Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

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)

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:

• At WP:AE: [1]
• At WP:AN: [2]
• At WP:ANI: [3]
• At WP:AN3: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

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

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. And I am ready to answer any specific questions about these my edits: [142].

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): [143], [144],[145], [146], [147]. I was also looking for the 3rd opinion from User:Alex_Bakharev, who is not "on my side": [148], [149], 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: [150],[151],[152]. Vandal or not, but I fully explained everything to him at article talk page: [153]. 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 [154]. Kavkaz.org was only used to source the statements by Chechen fighters, exactly as in hundreds published books [155]. You may also look at the entire editing history of saiga12 (talk · contribs).

Red Banner. Everything was explained several times at talk page [156]. I agree with last version by User:Altenmann: [157], who modified my version as follows: [158].

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

Invasion of Dagestan. Here is the discussion. [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 articles to be forged by Saiga12 (talk · contribs) like here, or "fixed" like here by YMB29 (talk · contribs), then issue me an editing restriction.

• 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)

• LokiiT: I do not have any current content disagreements with you. You made a big story from two my edits in one article by coming at my talk page and claiming me to be a "terrorist supporter" [164]. You did the same previously with regard to another user [165]. The entire conversation can be found at my talk page: [166]. See also links given by FPS. I did not stalk you at all, but simply went through a large number of Chechnya-related pages (see the examples by Russavia), and certainly could not miss the article about their current separatist leader.

Proposed conflict resolution

• Offer to Russavia. Russavia, I voted to lift all your sanctions. But you ask sanctions for me. I think the problem is article Litvinenko, the only one where we have serious disagreements. You just reverted it to your favorite version, immediately after coming from your editing restriction. I suggest the following. 1. We start from last stable version. 2. We create a list of our disagreements if any. 3. We ask Alex, Ezhiki or any other administrator of your choosing (or any established member of Mediation Committee) to be our judge rather than mediator. 4. He/she looks at the list and decides each disagreement one way or another. I agree in advance with any his/her decisions. Would that be working for you? Would you agree to withdraw this AE request? Biophys (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Offer to User:Ellol. Same as to Russavia. Would you agree?Biophys (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Offer to User:YMB29. The only thing you did was reverting my edits in Human rights in the Soviet Union, Red Flag and Red Banner. I will never edit these articles again. You can own them. But you do not follow my edits in other articles. Agree? Biophys (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Offer to User:saiga12. We keep last most complete version but indicate strength and losses as follows: ... per Russian side and ... per Chechen side. And let's discuss any other specific issues.Biophys (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I do not have any other disputes with other editors.Biophys (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [167] and there's no bad intention whatsoever. Several users have gone after biophys labeling him a 'terrorist lover' or other ridiculous accusations which together with calling him 'anti-russian' means they view him as Enemy of the People. Ironically articles like Alexander Litvinenko are brought up. It's indeed quite so that articles like Anna Politkovskaya are often the setting of edit wars because the pro-Putin editors mostly target such articles. It's sad really, journalists and human rights activists reporting on crimes by the current Russian government are assassinated in Russia every few months. Afterwards their wikipedia pages are targeted by groups of Putin lobbyists attempting to discredit these activists. Anyone who tries to prevent this gets labeled "anti-Russian". Grey Fox (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Further comments by Russavia

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.[168], [169]. 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 [170],[171], etc. As one can see, Biophys clearly has a history of edit warring over information which does not fit his own POV on the ways of the world, and it is being continued as per the reported articles above. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 17:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments/Evidence by YMB29

I was also going to post a similar complaint about Biophys. I reported him before at the edit warring noticeboard [172], but the request was declined as not being posted in the right place.

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

Since the end of January Biophys has resumed edit warring in the Human rights in the Soviet Union article, trying to reinsert his edits from September without any discussion. Even attempts by admin Altenmann to get a discussion going on the issues [173] were eventually ignored by Biophys, as he failed to respond.[174] [175]

But more importantly he continues tag teaming like in the EEML days. He got a user who never edited the article before to revert for him: [176] [177] He basically admitted it when I asked him about it.[178]

In the Red flag article he tried to insert his POVed jokes [179], even after all the users told him that they are inappropriate.[180] Then he simply goes over to the Red Banner article to insert those same jokes there, because he knew that not nearly as much people edit that article.[181] He does not give evidence of the jokes' notability [182] and continues to edit war. [183][184][185] It is like he is on a mission to sneak in his POVed edits anyway he can and does not care what others have to say...

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

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

Comments/Evidence by LokiiT

Biophys seems to have gone back to all his old disruptive ways again following a short calm after the EEML case. Just in the past couple of weeks he's engaged in stalking, edit warring and sock fishing, all issues that I had brought up in my EEML evidence page[186], and that I hoped would have come to an end after that.

It started (with me) in late February when he stalked me to the Dokka Umarov article. This was an article he had never edited in before, and his first edit was a revert of my edit (something he has a long history of doing)[187]. (I'm beginning to think he's somehow connected to the POV pushing IP who I had reverted there in the first place). He then continued to edit war in that article[188][189] without discussing things in talk until after, and ignoring everything I was saying, which forced me to take it off my watched list out of frustration. (Also note in that last revert, he used a provocation "trick" I described in my EEML evidence where he does a giant revert-edit while saying something minor/irrelevant in the edit summary.)

I made a somewhat hot-headed response to those provocations of his (given our history, I do believe they were provocations), and he proceeded to report me at an admin's talk page.[190] In his report, he made a bold faced lie about my real life identity, claiming that I had actually said myself that I was "related to" (ie. a sock of) the inactive user Alexandre Koriakine, a name I had all but forgotten about since 2008 when he first accused me and Offliner of being this person's sock along with working for the Russian government (this government accusation was made on a subpage that he deleted, but was confirmed by Future Perfect at Sunrise[191]).

So then, after FPaS had understandably given up on our dispute, Biophys proceeded to report me for sockpuppeting[192]. I made it clear on the page that I believed this was simply a personal attack/revenge tactic and that he was just fishing to see if I had any active socks, since the similarities between myself and the other accused parties are nonexistent; not even so much as back to back reverts or identical edits, and only two or three similar articles. The result[193] of that investigation, involving five users and four IPs, was that they were unrelated. This gives more evidence that he was just fishing and wasting everyone's time on top of it. (Again, puppet fishing was yet another issue I had brought up in my EEML evidence page. The tally of wrongful accusations he's made against me has to be exceeding 10-15 if you include IPs.)

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

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) 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 [194] "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). [195] "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.) [196] "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. [197] More defending of conspiracies. [198] "The reaction of "some" Palestinians and Serbians in not notable in the context of this article." Anything that differs from his opinion goes, apparently. [199] See above. [200] See above. [201] "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 [202] Warning by Turian (talk · contribs) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) A one week block alongside an indefinite topic ban on anything related to September 11th. Additional comments by editor filing complaint He has been given multiple chances to adhere to the ruling of the arbitration case, yet has not followed through with the ruling or the ruling of the enforcement case. He is one of the problems in the constant push for NPOV fringe theories relating to 9/11. –Turian (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [203] Discussion concerning Cs32en Statement by Cs32en All of the edits that Turian (talk · contribs) enumerates are based on Wikipedia policies. Per Wikipedia:RS#Statements of opinion, opinion-based articles must not be used "for statements of fact without attribution". I have removed the source, because it was an opinion piece that was used without attribution. Furthermore, the section summarizes the sub-article 9/11 conspiracy theories (see WP:Summary style), and all relevant sources can be found in this article. The sub-article also includes high-quality sources for the information that was sourced to the opinion piece. Therefore, I left the information in the article and removed only the source that was used in an inappropriate way. The specific political position of the writer of the opinion piece is indeed irrelevant. I have pointed out that the article was not based on journalistic independence, i.e. with the aim of building a reputation based on reliability and fact checking. That's exactly the reason why there is a specific guideline on opinion pieces. In this edit, I explained that Cinnamon Stillwell is not an editor of a journal who writes an opinion piece, but that she identifies herself as a representative of a political organization that is actively engaged in the controversies related to the information in the article. Therefore, Wikipedia:RS#Statements of opinion is even more relevant than if it would be an opinion piece written by an independent observer. The specific information I have removed from the article was unsourced, and it contained the word "claim", which is, or course, a word that should normally be avoided. I think that the mention of the reaction of "some Palestinians" to the September 11 attacks is undue in the main article on 9/11. This, of course, is an editorial decision, and I am very open to debate if another editor brings up the issue at the talk page or reverts my edit. This is also undue in the main 9/11 article. The assertion that a murder in Britain perpetrated by three Muslims would have been the "most notable" is completely unsourced. The source only says the perpetrators were "found guilty ... at a time when tensions were high following the September 11 attacks". There is no indication that this event was motivated by or otherwise connected to the September 11 attacks. I don't see a reason why the information that "the Serbian Liberation Front claimed responsibility for the bombing" of the World Trade Center in 1993 (!) is relevant for the article. But again, I'm open to discuss this point. I have stated on the talk page before that I would not support including Ahmadinejad's views in the article, as long as there is not a notable political controversy about them. In this edit, I clarified that, in my view, the relevant question that a decision on the inclusion of his opinion should be based on is notability in the context of the article's topic, not whether Ahmadinejad has specific knowledge about the September 11 attacks. Again, a statement that is based on our policies. I hope that I have clarified the issues that Turian (talk · contribs) has raised, and I suggest to dismiss this request. (I'll be away for about 24 hours.)  Cs32en Talk to me  21:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Then how do you explain your constant push for fringe conspiracies despite being told many times to stop? –Turian (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC) My edits at September 11 attacks As Turian (talk · contribs) is claiming that my editing on Wikipedia is about pushing conspiracies, I'd like to provide my edits at September 11 attacks during the last few months (the edits mentioned by Turian above, i.e. #1, #5, #6, and #7, are not included): 14:46, December 9, 2009 Adjusting piped link. 14:57, December 9, 2009 Reducing overlinking. Direct link to National Mall and to pepper spray. CNN does not need to be singled out. 16:20, December 9, 2009 [Correcting mistake in link syntax.] 19:20, January 23, 2010 the Capitol, the meeting place of the United States Congress, or the White House 15:04, February 25, 2010 Islamic extremism has its own article. (Removing link from "Islamist extremists" to "Islam".) 15:07, February 25, 2010 Removing "as a false flag in order to gain popular support for military and police expansion". This is only one of the motives that have been suggested. 15:14, February 25, 2010 "Due to lack of results" is unsourced speculation. Antagonism surfaced due to the predominantly military response, the Iraq War that was seen an unrelated to 9/11, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo etc. [Removing synthesis.] 21:09, March 1, 2010 (Undid revision 347151625 by Jonund (talk) User:Jonund incorrectly implied existing consensus on the talk page for his edit. Undoing the edit to encourage consensus-based solution. [There is now broad consensus on the talk page for the removal of this content.] 21:54, March 1, 2010 {{Undue-section}} [Tagging the section. ClovisPt (talk · contribs) removed much of the section in a subsequent edit. Broad talk page consensus on this as well.] In early January, I have created the article Camp Chapman attack, which appeared on Did you know? on January 10. As I have written almost all of the content of this article, it may be a useful example to assess my editing.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Since when does having good edits give you the right to push fringe theories? I am sure we can do without your "good" edits as long as your fringe edits are no longer allowed. –Turian (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC) You have raised concerns about specific edits in your request above. I have provided a specific explanation for each of these edits. Then, you have stated that my edits overall were somehow problematic. I then have listed all my edits to the September 11 attacks article in the last few months to provide a basis for others to evaluate them. Which are the fringe edits that you are referring to?  Cs32en Talk to me  17:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Everything I listed and your talk page obstruction of process. And your explanations were hardly sound at all. You have caused too much trouble in the past, and yet you continue to do it even though people have told you to stop. –Turian (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Cs32en Comment by Mbz1 I find the differences that were presented to be of a big concern, and believe Cs32en should be topic banned in accordance with the request.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Sandstein Could the requesting editor please annotate the request so as to explain how, specifically, each of the diffs provided violates "the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process" (WP:ARB911#Discretionary sanctions)?  Sandstein  20:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Done. –Turian (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks. After some review, I am inclined to agree with Wildbear below and to decline enforcement action. This appears to be an attempt to win a content dispute via AE. WP:AE is not part of dispute resolution. The edits are not prima facie disruptive, they are reasonably well explained by Cs32en above in terms of relevant editing policies, and the arguments made against them in the terms of these policies are weak, and often assume bad faith ("anti-conservative push", "defending of conspiracies"). That is not to say that these edits are correct either as a matter of content or conduct (I take no position on that), only that they are not misconduct warranting sanctions. Rather, they are indicative of content disagreements that ought to be worked out through normal channels.  Sandstein  06:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC) I assume you failed to read the entire mess that is made on the September 11 attacks talk page? –Turian (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Yes. That talk page is not cited in your request. I normally only read what the editor requesting enforcement asks me to.  Sandstein  06:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I have added two more diffs as evidence of his misbehavior. –Turian (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Rklawton Cs32en edits 9/11 as if his and only his view is correct. He removed a well researched, well considered, well sourced commentary published in a reliable source on the grounds that the author was a neo-conservative and immediately launched into an edit war to defend his actions. As far as I know, both liberals and conservatives believe 9/11 conspiracy theorists are whack-jobs. But Cs32en insisted the author was pushing a political agenda. The only agenda I saw in her article was one against conspiracy theorists - the very point of the section in which the source had been included. The bottom line is, unless we want to hand the article over to this one editor, he needs to be topic banned. Rklawton (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC) I did not "launch into an edit war". Actually, I did not edit war at all. I have removed the opinion piece in this edit and removed the unnecessary fact tag in this subsequent edit (no edits in between), and I haven't edited that section of the article since then. I did not argue that the author of the article would push a political agenda because she argues against conspiracy theories. Indeed, many people do this, including many journalists. The author of this opinion piece, however, identifies herself as "the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the foreign policy think tank directed by Daniel Pipes, the Middle East Forum" and, according to her website, is the "founder of the 9/11 Neocons, an online discussion group" (see the author's website).  Cs32en Talk to me  16:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC) ...which does not detract from her work to discredit conspiracy theorists. The fact is, you deleted this reference from a non-political article because of her political affiliations, and that's blatantly wrong. Rklawton (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Wildbear The preceding reads like a content dispute, rather than a pattern of abuse calling for arbitration enforcement. Approaching a polarized topic from a particular angle does not in itself constitute abuse; it is how one behaves while editing and discussing. If Cs32en had been engaging in edit warring, or unreasonable behavior on the talk page, then action might be warranted; but it doesn't look to me like that is occurring. Wildbear (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC) This is not a content dispute. The push for conspiracy theories is a clear violation of the arbitration guidelines/sanctions. If nothing is done here, then I will report the problem directly to the Committee. –Turian (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Also, please read the sanctions concept that the arbitration entails. This goes beyond any mere content dispute. –Turian (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by ClovisPt After reading/re-reading the edits provided above as examples of Cs32en's supposedly problematic editing style, I don't see a clear attempt to push an agenda. Several of these edits are judgment calls about the relative notability of various items in the September 11 attacks article, which is always difficult when one is dealing with the main page of a complicated subject that spans many items. I especially don't see evidence of conspiracy pushing here. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Did you read the prior enforcement guidelines? –Turian (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC) You mean Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories#Final_decision, right? I did read it. ClovisPt (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC) No, this. –Turian (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Alright, thanks for that link. ClovisPt (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Cs32en This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The submitter has unarchived this section because it was not closed. Unless other admins disagree, I intend to close it without action. The edits at issue are not obviously problematic, at least not to an extent that would merit sanctions. Whether or not they violate WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE is principally an editorial matter that needs to be resolved through editorial channels. Like the main arbitration process, arbitration enforcement is not for mediating content disagreements, and this request appears to be mainly a content rather than a conduct issue. If a user were to engage in aggressive fringe POV-pushing over extended periods of time in this area, AE sanctions would be warranted, but the diffs submitted in this request do not convince me that this is the case here.  Sandstein  09:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC) This is ridiculous. So now, we have to deal with all of this conspiracy crap until arbitration gets involved? If nothing is done, then I will be requesting a new arbitration case, since the administrators are currently unable to handle/enforce the prior arbitration. –Turian (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Absent opposition, closing per above.  Sandstein  13:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

PCPP

PCPP (talk · contribs) warned, no further action.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning PCPP User requesting enforcement Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested PCPP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated #Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong#Neutral_point_of_view Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong#Consensus Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong#Point_of_view_editing Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it In presenting this, I hope to bring to the attention of arbcom the continual disruption and removal of content by User:PCPP on Falun Gong and closely related pages. This behavior of the user extends to all articles carrying material critical of the Chinese Communist Party. The user's editing pattern involves: 1. Repetitive blanking of vast amounts of sourced and centrally relevant material, with no discussion on talk, and often under edit summaries like “rv pov material.” 2. Distortion of sourced content and the addition of personal commentary, which he misattributes to sources already present in the article. 3. And, when under close scrutiny, the watering down of critical sources, with unsubstantiated claims to the effect that they are the content is “pov”, is undue, etc. Even a superficial analysis can reveal his scouring of articles pertinent to the CCP’s human rights violations, from which he removes critical material, while simultaneously piling accusations against those attempting to contribute to those articles. What I present below is but a sample of such behavior, all from within the past few months, by the user. 1. Article:6-10 Office Nature of disruption:Repetitive blanking of sourced and centrally relevant material with no discussion presented.Concerns raised are ignored by the user. The below content, drawing upon one of the few sources available on the topic, has been blanked 6 times by the user since its inception into the article. "According to the 2008 Congressional Executive Commission Report on China, "Publicly available government documents detail the central role of the 6-10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong." The report states: ""6-10 Offices throughout China maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' facilities that are used specifically to detain Falun Gong practitioners who have completed terms in reeducation through labor (RTL) camps but whom authorities refuse to release. The term `transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) describes a process of ideological reprogramming whereby practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong."" The diffs:[204] [205][206][207][208][209]. Concerns raised regarding this behavior, on the talk page[210][211] 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".”[212]. 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[213] 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:[214]. The blanking takes place in these edits: [215] 5. Article: Falun Gong Nature of Disruption: Blanking. Three paragraphs deleted with no explanation offered.[216]. 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. [217]. Concerns raised regarding this can be seen on talk of the article:[218] 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: [219] 8. Article: Mass line Nature of Disruption: Repetitive addition of unsourced material and blanking of sourced content. Adds several paragraphs of unsourced content [220]. And here he reverts ( with misleading edit summaries) contributions by other editors removing well sourced and centrally relevant content[221] ( he offers no explanation for his blanking). The issue was raised here on the talk of the article: [222] 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. [223] 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”[224] [225][226]. Attempts to get the user to present a rationale for his insistence on using the word “ban” can be seen here: [227] 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”:[228] 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"[229] 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"[230]. The user continues to blank the Freedom House material despite RS discussion[231]. 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.[232],[233],[234]. 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[235]. 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[236] 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: [237][ 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) [238] Warning by TheSoundAndTheFury (talk · contribs) [239] Warning by Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) [240] Warning by Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) [241] Warning by AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [242] Warning by AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) # [<Diff>] Warning by [[User:<Username>|<Username>]] ([[User talk:<Username>|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<Username>|contribs]] · [[Special:Log/block/<Username>|blocks]] · [[Special:Log/protect/<Username>|protections]] · [[Special:Log/delete/<Username>|deletions]] · [[Special:Log/move/<Username>|page moves]] · [[Special:Log/rights/<Username>|rights]] · [[Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/<Username>|RfA]]) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Topic ban from articles related to the Chinese Communist Party. Additional comments by editor filing complaint <Your text> Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. Discussion concerning PCPP Statement by PCPP I really don't see how the FLG sanctions can apply to any CCP-related article, as Dilip claimed. Dilip's personal attacks again Bobby Fletcher and rant about the PRC's "web spies" demonstrates exactly why I have difficulties working with him. 1) I in fact shortened the paragraph to: The name of the body draws from of its date of formation: June 10, 1999. According to the 2008 Congressional Executive Commission Report on China, the 6-10 Offices maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) facilities, where Falun Gong practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong." I summarized the statement into proper English, which is perfectly acceptable within editing guidelines. When Dilip doesn't agree with with such changes, he reverts the entire article, along with everything else that goes along with it. 2-5) Dilip himself added a large amount of questionable statements from a single unverified source from a political website [243], 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, [244] 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. [245] 8) Asdfg removed a large amount of material regarding Maoism, including the template and two web sources[246]. 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 [247]. I referred to the Chinese's government's official label of the campaign per WP:NAME 11) The source is disputed on talk page [248] and reached the concensus that it is misattributed. 12) I am within my right to question such sources per WP:RS, and within my right to remove sources that lacks peer review or citation and is used to push a single POV. I find the current situation utterly ridiculous. No matter what I add, the FLG camp always find minor excuses over a couple of paragraphs or labels, and revert my edits entirely because of it. Dilip himself has a habit of disappearing for months, completely ignore the changes and concensus that has since ocurred, and revert back to his preferred version with little discussion. It's even more ludicrous that I have to document every change to single-purpose accounts that are used to promot Falun Gong.--PCPP (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning PCPP Comment by Asdfg12345 PCPP focuses on picking apart the contributions of others, and watering down the parts that aren't too friendly to the Chinese Communist Party. His behaviour is consistently destructive, and it, along with the explicit and implicit support he receives for it, has seriously eroded my will to contribute to this project (among other things.) Recently he has refined his methods, too. Instead of outright blanking, he just blanks some parts and weakens others; instead of saying nothing, he says a few perfunctory words and discredits the other editors intentions; instead of doing zero research, he does a bit. He is a drag on contributing, and exerts a net negative influence. He only destroys the value of others' contributions, rather than bringing his own ideas and sources to the table and working together for how to incorporate the different viewpoints. He only says the viewpoint of this or that scholar (it would seem, actually, every scholar who has documented the crimes of the CCP) is POV and tries to delete it or weaken it, without any regard for NPOV, which calls for all significant views to be represented. He has recently deleted swathes of material from several articles, then writes misleading edit summaries and notes on the talk page. What's even more bizarre is how the editors calling for my downfall don't care when he does this stuff. It's a bit farcical. I have left maybe a dozen notes to PCPP saying how I would like to work with him, asking him to explain himself, asking him to bring sources to the table that support the POV he wants to see introduced. But he doesn't play ball and just rebukes it all, going right ahead with the deletions and whatnot. It's a very effective technique, to be honest. At the very least, it's dampened my usually boundless enthusiasm--at least enough to take a break from all this for a while. I'll be back, but hopefully he won't be around. (Note: if he changed his approach and started doing research, and discussed his changes nicely, I would love to work with him. He has robust opinions on these subjects that, if sources can be found to support them, need to be represented and explained. But his focus on destroying my work really gets to me. I asked him to just paste onto the talk page stuff he deletes from now on. Maybe that will help. Though his deletions of any mention of the word "indoctrination" or "struggle session" goes on.) --Asdfg12345 05:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by PhilKnight The only relevant evidence is that which relates to the Falun Gong. The rest could be relevant to the user conduct Request for Comment, but shouldn't be listed here. PhilKnight (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Epeefleche The nom raises some points here that deserve close examination (which I've not had time for at the moment), and if which accurate should likely be addressed in some manner, though I agree with Phil that the only relevant information is that which relates to the Falun Gong, which does not appear to be the focus of many of the above diffs.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Result concerning PCPP This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I would propose a topic ban of two weeks from Falun Gong and connected articles. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I can't see any {{uw-sanctions}} left for PCPP, which is a prerequisite for discretionary sanctions to be applied. I have left it now, but unless there is further inappropriate behaviour, the request will be closed with no action. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Am moving the case to ANI. A wide range of articles are involved, and this behavior of the user has continued for years. The above user has not contributed anything to these pages in terms of research, and, at the same time, baselessly attacks other editors to deviate attention and cover up his disruption of these pages. Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I take the above to be a retraction of the request and am closing it as no action per Stifle.  Sandstein  17:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev

Further action deferred pending the outcome of moderated discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Dilip rajeev User requesting enforcement: Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested: Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Article_probation: "Falun Gong and all closely related articles are placed on article probation. It is expected that the articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The articles may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review. Passed 7 to 1 at 06:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)" Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Point_of_view_editing Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: I really don't have the patience for this any longer; I have already given up editing Falun Gong articles. Nevertheless, I would re-open this previously filed request hoping that something be done about that user's persistent Falun Gong advocacy, NPOV editing and aggressive edit-warring. This is particularly important because the disruption has now spilled over onto, and threatens to poison the editing ambiance at, all articles which touch upon the Communist Party of China or the governance of the People's Republic of China - the central goal of the Falun Gong movement is contributing to the downfall of the CPC. This renewed request is updated with the latest evidence of highly disruptive behaviour by Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs), who has been editing almost exclusively Falun Gong articles, or those which touch upon Falun Gong - namely Propaganda on the People's Republic of China - since February 2006. In fact, my previous AE request was against him failed; the closing admin commented: “ Dilip rajeev has mostly refrained from reverting and engaged in discussion. Since the reversions happen so infrequently (3 times in 2 months), a revert restriction would be of very little value. ” In my experience, rajeev has shown great animosity when non-FG devotees edit Falun Gong article. There has been a long history of unchecked edit warring, even over the placement of {{NPOV}} tags. Such tags are routinely removed (as here) with not so much as a 'how do you do', as if the contents suddenly become neutral when the tag disappears. Reverts are usually very provocatively done - blind and wholescale, often destroying many intervening edits which have accurate and well-reasoned edit summaries - and any ensuing discussion makes clear that the user is always 'right' and anyone who opposes him 'wrong'. Anything which is sourced from sources he approves of have a right to stay and any sources he disapproves of are "CCP propaganda" or somesuch. Dilip rajeev's tendency to introduce ironic quotes (like here) and weasel words are already mentioned above. Not only is he completely and blindly partisan, Dilip rajeev often expresses points of view which are unique; his style and content introduced have been frowned upon from time to time by most others, and also by asdfg. Dilip rajeev's stated view that nothing from the Chinese authorities is worthy of citing because it is unreliable propaganda demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of what is WP:NPOV. He is known to endlessly pontificate on moral questions, and lawyer around citing paragraphs of WP:RS and WP:NPOV to support whatever position he favours in regards to a certain link or source. He maintains a website which he uses as Falun Gong advocacy. It seems that he passionately believes the persecution of Falun gong practitioners at the hands of the Chinese authorities, and is unable to put these views to one side when he is editing; and when he edits, it is with such great fervour and aggression that leaves little or no place for others who wish to contribute. Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs) has a habit of disappearing (i.e. not editing in article space or talk space) for weeks or months on end. When he returns, he frequently reverts to the last version he feels comfortable with irrespective of the individual merits of each of the changes because the changes which took place were not to his liking. In view of his return and his manifestly unrepentant behaviour, I would reopen the case, seeking an indefinite site ban. Such reverts are usually done without due reference to the discussions which have taken place during his absence. Today, he hypocritically initiated an AE case against same (see above). Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy) Dilip rajeev block log Inactive user account 001 block log He was given this final warning on 16 May 2009. Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): I believe that, in view of his continued disruption and the total lack of any mitigating collaborative successes, an indefinite ban from Wikipedia would now be in order. Dilip rajeev is a Falun Gong practitioner, and edits Falun Gong articles almost exclusively since 2006 along with a team of 3 other very easily identifiable FLG activist editors - asdfg12345 (talk · contribs), Olaf Stephanos (talk · contribs), and HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs). After the ban of Anti-FLG users Sam Luo and Tomanada, this group of Falun Gong practitioners have seemingly taken over all Falun Gong-related articles. All four users, to varying degrees, erase critical content, engage in lengthy advocacy commentary on talk pages, tag-team against other editors. Rajeev in particular shows very little respect for any users who wish to bring balance to articles, by sundry disruptive tactics and tendentious editing. These 1 2 attempts (amongst others) by fellow activist asdfg to rein him in have never had much effect. Dilip rajeev creates an ambiance of intolerance and hostility, leaving behind a trail of breaches of WP:NPOV, 3RR and other guidelines wherever he goes. He is responsible, in whole or in part, for driving away a number of neutral editors from the Falun Gong articles. His editing Sathya Sai Baba demonstrate his propensity to be controversial; his forays there are nothing short of spectacular drama. He has demonstrated that he is incapable of working with others who do not share the same views as himself, and I am regrettably of the conclusion, after observing numerous attempts by myself and other editors to discuss, negotiate and mediate, and after many months of suffering his various antics and POV-pushing, that Wikipedia is best off without him. A wholescale indefinite ban is warranted to end this editor's disruption of wikipedia, once and for all. It has now been demonstrated that Dilip rajeev is a dedicated Falun Gong SPA with an agenda to advocate the Falun Gong cause. His prior involvement in editing Sathya Sai Baba articles, another 'hot topic' which has already been the subject of two Arbcom cases, is also of record. He is a habitual disruptive editor whose aggressive and partisan edits have been the subject of numerous comments and complaints from other users, including fellow practitioner User:asdfg12345. Dilip rajeev has been warned repeatedly against edit-warring, and has been blocked a number of times - the last time was a 3 month topic ban; prior to that was a block of 55 hours. He does not appear to have learned anything,nor does he seem to realise that he narrowly escaped sanction by making an opportune disappearance from Wikipedia. I believe it is now time to send the message that such behaviour is not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dilip_rajeev&diff=348906563&oldid=348567851 Discussion concerning Dilip rajeev Statement by Dilip rajeev I have done few edits after the same user filed a similar case against me in which I was found innocent. I wont say much here except that I have not edit warred on any of these pages. I am given all kinds of labels from "vandal" to "sockpuppet" by these users attacking me. I merely request that I may please be judged by my contributions, by the diffs, by the content I have contributed to wikpedia - not by claims, not substantiated by any evidence, from those who seek to impose these labels on me. What he presents as "Evidence of edit warring" is PCPP's whole-scale blanking of content which happened between my contributions. And there are no multiple reverts from my side. I was among the first to draw editors attention, and collect sources to improve that article which was almost completely ignored[249]. Based on painstaking research, I made significant contributions to the article which, back then, carried almost no sourced content: [250] 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.[251] I did not do multiple reverts when the material I considered a superset of the current info in the article was removed - but strove to explain my additions section by section. I absolutely did not engage in any repetitive reverts or edit warring. A full explanation of the intro can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong#Regarding_the_intro And "Inactive user account" was not "blocked". The user is repeating this allegation against me despite several clarifications I have made before. It was an alternate account I used to contribute to that article ( and all my contribution there were all based on the best available sources such as BBC, The Times, Guardian, DTV, Bayerstein, etc. And I had made significant contributions in terms of content there. I may please be observed that the sole reason I was attacked was that my contributions conflicted with the POV of certain users). The account was and renamed under the suggestion of an admin, to protect my privacy( it being a very sensitive topic in certain regions in India) when it was compromised. Also, I have not been active on the article for several months now. These are non-existent issues that the user frequently rakes up to attack me. On the 6-10 Office article, I have absolutely not engaged in any edit-warring. I had raised legitimate concerns regarding PCPP's repetitive blanking of material sourced to Congressional Executive Reports, and distortion of sourced content in the lead. It is the very same issue I present in the AE case against PCPP above that Ohconfucius distorts to make it seems as if I am blanking PCPP: 1. Article:6-10 Office Nature of disruption:Repetitive blanking of sourced and centrally relevant material with no discussion presented.Concerns raised are ignored by the user. The below content, drawing upon one of the few sources available on the topic, has been blanked 6 times by the user since its inception into the article. "According to the 2008 Congressional Executive Commission Report on China, "Publicly available government documents detail the central role of the 6-10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong." The report states: ""6-10 Offices throughout China maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' facilities that are used specifically to detain Falun Gong practitioners who have completed terms in reeducation through labor (RTL) camps but whom authorities refuse to release. The term `transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) describes a process of ideological reprogramming whereby practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong."" The diffs:[252] [253][254][255][256][257]. Concerns raised regarding this behavior, on the talk page[258][259] 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".”[260]. The commentary added by the user is mis-attributed and not supported by any source. Further, I would like to humbly request that if the charges made against me are seen to be baseless, appropriate disciplinary action be taken against these users who've been hounding me around wikipedia and making contributing to these pages almost impossible. This case shortly follows my presenting a detailed case, with plenty evidence, against PCPP. In my experience, such attacks serve as a mechanism for attention-diversion. Making it seem as if it is a mere to-and-fro exchange of accusations. Hence, I request admins to take a deep, solid look at the evidence I present above. In summary, I would like to point out: I have not done multiple reverts to any page. I had made clear my rationale for changes on talk, and have not, even for a single additional time, attempted to push any major change, when countered by another editor. On the Persecution of Falun Gong page, I explain the paragraphs I later added fully on talk. On the 6-10 article, and Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, I request that my contributions be fully analyzed and then I be judged. I have not engaged in any contentious editing, and have not "warred" with any other user. On the other hand, I have contributed significant to these pages with sources of central relevance. All these content were blanked by PCPP. I have remained absolutely civil despite it, and did not engage in any repetitive revert or edit warring. The users channel attention to two edits which span months, in their attempt to put these labels on me - top make it seems as if I disruptively revert to old versions. I request I be judged by the entire history of my contributions. Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Dilip rajeev Comment by Epeefleche Obviously, this is outrageous behavior. Just the sort that eats up valuable constructive editor time, without good reason, and poisons the project. I fully support the nomination, and urge that action be taken.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Asdfg12345 Whether Dilip has recently engaged in edit warring should be able to be easily verified. I have looked at the pages in question and it seems obvious to me that he has not. Check the recent shamozzle at the persecution page, for example. He only did one revert to an old version, then rewrote the lead. That was reverted then the page was locked. Two changes, not one a revert. So, that's not edit warring. If you look at the talk page, it's clear he's also trying to engage in discussion. Similarly for the 610 Office, page. Just look at the history. That's like, two reverts/edits over a couple of days? And what was the substance of those changes? Adding back in a few paragraphs of sourced material and deleting some unsourced material. And it was all discussed on the talk page, but PCPP did not join in. This is typical. The same thing can be found at Mass line. At the 610 office article, another outside editor has now come in to revert PCPP. Same again for the propaganda in the PRC page. Check the history and it becomes clear who is being destructive. I don't think Dilip has done a single revert on that page at all. Meanwhile, PCPP has deleted 10kb from the page calling it "POV"! It's a wonder that Ohconfucius does not spread his righteous indignation around a bit more. Overall, this seems to be an issue of editing dynamics and attitudes. It won't work to single one person out, and banning individuals when the evidence against them is summed up seems boneheaded, too. A recent, very clear illustration of how this is about attitudes is to be found on the Falun Gong talk page. Olaf Stephanos made some suggestions, and Mrund sought to dismiss and marginalise Olaf. A non-partisan editor went ahead with a few of the changes, which were not outrageous at all. In fact, they were just questions. So the whole atmosphere is really, really hostile. For the record, I disagree with Dilip, and other editors, on any number of content issues. But I don't think people should be banned unless it's clear they're exhibiting bad faith and behaving destructively. I don't think either of those is the case for Dilip. There does not appear to be recent evidence (say, since mid-Feb) that Dilip has editwarred on any of the pages he has edited. Further, the nature of his edits is to add information and research. No claims have been made that Dilip has added information outside its prominence in reliable sources (i.e., actually violating WP:UNDUE), simply that he added information critical of the CCP. PCPP, on the other hand, has repeatedly edit warred to push his POV, and rather than adding any research, he just destroys the research of others. But anyway, I'm sorry to say it, but these cases seem to be as much about politics and image as they are about evidence. If Ohconfucius et al can make it look like they are a group of editors neutral on this subject, and Dilip is the pariah who relentlessly pushes his POV, then they win. That's what happened the last several times. --Asdfg12345 06:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Another point I would make is that while some of Ohconfucius's points have merit, most of it is rhetoric recycled from other spaces and times past, replayed here without recent diffs to back it up. Ohconfucius and I are good Wiki-friends by the way (seriously). --Asdfg12345 06:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Note that my remark is not blanket support for the editor in question. I want to emphasise that if the case is judged on recent contributions, since his long absence, then I don't think there's much to go on, and this case could have been opened without any reference to his recent edits. If this is supposed to address things he has done in the past though, that is different. My only other point would be that the user should be given a chance to correct his mistakes. He has been editing for about the last month now, with no edit warring or other infractions. If I was bringing an AE case against him, I would wait until he actually misbehaves now rather than seeking retribution for bygone sins. And I think it would be unfair not to note whether the user's patterns and attitude had changed since his absence. --Asdfg12345 02:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC) To Jayen466: Yes, his massive revert was extreme, but there had been no editing on that page for months. He did a bold edit, and when it was wound back he did not seek to keep putting it in. Dilip has only recently started working towards consensus in discussions; but the same can't even be said for people like Colipon, Mrund etc. They blatantly attack anyone perceived as putting in things that make Falun Gong "look good." But they are quite content to be representatives of among the most cynical and negative anti-Falun Gong points of view. Filling the pages with bad things is okay, but putting in good things is bad. If you let either of these groups of editors have free reign on the pages they will turn it into their version of the truth. The anti-Falun Gong artists have done that quite successfully, all the while marginalising anyone who complains. It's high hypocrisy. Anyway, Dilip has not edit warred recently so there is no basis for this case. I suggest editors learn to work together rather than single out people they don't like, slap them with labels, then try to get them banned. --Asdfg12345 23:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Mrund I am convinced that an indefinite site ban would be the most productive way to deal with Dilip rajeev. Dilip is a vandal and a propagandist SPA. He adds little or nothing of independent value, and he eats up enormous amounts of other contributors' wikilabour that could be put to much better use for the project. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by HappyInGeneral This is funny, check the number of edits Ohconfucius did to the article, then let's see who is owning it. Also the fact that the tone you use against any editor that you perceive pro-Falun Gong, is almost always hostile, is extremely telling. As far as I can tell you care only about your own truth and you are quite far as long as objectivity goes and well balanced WP:RS goes. Anyway, who cares, I'll stop here as I don't have time to get into this anymore. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Enric Naval Every few weeks Dilip reverts back to an older version, and he demands that other editors justify why his edits are wrong. That's placing WP:BRD completely upside-down, and he has done it so many times that he no longer has the excuse that he didn't know how to discuss in wikipedia. This is worsened by the pro-FG editors who revert back to Dilip's version and make the same demands. That is absolutely discouraging for the rest of editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Seb az86556 Those who want the situation in the proverbial nutshell, read Enric's statement above; fully endorse it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Colipon Wikipedia administration: please settle this matter once and for all. The four aforementioned users have been using these Falun Gong articles as a battleground for years on end and apparently no one here gives enough of a damn to ban them all from the site. The evidence has been crystal clear and given no short of 20 times by various users and on various wikipedia dispute resolution venues. Scour through their contributions and it is immediately clear that their mission here is not to create an encyclopedia but to advocate for a cause - and be destructive while doing it. I was once 'an outsider' to the Falun Gong articles. I hate the subject, I hate editing it, and I hate arguing about it. I now regret clicking that edit button when I saw the article was basically being used as a piece of Falun Gong promotional material. Falun Gong has been, without doubt, the worst experience I have ever had on this encyclopedia. At numerous points I have contemplated quitting Wikipedia altogether because of these articles on Falun Gong. They not only highlight the ineffectiveness of dispute resolution, but severely undermines the integrity and credibility of Wikipedia. Scientology has already set a precedent that this encyclopedia should have a zero-tolerance policy on new religious movements trying to paint themselves favorably, and Falun Gong articles are not any different. Anyone who edits Falun Gong to push for a point of view, and edits exclusively Falun Gong should be banned from the site for good - not some 6-month topic ban with the naive assumption that somehow this behavior would 'change' at the expiration of the ban. As we've seen, and as OhConfucius has pointed out - these SPA's editing now stretches to the 'second stage' of Falun Gong advocacy; i.e. when they are banned from Falun Gong, they edit against anything to do with the Communist Party of China. These are not edits in good faith and all of these edits should be stopped by imposing an indefinite site ban akin to those on Scientology. This is within the spirit of the arbcom decision and in line with Wikipedia's general principles. Administrators, this cannot go on. Do something about it. Colipon+(Talk) 15:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Amen to that. --antilivedT | C | G 05:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Jayen466 I will try to comment in more detail later on, when I have more time, but will say now that DR's edits have often been extreme and have consistently caused me concern, both in the Falun Gong and the Sai Baba topic areas. I would certainly support a topic ban restricting him to talk pages at this time. I'd have to look at his recent contributions in more detail before I could say whether a site ban is appropriate. --JN466 00:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Please note that Ohconfucius was the lead editor in taking the Falun Gong-related Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident article to FA status. A recent deep revert by Dilip Rajeev in Persecution of Falun Gong [261] turned the article into a piece of advocacy. This recent edit in the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident FA [262] turned the first paragraph of the lead into a very one-sided piece of advocacy. This is a highly contested topic area, and it is to be expected that editors with very diverse viewpoints participate. There are definite POV problems with editors on the other side of the debate too, trying to minimise the appalling persecution Falun Gong practitioners have suffered in China for the past decade, or wishing to deny that there is any persecution at all. However, Dilip Rajeev has not struck me as an editor who has been particularly good at, or interested in, working with opposing editors to build talk page consensus. --JN466 11:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Response to Asdfg12345 I agree it is undesirable to have all editors from one side of a POV debate topic-banned. But if you edit essentially as a single-purpose account [263][264], Wikipedia requires you to be particularly circumspect about your POV. The way not to get topic-banned as a single-purpose account is to learn to write for the enemy, rather than insisting that every edit one makes benefit one's own group. I see absolutely no evidence of this here. --JN466 12:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Edward130603 Dilip rajeev has unceasingly been a ultrapro-Falun Gong SPA. He leaves for periods of times and then comes back for a bunch of reverts. I suggest that dilip be banned indefinitely from all Falun Gong related topics.--Edward130603 (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by PCPP Dilip is the type of editor that takes WP:AGF for granted and attempts to turn wikipedia into a promotional vehicle for Falun Gong. A glance through his editing history showed that he almost exclusively edits Falun Gong related articles since 2006, and has a habit of disappearing disappear for months, resurface, revert to an earlier version and disregard to all that has came between. His recent editing patterns are a continuation of his old habits on the Tiananmen Square self-immolation, Organ harvesting and Sai Baba articles. Discussions with this user is often fruitless, as he claims ownership of the articles, and restores sources he likes irrespective of established consensus, while sources from the PRC government and others he doesn't like are routinely dismissed as "CCP propaganda" [265] [266] [267]. Dilip has previously received 5 blocks and countless warnings [268][269][270][271][272][273][274][275][276]on 3RR violations, disruptive editing, and edit warring previously on Falun Gong articles [277], previously operated two blocked socks [278] responsible for edit warring on Sathya Sai Baba [279]. He was also warned on inserting POV material on the Sai Baba articles [280] in disregard of arbcom sanctions. After his many violations of wikipedia guidelines, it's really time to draw the line. Samuel Luo and Tomananda, dedicated anti-FLG activists, were indefinitely blocked because of similar revert behavior, while FLG editors Olaf, Happyingeneral and asdfg were given lengthy article bans for their activism. I fail to understand why Dilip, who's editing behavior is more severe than all other combined, is kept given second and third chances because of his habit to disappear.--PCPP (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Request for a moment's pause by SilkTork There is a dialogue taking place on Jayen466's talkpage and a reasonable suggestion by Jayen that a moderated discussion take place. If Dilip_rajeev's concerns are legitimate they deserve to be closely examined. Sometimes people do not handle themselves as well as they might, and may well be disruptive; but that does not mean their concerns are not legitimate. I'd be more comfortable if we spent a little while fully investigating Dilip_rajeev's concerns in a non-threatening and impartial manner. If only one of Dilip_rajeev's concerns turn out to have some basis in fact, that will strengthen the article, and if they don't, and Dilip_rajeev has been through a fair and impartial review of his concerns, I feel that Dilip_rajeev will voluntarily withdraw from disruptive editing, so there will be no need for a "topic ban" that can be too easily subverted anyway. I am aware that moderated discussions do not always work; however, I am motivated by some of the comments that Dilip_rajeev has made on Jayen466's talkpage to feel that Dilip_rajeev will engage intelligently and honestly in a moderated discussion. Of course, having made this request, I feel I must offer myself as moderator. I suggest that if the discussion breaks down, that Dilip_rajeev is returned here, and the topic ban in enforced. SilkTork *YES! 12:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Dilip rajeev The sanction referred to has been rescinded. Therefore this report is not actionable. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC) (The article probation was not lifted, it was changed to standard discretionary sanctions, see motion. The report should be actionable under those.) --Enric Naval (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Has the user been put on notice of the discretionary sanctions? What sanctions have been imposed, by whom, and when? Also, I do not propose to indefinitely block anyone here; that should go to WP:ANI. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC) This is so ^*^($# confusing. Probation, no probation, discretionary sanctions, is all Greek to me. What's notice of discretionary sanctions? This is such a collosal waste of time, as I spent one whole morning filing the case. Am I wrong to have brought the case here? I don't want to be given the run-around, so kindly tell me where I should go to get what the community wants. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC) No, he hadn't been warned, I hsve left him a uw-sanctions template[281]. Anyways, the desired outcome here would be an indefinite topic ban from Falun Gong topic. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC) It should be an indefinite ban from the encyclopedia - as his edits on Sai Baba etc. have also been very contentious and destructive. Colipon+(Talk) 22:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Standard discretionary sanctions are in effect; he was also specifically warned about this behavior the last time he was brought to AE and was not sanctioned only because he promised not to continue these large reverts every time he pops up. Obviously he hasn't been able to stop that tendency, so I would suggest a break from the topic area is in order. Shell babelfish 12:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC) As to warning, my view is that if the sanction being contemplated would be authorized under the old article probation, and the editor has notice of that probation, an additional warning by {{uw-sanctions}} should not be required. ArbCom passed the discretionary sanctions to give admins all the tools they can use in this area, not to give the editors in the topic area a "get out of jail free" card before they are warned again. I agree with Shell et al. that this behavior is disruptive, and under the totality of circumstances, I'm inclined to impose a topic ban, of indefinite duration, from editing Falun Gong and all related discussions and other content (including talk pages and process discussions, except only for legitimate and necessary dispute resolution). Comments are welcome. Tim Song (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC) As it looks like you are now contemplating a temporary topic ban, I would ask for the 'topic' be broadened to include any article which concerns the People's Republic of China, for the reasons stated above. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC) (←) To avoid ex post facto concerns, I'm unwilling to impose any sanction that would not have been authorized under the old article probation, which does not seem to be broad enough to cover all PRC related articles. Tim Song (talk) 07:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Is ANI the place to go for that? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 11:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Yes, the community can do that. Barring any objections, I'm planning to impose the topic ban in 24 hours. Tim Song (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I think it would be reasonable to widen the topic ban to everything that has implications with Falun Gong - which is consistent with the spirit of the Arbitration decision - zero tolerance on advocacy and using Wikipedia as a battleground on both sides of the FLG-PRC equation. This common-sense approach means that "Propaganda in the PRC" article would be part of the topic ban, but "Chinese food" will not. "Propaganda of PRC" has been fertile breeding ground for Falun Gong activists since their narrow "topic ban" from strictly Falun Gong articles, but it is unmistakably Falun Gong activism that's taking advantage of this 'topic ban' technicality. From discretionary sanctions: "The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors;". It is without a doubt that "Propaganda in the PRC" is within the "area of conflict" - not to mention that it is central to Falun Gong advocacy. Thus I think the rationale is very clear to support a wider ban that's within the realm of discretionary sanctions. Colipon+(Talk) 01:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC) I think we should hold off a little longer. The dispute surrounding Falun Gong and the People's Republic of China has been a longstanding one, and I believe the entire situation needs wider community input, which it is at present failing to attract. I would oppose banning Dilip Rajeev from Falun Gong talk pages, and the best way forward for the encyclopedia's content quality may be moderated discussions away from article space. We are dealing with important issues here; see e.g. this New York Times article. --JN466 09:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Sounds reasonable to me. Also per SilkTork, I'll hold on the topic ban. Since reverts seem to be the problem, what about an indefinite 0RR restriction on FLG-related articles? Tim Song (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC) I have left a message on Dilip rajeev's talkpage regarding the offer of a moderated discussion: User_talk:Dilip_rajeev#Moderated_discussion. My message includes links to the appropriate sanctions, and a warning that failing to adhere to the points raised in those sanctions will result in a return here for a topic ban. I have given examples of some of the behaviours that would result in a return here, and that includes reverting. The matter is now in Dilip rajeev's own hands. I hope Dilip rajeev will take up the offer of the discussion so we can look into his concerns, but if he decides not to and instead returns to reverting or edit warring, then that will be his choice, and he is fully aware of the consequences. SilkTork *YES! 14:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC) In any other articles I would have supported less stringent restrictions. But Falun Gong, this is just naive. Nothing good will come out of it. That article has been the battleground between Falun Gong and PRC supporters for years. But it's clear that the Communist Party has lost that war long, long ago, and they have never been taken that seriously anyway. The anti-Falun Gong users who have been banned as a result of the arbitration, interestingly, were not actually Communist Party supporters. Merely a few people who, in my view, felt that Falun Gong was promoting hatred of homosexuals and whose had very negative personal experiences with Falun Gong. Of course, I support their indefinite ban - because they have become too emotionally invested in the subject to edit or discuss objectively. After the ban of all "Anti-Falun Gong" editors, what resulted is a group of strengthened Falun Gong advocates who seize on the situation to turn those articles into Falun Gong propaganda pamphlets, not the least by arousing sympathy from the plight of Falun Gong within China. These editors have grew extremely sophisticated with their editing tactics over the years and now cite wikipolicies whenever possible while skirting the real pillars of Wikipedia - most notably WP:NPOV. These articles were essentially destroyed until July 2009, when Olaf Stephanos was banned. Since then the article has seen marked improvements - and in January 2010, two other SPAs, HappyInGeneral and Asdfg12345, have also been topic banned. Dilip Rajeev is the last SPA who have not been sanctioned with the topic ban, and it's safe to say that he is the worst of the four, which makes this situation rather humorous. I guess it really highlights the sophistication of Dilip's gaming-the-system tactics and his deep understanding on how to use wikipedia's policies to justify his advocacy. For that, kudos to him. I will be happy to engage in discussion with users who are not emotionally invested in this issue. But I refuse to do it with Falun Gong SPAs because I know their primary interest is to promote Falun Gong, not edit an encyclopedia. My past discussions with these users have all been consistently fruitless, and as new users enter Falun Gong wikispace they often feel so intimidated by the poisoned environment that they leave within a month. I hope the administrators truly understand the magnitude of the abuse this encyclopedia has suffered at the hands of Falun Gong advocates, and do something substantial to stop it once and for all. Colipon+(Talk) 15:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC) I concur. I've already given up with WP:AGF after Dilip's history of hostilities against me and other editors [282] [283] [284] [285] [286], 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 [287].--PCPP (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Without further ado, I have opened a case at ANI. Nevertheless, if anything can be done here, I would ask that it be considered. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC) "kindly tell me where I should go to get what the community wants" -- please don't try this one on. It's not what "the community wants," it's what you and a few others who want to crucify Dilip want. --Asdfg12345 23:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Thats a lot of "few others". Maybe it is a representation of the community?--Edward130603 (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Oh, don't mind asdfg, he's in cynical mode. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

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

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

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

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

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

Sulmues

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

Request concerning Sulmues

User requesting enforcement

Athenean (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

WP:ARBMAC#Principles#Decorum

Back in December, this user was placed under the following 3 month civility supervision [288] per WP:ARBMAC by User:Moreschi for outbursts such as these [289] [290] [291]. Following continuing trolling and incivility, he was blocked for 1 week per the terms of his civility parole, which was reset so as to expire April 27, 2010 [292]. Since then, he has continued trolling and breaching the terms of his civility parole. Specifically:

• Calling another editor's edit "vandalism" [293], though he was explicitly told not to do so [294], was told it it was blockable, and was blocked for it last time at AE. Not to mention that his participation in that article is a breach of his Kosovo topic ban. He also seems to think that because Tadija is not a member of the Albania TF, that he shouldn't be allowed to edit the TF page.

• Trolling and removing another user's comments [295], taunting him [296], edit warring over it [297]. Here he is removing another user's comments again [298] [299].

• Here he is again removing comments, calling them trolling [300].

• More trolling: [301] [302] [303] [304].

• Shouting at other users not to remove maps [305] [306].

• Here he is making all sorts of off-topic wild accusation while defending himself in an SPI [307] [308].

• Here is trolling on WP:RSN, using it as a platform to rant against "the Greek editors" and make all sorts of wild accusations and bad-faith assumptions [309] [310].

• Here he is doing the same thing on WP:ANI [311] [312], making all sorts of wild accusations about the supposed "Greek ancestry" of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, hidden "agendas" of "the Greek editors" (again). Bad faith assumptions and conspiracy theories designed to make other editors look bad galore. Like he claims in the last diff, he did everything in his power to try and derail the ANI thread, always trying to have the last word.

• Here he is taunting another editor for being recently blocked [313].

• Here he filed a bogus 3RR report against me [314], when I only had 2 reverts in the entire history of the article. He then goes on and on ad nauseam, not letting go and always trying to have the last word.

• Striking through another user's words because he doesn't like what he says [315]. It's as if he thinks he can go around and censor other users.

• Here he is making a deliberately provocative edit [316], while mendaciously writing "hope no one gets offended" on the talkpage [317], when it is quite clear he is trying to do just that.

• Here he is going around giving barnstars [318] [319] [320] while using it as an opportunity to call other editors "extremists" and "vandals". Since this editor has a history of pretty much nothing but conflict with myself and User:Alexikoua, it's pretty clear who the "vandals" and "extremists" he has in mind are. He is basically using the barnstars as a backhanded way of insulting me and Alexikoua. I was extremely irritated by this, and came very close to filing here, but decided to let it slide at the time.

• The final straw however, was when he restored a trolling comment by User:Piasoft [321] ("greekification", that's a good one) and took it upon himself to cleanse another one of my comments [322]. By restoring Piasoft's trolling, he is in effect endorsing it, and calls it a "warning" I "should take very seriously" on top of that. Sulmues has in general a very bad habit of restoring trolling comments by other Albanian users, as he did here when he restored this TOV by User:Lceliku [323], saying that the guy "welcomed" me and I responded by "banning" him.

• I decided to wait 24 hours before doing anything, but today, I see Sulmues using a 3RR report as a platform for yet more trolling against me [324], falsely accusing me of filing an SPI against him, calling me "arrogant" [325], accusing me of edit-warring. The guy can't stop himself from using every single opportunity available to rant about me accusing him of being a sockpuppet [326] and whatnot. Here he is calling for me to get blocked for daring to think that Kushtrim is a sock [327].

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

1. [328] warned by me at his bogus 3rr report.
2. [329] warned by me after the PIGS stunt.
3. [330] warned by User:Mlpearc to stop removing other editors comments, which he continued doing afterwards.
4. [331] warned by User:Alexikoua to cease and desist from restoring Piasoft's trolling comment.

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

1 week block per the terms of his civility parole, which should be reset so as to expire another 3 months from now.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have generally tried to avoid interaction with this editor as much as possible, however, considering the articles in question, it is not possible to completely avoid him. He follows me around and uses every opportunity available to engage in wikidrama and accuse me of all sorts of things, particularly at noticeboards such as WP:ANI, WP:RSN, etc...I also note that Sulmues is calling me a troll on this very page, in reference to this comment of mine [332] which he took it upon himself to remove it. Is my comment really trolling, or did Sulmues remove it because he did not want any of the other participants to find out about the map that I was proposing? A map that shows Kosovo in the early 20th century as mostly inhabited by Serbs. Athenean (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[333]

Discussion concerning Sulmues

Ok, I'm ready. They are all false accusations and this is a really bad report. I reject the accusations as follows:

• Calling another editor's edit "vandalism" [334], though he was explicitly told not to do so [335], was told it it was blockable, and was blocked for it last time at AE. Not to mention that his participation in that article is a breach of his Kosovo topic ban.

This edit was made in february 11 2010. It concerns something that is done in the Albanian task force of which I am a member: putting articles that regard Albania in the "track the related changes list" from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albania/publicwatchlist. The Persecution of Serbs article in its version of 11 february ([336]) included Albania, hence it was to be included in the list. As back then I was the only member of the Albania task force I had to do it because it specifically regarded Albania. I am respecting my Kosovo ban religiously. Tadija vandalized the page because he is not a member of the Albania task force and removed the article from the Albania publicwatchlist. I duly reverted his vandalism. --sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Trolling and removing another user's comments [337], taunting him [338], edit warring over it [339]. Here he is removing another user's comments again [340] [341].

The first and second edits take out the trolling comment on Vangjel Zhapa's page regarding Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon Bonaparte has nothing to do with Vangjel Zhapa and it's a trolling comment to be removed per wiki policies.

The third and fourth edits are to remove again incivil comments made by Alexikoua. Per wiki policies it is Ok to remove uncivil comments (see WP:CUR)--sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here he is again removing comments, calling them trolling [342].

Yes, this is a trolling comment as Athenean is clearly provoking with an extremist map. I try not to answer the comment, so that I don't feed the troll.

More trolling: [343] [344] [345] [346].

The first comment is an answer to an editor in the talk page. The History of Albania has way too many issues and is being patrolled by the Greek editors. The Albanian TF members have been banned or blocked, mostly reported by Athenean.

The second comment is perfectly civil and allowed per Wikipedia:Tag_team#False_accusations_of_tag-teaming. I did not say that they were tag teaming, but that they were working in tandem. Perfectly fine with wiki policies.

The third edit is not trolling. I really can't see how that's a trolling comment in the talk page.

The fourth edit regards my opinion clearly stated in the talk page. No trolling made whatsoever.--sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Shouting at other users not to remove maps [347] [348].

The first edit is a typo mistake, I'm not shouting at anyone. 5.5k edits and no shouting from my keyboard.

The second edit is to have editors avoid edit-warring but use the talk page. Athenean has too many times deleted in fact that RS. Unfortunately. --sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here he is making all sorts of off-topic wild accusation while defending himself in an SPI [349] [350].

Both edits refer to my defense when I was unjustly accused to be a sock puppet of Sarandioti and user:Athenean was endorsing that false accusation. To mention that user:Athenean had already falsely accused me of being a sock puppet of Guildenrich here. Note that Athenean was accusing me of collaborating off wiki with Sarandioti ([351]) and was asking for a check on patterns and not on IP only so I was under very heavy accusations. I am continually harassed by Athenean.

• Here is trolling on WP:RSN, using it as a platform to rant against "the Greek editors" and make all sorts of wild accusations and bad-faith assumptions [352] [353].

There is no trolling here. I am clearly stating my position and I am not being incivil at all. Per wp:civilty I am flawless.--sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here he is doing the same thing on WP:ANI [354] [355], making all sorts of wild accusations about Greek ancestry, hidden agendas, "the Greek editors" (again). Bad faith assumptions and conspiracy theories designed to make other editors look bad galore.

In these two edits there is no Greek ancestry accusation, there is no "hidden agenda accusation". And I am allowed to say "Greek editor". Actually I am referring to Alexikoua that is trying to remind everybody that I have gotten some blocks. Again I see no flaws.--sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here he is taunting another editor for being recently blocked [356].

No taunting. I have a friendship with Alexikoua and I welcomed him back, but I reminded him that he should not throw empty accusations when he is doing the same thing. Read carefully. --sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here he filed a bogus 3RR report against me [357], when I only had 2 reverts in the entire history of the article. He then goes on and on ad nauseam, not letting go and always trying to have the last word.

This report is about you edit-warring. And you had three reverts. Edit warring includes but is not limited to the 3RR. I clearly specified that even though it's not a 3RR violation, you were edit-warring. As a matter of fact you recently got blocked for that. --sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Striking through another user's word because he doesn't like the implication [358].

And it's the right thing to do when you see your country's history shortened by 600 years. Megistias, in particular, knows that Albanians were mentioned since the 2nd century BC (see Origin_of_the_Albanians#Arbanon. In addition is allowed by Wikipedia:Civility#Removing_uncivil_comments when you see an insult of that nature.--sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here he is making a deliberately provocative edit [359], while mendaciously writing "hope no one gets offended" on the talkpage [[360]], when it is quite clear he trying to do just that.

You might get provoked but it's a very well sourced name. PIGS countries are well known in the Economics of EU. However there are many short-tempered wikipedians that might get offended by it, because they know little about Political Economics on EU. As a matter of fact a whole article might be written on PIGS countries. --sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here he is going around giving barnstars [361] [362] [363], using it as an opportunity to call other editors "extremists" and "vandals". Since this editor has a history of pretty much nothing but conflict with myself and User:Alexikoua, it's pretty clear who he has in mind here. I was extremely irritated by this, and came very close to filing here, but decided to let it slide at the time.

Since when is giving barnstars a crime??? These users are part of the Albania TF and deal of course with vandalism every day. Are you really thinking that I indirectly insulting you? This is unbelievable and I think will remain in the history of Wikipedia.--sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• The final straw however, was when he restored a trolling comment by User:Piasoft [364] ("greekification", that's a good one) and took it upon himself to cleanse another one of my comments [365]. By restoring Piasoft's trolling, he is in effect endorsing it, and calls it a "warning" I should take very seriously on top of that. Sulmues has in general a very bad habit of restoring trolling by other users, as he did here when he restored this TOV by User:Lceliku [366], saying that the guy "welcomed" me and I responded by "banning" him.

Yes, you removed someone else's comment and called it trolling (the same thing you accuse me above anyways). He is warning you to not make any controversial anti-Albanian edits. You should not, as a general rule take out other people's comments.

In regards to the edit related to Lceliku: Should I defend myself about this? You already reported me on it in February when I did not time to answer and I got blocked for it. Gotta use something new: Can't get blocked twice for the same thing. --sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• I decided to wait 24 hours before doing anything, but today, I see Sulmues using a 3RR report as a platform for yet more trolling against me [367], falsely accusing me of filing an SPI against him, calling me "arrogant" [368], accusing me of edit-warring. The guy can't stop himself from using every single opportunity available to rant about me accusing of being a sockpuppet [369]. Here he is calling for me to get blocked for daring to think that Kushtrim is a sock [370].

First edit: You falsely accused me at Moreschi ([[here falsely to be the sock of Guildenrich. You were also endorsing Alexikoua's accusation of being the sock of Sarandioti while accusing me of collaborating off wiki with Sarandioti ([371])

Second edit: I talked you in your own talk page and all I got was this aggressive answer ([372]). You should not revert 11 edits massively with a derogatory "POV pushing" comment.

Third edit: I think you are getting it wrong: I am not accusing you of being a sock. I am reminding other people that I am continuously accused of being a sock.

Fourth edit: Kushtrim123 reported you for edit-warring, something you have been recently blocked for. I think you should also get blocked for making continuous bad faith accusations to people of being sock puppets and harassing them like you did with Kushtrim123. It is my right to do so. --sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

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

1 week block per the terms of his civility parole, which should be reset so as to expire another 3 months from now.

I am in complete disagreement and this is a bad faith report. I am respecting my civilty parole religiously and making very good edits within the Albania TF. I have addressed every single accusation above and I reject them with disdain. I am being harassed by Athenean and I just want to be left in peace to edit my Albania TF topics.--sulmues (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to further accusations from User:Alexikoua: user:spitfire clearly explained that the report DID NOT CLAIM that I am "possibly a meatpuppet" like you repeat (see [373]). This is a heavy accusation that you have done several times even in the recent report that user:Kushtrim123 has just filed against you and we are still waiting for a response on it. You have been edit-warring in many articles recently using forum sources and you just got out of the block for edit-warring! I still need your public apologies for filing a bogus SPI report that I am possibly a sock. It seems like you still are not convinced that I am a sock ([374]) and this is pitiful. --sulmues (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Vangjel Zhapa, yes, that's the Albanian name: he was born in Albania and respected there. He left Albania when he was 30 and his bones are still there per his wish. I redirected the name towards your article: I stopped the discussion after having provided many sources that he was indeed Albanian (please read talk page), but eventually was not responded by you, instead was told "you are so desperate you need to recruit a Greek patriot and hero in to your cause" ([375]) by another user and quit editing there because that other user was being incivil. I just swam away from that article to respect my civility parole. --sulmues (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Skanderbeg: This is your work, isn't it? Albania's national hero won't be an Albanian according to you? You are tendentiously offering 41 bogus sources to claim that he is Greek. Bad luck there, so you tried with the Serbian origin after that. Now you are claiming half-Serbian, and soon you'll realize that all Skanderbeg's halfs will be Albanian. Those were tendentious edits that I did not expect from an experienced user with proper knowledge of the Balkans like yours.--sulmues (talk) 07:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What to say about Bonaparte's accusations: I just addressed in Moreschi's page the concerns of an Albanian newbie user and told him to find sources before claiming any Albanian origin of Bonaparte. This ([376]) is the only edit that I had in Moreschi's page on Bonaparte in my history of 5.5k edits in Wikipedia. You are mentioning it several times now as if I want to do anything with the article on Bonaparte, but I have never touched the article or the talk page for that matter.--sulmues

Regarding your participation in Vjose. I had already corrected myself on that ([377])(talk) 07:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to Michael the White: The only time that I saw your edits were in Vjose talkpage, where you had written in a paragraph that was already exhausted and the discussion was in another one. If I were not available for talking like you claim, why didn't you write to me in the talk page? Remember that both Athenean and Megistias got blocked for edit warring me there. I take it that you also are a Greek editor: I am sure that we will have future collaborative work in wikipedia like I have had with other decent and honest Greek editors like user:Ptolion.--sulmues (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

@Sandstein: I really don't see how you concluded that I am disruptive. I addressed every single accusation. You are not addressing the issues clearly and are taking little time to see things in particular. How can things "on the whole" be that I am disruptive if, in particular, they are not disruptive? Your conclusion just doesn't make any sense. The only accusation that you seem to endorse is that I gave barnstars to people who fight vandalism. How is that an incivil way? kedadi fights vandalism every day and keeps the Albania articles clean. Doesn't he deserve a barnstar? In addition to user:Aigest I awarded the barnstar because he is fighting "EXTREMIST editors". How's that a battleground behavior? Let me understand: you are deciding to topic ban me because I gave out barnstars? Let me also understand: How am I not being unpersuasive after addressing every single accusation? I want you to analyze my response to the other users: which it seems you have not seen yet, because I just wrote them. Speedy topic banning me goes even beyond what's asked by user:Athenean. In addition, even though I was continuously harassed even in an uncivil way, I never was incivil, so I didn't use Wikipedia as a battleground. --sulmues (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Sulmues

From what I've seen of this user in the few discussions we've both participated, is the persistence on a certain version of one article (ex. in Aoos), which is usually motivated by dogmatism. There is also the lack of will for discussion, and the absence of arguments and usually also absence sources, to the point that discussion is not only fruitless but useless and intervention becomes extremely important, if not vital, when normally the users should be able to reach a consensus via discussion and not need intervention unless an issue is extremely controversial or an attitude is problematic.--Michael X the White (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I want to say that User:Sulmues in the days I have been here in wikipedia has been cooperative and hasn't created any "problems". On the other hand User:Athenean keeps following other users like myself and keeps accusing them about things that have been proven not to be true. If he wants to award stuff to people it's his right, and if you think that "hope no one gets offended" is provocative that's just meaningless. How can a sentence like that be provocative?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, yet another report against User:Sulmues. It's clear that User:Athenean wants him to get banned (at least blocked) by any means, although the accusations have always been proven not to be true. Thank you. kedadial 23:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have advised Sulmues multiple times to respect his civility parole [[378]] but unfortunately without any result. Today, he participated in a mysterious and combined report [[379]] against me, with two other recently created accounts (ZjarriRrethues, Kruschtim) proving that he is also responsible for provoking meatpuppet activity. No wonder that both spi cases against Sulmues concluded that we have 'possibly meatpuppet activity' [[380]][[381]]. Sulmues was searching for co-ethnics in wiki [[382]], but unfortunately not to improve the quality of this encyclopedia but to initiate a national crusade, as his last days contribution proves. Additionally:

• When he breached his topic ban in Kosovo articles, I've kindly asked him to cancel the afd he filled [[383]], but he ignored me, with the excuse that he can virtually evade his topic ban because he is the only active account in TF:Albania [[384]]. Finally he canceled his afd proposal only after being warned by admin [[385]], seeing that a block would become inevitable that way.

• Obsession that various personalities are Albanians, like Evangelis Zappas (he calls him with the Albanian translation of this name: Vanghel Zappa), while the entire bibliography is completely contradicting him [[386]]. I've asked to support his view with rs material but without direct answer. Same situation in wp:blp article Pyrros Dimas [[387]] trying to prove that he is Albanian. Similar situation with Napoleon, but without being agressive in this case.

• This [[388]] is called taunting. Actually Sulmues is hypocritical when pretending a friendship with me: apart from the friendly advice I've gave him in his talk page, nothing else would I call friendly. His contribution was highly disruptive and hostile towards, following me around on several articles like[[389]][[390]].

• Obsession on trying to keep Skanderbegs' origin purely Albanian, after I've provided more than 18 sources [[391]][[392]] (mostly pointing to a semi-serbian origin) suggesting a small addition in the article. Apart from his sarcasm [[393]][[394]], he mysteriously accused me that I'm trying to make him... Greek [[395]].

• On the other hand Sulmues has made some good edits in football and sport topics in general. But with this extreme aggressive nationalistic pattern (sarcasm, taunting, personal attacks, meatpuppetry). I'm afraid that any kind of supervision isn't enough. I believe a 3 months 1rr restriction on related articles might be a solution. Alexikoua (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, I see that Sulmues launched another 'mystirious' accusation against me about Vjose [[396]], however I never participated in this topic [[397]].Alexikoua (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Sulmues

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

The edits cited in this request are not sanctionable misconduct individually, but in aggregate they represent a pattern of battleground behavior, as seen especially in Sulmues awarding barnstars for "fighting" against other editors. This, rather than incivility, is the main problem here in my eyes. The statements made by Sulmues in his defense are unpersuasive; they mostly amount to "yes but I am right and the others are wrong and/or disruptive". That is not what matters here: you may well be right in your content disputes and your opponents may well be disruptive too, but that still does not justify you engaging in disruptive conduct. Per WP:BATTLE: "If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind."

For these reasons, I intend to sanction Sulmues with a time-limited ban from topics related to Albania and the Albanians, which appears to be the area of conflict, unless other admins disagree. However, as a formality, the reporting editor will need to first complement the request with a diff of the prior {{uw-sanctions}}-style warning as required by WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions. This should not be considered an endorsement of anything done by the editors Sulmues is in conflict with; indeed, these may very well have engaged in similar sanctionable conduct, but that would need to be examined in a separate AE request.  Sandstein  07:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Abd

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

Request concerning Abd

User requesting enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

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

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

:

1. [398] Removes from Ghost the lead paragraph that has been heavily disputed, and claims himself the arbiter of how much consensus is needed to place it on the lead.
2. [399] Removes the pseudoscience arbitration case notice from Talk:Ghost. (unlogged edit) He wasn't an originating party from either the "does Ghost belong to pseudoscience category" dispute, or the "should we place the pseudoscience arbitration notice here" dispute
   1. [400] Removes it again, saying that the argument should count even if it was made by an IP.
3. [401] Comments out of the RfC section, in a topic that was not covered by the RfC
4. [402] Removes the NSF commentary from the pseudoscience case notice in Talk:Pseudoscience (directly relevant to the Ghost dispute)
5. [403][404][405][406][407][408][409] Uses the whitelist page to comment on a lot of requests where he is not an originating party. Notice that the meaning of "originating party" was further clarified two weeks ago [410][411] and this is a clear violation.

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

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

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

One week block, as the restriction says.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Whitelist-related violations: Abd held a discussion here about improving the whitelist, but he has implemented it in a way that allows him to comment in any already-existing dispute that involves a whitelisting request, independently of whether he was an originating party or not. In [413], he advises an editor about COI, and this sort of advice is what caused the problems with LirazSiri, with those problems leading to his last AE block.

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[414]

Result concerning Abd

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