Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:16, 16 March 2010

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335

Biophys

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

Request concerning Biophys

User requesting enforcement: --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 19:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground; Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned; Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: Despite several prior sanctions and warnings, Biophys has in recent months massively conducted edit warring and POV-pushing. When he has a spare minute he now proxies for an indefinitely banned editor. In the most tenacious revert war, Biophys's only source, which he aggressively tries to enforce as the truth, is a known propaganda website of Islamist anti-Russian extremists, in spite of protests by several users.

Background

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

Many of these reports resulted in Biophys being sanctioned and warned, yet Biophys has chosen to ignore all these warnings and has continued his heavy disruption. In addition, Biophys has already been sanctioned with a 1RR per the WP:DIGWUREN sanctions. [11]. However, the 1RR sanction was later lifted for the technical reason that "no prior warning was given." According to a June 2009 finding by now arbitrator User:Shell Kinney, Biophys is a regular edit warrior. [12] He is also listed as one of the warned editors at WP:DIGWUREN. [13] Biophys has also been discovered as a member of the WP:EEML, and participated in the cabal's campaign of disruption.[14]. Further evidence of disruption caused by Biophys can be found at WP:EEML/Evidence. Several members of the EEML were found by ArbCom to have proxied for banned users, so Biophys knows that proxying is not allowed. Biophys has been proxying for the community banned User:HanzoHattori in several articles (see evidence below).

Edit warring Massive edit warring at Russian apartment bombings

Biophys has already been blocked twice for edit warring on this article.[15],[16]

Nevertheless, Biophys continues his persistent and massive edit warring.

Revert wars of Biophys in 2010:

[17],[18],[19],[20] (3 reverts in 24 hours),[21],[22],[23] (again 3 reverts in 24 hours),[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36]

Edit warring at Battle for Height 776

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

This is a terrorist website similar to the illegal Al-Qaeda websites the United States keeps closing down around the world. Their fact-checking is not just zero but they enjoy publishing politically-motivated false rumours like against Gordon Brown and the "European Union's elite pedophile commissioners in Brussels" [37] or the bogus story about Israel trying to harvest organs in Haiti.[38] They continue the episode with their own lies and report about "the fact that "Israel" has brought some 25,000 Ukrainian children into the occupied entity over the past two years in order to harvest their organs." [39]

Russians are always insulted as "invaders", "minions", [40] "infidels" [41], "apostates", "the enemy"[42], "hirelings", "puppets", especially in reports about bombings and other violence against them. Russian victims are purposefully dehumanized.[43] The web site's original affiliation was with Shamil Basayev, [44] who Washington too declared a terrorist and a threat to the United states. [45]

All this is known by Biophys, who has backed the Kavkaz writer Boris Stomakhin since the early days of his account, yet he keeps edit warring to keep this terrorist source in the article to push his POV. After users complained about it, he just accused them all falsely of sockpuppetry.[46]

[47],[48],[49],[50],[51],[52],[53],[54],[55],[56],[57],[58],[59] (3 reverts in 26 hours),[60]

Human rights in the Soviet Union

[61],[62],[63],[64],[65],[66],[67]

Again, this is not the first time Biophys has edit warred on this article (see [68] ).

Red banner

[69],[70],[71],[72],[73],[74],[75],[76],[77],[78],[79]

Cyberwarfare by Russian state

[80],[81],[82],[83],[84] (the last 4 reverts are a 3RR violation),[85]

Invasion of Dagestan (1999)

[86],[87],[88],[89],[90]

Proxying for banned editor HanzoHattori

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

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

RamboKadyrov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Putinjugend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
84.234.60.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
94.246.154.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mjr Edit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Biophys had tried to help the sockpuppet RamboKadyrov by a warning how to avoid getting CheckUsered.[91] Biophys was also already suspected of proxying for HanzoHattori half a year ago. He answered with a non-denial denial, stressing that he checked the sources.[92] Biophys said that he finds the banned HanzoHattori "the best WP editor" and "a fantastic expert": [93] On the mailing list he revealed previous mail contact with HanzoHattori (20090624-0311) and, moreover, tried to protect a sockpuppet of HanzoHattori and prevent it from being detected: [94] Biophys and his EEML friends then tried to organize a comeback for HanzoHattori: [95]

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

For example:

Riyad-us Saliheen Brigade of Martyrs
This article was created in 2008 by HanzoHattori sock RamboKadyrov.
No other editor had made major edits on this article.
Biophys then arrives to do a massive edit: [96]

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

Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis [97]
Previously heavily edited by HanzoHattori, who has the 80 edits on this article. [98]
Also edited by the socks Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (13 edits) and Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (3).
Other editors do not even come close to HanzoHattori and his socks (and now the proxy Biophys).

Vympel [99]
Chief editor is the HanzoHattori sock Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog [100]

Salman Raduyev [101]
Chief editor is HanzoHattori. Together with the socks User:84.234.60.154 and Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji they have over 150 edits. No other editors come even close. [102]
Biophys never edited this article before.

Siege of Tripolitsa [103]
HanzoHattori has 4 edits on this article. [104]
Biophys has never before been interested in Turkish history.
Biophys never edited this article before.

Operation Bürkl [105]
A little known article heavily edited by HanzoHattori socks RamboKadyrov and Captain obvious and his crime-fighting dog. [106]
Biophys has never shown much interest in World War II history of Germany and Poland.
Biophys never edited this article before.

Ludolf von Alvensleben [107]
Previously edited by HanzoHattori.
Biophys has never shown much interest in German history. His edit is a massive change which requires knowledge of the subject. It is highly unlikely this edit was written by Biophys himself.
Biophys never edited this article before.

Teruto Tsubota [[108]]
Created by HanzoHattori sock Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog in 2008. [109]
No other editor has made major edits in this article.
Biophys has never before displayed any interest in Japan or Japanese people - one of Hanzo's main interests
Biophys never edited this article before.

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

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

Khasavyurt Accord [110]
Heavily edited by HanzoHattori and his socks. [111]
Biophys never edited this article before.

Battle of Komsomolskoye [112]
HanzoHattori & socks are the main editors of this article. [113]
Biophys never edited this article before

Borozdinovskaya operation [114]
Familiar story: HanzoHattori and socks are the main editors. [115]
HanzoHattori also created this article in 2007.

Ruslan Labazanov [116]
HanzoHattori is the most active editor. The socks have also edited. [117]
Biophys never edited this article before.

Russian-Chechen Peace Treaty
This article was created on 5 March by Biophys. [118]
It is unlikely the text was written by Biophys himself. The English is almost perfect, while Biophys usually makes many mistakes.
The structure is similar to what HanzoHattori used: just a single chapter. (Compare to this HanzoHattori-created article: [119]
Ref formatting is similar to what HanzoHattori used. Please compare this to [120] or to any other HanzoHattori edits.

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

1998 abduction of foreign engineers in Chechnya [121]
A HanzoHattori socks has 100 edits on this article; next most active editor has only 6.
Biophys never edited this article before.

Central Labour Camp Jaworzno [122]
HanzoHattori has 111 edits and a sock as 25 edits. Next most active editor has only 33 edits. [123]

Zalpa Bersanova [124]
Also edited by HanzoHattori in the past. [125]

Grozny ballistic missile attack [126]
HanzoHattori and socks have done nearly all edits on this article. [127]
Biophys never edited this article before.

Alpha Group [128]
A HanzoHattori sock has the most edits in this article. [129]

Other evidence:

Special Battalions Vostok and Zapad [130]
Again heavily edited by HanzoHattori socks in the past. [131]
Biophys never edited this article before.

Arbi Barayev [132]
Heavily edited by many different HanzoHattori socks. [133]

There are also many other articles where Biophys obviously proxied for HanzoHattori, but the evidence presented above should be more than enough.

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

A 1RR restriction is not enough. Biophys has already promised to follow 1RR: [134] ("I will also try to stick to 1RR").User:Sandstein replied: "in particular, I expect Biophys to adhere to his promise to "try to stick to 1RR"." [135] In September 2009, Biophys still had a userbox "this user follows 1RR" on his now-deleted userpage. The above diffs of edit warring show how well Biophys kept his "promise."

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

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

"The involved editors have been warned extensively. Let's try to make a decision here, or else we should go to arbitration." -- Jehochman [136]
"I generally support some sort of restriction on Biophys, as I have warned them previously, and they appear to be continuing with battleground behavior." -- Jehochman [137]
"I am beginning to warm to Shell's suggestion that if we continue to see reports and discussions like this (including some recently at ANI, I think), topic bans all around may be the best way to prevent continued conflict." -- Sandstein [138]
"...but I would not want to impose a full topic or specific article ban for issues that were more than a month old" -- Thatcher [139]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Having been "involved" in the WP:EEML case, I have been actively watching participants in the EEML for evidence of continued disruption, and all of the above is very recent evidence which seems to demonstrate that the user in question still does not get "it".

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: diff

Discussion concerning Biophys

Statement by Biophys

After the EEML case, I worked towards the reconciliation. I actively debated at article talk pages (see below), tried to limit myself to one or two reverts and asked advice from Future Perfect and two Russian-speaking administrators (see below) who are not my friends. I now have active disagreement only in one article and only with User:Ellol. If it helps, I will never edit any other pages noted by Russavia. I also voted to lift all sanctions for Russavia at AE pages. His response? He filed this complaint immediately after coming from his editing restriction.

Let's start from the "proxying". I had an email exchange with another person who suggested to make specific changes in a number of articles. Since I am well familiar with Chechen subjects, I agreed to look at the matter (I previously edited the same articles as Hanzo [140] [141], contrary to claims by Russavia). I looked at the suggested changes, agreed with some of them, rejected others, and modified whatever was necessary. But I did not act as "meatpuppet". All edits were made by me and I checked the sources. Everyone is welcome to examine each my single edit (see evidence by Russavia above) to see that they improve the content. I honestly believe these my actions were fully consistent with WP:IAR and other policies, such as WP:RS and WP:NPOV.

Russian apartment bombings. Here, I had extensive discussions with User:Ellol, and it was me who started a number of topics that needed discussion (please take a look): [142], [143],[144], [145], [146]. I was also looking for the 3rd opinion from User:Alex_Bakharev, who is not "on my side": [147], [148], but unfortunately he was not there. Yes, I believe the mediation by someone like him is the way to go. If you look at my actual edits, I mostly tried to develop a compromise version. I hardly made even a couple of "blind reverts" in this article.

Battle for Height 776. That was mostly a struggle with a vandal who did such edits: [149],[150],[151]. Vandal or not, but I fully explained everything to him at article talk page: [152]. Yes, "Russian invaders" are insulted at the Islamist web site, kavkaz.org, exactly as Russavia tells. However, they are not insulted in the wikipedia article. The article is written in full compliance with our NPOV policy, as one can see from the diff [153]. Kavkaz.org was only used to source the statements by Chechen fighters, exactly as in hundreds published books [154]. You may also look at the entire editing history of saiga12 (talk · contribs).

Red Banner. Everything was explained several times at talk page [155]. I agree with last version by User:Altenmann: [156], who modified my version as follows: [157].

Cyberwarfare by Russian state We had some heated debates [158], but finally came to consensus, including the new title.

Invasion of Dagestan. Here is the discussion. [159]. User:HistoricWarrior007 does OR by claiming that something is "geographically impossible", although tons of publications claim that very much possible.

Human_rights_in_the_Soviet_Union. I discussed and tried to find some compromise here, but User:YMB29 repeatedly removed a lot of text sourced to books [160], and the discussion went confrontational [161]. I asked an advice from User:Altenmann: [162], and he was really helpful, but we did not resolve our differences with YMB29. I finally stopped editing this article a couple of weeks ago. You may look at the contributions of YMB29 (talk · contribs). If you think he can do the job better than me, I have no problem leaving this article to him.

Overall, after completion of the EEML case, I returned to editing in this area and tried to "reach out" some of the most experienced editors from the "other side", Altenmann and Alex Bakharev. I also feel that we do not have too many disagreements with User:DonaldDuck [163].

The decision is yours. If you want all articles to be "fixed" by Saiga12 (talk · contribs) and his friends like here, then issue me an editing restriction. But if you do not, please block SPAs (like Saiga12) created only to conduct vandalism, personal attacks and edit warring. That is what you suppose to do if you care about the encyclopedia content. In any event, what I did was this. What Russavia does right now in the same article is this after gaining an upper hand by filing this complaint.

Re to Altenmann: I do not have any anti-Russian, anti-Chechen, anti-Polish or other "anti-national" attitude. That is why I had good relations with Ukrainian, Polish and Russian (like Colchicum or Muscovite99) users.Biophys (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Biophys

user:Altenmann : disclaimer

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

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

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

user:Celasson : just thoughts

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

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

user:DonaldDuck : objection

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

Comment by Fut.Perf.

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

Comment by # Grey Fox-9589

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

As for the edits by Hanzohattori. This users was actually a good editor, he created a lot of new articles, collected a lot of new sources and updated them regularely. Eventually he got banned for insulting an administrator and went on to become a sockpuppeteer. This of course doesn't mean that all the articles he created in the past are wrong. I became an editor too at the articles he created, after he got banned (but now I've become inactive too). Why would Biophys not be allowed to edit the articles? I've got to know both users a little and they both had the same interests. Biophys isn't even editing the articles so much, they're mostly small edits or votes.

As a conclusion I would like to ask whatever administrator judging this request to look through the history of the complainers. Most of them will have an extremely obvious pro-Putin bias and a lot of them have a lot of disruption as well (some of them almost having been permabanned). Grey Fox (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the further comments that Russavia has made below. It's another attempt at trying to demonise Biophys as someone promoting extremism, a pretex under which many journalists are banned from working in Russia. The source was already discussed at wp:rs several times. I explained the use of such sources here [164] and there's no bad intention whatsoever. Several users have gone after biophys labeling him a 'terrorist lover' or other ridiculous accusations which together with calling him 'anti-russian' means they view him as Enemy of the People. It's pretty ironic articles like Alexander Litvinenko are brought up. It's indeed quite so that articles like Anna Politkovskaya are often the setting of edit wars because the pro-Putin editors mostly target such articles. It's sad really, journalists and human rights activists reporting on crimes by the current Russian government are assassinated in Russia every few months. Afterwards their wikipedia pages are targeted by groups of Putin lobbyists attempting to discredit these activists. Anyone who tries to prevent this gets labeled "anti-Russian". Grey Fox (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments by Russavia

Biophys claims that his use of a terrorist website to source articles is not a problem and is always done from a NPOV stance. This is false, as can be attested by his persistent reinsertion of an external link (albeit from January 2009) to a terrorist website showing what the terrorist claim are the bodies of killed Russian soldiers, whom are described as "Russian invaders" right there on the page.[165], [166]. This is not NPOV; far from it. Biophys also claims that his other edits are always NPOV, however, this again is false. After I was topic banned last year, Biophys took the opportunity to revert to his favoured version of the Alexander Litvinenko article - one which many editors had struggled to edit due to extreme ownership issues which Biophys seems to have with such articles. He mentions my recent edits to the article above, but what he fails to mention is what I have mentioned at Talk:Alexander_Litvinenko#Changes_made_to_article - that is, Biophys continually reverts to his favoured version, whilst at the same time ignoring issues raised by other editors, and which always involves the removal of sourced information of the article by Biophys; ostensibly because it does not fit in with Biophys' own POV. Such things have been experienced in the past on other articles, such as Talk:Artyom Borovik, where Biophys' edits allowed conspiracy theories to have "centre stage", whilst pushing information from aviation experts out of sight. The same thing was experience at Anatoly Trofimov, where accusations by a person with a history of making unsubstantiated allegations were allowed to appear in the article, but criticism of those claims were not [167],[168], etc. As one can see, Biophys clearly has a history of edit warring over information which does not fit his own POV on the ways of the world, and it is being continued as per the reported articles above. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 17:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Biophys

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

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)[reply]

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

[169] "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).
[170] "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.)
[171] "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.
[172] More defending of conspiracies.
[173] "The reaction of "some" Palestinians and Serbians in not notable in the context of this article." Anything that differs from his opinion goes, apparently.
[174] See above.
[175] See above.
[176] "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
[177] 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)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [178]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done. –Turian (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry, I have added two more diffs as evidence of his misbehavior. –Turian (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Did you read the prior enforcement guidelines? –Turian (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, this. –Turian (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for that link. ClovisPt (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Absent opposition, closing per above. Sandstein 13:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wispanow

User requesting enforcement: Jayen466

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Editing_environment_.28editors_cautioned.29 Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Editors_instructed (User has edit-warred, deleted sourced material, and made repeated accusations of anti-German "racism")

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

[179] Wispanow reverts User:Cirt, edit summary: "Undid revision 347913307 by Cirt (talk) This article is based on racism. And Scientology-Believers can source every racism. Removing this improves." Uncivil. Deleting sourced material. Inserting unsourced material. Cirt's edit was marked a "vandalism revert".
[180] Wispanow reverts User:Jayen466, edit summary: "Jayen466 is accused of writing an aggressive, highly biased text leading to a racist viewpoint. I therefore claimed to block him from any Scientology-text with relation to Germany. And stop reverting." As before.
[181] Personal accusation of racism: "The whole article is racism. There is nearly nothing giving a neutral point of view. And User:Jayen466 is by far the main reason ... US and British citizens and even newspapers easily believe and publish any mendacious Germany-Harassment." Wispanow includes this "Barack Obama is an asshole" link in his post to make his point. Uncivil.
[182] [183][184] Failure to comply with WP:V.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to

[185] Warned by User:Moni3 for removing sourced material.
[186] Final warning by User:Moni3.
[187] Comments by User:Moni3 and User:John Carter.
Previously blocked for removal of sourced material at Scientology in Germany by User:Moni3, unblocked by User:Sandstein.
[188] Warned by Sandstein a few hours after the unblock, with specific reference to Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Discretionary_topic_ban.
[189] Warned by John Carter not to edit-war to add unreliable sources to the article, and not to make personal comments.

Enforcement action requested

Topic ban per Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Discretionary_topic_ban. No evidence of any desire to contribute constructively.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It recently underwent lengthy Peer Review in preparation for FA candidacy. Three reviewers commented.
Feedback at Peer Review was that the article is, if anything, slanted in Germany's favor. See Wikipedia:Peer_review/Scientology_in_Germany/archive1. I have not done any significant work on the article since the Peer Review.
Following Wispanow's reverts of two different editors, deleting sourced material, the article is now locked for two weeks. (Wispanow made two reverts, Cirt and I made one revert each. The first edit that Cirt reverted was made by a German IP.)

For reference, Wispanow has made similar and equally far-fetched accusations of anti-German racism in other contexts:

Claims that a reliable source, an article in the German Law Journal, should not be believed because it contains "a lot of unproven, aggressive, prejudicing and even racist statements" (emphasis in original). "The main thing i personally worry about is that such an unreal, unscientific, racist text could be believed by americans. Imho Jimbo had founded Wikipedia to aid in that." Note that the German Law Journal has been honored by the German Minister of Justice, Brigitte Zypries, for being an "ambassador of German law".
Claims the Human Rights Reports issued by the United States Department of State represent "racist truth".

Note: This thread has been moved here from ANI. --JN466 19:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User notified. --JN466 19:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Wispanow

Statement by Wispanow

Read the accusations and preparing an answer. Wispanow (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but i have a lot of work to do this week. Any detailed answer takes probably until sunday.

In the meantime these statements:

1. Stating reality in an appropriate manner is the main thing ANY encyclopedia and the discussion about it is for. Leaves to prove what is reality and appropriate.

2. I propose to close this case, because this is not the optimum place to discuss if the article represents reality or a wrong or even racist viewpoint. And the adequacy depends on that, probably insulting a whole nation with over 80 million people.

3. Although it is clear that it offends especially Jayen466, it is not my intention and i have not done it, excluding my call to topic ban Jayen466 and stating reasons. Although this may be unpleasant to discuss for Jayen466, please recognize that it is even more unpleasant and insulting for me being wrongly accused. But it is necessary in such a procedure, as it was before for Jayen466 of being accused for providing a biased viewpoint of Scientology.

4. I am quite sure that the discussion will soon come to results and to my attempt to ban Jayen466 from Scientology topics (probably only with relation to Germany) as it was done before.

5. If i am wrong in main parts, i promise to leave any Scientology related topic. And apologize, begging for forgiveness.

In the meantime i am sorry for any use of upsetting but appropriate words.

Until now i haven't time to write a detailed answer, but can quickly state some facts.

Facts

Sources with unbalanced, biased or wrong statements or viewpoints or wrongly cited

Consider that sources may not reflect reality. [190]
Consider that anything i remember in this article about the recognition of Scientology and nearly anything about the violation of human rights in Germany is wrong. Scientology Gerichtsurteile Translation: Scientology Judgments: Recognition of 30 years Basic Law Article 4 Religious Freedom Church of Scientology in Germany 1978 to 2008 [191]

I accuse mainly time.com and partly bbc.co.uk (and others) for stating an unbalanced, wrong and/or even racist viewpoint of Germany and german people. Therefore it will not help adding additional sources just mentioning the same viewpoint, but check if its real or wrong or racist.

In case of human rights, this means mainly court judgments or VERY difficult to achieve balanced view of actions happened.

Listed sources are insufficient; search for more.

My definition of racism against Germany and German people is based on United Nations

The UN does not define "racism", however it does define "racial discrimination": according to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.^[1]

This definition does not make any difference between prosecutions based on ethnicity and race, in part because the distinction between the two remains debatable among anthropologists.^[2]

According to British law, racial group means "any group of people who are defined by reference to their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin".^[3]

Leaves to define discrimination:

The United Nations uses the definition of racial discrimination laid out in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted in 1966:

...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.(Part 1 of Article 1 of the U.N. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination)^[4]

I prefer to add two more points:

Because we are not perfect and it may offend somebody, use of the term "racism" needs a considerably amount of discrimination
Statements have to differ from reality or include meanings that differ from reality.

To be proven.

If you need more to close this case without punishment or topic ban, i hope i can deliver sunday. Wispanow (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments. Due to lack of time today i prepare an quick answer tomorrow. More details Sunday. Please notice that it takes a lot of effort and time because i clearly stated that MAIN PARTS of the article are inappropriate, unbalanced, biased or wrong. It is time enough to discuss, if you want to make it here, and the article is editprotected. Wispanow (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and unbalanced accusations of Jayen466: Please wait for a detailed answer until sunday. In the meantime:

I accused Jayen466 first writing a biased, unbalanced viewpoint which can be seen as containing a racist view. Thats what i am accused here. And i claimed a topic-ban for Jayen466 first. If i am topic-banned, he increases his chances not to be topic-banned. Please consider therefore that Jayen466 may be biased in this case!

Details, more facts and why it is appropriate sunday. In the meantime consider his accusations as unbalanced. Wispanow (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree absolutely to discuss, and if moderated this can be improved. Thank you very much. That was the main thing i wanted.

In contrary to Jayen466 (update: he now wants to discuss too), i have nothing against it discussing with him. We will see, if he is able to learn.

The first things i will do is to expand the statements i made, giving a rough overview of human rights in Germany and related facts. Than its time to prove that some sources using balanced, wrong or even mendacious statements and why Germans can valuate this viewpoint as racism. Although german politicians like to give statements which can be seen as a violation of human rights, it is necessary to show why some of them are just screaming little monkeys (and money-grabbing), unimportant and nearly powerless in this case, just dancing to the music the courts play in the background. After that, giving a lot of primary sources which will outperform unreasonable statements in secondary sources, its time to edit the article, which then can be quick by just listing my primary sources and reasons. Again, thank you. Wispanow (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Wispanow

This is hard to measure. Hot button words such as "racist" and "cult" are seldom appropriate and require careful contextualization in the few instances where no calmer substitute is available. Winspanow needs a caution in that regard. Regarding the rest, it would be useful if someone with good familiarity in the subject weighed in because what Winspanow appears to be asserting is that the article violates WP:UNDUE. In the context of WP:UNDUE it can be appropriate to remove reliably sourced information so that one section or topic or POV does not unduly dominate an article. I don't know this subject well enough to determine whether the undue weight clause properly applies. Would be more inclined to read Jayen466's report at face value if it had also disclosed that the Scientology decision passed a finding of fact that he had been "edit-warring apparently to advance an agenda", and had page banned Jayen466 from the biography of a prominent critic of new religious movements: see Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Jayen466, Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Jayen466_topic-banned_from_Rick_Ross_articles. Subsequently Jayen466 has contributed quality content on related material, so possibly his response is a fair one. Yet Wispanow has edited Wikipedia since 2007 without any blocks at all except for the brief recent one which was overturned procedurally. Is this primarily a content dispute? Could a content RfC or mediation be tried before invoking discretionary sanctions? Durova⁴¹² 22:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting me in the invidious position of having to point out that you only quoted one-half of that arbcom finding of fact. The other half was, "Jayen466 has made many constructive edits in the Scientology topic". You have an editor here in Wispanow who is not bringing sources to the table, says the German Law Journal does not qualify as a reliable source (because it is anti-German and racist), and says the US Department of States Human Rights Reports are racist, as well. You want me to go to mediation with such an editor? Please have a look at WP:RANDY, have a look at the article history, and have a look at the article's recent peer review. --JN466 22:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; it speaks more strongly in your favor to mention the quality content since you hadn't written any GAs yet when that case decision was finalized. On the whole, content RfC has a better track record than mediation at resolving content disputes. We're in agreement that the word "racist" is unhelpful: it means different things to different people and tends to shut down discussion. Yet it seems premature to seek a topic ban on an editor of three years' good standing. 23:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

When I first saw this AE request, I wondered if Wispanow might be inexperienced and just need to calm his rhetorical excesses about such terms as 'racism.' I also perceived that there could be a language barrier. But a look at User_talk:Wispanow#Scientology_in_Germany shows that he was making inappropriate edits to the article without proper sources as long ago as February 2009. In the above thread, Jayen466 took the time to explain Wikipedia policies to him very thoroughly in German. Though his edits are POV, they don't seem like those of a well-organized partisan. Some of his edits are frankly puzzling. (After you think about the racism charge in the edit summary, try to figure out why he is also removing a source, and try to determine if his changes to the article text make any sense at all). Perhaps he feels a need to defend the honor of Germany by keeping things out of the Scientology in Germany article that sound too harsh to him. The above mention of WP:RANDY is not without reason. A topic ban from Scientology in Germany would not (in my opinion) cause the loss of meaningful future contributions to this article. Wispanow has contributed elsewhere, for instance at Nikon D5000, without incident and without any obvious lapses in logic. EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wispanow engaged in similar disruption at another Scientology/Germany article, here, [192]], [193], December last. He changed the wording, while leaving the source reference unchanged. The source cited was published by the Scientific Services Division of the German Parliament. As in this case, he edit-warred against two editors (John Carter and me), implementing a wording that directly contradicted the cited source. The result was that an admin stepped in and locked the article (in Wispanow's version) for a fortnight, just as has just happened here. --JN466 00:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to EdJohnston for the evaluation. Photography is a subject that's much more familiar to me than Scientology; Winspanow's edits seem reasonable there. Probably the only other useful thing I could add to this discussion regards German sourcing. Jayen, I'm rusty in that language but used to be fluent. You say that Winspanow altered an article statement without changing a citation. If you believe he has actually misrepresented a German language source, feel free to give an example or two. I could give it a look or possibly if you prefer we could locate a native speaker. Durova⁴¹² 04:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Durova, I have just given such an example in the post directly above yours. This was Wispanow's edit. This is the cited source. I am sure your German will be adequate. At the top of page 2 the cited source says, "Umstritten ist, ob es sich bei den scientologischen Lehren um Glauben, Religion bzw. Weltanschauung handelt. Und fraglich ist, ob die Scientology-Lehren von der Organisation nur als Vorwand für eine ausschließlich wirtschaftliche Zielsetzung benutzt werden. Dies würde nach überwiegender Auffassung zum Ausschluss des Schutzes durch Art. 4 GG führen." ("What is disputed is whether the scientological teachings represent a belief, religion or worldview. And the question is whether Scientology's teachings are only used by the organisation as a pretext for an exclusively economical aim. According to majority legal opinion, this would result in the exclusion of protection by Article 4 of the Grundgesetz (German Constitution)."

Wispanow's edit made it say the exact opposite: that Scientology's protection under Article 4 was guaranteed in any case. It is not. When questioned about the edit, he said, "Read the constitution"! The admin who'd locked the article refused to accede to John Carter's and my [[[194]|editprotected request]]. There was no project benefit whatsoever, except that our article was wrong on that point for two weeks. We have the exact same position now, where the current article wording has been altered to claim, for example, that "the courts" (rather than the German government) published information leaflets on Scientology. There is a difference between "the courts" and "the government", but that difference appears to escape User:Wispanow. Yet his version is what around 100 people will be reading today and every day for the next two weeks, while we are here talking about Godot. --JN466 05:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another sentence Wispanow removed in his edit is the one referring to "hysteria": "German fears and concerns about new religious movements reached a level resembling hysteria in the mid-nineties, becoming focused mainly on the Church of Scientology." There are three separate sources that emphatically use the word "hysteria" in this precise context. One of them, available in google books, points out that this was also the word the Lutheran churches (Fincke and Nüchtern are from the Evangelische Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen, i.e. the Lutherans' apologetics department) used to describe the situation. I have no reason to believe Wispanow bothered to check any of these sources. --JN466 05:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the swift followup, Jayen. I'll have a look at this now. It'll either be the last post for the evening or the first for tomorrow. See below: you were right about a source last year February. Durova⁴¹² 05:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it. --JN466 05:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, checking the PDF about the court case: that text is right at the top of page two. Jayen's translation is correct. The alteration misrepresented the source, and what's especially strange is that although the edit summary accused the Wikipedia article of being too pro-Scientology, the alteration not only contradicted the source but made the text more pro-Scientology: the article had said that Scientology could be exempted from legal religious protection if its ideology could be proven to be a pretext for commercial activity; the edit altered the Wikipedia article to assert that Scientology definitely would be protected as a religion under German law, regardless of that. Jayen's summary was an accurate paraphrase and there isn't any way to justify that edit without locating a different source. Durova⁴¹² 06:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sandstein

Could you please format this request in the standard format ({{Sanction enforcement request}})? Sandstein 19:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add the relevant subheadings. --JN466 19:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Also, the remedy you cite, "Editing environment (editors cautioned)", appears to be a caution and as such not directly enforceable; it has no corresponding enforcement provision. Could you please cite an enforceable remedy that you think might apply here? Sandstein 19:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The remedy is cited under "action requested", i.e. Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Discretionary_topic_ban: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic". I know you unblocked him once before, but do you see any desire on his part to contribute meaningfully? And do you endorse his accusations of racism levelled at the US State Department, the German Law Journal, and me personally? I am German myself. --JN466 20:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Editors_instructed. Point C applies. --JN466 20:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am not amused, however, that you accuse me of endorsing racism of any sort and will not continue evaluating this request. Sandstein 20:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't been accused of endorsing racism. Please refactor your uncivil accusation and exercise better judgment in future. Your behavior is unacceptable and quite nasty. Please cease these uncivil, antagonistic and belligerent statements and actions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine, Sandstein. For the record though, I did not accuse you of endorsing racism. I asked you whether you endorsed Wispanow's accusation that the US State Department, the German Law Journal, and I personally are anti-German racists. Personally, I think these accusations are quite beyond the pale, and I am surprised that you did not find it in you to condemn them when asked about them. --JN466 21:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I misread that. I am also not amused of being charged with endorsing accusations of racism, especially accusations that I have not even read yet, let alone commented on. Sandstein 21:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I did not charge you with endorsing accusations of racism either. I asked you your opinion about these accusations. I assumed you would read them before replying. --JN466 22:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Observations by SilkTork

Wispanow has made 54 edits to Scientology in Germany, amounting to an involvement of 5.8% - this is the second largest involvement after Jayen466 (686 edits -73.8%).
The article was failed as a GA on 17 Feb 2009 due to POV issues. It passed as a GA in November.
Wispanow's first edit was this on 21 February 2009. Two of the links are dead, but the one that is still live checks out. The edit appears to be constructive, and is cited. That first edit was reversed two days later by Jayen466 with this edit and refers to a talkpage discussion that I have not yet found.
Also on 21 Feb Wispanow removed some text with this edit with the rationale that the source had been misread. There was a discussion in which Jayen466 explained how the source had been read, and the text was restored.
There follow in Feb 2009 a series of tags, edits and discussions involving Wispanow, in which they are expressing concerns about potential bias in the article. Wispanow appears concerned that the article is describing a total anti-scientology stance in Germany which Wispanow feels is not balanced by information regarding either pro or neutral scientology attitudes in Germany. Jayen466 invited Wispanow to supply reliable sources to support Germany having positive attitudes towards Scientology.
Wispanow occasionally edited the article in line with the concerns raised. Following this edit, Wispanow was given a block warning by Moni3 - [195]. Wispanow's involvement became quite minimal, but still raised POV concerns. Placing this POV tag got Wispanow another comment from Moni3. Wispanow added some more tags - [196] - and gave reasons on the talkpage for their actions - [197]. Moni3, Jayen466 and John Carter responded to Wispanow's concerns, Jayen466 explaining that "If it is accurate and sourcable, then it doesn't violate neutrality." Wispanow was then blocked by moni3 and unblocked by Sandstein - [198].
Wispanow made one more edit in June, then nothing more until these three edits in the past few days which prompted a lock down of the article and this Arb request.
From these observations I would say that Wispanow has concerns about the POV of the article and is frustrated at developments. Wispanow has used inappropriate wording in edit summaries and in talkpage comments. Wispanow has not made best use of negotiation tactics, or of the resources available on Wikipedia for inexperienced editors who are concerned about content - such as Wikipedia:Editor assistance or Wikipedia:Third opinion. While editors have been civilly and calmly engaging with Wispanow, there has perhaps not been enough assistance offered to Wispanow, or to direct Wispanow to areas such as Wikipedia:Editor assistance or Wikipedia:Third opinion. Wispanow has perhaps been alienated and dismissed, and then blocked, which may have increased that person's feelings of frustration.
I do not know enough about the issues to judge how appropriate are Wispanow's concerns, though I would share Jayen466's view that appropriate sources are the best way forward.
I feel that while Wispanow has been unwise in the use of language, and slightly difficult, Wispanow has not been disruptive enough for a topic ban.
I would suggest, time-consuming though it may be, that a moderated discussion between Wispanow and Jayen466 may be of more benefit to future harmony, and the development of the article, than a topic ban. I would be willing to moderate the discussion if both parties are willing. SilkTork *^YES! 01:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I appreciate your goodwill and your kind offer. Two small corrections:
  1. The first "constructive" edit by Wispanow cited by you above duplicated content and sources that were already present in the main part of the article. (One of the sources may have been new.)
  2. The quote "If it is accurate and sourcable, then it doesn't violate neutrality." was by John Carter rather than myself.
- I understand what you are saying about Wispanow's editing experience. However, I do not have unlimited time at my disposal, and certainly no time to waste. I will not enter mediated discussions with Wispanow until he:
  1. apologises for his comments,
  2. acknowledges that he cannot assert in Wikipedia that the German Law Journal is a racist and unreliable source and expect to be taken seriously here, and
  3. gives clear signs of understanding that the way he edited and argued here is absolutely unacceptable for content work.
- I am afraid I have to insist on some minimum standards of ability; I do have a day job, and the amount of time I have spent on this is already out of all proportion to any benefit to this project. --JN466 03:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have checked out one of the instances SilkTork has raised. Jayen's translation is correct regarding the text Kritik an Filmen von bekennenden Scientologen, wie Cruise und John Travolta, und an Auftritten des Jazz-Musikers Chick Korea, ebenfalls Scientology-Anhänger, ist in Deutschland nicht neu: 1996 hatte die Junge Union zum Boykott gegen den Thriller "Mission: Impossible" mit Cruise als Hauptdarsteller aufgerufen. For non-German speakers this is a bit hard to confirm: Google Translate didn't parse the page and Yahoo's Babel Fish didn't handle the passage well. The en:wiki article Junge Union jibes with Jayen's statement. For a single instance over a year ago I can extend good faith (perhaps the editor skimmed and missed that passage). It's a bit worrisome that he didn't follow up in agreement after Jayen's explanation at the talk page. If other instances like this form a pattern, though, then I would endorse Jayen's request. Durova⁴¹² 05:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. I've added two more above, under your earlier post. --JN466 05:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Changing "courts backed the publication" to "courts published" is less serious but unhelpful. What was the other thing you wanted me to look at, exactly? Durova⁴¹² 06:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The thing about "hysteria", above, and about how this came to focus on Scientology in the late nineties. It was sourced. He took it out, leaving the sources in place. Although it is not such a big deal. --JN466 06:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        (ec) The last edit regarding "hysteria" could be reasonable, since the edit changed the text to a shorter summary. The difference in emphasis and POV is tangible and I don't know which version is more balanced. That particular alteration didn't make the citation inaccurate, though. These two more recent examples don't carry the weight of the first two I read (both of which were quite stark). But for someone to come in and make those two stark examples, then defend one of them at talk with claims of being a native speaker, is not acceptable. Am curious what Wispanow's response here will be, because as of this juncture it looks like a final warning would be appropriate. German speakers are not too hard to find; please don't wait a year, Jayen, if this occurs again. Durova⁴¹² 06:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll know where to go next time. ;) Here is another Wispanow edit from earlier on.

In that diff, Wispanow rewrote a sentence as follows: "Between 2007 and 2008, there was a discussion to ban Scientology in Germany which was within 3 days considered senseless and quickly dropped because insufficient evidence of unconstitutional activity was found by German Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz.{{Lopsided}}" The "within 3 days" he inserted is unsourced and wrong. It took a year, from 2007 to 2008. And he added a "lopsided" tag to his own sentence.
Under "Legal status", he inserted "Its believers enjoy full protection of the german constitution. Because Scientology or its members or believers did not call the courts, the actual status wether the organisation is a religious organisation or a commercial enterprise and the not directly according tax-exemption is unresolved." No new source is cited to verify that. It is in fact completely made up, and still cites the same 2-page pdf from the German Parliament, which, as you've already verified, says something quite different.
Further down in the US criticism section, the article cites Richard Cohen saying in the Washington Post, "Scientology might be one weird religion, but the German reaction to it is weirder still – not to mention disturbing." This is cited to both the Washington Post and a German scholar, Schön, who quotes Cohen to illustrate American opinion, affirming the notability of the quote. Wispanow adds {{POV-statement}}. Of course it is a POV statement – that was the point, to illustrate the American POV. Almost all the tags he placed in that edit are equally unfathomable. For example, "{{verify credibility}}{{Lopsided}}" for a poll in Der Spiegel saying that 67% of Germans are in favour of banning Scientology. An opinion poll in Der Spiegel lacks credibility and is lopsided? And there is a "fact" tag for "Scientology is generally viewed with more suspicion in Europe," when page 2 of the cited article says: "Europeans in general bear more suspicion toward Scientology than Americans do, but Germans are considered particularly antagonistic". Whatever it is he was doing there, it was not encyclopedia writing. --JN466 08:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletions of sourced material: [199][200][201][202] --JN466 09:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two more observations:
- Browsing through Wispanow's edit history, it appears that Wispanow makes positive contributions, and while at times a bit brusque, does work through issues on talkpages, such as on Talk:Luminous efficacy.
- Doing some quick and dirty research into Scientology in Germany I found these sources: [203], [204], [205], [206], [207], [208], [209], [210], [211], [212], [213], which all support the approach taken by Jayen466 in building the article. From from I have found I feel that it is clear that Jayen466 has taken pains to research carefully in order to build a neutral article on a difficult subject, and has consulted with the community via GA reviews and a Peer Review to ensure that the article is going in the right direction.
Comment: Articles on contentious topics will attract challenges to POV. It would be inappropriate to suppress all such challenges, and is against the spirit of Wikipedia. However, we do have sanctions to use when challenges get out of hand and disrupt the development of an article. When to employ those sanctions will always be a question of judgement. Wispanow has made several strong challenges on the talkpage, and in the article itself, which can be tiresome, and having been there myself more than once I do sympathise with an editor having to deal with challenges. However, in my experience, such challenges can harden an article and make it better, and I note that Moni3 took some of Wispanow's content and incorporated it into a new lead that Jayen466 found acceptable. Wispanow has been willing to engage in discussion, albeit in a sometimes hostile manner, and has left the article alone for many months. Given the circumstances I feel that sanctions at this point would be inappropriate, and I would still urge that the parties attempt to work together. SilkTork *^YES! 12:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are a kind person. :) I don't rule out working with Wispanow. Anyway, per ARBSCI he is entitled to one warning before any sanctions are pronounced. BUT I will note here that I tried this. When I approached him in a friendly manner last time, and addressed him in German on his talk page, seeing that the language barrier was getting in the way, his first response was to ask me where exactly I lived and whether I was a Scientologist, followed by reams of WP:OR with lots of ALLCAPS. He's implied I'm a Scientologist in multiple edit summaries since. I cannot be expected to start at ABC with every angry German editor, explaining the most basic aspects of sourcing, and let myself be called names. Right now I have a GA review to finish, one of my own articles is undergoing GA review, I've promised to help Auntieruth55 get Siege of Godesberg (1583) ready for FAC, having shelled out $100 for a specialist source, and I'm supposed to finish copyediting War of the Bavarian Succession in preparation for ACR, as well as respond to a few other requests on my talk page. At the same time, I have two work deadlines for tomorrow, another two for the end of the week, a book to finish proofreading for a scholar friend, and I have slept three hours. Talking to Wispanow and taking further insults from him, combined with insinuations that I am a Scientologist, is not high on my list of priorities right now, nor is explaining to him why "read the constitution" is not an adequate edit summary. I would like him warned, per Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Discretionary_topic_ban, and if you want to mediate discussions between him and me some time next week, then fine. But I will not put up with any further abuse either of me personally, or of the article. --JN466 16:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The newest posts go beyond straightforward translation. A note to non-German speakers: Der Spiegel is a newsmagazine that has a better reputation than any comparable English language newsmagazine; imagine a much thicker version of Newsweek with content equivalent to the national edition of The New York Times. If there's a reason a Spiegel poll lacks credibility it really ought to be specified on the article talk page. Durova⁴¹² 17:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for reference, here is a 1997 Time Magazine article reporting 70% support for a ban. --JN466 18:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "read the constitution" edit summary, the Basic Law of Germany does guarantee freedom of religion. But one can't open a sports bar and get tax exempt status by naming it Temple of Bacchus. That's a very simple analogy for the issue Winspanow overlooked in the recent German court case about Scientology. The Time article uses hot button terms ("Nazi" and "fascist"), and the general background is that German law and society are very concerned about implementing safeguards that their democracy didn't have in the 1920s: a minor fringe party came to power with disastrous results. Later generations live in the shadow of that. Hushed silence falls over a room when certain subjects arise, even obliquely, in a way I've observed in the English speaking world only when someone mentions "KKK" below the Mason-Dixon line. It looks like the subject of Scientology somehow touched the third rail in Germany where anti-fascist arguments exist both for and against its acceptance. Perhaps that's a cultural divide here? The two instances of misused sourcing look like skimming and seeing red rather than deliberate misattribution. Without underplaying the seriousness of that or the difficulty of collaborating with someone who's seeing red, a little latitude may be appropriate: a straightforward communication about what the expectations are here and no nonsense if the problem continues. Durova⁴¹² 19:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durova has described a key aspect of the cultural divide very well here. It is a point that the article is trying to get across as well, and which it touches upon several times. Another aspect is a very differently situated "comfort zone" between the two poles of individual rights vs. collective rights, with the States emphasising the former, and Germany emphasising the latter (i.e. focusing more on individual duties, or protecting the community from the dangerous individual). A third difference is the centuries-long existence of two main state churches in Germany, compared to much more fragmented religious demographics in the States. (Those latter two points still need to be brought out more in the article; I've acquired a useful journal article that addresses this.) --JN466 02:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, you referred above to this edit of mine, mentioning in the edit summary a talk page discussion you had been unable to find. This diff contains the relevant talk page discussions. I proposed returning to the Feb 19 version on the talk page at 00:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC), and the GA reviewer replied at 01:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC), The unreliable sources need to be removed, as well as any information that they are sourcing that is not sopported by other sources. I agree if the "originals" can be found, that would be fine. The SP Times article seem good. It seems to mostly quote what the German official said, as I recall, without commenting on the veracity of much of it. I have had no problem with your judgment nor your willingness to cooperate with other editors, so I trust you judgment in restoring the articles sources to a reliable condition. I made the edit at 13:26, 23 February 2009. In case you were wondering, I restored the deleted information about Antje Victore's allegedly fraudulent asylum case later that same day, in this edit, but now sourced wholly to reliable sources. The GA reviewer had objected to the source whyaretheydead.net, which had been inserted by an IP in this edit. --JN466 00:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Wispanow's statement by Jayen466

It is hard to know where to begin. In his statement, Wispanow cites Scientology's own propaganda blog and a press release by the Bavarian branch of the Church of Scientology as evidence that Scientology has been recognised as a religion by the German courts. A Scientology blog is not a reliable source. Scientology's own statements on the matter are, to say the least, disputed, and certainly selective, listing only judgments in Scientology's favour. For example, there is no listing for the 1995 Federal Labour Court ruling that explicitly said Scientology is NOT a religion. Having said that, there certainly have been court decisions in Scientology's favour, and this is mentioned in the article. Wispanow fails to realise that the focus of criticism from abroad is not the German court system, which is generally held to be fairly impartial, but the German government.
The Scientology blog, as a selective review listing court decisions in Scientology's favour, lacks any reference to statements by the German government that call Scientology's status as a religion in doubt. For example, see "Understanding the German view of Scientology", a document put up by the German Embassy in Washington D.C., which said, among other things: "The German government considers the Scientology organization a commercial enterprise with a history of taking advantage of vulnerable individuals and an extreme dislike of any criticism. [...] Given this background, Germany, as well as Belgium, France, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Spain, Israel and Mexico, remain unconvinced that Scientology is a religion." This continues to be the German government's position today, as affirmed in the document prepared by the German Parliament's Scientific Services Division, and widely reported in the international media. I respectfully submit that statements by the German Embassy are a more reliable indicator of the degree of acceptance Scientology has as a religion in Germany than Scientology's propaganda.
Failing to find his views reflected in mainstream sources like Time Magazine and the BBC, Wispanow concludes that Time and the BBC are "wrong or racist" and should be excluded as sources. He says, "I accuse mainly time.com and partly bbc.co.uk (and others) for stating an unbalanced, wrong and/or even racist viewpoint of Germany and german people. Therefore it will not help adding additional sources just mentioning the same viewpoint, but check if its real or wrong or racist." So all these reliable sources are wrong, and Wispanow is right, and feels he is entitled to edit-war so the article says what he thinks it should say and doesn't say what he thinks all those reliable sources should not have said. This is not how we write this encyclopedia. Time Magazine and the BBC are valued and trusted sources, and the fact that Wispanow does not understand or accept this makes him unfit to contribute to this topic area.
I should also mention that while Wispanow rejects Time Magazine and the BBC as reliable sources, he saw fit to edit-war to include the following unreliable sources in the article:
It is impossible to write a good, encyclopedic article when edits like this come along and need to be haggled over.
Wispanow has been warned by three different admins for edit-warring, personal attacks, deleting sourced material and adding poorly sourced material in Scientology in Germany. [214][215][216][217] The third of these warnings made explicit reference to Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Discretionary_topic_ban. --JN466 11:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a discussion thread at Talk:Scientology_in_Germany#Protection_under_Article_4_of_the_German_Constitution. This was the point that Wispanow sought to change several times, without adding a source in support, [218][219][220][221] and without removing the existing German Parliament source which contradicted his text. --JN466 18:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Wispanow

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

Please provide a link to where an uninvolved administrator has previously left a message on the editor's talk page, linking to Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Discretionary_topic_ban, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated, as required by Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Discretionary_topic_ban, or if no such message has been left, please say so, and I will then leave one and this AE report will be closed. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [222] --JN466 20:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I tend to support SilkTork's suggestion of a moderated discussion. Topic-banning users isn't conducive to happy editing. Stifle (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fine by me. If the discussion can lead to reliably sourced improvements, I am all for it. The article is still locked for another 10 days or so; this will give us a window of opportunity to see whether anything worthwhile will result from these discussions. (Feel free to move this reply.) --JN466 21:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK; I'll close this shortly. Please feel free to return here if SilkTork's moderated discussion falls through. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Wispanow seems to believe that it offends the national honor of Germany to report in our article some of the things that the government has done, or to report what reliable sources have had to say about German public opinion. He doesn't seem to realize that it is POV editing for him to present himself as a would-be defender of national honor, since his complaints about 'racism' are merely his own personal opinion, and are inappropriate per WP:SOAP. (He can offer no published source that uses the term 'racism' in connection with the Scientology controversy in Germany). Stifle may close this for now, but I myself will consider the basic issue unresolved until Wispanow agrees to follow Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        My impression is the Wispanow has legitimate concerns which he expresses very poorly, perhaps due to language difficulties. Vague, broad generalizations about an entire people, such as, "...German fears and concerns about new religious movements reached a level resembling hysteria in the mid-nineties..." should not be stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice no matter how many sources use the word hysteria. When we are dealing with a major controversy in a large country there will always be numerous commentators taking strong rhetorical positions. I would think a moderated discourse could come up with language that was more appropriate without ignoring critics of Germany's response to this matter.--agr (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Talk page thread on the word started here. --JN466 23:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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."^[5] 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."^[5]"

The diffs:[223] [224][225][226][227][228].

Concerns raised regarding this behavior, on the talk page[229][230] 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".”[231]. 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[232] 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:[233]. The blanking takes place in these edits: [234]

5. Article: Falun Gong

Nature of Disruption: Blanking.

Three paragraphs deleted with no explanation offered.[235].

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. [236]. Concerns raised regarding this can be seen on talk of the article:[237]

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: [238]

8. Article: Mass line

Nature of Disruption: Repetitive addition of unsourced material and blanking of sourced content.

Adds several paragraphs of unsourced content [239]. And here he reverts ( with misleading edit summaries) contributions by other editors removing well sourced and centrally relevant content[240] ( he offers no explanation for his blanking). The issue was raised here on the talk of the article: [241]

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. [242]

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”[243] [244][245]. Attempts to get the user to present a rationale for his insistence on using the word “ban” can be seen here: [246]

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”:[247]

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"[248] 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"[249]. The user continues to blank the Freedom House material despite RS discussion[250]. 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.[251],[252],[253]. 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[254]. 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[255] 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: [256][ 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)

[257] Warning by TheSoundAndTheFury (talk · contribs)
[258] Warning by Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs)
[259] Warning by Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs)
[260] Warning by AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
[261] 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."^[5]

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 [262], 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, [263] 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. [264]

8)

Asdfg removed a large amount of material regarding Maoism, including the template and two web sources[265]. 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 [266]. I referred to the Chinese's government's official label of the campaign per WP:NAME

11)

The source is disputed on talk page [267] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

Some recent diffs immediately below, show a continuation of the modus operandi described previously and also reminder below

1/ History of Falun Gong & Persecution of Falun Gong

FOR THE RECORD: version of this page, as edited by Dilip rajeev at 01:45, 19 July 2009

On 6 March 2010, with this series of edits, Dilip rajeev rolls back the entire text of the article to the version of 19 July 2009.

Note that he was opposed in this endeavour, and reinserts after removal. He warred again to reinstate lead, plus substantial rewrite. His actions crushed innumerable edits to the article since his last visit, and completely ignored the splitting of the article of the article into History of Falun Gong. In a talk page comment, in justification, he appears to deny that he's turning the clock back.

Of course, Dilip rajeev's habit of making radical reverts is a now firmly a matter of historical record. Some examples of this tendency are below:
this one single edit, made following an absence of 12 days, undid 36 intermediate edits made by others during this time.

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

reverted 44 edits by others in one fell swoop after 7 days' absence

'Self Immolation' and 'Organ harvesting'.

2/ Propaganda in the People's Republic of China

To note that he stopped editing on 4 November 2009, and returned on 26 January 2010 (see contributions), since when he has been making huge changes to 'Propaganda', which included deliberate use of highly charged wording ("skew public and international opinion in favor of its policies") in the opening sentence of the lead and without proper attribution; comments in the third paragraph attributed to Brady were stripped of this attribution. I was alerted to a problem when I received a note on my talk page to look at the NPOV of the article.

Since his return, he has been edit-warring with a number of other editors, and has been particularly vehemently opposed on a number of articles by PCPP (talk · contribs), who is no saint himself and has aggressive tendencies. In recent weeks, he and PCPP have been at loggerheads, trying to outdo each other in terms of aggression and open hostility. In view of the AE on PCPP, I will not expand here.

3/ 6-10 Office

In the last few days, Dilip rajeev has warred with PCPP and others:

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)

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)[reply]

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[268]. Based on painstaking research, I made significant contributions to the article which, back then, carried almost no sourced content: [269]

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.[270] 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."^[5] 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."^[5]"

The diffs:[271] [272][273][274][275][276].

Concerns raised regarding this behavior, on the talk page[277][278] 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".”[279]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Amen to that. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [280] turned the article into a piece of advocacy.
This recent edit in the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident FA [281] 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)[reply]

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 [282][283], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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" [284] [285] [286].

Dilip has previously received 5 blocks and countless warnings [287][288][289][290][291][292][293][294][295]on 3RR violations, disruptive editing, and edit warring previously on Falun Gong articles [296], previously operated two blocked socks [297] responsible for edit warring on Sathya Sai Baba [298]. He was also warned on inserting POV material on the Sai Baba articles [299] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, he hadn't been warned, I hsve left him a uw-sanctions template[300]. Anyways, the desired outcome here would be an indefinite topic ban from Falun Gong topic. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(←) 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)[reply]

Is ANI the place to go for that? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I concur. I've already given up with WP:AGF after Dilip's history of hostilities against me and other editors [301] [302] [303] [304] [305], 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 [306].--PCPP (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
- Thats a lot of "few others". Maybe it is a representation of the community?--Edward130603 (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, don't mind asdfg, he's in cynical mode. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

~~[307]~~ [308] Editing material about synagogue being destroyed during 1948 Arab-Israeli war, by definition an I/P topic.
[309] Renaming a section entitled "Russia and the Arab-Israeli conflict" to "Israel-Russia relations".
[310] 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)

[311] 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: [312]

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)[reply]
- I will however say the first edit is rather trivial though. -- tariqabjotu 06:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: # [313] 1st rv

[314] 2nd rv
[315] 3rd rv

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): # [316] 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: [317] Last time he was blocked for violation of the revert limitation for 1 month: [318], 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. [319] 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: [320] He also removes warnings with the same type of comments: [321] I think the above violations require that Meowy is banned indefinitely from Armenia-Azerbaijan related topics. Grandmaster 08:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [322]

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 [323] [324] 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)[reply]

I have just noticed Grandmmaster's "he removed postings by other users with incivil comments" claim. This refers to my removal [325] 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 [326], 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)[reply]

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! ([327]).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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" [328], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have blocked for one year, the maximum allowed. Jehochman ^Talk 13:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

^ UN International Convention on the Elimination of All of Racial Discrimination, NEW YORK 7 March 1966
^ A. Metraux (1950) "United nations Economic and Security Council Statement by Experts on Problems of Race" in American Anthropologist 53(1): 142-145)
^ The CPS : Racist and Religious Crime - CPS Prosecution Policy
^ Text of the Convention, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1966
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Cite error: The named reference CER was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[3] UN International Convention on the Elimination of All of Racial Discrimination, NEW YORK 7 March 1966

[4] A. Metraux (1950) "United nations Economic and Security Council Statement by Experts on Problems of Race" in American Anthropologist 53(1): 142-145)

[5] The CPS : Racist and Religious Crime - CPS Prosecution Policy

[6] Text of the Convention, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1966

[CER-7] Cite error: The named reference CER was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

@@ Line 271: / Line 271: @@
 :As for the edits by Hanzohattori. This users was actually a good editor, he created a lot of new articles, collected a lot of new sources and updated them regularely. Eventually he got banned for insulting an administrator and went on to become a sockpuppeteer. This of course doesn't mean that all the articles he created in the past are wrong. I became an editor too at the articles he created, after he got banned (but now I've become inactive too). Why would Biophys not be allowed to edit the articles? I've got to know both users a little and they both had the same interests. Biophys isn't even editing the articles so much, they're mostly small edits or votes.
 :As a conclusion I would like to ask whatever administrator judging this request to look through the history of the complainers. Most of them will have an extremely obvious pro-Putin bias and a lot of them have a lot of disruption as well (some of them almost having been permabanned). [[User:Grey Fox-9589|Grey Fox]] ([[User talk:Grey Fox-9589|talk]]) 13:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
+Concerning the further comments that Russavia has made below. It's another attempt at trying to demonise Biophys as someone promoting extremism, a pretex under which many journalists are banned from working in Russia. The source was already discussed at wp:rs several times. I explained the use of such sources here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayjg&diff=prev&oldid=348564739] and there's no bad intention whatsoever. Several users have gone after biophys labeling him a 'terrorist lover' or other ridiculous accusations which together with calling him 'anti-russian' means they view him as [[Enemy of the People]]. It's pretty ironic articles like [[Alexander Litvinenko]] are brought up. It's indeed quite so that articles like [[Anna Politkovskaya]] are often the setting of edit wars because the pro-Putin editors mostly target such articles. It's sad really, journalists and human rights activists reporting on crimes by the current Russian government are assassinated in Russia every few months. Afterwards their wikipedia pages are targeted by groups of Putin lobbyists attempting to discredit these activists. Anyone who tries to prevent this gets labeled "anti-Russian". [[User:Grey Fox-9589|Grey Fox]] ([[User talk:Grey Fox-9589|talk]]) 20:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 =====Further comments by Russavia=====

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards