Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive57

Gilabrand 2

Gilabrand (talk · contribs) blocked for a week.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Gilabrand User requesting enforcement Factsontheground (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Gilabrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:ARBPIA and 3 month topic ban on I/P articles. Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [1] [2] Editing material about synagogue being destroyed during 1948 Arab-Israeli war, by definition an I/P topic. [3] Renaming a section entitled "Russia and the Arab-Israeli conflict" to "Israel-Russia relations". [4] Extensively editing a section about Sweden and the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [5] Warning by Sandstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that Gilabrand has been placed under 3 month topic ban from I/P topics under WP:ARBPIA Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Block (user has previously been blocked for 48 hours so a longer block might be appropriate). Additional comments by editor filing complaint User seems unwilling to acknowledge any misconduct on their part or that they will abide by their topic ban or WP:ARBPIA. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [6] Discussion concerning Gilabrand Statement by Gilabrand Comments by others about the request concerning Gilabrand I'm not going to do any blocking myself here, but this seems like a blatant violation of the sanction. Again. Gilabrand seems intent on completely ignoring the sanction, so I think a longer block is in order -- a week, at least, and perhaps an extension of the original topic ban. I don't see how Gilabrand cannot see how these aren't violations of her sanction. -- tariqabjotu 06:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I will however say the first edit is rather trivial though. -- tariqabjotu 06:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC) My apologies, Tariq, I mistakenly used the wrong diff for the first revision. The actual diff is this which shows quite extensive changes to that section, most of them directly related to the I/P topic area. Factsontheground (talk) 06:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I was invited to help copyedit an article on the Hurva Synagogue that was up for FA review and the administrator who blocked me said he did not object to my working on that article. I did NOT change information. I edited the lead, and all the material I edited appears in the text of the article. In the article on Israel's foreign relations, again, I did NOT change any material. I shortened a certain section that was not in proportion to the rest of the sections in the article, and left ALL THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ISRAEL exactly as they were. I changed a subheading on relations with Russia to conform with ALL the dozens of other sections, which refer to a main article that is called "X country's relations with Israel." These did not change the political message that Factsonthground is so anxious to convey. Factsontheground is stalking and harassing me (and not only me, as you can see from the numerous administrators' pages that are taken up with his complaints and back and forth reparte, feigning innocence but gaming the system. Tariqabjotu is also keen on wiping me out of existence, as he didn't like the fact that I added photos to the Israel page which he has effectively claimed as own. The vindictiveness and hostility is growing by the day and users like Factsontheground are playing a major role in turning Wikipedia into a battleground and a forum for their personal agenda. He and his friends, like Supreme Deliciousness, Ani Mejool, and a host of others, are doing all they can to scare away editors, get others blocked and insert information about Palestinian grievances in every article they possibly can, including those that have nothing to do with the subject. This is so transparent that it is almost laughable. When administrators let them off lightly without looking at the bulk of contributions, they are perpetuating this and helping to create a laughingstock of Wikipedia, furthering its image and as unreliable source of information. On my part, I will try to stick to copyediting, and improving articles with solid content and references, and illustrating them with attractive pictures. That is what I came to do on Wikipedia, and that is what I hope to continue doing. --Gilabrand (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Wow. I take it you don't like me very much. Well, nobody else forced you to spam hate material into Israeli art student scam. Nobody else forced you to keep blatantly violating your topic ban. If I didn't report you, someone else would have, no doubt about it. Factsontheground (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Some parts of this comment are personal attacks.--Severino (talk) Without addressing the merit of Gilabrand's edits, I'm concerned about some of the actions being taken by other editors are not being done in good faith, or at least there is some Wiki-stalking taking place. I have watched similar actions taken against editors from the "other side", like User:Nableezy, where after he was sanctioned other editors went over his edits with a fine tooth comb trying to find anything they could use to effectively continue to "punish" or "silence" the editor in question. I would ask administrators to keep this in mind when making decisions regarding this and future enforcement actions. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 17:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Gilabrand This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Blocked 1 week for violating topic ban. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Meowy

Meowy (talk · contribs) blocked for one year.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Meowy User requesting enforcement Grandmaster 08:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Meowy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it # [7] 1st rv [8] 2nd rv [9] 3rd rv Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) # [10] Meowy was placed on 1rv per week revert limitation and civility supervision by Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Block, topic ban Additional comments by editor filing complaint Meowy was placed on revert limitation for edit warring on the arbitration covered area, and was blocked for violation of this restriction many times. See his block log: [11] Last time he was blocked for violation of the revert limitation for 1 month: [12], which soon followed by a block for sockpuppetry. Also, civility is another problem with Meowy. He was recently banned from commenting on any boards, if the discussed issue has no relation to him. [13] Despite all this, he continues the same problematic behavior. He removed large content from Khojaly massacre 3 times within one week without any consensus at talk with other involved editors. Please see diffs above. This is a clear violation of his revert limitation, which allows him to make only 1 rv per week. In addition, he removed postings by other users with incivil comments: [14] He also removes warnings with the same type of comments: [15] I think the above violations require that Meowy is banned indefinitely from Armenia-Azerbaijan related topics. Grandmaster 08:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [16] Discussion concerning Meowy Statement by Meowy I am sorry about that - I did not realise I had previously removed that section within the last 7 days. I cannot now reverse the edit, since the section has been already restored. However, that section does cover a BLP issue [17] [18] that involved material being added to the article that had previously been removed from the Seyran Ohanyan article because it contained unverified extreme allegations about war crimes. So my edit was not some needless, flippant reverting. If administrators were as concientious about patrolling the BLP message boards and enforcing Wikipedia's general BLP policies as they were about enforcing decisions against individuals, that section would not have been there for me to want to remove. Meowy 18:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I have just noticed Grandmmaster's "he removed postings by other users with incivil comments" claim. This refers to my removal [19] of a flippant and pointless post made by Jarhed on the BLP noticeboard that had said "Frankly, I don't even know where Azerbaijani is, and I can't summon up any reason to care about it". Jarhed has prior history of making bizarre edits during the previous BLP issue about Ohanyan, such as altering the context of editors' posts by moving them around and labeling them "partisan ranting", as well as receiving a warning about making a personal attack against me [20], and then saying he doesn't "give a fig about wikipedia proceedings or formal complaints". I don't think anyone could disagree that the jarhed post I removed was malicious, made with the intent of disrupting a legitimate BLP posting, and that (given its content and its position, right under the initial posting about the issue being raised) it was appropriate to remove it. I don't know why Jarhed decided to make such a post in a thread about a serious issue like war crimes - acting the idiot is as fair an explanation as any. Meowy 22:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Meowy Meowy's edits are quite justified in the instances highlighted by Grandmaster above. There has been almost a concerted effort to label the current defense minister of Armenia, Seyran Ohanyan, as a war criminal on his article on Wikipedia, on the flimsy basis of an pseudo-investigation by an Azerbaijani parliamentary group. Thankfully, in early January, third party editors dissuaded editors from adding such information on a living person's page on Wikipedia (see here), without any reliable sources. It might be helpful to draw the administrators' attention to an astonishing event that occurred in early 2007 to the Turkish historian, Taner Akcam, who was detained by border police at Montreal Airport on the basis that someone had vandalised and added on his Wikipedia article that he was a terrorist! ([21]). The insinuation here is obvious yet subtle - mentioning Ohanyan and elements of the the 366th regiment as participants in an attack that killed several civilians, without any reliable source to point to, is clearly meant to besmirch his own reputation. Constantly adding such information is disingenuous and, who knows, it might even lead to a repeat of the Akcam fiasco. Meowy is correct here in removing information which can potentially be viewed as libel and, in this case, he is removing incendiary information that can lead to confusion in the real world. It's unfortunate to see to what extremes certain editors will go to block an editor who has otherwise contributed and greatly enriched the articles found here. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC) It's rather more serious than the killing of "several civilians" - which makes the issue of the content that I removed, content that weasily implied (without actually saying it, since no supporting source exists) a named individual's involvement in a serious war crime, one that needs the attention of a competant administrator. Meowy 18:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I don't think that the content disputes can be a justification for repeated and deliberate removal of a large section from the article, considering that there was no consensus for its removal and that even uninvolved third party editors watching the article told the editors to reach consensus before making significant changes. Yet Meowy chose to edit war, despite his numerous prior blocks for the same violation. As for the content removed by Meowy, the information provided by MarshallBagramyan is not accurate. There are sources that mention the role of the 366th regiment in the massacre, and participation of this unit in the attack on the town is not disputed by anyone. And no, nowhere does the article say that Ohanyan took part in the massacre, it only mentions a well known and undisputed fact that after the regiment was withdrawn from the region some of its personel, including Ohanyan, stayed. That is nowhere near a BLP issue. And I cannot see any possible justification for removal of comments by other users, and extremely incivil edit summaries that accompanied that removal. Grandmaster 20:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC) The article is about the massacre, it is not about the attack on the town. Apart from the two incidents being separate in time and location, the massacre is a possible war crime under international laws, the attack on the town is not - it was completely acceptable given that town was legitimate military target. The content I removed was weasily worded to imply that a named individual was involved in committing a serious war crime. Resolving BLP issues do not require consensus. That I removed that content 4 days after my previous removal of it is factually correct, as I have admitted. I thought the time span was longer than 4 days - my mistake. That violation was not intentional on my part, and I would have reverted my edit if it had not already been reverted. I have concern that this BLP violation continues unchecked by administrators, while the editor who has just been doing what an administrator should have been doing - trying to remove the violation - will be punished. Meowy 22:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC) The content was removed 3 times, not twice. And removed content included not just info about Ohanyan, which btw does not violate BLP rules, as it only mentions that this person stayed behind after the regiment was withdrawn, but also a large section about the role of the Soviet 366th regiment, which cannot be a BLP issue, as the 366th regiment was not a living person. How can you explain such a removal without any consensus? You said in your edit summary that you were "Erasing off-topic and slanderous "role of 366th regiment of CIS army" section" [22], so clearly this was not about the line that you claim was a BLP issue, as you removed a much larger content, supported by multiple sources. Grandmaster 07:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Meowy This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. This is a content dispute. There are evidently sources that look like they might be reliable. This needs to be discussed and decided using normal dispute resolution. Revert warring is not allowed, especially by an editor previously placed on 1RR. The same editor, Meowy, was last time blocked for a month, and caught socking during the block. Meowy has a very long block log. It seems like it is now time for lengthy block. Jehochman Talk 12:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC) I have blocked for one year, the maximum allowed. Jehochman Talk 13:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

PCPP

PCPP (talk · contribs) warned, no further action.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning PCPP User requesting enforcement Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested PCPP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated #Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong#Neutral_point_of_view Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong#Consensus Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong#Point_of_view_editing Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it In presenting this, I hope to bring to the attention of arbcom the continual disruption and removal of content by User:PCPP on Falun Gong and closely related pages. This behavior of the user extends to all articles carrying material critical of the Chinese Communist Party. The user's editing pattern involves: 1. Repetitive blanking of vast amounts of sourced and centrally relevant material, with no discussion on talk, and often under edit summaries like “rv pov material.” 2. Distortion of sourced content and the addition of personal commentary, which he misattributes to sources already present in the article. 3. And, when under close scrutiny, the watering down of critical sources, with unsubstantiated claims to the effect that they are the content is “pov”, is undue, etc. Even a superficial analysis can reveal his scouring of articles pertinent to the CCP’s human rights violations, from which he removes critical material, while simultaneously piling accusations against those attempting to contribute to those articles. What I present below is but a sample of such behavior, all from within the past few months, by the user. 1. Article:6-10 Office Nature of disruption:Repetitive blanking of sourced and centrally relevant material with no discussion presented.Concerns raised are ignored by the user. The below content, drawing upon one of the few sources available on the topic, has been blanked 6 times by the user since its inception into the article. "According to the 2008 Congressional Executive Commission Report on China, "Publicly available government documents detail the central role of the 6-10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong." The report states: ""6-10 Offices throughout China maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' facilities that are used specifically to detain Falun Gong practitioners who have completed terms in reeducation through labor (RTL) camps but whom authorities refuse to release. The term `transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) describes a process of ideological reprogramming whereby practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong."" The diffs:[23] [24][25][26][27][28]. Concerns raised regarding this behavior, on the talk page[29][30] is met with no response from PCPP, other than repeated blanking. Together with the blanking, supported by neither discussion nor edit summary, the user distorts the lead of the article. The statement sourced to Congressional Executive Report on China, 2008: “This entity was charged with the mission of overseeing and carrying out the persecution of Falun Gong, which commenced on July 22, 1999.”, is distorted by the user to “It is responsible for monitoring, studying and analyzing matters relating to Falun Gong, and recommending policy measures for against Falun Gong, and also what the government calls "heretical cults" and "harmful qigong organisations"; and for promptly notifying municipal party committees of trends and developments within "cults".”[31]. The commentary added by the user is mis-attributed and not supported by any source. 2. Article: Propaganda in the People's Republic of China Nature of disruption: Blanking of 12 paragraphs of sourced, centrally relevant material, with no discussion. Shortly following the expansion and addition of sources to Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, PCPP blanks almost all the content added. He offers no explanation for this act. And his edit summary runs “rv POV material.” 3. Article: Propaganda in the People's Republic of China Nature of disruption: Blanking The above was preceded by a similar blanking of content here. Before this, an editor who has continually supported, worked with, and encouraged PCPP, blanks a portion of the content added to the article[32] with an argument to the effect that its good enough for the article to remain a “catalogue.” 4. Article: Propaganda in the People's Republic of China Nature of disruption: Whole-scale blanking In the same article, the user, despite attempts to engage him in discussion, continues to blank a quarter of the article - 10K of content. He attacks the sources themselves, alleging their origin in US makes them anti-China and hence not RS. Kindly review the comments regarding this on talk:[33]. The blanking takes place in these edits: [34] 5. Article: Falun Gong Nature of Disruption: Blanking. Three paragraphs deleted with no explanation offered.[35]. 6. Article: Falun Gong Blanks almost the same content as above , this time labeling the sources “questionable” in the edit summary – no supporting discussion on talk. [36]. Concerns raised regarding this can be seen on talk of the article:[37] 7. Article: Media of the People's Republic of China Nature of Disruption: Blanking of material under a misleading edit summary Content removed in edits with misleading edit summaries: [38] 8. Article: Mass line Nature of Disruption: Repetitive addition of unsourced material and blanking of sourced content. Adds several paragraphs of unsourced content [39]. And here he reverts ( with misleading edit summaries) contributions by other editors removing well sourced and centrally relevant content[40] ( he offers no explanation for his blanking). The issue was raised here on the talk of the article: [41] 9. Article:Thought reform in the People's Republic of China 'Nature of disruption: Removes an entire section. Edit summary makes no mention of it and no discussion on talk. [42] 10. Article:List of campaigns of the Communist Party of China Comparatively minor disruptions such as repetitive changing of “Persection of Falun Gong” ( term used by academic sources, HRW, UN, Amnesty, US Congress reports, etc) to “Banning of Falun Gong”[43] [44][45]. Attempts to get the user to present a rationale for his insistence on using the word “ban” can be seen here: [46] 11. Article: Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident Blanks a para while falsely claiming in his edit summary that the content he blanked is a “misattribution”:[47] 12. Attacking reliable sources on talk to justify blanking of material . The editor routinely attacks sources which do not align with his POV. Here, as a justification of his blanking of content from that source, the user attacks a Freedom House article by China expert Kurlantzick with claims that : "a) is not a suitable academic source as most of its material relies on original research b) is from an organization funded by the US government, and the countries reported happened to be political opponents of the US c) used as such that claims made by the report is presented as factual evidence in disproportionate amounts"[48] and here he attacks a Reporters Sans Frontiers source on 'grounds' that: " A bunch of rhetorics froma CIA funded organization can hardly meet WP:RS"[49]. The user continues to blank the Freedom House material despite RS discussion[50]. The user also continually engages in personal attack on those attempting to contribute to the article. -- The above are just a few instances illustrative of the kind of the disruption the user engages in. The arguments the user presents on talk are often of a disruptive nature as well, and often invovles personal attacks on those contributing to the article. PCPP also repeatedly changes the words from sources to weaken or distort the claims they make, the case often being the latter - distortion of the perspective of the source. These edits he labels: "clarifying", "per WP:NPOV", etc.[51],[52],[53]. In all these cases, the sources said those precise words as were in the article. He provides no other explanation for the changes he makes to them. PCPP also rarely, if ever, adds any research to the articles. He focuses is often on pulling apart these articles and simultaneously discrediting the contributions of others. This behaviour of his has gone on for a long time and above are but recent instances. I request admins to kindly review PCPP's contribution history. In it is apparent a clear pattern of removal of material critical of the CCP from articles through out wikipedia. In addition, I would also like to draw attention to a systematic blanking of critical content and images on articles related to the CPP and its human rights violations which, I notice, has been happening on articles throughout wikipedia. Academic and news sources state that the Chinese Communist Party employs an army, hundreds of thousands strong, targeting Web 2.0 technologies such as Wikipedia, Twitter and youtube[54]. My intent is not to imply that editors involved in such removal of material are all directly related to the CCP, but, to point out that the presence of research and reports, which uncover such activism by CCP’s propaganda departments, makes the issue deserving of further attention of the Wikipedia Community. I humbly request a careful analysis of the issue be done, before any judgment is made on the merits of this concern I raise, and if evidence is found of such activity, the necessary steps be taken to counter it. A lot of evidence exists in Falun Gong related pages themselves. For instance, the Persecution of Falun Gong article has had almost all information regarding the persecution( sourced to Amnesty, HRW, UN CAT, Congressional Executive Reports, academic sources, etc.) , blanked from it. Blanking has been done to the point that in the lead of the article itself, it is made to seem as if this major international crisis is but a mere claim made by practitioners. I point out the issue here on talk[55] In the past, these articles have witnessed attack from self-declared propagandists such as User:Bobby_fletcher. Identified by David Kilgour, and David Matas, and articles such as the ones here: [56][ http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2436], as a major online activist for the CCP, “Bobbly Fletcher” engaged in presenting CCP propaganda on talk, de-tracking discussions, removal of content from the articles, etc. His presence on Wikipedia, and his disruptive activities were continually encouraged and supported by User:PCPP, who himself, as evidence above clearly demonstrates, has blanked vast amounts of info critical of the CCP from these articles. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [57] Warning by TheSoundAndTheFury (talk · contribs) [58] Warning by Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) [59] Warning by Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) [60] Warning by AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [61] Warning by AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) # [<Diff>] Warning by [[User:<Username>|<Username>]] ([[User talk:<Username>|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<Username>|contribs]] · [[Special:Log/block/<Username>|blocks]] · [[Special:Log/protect/<Username>|protections]] · [[Special:Log/delete/<Username>|deletions]] · [[Special:Log/move/<Username>|page moves]] · [[Special:Log/rights/<Username>|rights]] · [[Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/<Username>|RfA]]) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Topic ban from articles related to the Chinese Communist Party. Additional comments by editor filing complaint <Your text> Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. Discussion concerning PCPP Statement by PCPP I really don't see how the FLG sanctions can apply to any CCP-related article, as Dilip claimed. Dilip's personal attacks again Bobby Fletcher and rant about the PRC's "web spies" demonstrates exactly why I have difficulties working with him. 1) I in fact shortened the paragraph to: The name of the body draws from of its date of formation: June 10, 1999. According to the 2008 Congressional Executive Commission Report on China, the 6-10 Offices maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) facilities, where Falun Gong practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong." I summarized the statement into proper English, which is perfectly acceptable within editing guidelines. When Dilip doesn't agree with with such changes, he reverts the entire article, along with everything else that goes along with it. 2-5) Dilip himself added a large amount of questionable statements from a single unverified source from a political website [62], and completely destroyed the POV balance of the article. The only source I ended up removing was his; which is neither peer-reviewed or have any results on google scholar per WP:RS. I've rearranged most of the article in a more readable fasion, and restored and attributed several others. 5-6) That was a content dispute between me and another editor. I've since discussed with the editor, [63] who agreed that my edits has merits. 7) All I did was shuffle a couple of paragraphs around and removed one sentence that is not relevent to the article topic. I only edited that article once, and was immediatle reverted by asdfg in its entirity. [64] 8) Asdfg removed a large amount of material regarding Maoism, including the template and two web sources[65]. I restored the sources and properly attributed them. 9) And ignore the fact that I added a large amount of info regarding the thought reform movement. The source I removed was from 1969 and no longer up to date, and contradicted by the info I added. I even searched google scholar for asdfg's claims, and found nothing as it claimed. 10) The terminology itself was highly disputed, the sources themselves didn't even come to an conclusion, and an AFD on the terminology didn't even come to a clear concensus [66]. I referred to the Chinese's government's official label of the campaign per WP:NAME 11) The source is disputed on talk page [67] and reached the concensus that it is misattributed. 12) I am within my right to question such sources per WP:RS, and within my right to remove sources that lacks peer review or citation and is used to push a single POV. I find the current situation utterly ridiculous. No matter what I add, the FLG camp always find minor excuses over a couple of paragraphs or labels, and revert my edits entirely because of it. Dilip himself has a habit of disappearing for months, completely ignore the changes and concensus that has since ocurred, and revert back to his preferred version with little discussion. It's even more ludicrous that I have to document every change to single-purpose accounts that are used to promot Falun Gong.--PCPP (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning PCPP Comment by Asdfg12345 PCPP focuses on picking apart the contributions of others, and watering down the parts that aren't too friendly to the Chinese Communist Party. His behaviour is consistently destructive, and it, along with the explicit and implicit support he receives for it, has seriously eroded my will to contribute to this project (among other things.) Recently he has refined his methods, too. Instead of outright blanking, he just blanks some parts and weakens others; instead of saying nothing, he says a few perfunctory words and discredits the other editors intentions; instead of doing zero research, he does a bit. He is a drag on contributing, and exerts a net negative influence. He only destroys the value of others' contributions, rather than bringing his own ideas and sources to the table and working together for how to incorporate the different viewpoints. He only says the viewpoint of this or that scholar (it would seem, actually, every scholar who has documented the crimes of the CCP) is POV and tries to delete it or weaken it, without any regard for NPOV, which calls for all significant views to be represented. He has recently deleted swathes of material from several articles, then writes misleading edit summaries and notes on the talk page. What's even more bizarre is how the editors calling for my downfall don't care when he does this stuff. It's a bit farcical. I have left maybe a dozen notes to PCPP saying how I would like to work with him, asking him to explain himself, asking him to bring sources to the table that support the POV he wants to see introduced. But he doesn't play ball and just rebukes it all, going right ahead with the deletions and whatnot. It's a very effective technique, to be honest. At the very least, it's dampened my usually boundless enthusiasm--at least enough to take a break from all this for a while. I'll be back, but hopefully he won't be around. (Note: if he changed his approach and started doing research, and discussed his changes nicely, I would love to work with him. He has robust opinions on these subjects that, if sources can be found to support them, need to be represented and explained. But his focus on destroying my work really gets to me. I asked him to just paste onto the talk page stuff he deletes from now on. Maybe that will help. Though his deletions of any mention of the word "indoctrination" or "struggle session" goes on.) --Asdfg12345 05:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by PhilKnight The only relevant evidence is that which relates to the Falun Gong. The rest could be relevant to the user conduct Request for Comment, but shouldn't be listed here. PhilKnight (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Epeefleche The nom raises some points here that deserve close examination (which I've not had time for at the moment), and if which accurate should likely be addressed in some manner, though I agree with Phil that the only relevant information is that which relates to the Falun Gong, which does not appear to be the focus of many of the above diffs.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Result concerning PCPP This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I would propose a topic ban of two weeks from Falun Gong and connected articles. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I can't see any {{uw-sanctions}} left for PCPP, which is a prerequisite for discretionary sanctions to be applied. I have left it now, but unless there is further inappropriate behaviour, the request will be closed with no action. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Am moving the case to ANI. A wide range of articles are involved, and this behavior of the user has continued for years. The above user has not contributed anything to these pages in terms of research, and, at the same time, baselessly attacks other editors to deviate attention and cover up his disruption of these pages. Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I take the above to be a retraction of the request and am closing it as no action per Stifle.  Sandstein  17:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev

Further action deferred pending the outcome of moderated discussion.
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 Dilip rajeev User requesting enforcement: Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested: Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Article_probation: "Falun Gong and all closely related articles are placed on article probation. It is expected that the articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The articles may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review. Passed 7 to 1 at 06:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)" Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Point_of_view_editing Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: I really don't have the patience for this any longer; I have already given up editing Falun Gong articles. Nevertheless, I would re-open this previously filed request hoping that something be done about that user's persistent Falun Gong advocacy, NPOV editing and aggressive edit-warring. This is particularly important because the disruption has now spilled over onto, and threatens to poison the editing ambiance at, all articles which touch upon the Communist Party of China or the governance of the People's Republic of China - the central goal of the Falun Gong movement is contributing to the downfall of the CPC. This renewed request is updated with the latest evidence of highly disruptive behaviour by Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs), who has been editing almost exclusively Falun Gong articles, or those which touch upon Falun Gong - namely Propaganda on the People's Republic of China - since February 2006. In fact, my previous AE request was against him failed; the closing admin commented: “ Dilip rajeev has mostly refrained from reverting and engaged in discussion. Since the reversions happen so infrequently (3 times in 2 months), a revert restriction would be of very little value. ” In my experience, rajeev has shown great animosity when non-FG devotees edit Falun Gong article. There has been a long history of unchecked edit warring, even over the placement of {{NPOV}} tags. Such tags are routinely removed (as here) with not so much as a 'how do you do', as if the contents suddenly become neutral when the tag disappears. Reverts are usually very provocatively done - blind and wholescale, often destroying many intervening edits which have accurate and well-reasoned edit summaries - and any ensuing discussion makes clear that the user is always 'right' and anyone who opposes him 'wrong'. Anything which is sourced from sources he approves of have a right to stay and any sources he disapproves of are "CCP propaganda" or somesuch. Dilip rajeev's tendency to introduce ironic quotes (like here) and weasel words are already mentioned above. Not only is he completely and blindly partisan, Dilip rajeev often expresses points of view which are unique; his style and content introduced have been frowned upon from time to time by most others, and also by asdfg. Dilip rajeev's stated view that nothing from the Chinese authorities is worthy of citing because it is unreliable propaganda demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of what is WP:NPOV. He is known to endlessly pontificate on moral questions, and lawyer around citing paragraphs of WP:RS and WP:NPOV to support whatever position he favours in regards to a certain link or source. He maintains a website which he uses as Falun Gong advocacy. It seems that he passionately believes the persecution of Falun gong practitioners at the hands of the Chinese authorities, and is unable to put these views to one side when he is editing; and when he edits, it is with such great fervour and aggression that leaves little or no place for others who wish to contribute. Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs) has a habit of disappearing (i.e. not editing in article space or talk space) for weeks or months on end. When he returns, he frequently reverts to the last version he feels comfortable with irrespective of the individual merits of each of the changes because the changes which took place were not to his liking. In view of his return and his manifestly unrepentant behaviour, I would reopen the case, seeking an indefinite site ban. Such reverts are usually done without due reference to the discussions which have taken place during his absence. Today, he hypocritically initiated an AE case against same (see above). Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy) Dilip rajeev block log Inactive user account 001 block log He was given this final warning on 16 May 2009. Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): I believe that, in view of his continued disruption and the total lack of any mitigating collaborative successes, an indefinite ban from Wikipedia would now be in order. Dilip rajeev is a Falun Gong practitioner, and edits Falun Gong articles almost exclusively since 2006 along with a team of 3 other very easily identifiable FLG activist editors - asdfg12345 (talk · contribs), Olaf Stephanos (talk · contribs), and HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs). After the ban of Anti-FLG users Sam Luo and Tomanada, this group of Falun Gong practitioners have seemingly taken over all Falun Gong-related articles. All four users, to varying degrees, erase critical content, engage in lengthy advocacy commentary on talk pages, tag-team against other editors. Rajeev in particular shows very little respect for any users who wish to bring balance to articles, by sundry disruptive tactics and tendentious editing. These 1 2 attempts (amongst others) by fellow activist asdfg to rein him in have never had much effect. Dilip rajeev creates an ambiance of intolerance and hostility, leaving behind a trail of breaches of WP:NPOV, 3RR and other guidelines wherever he goes. He is responsible, in whole or in part, for driving away a number of neutral editors from the Falun Gong articles. His editing Sathya Sai Baba demonstrate his propensity to be controversial; his forays there are nothing short of spectacular drama. He has demonstrated that he is incapable of working with others who do not share the same views as himself, and I am regrettably of the conclusion, after observing numerous attempts by myself and other editors to discuss, negotiate and mediate, and after many months of suffering his various antics and POV-pushing, that Wikipedia is best off without him. A wholescale indefinite ban is warranted to end this editor's disruption of wikipedia, once and for all. It has now been demonstrated that Dilip rajeev is a dedicated Falun Gong SPA with an agenda to advocate the Falun Gong cause. His prior involvement in editing Sathya Sai Baba articles, another 'hot topic' which has already been the subject of two Arbcom cases, is also of record. He is a habitual disruptive editor whose aggressive and partisan edits have been the subject of numerous comments and complaints from other users, including fellow practitioner User:asdfg12345. Dilip rajeev has been warned repeatedly against edit-warring, and has been blocked a number of times - the last time was a 3 month topic ban; prior to that was a block of 55 hours. He does not appear to have learned anything,nor does he seem to realise that he narrowly escaped sanction by making an opportune disappearance from Wikipedia. I believe it is now time to send the message that such behaviour is not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dilip_rajeev&diff=348906563&oldid=348567851 Discussion concerning Dilip rajeev Statement by Dilip rajeev I have done few edits after the same user filed a similar case against me in which I was found innocent. I wont say much here except that I have not edit warred on any of these pages. I am given all kinds of labels from "vandal" to "sockpuppet" by these users attacking me. I merely request that I may please be judged by my contributions, by the diffs, by the content I have contributed to wikpedia - not by claims, not substantiated by any evidence, from those who seek to impose these labels on me. What he presents as "Evidence of edit warring" is PCPP's whole-scale blanking of content which happened between my contributions. And there are no multiple reverts from my side. I was among the first to draw editors attention, and collect sources to improve that article which was almost completely ignored[68]. Based on painstaking research, I made significant contributions to the article which, back then, carried almost no sourced content: [69] The original state of the article was: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Propaganda_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China&oldid=327853510 After my contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Propaganda_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China&oldid=346242792 ( The above is the only set of major edits I have done since the same user filed a AE against me in which I was found innocent ) The above contributions were labelled "vandalism" and "NPOV editing" by PCPP and his supporter OhConfucious. One of the first paragraphs of sourced content added to the article was blanked by Ohconfucius with a personal attack on me, the editor who contributed the content. His sole explanation for blanking ran: "rv Dilip rajeev - there is nothing wrong with it[the article] being a catalogue; just don't bring your Falun Gong agenda here". The material he blanks and attacks me for adding can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Propaganda_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China&action=historysubmit&diff=342416447&oldid=342311517 PCPP barged in and blanked all the content I added, and with no explanation. So obviously that edit ( for which he gave no explanation) was reverted me ( no multiple reverts -a single revert, and asking for an explanation from him). OhConfucius attempts to present this the other way round. I hope admins will take a careful look and see through the smoke created by these fake allegations. Since a similar case filed by Ohconfucius, in which I was not found guilty, the above is the only major set of edits I have done. Regarding the intro I added, a full explanation can be seen here.[70] I did not do multiple reverts when the material I considered a superset of the current info in the article was removed - but strove to explain my additions section by section. I absolutely did not engage in any repetitive reverts or edit warring. A full explanation of the intro can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong#Regarding_the_intro And "Inactive user account" was not "blocked". The user is repeating this allegation against me despite several clarifications I have made before. It was an alternate account I used to contribute to that article ( and all my contribution there were all based on the best available sources such as BBC, The Times, Guardian, DTV, Bayerstein, etc. And I had made significant contributions in terms of content there. I may please be observed that the sole reason I was attacked was that my contributions conflicted with the POV of certain users). The account was and renamed under the suggestion of an admin, to protect my privacy( it being a very sensitive topic in certain regions in India) when it was compromised. Also, I have not been active on the article for several months now. These are non-existent issues that the user frequently rakes up to attack me. On the 6-10 Office article, I have absolutely not engaged in any edit-warring. I had raised legitimate concerns regarding PCPP's repetitive blanking of material sourced to Congressional Executive Reports, and distortion of sourced content in the lead. It is the very same issue I present in the AE case against PCPP above that Ohconfucius distorts to make it seems as if I am blanking PCPP: 1. Article:6-10 Office Nature of disruption:Repetitive blanking of sourced and centrally relevant material with no discussion presented.Concerns raised are ignored by the user. The below content, drawing upon one of the few sources available on the topic, has been blanked 6 times by the user since its inception into the article. "According to the 2008 Congressional Executive Commission Report on China, "Publicly available government documents detail the central role of the 6-10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong." The report states: ""6-10 Offices throughout China maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' facilities that are used specifically to detain Falun Gong practitioners who have completed terms in reeducation through labor (RTL) camps but whom authorities refuse to release. The term `transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) describes a process of ideological reprogramming whereby practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong."" The diffs:[71] [72][73][74][75][76]. Concerns raised regarding this behavior, on the talk page[77][78] is met with no response from PCPP, other than repeated blanking. Together with the blanking, supported by neither discussion nor edit summary, the user distorts the lead of the article. The statement sourced to Congressional Executive Report on China, 2008: “This entity was charged with the mission of overseeing and carrying out the persecution of Falun Gong, which commenced on July 22, 1999.”, is distorted by the user to “It is responsible for monitoring, studying and analyzing matters relating to Falun Gong, and recommending policy measures for against Falun Gong, and also what the government calls "heretical cults" and "harmful qigong organisations"; and for promptly notifying municipal party committees of trends and developments within "cults".”[79]. The commentary added by the user is mis-attributed and not supported by any source. Further, I would like to humbly request that if the charges made against me are seen to be baseless, appropriate disciplinary action be taken against these users who've been hounding me around wikipedia and making contributing to these pages almost impossible. This case shortly follows my presenting a detailed case, with plenty evidence, against PCPP. In my experience, such attacks serve as a mechanism for attention-diversion. Making it seem as if it is a mere to-and-fro exchange of accusations. Hence, I request admins to take a deep, solid look at the evidence I present above. In summary, I would like to point out: I have not done multiple reverts to any page. I had made clear my rationale for changes on talk, and have not, even for a single additional time, attempted to push any major change, when countered by another editor. On the Persecution of Falun Gong page, I explain the paragraphs I later added fully on talk. On the 6-10 article, and Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, I request that my contributions be fully analyzed and then I be judged. I have not engaged in any contentious editing, and have not "warred" with any other user. On the other hand, I have contributed significant to these pages with sources of central relevance. All these content were blanked by PCPP. I have remained absolutely civil despite it, and did not engage in any repetitive revert or edit warring. The users channel attention to two edits which span months, in their attempt to put these labels on me - top make it seems as if I disruptively revert to old versions. I request I be judged by the entire history of my contributions. Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Dilip rajeev Comment by Epeefleche Obviously, this is outrageous behavior. Just the sort that eats up valuable constructive editor time, without good reason, and poisons the project. I fully support the nomination, and urge that action be taken.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Asdfg12345 Whether Dilip has recently engaged in edit warring should be able to be easily verified. I have looked at the pages in question and it seems obvious to me that he has not. Check the recent shamozzle at the persecution page, for example. He only did one revert to an old version, then rewrote the lead. That was reverted then the page was locked. Two changes, not one a revert. So, that's not edit warring. If you look at the talk page, it's clear he's also trying to engage in discussion. Similarly for the 610 Office, page. Just look at the history. That's like, two reverts/edits over a couple of days? And what was the substance of those changes? Adding back in a few paragraphs of sourced material and deleting some unsourced material. And it was all discussed on the talk page, but PCPP did not join in. This is typical. The same thing can be found at Mass line. At the 610 office article, another outside editor has now come in to revert PCPP. Same again for the propaganda in the PRC page. Check the history and it becomes clear who is being destructive. I don't think Dilip has done a single revert on that page at all. Meanwhile, PCPP has deleted 10kb from the page calling it "POV"! It's a wonder that Ohconfucius does not spread his righteous indignation around a bit more. Overall, this seems to be an issue of editing dynamics and attitudes. It won't work to single one person out, and banning individuals when the evidence against them is summed up seems boneheaded, too. A recent, very clear illustration of how this is about attitudes is to be found on the Falun Gong talk page. Olaf Stephanos made some suggestions, and Mrund sought to dismiss and marginalise Olaf. A non-partisan editor went ahead with a few of the changes, which were not outrageous at all. In fact, they were just questions. So the whole atmosphere is really, really hostile. For the record, I disagree with Dilip, and other editors, on any number of content issues. But I don't think people should be banned unless it's clear they're exhibiting bad faith and behaving destructively. I don't think either of those is the case for Dilip. There does not appear to be recent evidence (say, since mid-Feb) that Dilip has editwarred on any of the pages he has edited. Further, the nature of his edits is to add information and research. No claims have been made that Dilip has added information outside its prominence in reliable sources (i.e., actually violating WP:UNDUE), simply that he added information critical of the CCP. PCPP, on the other hand, has repeatedly edit warred to push his POV, and rather than adding any research, he just destroys the research of others. But anyway, I'm sorry to say it, but these cases seem to be as much about politics and image as they are about evidence. If Ohconfucius et al can make it look like they are a group of editors neutral on this subject, and Dilip is the pariah who relentlessly pushes his POV, then they win. That's what happened the last several times. --Asdfg12345 06:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Another point I would make is that while some of Ohconfucius's points have merit, most of it is rhetoric recycled from other spaces and times past, replayed here without recent diffs to back it up. Ohconfucius and I are good Wiki-friends by the way (seriously). --Asdfg12345 06:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Note that my remark is not blanket support for the editor in question. I want to emphasise that if the case is judged on recent contributions, since his long absence, then I don't think there's much to go on, and this case could have been opened without any reference to his recent edits. If this is supposed to address things he has done in the past though, that is different. My only other point would be that the user should be given a chance to correct his mistakes. He has been editing for about the last month now, with no edit warring or other infractions. If I was bringing an AE case against him, I would wait until he actually misbehaves now rather than seeking retribution for bygone sins. And I think it would be unfair not to note whether the user's patterns and attitude had changed since his absence. --Asdfg12345 02:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC) To Jayen466: Yes, his massive revert was extreme, but there had been no editing on that page for months. He did a bold edit, and when it was wound back he did not seek to keep putting it in. Dilip has only recently started working towards consensus in discussions; but the same can't even be said for people like Colipon, Mrund etc. They blatantly attack anyone perceived as putting in things that make Falun Gong "look good." But they are quite content to be representatives of among the most cynical and negative anti-Falun Gong points of view. Filling the pages with bad things is okay, but putting in good things is bad. If you let either of these groups of editors have free reign on the pages they will turn it into their version of the truth. The anti-Falun Gong artists have done that quite successfully, all the while marginalising anyone who complains. It's high hypocrisy. Anyway, Dilip has not edit warred recently so there is no basis for this case. I suggest editors learn to work together rather than single out people they don't like, slap them with labels, then try to get them banned. --Asdfg12345 23:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Mrund I am convinced that an indefinite site ban would be the most productive way to deal with Dilip rajeev. Dilip is a vandal and a propagandist SPA. He adds little or nothing of independent value, and he eats up enormous amounts of other contributors' wikilabour that could be put to much better use for the project. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by HappyInGeneral This is funny, check the number of edits Ohconfucius did to the article, then let's see who is owning it. Also the fact that the tone you use against any editor that you perceive pro-Falun Gong, is almost always hostile, is extremely telling. As far as I can tell you care only about your own truth and you are quite far as long as objectivity goes and well balanced WP:RS goes. Anyway, who cares, I'll stop here as I don't have time to get into this anymore. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Enric Naval Every few weeks Dilip reverts back to an older version, and he demands that other editors justify why his edits are wrong. That's placing WP:BRD completely upside-down, and he has done it so many times that he no longer has the excuse that he didn't know how to discuss in wikipedia. This is worsened by the pro-FG editors who revert back to Dilip's version and make the same demands. That is absolutely discouraging for the rest of editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Seb az86556 Those who want the situation in the proverbial nutshell, read Enric's statement above; fully endorse it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Colipon Wikipedia administration: please settle this matter once and for all. The four aforementioned users have been using these Falun Gong articles as a battleground for years on end and apparently no one here gives enough of a damn to ban them all from the site. The evidence has been crystal clear and given no short of 20 times by various users and on various wikipedia dispute resolution venues. Scour through their contributions and it is immediately clear that their mission here is not to create an encyclopedia but to advocate for a cause - and be destructive while doing it. I was once 'an outsider' to the Falun Gong articles. I hate the subject, I hate editing it, and I hate arguing about it. I now regret clicking that edit button when I saw the article was basically being used as a piece of Falun Gong promotional material. Falun Gong has been, without doubt, the worst experience I have ever had on this encyclopedia. At numerous points I have contemplated quitting Wikipedia altogether because of these articles on Falun Gong. They not only highlight the ineffectiveness of dispute resolution, but severely undermines the integrity and credibility of Wikipedia. Scientology has already set a precedent that this encyclopedia should have a zero-tolerance policy on new religious movements trying to paint themselves favorably, and Falun Gong articles are not any different. Anyone who edits Falun Gong to push for a point of view, and edits exclusively Falun Gong should be banned from the site for good - not some 6-month topic ban with the naive assumption that somehow this behavior would 'change' at the expiration of the ban. As we've seen, and as OhConfucius has pointed out - these SPA's editing now stretches to the 'second stage' of Falun Gong advocacy; i.e. when they are banned from Falun Gong, they edit against anything to do with the Communist Party of China. These are not edits in good faith and all of these edits should be stopped by imposing an indefinite site ban akin to those on Scientology. This is within the spirit of the arbcom decision and in line with Wikipedia's general principles. Administrators, this cannot go on. Do something about it. Colipon+(Talk) 15:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Amen to that. --antilivedT | C | G 05:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Jayen466 I will try to comment in more detail later on, when I have more time, but will say now that DR's edits have often been extreme and have consistently caused me concern, both in the Falun Gong and the Sai Baba topic areas. I would certainly support a topic ban restricting him to talk pages at this time. I'd have to look at his recent contributions in more detail before I could say whether a site ban is appropriate. --JN466 00:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Please note that Ohconfucius was the lead editor in taking the Falun Gong-related Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident article to FA status. A recent deep revert by Dilip Rajeev in Persecution of Falun Gong [80] turned the article into a piece of advocacy. This recent edit in the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident FA [81] turned the first paragraph of the lead into a very one-sided piece of advocacy. This is a highly contested topic area, and it is to be expected that editors with very diverse viewpoints participate. There are definite POV problems with editors on the other side of the debate too, trying to minimise the appalling persecution Falun Gong practitioners have suffered in China for the past decade, or wishing to deny that there is any persecution at all. However, Dilip Rajeev has not struck me as an editor who has been particularly good at, or interested in, working with opposing editors to build talk page consensus. --JN466 11:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Response to Asdfg12345 I agree it is undesirable to have all editors from one side of a POV debate topic-banned. But if you edit essentially as a single-purpose account [82][83], Wikipedia requires you to be particularly circumspect about your POV. The way not to get topic-banned as a single-purpose account is to learn to write for the enemy, rather than insisting that every edit one makes benefit one's own group. I see absolutely no evidence of this here. --JN466 12:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Edward130603 Dilip rajeev has unceasingly been a ultrapro-Falun Gong SPA. He leaves for periods of times and then comes back for a bunch of reverts. I suggest that dilip be banned indefinitely from all Falun Gong related topics.--Edward130603 (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by PCPP Dilip is the type of editor that takes WP:AGF for granted and attempts to turn wikipedia into a promotional vehicle for Falun Gong. A glance through his editing history showed that he almost exclusively edits Falun Gong related articles since 2006, and has a habit of disappearing disappear for months, resurface, revert to an earlier version and disregard to all that has came between. His recent editing patterns are a continuation of his old habits on the Tiananmen Square self-immolation, Organ harvesting and Sai Baba articles. Discussions with this user is often fruitless, as he claims ownership of the articles, and restores sources he likes irrespective of established consensus, while sources from the PRC government and others he doesn't like are routinely dismissed as "CCP propaganda" [84] [85] [86]. Dilip has previously received 5 blocks and countless warnings [87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95]on 3RR violations, disruptive editing, and edit warring previously on Falun Gong articles [96], previously operated two blocked socks [97] responsible for edit warring on Sathya Sai Baba [98]. He was also warned on inserting POV material on the Sai Baba articles [99] in disregard of arbcom sanctions. After his many violations of wikipedia guidelines, it's really time to draw the line. Samuel Luo and Tomananda, dedicated anti-FLG activists, were indefinitely blocked because of similar revert behavior, while FLG editors Olaf, Happyingeneral and asdfg were given lengthy article bans for their activism. I fail to understand why Dilip, who's editing behavior is more severe than all other combined, is kept given second and third chances because of his habit to disappear.--PCPP (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Request for a moment's pause by SilkTork There is a dialogue taking place on Jayen466's talkpage and a reasonable suggestion by Jayen that a moderated discussion take place. If Dilip_rajeev's concerns are legitimate they deserve to be closely examined. Sometimes people do not handle themselves as well as they might, and may well be disruptive; but that does not mean their concerns are not legitimate. I'd be more comfortable if we spent a little while fully investigating Dilip_rajeev's concerns in a non-threatening and impartial manner. If only one of Dilip_rajeev's concerns turn out to have some basis in fact, that will strengthen the article, and if they don't, and Dilip_rajeev has been through a fair and impartial review of his concerns, I feel that Dilip_rajeev will voluntarily withdraw from disruptive editing, so there will be no need for a "topic ban" that can be too easily subverted anyway. I am aware that moderated discussions do not always work; however, I am motivated by some of the comments that Dilip_rajeev has made on Jayen466's talkpage to feel that Dilip_rajeev will engage intelligently and honestly in a moderated discussion. Of course, having made this request, I feel I must offer myself as moderator. I suggest that if the discussion breaks down, that Dilip_rajeev is returned here, and the topic ban in enforced. SilkTork *YES! 12:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Dilip rajeev The sanction referred to has been rescinded. Therefore this report is not actionable. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC) (The article probation was not lifted, it was changed to standard discretionary sanctions, see motion. The report should be actionable under those.) --Enric Naval (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Has the user been put on notice of the discretionary sanctions? What sanctions have been imposed, by whom, and when? Also, I do not propose to indefinitely block anyone here; that should go to WP:ANI. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC) This is so ^*^($# confusing. Probation, no probation, discretionary sanctions, is all Greek to me. What's notice of discretionary sanctions? This is such a collosal waste of time, as I spent one whole morning filing the case. Am I wrong to have brought the case here? I don't want to be given the run-around, so kindly tell me where I should go to get what the community wants. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC) No, he hadn't been warned, I hsve left him a uw-sanctions template[100]. Anyways, the desired outcome here would be an indefinite topic ban from Falun Gong topic. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC) It should be an indefinite ban from the encyclopedia - as his edits on Sai Baba etc. have also been very contentious and destructive. Colipon+(Talk) 22:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Standard discretionary sanctions are in effect; he was also specifically warned about this behavior the last time he was brought to AE and was not sanctioned only because he promised not to continue these large reverts every time he pops up. Obviously he hasn't been able to stop that tendency, so I would suggest a break from the topic area is in order. Shell babelfish 12:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC) As to warning, my view is that if the sanction being contemplated would be authorized under the old article probation, and the editor has notice of that probation, an additional warning by {{uw-sanctions}} should not be required. ArbCom passed the discretionary sanctions to give admins all the tools they can use in this area, not to give the editors in the topic area a "get out of jail free" card before they are warned again. I agree with Shell et al. that this behavior is disruptive, and under the totality of circumstances, I'm inclined to impose a topic ban, of indefinite duration, from editing Falun Gong and all related discussions and other content (including talk pages and process discussions, except only for legitimate and necessary dispute resolution). Comments are welcome. Tim Song (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC) As it looks like you are now contemplating a temporary topic ban, I would ask for the 'topic' be broadened to include any article which concerns the People's Republic of China, for the reasons stated above. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC) (←) To avoid ex post facto concerns, I'm unwilling to impose any sanction that would not have been authorized under the old article probation, which does not seem to be broad enough to cover all PRC related articles. Tim Song (talk) 07:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Is ANI the place to go for that? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 11:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Yes, the community can do that. Barring any objections, I'm planning to impose the topic ban in 24 hours. Tim Song (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I think it would be reasonable to widen the topic ban to everything that has implications with Falun Gong - which is consistent with the spirit of the Arbitration decision - zero tolerance on advocacy and using Wikipedia as a battleground on both sides of the FLG-PRC equation. This common-sense approach means that "Propaganda in the PRC" article would be part of the topic ban, but "Chinese food" will not. "Propaganda of PRC" has been fertile breeding ground for Falun Gong activists since their narrow "topic ban" from strictly Falun Gong articles, but it is unmistakably Falun Gong activism that's taking advantage of this 'topic ban' technicality. From discretionary sanctions: "The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors;". It is without a doubt that "Propaganda in the PRC" is within the "area of conflict" - not to mention that it is central to Falun Gong advocacy. Thus I think the rationale is very clear to support a wider ban that's within the realm of discretionary sanctions. Colipon+(Talk) 01:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC) I think we should hold off a little longer. The dispute surrounding Falun Gong and the People's Republic of China has been a longstanding one, and I believe the entire situation needs wider community input, which it is at present failing to attract. I would oppose banning Dilip Rajeev from Falun Gong talk pages, and the best way forward for the encyclopedia's content quality may be moderated discussions away from article space. We are dealing with important issues here; see e.g. this New York Times article. --JN466 09:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Sounds reasonable to me. Also per SilkTork, I'll hold on the topic ban. Since reverts seem to be the problem, what about an indefinite 0RR restriction on FLG-related articles? Tim Song (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC) I have left a message on Dilip rajeev's talkpage regarding the offer of a moderated discussion: User_talk:Dilip_rajeev#Moderated_discussion. My message includes links to the appropriate sanctions, and a warning that failing to adhere to the points raised in those sanctions will result in a return here for a topic ban. I have given examples of some of the behaviours that would result in a return here, and that includes reverting. The matter is now in Dilip rajeev's own hands. I hope Dilip rajeev will take up the offer of the discussion so we can look into his concerns, but if he decides not to and instead returns to reverting or edit warring, then that will be his choice, and he is fully aware of the consequences. SilkTork *YES! 14:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC) In any other articles I would have supported less stringent restrictions. But Falun Gong, this is just naive. Nothing good will come out of it. That article has been the battleground between Falun Gong and PRC supporters for years. But it's clear that the Communist Party has lost that war long, long ago, and they have never been taken that seriously anyway. The anti-Falun Gong users who have been banned as a result of the arbitration, interestingly, were not actually Communist Party supporters. Merely a few people who, in my view, felt that Falun Gong was promoting hatred of homosexuals and whose had very negative personal experiences with Falun Gong. Of course, I support their indefinite ban - because they have become too emotionally invested in the subject to edit or discuss objectively. After the ban of all "Anti-Falun Gong" editors, what resulted is a group of strengthened Falun Gong advocates who seize on the situation to turn those articles into Falun Gong propaganda pamphlets, not the least by arousing sympathy from the plight of Falun Gong within China. These editors have grew extremely sophisticated with their editing tactics over the years and now cite wikipolicies whenever possible while skirting the real pillars of Wikipedia - most notably WP:NPOV. These articles were essentially destroyed until July 2009, when Olaf Stephanos was banned. Since then the article has seen marked improvements - and in January 2010, two other SPAs, HappyInGeneral and Asdfg12345, have also been topic banned. Dilip Rajeev is the last SPA who have not been sanctioned with the topic ban, and it's safe to say that he is the worst of the four, which makes this situation rather humorous. I guess it really highlights the sophistication of Dilip's gaming-the-system tactics and his deep understanding on how to use wikipedia's policies to justify his advocacy. For that, kudos to him. I will be happy to engage in discussion with users who are not emotionally invested in this issue. But I refuse to do it with Falun Gong SPAs because I know their primary interest is to promote Falun Gong, not edit an encyclopedia. My past discussions with these users have all been consistently fruitless, and as new users enter Falun Gong wikispace they often feel so intimidated by the poisoned environment that they leave within a month. I hope the administrators truly understand the magnitude of the abuse this encyclopedia has suffered at the hands of Falun Gong advocates, and do something substantial to stop it once and for all. Colipon+(Talk) 15:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC) I concur. I've already given up with WP:AGF after Dilip's history of hostilities against me and other editors [101] [102] [103] [104] [105], basically dismissing anything that does not suit his POV as "CCP propaganda". Even behind all these guise of "discussion", Dilip's still trying to subvert consensus and restored merged articles [106].--PCPP (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Without further ado, I have opened a case at ANI. Nevertheless, if anything can be done here, I would ask that it be considered. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC) "kindly tell me where I should go to get what the community wants" -- please don't try this one on. It's not what "the community wants," it's what you and a few others who want to crucify Dilip want. --Asdfg12345 23:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Thats a lot of "few others". Maybe it is a representation of the community?--Edward130603 (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Oh, don't mind asdfg, he's in cynical mode. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: Moderated discussion closed. Dilip rajeev's concerns have been addressed, and his editing approach has modified to comply with Wikipedia standards. SilkTork *^YES! 11:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Cs32en

Appears to be mainly a content dispute; no action.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Cs32en User requesting enforcement –Turian (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Cs32en (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [107] "Cinnamon Stillwell is a neo-conservative political activist, not an independent observer, and the text is an opinion piece." More anti-conservative push (reverting for the sake of reverting a conservative). [108] "Her writing is not based on journalistic independence, but on a political agenda." More disagreements with conservative views. (Hell, I'm as liberal as they come and I see no issue with her.) [109] "This article is not the place to promote the agenda of neo-conservative activists"... clear intentions provided here. Beliefs do not constitute verifiability nor does it disparage them. [110] More defending of conspiracies. [111] "The reaction of "some" Palestinians and Serbians in not notable in the context of this article." Anything that differs from his opinion goes, apparently. [112] See above. [113] See above. [114] "Therefore, arguing that Ahmadinejad does not know anything about 9/11, and for this reason we don't include his statement in the article, misses the point." Eh, weak argument. (Added post-initial filing 07:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)) Talk Page of the 9/11 attacks (Added post-initial filing 07:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)) Reverting my closure of a discussion after I felt consensus was reached. I normally wouldn't do something like this, but I have employed the option multiple times on this page, with it typically closing the argument and preventing further attacks/surges of conspiracy. We do not censor or even try to censor the viewpoint, as we often direct them to the conspiracy article. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) A previous enforcement case [115] Warning by Turian (talk · contribs) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) A one week block alongside an indefinite topic ban on anything related to September 11th. Additional comments by editor filing complaint He has been given multiple chances to adhere to the ruling of the arbitration case, yet has not followed through with the ruling or the ruling of the enforcement case. He is one of the problems in the constant push for NPOV fringe theories relating to 9/11. –Turian (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [116] Discussion concerning Cs32en Statement by Cs32en All of the edits that Turian (talk · contribs) enumerates are based on Wikipedia policies. Per Wikipedia:RS#Statements of opinion, opinion-based articles must not be used "for statements of fact without attribution". I have removed the source, because it was an opinion piece that was used without attribution. Furthermore, the section summarizes the sub-article 9/11 conspiracy theories (see WP:Summary style), and all relevant sources can be found in this article. The sub-article also includes high-quality sources for the information that was sourced to the opinion piece. Therefore, I left the information in the article and removed only the source that was used in an inappropriate way. The specific political position of the writer of the opinion piece is indeed irrelevant. I have pointed out that the article was not based on journalistic independence, i.e. with the aim of building a reputation based on reliability and fact checking. That's exactly the reason why there is a specific guideline on opinion pieces. In this edit, I explained that Cinnamon Stillwell is not an editor of a journal who writes an opinion piece, but that she identifies herself as a representative of a political organization that is actively engaged in the controversies related to the information in the article. Therefore, Wikipedia:RS#Statements of opinion is even more relevant than if it would be an opinion piece written by an independent observer. The specific information I have removed from the article was unsourced, and it contained the word "claim", which is, or course, a word that should normally be avoided. I think that the mention of the reaction of "some Palestinians" to the September 11 attacks is undue in the main article on 9/11. This, of course, is an editorial decision, and I am very open to debate if another editor brings up the issue at the talk page or reverts my edit. This is also undue in the main 9/11 article. The assertion that a murder in Britain perpetrated by three Muslims would have been the "most notable" is completely unsourced. The source only says the perpetrators were "found guilty ... at a time when tensions were high following the September 11 attacks". There is no indication that this event was motivated by or otherwise connected to the September 11 attacks. I don't see a reason why the information that "the Serbian Liberation Front claimed responsibility for the bombing" of the World Trade Center in 1993 (!) is relevant for the article. But again, I'm open to discuss this point. I have stated on the talk page before that I would not support including Ahmadinejad's views in the article, as long as there is not a notable political controversy about them. In this edit, I clarified that, in my view, the relevant question that a decision on the inclusion of his opinion should be based on is notability in the context of the article's topic, not whether Ahmadinejad has specific knowledge about the September 11 attacks. Again, a statement that is based on our policies. I hope that I have clarified the issues that Turian (talk · contribs) has raised, and I suggest to dismiss this request. (I'll be away for about 24 hours.)  Cs32en Talk to me  21:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Then how do you explain your constant push for fringe conspiracies despite being told many times to stop? –Turian (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC) My edits at September 11 attacks As Turian (talk · contribs) is claiming that my editing on Wikipedia is about pushing conspiracies, I'd like to provide my edits at September 11 attacks during the last few months (the edits mentioned by Turian above, i.e. #1, #5, #6, and #7, are not included): 14:46, December 9, 2009 Adjusting piped link. 14:57, December 9, 2009 Reducing overlinking. Direct link to National Mall and to pepper spray. CNN does not need to be singled out. 16:20, December 9, 2009 [Correcting mistake in link syntax.] 19:20, January 23, 2010 the Capitol, the meeting place of the United States Congress, or the White House 15:04, February 25, 2010 Islamic extremism has its own article. (Removing link from "Islamist extremists" to "Islam".) 15:07, February 25, 2010 Removing "as a false flag in order to gain popular support for military and police expansion". This is only one of the motives that have been suggested. 15:14, February 25, 2010 "Due to lack of results" is unsourced speculation. Antagonism surfaced due to the predominantly military response, the Iraq War that was seen an unrelated to 9/11, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo etc. [Removing synthesis.] 21:09, March 1, 2010 (Undid revision 347151625 by Jonund (talk) User:Jonund incorrectly implied existing consensus on the talk page for his edit. Undoing the edit to encourage consensus-based solution. [There is now broad consensus on the talk page for the removal of this content.] 21:54, March 1, 2010 {{Undue-section}} [Tagging the section. ClovisPt (talk · contribs) removed much of the section in a subsequent edit. Broad talk page consensus on this as well.] In early January, I have created the article Camp Chapman attack, which appeared on Did you know? on January 10. As I have written almost all of the content of this article, it may be a useful example to assess my editing.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Since when does having good edits give you the right to push fringe theories? I am sure we can do without your "good" edits as long as your fringe edits are no longer allowed. –Turian (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC) You have raised concerns about specific edits in your request above. I have provided a specific explanation for each of these edits. Then, you have stated that my edits overall were somehow problematic. I then have listed all my edits to the September 11 attacks article in the last few months to provide a basis for others to evaluate them. Which are the fringe edits that you are referring to?  Cs32en Talk to me  17:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Everything I listed and your talk page obstruction of process. And your explanations were hardly sound at all. You have caused too much trouble in the past, and yet you continue to do it even though people have told you to stop. –Turian (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Cs32en Comment by Mbz1 I find the differences that were presented to be of a big concern, and believe Cs32en should be topic banned in accordance with the request.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Sandstein Could the requesting editor please annotate the request so as to explain how, specifically, each of the diffs provided violates "the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process" (WP:ARB911#Discretionary sanctions)?  Sandstein  20:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Done. –Turian (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks. After some review, I am inclined to agree with Wildbear below and to decline enforcement action. This appears to be an attempt to win a content dispute via AE. WP:AE is not part of dispute resolution. The edits are not prima facie disruptive, they are reasonably well explained by Cs32en above in terms of relevant editing policies, and the arguments made against them in the terms of these policies are weak, and often assume bad faith ("anti-conservative push", "defending of conspiracies"). That is not to say that these edits are correct either as a matter of content or conduct (I take no position on that), only that they are not misconduct warranting sanctions. Rather, they are indicative of content disagreements that ought to be worked out through normal channels.  Sandstein  06:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC) I assume you failed to read the entire mess that is made on the September 11 attacks talk page? –Turian (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Yes. That talk page is not cited in your request. I normally only read what the editor requesting enforcement asks me to.  Sandstein  06:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I have added two more diffs as evidence of his misbehavior. –Turian (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Rklawton Cs32en edits 9/11 as if his and only his view is correct. He removed a well researched, well considered, well sourced commentary published in a reliable source on the grounds that the author was a neo-conservative and immediately launched into an edit war to defend his actions. As far as I know, both liberals and conservatives believe 9/11 conspiracy theorists are whack-jobs. But Cs32en insisted the author was pushing a political agenda. The only agenda I saw in her article was one against conspiracy theorists - the very point of the section in which the source had been included. The bottom line is, unless we want to hand the article over to this one editor, he needs to be topic banned. Rklawton (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC) I did not "launch into an edit war". Actually, I did not edit war at all. I have removed the opinion piece in this edit and removed the unnecessary fact tag in this subsequent edit (no edits in between), and I haven't edited that section of the article since then. I did not argue that the author of the article would push a political agenda because she argues against conspiracy theories. Indeed, many people do this, including many journalists. The author of this opinion piece, however, identifies herself as "the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the foreign policy think tank directed by Daniel Pipes, the Middle East Forum" and, according to her website, is the "founder of the 9/11 Neocons, an online discussion group" (see the author's website).  Cs32en Talk to me  16:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC) ...which does not detract from her work to discredit conspiracy theorists. The fact is, you deleted this reference from a non-political article because of her political affiliations, and that's blatantly wrong. Rklawton (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Wildbear The preceding reads like a content dispute, rather than a pattern of abuse calling for arbitration enforcement. Approaching a polarized topic from a particular angle does not in itself constitute abuse; it is how one behaves while editing and discussing. If Cs32en had been engaging in edit warring, or unreasonable behavior on the talk page, then action might be warranted; but it doesn't look to me like that is occurring. Wildbear (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC) This is not a content dispute. The push for conspiracy theories is a clear violation of the arbitration guidelines/sanctions. If nothing is done here, then I will report the problem directly to the Committee. –Turian (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Also, please read the sanctions concept that the arbitration entails. This goes beyond any mere content dispute. –Turian (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by ClovisPt After reading/re-reading the edits provided above as examples of Cs32en's supposedly problematic editing style, I don't see a clear attempt to push an agenda. Several of these edits are judgment calls about the relative notability of various items in the September 11 attacks article, which is always difficult when one is dealing with the main page of a complicated subject that spans many items. I especially don't see evidence of conspiracy pushing here. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Did you read the prior enforcement guidelines? –Turian (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC) You mean Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories#Final_decision, right? I did read it. ClovisPt (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC) No, this. –Turian (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Alright, thanks for that link. ClovisPt (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Cs32en This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The submitter has unarchived this section because it was not closed. Unless other admins disagree, I intend to close it without action. The edits at issue are not obviously problematic, at least not to an extent that would merit sanctions. Whether or not they violate WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE is principally an editorial matter that needs to be resolved through editorial channels. Like the main arbitration process, arbitration enforcement is not for mediating content disagreements, and this request appears to be mainly a content rather than a conduct issue. If a user were to engage in aggressive fringe POV-pushing over extended periods of time in this area, AE sanctions would be warranted, but the diffs submitted in this request do not convince me that this is the case here.  Sandstein  09:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC) This is ridiculous. So now, we have to deal with all of this conspiracy crap until arbitration gets involved? If nothing is done, then I will be requesting a new arbitration case, since the administrators are currently unable to handle/enforce the prior arbitration. –Turian (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Absent opposition, closing per above.  Sandstein  13:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

Not looking for a full case or anything, but this seems to be heating up again, and if some Arbs could peek in on it from time to time that would be great. (because we all know how much free time you guys have...) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Specifically Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Beeblebrox. This board is not normally frequented by arbitrators, but by admins who do arbitration enforcement, such as I. Your request is a bit short on details - if you would like enforcement action taken against specific editors, I recommend the use of the form {{Arbitration enforcement request}}.  Sandstein  20:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm (deliberately) not really up to speed on the ins and outs of arbcom. There's a notice on the article's talk page that says "After a suitable grace period, the state of the article may be evaluated on the motion of any member of the Arbitration Committee and further remedies applied to those editors who continue to edit in an inappropriate manner. Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee." So I guess that's what I'm looking for, I don't have any specific user or users in mind just looking for that re-evaluation. Should I email them or something? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I think the page you could use is either Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment or the talk pages of individual arbitrators. An e-mail (WP:AC#Mailing lists) should also work. In any such request, I recommend that you provide a brief description of what the current problem is, some relevant diffs, and a recommendation about what should be done. That is likely to result in faster action than if arbitrators have to dig through histories just to find out whether there is a problem in the first place.  Sandstein  22:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues

Sulmues (talk · contribs) warned.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Sulmues User requesting enforcement Athenean (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Sulmues (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated WP:ARBMAC#Principles#Decorum Back in December, this user was placed under the following 3 month civility supervision [117] per WP:ARBMAC by User:Moreschi for outbursts such as these [118] [119] [120]. Following continuing trolling and incivility, he was blocked for 1 week per the terms of his civility parole, which was reset so as to expire April 27, 2010 [121]. Since then, he has continued trolling and breaching the terms of his civility parole. Specifically: Calling another editor's edit "vandalism" [122], though he was explicitly told not to do so [123], was told it it was blockable, and was blocked for it last time at AE. Not to mention that his participation in that article is a breach of his Kosovo topic ban. He also seems to think that because Tadija is not a member of the Albania TF, that he shouldn't be allowed to edit the TF page. Trolling and removing another user's comments [124], taunting him [125], edit warring over it [126]. Here he is removing another user's comments again [127] [128]. Here he is again removing comments, calling them trolling [129]. More trolling: [130] [131] [132] [133]. Shouting at other users not to remove maps [134] [135]. Here he is making all sorts of off-topic wild accusation while defending himself in an SPI [136] [137]. Here is trolling on WP:RSN, using it as a platform to rant against "the Greek editors" and make all sorts of wild accusations and bad-faith assumptions [138] [139]. Here he is doing the same thing on WP:ANI [140] [141], making all sorts of wild accusations about the supposed "Greek ancestry" of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, hidden "agendas" of "the Greek editors" (again). Bad faith assumptions and conspiracy theories designed to make other editors look bad galore. Like he claims in the last diff, he did everything in his power to try and derail the ANI thread, always trying to have the last word. Here he is taunting another editor for being recently blocked [142]. Here he filed a bogus 3RR report against me [143], when I only had 2 reverts in the entire history of the article. He then goes on and on ad nauseam, not letting go and always trying to have the last word. Striking through another user's words because he doesn't like what he says [144]. It's as if he thinks he can go around and censor other users. Here he is making a deliberately provocative edit [145], while mendaciously writing "hope no one gets offended" on the talkpage [146], when it is quite clear he is trying to do just that. Here he is going around giving barnstars [147] [148] [149] while using it as an opportunity to call other editors "extremists" and "vandals". Since this editor has a history of pretty much nothing but conflict with myself and User:Alexikoua, it's pretty clear who the "vandals" and "extremists" he has in mind are. He is basically using the barnstars as a backhanded way of insulting me and Alexikoua. I was extremely irritated by this, and came very close to filing here, but decided to let it slide at the time. The final straw however, was when he restored a trolling comment by User:Piasoft [150] ("greekification", that's a good one) and took it upon himself to cleanse another one of my comments [151]. By restoring Piasoft's trolling, he is in effect endorsing it, and calls it a "warning" I "should take very seriously" on top of that. Sulmues has in general a very bad habit of restoring trolling comments by other Albanian users, as he did here when he restored this TOV by User:Lceliku [152], saying that the guy "welcomed" me and I responded by "banning" him. I decided to wait 24 hours before doing anything, but today, I see Sulmues using a 3RR report as a platform for yet more trolling against me [153], falsely accusing me of filing an SPI against him, calling me "arrogant" [154], accusing me of edit-warring. The guy can't stop himself from using every single opportunity available to rant about me accusing him of being a sockpuppet [155] and whatnot. Here he is calling for me to get blocked for daring to think that Kushtrim is a sock [156]. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [157] warned by me at his bogus 3rr report. [158] warned by me after the PIGS stunt. [159] warned by User:Mlpearc to stop removing other editors comments, which he continued doing afterwards. [160] warned by User:Alexikoua to cease and desist from restoring Piasoft's trolling comment. Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) 1 week block per the terms of his civility parole, which should be reset so as to expire another 3 months from now. Additional comments by editor filing complaint I have generally tried to avoid interaction with this editor as much as possible, however, considering the articles in question, it is not possible to completely avoid him. He follows me around and uses every opportunity available to engage in wikidrama and accuse me of all sorts of things, particularly at noticeboards such as WP:ANI, WP:RSN, etc...I also note that Sulmues is calling me a troll on this very page, in reference to this comment of mine [161] which he took it upon himself to remove it. Is my comment really trolling, or did Sulmues remove it because he did not want any of the other participants to find out about the map that I was proposing? A map that shows Kosovo in the early 20th century as mostly inhabited by Serbs. Athenean (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [162] Discussion concerning Sulmues Ok, I'm ready. They are all false accusations and this is a really bad report. I reject the accusations as follows: Calling another editor's edit "vandalism" [163], though he was explicitly told not to do so [164], was told it it was blockable, and was blocked for it last time at AE. Not to mention that his participation in that article is a breach of his Kosovo topic ban. This edit was made in february 11 2010. It concerns something that is done in the Albanian task force of which I am a member: putting articles that regard Albania in the "track the related changes list" from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albania/publicwatchlist. The Persecution of Serbs article in its version of 11 february ([165]) included Albania, hence it was to be included in the list. As back then I was the only member of the Albania task force I had to do it because it specifically regarded Albania. I am respecting my Kosovo ban religiously. Tadija vandalized the page because he is not a member of the Albania task force and removed the article from the Albania publicwatchlist. I duly reverted his vandalism. --sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Trolling and removing another user's comments [166], taunting him [167], edit warring over it [168]. Here he is removing another user's comments again [169] [170]. The first and second edits take out the trolling comment on Vangjel Zhapa's page regarding Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon Bonaparte has nothing to do with Vangjel Zhapa and it's a trolling comment to be removed per wiki policies. The third and fourth edits are to remove again incivil comments made by Alexikoua. Per wiki policies it is Ok to remove uncivil comments (see WP:CUR)--sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Here he is again removing comments, calling them trolling [171]. Yes, this is a trolling comment as Athenean is clearly provoking with an extremist map. I try not to answer the comment, so that I don't feed the troll. More trolling: [172] [173] [174] [175]. The first comment is an answer to an editor in the talk page. The History of Albania has way too many issues and is being patrolled by the Greek editors. The Albanian TF members have been banned or blocked, mostly reported by Athenean. The second comment is perfectly civil and allowed per Wikipedia:Tag_team#False_accusations_of_tag-teaming. I did not say that they were tag teaming, but that they were working in tandem. Perfectly fine with wiki policies. The third edit is not trolling. I really can't see how that's a trolling comment in the talk page. The fourth edit regards my opinion clearly stated in the talk page. No trolling made whatsoever.--sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Shouting at other users not to remove maps [176] [177]. The first edit is a typo mistake, I'm not shouting at anyone. 5.5k edits and no shouting from my keyboard. The second edit is to have editors avoid edit-warring but use the talk page. Athenean has too many times deleted in fact that RS. Unfortunately. --sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Here he is making all sorts of off-topic wild accusation while defending himself in an SPI [178] [179]. Both edits refer to my defense when I was unjustly accused to be a sock puppet of Sarandioti and user:Athenean was endorsing that false accusation. To mention that user:Athenean had already falsely accused me of being a sock puppet of Guildenrich here. Note that Athenean was accusing me of collaborating off wiki with Sarandioti ([180]) and was asking for a check on patterns and not on IP only so I was under very heavy accusations. I am continually harassed by Athenean. Here is trolling on WP:RSN, using it as a platform to rant against "the Greek editors" and make all sorts of wild accusations and bad-faith assumptions [181] [182]. There is no trolling here. I am clearly stating my position and I am not being incivil at all. Per wp:civilty I am flawless.--sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Here he is doing the same thing on WP:ANI [183] [184], making all sorts of wild accusations about Greek ancestry, hidden agendas, "the Greek editors" (again). Bad faith assumptions and conspiracy theories designed to make other editors look bad galore. In these two edits there is no Greek ancestry accusation, there is no "hidden agenda accusation". And I am allowed to say "Greek editor". Actually I am referring to Alexikoua that is trying to remind everybody that I have gotten some blocks. Again I see no flaws.--sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Here he is taunting another editor for being recently blocked [185]. No taunting. I have a friendship with Alexikoua and I welcomed him back, but I reminded him that he should not throw empty accusations when he is doing the same thing. Read carefully. --sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Here he filed a bogus 3RR report against me [186], when I only had 2 reverts in the entire history of the article. He then goes on and on ad nauseam, not letting go and always trying to have the last word. This report is about you edit-warring. And you had three reverts. Edit warring includes but is not limited to the 3RR. I clearly specified that even though it's not a 3RR violation, you were edit-warring. As a matter of fact you recently got blocked for that. --sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Striking through another user's word because he doesn't like the implication [187]. And it's the right thing to do when you see your country's history shortened by 600 years. Megistias, in particular, knows that Albanians were mentioned since the 2nd century BC (see Origin_of_the_Albanians#Arbanon. In addition is allowed by Wikipedia:Civility#Removing_uncivil_comments when you see an insult of that nature.--sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Here he is making a deliberately provocative edit [188], while mendaciously writing "hope no one gets offended" on the talkpage [[189]], when it is quite clear he trying to do just that. You might get provoked but it's a very well sourced name. PIGS countries are well known in the Economics of EU. However there are many short-tempered wikipedians that might get offended by it, because they know little about Political Economics on EU. As a matter of fact a whole article might be written on PIGS countries. --sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Here he is going around giving barnstars [190] [191] [192], using it as an opportunity to call other editors "extremists" and "vandals". Since this editor has a history of pretty much nothing but conflict with myself and User:Alexikoua, it's pretty clear who he has in mind here. I was extremely irritated by this, and came very close to filing here, but decided to let it slide at the time. Since when is giving barnstars a crime??? These users are part of the Albania TF and deal of course with vandalism every day. Are you really thinking that I indirectly insulting you? This is unbelievable and I think will remain in the history of Wikipedia.--sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC) The final straw however, was when he restored a trolling comment by User:Piasoft [193] ("greekification", that's a good one) and took it upon himself to cleanse another one of my comments [194]. By restoring Piasoft's trolling, he is in effect endorsing it, and calls it a "warning" I should take very seriously on top of that. Sulmues has in general a very bad habit of restoring trolling by other users, as he did here when he restored this TOV by User:Lceliku [195], saying that the guy "welcomed" me and I responded by "banning" him. Yes, you removed someone else's comment and called it trolling (the same thing you accuse me above anyways). He is warning you to not make any controversial anti-Albanian edits. You should not, as a general rule take out other people's comments. In regards to the edit related to Lceliku: Should I defend myself about this? You already reported me on it in February when I did not time to answer and I got blocked for it. Gotta use something new: Can't get blocked twice for the same thing. --sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC) I decided to wait 24 hours before doing anything, but today, I see Sulmues using a 3RR report as a platform for yet more trolling against me [196], falsely accusing me of filing an SPI against him, calling me "arrogant" [197], accusing me of edit-warring. The guy can't stop himself from using every single opportunity available to rant about me accusing of being a sockpuppet [198]. Here he is calling for me to get blocked for daring to think that Kushtrim is a sock [199]. First edit: You falsely accused me at Moreschi ([[here falsely to be the sock of Guildenrich. You were also endorsing Alexikoua's accusation of being the sock of Sarandioti while accusing me of collaborating off wiki with Sarandioti ([200]) Second edit: I talked you in your own talk page and all I got was this aggressive answer ([201]). You should not revert 11 edits massively with a derogatory "POV pushing" comment. Third edit: I think you are getting it wrong: I am not accusing you of being a sock. I am reminding other people that I am continuously accused of being a sock. Fourth edit: Kushtrim123 reported you for edit-warring, something you have been recently blocked for. I think you should also get blocked for making continuous bad faith accusations to people of being sock puppets and harassing them like you did with Kushtrim123. It is my right to do so. --sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) 1 week block per the terms of his civility parole, which should be reset so as to expire another 3 months from now. I am in complete disagreement and this is a bad faith report. I am respecting my civilty parole religiously and making very good edits within the Albania TF. I have addressed every single accusation above and I reject them with disdain. I am being harassed by Athenean and I just want to be left in peace to edit my Albania TF topics.--sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Response to further accusations from User:Alexikoua: user:spitfire clearly explained that the report DID NOT CLAIM that I am "possibly a meatpuppet" like you repeat (see [202]). This is a heavy accusation that you have done several times even in the recent report that user:Kushtrim123 has just filed against you and we are still waiting for a response on it. You have been edit-warring in many articles recently using forum sources and you just got out of the block for edit-warring! I still need your public apologies for filing a bogus SPI report that I am possibly a sock. It seems like you still are not convinced that I am a sock ([203]) and this is pitiful. --sulmues (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Regarding Vangjel Zhapa, yes, that's the Albanian name: he was born in Albania and respected there. He left Albania when he was 30 and his bones are still there per his wish. I redirected the name towards your article: I stopped the discussion after having provided many sources that he was indeed Albanian (please read talk page), but eventually was not responded by you, instead was told "you are so desperate you need to recruit a Greek patriot and hero in to your cause" ([204]) by another user and quit editing there because that other user was being incivil. I just swam away from that article to respect my civility parole. --sulmues (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Regarding Skanderbeg: This is your work, isn't it? Albania's national hero won't be an Albanian according to you? You are tendentiously offering 41 bogus sources to claim that he is Greek. Bad luck there, so you tried with the Serbian origin after that. Now you are claiming half-Serbian, and soon you'll realize that all Skanderbeg's halfs will be Albanian. Those were tendentious edits that I did not expect from an experienced user with proper knowledge of the Balkans like yours.--sulmues (talk) 07:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC) What to say about Bonaparte's accusations: I just addressed in Moreschi's page the concerns of an Albanian newbie user and told him to find sources before claiming any Albanian origin of Bonaparte. This ([205]) is the only edit that I had in Moreschi's page on Bonaparte in my history of 5.5k edits in Wikipedia. You are mentioning it several times now as if I want to do anything with the article on Bonaparte, but I have never touched the article or the talk page for that matter.--sulmues Regarding your participation in Vjose. I had already corrected myself on that ([206])(talk) 07:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Response to Michael the White: The only time that I saw your edits were in Vjose talkpage, where you had written in a paragraph that was already exhausted and the discussion was in another one. If I were not available for talking like you claim, why didn't you write to me in the talk page? Remember that both Athenean and Megistias got blocked for edit warring me there. I take it that you also are a Greek editor: I am sure that we will have future collaborative work in wikipedia like I have had with other decent and honest Greek editors like user:Ptolion.--sulmues (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC) @Sandstein: I really don't see how you concluded that I am disruptive. I addressed every single accusation. You are not addressing the issues clearly and are taking little time to see things in particular. How can things "on the whole" be that I am disruptive if, in particular, they are not disruptive? Your conclusion just doesn't make any sense. The only accusation that you seem to endorse is that I gave barnstars to people who fight vandalism. How is that an incivil way? kedadi fights vandalism every day and keeps the Albania articles clean. Doesn't he deserve a barnstar? In addition to user:Aigest I awarded the barnstar because he is fighting "EXTREMIST editors". How's that a battleground behavior? Let me understand: you are deciding to topic ban me because I gave out barnstars? Let me also understand: How am I being unpersuasive after addressing every single accusation? I would gently ask that you analyze my response to the other users: which it seems you have not seen yet, because I wrote them after you wrote your thoughts. Speedy topic banning me goes even beyond what's asked by user:Athenean. In addition, even though I was continuously harassed even in an incivil way, I never was incivil, in addition I never used Wikipedia as a battleground. Thank you for your attention! --sulmues (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Sulmues From what I've seen of this user in the few discussions we've both participated, is the persistence on a certain version of one article (ex. in Aoos), which is usually motivated by dogmatism. There is also the lack of will for discussion, and the absence of arguments and usually also absence sources, to the point that discussion is not only fruitless but useless and intervention becomes extremely important, if not vital, when normally the users should be able to reach a consensus via discussion and not need intervention unless an issue is extremely controversial or an attitude is problematic.--Michael X the White (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC) I want to say that User:Sulmues in the days I have been here in wikipedia has been cooperative and hasn't created any "problems". On the other hand User:Athenean keeps following other users like myself and keeps accusing them about things that have been proven not to be true. If he wants to award stuff to people it's his right, and if you think that "hope no one gets offended" is provocative that's just meaningless. How can a sentence like that be provocative?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Wow, yet another report against User:Sulmues. It's clear that User:Athenean wants him to get banned (at least blocked) by any means, although the accusations have always been proven not to be true. Thank you. kedadial 23:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC) I have advised Sulmues multiple times to respect his civility parole [[207]] but unfortunately without any result. Today, he participated in a mysterious and combined report [[208]] against me, with two other recently created accounts (ZjarriRrethues, Kruschtim) proving that he is also responsible for provoking meatpuppet activity. No wonder that both spi cases against Sulmues concluded that we have 'possibly meatpuppet activity' [[209]][[210]]. Sulmues was searching for co-ethnics in wiki [[211]], but unfortunately not to improve the quality of this encyclopedia but to initiate a national crusade, as his last days contribution proves. Additionally: When he breached his topic ban in Kosovo articles, I've kindly asked him to cancel the afd he filled [[212]], but he ignored me, with the excuse that he can virtually evade his topic ban because he is the only active account in TF:Albania [[213]]. Finally he canceled his afd proposal only after being warned by admin [[214]], seeing that a block would become inevitable that way. Obsession that various personalities are Albanians, like Evangelis Zappas (he calls him with the Albanian translation of this name: Vanghel Zappa), while the entire bibliography is completely contradicting him [[215]]. I've asked to support his view with rs material but without direct answer. Same situation in wp:blp article Pyrros Dimas [[216]] trying to prove that he is Albanian. Similar situation with Napoleon, but without being agressive in this case. This [[217]] is called taunting. Actually Sulmues is hypocritical when pretending a friendship with me: apart from the friendly advice I've gave him in his talk page, nothing else would I call friendly. His contribution was highly disruptive and hostile towards, following me around on several articles like[[218]][[219]]. Obsession on trying to keep Skanderbegs' origin purely Albanian, after I've provided more than 18 sources [[220]][[221]] (mostly pointing to a semi-serbian origin) suggesting a small addition in the article. Apart from his sarcasm [[222]][[223]], he mysteriously accused me that I'm trying to make him... Greek [[224]]. On the other hand Sulmues has made some good edits in football and sport topics in general. But with this extreme aggressive nationalistic pattern (sarcasm, taunting, personal attacks, meatpuppetry). I'm afraid that any kind of supervision isn't enough. I believe a 3 months 1rr restriction on related articles might be a solution. Alexikoua (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Moreover, I see that Sulmues launched another 'mystirious' accusation against me about Vjose [[225]], however I never participated in this topic [[226]].Alexikoua (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Sulmues This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The edits cited in this request are not sanctionable misconduct individually, but in aggregate they represent a pattern of battleground behavior, as seen especially in Sulmues awarding barnstars for "fighting" against other editors. This, rather than incivility, is the main problem here in my eyes. The statements made by Sulmues in his defense are unpersuasive; they mostly amount to "yes but I am right and the others are wrong and/or disruptive". That is not what matters here: you may well be right in your content disputes and your opponents may well be disruptive too, but that still does not justify you engaging in disruptive conduct. Per WP:BATTLE: "If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind." For these reasons, I intend to sanction Sulmues with a time-limited ban from topics related to Albania and the Albanians, which appears to be the area of conflict, unless other admins disagree. However, as a formality, the reporting editor will need to first complement the request with a diff of the prior {{uw-sanctions}}-style warning as required by WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions. This should not be considered an endorsement of anything done by the editors Sulmues is in conflict with; indeed, these may very well have engaged in similar sanctionable conduct, but that would need to be examined in a separate AE request.  Sandstein  07:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Since no diff of the required prior {{uw-sanctions}} warning has been provided, discretionary sanctions may not be imposed at this point. I am issuing the formal warning to Sulmues; any continued battleground-like conduct is likely to result in sanctions.  Sandstein  06:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Abd

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

Request concerning Abd

User requesting enforcement

Enric Naval (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Abd_editing_restriction_.28existing_disputes.29

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

:

1. [227] Removes from Ghost the lead paragraph that has been heavily disputed, and claims himself the arbiter of how much consensus is needed to place it on the lead.
2. [228] Removes the pseudoscience arbitration case notice from Talk:Ghost. (unlogged edit) He wasn't an originating party from either the "does Ghost belong to pseudoscience category" dispute, or the "should we place the pseudoscience arbitration notice here" dispute
   1. [229] Removes it again, saying that the argument should count even if it was made by an IP.
3. [230] Comments out of the RfC section, in a topic that was not covered by the RfC
4. [231] Removes the NSF commentary from the pseudoscience case notice in Talk:Pseudoscience (directly relevant to the Ghost dispute)
5. [232][233][234][235][236][237][238] Uses the whitelist page to comment on a lot of requests where he is not an originating party. Notice that the meaning of "originating party" was further clarified two weeks ago [239][240] and this is a clear violation.

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

# [241] Warning by Enric Naval (talk · contribs)

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

One week block, as the restriction says.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Ghost-related violations: Abd is not an originating party of the already-existing dispute that was going on Ghost. He has commented on the dispute outside of the context of the RfC, and he has extended the already-existing dispute about the NSF source into the Pseudoscience talk page.

Whitelist-related violations: Abd held a discussion here about improving the whitelist, but he has implemented it in a way that allows him to comment in any already-existing dispute that involves a whitelisting request, independently of whether he was an originating party or not. In [242], he advises an editor about COI, and this sort of advice is what caused the problems with LirazSiri, with those problems leading to his last AE block.

He made two additional diffs that are not so clear-cut, so I sent those to requests for clarification. The diffs listed above are the clear-cut ones, and they are by themselves a clear violation. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[243]

Discussion concerning Abd

Statement by Abd

See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification: Abd-William_M._Connolley (Abd's restriction) filed by Enric Naval. When Enric first complained about my Ghost edits, I placed a request on my Talk page noting that I would respect any clarification by a neutral administrator covering this new interpretation, pending resolution. Absent such, since Enric Naval was highly involved in the subject RfAr and has consistently presented himself as an adverse party, with a number of complaints that were not sustained, I do not consider his interpretation binding. This request, however, reaches even beyond that. I respond in detail in collapse, if anyone needs detail. The collapse summaries should be adequate as non-evidenced response.

1. Single edit to Ghost, not a participation in discussion of a dispute

The existing dispute was over the use of an NSF report in an attempt to establish a scientific consensus that belief in ghosts was a pseudoscientific belief. The edit did not weigh in on this, but rather on a different issue, whether or not the NSF comment was sufficiently notable and required by balance in the lede. One does not make oneself the "sole arbiter" of some text by asserting a single edit. Nor did this edit "discuss" an extant controversy, which was over an RS issue, not lede characteristics as such. The comment about consensus was my understanding of our guidelines. about the lede and why this was inappropriate, not relevant to ban interpretation issue Ledes should enjoy the highest level of consensus, more difficult issues should be covered in the text. That lede text is considered to require references is a sign that it may not reflect high consensus; generally everything in the lede should be established in the article, so references are redundant, and the lede should be a summary of the most notable and clear aspects of a topic. If Wikipedia had a Summary of Knowledge publication, consisting only of ledes from articles, would this text be in it? I didn't think so, hence I removed it. That removal did not take a position on the raging debate over the National Science Foundation reference, and I did not touch the later section in the article where it was used (the section on the situation in the United States); that usage, in fact, shows the narrowness of the NSF issue and why it doesn't belong in the lede. "Ghosts" are a global concept, and the situation in one nation is a small part of the topic.

2. Pseudoscience arbitration case notice: not a participation in discussion of a dispute

At the time, Ghost was not in the pseudoscience category. It is now, but only as a result of protection of the "wrong version" in the middle of an edit war over it. Further, that notice was being used to insert an unsigned personal opinion, under color of an ArbComm finding. The simplest way to deal with it was to remove it. Ordinarily, I'd have made a single edit, as I initially did, and then left final disposition to the community. But autologout had struck, so it was IP. And then an editor removed it as if it had been vandalism, not appearing to read the edit summary. So I restored it logged-in, and noted that edits by IP editors should receive the same respect as edits by logged-in editors, generally. The edit was again reverted and I did not continue. There is serious disruption going on at Ghost and in the pseudoscience area, with edit warring at WP:NPOV, Ghost, and Pseudoscience, such that the two articles have been full protected. I am not the cause of this disruption, not even close. I have only asserted, simply, normal editorial positions, without discussion (except for the inadvertent post mentioned outside collapse and allowed RfC comment). This kind of activity is not what the sanction was designed to address. I was not aware of a "should we place the arbitration notice here" dispute. Perhaps Enric Naval could point out where it was. It became a dispute later, may still be in dispute, I don't know. If it started with the original placement and my removal, am I then an "originating party"? It doesn't matter, in fact, because I don't intend to discuss it. I took an action, a permitted one, not "discussion" but ordinary editing (with the minimal encouraged "discussion" of edit summary explaining the edit). The edit was a completely independent judgment and not relevant to the original dispute, on the face. That my edit appeared to support one side of a dispute does not mean that it was a comment on the dispute. I was asserting a Talk page content issue, and that assertion did not address the standing dispute, which was not over the Talk page notice itself, even though those arguing might preferentially have one position or another. My work is not defined by several editors arguing, and was not a "comment" on their dispute. It was my action, as a member of the community who attempts to anticipate consensus, acting to express it. In the end, whether I'm correct or not will be up to the community, and these brief and quickly reversible actions, easily ignored if they are improper and find no support, are not disruptive. The raging debate, with three RfCs and counting, edit warring and repetition and multiplication of arguments, is. If I express my specific opinion about this, as to the factions, I'd be violating my ban, though it might leak through sometimes.

3. Discussion in Talk:Ghost, inadvertent ban violation, now struck

. I struck Discussion in Talk:Ghost, as soon as I realized, it being pointed out by SamJohnston, in the RfAr/Clarification, that this was discussion, not a comment in an RfC, and related to a dispute in which I was not an originating party. I'd have deleted it if it had been immediately pointed out. The edit was unsigned and probably inadvertent. I put great effort into complying with the ban, while remaining engaged in permitted activity. I occasionally write a response, then dump it as it becomes clear to me that it would push the edge of the ban. I am attempting to interpret the ban very strictly, as I agreed to do. Had I been blocked for this edit, I'd have had no response but "Oops! Sorry!" At this point, I really don't understand why I'd even write the thing, all I can imagine is that I became confused as to where I was, given that I was also commenting, around the same time, in two different RfCs over the basic issue. So, at this point, I'd request one thing relevant to enforcement. If not for the ban, would that edit have been harmful? It is expressing what will probably be community consensus when the smoke clears, and, if not, at least it was a reasonable expression of what will become part of the consensus. I consider that edit crossed into doubtful territory, at least, so it is not a toe in the door, and I request that I not be blocked as a result of it. Repetition of such edits would appropriately see response with a block, even if inadvertent. I would also not object to a short block or a block log annotation, so that there is a ready record of violation history. However, this does not apply to the rest of what Enric Naval has alleged. --Abd (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

4. Alleged removal of NSF commentary: Not a removal and not discussion.

Since the removal of the notice, an RfAr ruling on pseudoscience placed on a Talk page for an article not in the pseudoscience category, the topic not being covered in the definition of pseudoscience in the ruling itself, was reverted, I then separated the comment so that it was clear that it was separate, addressing the most serious problem. I did not, as claimed by Enric Naval, remove it. I think he didn't read the whole diff. This is all normal editorial process whereby some compromise is made that preserves the critical values of all sides. I was disputing the Talk page notice and how it was presented, and working this out quickly and efficiently without tendentious discussion. That, it seems, is what ArbComm wanted me to do. I was not intervening in someone else's dispute, even though my actions might have an effect on that dispute. Note that the entire ruling was again taken out later as misleading or confusing. That may or may not stand. I do not necessarily support the removal, in fact, because I do not support arguing over trivialities, and especially not revert warring over them. I am not taking a side in the dispute between editors, on-wiki. (Off-wiki, I certainly have my opinions.) If one faction wants it in, and it is on a Talk page and does not do serious harm, why not leave it for a while? I simply took action, based on project welfare, and the sanction only covers certain kinds of discussion. I was personally content with separating out the most contentious part so that it was attributed, and possibly, if it were still considered disruptive (as argued in the latest removal) might have added some more qualifying text that would avoid misinterpretation. But I'm probably done with that issue, and I'm discussing it here only because of this AE request. In general, enforcement efforts over the sanction have caused far more waste of time than any disruption resulting from my alleged violations, most of which have not been sustained where examined.

5. Whitelist activity: Not a dispute and not discussion of a dispute

I'm flabbergasted by this one. Whitelist requests have been sitting for as long as two months with no response, or there is a single comment that is ambiguous and makes no decision. I've been in extensive discussion with Beetstra over this for a very long time, up to a year, and the case RfAr/Abd and JzG was originally about an improper blacklisting by an involved admin, and ArbComm confirmed there that blacklisting should not be based on admins making content decisions. However, content issues are not completely irrelevant, either, for if it is true that there is no possible legitimate usage, or that such usage would be the exception rather than the rule, this can be a factor in deciding how serious spam should be before blacklisting and then requiring whitelisting of individual pages. Big problem, though, is a lack of volunteer support at the whitelist page, and there are very few administrators working on blacklisting issues. So, after recent discussion, I offered to help at the whitelist page, trying to pioneer a way for non-administrators to help, and my intention would be to solicit other editors to do the same, and to develop clearer guidelines for whitelisting requests. To do that, I need experience making whitelist judgments. So I've started doing that. These are simply expressed opinions on a whitelisting request. They are completely independent, though I do consider any comments that exist already. None of these would be at the level of dispute as contemplated in the sanction, though it's possible that someone will dispute my comments. There is no assertion that any comment is improper. There is no dispute at all until there is a decision, though if I come across a request where there is serious dispute, I might consider that and recuse because of the ban. Someone else can look at them, and I'll try to facilitate that happening. I'm trying to make it quick and efficient to get a page whitelisted if there is an adequate possibility of legitimacy, and in doing this, there is a lot of flexibility. I can recommend "no action," but suggest to the requestor that they obtain support from other editors at an article Talk page, for example, or perhaps at a WikiProject. And if they do, then I can change my recommendation. Blacklist admins very obviously don't have time for this, and that is not their fault at all. My work there also will be of no effect, a waste of time, if no blacklist admin respects it. I have no coercive power, nor would I want it. But this is an opportunity for blacklist admins to stop making content decisions when they deny a request (or, for that matter, grant it, though a whitelisting does not make a decision that a link is to be used). As I see it, admins would never deny a request, they would let the community do that, and the community can make content decisions. Then, if an admin participates in a whitelist discussion, it's only as a member of the community. A close as "whitelist," however, requires an admin, because it's an edit to a protected page. I'm proceeding with sensitivity and cooperation, I hope. Enric Naval clearly considers the project a battleground, so that any discussion of a proposal becomes a "dispute." I don't think so. I have no intention of becoming embroiled in other people's disputes, either on the whitelist page or elsewhere. I'm just trying to help clear up the backlog, and to help make the ArbComm ruling on blacklisting a reality, while fully respecting the needs of the administrators working on antispam process. I may be uniquely placed to accomplish this, given a great deal of time spent studying blacklist issues, and quite a bit of successful work with blacklist admins. (Don't mistake the occasional flare-ups for a lack of cooperation, blacklist admins are faced with a flood of spam and it is very hard to distinguish that, sometimes, from legitimate content additions, and they get faced with charges of "censorship!" all the time. They need help and support that, at the same time, respects the goal: a functional editorial community which also needs assistance and support, necessary for the project.)

Enric Naval's warning: not about the only actual violation (number 3)

Enric Naval warned me only about the first item in his list. I responded adequately there, soliciting clarification from any neutral admin, should any agree with him. None did. The only violation here is his item 3, which was inadvertent, I was slow to recognize it when SamJohnston pointed it out, because of the noise about "violations" that weren't. You can see in my edits to RfAr/Clarification that at first I thought he was pointing to RfC text, I was astonished to find that he was right, so sure was I that I'd confined discussion to comment in RfC. Perfect and error-free, I am not.

• @Verbal Please do not bring an open content dispute here, there is an RfC on the very position you are asserting, and your position is not the majority one, so far. That may change. It's moot for AE, because my sanction does not prohibit me from making errors about content. As to length of comment, my essential response is all visible outside of collapse, each collapse having a descriptive title that says it. There is no obligation to read the "details." Is there harm in them being made available? --Abd (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• @TS Continually injecting these thousand-word essays into discussions on Wikipedia. Have I done this anywhere recently, even once, let alone "continually"? I assume I'm allowed freedom on my own Talk page, and to present evidence and argument as needed when I'm hauled before ArbComm or AE. If I'm being "continually" hauled before ArbComm or AE, maybe some attention should be paid to that, and to who is doing it. You do realize it's the same people, don't you? --Abd (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• @Hans Adler. While I appreciate your support, the question here is my right to make the edits, not whether they were "correct" or not. While your view, if accepted, might be an ameliorating factor in ban enforcement, that's about it. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

@JzG and One Night in Hackney: I disputed an unopposed extreme claim by an editor on the blacklist page, thus originating a "dispute" as allowed.

@JzG and One Night in Hackney. These editors raise this blacklist page edit as a new problem. Whether songfacts.com is RS or not is not the issue in itself, the issue for blacklisting is spamming, and thus there may be some dispute between an alleged spammer and someone demanding the spam stop. However, that isn't a dispute, per se, usually, on the blacklist page. (there is no practice of notifying "spammers" of blacklist discussions, and they normally don't see these and comment). It may be relevant, however, that discussion exists, because if there is a possibility of cooperative behavior from the "spammer," blacklisting is not to be used, by policy. Because I'd been discussing songfacts.com, off-wiki, with an administrator, and had investigated the site and found that it does appear to be, even, reliable source, in spite of the legal disclaimer ONIH found, it was important to note that possibility, since otherwise had been claimed. In other words, I was not intervening in the dispute between the spammer and the other editor (from which I explicitly have refrained, precisely because of my ban, even though I think I could be useful there, as I've been in the past with such offenders, they listen to sympathetic advice much better than "go away, dirty spammer!" which is, too often, the text or subtext, even if unintended), but I was disputing a claim by an editor on the blacklist page. Before that, there was no dispute on that page. So, for this "dispute," if we want to call it that, I'm an originating party, sorry to have to wikilawyer to that extent. My ban does not prohibit me from originating disputes. That someone somewhere else might be involved in some similar or related dispute doesn't make my independent comment an intervention in that other dispute. It stands apart from it, and does not resolve it or attempt to resolve it, though a resulting community consensus might have an effect. Whether or not songfacts.com is RS or not is not the issue here, and it wastes all our time for irrelevant issues to be brought here. I am not under a sanction to never make an error in an argument, even if I did that. These AE requests have, however, often been an occasion for editors to scour my contributions looking for anything they disagree with, which they toss in the hopper, making it look like I'm being massively disruptive, challenging the edges, etc. I have extensive experience with blacklisting issues, having brought an RfAr over blacklist abuse by JzG, confirmed as such by ArbComm, but I did far more work with the blacklist than was about JzG, with quite a bit of success, and with successful cooperation with blacklist admins. And now this is being threatened, not because I'm disruptive at the blacklist/whitelist, -- that's preposterous if you look at the pages -- but because a long-term agenda to ban me from the site (I've documented this before, it's been openly expressed) sees opportunities. If this is not noticed and stopped, it will continue until I'm banned again, or spike my password, and when I'm gone, the same editors will continue to do this with others, as they did before I ever became involved, while I was site-banned, and in matters that involve me not at all. I made an additional comment on the blacklist talk page in response to comment from Beetstra, which could be seen as a closer approach to the ban edge, because Beetstra had referred to the IP editor's behavior, though I was still trying to avoid comment on the dispute (on the IP editor Talk page), as can be seen, so, since nobody has replied to that edit, I have reverted it, even though it has not been mentioned here. --Abd (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• @Enric Naval: The sanction is very specific as to this 3.3) Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes [all Wikipedia pages]. He may, however, vote or comment at polls. I am prohibited from discussing the disputes of others on Wikipedia pages. I am not prohibited from non-discussion action, such as editing an article. I may not enter an existing dispute discussion. While I could start a new section and discuss my own independent issue, I'm not aware of taking advantage of this anywhere that an existing dispute is involved, and usually it is not needed. I may watch and comment in RfCs that appear, though, and I am under no 0RR restriction or the like. Thus the original intention of the ban, probably about "tomes" considered offensive, is not violated by ordinary article space edits, which are not "discussion," unless I made them so, nor by other edits which do not discuss a standing dispute, and especially if the length is restrained. --Abd (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• @SamJohnston beats dead horse. Response to charge (3) above discusses that edit and acknowledges ban violation and discusses response. Generally, Wikipedia does not punish, but acts to prevent damage. I made an edit, inadvertent or not, and it's up to enforcing administrators as to what is best for the wiki, and I only ask that such be neutral, as policy requires. --Abd (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Providing evidence to prove a violation already acknowledged by me, with link, is indeed "beating a dead horse," that's what it means, belaboring the obvious and already accepted. --Abd (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

General comment on enforcement.

In reviewing this, if block response (and there was one violating edit) is found appropriate, I ask that the block record be considered. Please notice that the two blocks began with one week (excessive for first ban block), were placed by a single admin, already in dispute with me over a serious issue (recusal failure re prior threat to block another, made on my Talk page), and were not based on any of the AE reports or RfAr/Clarifications, with respect to actions that were not covered by the ban as understood at that time. To avoid disruption, I accepted a much tighter definition of the ban, and then, second incident in particular, was blocked for something that I never dreamed would be covered, that already existed during the tightening clarification, and that hadn't been considered to be a violation previously, and without warning, other than uselessly general ones. --Abd (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• @Stifle. I agree that there was a technical violation, number 3 in the list above, and I acknowledged that immediately as soon as it was pointed out. If you believe that any other edit violated the sanction, it would be useful to note it, or to note the absence of such, so that this whole thing isn't a waste. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Abd

Comment by Verbal

Two quick points, having not read all of Abd's wall-o-text. 1, is there/shouldn't there be a limit on the length of Abd's response? Collapsing bits isn't a substitute. 2, Ghost is in the pseudoscience category, via the paranormal category, so his reasoning on that whole point is faulty (this doesn't preclude other instances of his reasoning being faulty). Verbal chat 18:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Could we impose a community remedy requiring Abd to communicate normally? Five or six brief sentences should be enough for anybody. Continually injecting these thousand-word essays into discussions on Wikipedia is perhaps the most destructive of Abd's activities. --TS 19:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe this was a restriction or similar (recommendation?) placed on him at the close of a previous arbcom case. Verbal chat 19:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

@Abd I haven't brought a dispute here, that Ghost is in the PS category (whether that category is on the page or not) is an easily verifiable fact, and a fact that no one has disputed - or can without being shown to be wrong. And yes, there is a harm especially when they contain incorrect statements that at first blush appear true - such as saying Ghost isn't in the PS cat, or that this is disputed. The level of it's inclusion has been a topic of minor dispute, but it's still there (Cat Ghosts -> cat paranormal -> cat pseudoscience). Also, there is a simple way of ending Abd's attachment to AE and ArbCom, which would be a net positive for the project. Verbal chat 19:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hans On ghost I feel it is justified, on witches I'm not really interested, and I don't know of any other article where this has been pushed, and it's not relevant either. As for Ghost, I honestly disagree with you there. Please calm down - I'm not part of any gang (not even one of abd's famous cabals). Verbal chat 19:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Existing dispute: Abd has made it clear that what attracted him to the Ghost dispute was the presence of "cabal" editors, with whom he is already in a dispute with, making this indeed a clear violation of his restriction and a case of hounding - which it was clearly anyway, as are most of his "interventions". Verbal chat 22:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Hans Adler

Concerning Enric's diffs #1 and #4:

Abd removed two passages based on crass misrepresentations of an NSF paper. Every editor with a bit of experience with scientific or scholarly work (such as having written and refereed scientific publications) can see immediately that these paragraphs were quote-mined and quoted out of context. #1 was worse than #4 in that it appeared in article space. The passage would have been somewhat defensible (although still problematic) if it had appeared in the body of the article. But putting it in the lead is simply not reasonable and makes it a misquotation. #4 was worse than #1 in that it contained a lie. A lie that was put at the head of the article talk page in order to intimidate other editors and make them believe Ghost is without any doubt a pseudoscience topic, because: "The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, has identified belief in ten subjects to be pseudoscientific beliefs. They are: [...] ghosts, [...] witches, reincarnation, [...]." Yes, that's what it claimed, with reference to a section "Belief in Pseudoscience" of Chapter 7 ("Public Attitudes and Understanding") of the 2006 edition (only) of a biannual NSF publication on "Science and Engineering Indicators".

The front matter of the paper is broken (404 error), so we don't even know who wrote that section. It certainly doesn't speak about "scientific consensus", that's all BullRangifer's original research. It doesn't claim to "identify" any beliefs in any way. It just looks at Americans' belief in pseudoscience by considering a Gallup study that examines belief in paranormal. In this context, the paper is written under the tacit assumption that paranormal implies pseudoscience to the extent necessary for the discussion, but never says so explicitly. What makes this really fishy is that the paragraph that suggests that belief in ghosts and (via a footnote) witchcraft is (sometimes? usually? always?) belief in pseudoscience is preceded by a paragraph with a correct definition of pseudoscience ("claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though [...]"), but nothing is said about the obvious contradiction.

To me, Abd does not seem to be a big problem at the moment. BullRangifer and Verbal are currently creating disruption over more and more articles and policy pages with their attempts to apply the "pseudoscience" label to everything and the kitchen sink, making liberal use of unethical methods in the process. Please take that into account. Hans Adler 19:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

@Abd: The ameliorating factor is precisely what I am driving at. There is a danger that some people make up their minds too quickly about the Ghost situation, allow that to influence their opinion about this request, and are reluctant to revise their position when Ghost comes up later elsewhere, because they have already acted on their original position. Hans Adler 10:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by JzG

The edit to Ghost and involvement in the dispute there is an unambiguous violation of the restriction on becoming involved in disputes in which Abd is not an originating party. Claiming that it was not related to pseudoscience because the category was not in the article at the time is both false and blatant Wikilawyering since the entire dispute is about the categorisation of this subject as pseudoscience.

Hans is arguing that the content of the edits was right. This is irrelevant. It was a dispute and Abd piled in to make a controversial edit taking one side of an existing dispute. Sure, Hans likes the result, Hans is one of those on the side of removing all references to the NST's categorisation of belief in ghosts as pseudoscience, but that is not the point at issue, the point at issue is: did Abd violate his ban on becoming involved in pre-existing disputes? It is unarguably true that this is precisely what he did.

The spam blacklist discussions are also violations of the restriction on becoming involved in disputes in which Abd is not an originating party. Asserting that there is no problem because people can ignore him is blatant Wikilawyering against the clear intent of the restriction, the context of which includes Abd's involvement in spam blacklist / whitelist discussions. Songfacts is a dispute involving an IP editor who has been spamming the site, that is not Abd's battle.

The comments by Abd above are unambiguous violations of the requirement not to continually rake over the coals of past disputes - in effect "whatever you say, I was still right".

Enforcement, please. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by One Night In Hackney

Following on from what JzG says, the songfacts intervention here is decidedly unhelpful. When he states "It appears that this is not a site with pure user-generated content. Users may submit content but it is reviewed and fact-checked before being published" this has no basis in reality. songfacts.com/legal.php (no direct link to avoid cocking up the blacklisting) says "Songfacts, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy of the information posted, as it may contain technical and factual errors", so there is no reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Abd is simply attempting to crusade against the use of the blacklist in cases he doesn't think it appropriate, regardless of the actual facts of the situation. I would agree wholeheartedly with enforcement, the constant pushing of the limits of his editing restriction need to be dealt with firmly. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional comment by Enric Naval

Abd keeps making edits related to the pseudoscience dispute, in which he is not an originating party. He has removed the pseudoscience category from another article he had never edited before[244]. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional comment by SamJohnston

As I said in the clarification, if you break it down this appears to be fairly straightforward:

• Was there an existing dispute? Yes
• Did Abd discuss the dispute? Yes (unsigned)
• Was Abd an originating party? No.

I don't believe that confining commentary to edit summaries and/or new threads evades the restriction because it includes, but is not limited to talk pages et al. That said, the editing restriction is intended to avoid inflaming disputes, not prevent Abd from editing altogether (we have blocks for that). With this interpretation Abd would be able to edit provided he avoided hotspots and raised his own new issues as required.

While Abd claims above that this edit was "unsigned and probably inadvertent", it is still a clear violation and should result in a block - even a short one - particularly in light of subsequent editing relating to the same controversial topic. Future violations should be similarly punished, ideally with minimal time-wasting, navel-gazing discussion. If I were Abd I'd be focusing on uncontroversial edits with a view to having my restriction reviewed. -- samj _in^out 15:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

How is pointing out a blatantly obvious violation of your editing restriction "beating a dead horse"? While we're at it, how does a 350 word interjection into an existing debate "inadvertently" appear, without a signature no less? Is this because of the flu too? You broke the restriction so you should be blocked and if you break it again you should be blocked again - sounds fair enough to me. If you don't want to be blocked then don't constantly test the limits. -- samj _in^out 21:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It occurs me that Abd's motivation for being an editor could well be sparring with other editors rather than actual, uncontroversial editing. He talks about being more concerned about the "welfare of the project" than "personal editing rights" while making an ultimatum saying "bye, folks, if nothing changes" because he's "so restricted that [he] can't edit Wikipedia, in substance". How hard is it to follow arbitrators' advice and "find a quiet area to work in" rather than jumping head first into existing disputes? If this is indeed the case then routine enforcement of the editing restriction should prove an effective remedy. -- samj _in^out 05:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

@GoRight: Abd is barred from "posing arguments in content disputes" (as he has done here) because it is not a poll and he is not an originating party: "Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party, [including] article talk pages". If you still can't WP:HEAR that then I refer you to the latest clarification, as upheld by the arbitrators: "The rule is simple: never comment about any conflict between two or more people who are not you." -- samj _in^out 05:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Again boiling it down to basics, Abd started editing Ghost, contributed to existing content disputes here and here (so much for a single "inadvertent" violation), removed controversial content actively being discussed from the article and talk page here and here and the article was protected for Edit warring / Content dispute the very next day. He then made a similar controversial edit to the Witchcraft article, where the same topic was also an existing debate. To quote Hans Adler: "He tried to help, but he wasn't helpful".

The loopholes used to justify participation in the existing conflicts were a) article edits, b) edit summaries and c) polls. These should be closed by clarification (even if just by requiring Abd to avoid active areas). -- samj _in^out 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I'm not convinced that the current sanctions are sufficient to address the core issues, like overwhelming discussion with excessive posting - I've made a community sanction proposal that I think does a better job of addressing that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by GoRight

Wow, Enric is not leaving any stone unturned. Simply put, Enric is a long time antagonist of Abd and this request should be viewed as vexatious. Enric should be barred from discussing Abd anywhere on-wiki to put an end to this continuing disruption. Abd is not barred from editing articles, enforcing wikipedia policy, and posing arguments in content disputes. This is all he did despite Enric's framing of the facts to suit his own purposes. --GoRight (talk) 03:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

@SJ : "Abd is barred from "posing arguments in content disputes" ... " - You seem to be confused on a couple of points. First, the sanction that you point to is no longer the controlling language. The language of the sanction was modified by a motion of Arbcom and can now be found here. Second, you seem to feel that the current language somehow restricts Abd from editing articles or being involved in content disputes over those articles. They do not. He is free to edit articles and comment on the content in question which is precisely what he did. Nothing more. Nothing less. His choice of articles, on the other hand, leaves something to be desired but it is not a violation of his restrictions. --GoRight (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

General Comment : "The rule is simple: never comment about any conflict between two or more people who are not you." - Words have meanings. This statement does not restrict Abd from participating in content disputes which involve other people or for making arguments about that content. This is evident from any plain reading of that text. If people are confused about what these particular words mean or if they believe that Arbcom actually intended something different than what they said, then the correct course of action is to ask Arbcom for clarification. --GoRight (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

A request for an uninvolved admin : I take note of [245] and [246] and the note at the top of that section which reads "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above." and would ask that this editor's comment be moved out of the section reserved for administrators. I would have done so myself but given the current attitude this editor seems to be expressing towards me I felt it would be not well received. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Ludwigs2

Well, just looking at the diffs objectively, I don't really see any problematic behavior. A few short on-point, comments, the removal of specious material that was being edit-warred into the document. I can't judge whether or not Abd's actions violated the letter of the Arbitration ruling (I leave that up to others), but I'm pretty convinced that his edits did not violate the spirit of the rulings - nothing in any of these edits speaks to someone intentionally trying to push boundaries or break rules. This whole thing seems a bit... hasty.

What this decision is going to come down to is a cool-head/hot-head disagreement: a cool-headed view on this can only conclude that there's not a whole lot going on here, despite the protestations of the hot-heads. Hopefully the cool-heads will carry the day. --Ludwigs2 05:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Abd

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

• My first inclination is that there has been a technical violation of the restriction. However, it's stale at this stage and enforcement would be punitive. I am minded therefore to close this report with no further action, but am open to other suggestions. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• A warning to stop testing the limits would be good. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Given the direction the clarification is going, I'd tend to agree. It's not my intention to stop Abd from editing, just to stop him from editing disruptively. -- samj _in^out 15:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)