Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:47, 7 May 2015

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Parishan

Closing as moot, sanction has expired and the two comments made while the ban was active were to decline the appeal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Parishan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Parishan (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Ban from the article Caucasian Albania and its Talk page for one week, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ninetoyadome

Administrator imposing the sanction: Zad68 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: [1]

Statement by Parishan

The sanction was applied for "(1) edit warring, (2) baiting, and (3) failing to cite reliable sources".

I do not believe that three reverts in a three-week period really qualify as "edit-warring".
I had made a sincere effort to warn the other user (Ninetoyadome) to make better use of talkpages on Armenia-Azerbaijan-related articles instead of reverting them blindly. I certainly did not wait around for the 1RR restriction (in place for the article Caucasian Albania for all users) period to expire to make that edit; if one looks in my history, that was my first edit on that day (not counting a small edit I made just a minute prior). If I had had an interest in baiting Ninetoyadome, there were multiple opportunities for that weeks earlier because he had reverted that article more than once (and not only that one, cf. his block for a month for edit-warring and violating his 1RR restriction on many AA2 articles) and had been ignoring the discussion page for two weeks, leaving questions addressed to him with regard to his recent addition to the article unanswered. I referred the user to the talkpage one last time in my edit made to remove the controversial addition (it also seemed the only way to direct his attention to the article in question). He chose to revert me, again without replying. Logically it does not make much sense for someone who is out to bait a user to give so much chance to the 'baited' user to redeem themselves, therefore I question the accuracy of this observation by Zad68.
I do not see how I was expected to focus more on reliable sourcing than I had already done. I was one of the few users who actually did refer to reliable sources and suggest that others had not done so. It was not me who added new information to the article, to begin with. Hence it was not up to me to provide sources to substantiate it. I do not believe "failing to provide sources" is accurate criticism in my case.

User:EdJohnston, I think the admins are getting the wrong idea, because none of those who has responded addressed the particular issues I raised in the questions above. I am not necessarily arguing the suitability of the sanction. I am questioning the applicability of the terms "baiting" (of which there is absolutely no evidence) and "failing to cite reliable sources" (for which the ball was not in my court) when imposing the sanction. One can imagine a reliable source that supports the pertinence of a template. But how in the world can one imagine a reliable source that argues against the inclusion of a template? With regard to leaving comments in the month of April, whom would I have left them to, if there had been no response to my March comments? Parishan (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:EdJohnston, as I said, I am not looking to persuade anyone to lift this sanction. I just need clarification of its wording, which would give me a better idea of how to act and how not to act in similar situations in the future. I am only looking to get answers to three questions: (1) Are three reverts in a three-week period considered edit-warring? (2) How does the term "baiting" apply in relation to a user who has been caught edit warring so many times (and which no one was accused of baiting him into) that it earned him an indefinite 1RR restriction over a year ago? Does it look like this kind of user needs to be "baited" into reverting a page? (3) If a user does not add any content into an article, is it still up to them to "provide reliable sources"? I would really appreciate it if any one of the admins could shed some light on this issue before closing this section. Thank you. Parishan (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zad68

I have already given my reasons for the (very mild) sanction I applied, both here and at my User Talk. I don't really have anything to add, but would be happy to answer any (new) questions. I would genuinely welcome input from other uninvolved admins about whether my actions were appropriate and furthering the goal of reducing disruptive editing in this contentious topic area. Zad68 00:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Cale Davinci)

My comment does not concern the merits of the sanction, but my frustration in regards to the editing of the article Caucasian Albania mentioned here (which caused the said sanction). My position is made clear in the talk page. I offered an alternative that neither of the two editors involved here replied to. I don't know if Parishan even agree with that alternative. The only reply I received which directly had anything to do with my proposition was from Hayordi, who mainly made clear that he was absolutely not open for any sort of concession. Personally, I believe that the box removed by Parishan had little place there, and I am completely neutral when I write that. On the other hand, it is hard to not add anything as alternative, given that the only material scholars have of that country from that country was written in Armenian (from what one can gather from some basic search in the relevant databases without using any filters). What I proposed was to drop Armenia and replace it with a more appropriate box (I have given two alternatives).

The problem is that editors are free to edit, but everyone has his own standards which is dependant to their inherent à priori biases. If I ask Parishan what standards he uses to include and exclude material, those standards will be different than his opponents. So what I basically proposed was a standardized structure everyone could agree with and how to achieve that. But after much writings and being unheard, I decided it was better for me to just quit before I regret having been here. Yahya Talatin (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no more admin comments I would decline this appeal. I didn't know that Wikipedia had a cast system, but would not surprise me a bit. Yahya Talatin (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Parishan

Result of the appeal by Parishan

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

A one-week topic ban from Caucasian Albania is a very mild sanction. Parishan did not make any posts at all at Talk:Caucasian Albania during April, even though that is the period he was making these reverts. Yet he was claiming the absence of any posts by the other guy on the same page justified his reverts. I see both sides making unconvincing arguments for the inclusion of their respective history templates. Caucasian Albania is an unusual case. The land it occupied is part of the current territory of Azerbaijan. But in historic terms it is not really part of Armenia nor of Azerbaijan. The most practical solution may be to omit both the {{History of Armenia}} and {{History of Azerbaijan}} templates. This is up to the consensus of editors. But if User:Ninetoyadome and User:Parishan plan to continue editing Caucasian Albania I hope their talk page contributions will show good understanding of the material in the references and will reassure us of their intention to edit neutrally. I would decline this appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find Parishan's arguments persuasive. In any case, it is now April 20 and in less than 24 hours his sanction will have expired. At that time he can go back to normal editing at Caucasian Albania. If there are no more admin comments I would decline this appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I restored Parishan's appeal just now, since it had been archived by the bot without formal closure. Let me know if anyone has more comments. It is likely to be closed as moot within 24 hours, since the sanction has expired. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C1cada

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning C1cada

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: EtienneDolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: C1cada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:AA2

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

Blatant override of WP:CONSENSUS

The user has stated openly several times that he refuses to accept a consensus. This is in despite of the fact that there are at least seven editors who are opposed, for example, to just one of his proposals ([2][3][4][5][6][7][8]):

18 April "I don't need consensus to correct matters of fact."
23 April "I don't require consensus to act there either."
26 April "I'm not prepared to accept this is a consensus issue. It concerns matters of fact which are not open to dispute."
27 April "There is a sense in which it is valid to say that there are matters of fact that are not open to "consensus" concerning their veracity."
28 April "That's the fact of the case. That really isn't up for consensus."
30 April "Otherwise starting next week I intend to make a series of edits in the usual WP:EDITCONSENSUS way addressing the issues, which are not properly contentious and don't need consensus from the Talk Page, though naturally I shall take account of any input here."
1 May "If it's all the same to an editor, I shall continue to choose my own words at edit without referring to the management here."
2 May "I do so hope I shall be able to edit constructively at the article and not have to deal once again with these sort interventions by an editor."

The user edits in the main space to that effect. He unwaveringly commits to his goal by (re)inserting contentious information never discussed or agreed upon at the talk page:

Repeated ULTIMATUMS and I DIDN'T HEAR THAT-like remarks

The talk page of Armenian Genocide is filled of the user's ultimatums. He expects users to run off on his own schedule when it comes to them. He doesn't bother evaluating the concerns raised about his proposals. In fact, he acts as if those concerns, and the users that express them, don't exist. Without reaching a consensus, and considering the reasons as to why he is being reverted at the main space, the user returns to the talk page and declares more ultimatums until there's no response in the given time-period, and (re)inserts his edit again. The gaming of Wikipedia policies, such as WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:BOLD, to further his intentions are also concerning. He was advised specifically for this very issue, but hasn't stopped since. The article has underwent several edit-wars due to this very reason.

21 April (07:13) "But if this issue is not sorted adequately by 23 April at the end of the 72 hour period I mention above, I shall intervene again."
22 April (03:29) "Fix it before tomorrow afternoon, or I will."
24 April (15:28) "I don't see any dissent here, surprising really concerning the vehemence with my edit was reverted. I should think 24 hours is sufficient notice to give for editors to record their dissent. Thus, tomorrow evening, if I don't see any disagreements about the content, I shall move the edit into the article per WP:EDITCONSENSUS in the usual way."
24 April (22:45) Same ultimatum as above, but on a different issue.
25 April (09:05) "If you have some significant issue you dissent over which can best be constructively debated here, please indicate it in the next few hours."
26 April (01:11) "I don't see dissenting voices here. I propose WP:BOLD moving the edit into the main article for WP:EDITCONSENSUS this evening (12 hours hence) if there are no objections."
27 April (03:12) "Unless their are significant dissenting voices, this is what I shall move into the article tomorrow evening for WP:EDITCONSENSUS along with nhe definition from the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia we discuss below."
27 April (11:01) "Again if there are dissenting voices please make yourself heard before tomorrow evening."
28 April (02:57) "I am going to go ahead with putting the proposed modification forward for WP:EDITCONSENSUS this evening."
30 April (04:51) "Unless I see cogent objections, I propose to start implementing this after the weekend."
30 April (15:56) "Otherwise starting next week I intend to make a series of edits in the usual WP:EDITCONSENSUS way addressing the issues, which are not properly contentious and don't need consensus from the Talk Page, though naturally I shall take account of any input here."

WP:PERSONAL ATTACKS and CURSES

I recently made a series of edits to remove personal attacks and curses made towards me. After doing so, the user said: May 1 "I don't mind that and perhaps it was deserved."

These curses and insults are highlighted at a relevant ANI report: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive883#A_user.27s_constant_insults_and_now_curses_towards_me

Other remarks worthy of attention

19 April "Wikipedia doesn't care about your Talk page bands."
25 April "As far as possible I shall ignore him, and otherwise remain entirely neutral in my dealing with him." (when referring to a user)
27 April "But I shall keep this article on my watchlist and intervene vigorously on behalf of the anglophone community as I think necessary."
27 April "Come fall, I may start some systematic attempts at improving the article."
28 April "I am very anxious to protect the precise usage of that word, especially as used in relation to the Armenian Genocide."
28 April "I should hope to see new arguments in that case and will continue to defend my edit."
1 May "If it's all the same to an editor, I shall continue to choose my own words at edit without referring to the management here."
1 May "An editor needs to do a lot better than this to accommodate me."
2 May "I do so hope I shall be able to edit constructively at the article and not have to deal once again with these sort interventions by an editor."

Additional concerns
WP:GAMING THE SYSTEM

In light of the ultimatums declared by the user, the user is also aware of the fact that the Armenian Genocide article is 1RR restricted. For several times now, after being reverted at Armenian Genocide, he declares beforehand that he plans to revert the next day, and then does so without hesitation a few hours after the 24 hour mark. In one such instance, the user stated: "after waiting response and observing a time period of some 36 hours so that the one revert per day rule was comfortably observed, I restored the wikilink to Grace Knapp and its citations with an edit that in fact reduced the caption length."

The ultimatums above appear to be just another strategy to overcome the 1RR obstacle and reinsert his edits outside the 24 hour mark.

These edits are coupled by the abuse of WP:BOLD to justify unilateral edits: [9]

WP:CANVASS

When the user has difficulty garnering support towards his position, he shops various Wikiprojects to help support his case. For example, when the user failed to gain support from other users regarding changes he wanted to implement in the POTD template, he went along and stuck the template in major Turkish-related WikiProjects and talk pages: WikiProject Turkey, Portal talk:Turkey, and Turkey.

This continued even after being given a formal AA2 advisory from admin Fred Bauder when the user tried to canvass the very admin that gave the advisory: [10]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

C1cada displays all of the signs of a disruptive editing pattern. The user does not engage in consensus building. He rejects or ignores community input. He cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. His editing pattern is tendentious and edit-wars frequently to get his way. This is mostly due to an attempt by the user to minimize and manipulate the legality and veracity of the Armenian Genocide by the use of his own POV to characterize the events. Most of this disruption occurs in one of the most sensitive articles in Wikipedia: Armenian Genocide. The article is under 1RR restrictions and the user, during its most sensitive time-period (100th anniversary of the AG), attempted to exclude 'massacre' from the POTD blurb for the Armenian Genocide. When that failed, he attempted to downgrade the systematic nature of the genocide by employing the term 'pogrom' instead, even when several users, as aforementioned, were against such classifications. In a more recent edit, he replaced the word 'killed' with 'perished' and 'genocide' with 'killings' in the lead. This wasn't discussed, let alone proposed in the TP. The user also plays with words by saying 'Genocide' is not the same as 'genocide' and advocates the use of 'genocidal' instead of 'genocide' (see: here and here respectively). This is also observed by this edit, which confines the AG to the year 1915. This POV then continues with each one of his proposals. Take, for example, "The atrocities committed between 1915 and 1916 are recognised as genocide in international law." There has been no source provided by the user that claims that only the first year (1915-16) account as genocide under 'international law'. He points to a report by the IAGS ([11]), but the report doesn't make any mention that the genocide is acknowledged until 1916. Hence, the wording he chooses is nothing more than his personal observations and opinions. Such reports are neither scholarly or academic and cannot be considered a WP:RS either. Nevertheless, the user himself has said that there is no source needed for such claims [12]. The refusal to "get the point" regarding consensus and outright reluctance to provide any sources to justify his edits has been the cause of multiple edit-warring disputes. Also, I included some diffs prior to the formal warning to show that the user has not changed his conduct even after the advisory. So in light of all I mentioned here, I propose he be banned from editing topics related to Armenia, and more specifically: the Armenian Genocide.

Related ANI reports:

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [13]

@Fred Bauder: The user is not only reluctant when it comes to backing off his insults, but says that I 'deserved' them. By saying such a statement, he confirms that he still stands by all those insults. This is not dialogue that should be encouraged.

Wording is indeed important. This is what every user on the TP is willing to discuss. However, this isn't about the words per se, it's about the problematic methodology used by this editor when discussing and implementing these very issues. Due to this user's refusal to "get the point", coupled with the blatant disregard to consensus building, discussion has become almost impossible and therefore, the article is now subjugated to a series of unnecessary edit-wars. Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning C1cada

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by C1cada

I have addressed this user in very neutral terms since Fred warned me my behaviour had crossed a red line. Of course I'm very anxious to respect the Committee's strictures.

The editing dispute here concerns two matters of fact. One is that the Armenian Genocide was not confined to the Armenians living within the boundaries of present-day Turkey and the second is that, so far, recognition of the genocide in its legal sense is confined to the atrocities of 1915-1916. The French Wikipedia currently gives the best account. My motivation for wishing to clarify on these issues stem not from a 'denialist' stance, but in the first place to record the experience of Russian Armenians living in present-day Armenia, and second to preserve the integrity of the word 'genocide' in its legal sense as a crime against humanity closely defined in international law.

The editing dispute here seems to me to derive from inadequate copy skills in English. Faced with an editor making adjustments to copy to clarify details such as the above, an inadequate editor has no recourse but to revert copy to some safe haven of the past. When the copy is rephrased to accommodate their concerns, they nevertheless persist in claims of "edit-warring".

For example, when I created a section "Massacres after World War I" recording the experience of the Russian Armenians, after pointing out the lede necessitated it and offering it first to the established editors, this user reverted it in full, insisting it be taken to the Talk Page. I took it to the Talk Page and over a period of a few days absolutely no modifications were suggested. When I restored it the article it was immediately reverted again, insisting that it record the genocidal nature of the attacks. I readily concurred since that was plainly implied by the context, "Ottoman policy", referenced in the text and the subsequent remarks. Finally the section remains in place. However the user could have avoided all the time wasting by inserting "genocidal" on their account, a clarification that, frankly, many readers might well think unnecessary in the context

It's manifestly clear that that the Armenian Genocide article needs improvement. I intend to persist doing that. Presently my goals are to implement parenthetical referencing throughout and to correct obvious errors of copy such as "The Armenian Genocide has been corroborated by many authorities" that I reference on the Talk Page. Come fall, I hope to spend some time improving its contents. Too much of the article consists of quoted copy-paste. c1cada (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 92slim

@C1cada: has a long history of unnecessary talks in the Armenian Genocide talk page. This of course is not disruptive behaviour, but he has, nevertheless, borderline aggressively insisted that @EtienneDolet:'s "English skills" were lacking when this was not apparent from the latter, citing just one example of disruptive behaviour. The main problem is that C1cada masks his own POV ideas (which he never backed with any sources, including the dates he provides, AFAIK) with excuses such as "copy editing", or failing to understand what WP:CONSENSUS means when he wants to contribute to the page.

If he's not restrained from editing the topic in question, the disruption and edit-warring on the articles will continue forever. After seeing that he ignores Admin advice all the time, it would be unexpected that he would listen to another user's advice. I think he needs to understand how Wikipedia works better. But this should be temporary in my opinion. --92slim (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiptoethrutheminefield:It's certainly interesting mention "the articles current dire state", when you yourself have not contributed one single bit to the article. As for "the article seems to be ruled by AG deniers and Armenian opponents of those AG deniers.", this couldn't be further from the truth. If you check the article's talk page, you would see that this Mandaean view that you have presented is very far from the truth; plenty of random IP's and users continue to contribute to what you call a "mostly useless discussion", including yourself. Maybe you should focus on making constructive edits instead of criticizing the work of other Wikipedians who work on the topic, and that includes the proper use of WP:CONSENSUS. --92slim (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is your own opinion, which is respectable, but not necessarily true. The article is backed by reliable sources that share both sides of the spectrum, and that's what really guides the editing. --92slim (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fred Bauder

Please keep in mind that the enforcement alert addressed personal attacks not general editing behavior. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:C1cada&oldid=659174876#Warning I see little evidence that direct personal attacks have continued. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult, but not impossible, to assist people with copyediting problems in a way they can accept. Often the problem is that the direct translation of word in English has different connotations than it does in English. This phenomenon plagues professional translators as well as Wikipedia editors. Simultaneously paraphrasing and getting the right connotations is equivalent to translating poetry. Not being able to get every word right is to be expected. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I could uncover problems by closely examining the examples given, but the discussion at Talk:Armenian Genocide seems productive and within acceptable limits. With repect to post WW1 killings in lands occupied by Turkey during the Russian revolution, I don't seem much fine-grained discussion of sources, but I note that the material is now included in the article and seems to fit. We have articles concerning the killing of one person, if there is sufficient material a separate article regarding the killing of tens of thousands of people during this phase might be justified. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield

C1cada is to be commended for his good faith attempts at improving the Armenian Genocide article. The bringer of this complaint considered the article to be so perfect that he actually nominated it for GA status - but the GA reviewer thought the article to be in such a state that it did not even pass the initial stage of its review. The Armenian Genocide article seems ruled by two cliques: AG deniers and Armenian opponents of those AG deniers. Together, those two camps have been responsible for the articles current dire state, and have been responsible for filling 22 talk pages with mostly useless discussion. C1cada is approaching the article's obvious problems with a new set of hands and a fresh pair of eyes. It is little surprise that the old guard are trying everything to stop him, in particular using claims of "consensus" to restrict his edits. Consensus should not be used to retain incorrect content, or unreferenced content, and should not be used to remove properly referenced new content or restrict the right to be bold when faced with an article containing obvious problems that incumbent editors seem to have been happy to live with. I don't agree with every edit C1cada makes or with every piece of content he wants added or rewritten - but he IS moving the article forward with positive editing and that, in the end, should be what matters the most. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@92slim:I think the article is in such a dire state that it is unredeemable and so is not worth my editing time. I doubt C1cada realizes how bad it actually is. I would want to rewrite it from scratch, but that is not ever going to be possible so I prefer to leave it alone (except to provide some small encouragement to positive edits when they are made). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

It appears that C1cada has been involved in slow-motion 1RR edit war on the page about Armenian genocide after receiving an WP:AE warning on 18:00 April 25: [14], [15],[16],[17]. Although most edits by C1cada seem to be reasonable, some of them may be interpreted as POV-pushing on "pro-Turkish" side:

[18] - she/he uses word "pogrom" that implies involvement of civilian population in the killings, however these atrocities are known to be conducted by Turkish military. Moreover, most of the events were not pogroms.
[19] - removal of notion that Armenians lived "in their historic homeland within Ottoman Turkey"
[20] telling that it was not a genocide

And his comments are obviously not appropriate [21]: "It is not as if the problem is that you are perhaps dyslexic or educationally disadvantaged" and so on. My very best wishes (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dr.K.

This case represents a rather difficult situation which has arisen in the flagship article of the very contentious area of AA2. Although my discussions with C1cada have been pleasant and courteous I don't think I have accomplished much toward my goal of attempting to bring C1cada to accept my argument, namely that his editing approach invoking WP:EDITCONSENSUS at every opportunity and then issuing a correspondent ultimatum and after that proceeding with his proposed edit, is not constructive in this DS/1RR-regulated area and that his/her approach is a recipe for an endless, diachronic, but ironically 1-RR-respecting edit-war. This type of slow-edit-war-driven editing in a DS-regulated area is unacceptable imo. Further, C1cada has declared multiple times that some of his edits are not subject to consensus because they are self-evident. That too I find disturbing, especially in a WP:CONSENSUS-driven project. There is also C1ada's insistence on commenting on the relation of editors to English in terms of being native speakers of the language or not that I find problematic. These issues are addressed in my reply to the editor, one of several examples. There are more diffs I can give but I believe in diff-minimisation for optimum results. If AE can somehow resolve these issues it will be a positive development. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning C1cada

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

Ohconfucius

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Ohconfucius

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TheSoundAndTheFury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun_Gong_2#Request_for_amendment_.28June_2014.29

User:Ohconfucius was previously indefinitely topic banned from Falun Gong-related page by Arbcom. The topic ban was provisionally suspended for a one-year trial period per this motion. I think a review of his conduct is in order before the probationary period expires.

During Ohconfucius’ one-year reprieve, he has continued a pattern of POV editing, edit warring, and commenting inappropriately on other users. Most worrying, he restored a polemical anti-Falun Gong essay in userspace after being told by arbitrators to permanently delete it.

Background (see also WP:GAME)

In July 2012, Arbcom voted to indefinitely ban Ohconfucius from Falun Gong-related topics due to edit warring, incivility, and violations of WP:NPOV.

In April 2014, Ohconfucius appealed to lift the topic ban, and assured arbitration committee that he would not return to editing Falun Gong.

Arbcom’s response to this request was tepid, but seven arbs ultimately agreed to provisionally suspend the ban with a probationary period of one year. One arbitrator said his agreement was conditional and asked Ohconfucius to "steer well clear of matters of controversy" related to Falun Gong.

Ohconfucius reneged on his promises and quickly resumed making controversial edits to Falun Gong articles. It seems to me that he had gamed the system, and not for the last time.

He was brought back to Arbcom. The arbitrators again urged caution; one arb said to "move on" from editing Falun Gong, and another told him that he must permanently delete all of the anti-Falun Gong essays that he kept in his userspace and refrain from commenting on other editors or else he (the arbitrator) would request reinstatement of the ban. [22]

Ohconfucius deleted the offending essays in his userspace. After the ArbCom case was closed, however, he simply reposted a permalinked version on his user page.[23] This week he restored the page entirely.[24]

Violations of WP:ATTACK, WP:HARASS, WP:POLEMIC

[25] – Ohconfucius’ polemical essay on Falun Gong contains attacks against named individuals, groups, and several Wikipedia editors (myself included), violating WP:NPA, WP:ATTACK, WP:HARASS, and WP:POLEMIC. Note that Ohconfucius has been told on two occasions, by two members of Arbcom, that this essay is inappropriate. User:Seraphimblade told him to permanently delete it or else face reimposition of the topic ban.[26]

Violations of WP:NPOV

Ohconfucius has continued previous patterns of POV editing. Most edits involve deleting/whitewashing reliably sourced information on the Chinese government’s human rights practices or claiming material is not supported by sources when it actually is.

[27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]

Violation of WP:WAR

Ohconfucius made multiple reverts on September 9 on a Falun Gong-related article, ignoring talk page discussions. (Note: I initially thought these were a 3RR violation, but because some were performed in succession, it’s actually more like 3 reverts).

[35] – misstates facts about the history of the 610 Office

[36] – reverts (apparently convinced that he's right, while he's not)

[37] – deletes information because it was unsourced (see bottom of diff)

[38] – after a source was added, deletes it again

[39] – deletes information from lede

[40] – deletes again

[41] – adds quote from Chinese government source and omits Ownby's views

[42] – same edit again

[43] – deletes information about man in Chengde

[44] – deletes again (he's right about this one, but a revert nonetheless)

Violations of WP:CIVIL

[45] – This talk page discussion is representative of an inability to assume good faith and a reflexive tendency to personalize discussions – something he’s been warned about repeatedly.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above: yes
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above: yes
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months (see the background section): yes

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Just a quick comment. I believe Ohconfucius' reply elucidates the problem. Instead of addressing his apparent breaches of policy and ArbCom rulings, such as direct personal attacks and using Wikipedia as a platform for ax-grinding and polemics, we get more name-calling from a seemingly unblockable ivory tower and "no further comments." I am not a Falun Gong activist or a so-called Falun Gongster and fundamentally do not see this as a content dispute. Neither have I said that Ohconfucius is "pro-regime." I stated that the direction of his edits on this topic generally serve to improve the image of the Chinese government. Note that he admits to editing from an "anti-Falun Gong" viewpoint instead of NPOV and seems to perceive the Falun Gong namespace as a zero-sum game. There were valid reasons for his indefinite topic ban in the first place; later he was put on probation, and I simply believe the situation should be assessed once again. Best regards. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am restoring this unresolved case from the archives and respectfully plead the AE staff to move forward with it. This was the second time it was archived due to inactivity. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[46]

Discussion concerning Ohconfucius

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Ohconfucius

I have said time and again that I try hard to leave my personal opinions outside of the mainspace articles. Nowadays, I only make a very small number of edits on Falun Gong topics, yet I still get continually attacked by Falun Gong activists, so I'm not going to dwell on the issue before us. Falun Gong are known for their tenacity and relentlessness, wearing their critics down. The attacks were stressful for me in the past. I just find their attacks on me tiring. Tiring that the Falun Gong activists manifest the very intolerance of criticism of their movement that the Regime does with people who criticise their rule. I have repeatedly asserted that the Falun Gong and the Regime are heavily shaped by the Cultural Revolution, and are thus the antitheses of each other, and this observation/position appears to rile Falun Gong activists.

This request is yet another content dispute with the filer of the request and User:TheBlueCanoe, both of whom have a history of editing Falun Gong articles from what I believe is a highly partisan and advocate's viewpoint and with whom I have had running content disputes over the years. A new and inexperienced Falun Gong editor, who for the moment shall remain nameless, has joined their ranks recently, and may have contributed with text copied verbatim from elsewhere. I would merely say that I find copyright violations equally objectionable as the propaganda of the Falun Dafa and of the Regime, and part of that editing work is to remove copyvios or otherwise make clear that these are positions and not fact. All my edits have, I believe, adequate edit summaries explaining my rationale. Whilst the complainant has only found examples he objects to showing my bias, he failed to give me any credit for this comment (for example), which certainly shows that I am editing objectively and in good faith.

The Regime almost insists upon the "L'état, c'est moi" conflation between the party and the state in the same way as Falun Gongsters insist on labelling all people who do not support their movement as supporters of the Regime. IIndeed, I restored the essay within my own userspace after learning about the former's complaint to EdJohnson, in which he repeated his previous provocative smear that I was somehow "pro-Regime". It made me suspect whether he understood that anti-Regime people can also be anti-Falun Gong. If the distinction between the two is not clear in his own head, one must question whether he ought to be editing such polemic topics on Wikiepdia.

In view of the foregoing, I would state that the assembled should not be too surprised if there were no further comments from me on this case. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 05:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not be misled into confusing my fatigue of Falun Gong shenanigans with arrogance. I certainly do not feel I am unblockable, though my two principal accusers seem to share the belief that I think I'm immune to sanction. I am but an ordinary editor who does not want any further personal emotional reaction (i.e. stress) to this topic, and certainly no further drama. The editing issues being complained of here are content disputes – exactly the same as the last time – despite the attempt to position them otherwise. As I already stated above, I reinstated my essay because there seems to be some fundamental questions as to my allegiances and stance. Even after its reinstatement, it appears that there continues to be miscomprehension and even misrepresentation of my personal position and editing stance. Notwithstanding, to save myself reinventing the wheel at every juncture, I feel that the content of my essay is of value. Writing essays is a valid expression of one's personal sentiments, and serves to document emotional and editing issues faced every day on Wikipedia, so I would oppose its outright deletion of my effort because editing of Falun Gong articles is a rather unique experience. However, as it appears that there may be some sensitivity to the naming of names therein, I will make suitable redaction. I hope that will be satisfactory. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

It is worth noting that this subject has already been discussed with Ed Johnston at User talk:EdJohnston#Request for reinstating indefinite topic ban on User:Ohconfucius and the comments Ed made in response.

I also think it worth noting that the previous arbitrations have made it rather obvious that this is a vital article to the Falun Gong movement, which is remarkably active in the West, and that editors associated with the movement have been much more "sanctioned" historically than others. As for the claims that Ohconfucius' edits are ideologically-driven, I would be interested in knowing what "ideology" is allegedly driving him, because that has not so far as I have seen been indicated, and he has in the past reacted very strongly and negatively to allegations of being on the side of the PRC, understandably, I think. I also note as per his history that he has edited other, related articles in the broad qigong field, and that it is primarily on the basis of his work that the only FG FA out there exists. None of that is indicative of any sort of ideological involvement to my eyes, let alone being driven by ideology. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting closing, and basically supporting the idea that at most Ohconfucius be given a warning. AGF unfortunately really doesn't apply when the evidence of the history and nature of the self-declared (and otherwise) biases of a number of editors involved with the topic is so clearly visible as it is in this case. And, again, we should also note that it is, apparently, the opinion of one of the larger "advocacy" groups dealing with China in the Western world, from which we draw most of our editors, and that on that basis is likely to still be subject to POV pushing from that side. Kww has said in an active request for arbitration that there were basically two reasons to impose discretionary sanctions, one to prevent incivility, and the second to keep the content up to the standards of policies and guidelines. The second is, probably, more important than the first in general, and I have reason to believe, knowingly or unknowingly, Ohconfucius is probably acting in accord with that principle, even if he might be, perhaps, outnumbered in doing so. It might make more sense to place the related content on indefinite full coverage, so that edits can only be made by an uninvolved admin after consensus for such changes on the article talk page, and it is a kind of narrow topic, at least in terms of directly related articles, so it might be workable here, but I don't know whether it is permissible by the existing rulings. If it isn't, maybe we should seek an ARCA for such. John Carter (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: I'm not so sure that "righting great wrongs" is the best way to describe Ohconfucius's approach here. Falun Gong is, unfortunately, a political hotbed issue, particularly regarding China and Chinese expats. And it is one of, maybe the, leading critic of the PRC regime in the Western world. A lot of people including editors are both sympathetic to their efforts (including me, and I think Ohconfucius himself) while at the same time acknowledging that the efforts of their "political machine" crosses the line about as often as the partisan political machines of the various political parties in the West do. Some might say that the political machines fairly consistently stay on the wrong side of the line, actually. No one, including either him or me, really in any way agree with the PRC, but at the same time we have to acknowledge that given the dearth of information we have on internal matters we are more or less obliged to give its press releases due WEIGHT, because we don't have any real evidence to the contrary. I remember in Ownby's book, for instance, where he basically gave the press statement about a Western spy being involved in the formation of Falun Gong about the same amount of space as the total length of the one and only statement from the PRC to date about it. He can't give more, because the statement is more or less a stand alone, but he did, basically, almost repeat it. The almost knee-jerk Western dismissal of PRC statements is one of the issues which it is hardest for most people to overcome, and I think in that regard he might be one of the few who really is working to keep the content in line with the policies as they can best be applied in this definitely sub-optimal situation of a lot of partisan sources on one side and damn few partisan sources on the other, but those partisan sources being between them pretty much all that is available. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by coldacid (uninvolved)

Despite the conversation on EdJohnston's talk, this essay is certainly questionable, and considering Seraphimblade's comment in the June 2014 amendment request, it seems that Ohconfucius is definitely tempting fate. Whether this is the editor taking the WP:ROPE they were given and hanging themself with it, or not, I can't say. For sure, though, we should hear from Seraphimblade on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by coldacid (talk • contribs) 02:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with TheSoundAndTheFury's "quick comment". Regardless of the content dispute, Ohconfucius' attitude even here on this AE request demonstrates that the editor should be strongly encouraged to edit other topics. At the very least, they should be topic-banned from anything relating to Falun Gong, and their attack essay deleted and salted. Ohconfucius has been given enough rope. @Seraphimblade: Would still like to hear from you on this. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 15:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by My very best wishes

This edit by Ohconfucius strikes me as very recent and highly problematic (I know how important this article is to Falun Gong propagandists, but you should accept it as an unfortunate consequence of one of your fellow FLG editors choosing to plagiarise an entire chunk of it). Otherwise, I am not sure this AE request would be reasonable, given that most other diffs/edits by Ohconfucius were rather old (although also problematic), and Arbcom did not ask for reviewing this matter after a year, judging from their motion. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that editors in this area should be cursed and treated as "Falun Gongsters" (per Ohconfucious). During FG-2 case I talked with some of them, and they looked as good-faith and highly educated contributors, and in particular, User:Homunculus, very different from crude political SPA I have met in other subject areas. Unfortunately, she is no longer active in the project, just as many others, possibly due to the disputes and sanctions...

I think it would be fine for Ohconfucius to express his opinion about editing FG in his essay. However, he targeted several specific contributors: "more sophisticated undeclared/clandestine FLG advocates who are well versed in Wikipedia's policies appeared. Homunculus and TheSoundAndTheFury ..." and links them to WP:COI (in the end of the paragraph). I do not really know: perhaps there is an evidence of their WP:COI? If so, Ohconfucius must provide his evidence here, and these contributors should be sanctioned? But I did not see anything about their WP:COI during FG-2 case... My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re to comment by Ohconfucius on my talk page [47]. Yes, Ohconfucius removed these passages from his essay dated April 2 2015. Yes, that would be fine and sufficient, but he continue blaming others as "Gongsters" and "Falun Gong advocates" on this very page (see his statement above) and even on my talk page. No, this is not a fair assessment of these people, given their contributions to the project [48]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, I think this is hardly a reasonable AE request based on the most recent diffs (and it could be left without action), however given the suspended topic ban, a review of editing by Ohconfucious during the entire year and based on all provided diffs would still be reasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheBlueCanoe

Here’s what Seraphimblade said at arbitration:

“If Ohconfucius' pattern of commenting on editors rather than edits continues or speculating on their motives, I'll be in favor of reinstating the topic ban. In that vein, Ohconfucius:, I will be requesting reinstatement of the topic ban if you do not get rid of all of your userspace material on Falun Gong and leave it gone.”[49]

Reposting an archived version of the userspace essay less than a month later was clearly defying the spirit, if not the letter, of the request[50]. More interesting is that Ohconfucius completely restored the essay last week, after a complaint about it was filed on EdJohnston’s talk page.[51] I have no idea how to account for this--tempting fate, or maybe Ohconfucius thinks he's unblockable.

On the NPOV issue, some of these diffs bear examining more closely:

[52] Deletes information claiming it’s not in the source, but it was.

[53] Deletes information about torture, saying he wasn’t clear on the source, but the source was clearly cited.

[54] - Adds a notability tag to the article, saying all mentions of the subject are trivial. The subject was the central focus of articles by several major news organizations--something no impartial editor would call trivial coverage.

[55] Says reports of torture is merely a Falun Gong allegation, which it’s not.

I’ve tried to give the benefit of the doubt that these were all honest mistakes, and maybe they are. But looking more closely at the history I’m not so sure, and it does seem that the user is ideologically driven. Certainly some of the reasons he’s given for deleting cited information on these pages are pretty flimsy (e.g. [56][57] )

It also goes without saying that I don’t appreciate the insinuations that I’m a sock, a “meatpuppet” or a “Falun Gong propagandists” for trying to address and correct the issues I see on these pages.TheBlueCanoe 16:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:EdJohnston, Ohconfucius has blanked his userspace page at your request, but he still links to an archived version of it from his main user page. And given his record of reneging of promises made during arbitration proceeding, there is no guarantee that he will not simply restore it again in a couple weeks or otherwise continue to speculate inappropriately on other editors' motives. Secondly, it may be true that Ohconfucius sees himself as "manning the barricades against a tide of Falun Gong editors," and that this is what's behind his incivility and breakdown in good faith, but this doesn't accurately describe the reality on these pages, and hasn't for several years. I've edited Falun Gong articles for a couple years now, and have seen no such tide of Falun Gong editors (one editor, who emerged in the last couple months, does not a tide make). Instead, three of the main articles on Falun Gong have been promoted to Good Article status on the basis of solid editing by the very people whom Ohconfucius likes to accuse and disparage. Meanwhile, I have not seen Ohconfucius make any real or meaningful contributions to Falun Gong pages. Aside from minor formatting changes, a major thrust of his edits is to either sanitize information on human rights abuses by the Chinese government or to advance Chinese government narratives against Falun Gong, often in a way that is inaccurate and requires correction. He is certainly not the one who is defending pages against activist editors on either side.

Finally, it seems that he has been warned already on several occasions. After being banned indefinitely, he's been given several more lengths of rope, each time accompanied by a reminder from the arbitration committee to exercise better judgement, to stop commenting on other editors, to steer clear of controversy, to move on, etc. But since he himself has never issued any kind of mea culpa, it's not surprising that his conduct doesn't change. TheBlueCanoe 12:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OccultZone

I have also seen a lot of work by Ohconfucius around, I agree that he knows how content can be made better, every allegations that have been made here, I have no comments on them, and I really believe that EdJohnston is correct with his assertion, he had asked Ohconfucius to blank the pages, and Ohconfucius did blanked them. I would also like to correct TheBlueCanoe that Ohconfucius was never banned.(Check WP:BAN) OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ohconfucius

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

As a purely procedural note, the view I expressed regarding Ohconfucius' userspace material was an opinion of mine, and was not part of the formal terms of the restriction being suspended. That does not, of course, mean that I'm particularly thrilled to see they were restored, but that is not in itself grounds to revoke the suspension. There may exist other grounds to do so, if so, I'm sure the admins here will make that call. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored this complaint from archive 15 April. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before filing here, User:TheSoundAndTheFury posted a request at my talk page (permalink) asking for an indefinite topic ban on Ohconfucius. The same talk thread includes some responses by me. Ohconfucius sometimes leaves intemperate edit summaries and sometimes accuses people (such as BlueCanoe) of being 'FLG editors' without enough reason. For a while he was declining to blank or delete a page about Falun Gong conduct matters at User:Ohconfucius/essay/Editing Falun Gong articles on Wikipedia, but he has now done so. Ohconfucius also edits on topics that are not controversial and is credited with 22 Good Articles. Ohconfucius sees himself as manning the barricades against a tide of FLG editors and this affects the tone of his edit summaries. He should realize that that the problem has now been drawn to his attention, and continued activism may bring new complaints. I don't see him as a defender of the Chinese government. The imminent expiry of the suspended sanction isn't urgent because the FLG discretionary sanctions allow a new topic ban to be imposed at any time. I recommend this be closed with no action against Ohconfucius. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that Ohconfucious tries really hard to keep his personal bias in check when editing in this area. I accept that he fails often enough to be a problem. The deep-rooted problem of Righting Great Wrongs seems to me not to be going away over time, and I think the restriction should be reimposed, because otherwise I foresee escalating drama and potentially the loss of someone who is, in every other area, nice to have around. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This report has been open for a long time. Though admins have expressed some opinions (myself and JzG) I don't see a strong consensus. User:Seraphimblade said he wasn't expressing an opinion. The legacy of Ohconfucius's appearances at Arbcom seems to fall in a gray area. Arbcom wasn't sure either. Ohconfucius is not an ideologue and actually creates some good content but he often responds harshly to what he perceives as tendentious editing by Falun Gong supporters. Unless there is more decisive input here, I'm tempted to close this with no action. Except, I would delete the following files with the deletion summary 'Arbitration enforcement':

EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xtremedood

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Xtremedood

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: OccultZone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Xtremedood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIPA

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

Claiming a popular battle to be a "hoax"[58][59][60] clear attempt to WP:RGW.
Edit warring [61][62][63], [64][65][66]
[67] failure to understand WP:CON, "2 against 1 is not a consensus".
Blanking of the material that he don't like.[68][69][70] Indeed, if he claims that it is 'unsourced', then why he don't remove the opposite material that is also unsourced?
WP:SOAPBOXING.[71][72]
WP:ASPERSIONS, "Your edits often seem disruptive and unprofessional",[73] though the editor in question seems to be making good edits.
Canvassing a particular side.[74][75][76][77]
Attempts to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines,(4 Indians and 1 non-Indian)[78][79] a warning can be found here, this was his response.

That is all from last 7 days. He had demonstrated this sort of battleground mentality in the last report as well.[80] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [81]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [82]

Discussion concerning Xtremedood

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Xtremedood

OccultZone has already made a complaint in the past which was dismissed. He seems to have been stalking my contributions, rather than engage in a pragmatic debate on whether or not the Battle of Rajasthan article should be deleted. To claim a battle with such limited sources is "popular" is a clear fallacy. OccultZone has not been able to provide a single legitimate source as to the relevant location of the supposed conflict, the generals involved, and why there are sources saying that conflict continued till 739 A.D. when OccultZone's sources say the decisive battle to stop all battles occurred in 738 A.D.

1) I have not violated WP:RGW, as various other users have agreed with me about the scarcity of sources pertaining to this supposed battle. There are even other users claiming that the article's name should be changed (thus opposing the legitimacy of this as a "popular" battle).

2) These edits do not constitute "edit warring." FreeatlastChitchat and I have been debating for over a month as to whether certain content should be allowed or omitted on the article. There was a DRN discussion mediated by Keithbob, in which we discussed in great detail this article. There has been no resolution as of now, and FreeatlastChitchat's attempt to mediate has also been rejected. Clearly OccultZone seems very desperate to try gather up information about me, he seems to be stalking my contributions. He does not know the background information pertaining to this whole thing. The 3RR was also respected. In the past he also accussed me of making wrong edits of the Mughal-Sikh war battles. However, a thorough investigation found (by administration) that I was correct in my edits. OccultZone's heavily biased accusations should therefore be dismissed.

3) Consensus was not reached in this matter.I agreed to wait for consensus after OccultZone's first complaint. However, OccultZone did not answer my relevant questions pertaining to the sources at hand. From April 20th to April 29th, there was no response. OccultZone, rather than wait for consensus simply reverted the article on April 28th, [83]. This means for 8 days he did not make a response, and randomly suggested that 2 against 1 constituted a consensus, which it does not according to WP:Consensus. OccultZone has failed to answer why the 3,843 figure by the Indian government should not be in the Indian Claims section when that section exists. He also failed to properly detail why the source was supposedly incorrect. The source that I wanted was a third-party source (non-Governmental) and it may therefore be less biased.

4) Once again, OccultZone seems to be stalking my contributions without properly analyzing the context of these changes. I had a meaningful discussion with Nijgoykar in which he verified the source of an Arab invasion (the sources were largely Indian) but was unable to verify the source of "forced conversion," therefore the changes meet proper discussion. see [[84]]. WP:Verifiability states "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." I was looking to verify this information and followed proper procedure. As for the Invasion of Rajasthan difference, I have stated it here that I deleted it: [[85]]. There is simply no source for a 40,000 Hindus against 100,000 Arabs battle occuring during this time. OccultZone may be ignorant of the immense dynamics of warfare. 100,000 soldiers is not a small figure. There should be some historical record of this. I am still waiting for anyone to source me this figure. As for the third link, I have already stated that there is no historical record of the battle of Rajasthan existing. The only sources are biased and do not adhere to WP:Identifying reliable sources.

5) This does not adhere to the 5 points outlined in WP:Soapboxing. OccultZone did not wait for Administrative decision, rather he tried to delete the template. This is not right. He should have atleast tried to contest it. This may represent heavy ideological bias. Simply saying "not a hoax" here [86] does not suffice to not contest it.

6) Once again, OccultZone seems to be stalking my contributions without properly analyzing to context or simply trying to defame. The context of the conversation may be seen here [87].

7) This does not constitute canvassing. Another user (AshLin) first invited 2 people. Consensus on AfD is not based upon a tally of votes, as outlined here: [[88]]. Bringing forth more diverse discourse may provide for more policy-related discourse. See the full dicussion here. [89]

8) Statement was aimed at fostering more diverse dialogue. See point 7. OccultZone's twisting of statements should not be taken seriously. There are clearly a lot more users with interest in Indian topics being involved than many other users.

OccultZone is on record of using blackmailing attempts, threatening me to withdraw a statement or he will inform administration. He said "If you wouldn't retract that part from your comment, I would consider bringing you to either WP:ARE or WP:ANI."[90]. This constitutes clear blackmailing.[91] He also displays immense bias by simply deleting a template, rather than try and engage in constructive dialogue by contesting it. The real battleground mentality is being displayed by OccultZone in his failed (previous) attempt to accuse me of wrong edits on the Mughal-Sikh related articles, his inability to properly address concerns pertaining to the 1971 war article, and his "speedy keep" bias pertaining to the Battle of Rajasthan. Xtremedood (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Dolescum

As to adhere to Wikipedia's policy WP:Other Stuff Exists, which states "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." If that section did not exist for these articles [92][93], then it should not exist for this one. The heavy anti-Muslim bias is something I wish to oppose that sadly exists on certain articles on Wikipedia. This bias goes against NPOV. I provided my reasoning in the edit summary [94]. It was based upon sound reasoning. I did not brake any revert rules, it was a one time edit. Any changes I made can be found in that edit. Better left for discussion on the talk page. Xtremedood (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Delibzr

I am not the one who put A.R. Rahman on the list, look at the history, it has been there longer. I simply organized the format and added some new figures. Your source for Dharmendra that he was a Sikh does not work, I looked at the source. The source indicated in the article states he was a former Hindu. If you have a legitimate source feel free to remove it and to discuss it in the talk page with me. Your accustion of me removing content on the Criticism of Sikhism page is baseless. The link for the supposed criticism does not work [[95]], either fix the link or provide me proof of that. I did not find any source that said that Nanak had a debate with Mullahs in Makkah. The whole story sounds fishy to me as why would a person who Sikhs claim to be a non-Muslim (who are not allowed in Makkah) go there and have a debate with religious leaders? The whole passage seems kind of weird and the link did not work. You need a legitimate source for that. Xtremedood (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dolescum

Further to the appearance of removing material he disapproved of, Xtremedood recently attempted to remove all mentions of Criticism of Muhammad from the Muhammad article. The reason given was to point to the Jesus article and provide a very selective reading of WP:OSE. Dolescum (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Delibzr

Xtremedood has brought bad references(rumor sites[96][97][98]) on List of converts to Islam from Hinduism. He claims that A. R. Rahman was a Hindu who converted into Islam, when he was atheist.[99] He claims that Dharmendra was a Hindu who converted to Islam, when he is a devoted Sikh,[100] same with his son.[101] He is violating biographies of living persons on these articles.

On Criticism of Sikhism he removed[102] what he disliked, and wanted to see. Reference was already accessible and supported that info.

Xtremedood has misused references on Battle of Rajasthan, and he has insulted the academics. That article is not going to be deleted or even end up with a merge or redirect, that means his participation was totally disruptive on that AFD. He had to use talk page not AFD or speedy deletions for his doubts, but he seems not to be capable of engaging in a proper discussion without edit warring. He has issues with WP:COMPETENCE. Delibzr (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xtremedood you went ahead to claim everyone to have been converted into Islam and you remove what you don't like. Link is working and book is available online. What you do is, you hate if anything goes against you. I am shocked that you are not blocked for your propaganda pushing.

And User:EdJohnston, Xtremedood is still violating BLP by putting false information on List of converts to Islam from Hinduism. [103] His agenda is to spam that Mughal Empire won over Maratha Empire, when it is highly opposite. He removes any mention of Maratha victory or expansion by putting his own opinion.[104][105] He is still misrepresenting refs,[106] and making disruptive page moves.[107] I would ask for a few months of ban from this whole area. Delibzr (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Xtremedood

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

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Rajasthan, where Xtremedood has nominated an article for deletion. Xtremedood's questions seem valid to me, and if his behavior regarding that article is the main issue, I'm not seeing any reason for an AE sanction. A review of the AfD comments by others suggests that, if the Battle of Rajasthan article survives, it is likely to be changed to describe the overall Arab invasion of the 8th century and will not focus on this single poorly-attested battle. I would close this AE request with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 435: / Line 435: @@
 ====Statement by Delibzr====
-Xtremedood has brought bad references(rumor sites[http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/farmas.html][http://www.islamonline.net/english/journey/2006/03/jour04.shtml][http://www.jithumpa.com/entertainment/11-indian-celebrities-converted-to-islam/]) on [[List of converts to Islam from Hinduism]]. He claims that [[A. R. Rahman]] was a Hindu who converted into Islam, when he was atheist.[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/did-you-know-/Rahman-was-an-atheist-in-childhood/articleshow/35945673.cms] He claims that Dharmendra was a Hindu who converted to Islam, when he is a devoted Sikh,[https://books.google.com/books?id=DqwBBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT122&dq=dharmendra] same with his son.[https://books.google.com/books?id=LtwDBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA207&dq=dharmendra+sikh&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fyFKVaaJKYKKuwSH-oG4Bg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=dharmendra%20sikh&f=false] He is violating biographies of living persons on these articles.
+Xtremedood has brought bad references(rumor sites[http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/farmas.html][http://www.islamonline.net/english/journey/2006/03/jour04.shtml][http://www.jithumpa.com/entertainment/11-indian-celebrities-converted-to-islam/]) on [[List of converts to Islam from Hinduism]]. He claims that [[A. R. Rahman]] was a Hindu who converted into Islam, when he was atheist.[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/did-you-know-/Rahman-was-an-atheist-in-childhood/articleshow/35945673.cms] He claims that [[Dharmendra]] was a Hindu who converted to Islam, when he is a devoted Sikh,[https://books.google.com/books?id=DqwBBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT122&dq=dharmendra] same with his son.[https://books.google.com/books?id=LtwDBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA207&dq=dharmendra+sikh&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fyFKVaaJKYKKuwSH-oG4Bg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=dharmendra%20sikh&f=false] He is violating biographies of living persons on these articles.
 On [[Criticism of Sikhism]] he removed[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Sikhism&diff=660375601&oldid=651659733] what he disliked, and ''wanted to see''. Reference was already accessible and supported that info.
 Xtremedood has misused references on Battle of Rajasthan, and he has insulted the academics. That article is not going to be deleted or even end up with a merge or redirect, that means his participation was totally disruptive on that AFD. He had to use talk page not AFD or speedy deletions for his doubts, but he seems not to be capable of engaging in a proper discussion without edit warring. He has issues with [[WP:COMPETENCE]]. [[User:Delibzr|Delibzr]] ([[User talk:Delibzr|talk]]) 14:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
+:Xtremedood you went ahead to claim everyone to have been converted into Islam and you remove what you don't like. Link is working and book is available online. What you do is, you hate if anything goes against you. I am shocked that you are not blocked for your propaganda pushing.
+:And [[User:EdJohnston]], Xtremedood is still violating BLP by putting false information on [[List of converts to Islam from Hinduism]]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_converts_to_Islam_from_Hinduism&diff=661124397&oldid=661102047] His agenda is to spam that [[Mughal Empire]] won over [[Maratha Empire]], when it is highly opposite. He removes any mention of Maratha victory or expansion by putting his own opinion.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mughal%E2%80%93Maratha_Wars&diff=661104004&oldid=661103774][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mughal%E2%80%93Maratha_Wars&diff=661103774&oldid=661103552] He is still misrepresenting refs,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mughal–Maratha_Wars&diff=661101491&oldid=661100874] and making disruptive page moves.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mughal%E2%80%93Maratha_Wars&diff=661111655&oldid=661105269] I would ask for a few months of ban from this whole area. [[User:Delibzr|Delibzr]] ([[User talk:Delibzr|talk]]) 01:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 ====Statement by (username)====

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