outside wikipedia. Users who are after him are always extremely nationalistically orientated users who would get a fine pay as lawyers of Vladimir Putin. With users who aren't as nationalistaclly orientated he never really had problems. Biophys doesn't edit "anti-russian" (a wrong term considering that he's Russian himself), in contrary he sometimes protects articles from those who are trying to turn wikipedia in the new Pravda. He was never alone in this, but because of the EEML case many of those are temporarely topic banned at the moment and probably aren't allowed to voice their support right now. Note that Biophys himself survived EEML even though some users posted large lists of supposed "evidence". EEML wasn't long ago. This file for arbitration is an obvious attempt to get him sanctioned at a time when he would get outvoted.

As for the edits by Hanzohattori. This users was actually a good editor, he created a lot of new articles, collected a lot of new sources and updated them regularely. Eventually he got banned for insulting an administrator and went on to become a sockpuppeteer. This of course doesn't mean that all the articles he created in the past are wrong. I became an editor too at the articles he created, after he got banned (but now I've become inactive too). Why would Biophys not be allowed to edit the articles? I've got to know both users a little and they both had the same interests. Biophys isn't even editing the articles so much, they're mostly small edits or votes.
As a conclusion I would like to ask whatever administrator judging this request to look through the history of the complainers. Most of them will have an extremely obvious pro-Putin bias and a lot of them have a lot of disruption as well (some of them almost having been permabanned). Grey Fox (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the further comments that Russavia has made below. It's another attempt at trying to demonise Biophys as someone promoting extremism, a pretex under which many journalists are banned from working in Russia. The source was already discussed at wp:rs several times. I explained the use of such sources here [198] and there's no bad intention whatsoever. Several users have gone after biophys labeling him a 'terrorist lover' or other ridiculous accusations which together with calling him 'anti-russian' means they view him as Enemy of the People. Ironically articles like Alexander Litvinenko are brought up. It's indeed quite so that articles like Anna Politkovskaya are often the setting of edit wars because the pro-Putin editors mostly target such articles. It's sad really, journalists and human rights activists reporting on crimes by the current Russian government are assassinated in Russia every few months. Afterwards their wikipedia pages are targeted by groups of Putin lobbyists attempting to discredit these activists. Anyone who tries to prevent this gets labeled "anti-Russian". Grey Fox (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Further comments by Russavia[edit]

Biophys claims that his use of a terrorist website to source articles is not a problem and is always done from a NPOV stance. This is false, as can be attested by his persistent reinsertion of an external link (albeit from January 2009) to a terrorist website showing what the terrorist claim are the bodies of killed Russian soldiers, whom are described as "Russian invaders" right there on the page.[199], [200]. This is not NPOV; far from it. Biophys also claims that his other edits are always NPOV, however, this again is false. After I was topic banned last year, Biophys took the opportunity to revert to his favoured version of the Alexander Litvinenko article - one which many editors had struggled to edit due to extreme ownership issues which Biophys seems to have with such articles. He mentions my recent edits to the article above, but what he fails to mention is what I have mentioned at Talk:Alexander_Litvinenko#Changes_made_to_article - that is, Biophys continually reverts to his favoured version, whilst at the same time ignoring issues raised by other editors, and which always involves the removal of sourced information of the article by Biophys; ostensibly because it does not fit in with Biophys' own POV. Such things have been experienced in the past on other articles, such as Talk:Artyom Borovik, where Biophys' edits allowed conspiracy theories to have "centre stage", whilst pushing information from aviation experts out of sight. The same thing was experience at Anatoly Trofimov, where accusations by a person with a history of making unsubstantiated allegations were allowed to appear in the article, but criticism of those claims were not [201],[202], etc. As one can see, Biophys clearly has a history of edit warring over information which does not fit his own POV on the ways of the world, and it is being continued as per the reported articles above. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 17:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments/Evidence by YMB29[edit]

I was also going to post a similar complaint about Biophys. I reported him before at the edit warring noticeboard [203], but the request was declined as not being posted in the right place.

I can confirm that Biophys has continued edit warring and also tag teaming after the EEML case. He just pretended to retire and kept quite during the case and for some time after it.

Since the end of January Biophys has resumed edit warring in the Human rights in the Soviet Union article, trying to reinsert his edits from September without any discussion. Even attempts by admin Altenmann to get a discussion going on the issues [204] were eventually ignored by Biophys, as he failed to respond.[205] [206]

But more importantly he continues tag teaming like in the EEML days. He got a user who never edited the article before to revert for him. [207] [208]
He basically admitted it when I asked him about it:

-Someone asked me? You mean like you asked User:Defender of torch to revert me in the human rights article?
-I said "I do not care". Yes, that's my personal opinion: we should encourage communication in this project, no matter how people do it (over the phone, by email or using body language). No one should be punished for "canvassing". [209]

In the Red flag article he tried to insert his POVed jokes [210], even after all the users told him that they are inappropriate.[211] Then he simply goes over to the Red Banner article to insert those same jokes there, because he knew that not nearly as much people edit that article.[212] He does not give evidence of the jokes' notability [213] and continues to edit war. [214][215][216] It is like he is on a mission to sneak in his POVed edits anyway he can and does not care what others have to say...

Obviously he was lucky to escape a ban in the EEML case, but his behavior shows that he learned nothing.

-YMB29 (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to "offers" by Biophys

First of all, I don't need to "own" any articles...

As mentioned already, Biophys has made promises before but they were kept only temporarily, until things cooled down.

Also, edit warring is one thing but coordinating it offline and proxying for a banned user, even after the EEML case, is too much. -YMB29 (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to personal attack accusations

Don't know how my comments that Biophys brought up are personal attacks. One of the comments was not even made to him. He also quotes out of context (note again that this is common for him when making accusations) to make it seem like I refused to cooperate with him, when in fact I explained: I have tried to resolve this through discussion countless times with him, but he is not interested. He sometimes only pretends to discuss a little but then fails to continue and just reverts. [217]

Biophys tries to present the statements and evidence here as a mass attack against him (don't know if he still thinks FSB agents are involved) due to his political views, but one just has to look at his history on Wikipedia to see that the complaints against him are valid and many users are just tired of his behavior. -YMB29 (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments/Evidence by LokiiT[edit]

Biophys seems to have gone back to all his old disruptive ways again following a short calm after the EEML case. Just in the past couple of weeks he's engaged in stalking, edit warring and sock fishing, all issues that I had brought up in my EEML evidence page[218], and that I hoped would have come to an end after that.

It started (with me) in late February when he stalked me to the Dokka Umarov article. This was an article he had never edited in before, and his first edit was a revert of my edit (something he has a long history of doing)[219]. (I'm beginning to think he's somehow connected to the POV pushing IP who I had reverted there in the first place). He then continued to edit war in that article[220][221] without discussing things in talk until after, and ignoring everything I was saying, which forced me to take it off my watched list out of frustration. (Also note in that last revert, he used a provocation "trick" I described in my EEML evidence where he does a giant revert-edit while saying something minor/irrelevant in the edit summary.)

I made a somewhat hot-headed response to those provocations of his (given our history, I do believe they were provocations), and he proceeded to report me at an admin's talk page.[222] In his report, he made a bold faced lie about my real life identity, claiming that I had actually said myself that I was "related to" (ie. a sock of) the inactive user Alexandre Koriakine, a name I had all but forgotten about since 2008 when he first accused me and Offliner of being this person's sock along with working for the Russian government (this government accusation was made on a subpage that he deleted, but was confirmed by Future Perfect at Sunrise[223]).

So then, after FPaS had understandably given up on our dispute, Biophys proceeded to report me for sockpuppeting[224]. I made it clear on the page that I believed this was simply a personal attack/revenge tactic and that he was just fishing to see if I had any active socks, since the similarities between myself and the other accused parties are nonexistent; not even so much as back to back reverts or identical edits, and only two or three similar articles. The result[225] of that investigation, involving five users and four IPs, was that they were unrelated. This gives more evidence that he was just fishing and wasting everyone's time on top of it. (Again, puppet fishing was yet another issue I had brought up in my EEML evidence page. The tally of wrongful accusations he's made against me has to be exceeding 10-15 if you include IPs.)

Basically I feel that he's blatantly harassing me, and has been since I first created this account for the specific purpose of avoiding him. If stalking me isn't enough, surely the continuous baseless accusations and lies/prying about my real life identity which have nothing to do with wikipedia content are. LokiiT (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Skäpperöd[edit]

Re: Biophys' proxying for banned users[edit]

It is disturbing to see Biophys continuing the EEML habit of proxying for blocked users (compare the compelling evidence by Russavia above to [226]). Already in December, arbcom had clarified to Biophys that this is not OK, and has included proxying for blocked users in the respective user-specific EEML-FoFs [227] as evidence for disruption. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Don't ban me, I will withdraw from the area of conflict[edit]

Biophys should not even have edited the articles where the proxying took place. He promised to edit science only, and retired, to avoid sanctions in the EEML arbcom:

The arbcom case had just started when Biophys announced "If I am not banned by ArbCom, I will have to abandon this account and start editing only science". When the case was in its final stage (2 months ago), Biophys again stated "please, do not make new additional sanctions for editors who were not even mentioned in the new evidence like Ostap, me and some others. (...) I am asking because this remedy prevents me from creating an alternative account to edit on different subjects, which I was about to do," and the "last word" "If you allow me editing pure science (I contributed a lot in this area without having a single conflict with anyone), that would be great. I might also edit some heritage articles, like biographies Russian writers and poets. The area of conflict can be defined as either "Human rights in Russia" or "Post-Soviet Russia"."

Biophys also 'retired' (obviously, not) to avoid sanctions during the EEML arbcom: "I marked my account as inactive and disabled email yesterday. (...) If anyone was evicted, this is me. I wish all the best to everyone." This response was made by an editor on 15 October 2009 (!): "I can see it now, when this case is over Biophys once again will come out of his "retirement" and continue to do what he has always done."

Re: Biophys' response to the above[edit]

Re [228]: Biophys, your involvement with the EEML and the resulting arbcom is where we met. In contrast to the other EEMListees, you apologized for your wrongdoings and promised to not do that again. Believe it or not, that meant something to me. From your reactions, I had the impression that in contrast to other listmembers you seriously reconsidered where you want to go here. And now I see you proxying big time, and understand that all your promises and talk is just strategy to avoid sanctions. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Vlad fedorov[edit]

Insulting other editros as paid Pro-Putin editors or FSB agents. Incivilty.[edit]

I am actually quite disappointed with adminstrator's discriminative approach to Biophys and Co behaviour. In WP:EEML it was forbidden to name EEML members "Anti-Russian" or "cabal members". At the same time guys like Biophys, Grey Fox, etc. here at these pages and anywhere in WP are allowed to insult anyone as "paid Pro-Putin editors", "paid FSB editors".

I very surprised that criticizing Attacks on humanitarian corridors in Chechnya POV article on absence of the text related to humanitarian corridors equals to being paid Pro-Putin editor, or to being an agent of FSB. See more here. And how this at all relates to being Pro-Putin editor.

I am also surprised that any attempt to fix Biophys extreme POV, as acknowledged already by many editors since Stomakhin arbcase, leads to you being called FSB internet paid editor of fascist "Nashi" group.

I expect that administrators at least here would take measures to enforce arbitration FoF of Piotrus 2 case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes, especially finding on "Involvement by security organs"

6.1) There is no convincing evidence that any of the security organs of the Russian state are involved in Wikipedia editing, directly or indirectly; nor that any editors involved in this matter are acting as agents of or receiving instruction from said organs.

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC) 6.2) Several editors have claimed that they are agents of certain Russian security organs. Such claims are disruptive and potentially intimidating to other editors, even when made in jest.

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that some WP users are allowed to call the names and to insult other users without any consequences. I believe that doesn't promote any collaborative work of the editors and doesn't contribute to already heated atmosphere of Eastern European articles.

Sorry for "I-centric" passage.

Using arbitration as a tool to kick opponents off WP[edit]

Just look into arbitration case which was initiated by Biophys after his unsuccessful edit warring in Operation Sarindar - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys. He got a warning and 3RR block on this article. In sum Biophys has followed Commodore Sloat edits, discovered some unrelated to his matter uncivil comments, summed with his personal accusations and tried to kick Commodore Sloat from WP to OWN Operation Sarindar article.

Now look into arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin, the same picture. He collected all my uncivil comments that I've erroneously made before and made a case against me just to kick me off WP as an editor whose contibutions he was so fiercely opposing. Finally this case from content dispute turned into vlad fedorov civilty case. As a result extremist Boris Stomakhin who was an editor of terrorist web-site KavkazCenter was named as dissident in WP.

Biophys also provokes other users by using various WP procedures. For example, he initiated sockpuppet investigation on users Saiga12 which lead to negative answer and Lokiit just to win content dispute over Chechen articles. And when he gets a response reaction from these authors he insults them by naming paid Pro-Putin editors and claims that it is harrassment campaign against him.

He has also initiated in EEML case campaign against user Ellol whom he accused of issuing coded death threats for him. Now in his response claims that he cooperates with user Ellol. What a drastic change! Perhaps we would ask Ellol himself if he finds Biophys to be cooperative?

Biophys political agenda in WP[edit]

Biophys right from his start in Wikipedia unambiguously by his actions was demonstrating why he is here.

Here is his WP program:

"Western security and intelligence services should start harassing FSB and SVR personnel wherever possible. It should be routine to boot these officers from foreign postings. We should disrupt their lives and the lives of their families whenever and wherever possible. American and European internal-security and foreign-intelligence services should track the finances of former and active-duty FSB and SVR officers. If it is possible to cause them pain--for example, by regularly blocking the accounts of officers even tangentially connected to anti-dissident or criminal activity in Europe or Russia--we should do so."

At the end of this, Biophys uncunnily asks "Is that a good idea?". Do I need to point finger at the people who Biophys considers as FSB personnel in WP?

I leave the question of whether Australian guy like Russavia, US guy Commodore Sloat, or Belarusian lawyer like me are paid Pro-Putin agents. In fact this was repeated so many times, that actually all of us are tired of this and even accustomed to these incivilties.

But any objective observer who would analyze Biophys activities (contribs) in WP, will see:

  • Extreme POV pushing based on opinionated sources. Just one recent example "Putin began the general bombing" from Attacks on humanitarian corridors in Chechnya
  • Sterilization of the articles from any POV contradicting that of Biophys
  • Creation of offensive articles (FSB internet troll squad)
  • Chronic violation of WP:SYNTH This surfaced several times in various arbcases but was never dealt with by the arbitrators.
  • Attempts to kick rival editors through arbitration cases and wikilawyering
  • Chronic violation of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT
  • Harassment of other editors
  • Treating Wikipedia as battleground where forces of light (EEML cabal and their folks) fight the forces of evil (paid Pro-Putin editors)
  • Disinformation of other WP users just like here by telling them that he (Biophys) cannot speak freely in Wikipedia. Ok guys, that Biophys who has created attack article FSB internet troll squad, who is calling other editors "paid Pro-Putin editors", says he is not free to speak here? Am I missing something there?

His previous activities:

this edit could be seen only by the administrators. Here Biophys threats with creation of the new artciles which are supposed to be Anti-Russian.

Another such more rude threat by Biophys.

Start with his personal page which was emptied during EEML arbitration. If you would look at his misc links dating back to 2007 you will see that he has contained there as one of the main links a link to methods of propaganda and disinformation, which contained very detailed description of how to disinform and how to advance propaganda.

Now just let us remember articles created by Biophys: KGB internet troll squad, Putin phallus now in light of that please appreciate his "work":

  • [229] - Biophys deletes sourced content by historian Arno Mayer.
  • [230] - Biophys deletes sourced content by Mayer without providing any reason again, asking to "discuss" on talk page. He does not justify this on Talk page himself.
  • [231] [232] Biophys twice reinserts inaccurate information which is dismissed at talk as not connected to the content of the article – without even bothering to look at the Talk page. When Beatle Fab Four reverts asking him to see talk, Biophys tries to canvass for a block of Beatle Fab Four at User talk:Colchicum. Administrator Alex Bakharev tells Biophys to stop antics like that, as he did not even bother to consult the talk page.
  • [233] - Biophys removes sourced material about the politics of controversial Russian opposition leader Kasparov, claiming "undue weight for biography of a world chess champion."
  • [234] - Biophys is warned by Viriditas to stop inserting nonsense into the Human rights in the United States article while ignoring the changes that take place on the Talk page.
Forecast[edit]

If you won't educate Biophys, perhaps like me in Boris Stomakhin arbcase, these repeated Biophys-centric dramas on Incident admin board, Arb case, and Arb enforcement pages would never stop. Biophys is not showing even an inch of remorse, he still believes that FSB agents are hiding under his bed when he is editing on WP and they try to cut off his electricity supply to prevent him from editing WP.

Re:Biophys claims[edit]

Biophys claims: "I looked at the suggested changes, agreed with some of them, rejected others, and modified whatever was necessary. But I did not act as "meatpuppet". Being "proxy" or "meatpuppet" means doing something exactly as someone else asked you. I did not do that. I made only such changes (with my corrections) I would like to make myself. In a number cases I did not even touch an article because I disagreed with all changes he suggested. I also checked the sources"

You know we had this situation already, but this could be only established by looking into emails or ICQ logs, which could be easily forged by the people who have it.

I even could imagine such "disagreement" between folks:

Hanzo: Please write: "Putin eats children". Biophys: Hanzo, I disagree with you, Putin not only eats, but also fries children.

Anyway, if this could happen, then what sense bans have here in WP? The reason behind this meatpuppetry is that edits are initiated not by current user, but by banned user. Little "diagreements" between these two are not that important. What is important is the result - in the end article is effectively contributed by banned user, and it's not even important to which extent (smaller or bigger). Vlad fedorov (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by user Ellol[edit]

A month ago Biophys came to my talk page and claimed that he had received a email signed by my name with "concerns about his health". Allegedly it was sent during the EEML case (last September — December), he "thought it might be me", but only now that "I indicated my name", he could link it to me. In reality my name has been on my user page non-stop for the past four years with these or those extra bio details. After I asked for more information about that alleged mail repeatedly, Biophys answered "Nothing more to tell at the moment. Thank you." and "Let's drop it" and then diverted from the topic.

At my talk page he stated, entirely on his free will, that "So, that was your impostor who knew your name", while now he speaks differently: "Eloll said it was his impostor, and maybe it was indeed his impostor. I do not know."

Regarding the alleged e-mail, in his recent post he claims to have "immediately deleted it as garbage", what is contradictory with his alleged state of concern with such a mail that now turns to be "a mildly threatening" per his comment. [235]

I think that it must be clear that a story like that can't be treated as an accusation against any Wikipedia user, me in this case. Moreover, internal contradictions inside Biophys'es story indicate that it could be intentionally thought-up as an attempt to disseminate fear-mongering aka "Russians go" what is a very, very bad taste.

ellol (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Biophys[edit]

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

This request has now been open for ten days without input by uninvolved admins (and indeed apparently without input by users not involved in Eastern Europe editing disputes). My best guess is this is because

  • the request is not so obviously either well founded or without merit that it could be disposed of quickly but needs close examiniation by several uninvolved people,
  • it involves very many and serious allegations of longterm misconduct on the part of an established editor, and
  • many administrators may not want to go anywhere near something that appears to be related to the hugely conflictual WP:EEML case and/or its parties.

For these reasons, I believe that this request is ill-suited to be dealt with under arbitration enforcement procedures. I propose that we - the admins working at AE - refer it to the Arbitration Committee so that they may decide whether to take it as a full case, dismiss it or otherwise dispose of it.  Sandstein  16:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Sandstein on all counts - with cases of these nature you're looking at things which have been bubbling up for months or years and an uninvolved admin is practically unable to make a judgement call because of a lack of comprehension of that history - there seems to be bad blood on both sides and it's unclear whether it's all just a misunderstanding, or whether one side's targetting the other, or reacting to the other. ArbCom should be asked in this case for assistance. Orderinchaos 06:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll ask the Committee to take a look and am closing the thread here.  Sandstein  06:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I am familiar with the history here, and have reviewed the evidence. Uncollapsing the thread now because reading tiny type was giving me a headache. Jehochman Talk 11:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, but I am putting it into an archive box so as to prevent this case from being discussed in several places at once.  Sandstein  20:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Pieter Kuiper[edit]

Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) warned.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Pieter Kuiper[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
-- Cirt (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Pieter Kuiper (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 
  1. 00:18, 23 March 2010 Unsourced change to WP:BLP article in Scientology topic, article Aaron Saxton.
  2. 23:39, 24 March 2010 Removal of sourced information from page List of Scientologists.
  3. 00:21, 25 March 2010 WP:WIKIHOUNDING, following me over to T:TDYK submission page in attempt to get nomination derailed. -- Cirt (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  4. 07:28, 25 March 2010 WP:NOR violation, claiming personal interpretation somehow trumps reliable sources.
  5. 07:31, 25 March 2010 Again, removal of sourced information, from page, List of Scientologists.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. 00:21, 23 March 2010 Warning by Cirt (talk · contribs) -- warning regarding making unsourced changes to WP:BLP article, Aaron Saxton.
  2. 00:26, 23 March 2010 Warning by Cirt (talk · contribs) -- 2nd warning regarding making unsourced changes to WP:BLP article, in scope of Scientology topic.
  3. 00:34, 23 March 2010 Warning by Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) -- 3rd warning regarding making unsourced changes to WP:BLP article.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Block, and/or topic ban, per discretion of reviewing administrator. -- Cirt (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Let's hope that a warning to Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) regarding behavior, subsequently logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions, should be sufficient to deal with the issue. -- Cirt (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Sandstein: The source indicated that the subject was 16 years old in 1991, and the source was published in December. Which made it very likely that Saxton was born in 1975. Routine calculations are allowable by policy. But once the source was challenged I realized it was better to withdraw that particular information entirely [237] - as it was possible Saxton might have been born in late 1974. Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) did not actually provide a source for his changes. -- Cirt (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Pieter Kuiper[edit]

Statement by Pieter Kuiper[edit]

What? I have not hounded Cirt in general, I have only tried to counter his pushing of Aaron Saxton as a Scientiology big shot. Which he was not, he was just a kid when he joined, and left the "elite" a few years later at 21. I do not know what I am supposed to write here. Do I need a lawyer?

Cirt is clearly an expert at wikilawyering. He has been throwing the Book of Wikipedia Rules at me, and leaving "warning" at my user page from the beginning. In order to prepare this kind of denunciation. Or to try to tick me off and report me for incivility. But as can be seen in the history of Aaron Saxton, it was Cirt who invented a year of birth, which was of by a year. Yet he put this year in a fact box, with a reference. Clearly inventing false factoids like this is against BLP policies. It was a serious error, which could have had serious consequences for the subject. So I changed it. But Cirt stubbornly reintroduced his false fact.

So I want to report Cirt for breaking the rules on BLP. I see that he is an admin: he should be desysopped. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Response: This "court" is biased in favor of rule-book waving admins. Why are you warning me for having corrected false factoids in the "doubly sensitive area of BLP and Scientology"? Cirt did not have his facts straight. WP:NOR#Routine calculations allows calculating age from birth dates, it does not allow guessing a year of birth from vague information in a news report. If all these high-ranking officials say that such a thing is routine on enwp, this place is in real trouble. The warning is grossly unfair, instead I should be thanked for having spotted this. As to collegiality, constructiveness, AGF and friendliness, it is also Cirt who is displaying problematic behaviour: when I had corrected the false birth year, cirt did not ask me to explain why I thought that he was wrong. He just reverted, not only that, but he wrote a message on my talk page, accusing me of defamation, threatening to report me here, and to block me.
So where does one appeal? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Pieter Kuiper[edit]

Comments by Sandstein[edit]

Initial comment prior to any reply by Pieter Kuiper: Sanctions under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Discretionary_topic_ban are not allowed as long as the request does not include a diff of a warning of the sort required by the cited remedy. All that could conceivably result from this request, therefore, is such a warning. (A block for disruption under normal admin authority does not appear to be immediately necessary on the basis of the provided evidence.)  Sandstein  16:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I am limiting my review to the five diffs provided by Cirt and the explanations given by Cirt why he considers them problematic. Questions:

  • Diff 1: To both: What text in the cited source supports either 1974 or 1975 as the year of birth?
  • Diff 2, 4 and 5: To Pieter Kuiper: The cited source reads: "The cited Aaron Saxton, who rose to a senior level in the Sea Org ..." In view of this, why did you undid Cirt's addition twice with the edit summaries "Saxton was not a senior official" and "Saxton being "senior" at 21 would need a much better source"?
  • Diff 3: To Pieter Kuiper: Please explain your reason for this edit.

I would appreciate an answer by both Cirt and Pieter Kuiper, respectively, within two hours of their next edit, or I may choose to operate under the assumption most unfavorable to them should I decide to take any administrative action as a result of this request. Thanks,  Sandstein  22:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

1) As you can see for yourself, the source does not say exactly what year Saxton was born. It says the Saxton was made a guard when he was 16, which was apparently before he was sent to California in 1991. This could also be consistent with a birth date in 1973 or even earlier. I knew birth year was 1974 from subject's own statement (which Cirt himself had uploaded to Commons), but Cirt demanded an "independent reliable secondary" source, so I did not replace the newspaper reference.
2) Your diff refers to what I explained on the talk page: "Saxton left Sea Org when he was 21. An inflated description of an individual in the media cannot justify including him in this list with a spokesman, with the founder and his wife, and with others that Scientology itself describes as having held high rank in the organization. ... [Inclusion in a list like this requires] a source that deals with the organization in general." Cirt's newspaper source does not support that Saxton was a senior official of the Scientology church, it just says that he attained a senior level in Sea org, which seems a very spartan kind of boot camp. A drill sergeant or something could be described as "senior level".
3) I looked at what linked to the Aaron Saxton article, I noticed the DYK nomination, which had the most boring hook. So I voted against. Anything wrong with that? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Durova[edit]

Re: Sandstein, this topic is also covered by Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Article_probation which does not require prior warning for administrator action. Pieter Kuiper has been wikihounding Cirt recently. The only edit that Pieter Kuiper has ever made at the "Did you know" process was yesterday when Pieter attempted an out of process rejection of Cirt's most recent submission about Scientology although the article clearly qualified for DYK.[238][239] Pieter has followed Cirt to several Scientology articles where Pieter has been obstructing Cirt's work, mainly by Pieter's introducing ageist original research, and Pieter has removed reliably referenced information while referring to an adult BLP subject as a "kid".[240][241][242] Cirt has done nothing to provoke this person. This looks like a reasonable attempt on Cirt's part to clear the air.[243] The subject of Scientology has been through four arbitrations; we don't need someone who pursues vendettas or picks fights. A formal warning may prevent this problem from spreading. Durova412 17:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It's disappointing to see the aggressive statement from Pieter Kuiper. The "false factoids" incident Pieter refers to is another incident of Pieter Wikihounding Cirt. Per Wikipedia:NOR#Routine_calculations, Cirt had calculated the birth year of Aaron Saxton based upon a statement of subject's age.[244] Pieter followed Cirt to the article and altered the birth year without providing a new source.[245] Shortly afterward Pieter started a talk page thread to accuse Cirt of policy violation.[246] Ten minutes after the thread started Cirt cooperated,[247] but Pieter refused to provide sources: instead he told Cirt "Google, and thou shalt find."[248] The underlying issue was whether the BLP subject had been born in 1975 or 1974: if Pieter continues to make bones of contention over things that are so minor, that could upend the delicate equilibrium the Scientology topic has maintained for the last ten months. Durova412 19:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
To Pieter: your statement appears to be asserting that Cirt deserves to be desysopped because of a single routine calculation that he withdrew ten minutes after you complained about it. No actual harm was caused by briefly posting a birth year as 1975 instead of 1974; it's the kind of thing that normally clears up in five minutes of editorial discussion. Can you see how your refusal to provide a source could appear to be vandalism at first, and afterward gives the impression of itching for a fight? Scientology is a sensitive subject that reenters arbitration at en:wiki almost on a yearly basis. Cirt has written many good articles and featured articles that have helped to stabilize the area. More good faith would go a long way. Durova412 23:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
If Cirt and you regard guessing someone's year of birth from rather vague information in a newspaper article as routine, both of you have serious problems with WP:BLP. If I had not insisted, the false information would still be there. Cirt was not asking, but demanded "independent reliable secondary" sources, which I did not have. He just clung to his own guesses, and he still seems to regard them as justified. It is beyond me how one can think that the date of the news report enters the "routine calculation". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Please move the comment to your own section, Pieter. The way this transpired could have been handled a lot better. Cirt agreed with you and withdrew his assertion ten minutes after you explained a problem with it. It is customary to provide sources when one makes a change to a BLP article; do you see how it caused difficulties to withhold that source and accuse the other editor of bad faith when he attempted to engage you in dialog? After you followed him to several other articles that left him with little choice other than AE. Let's work this out with a handshake. Durova412 00:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Orderinchaos[edit]

I became aware of User:Pieter Kuiper through his WP:POINTy behaviour at AfD and DYK in my home area of Australian politics. When I looked into it, it seemed to be a more broadly consistent pattern of following User:Cirt around on topics in any way connected with or related to Scientology. Many of the other issues re DOB of Aaron Saxton are red herrings; Pieter did not deal with this matter in good faith and seemed more interested in undermining the other user (it could simply have been added with a source to the article, without the need for all the rest). This sort of stuff happens (without the attending drama) all the time in my project due to inconsistent information supplied about elected state politicians by state governments, and nobody's ever terribly worried about being proven wrong by a better source (much less being desysopped!!). Cirt has neither provoked these actions, nor responded in kind. I am in agreement with Durova that a formal warning, with sanctions following if the user continues the conduct, would be a suitable resolution to this matter. Orderinchaos 01:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Pieter Kuiper[edit]

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

Thank you for the replies, Cirt and Peter Kuiper. My assessment of the request is broadly similar to that of Durova and Orderinchaos. People may in good faith disagree whether one should qualify this person as a "senior official" in this "SeaOrg", or how (if at all) one should extrapolate his age from the information in the source at issue. But Pieter Kuiper chose to pursue this disagreement in a needlessly aggressive fashion: by reverting Cirt twice, asking pointed questions on the talk page, following Cirt to DYK to "vote" (meaninglessly, as T:TDYK is not a vote) against the article being featured there, calling for Cirt's desysop here (which is entirely ridiculous) and generally giving the impression of having the main aim of entering into conflict with Cirt rather than resolving the content disagreement in a collegial, friendly and WP:AGF manner. As we know, this mode of editing is unfortunately not uncommon on Wikipedia. That does not make it acceptable, especially in the doubly sensitive fields of BLP and Scientology. For this reason I am warning Pieter Kuiper to stop editing Scientology subjects in anything but a collegial, friendly and constructive manner (as would be expected, e.g., among real-world co-workers) consistent with our etiquette, or he may be made subject to sanctions under WP:ARBSCI#Discretionary topic ban and/or WP:COFS#Article probation. As to Cirt, I do not see a need for a warning or sanction on the basis of this discussion, as he correctly removed the calculated date of birth (whose initial inclusion policy appears to allow) after Pieter Kuiper contested it.  Sandstein  05:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In reply to Pieter Kuiper, warnings are not sanctions and as such not subject to appeal, but you may appeal any sanction (such as blocks or topic bans) that may be imposed upon you in the future as provided for in the relevant arbitration remedies.  Sandstein  08:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper[edit]

Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) topic-banned from Scientology for two weeks.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Request concerning Pieter Kuiper[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
-- Cirt (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
  1. All articles in topic Scientology are on existing Article probation, from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Article_probation
  2. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Discretionary_topic_ban
  3. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Enforcement_by_block
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 08:43, 26 March 2010 -- WP:POINT edit to policy page WP:NOR, shortly after receiving a warning from prior Arbitration Enforcement thread. This policy edit by the user was made 20 minutes after Sandstein clarified his warning.
  2. 16:31, 26 March 2010 -- At Talk:Aaron Saxton, with a subsection heading of "Hyperinflation", user addressed comment at me, saying, "Cirt is continuing his attempts at making Saxton a former big shot."
  3. 19:56, 26 March 2010 -- After it was pointed out to the user that his comment was inaccurate for he mistakenly was looking at the wrong citation, he shifted his argument, and instead asserted that video was inherently problematic as a reference, making demands not based in policy.
  4. 08:47, 27 March 2010 -- The above issue was addressed, and the user then went to an Article for Deletion discussion on Aaron Saxton, with a new argument, complaining about WP:SELFPUB. Less than 20 percent of the article is to self-published sources.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. 05:36, 26 March 2010 Warning by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  2. 17:31, 26 March 2010 Warning by Orderinchaos (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

Block, and/or topic ban, per discretion of reviewing administrator. -- Cirt (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Pieter Kuiper[edit]

Statement by Pieter Kuiper[edit]

Cirt uses the same tactics as scientologists: trying make people back off by intimidation and litigation. I find it stange that he is allowed to be an administrator with this kind of behavior. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to Tim Song: if the topic area is special (but I do not understand why Scientology would be more special than other subjects), it is Cirt that shows no inclination of editing this area in a collegial manner. He acts as the owner of Aaron Saxton, which is the only topic about which I have disagreed with him here. If he wants a topic ban for the whole of Scientology, that is just preventive measure to neutralize a possible opponent. The same with all those officious "warnings" that he has issued. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
To Durova: it is really touching to see how much you care for your protegé, but if I acted inappropriately on Commons, would not it be more effective if you denounced me there? However, copyright infringement is not a matter of give and take. Nor is WP:BLP or years of birth. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
One more thing: Durova is wrong in saying that I nominated the article Aaron Saxton for deletion. There is no substance in her contribution here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
To orderinchaos: Durova wrote:"When Cirt started an article at en:wiki which demonstrated they were within project scope, Pieter Kuiper followed him here and nominated the article for deletion; the article has forty sources now yet he has not withdrawn either nomination." Which is a clear lie. And all those sources are just link bombing (Turkish newspapers!) or Saxton's self-published videos.
I had nominated the Saxton videos on commons for deletion, yes. a) It does not concern you here; b) it was to move a discussion about questionable uploads to its proper place; c) I was not alone in thinking that Commons should not host such files; d) Those files were not used.
Then Cirt started an article about Saxton to save those files. I commented that on its talk page. And I corrected a serious BLP error. Which Cirt has not appreciated. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
To Orderinchaos: it was Cirt who was extremely combative, accusing me of defamation when I corrected a year of birth. Threatening to report me. Then reporting me here. I was annoyed, but I stayed civil. It is Cirt's attitude that is the problem. A normal editor would have asked my I thought that Saxton was born in 1974, and why I thought that the source supported that. And I would have patiently explained. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
To JN466: I made only one single edit in the whole history of the Aaron Saxton article, a few comments on its talk page, and at the DR. My last comment concerning Saxton was already more than 48 hours ago. I do not see why I should promise not to say anything more about him. I have been doing other stuff on nlwp, on commons, and here. And now I am busy with my daytime job. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
To Orderinchaos: I was not incivil. The simplest Google search led immediately to the source, a file that Cirt himself had uploaded. Are you concerned about incivility? Look here. The Swedish block log that Durova dug up about "lack of respect" was a characterization of my deleting someone's message on my talk page; no problem here, a sin against some unwritten rule on svwp. Why bring up such things here? And wikilawyering? This looks like a court (a kangaroo court if you ask me), I am responding. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Pieter Kuiper[edit]

Comment by Orderinchaos

In general I think we understand that someone may be angry or upset after an AE rules against them and in the immediate period following they may do something heated and pointedly silly which can be dealt with but overlooked. I would place the very first of Cirt's points re Pieter's conduct in that category, and although I saw it, I wrote it off in those terms.

However, the points 2 and onward (particularly the "Hyperinflation" stuff) demonstrate a continuance that is not a mere heat-of-the-moment reaction and shows some willingness to continue the campaign for which he got warned. I think a topic ban re Scientology per Tim, and possibly an interaction ban re Cirt, would be the most appropriate ways to deal with this situation. Orderinchaos 10:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Pieter in his response appears to be avoiding that he's basically been asked to stay away from Cirt in the last AE. If he is as wrong as Pieter claims he is, then his prosecution would be unnecessary - there are close on 2,000 admins and many experienced editors and if Cirt's alleged violations of rules are so grave, there's no shortage of people who can come forward and enforce them. The fact that Pieter feels it necessary to run the entire operation himself in multiple threads and locations suggests the cause lacks either merit or importance. Orderinchaos 15:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
JN and Pieter - where does Durova say he nominated that article for deletion? She referred to a "group of Cirt's uploads", not an article, and he did indeed nominate the Aaron Saxton commons files for deletion, which was the start of this particular situation. We're dealing, anyway, with a pattern of wikihounding and inappropriate behaviour - if there are valid points in Pieter's arguments, it's for the community to decide and others to take up, as the last AE determined his interactions with Cirt were problematic. And JN, he is not a user in good standing as he received a warning for violating the terms of the Scientology ArbCom, and we're here debating whether that warning should become a sanction. If he was in good standing, the last AE would have been perfunctorily dismissed. Orderinchaos 03:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
JN: I have no position on the content details (my expertise is Australian politics and local government, not the ins and outs of various faiths) - the problem was always the behaviour and not the particular issues. PK went about it in such a combative and bad faith way that it was impossible for it to end well, even if he ultimately turns out to be right on one or more points he has made. Looking at his contributions and activities elsewhere demonstrates that this is his standard mode of behaviour. It is ArbCom's expressed opinion that this is a topic where that sort of behaviour is not needed, over and above other topics. Unless it's sheer vandalism being dealt with, the way to do things is by engagement on the talk page, and by engagement, I mean good faith engagement. ArbCom themselves as well as various community processes have banned people at various junctures who it has accepted were right (or at least not wrong) on some or all of their positions w.r.t. the content, but through their behaviour created needless conflict. Indeed, at least one template I routinely use in my work were originally written by a SPA troll who I fought against on account of his bullying behaviour which drove 12 people off the project. The remedy being asked for here is solely a topic ban for 3 months, he will be free to continue in any other area without hindrance. Orderinchaos 08:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Pieter - with the year as source, you were incredibly incivil. See [249]. Why not just have added the year with the source in the first place rather than cause so much drama with the teasing and taunting thereafter?
I have an assignment to be getting on with offline, so this will be my last word on this particular AE, but I firmly disagree with JN that no action is needed at this time. Pieter has proven that nothing short of an actionable sanction will be sufficient to contain his behaviour, as he pretty much ignored the warning by Sandstein and proceeded with his excessive hounding of another user. Or, as one Swedish Wikipedia admin put it aptly, "treating (the user) with disrespect". There's a certain element of wikilawyering going on too, both in the various locations and at this AE. If not stopped, the matter most likely will end up with ArbCom themselves for determination, as AE is limited to enforcing existing remedies.
After reviewing more widely, I'm not entirely sure that JN's stake in this matter is indeed neutral, as when I look over the months, he seems to have disagreed with Cirt on many past occasions, this being only the latest. The fact he was willing to defend Pieter before even seeing the evidence of his actions and record elsewhere at the start of this proceeding really does bring into question what his intentions are here. As for me, it's on the record that my first ever interaction with Cirt was a conduct RfC he brought against me in November 2009 demanding my desysopping. It's long resolved now (and Cirt withdrew it at the appropriate time), but a point worth making as I am not in anybody's "camp" as has been alleged. Orderinchaos 11:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Noting that I support Tim's compromise. Orderinchaos 17:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Durova

This appears to be taking the shape of a campaign of cross-project hounding by Pieter against Cirt. It began on March 22 at the Commons Administrators' Noticeboard.[250] Shortly afterward Pieter nominated a group of Cirt's uploads for deletion, asserting they were out of scope.[251] When Cirt started an article at en:wiki which demonstrated they were within project scope, Pieter Kuiper followed him here and nominated the article for deletion; the article has forty sources now yet he has not withdrawn either nomination. Yesterday Pieter Kuiper returned to Commons and nominated several of Cirt's other uploads for deletion including material uploaded years ago under a previous username. Some of Pieter's points may be meritorious, but he he hasn't engaged in give and take: when he is mistaken or when new evidence supports Cirt, Pieter does not acknowledge it but instead raises a new complaint or becomes aggressive. Pieter's block logs at Commons and at the Swedish Wikipedia indicate a pattern of combative behavior within the last half year.[252][253] Durova412 14:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Followup: Pieter appears to be personalizing the dispute. As stated before, I filed two arbitration cases about Scientology. By the start of this month things had finally settled down to the point where both "sides" had awarded me barnstars.[254] After three years of watching this topic one sees how progress gets derailed. Durova412 15:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Jayen466

I think Pieter Kuiper is being railroaded a little here. Compare this case to the recent AE thread on User:Wispanow, who edit-warred to introduce unsourced material, and delete sourced material, was far more uncivil than Pieter here, and claimed the BBC and Time Magazine were anti-German racists. He was given the chance to voice his concerns, at length, in a moderated discussion. Now, Pieter actually had content concerns here that seem considerably more valid and straightforward than Wispanow's. Why isn't he given the same chance as Wispanow, but instead subjected to the full weight of the banhammer? This is uneven and heavy-handed. I'd rather see Cirt and Pieter Kuiper discussing their respective content concerns, with a moderator if need be, so each gets to have their say. --JN466 16:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Pieter Kuiper is an editor in good standing who has edited here since 2005, mostly on science and Sweden topics, has a clean block log, and no discernible prior history with this topic area. [255] He clearly was needled by the messages Cirt left on his talk page, but then, with respect, these did seem a little harsh, and apt to cause such a reaction (especially given that Pieter turned out to have been right on the original content dispute about the birth year).

I agree that Pieter Kuiper needs to calm down and take the personal animus out of his interaction with Cirt (and vice versa), but a topic ban seems too harsh at this point, given his five-year history of apparently problem-free editing here. --JN466 17:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

  • To Durova: I have to agree with you that the Commons and Swedish block logs (which I hadn't seen) seem to indicate a somewhat worrying tendency to get steamed up; although I note the majority of these blocks were actually overturned again, and put down to momentary over-excitement. But I was under the impression that in arbitration matters, we do not take behaviour in other projects into account, and let each project deal with its own issues. Otherwise I would have posted Wispanow's German WP block log here last time round. --JN466 18:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • To Cirt: Re the last diff, the SELFPUB argument, I feel what Pieter is saying there is an argument that one can entertain in good faith. At the time the AfD was filed, a quarter of the article's sources were the subject's 7 self-published youtube videos, which you uploaded to Commons, and which caused your disagreement with Pieter there. Content sourced to these self-published videos in the article includes the passage, "During his time as part of the CMO, Saxton witnessed a procedure where the organization would investigate how critics of Scientology received their information, and if this was from a Scientologist there would be an attempt to discredit the individual.[22][23]" While I don't want to comment on the appropriateness of this sentence, one could at least entertain a good-faith debate on whether this sourcing is appropriate, or whether it infringes points 2 and 3 of WP:SELFPUB, i.e. "2 it does not involve claims about third parties; 3 it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject". I agree it would have helped if Pieter had acknowledged the couple of points on which he was wrong on the article talk page (like the "senior management" thing), as you did with the birthdate, but I still do not find that his mention of WP:SELFPUB can solely be attributed to a desire to spite you. --JN466 18:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • To Cirt: As I said, Pieter was quite wrong when he said that your source did not mention "senior management". Pieter was referring to an abridged video transcript, which indeed does not contain the claim, and you were (quite correctly) sourcing from the complete video itself, which does mention it – though in a somewhat loose manner, extending it to all 5,000+ members of Scientology's Sea Org. Now the Sea Org is not usually described as "Scientology's senior management", and the term "senior management" is not commonly used to refer to groups of several thousand people, but even so, having accused you of misrepresenting your sources, Pieter should have acknowledged his mistake and apologised. It was the source's choice of words. But his talk page post about "hyperinflation" harked back to an earlier context. You had been in a dispute and brief edit-war [256][257][258][259] with Pieter before about adding Aaron Saxton to List of Scientologists under the heading "Former officials", a section which includes a half-dozen major figures in Scientology such as Hubbard himself, his wife, and well-known top officials such as Mark Rathbun and Mike Rinder who, in their role as Scientology officials, attracted significant press attention over a period spanning several decades. You gave way to Pieter in that dispute in the end, and I think it was the right thing to do – Saxton had no press profile whatsoever as a Scientology official, only attracting attention after he left Scientology, as a whistleblower. Pieter appears to have viewed this as an attempt on your part to make Saxton look more important than he really was as a Scientology official, to bolster the notability and relevance of your Commons material, which was threatened by his deletion request. That breakdown in trust on Pieter's side is regrettable, but you are not entirely blameless in that, having been quick to threaten him with blocks on his talk page a couple of days prior, and thus contributed to setting up an adversarial climate. --JN466 19:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • To Cirt: The edit to WP:NOR (1st diff) was made to a policy page you are not in the habit of editing, as far as I recall, and need not have concerned you, given that you had already given way on the issue. Pieter's reasoning is sound -- if we only know someone was 20 in mid-1990, we have no way of telling whether he was born in 1970 or 1969, and should not add a guess for either calendar year to a BLP. Whether this needs to be mentioned in WP:NOR is another matter and subject to discussion at the relevant talk page, but the principle at least that Pieter has proposed has attracted support there. At any rate, it is well outside the Scientology topic area, and the warning Pieter received at the NOR talk page from Orderinchaos was in my opinion uncalled for. --JN466 20:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • To Pieter: You are correct. Aaron Saxton was nominated for deletion by The-Pope (talk · contribs), who asserted, with some feeling, that his nomination was independent of this dispute. --JN466 21:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • To Orderinchaos: Durova said, When Cirt started an article at en:wiki which demonstrated they were within project scope, Pieter Kuiper followed him here and nominated the article for deletion; the article has forty sources now yet he has not withdrawn either nomination. I assumed we were talking about the Aaron Saxton article. Do you believe we were talking about another article? Aaron Saxton was nominated by The-Pope (talk · contribs) who, even though Durova implied at the Afd that the nomination was related to this dispute, credibly (his edit history shows he was working on WikiProject Australia BLPs immediately prior to the nomination) asserted that his nomination was entirely unrelated to this dispute.
  • To Orderinchaos: Pieter Kuiper is an editor in good standing, who received a warning 3 days ago, in the previous AE thread, for five diffs:
    1. Inserting the subject's correct birth year, an edit which Cirt reverted once, inserting erroneous and unsourced information himself in the process, but has since let stand (diff 1 in the previous thread above)
    2. Removing Aaron Saxton from the "Former officials" section, an edit which Cirt has since let stand (diffs 2 and 5 in the previous thread above)
    3. Commenting at the proposed DYK hook for Aaron Saxton, an article with which he was already involved – commenting at the DYK hook of an article one has worked on is not generally considered "Wikihounding" (diff 3 in the previous thread above)
    4. Arguing that it did not make sense to list Aaron Saxton, who was completely unknown before his recent whistleblowing, as a major Scientology official next to L Ron Hubbard himself, Mary Sue Hubbard, Rathbun, Rinder and Gaiman, all of whom had a significant press profile (diff 4 above). In the above thread that led to the warning, this diff was interpreted as a "policy violation". Editors have discussions about WP:DUE weight here every day without being accused of violating policy. Again, Cirt gave way in this dispute and did not reintroduce Saxton in the list of former officials.
  • To summarise, Pieter made 1 edit that removed erroneous and unsourced information from a BLP, 2 edits that might be seen to have upheld WP:DUE and have remained in the article, one talk page edit to defend these edits, and one comment at the DYK hook for an article he was already involved with. --JN466 08:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • To Tim Song: I has been argued in both threads that the original article probation from the first Scientology case is still in place. I believe this gives admins more discretion; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. As for the edit to WP:NOR that you diff, I believe it is out of scope and not covered by Scientology remedies. --JN466 09:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • To Orderinchaos: I don't think it is quite fair to lay all the blame at Pieter Kuiper's feet here. As he says, he was reverted and threatened with a block on his talk page for correcting an erroneous birth year. I don't think it is good style for admins involved in content disputes to issue block warnings. There are far too many bad-faith accusations here: User:The-Pope was accused at AfD of nominating the article because of this dispute (when he wasn't), Durova said Pieter nominated the Aaron Saxton article for deletion (when he hadn't), you said that Pieter making an edit to WP:NOR was "harassing" Cirt, and Cirt and Durova accused Aylaross of "canvassing" at Commons for advising a previously involved admin of the deletion discussion (an accusation that Durova was kind enough to retract). Please, let's all retain some sense of perspective here and not make mountains out of molehills (including molehills that don't even exist). This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. Surely Cirt could have approached Pieter Kuiper in a somewhat less combative manner than reverting his edits and issuing block threats on his opponent's talk page. --JN466 09:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I am in favour of closing this thread without result. Pieter, to bring some closure to this, would you be prepared to voluntarily step away from the whole Aaron Saxton thing for 48 hours? I would appreciate that. Let this rest, it is not your normal topic area anyway, regain some perspective, see if you still care about it in two days' time. Let's let the AfD run its natural course, trust the closing admin to get it right, and get on with doing something more useful. --JN466 09:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Pieter Kuiper[edit]

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

I am of the view that the request has merit, and concur with Sandstein's analysis in the previous AE thread. Edits such as [260] and [261] are simply unacceptable especially in this topic area, and doing so a few hours after Sandstein's warning shows that the user has little inclination to edit in a collegial manner in this subject area, but instead the edits "generally giv[e] the impression of having the main aim of entering into conflict with Cirt rather than resolving the content disagreement" in an appropriate manner. Therefore, unless another uninvolved administrator objects, I'm inclined to impose a topic ban for three months from all Scientology-related articles and discussions. Tim Song (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Though the request has some merit, the situation could be handled by a 48 hour topic ban to keep the situation from getting immediately worse. I think the 3 month suggestion is way out of proportion to the problem for an ed. without apparent previous problems in this area, and about originally quite trivial issues in the bio. If it continues after that, obviously it's another matter DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The remedy at issue does not seem to contemplate shorter topic bans - it says that the user may be "banned, initially, for three months", otherwise I'd be happy with a fortnight given that the disputes here are relatively less significant. Tim Song (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I interpret that as an inadvertent error for the usual ", initially, for up to three months". And I see at [[262]] that there have been shorter topic bans than that. I consider the specific 4 pts complained of trivial except the first.(IP removed) 16:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Very well, I suppose this can go under the article probation, which does seem to be in effect. Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Scientology and all related discussions and other content (including talk pages and process discussions, except only for legitimate and necessary dispute resolution involving himself) for two weeks. This sanction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. It should go without saying that any further attempts to hound Cirt, before or after the topic ban expires, will be looked upon with great disfavor. Tim Song (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO[edit]

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

Request concerning ChrisO[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
JaakobouChalk Talk 16:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
ChrisO (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#Principles
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [263] First introduction of: "campaign to prove the innocence of [[Yigal Amir]]" into the article -- WP:BLP is the concern here, especially with the phrase about Amir who is serving a lifetime sentence without parole for murdering the Israeli Prime Minister (Rabin) in 1995. This exceptional and libellous claim is not stated on ANY Hebrew sources that I've seen (I've looked hard) and ChrisO is now citing BLP as a reason to include it?
  2. [264] - reintroduction.
  3. [265] - again+threat.
  4. [266] - again.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. [267] - one week ban from main article -- Muhammad al-Durrah incident, in which Nahum Shahaf participated as an investigator.
  2. [268] - one month ban from main article.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Be issued a final Biography of Living Persons warning about the Yigal Amir text and his "Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions" to reinsert it over and over again. Further sanctions at the discretion of reviewing admin.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

(1) ChrisO/George initially nominated the article for deletion[269] after, for a considerable amount of time, ChrisO hasn't wasted many opportunities to call Shahaf and others who agree with him (e.g. James Fallows, Esther Schapira and many others) conspiracy theorists[270][271][272][273][274][275][276][277][278][279][280] and, on occasion, "whackjob conspiracy theorists".[281]
(2) I'm displeased when ChrisO vitiated the concept of the BLP-vio by applying it (in edit summaries) on non contentious content, such as Shahaf completing his Physics Masters at Bar-Ilan University (cited to Shahaf's CV on his personal website), as a reasoning or justification to reinsert the Yigal Amir/Rabin issue through the backdoor despite being reminded of both BLP and BRD policies. This constitutes, best I can see, a repeated, wilful violation of basic content policies to which the editor in concern is fully aware.


Comments regarding statement by ChrisO:

  • The CV is only used for adding minor detail to already existing publication. There are documented photocopies to many of the statements linked in this page (Samples:[282][283][284][285][286][287][288][289][290]) and this website is run by Nahum Shahaf. Also, notes on the Wikipedia:RSN#Curriculum_vitae include the following comment and Dlabot misdirects the discussion, which is not really developed to begin with:
    • If it can be established beyond reasonable doubt it's his CV, then it would be OK to say "according to his CV ...". WP:SPS says self-published articles "may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves". See some of the provisos about use though --Insider201283 (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • There exists only one English source and ZERO Hebrew sources that suggest Shahaf participated in a campaign to release Yigal Amir. This claim is libellous and cannot be compared with the adding of a date of birth or the addition that he completed his studies with honours. To bring up BLP while inserting this material is a wilful violation of basic content policies.

Comments regarding statement by Jehochman:

  • There really is no comparison between my attempts to keep the page written like a biography and the libellous content ChrisO repeatedly inserted. One is an RfC type of issue on how the community views self published sources for notes such as that Shahaf did his CT work (already cited to James Fallows) at Elscint or that he graduated with honours and the other is on par with the automatic revert standards expected for poorly sourced (and fallacious) libellous, exceptional and contentious content. For comparison I give the Danish reporter who decided to say the Israeli aid team harvested organs at Haiti -- we'd revert this content even though his paper is considered wiki-reliable. You can't compare this with, for example, a self-published blog article where one of the members of the aid team gives extra input to already published content such as the number of beds they had or the exact time they found someone under the rubble.
  • Jehochman,
    I've no intention of getting into an edit-war and I'm in full agreement that I shouldn't take part in any further reverts on the matter, certainly. The last thing I'd be interested in is getting into even the appearance of edit-warring. You can see that despite there being a somewhat clear BLP-vio, I've brought the matter here rather than removing what "should be removed immediately" one more time (once the situation became clear). It appears that direction here is to give us both an edit-war warning irregardless of the massive difference between the "the 9/11 truthers"/"whackjob"[291] intentions and relevant ban history[292][293] of editors involved and the notes of our biography/edit-war policies. The exceptions for edit-warring, specifically "Libelous, biased, [and quite] poorly sourced controversial material" about this "campaign" to release Yigal Amir -- serving a lifetime without parole -- are my sole defence for edit-warring, but then, it is an official policy and the content is libellous and I would never cite WP:BLP as a means to insert or edit-war libellous material into a biography. I do agree that I inserted some minor details such as Shahaf receiving honours for his studies from a source which is debatable (some agreed it could be used), but I'm having difficulty with the comparison. The simple way of looking at it is to say 'both editors reverted citing BLP, I'm not going to look into it so.. a pox on both their houses!' but I believe this approach would be a mistake here.
    With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 05:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC) +clarify 06:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC) +m 06:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments regarding statement by Gatoclass:

  • I've recently quipped on a number of forums about Gatoclass always popping up whenever one of his coterie of favourable editors (e.g. Nableezy, Tiamut, RonaldR, PalestineRemembered) is in trouble. In short, Gatoclass's commentary and analysis on the Yigal Amir "campaign" text is fallacious. That text is defamatory and ChrisO couldn't even present a second source, let alone a proper list, saying Shahaf "campaigned" to free Yigal Amir. He's been noted to the BLP nature of this dangerous statement but kept re-inserting.

Comments regarding statement by RomaC:

  • I believe IronDuke made a note in relation to RomaC/ChrisO, the fulcrum for the recent attempts to remove generic biographical data and present Shahaf as a conspiracy theorist,[294][295] when describing efforts to denigrate the subject. I'm not sure RomaC suggesting he's willing to consider a less defamatory approach to the subject is related to a complaint about someone else. Still, RomaC's statement, which asserts ChrisO's actions as "intelligent, policy-compliant and beneficial", seems consistent with his usual approach to this biography.

Comment regarding statement by Cs32en:

  • It most certainly is not "properly sourced". Had it were a legitimate claim, ChrisO's first response to this thread would have been to provide a list of sources that support the "campaign" rather than try and redirect the conversation.

Comment 2 regarding statement by ChrisO:

(side-note) ChrisO again shifts focus and gives a snippet into a conversation we've had on April 2009. In that conversation I was trying to talk to his heart and persuade him to take a step back and stop behaving badly on the al-Durrah page. It didn't work and he was soon-afterwards banned on two separate occasions on June (1 week + 1 month article space) and July (1 month) 2009. Another such snippet is where I note ChrisO of my belief -- expressed on September 25, 2009 -- that he should take a break from the page, which prompted him to apply the terms "9/11 truthers" and "whackjob conspiracy theorists".[310] ChrisO has insisted on referring to Shahaf and the ones agreeing with his views with complete disdain irregardless of many requests to tone it down. To note: I still don't see ChrisO making any attempt at establishing his false claim that the highly damaging Yigal Amir "campaign" text is remotely "widely documented".

Restatement of complaint concerning ChrisO[edit]

This is what matters: ChrisO insists on adding the claim that Shahaf campaigned for Amir's release. This is very poorly sourced - one English source and no Hebrew sources. Shahaf himself says it's libel, and is suing the people making that claim. Therefore, per WP:BLP we should not be adding this material!

Discussion concerning ChrisO[edit]

Statement by ChrisO[edit]

  • This is a remarkably poor smear attempt by Jaakobou. As George has pointed out above, there's a substantial background to this which Jaakobou has somehow "forgotten" to mention. The issues with this article arise from unsourced and poorly sourced edits from Jaakobou:
1) Jaakobou is repeatedly reverting to a version of the article that includes a series of claims that are either unsourced or are based on unreliable sources.[311] [312] [313]
1.1) Much of the background section of the article in Jaakobou's version is sourced to a curriculum vitae published here (in Hebrew; Google translation to English. It's on a user-generated group blog or wiki (see [314]). A discussion at WP:RSN#Curriculum vitae unanimously concluded that this was not a reliable source. As there was a unanimous agreement from all editors other than Jaakobou that this should not be included, I removed it per WP:BLP.
1.2) Jaakobou is repeatedly adding a citation which reads in full "Israeli Census - Verified March 23, 2010". This was discussed at WP:RSN#Census, which unanimously concluded that it was not a proper citation; as one uninvolved editor said, it is "not substantially different from adding a footnote that says "I read it somewhere"." As there was a unanimous agreement from all editors other than Jaakobou that this should not be included, I removed it per WP:BLP.
2) Jaakobou is repeatedly, on overt POV grounds, deleting material cited from reliable mainstream sources.
2.1) A mainstream newspaper report, "Truth is sometimes caught in crossfire", written by Ed O'Loughlin and published by the Sydney Morning Herald. Jaakobou rejects this source because he views Ed O'Loughlin as "an anti-Israeli" [315] and "a Hamas supporter" [316]. (These accusations are, needless to say, BLP violations in their own right.) As the reason for removing this was bogus, I restored it.
2.2) Rejection of quotes from Haaretz, a major Israeli newspaper. The article's subject sued Haaretz for defamation two years ago, though it's unclear whether any proceedings are actually ongoing. Jaakobou has repeatedly argued that this makes Haaretz an unreliable source for any facts concerning Nahum Shahaf.[317][318] None of the Haaretz articles cited post-date the defamation suit. The underlying factor appears to be a POV rejection of the newspaper; Jaakobou has denounced Haaretz (despite it being an Israeli newspaper!) as "an anti-Zionist publication",[319] hence unreliable. As the reason for removing this was bogus, I restored it.
3) Addition of uncited material. Jaakobou is repeatedly reverting to a version which includes an uncited paragraph (see [320] from "Shahaf's investigation" onwards) as well as other uncited claims, as well as peacock quotes of no obvious relevance to the article's subject. This has been pointed out repeatedly on the talk page to no effect. As this material was unsourced, I removed it per WP:BLP.

Do I need to point out what WP:BLP says right at the top of the policy page? "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced — whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". This is what I have done, explicitly citing WP:BLP as the reason for removing this material. Quoting further from WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, "Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory information about living persons should bring the matter to the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard." That is what I have also done here. Everything that I've done in this respect has been by the letter of WP:BLP. I see no reason why I should be sanctioned for following the letter of the BLP policy.

By contrast, Jaakobou's removal of content has been for completely improper reasons, as I've set out above. The material I added is sourced to multiple mainstream reliable sources in English (his claim that there are no Hebrew sources is a red herring; just because sources aren't online doesn't mean they don't exist). See Talk:Nahum Shahaf#Rabin assassination for a summary of the sources. By contrast, an editor's personal dislike of an individual journalist or an individual publication is not valid grounds for removing content. The material Jaakobou added is either unsourced or poorly sourced. WP:BLP requires the removal of such material.

I might point out that over on the BLP noticeboard Quantpole recommended referring the matter here if Jaakobou continued inserting unsourced or poorly sourced material. This intervention is a fairly transparent attempt to get a retaliation in first. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC) (Comment moved to this section from the general discussion section below by  Sandstein  22:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to IronDuke

I don't think this is a fair description of what has been happening. George and RomaC have been doing good work (without my involvement) on cleaning up the article to take out unsourced or poorly sourced material. George has taken material to the RSN to obtain feedback. Nobody has objected to including "positive" material if it can be reliably sourced. The main issue of contention here is that one editor - Jaakobou - is repeatedly restoring unsourced or poorly sourced material which all other editors who have reviewed it have unanimously said should not be included. Don't forget, the onus is on an editor to show why content should be included; Jaakobou is editing against a unanimous consensus. As WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content says, "In order to ensure that information about living people is always policy-compliant (written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources) the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. Editors adding or restoring material must ensure it meets all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, not just verifiability of sources." Jaakobou has not come close to ensuring this; he hasn't even addressed many of the concerns that George has raised, as the lengthy discussions on Talk:Nahum Shahaf (see e.g. George's comments at Talk:Nahum Shahaf#Review of new material) demonstrate. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Jehochman

Gatoclass is right - equating my actions with Jaakobou's is a false equivalence. Could you point out which of the following should not have been done?

  • Jaakobou repeatedly added unsourced and poorly sourced material to a BLP against consensus. Should he have done this?
  • I removed the unsourced and poorly sourced material immediately, following the instructions in WP:BLP to remove such material immediately. Why should I not have done this?
  • Jaakobou repeatedly removed reliably-sourced material on the grounds that it was from "anti-Zionist", "anti-Israeli" and "Hamas supporting" sources - in reality a Sydney Morning Post reporter and the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Now he's claiming that it was "libellous" (a claim he's made nowhere on the talk page, and which appears to be based purely on his personal belief.) Should he have done this?
  • I added reliably sourced material which, as Talk:Nahum Shahaf#Rabin assassination shows, is well-sourced and widely documented. Why should I not have done this?
  • When Jaakobou persisted, I took the dispute to WP:BLP/N as instructed by WP:BLP. Why should I not have done this?
  • At every point, I have followed WP:BLP. At every point, Jaakobou has failed to follow WP:BLP. Where is the equivalence?

I'm happy to agree to Jaakobou and I not making BLP enforcement edits against each other, but I am not at all convinced that Jaakobou understands BLP's requirements. I certainly do, and I have consistently used reliable sources in this article. Jaakobou has not only used unreliable sources, he's added information with no sourcing whatsoever and deleted reliably sourced material for reasons that, to put it bluntly, are just POV bullshit. There is no way that it's legitimate for an editor to delete reliably sourced material because he considers the reporter in question to be "anti-Israeli". This needs to be made very clear to Jaakobou. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Jaakobou

I don't think I've ever referred to Shahaf specifically as a conspiracy theorist, so your attempt to smear me that way doesn't work. On the other hand, you have called him "a conspiracy nut". From an IRC conversation that we had on 21 April 2009:

[21:56] <Jaakobou> I actually exchanged a couple emails with Nahum Shahaf btw
[21:56] <ChrisO> what did he say?
[21:56] <Jaakobou> he's definately a conspiracy nut

I think that speaks for itself, don't you? -- ChrisO (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning ChrisO[edit]

Comments by Durova

Just stating in general terms that self-published sources could be used within biography articles to provide positive information about the subject. Durova412 16:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC) (Comment moved to this section from beneath the main header by  Sandstein  16:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

Thank you for the move, Sandstein. Apologies for the misplacement. Durova412 17:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation, George. It would be unusual but not unheard-of for open edit sites to get abused to post spoofed information as if it were self-published. Not saying that's happened here, but it did happen in another BLP that related to a different arbitration. Durova412 20:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Comments by George
  • The problem, Durova, is that the curriculum vitae (CV), which is alleged to be self-published, is hosted on a website that says that it's made up of user-generated and uploaded content; from the About page: "[Nahum Shahaf] editors and bloggers are an elite group of users (mainly voluntarely) that voluntarely post interesting and relevant articles to share with their communities... Editors can even post their own original articles and photos."[321] I ran the CV past RSN, and it was found to not be a reliable source by uninvolved editors. Now, Jaakobou has made some interesting arguments for why he thinks it is self-published by Shahaf, and I invited him to bring them up at RSN, but thus far he has chosen not to. Oh, and editors should probably review self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. ← George talk 20:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • One thing regarding Jaakobou's additional comments: ChrisO did not nominate the article for deletion—I did, on the basis of WP:1EVENT. Oddly, Shahaf's Rabin assassination theories was given as one of the things that made Shahaf notable for more than one event. ← George talk 20:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Editors should note in the diffs that ChrisO wasn't only re-inserting the Rabin assassination theory material, but also reverting pretty extensive insertion of material by Jaakobou, which was itself unsourced or poorly sourced biographical information. ← George talk 20:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • General comment: Why is this issue being brought up here? Where is the dispute resolution concerning this information? Where is the discussion about whether or not the information (regarding Shahaf's Rabin assassination theories) is properly sourced? Where is the discussion about whether it constitutes a violation of BLP? On the one hand, you're claiming that the CV is hosted on Shahaf's personal website, while at the same time objecting to content about Rabin assassination theories when there is a section of that same website named "Rabin assassination". In general, I find the information on Shahaf's theories to be properly cited to reliable sources, but I wouldn't oppose a discussion on the subject via WP:DR. ← George talk 20:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, for editor's info, this filing comes a day after ChrisO filed against Jaakobou for BLP violations on the BLP noticeboard. Essentially, I think the two editors, each believing they were reverting BLP-violations by the other, got into a minor edit war, as Jehochman described. It wasn't particularly long or heated, so hopefully these issues can be resolved through WP:DR. ← George talk 21:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Comments by IronDuke

As someone who has made major contributions to the article, I would say as a general note, there's been a concerted effort to denigrate the subject, both by removing positives and enhancing (at least what are perceived to be) negatives. I also wonder at the insistence on suggesting NS engaged in a "campaign to prove the innocence of Yigal Amir." I see no source which supports that emphasis, and the sources I've seen mention NS's beliefs in this only in passing. I don't think I've even seen a source that suggests what NS thinks the mechanics of the actual assassination actually were unlike, for example, his work on Muhammad al-Dura. Further, in a BLP when good faith questions arise, it is important to gain consensus before reinserting questionable material. IronDuke 03:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Gatoclass

First of all, I must say I am somewhat suprised by Jehochman's initial response below re ChrisO's insertion of allegedly "controversial" material. It appears that from Talk:Nahum Shahaf#Rabin assassination, there is plenty of verification for the statements added to the article by ChrisO - although admittedly there is only one source which describes the theories advanced by the BLP in question as "conspiracy" theories.

Secondly, it's clear that Jaakobou has inserted material that is either inadequately sourced or wrongly sourced - confirmed by the two threads at BLPN. According to policy, ChrisO was perfectly within his rights to remove it, so I don't see a problem there. That leaves Jaakobou's reinsertion of substandard sources into a BLP to deal with. In my experience, this is a typical modus operandi for Jaakobou - insertion of badly sourced, or completely unsourced material, while removing well sourced material because of alleged "bias" of the authors. This kind of thing can be deeply frustrating to good faith editors. Given Jaakobou's many appearances at noticeboards like this for similar behaviour, I have to ask myself - how much longer is it going to be tolerated? Gatoclass (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, it is not "edit warring" to remove unsourced or badly sourced material from a BLP, the policy itself specifically states that removal of such material is not subject to 3RR. ChrisO was adding appropriately sourced material, Jaakobou was adding inadequately sourced material, as confirmed at BLPN. I fail to see an equivalence here. Gatoclass (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Ynhockey

I believe the comparison between ChrisO and Jaakobou's edits are unwarranted. They have nothing in common other than allegedly being BLP violations. The fault of both was the failure to discuss the issue before anything else, but as to the edits themselves, I believe we need to look not just at the dry text of the BLP policy, but also at the reasons why it was created. Other policies and guidelines also need to be looked at, such as WP:V and WP:FRINGE. In short, inserting libelous WP:REDFLAG claims about a living person is prohibited and works against Wikipedia as a whole; this was the nature of ChrisO's edits, which sought to insert a passage supported only by one newspaper article in passing, about him allegedly being involved in a campaign to free the most notorious murderer in Israel's history (surely such a campaign would've been more known, especially in Israeli media?). I don't see how this compares to adding harmless information from the article subject's own resume. I have already posted a similar comment on the talk page, and hope that the dispute is solved there. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by RomaC

Should be noted the article was created by User:Tundrabuggy with much assistance from User:Canadian Monkey, both of whom have since been blocked as sockpuppets. The article was, in my opinion, written in a way that suggested editors were less concerned with whether content was verifiable and sources were reliable, and more concerned with slanting the content to portray the subject as a decorated ballistics expert. Recently some edits have addressed this, for example by pointing out that the only source for "ballistics expert" was Shahaf himself (reliable sources noted widespread questioning of his ballistics qualifications). I've tried to participate constructively here, but some opposition has remained, for example, to any mention of Shahaf's involvement in Rabin conspiracy theories -- despite this involvement being well-sourced. Maybe some editors thought that info would make Shahaf appear less dispassionate? Yesterday Jaakobou told me he is now "not completely against an inclusion" of the Rabin info[322] so we may be getting somewhere. (I remain flexible on how much detail is needed on Shahaf re Rabin.) Anyway, I don't think ChrisO has done anything wrong, on the contrary believe his recent editing here is generally intelligent, policy-compliant and beneficial. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Cs32en

Although Jaakobou (talk · contribs) does not specify whether he filed the request as a complaint about edit-warring or as a complaint about tendentious editing, his comment led me to believe that he request ChrisO (talk · contribs) to be sanctioned for tendentious editing. For edit warring, the 3RR notice board would also be available. Looking at the first edit cited by Jaakobou [323], the content is properly sourced, although the exact wording of any content in an article is, in almost all cases, to some extent and editorial decision on which consensus needs to be reached. (There are more sources available for this content, so BLP is not an issue with regard to the content itself.) In a subsequent edit [324], Jaakobou, instead of attempting to improve the wording, removed the sourced content. Any requests related to edit warring should, in my view, be dealt with primarily at the Edit war notice board Cs32en Talk to me  15:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Epeefleche

Agree w/comments by YNHockey, for reasons he/she stated.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Orderinchaos

On looking at the article and the various diffs presented, there seems to be strange stuff going on on both sides. It seems however that the disagreement between the two editors has overshadowed any wider issue, and I agree with Jehochman's view that each should avoid enforcing BLP against the other. The article, while well sourced generally, appears to confirm that the subject is on the margin of notability - I suspect had this been an incident in my country rather than somewhere on which opinions are so divided, the article would have been uncontroversially deleted at AfD. Orderinchaos 13:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning ChrisO[edit]

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

Awaiting statement by ChrisO. I am perplexed, to say the least, how ChrisO can justify the cited edits as BLP enforcement. He's inserting controversial content at the same time he's removing other controversial content. This looks like edit warring by ChrisO and Jaakobou. Jehochman Talk 20:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Both ChrisO and Jaakobou have been edit warring. Do you both understand this and agree to stop? Jehochman Talk 11:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional advice to both ChrisO and Jaakobou: I think both of you need to stop making BLP enforcement edits against each other, because this justification is being stretched, quite possibly too far. Instead, if you have BLP concerns, raise them at WP:BLPN and let somebody uninvolved deal with it. Both of you know well enough how to avoid BLP problems by always using reliable sources when you write about a living person. Jehochman Talk 15:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Brews ohare[edit]

No action taken.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Brews ohare[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Physchim62 (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [325] "Brews ohare is restricted from editing any namespaces to begin, or comment on physics related content, disputes stemming from physics-related content, [...] or the recognition of minority views." (see also note below)
  2. [326] Diffs from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions in response to a thread requesting closure of the motions with majorities: commenting on a physics-related dispute, not an arbitration procedure
  3. [327]
  4. [328]
  5. [329]
  6. [330]
  7. [331]
  8. [332]
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. [333] Warning by Physchim62 (talk · contribs), that the only reason that I didn't file for AE previously was to avoid a disruptive dispute
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
block of at least 7 days for a repeated violation of the editing restriction (last relevant block was for 7 days)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
It is not clear (to me at least) if this motion has formally passed or not: it has majority support among arbitrators, but has not been closed off. If is has deemed to have passed, the first diff may no longer covered by the editing restrictions. However, that does not excuse Brews' deciding to turn Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions into a battleground about a comment made (not to him) on my User talk page and which has no bearing on the motions under discussion nor on the thread on the motions talk page. Brews, yet again, is being deliberately disruptive in support of his idiosyncratic views concerning certain areas of physics.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[334]

Discussion concerning Brews ohare[edit]

Statement by Brews ohare[edit]

Because it is entirely possible that some "uninvolved" bystander Admin will before long decide to block me from all comment simply based upon their own unsupported and unchallengeable initiative, I will respond now to this motion, although I regard it as frivolous, and punishable as an example of Physchim62 using ArbCom for the purpose of harassment, pure and simple.

The terms proposed by Physchim62 as being violated are:

“Brews ohare is restricted from editing any namespaces to begin, or comment on physics related content, disputes stemming from physics-related content, [...] or the recognition of minority views.”

Regarding the violation of this restriction:

Physchim62 first diff: Not a violation as it is not a comment on any of the topics mentioned. It is a request to retract an unvarnished fabrication paraded as my views.
Physchim62 second diff A comment urging retraction of an unvarnished fabrication paraded as my views to preserve Physchim62's good name.
Physchim62 third diff Avoidance of Physchim62's effort to involve me in a physics discussion of free space, and refocusing on withdrawal of an unvarnished fabrication paraded as my views.
Physchim62 fourth diff Request to avoid repeating his unvarnished fabrications paraded as my views in the motion at hand
Physchim62 fifth diff A second repeat of diff 3.
Physchim62 sixth diff A comment from me to Count Iblis suggesting he look into his differences with me more carefully, as they may be about another matter. No specifics of physics provided, an entirely broad and general comment. There exists no connection with this action of Physchim62.
Physchim62 seventh diff A third repeat of diff 3.
Physchim62 last diff; Here I decline to involve myself with Physchim62's attempt to embroil me in a physics discussion of vacuum and reiterate a request for retraction of his unvarnished fabrications paraded as my views.

Nowhere in any of these diffs was a "physics related topic" discussed. The disputes that have arisen are about the act of promulgating distortions and misrepresentations, not about the content of same. They do not "arise from a physics-related dispute"; instead they arise from the deliberate and reprehensible acts of fabrication and distortion, independent of the content of said unvarnished fabrication paraded as my views. The point is that Physchim62 has been told that "blah-blah-blah" is an unvarnished fabrication paraded as my views, diffs are provided indicating his infelicities, and he has refused to reconsider his statements regardless. The present motion of his is a blatant misuse of ArbCom to avoid all responsibility for his acts, to avoid correcting his unvarnished fabrications paraded as my views, and to reconfigure my self-defense as some kind of crime. Brews ohare (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Physchim62's Right of reply :

You state you are not merely trying to get Brews blocked although that is the Enforcement action requested in this action initiated by yourself. You thought “it was better to let the matter lie rather than to escalate the situation”. Isn't this action "escalation"? Your words are inconsistent with your actions.
Your personal "views" of my opinions are not at issue here: what is at issue is a very clear cut unvarnished fabrication paraded as my views despite clear and repeated advice of their falsity. You have made no mention of this matter, and offered no retraction or apology.
I don't follow your summary to your "right of reply", which could be taken to say that somehow you have helped me (“my request – which was to his benefit, as it significantly reduces his topic ban”), when during the case proper your recommendation was “a complete ban from en.wikipedia.org. This is the ban that should be imposed on Brews ohare, given his behaviour both before and after the SoL arbitration: any other remedy is a waste of time.”
In short, you adopt a position of ultimate virtue, standing on both sides of every issue, with no sign of "getting it". Moreover, nothing in your "right of reply" is directed in any way at bolstering the basis for this action of yours, which remains an example of simple harassment. Brews ohare (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Hans Adler:

It is generous of you to take the view that Physchim62 “negligently damaged Brews ohare's character unfairly”, but it is abundantly clear that he remains unrepentant throughout his "right of reply" below. The label of "pseudoscientist" is only part of the matter: he accuses me of forcefully propagating the view throughout WP “that everything [in science] is FUBAR since 1983 and nobody else has noticed” and he rigidly refuses to back down from this statement. These actions and inactions are deliberate. Hauling me into this tribunal is no accident either. Brews ohare (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Brews ohare[edit]

A post by Count Iblis has been removed by myself per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Motions. NW (Talk) 21:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Dr.K.[edit]

Let me get this straight: Physchim tries unsuccessfully to label Brews as a pseudoscience promoter on Wikipedia (according to Hans Adler a character assasination attempt against Brews). When Brews tries to defend himself against Physchim's unsubstantiated allegations, Physchim brings an AE enforcement motion against him. I am speechless. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist[edit]

There are no violations. I've looked at the 8 diffs posted by Physchim62 (the filer of this AE request) and am appalled at this AE request. I reject the claim that on this occasion, Brews ohare was being deliberately disruptive in support of his physics views. In fact, I see plenty of evidence that the cause of this issue was the comments made by the filer. There was no need to even bring up what may or may not constitute Brews ohare's views on the physics topic while the relevant motions were being considered. The filer was also given multiple opportunities (and explicit suggestions) to disengage, but did not do so. I therefore suggest that this thread is closed without action, except to urge Physchim62 to voluntarily avoid interacting with or commenting about Brews ohare, in the same way that Brews ohare seems to have done with Physchim62 since the close of the case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Pieter Kuiper[edit]

Physchem is trying to get Brews blocked. He is clearly baiting with his allegation of pseudoscience. Against a contributor here who has a professional reputation in real life. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Orderinchaos[edit]

Recommend closure without action - the diffs don't appear to suggest there has been a violation of the sanction/motion. Orderinchaos 13:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Hans Adler[edit]

Since I managed to inject myself into this case, I want to mention several things that may or may not be relevant.

  • I am a pure mathematician, not a physicist. I have had 3 years of university level physics and know quite a bit about thermodynamics, but I have no deeper knowledge of quantum physics, for example.
  • I believe that Physchim62 has been acting in good faith, but has negligently damaged Brews ohare's character unfairly.
  • On this wiki there is an unfortunate tendency of a lot of people to use the word "pseudoscience" much more widely than I have ever heard it used in real life. For some of these editors most of alternative medicine is pseudoscience, folk beliefs such as ghosts are pseudoscience, all religions are pseudoscience. This is causing a lot of bad blood and disruption.
  • Some diffs that I have seen in connection with this case (not by anyone involved in the current request) make me suspect that there may be a subtext that has to do with something that really lives in the area between fringe science and (sometimes antisemitically tinged) pseudoscience. See here for what I have in mind particularly, although it might also be something similar. (I have not looked at the SoL Arbcom case itself, so forgive me if this has already been discussed and settled.) If Physchim62 found himself in a dispute with both Brews ohare and someone else who appears to hold such views, he might easily be led to believe that Brews ohare shares these views, whether it is true or not. (And let me say explicitly that I have no idea whether it is true or not.) Hans Adler 20:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Right of reply by Physchim62[edit]

As so many allegations have been raised against my motives in this section, I shall reply here. Apologies in advance for not replying individually to the editors concerned.

that I am trying to get Brews ohare blocked
If I were merely trying to get Brews blocked, I would have filed a enforcement request on Saturday when he chose to join in a thread on my User talk page started by Likebox (talk · contribs). Brews ohare is (quite rightly in my opinion) banned from commenting on matters arising from physics-related disputes, and my opinion of his opinions concerning certain (practically unimportant) areas of electrodynamics is obviously such a matter. I didn't file an enforcement request at that point because I thought it was better to let the matter lie rather than to escalate the situation. I asked for enforcement once Brews became disruptive on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions, as he has done on other pages many times in the past.
Note: Likebox cannot reply to this thread beacuse of editing restrictions imposed by ArbCom for his disruptive advocacy of Brews ohare. I opposed this restriction while it was under discussion.
that I have tried to label Brews ohare as a pseudoscientist
My views on Brews' opinions on certain topics in physics are well known. I stated them in the original arbitration case and again in response to the motion that Brews topic ban be shortened. I think they are relevant in Arbitration proceedings (or in discussions concerning such proceedings, as in this case) because the Committee has, in the past, doled out one-year bans to editors who use Wikipedia as a means to spread their unorthodox beliefs. As Likebox was not a party to the original ArbCom case, I attempted to politely (for Likebox) summarise the reasons for my positions.
that I was given multiple opportunities do disengage
I was, and am, being accused by Brews and others of deliberately disseminating untruths about Brews' opinions. Between the end of the ArbCom case and Brews' posting on my talk page, the two of us have had no contact whatsoever: I hope that that situation will resume, and I shall do that which is my power to ensure that it does. In particular reply to Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs), there is no assymmetry in our lack of contact, just in our application of WP:DISENGAGE.
that I was baiting Brews ohare
I was replying to his repeated claims that I was, in effect, lying. If Brews has a right of reply, then so do I.
that this was a character assassination attempt on Brews
That is not how I read Hans’ comments at all: I don’t see any hint in what he wrote that I was deliberately trying to assassinate Brews’ character (as if I could if I tried). Hans warned me to tone my language down, and not to use the term “pseudoscience” because of the different interpretations that the word can cover. I shall attempt to abide by his good advice, even as I obviously hope that I shaln’t have to comment on Brews in the future.

As it happened, I asked that the motions be closed on Monday morning, 96 hours after they had achieved a majority. It should be remembered that I opposed both of the motions that passed but, as the speed of light dispute had reached my User talk page over the weekend, I felt that it was better to give some closure to the situation rather than let it fester. Did Brews’ actions contribute to the discussion of my request – which was to his benefit, as it significantly reduces his topic ban – or was it just gratuitous disruption? My opinion is the latter, obviously, or I would not waste my time on asking that the sanctions imposed on him, and very recently ratified and extended by ArbCom, are effectively enforced. Physchim62 (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Headbomb[edit]

These edits were made during an ongoing ARBCOM motion which concerned him, and Brews is perfectly allowed to comment on these motions. You made disparaging comments about him, he replied. There's no case here, regardless of whether the accusations of promulgation of pseudoscience check out or not. SNOW close this, and let's all move on to productive use of our time. I suggest this is done quickly, rather than after 25 people had the chance to beat themselves to a bloody pulp. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Brews ohare[edit]

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

Even assuming for the sake of argument that there is an violation here, which I seriously doubt, I'm not convinced that any enforcement action is appropriate. Tim Song (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)