Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
Requests for enforcement
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
![]() | Important information Please use this page only to:
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}}.
|
Dilip rajeev
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 (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2009 (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#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:
Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs) has been editing Falun Gong articles (almost exclusively) since February 2006. He has a habit of disappearing (i.e. not editing in article space or talk space) for weeks on end. Frequently, he reverts to the last version he feels comfortable with irrespective of the individual merits of each of the changes because he finds on his return the changes which took place not to his liking. Such reverts are frequently done without due reference to the discussions which have taken place during his absence. Some diffs immediately below, show this modus operandi
- this one single edit, made following an absence of 12 days, undid 36 intermediate edits made by others during this time.
His habit of making radical reverts is a matter of historical record. Some examples of this tendency are below:
- This is his first intervention as Diip rajeev since the blocking of Inactive user account. He reverted 43 edits made by others while he was away for 26 days' absence.
- reverted 44 edits by others in one fell swoop after 7 days' absence
The following is a brief history of the significant edits which took place after the Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident article was declared a Good Article. The radical changes put through to a good article were all done within a period of about a week, without prior substantive discussion to speak of:
- This exchange shows clearly how Dilip rajeev railroaded changes against all other opinions, including that of asdfg. The information about the victims deleted was just one of many very overtly biased changes made to the article. That information was sourced from Xinhua in much the same way as Dilip rajeev's stuff sourced from Faluninfo, and has every right to exist in the article. To omit it introduces undue bias. Furthermore, of the material which I "blanked", there was considerable repetition. We only need grouped representative opinions, and there is no rhyme or reason why we need to collect each and everybody's opinion. Below, I have a collection of the significant diffs where the unacceptable bias has been introduced, comments and objections, as well as his accusing EgraS and me of engaging of sockpuppetry:
- this demonstration of bad faith
- another demonstration of bad faith
- this series of edits introduces very obvious pro-FG bias.
- gratuitous accusation of 'vandalism'
- citing his favourite FG-aligned journalist
- removal of text 'Later reports' without summary
- added one partisan text and cherry-picked another
- deliberate introduction of weasel words without changing attribution/refs
- this series of edits introduces very obvious pro-FG bias.
- revert of Egra's edit "EgraS / Oconfucious. Stop vandlaizing the pages. You cannot accusse material from reporters such as Ian Johnson of being "biased" and stop misusing the NPOV tag. " (note: Ohconfucius' last edit dates to 6 August 2008)
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
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 for 55 hours.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Indefinite ban from Wikipedia
Additional comments by Ohconfucius (talk):
For myself and a number of neutral editors who have joined the Falun Gong wikiproject, Dilip's latest reverts to the 'Self Immolation' and 'Organ harvesting' articles have become the last straw in our tolerance of his disruptive behaviour.
- Background
There is a protracted, large-scale propaganda war between the spiritual movement and the Communist Party of China. Two polarizing sides of the issue make it much, much harder to deal with, as there are activists on both sides. Both sides use exaggerated 'evidence', borrowed 'experts', sensationalist claims and other forms of propaganda to attack each other. Because both sides clearly have an agenda against the other, "NPOV" becomes very delicate - there will be routine disruptions from both sides. No revisions of articles is ever stable.
The propaganda war manifested itself on Wikipedia in 2006, with anti-Falun Gong activists and pro-Falun Gong practitioners constantly opposing each other and engaging in disruptive editing. To my knowledge, after arbitration, all of the anti-FLG editors (Sam Luo, Tomanada, etc.) were banned or have left. As a result, since June 2007 and until mediation in July 2009, the Falun Gong family of articles have become unmistakably dominated by pro-Falun Gong activists. These articles all suffer from serious POV issues heavily biased in favour of Falun Gong, are readily being used as a direct form of advocacy for the Falun Gong movement, and users from all backgrounds (including those who are anti-Chinese gov't) have raised concerns - but all have been either discouraged by the drama, or their attempts at other means of dispute resolution have failed.
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.
In my experience, Rajeev has shown great animosity when non-FG devotees edit this article. There has been a long history of unchecked edit warring. 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 and weasel words are already mentioned above. It is not only that he is completely blindly partisan, but often expresses points of view which are unique; his style and content introduced have been frowned upon from time to time by asdfg.
In all Falun Gong articles, misrepresentation of sources has been endemic, and these four abovenamed editors are known to back up each other's problematic edits. Occasionally conceding when it is clearly demonstrated that the misrepresentation has occurred. However, more often than not, the neutralising revision provokes another flurry of introducing "highly sourced material" ostensibly to restore the balance of bias in favour of Falun Gong, or to give their case the last word. Adding, removing, restructuring, moving, or otherwise changing any material that appears to upset the pro-FG bias in any of the articles is met with the same tactics.
Dilip rajeev's stated view that nothing from the Chinese authorities is worthy of citing because it is not a reliable source, and is propaganda demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of what is WP:NPOV, although he is known to endlessly pontificate, and cite paragraphs 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 no place for others who wish to contribute.
- Here, he uses moralistic arguments in an apparent defense of denying platform for the "lot of mis-information and lies on Falun Gong" spread by the CCP
- In this edit, he apparently argues "highly sourced" is sufficient to achieve WP:NPOV
- here is another example.
I would add that these edits from the 'self-immolation' article demonstrate a pattern of behaviour which can be seen throughout his editing in FGverse. There are numerous discussions in which he openly advocates Falun Gong, the principles of "truthfulness, compassion and forbearance" but only being able to observe "truthfulness", as are there many examples of breaches of WP:NPOV, 3RR and other guidelines.
- Sathya Sai Baba
Arbcom will already be aware of his declared sockpuppet account. From this, it can be seen how he ran User:Inactive user account 001, the sock apparently to protect himself against members of the Baba cult.
- this edit in Jan 2009 demonstrates the same modus operandi (insertion of bias, use of ironic quotes) as in the Falun Gong articles. The account was blocked indefinitely in May 2009 after edit warring.
After said sock account was blocked, he continued to repeatedly edit war at Sathya Sai Baba
This edit warring resulted in his real identity being outed here by his adversary there
I also believe that he creates an ambience of intolerance and hostility almost wherever he goes, and is responsible, in whole or in part, for driving away a number of neutral editors from the Falun Gong articles. His forays into attacking Sathya Sai Baba is nothing short of spectacular drama. I feel that he has demonstrated that he is incapable of working with others who do not share the same views as himself, and 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. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Discussion concerning Dilip rajeev
Statement by Dilip rajeev
Comments by other editors
Result concerning Dilip rajeev
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Monlonet
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Request concerning Monlonet
User requesting enforcement:
Grandmaster 16:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Monlonet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
- [1] rv without any discussion at talk
- [2] rv without any discussion at talk
- [3] rv without any discussion at talk
- [4] rv without any discussion at talk
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
- [5] Warning by Brandmeister (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
revert restriction or topic ban
Additional comments by Grandmaster:
The account of Monlonet is used solely for edit wars, to revert contentious articles such as Duduk and Mount Ararat. On Duduk he already made 4 rvs within the last 2 days, removing sources which he did not like, and making no attempt to discuss his reverts at talk, while telling other users to check the talk, to which he never ever contributed. In addition, he is canvassing, trying to mobilize other users for edit warring. [6] [7] [8]. Tries to exert pressure on users who haven't joined his edit war: [9] Now he joined an edit war at Urartu: [10] and reverted Urartu to the version of 76.232.252.180 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), after the article was semiprotected. That IP is almost identical to 76.232.252.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which is used for canvassing. It is possible that he is related to Zvartnotz2 (talk · contribs), who was engaged in edit warring on the same article about duduk.--Grandmaster 16:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The CU results on this user: [11] It is possible that he is connected to Zvartnotz2 (talk · contribs). See my report on Zvartnotz2 (talk · contribs), which was archived without any action: [12] Grandmaster 08:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
It is also interesting that today Zvartnotz2 added an image to his user page, [13], and then removed it: [14], and 1 minute after Zvartnotz2 added the image Monlonet added the same image to his user page, [15] and removed it a few minutes later: [16] It is the same person using 2 accounts. Grandmaster 06:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[17]
Discussion concerning Monlonet
Statement by Monlonet
Comments by other editors
This account is quite close to SPA and has been meatpuppeting recently. Brand[t] 07:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Result concerning Monlonet
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- I am indefinitely blocking Zvartnotz2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Monlonet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive45#Zvartnotz2) for the abuse of sock- or meatpuppets to edit-war on Duduk. Sandstein 07:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Mythdon 2
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Mythdon
User requesting enforcement:
Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Mythdon_admonished
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
- [18] <Gratuitous mention of Ryulong in unrelated case, carrying on a dispute. Also the latest in a spate of recent comments on arbitration pages>
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
- [19] General conduct warning by FayssalF (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- ...
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
I can't see how anything short of a longer block is going to convince the user to engage in hte community in a proactive and not combative manner.
Additional comments by Casliber (talk · contribs):
<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 Mythdon
Statement by Mythdon
All I have to say is that I already struck the comment. No further action is needed. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have just notified Ryulong of this thread. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments by other editors
- I'll just point to the currently open ANI thread (perm). Would suggest a ban from interacting with or commenting about Ryulong (except on arbcom pages and sections immediately related to the case). –xenotalk 02:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that a sanction of this sort is going to achieve anything more than the same problems as before. In my opinion, a block (or a more complete ban) in terms of weeks, is perhaps the only way to see if there will be any change when he returns to editing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- I kinda favour both, Mythdon is being a real timesink around RFAR and they simply do not get the fact that they have to leave Ryulong alone [20]. Spartaz Humbug! 06:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's probably the best option available; I'd endorse it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Result concerning Mythdon
- I've blocked Mythdon for two weeks for either exceedingly bad judgment or deliberate limits testing. It seems obvious that once that block has expired, there will need to be some kind of prohibition on interaction with Ryulong; more discussion as to exactly how that should be crafted would be useful. Steve Smith (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- As suggested above, a ban on interacting with Ryulong, and commenting on him except on arbitration-related pages that are immediately related. The admin placing the interactional ban would need to serve as an intermediary if there was anything that absolutely needed to be communicated outside the walls of arbcom. –xenotalk 19:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- My concern with that wording - and I really hate to assume trouble, but I think given history we should be on the safe side - is it might provoke Mythdon to open a bunch of requests for clarification and appeals and the like solely to get around the prohibition. I'm not sure what we can do to get around that, though. As well, you're talking as if this would be a two-way ban, but can we really impose such a ban on Ryulong as arbitration enforcement when he's not even alleged to have violated any of the remedies? Steve Smith (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- I tried to stay out of this as much as possible, but the only possible way for Mythdon and I to have absolutely no interaction would be the topic ban that he attempted to get out of with one of the previous requests for clarification, and an ensuing drama on ANI after it was brought up on WT:TOKU. I have still yet to see anything constructive come about from his editing the same pages I do. Even after the block and Nathan contacted him on his talk page to voluntarily choose a different area of interest, he does not understand that there should be a different topic area he should edit.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- How about: (1) Ryulong (talk · contribs) shall not directly or indirectly, interact with, or comment about Mythdon (talk · contribs). This applies anywhere on Wikipedia, except at the following pages, when Ryulong requests arbitration enforcement, amendment or clarification, with respect to both the case, and any finding, remedy or enforcement directly pertaining to Mythdon. Except when responding on those pages to such a request filed by Ryulong, Mythdon (talk · contribs) shall not directly or indirectly, interact with, or comment about Ryulong, at any time, anywhere on Wikipedia. In addition to this, Mythdon (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing any page that falls under WikiProject Totukatsu (including articles), and any discussions relating to those pages, broadly construed." and (2) "If Mythdon violates this sanction, he will be blocked for up to 1 month per incident, with the third incident resulting in a ban from Wikipedia for 1 year. If Ryulong violates this sanction, he will be blocked for up to 1 week per violation, with the third violation resulting in a ban from Wikipedia for 1 month." Obviously, this could be tweaked, such as with a timer on the topic ban. Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- I fail to see how I should be affected by any sanction. I do not go out of my way to directly or indirectly interact or comment about Mythdon. I've purposely avoided commenting on his last two RFAs. I've also in no way commented on his recent requests for clarification. I also have not even touched this page concerning this enforcement until I saw that Mythdon had been blocked again and that there was continuing discussion here. I want you to explain how I should be banned from anything regarding Mythdon.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- The reason I included it was more for in the unlikely case if you end up on the same article as one he's edited; it's just to highlight the limits of interaction. To be frank, I'd personally be comfortable not formalising via sanction for those same reasons as you stated. In the case that others supported the idea that part was not formalised, I already have an alternate wording ready: Unless Ryulong (talk · contribs), on the following pages, requests arbitration enforcement, amendment or clarification, with respect to both the case, and any finding, remedy or enforcement directly pertaining to Mythdon, Mythdon (talk · contribs) shall not directly or indirectly, interact with, or comment about Ryulong, at any time, anywhere on Wikipedia. In addition to this, Mythdon (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing any page that falls under WikiProject Totukatsu (including articles), and any discussions relating to those pages, broadly construed. If Mythdon violates this sanction, he will be blocked for up to 1 month per incident, with the third incident resulting in a ban from Wikipedia for 1 year." Again, thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- That seems like a reasonable wording. Shell babelfish 04:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- The reason I included it was more for in the unlikely case if you end up on the same article as one he's edited; it's just to highlight the limits of interaction. To be frank, I'd personally be comfortable not formalising via sanction for those same reasons as you stated. In the case that others supported the idea that part was not formalised, I already have an alternate wording ready: Unless Ryulong (talk · contribs), on the following pages, requests arbitration enforcement, amendment or clarification, with respect to both the case, and any finding, remedy or enforcement directly pertaining to Mythdon, Mythdon (talk · contribs) shall not directly or indirectly, interact with, or comment about Ryulong, at any time, anywhere on Wikipedia. In addition to this, Mythdon (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing any page that falls under WikiProject Totukatsu (including articles), and any discussions relating to those pages, broadly construed. If Mythdon violates this sanction, he will be blocked for up to 1 month per incident, with the third incident resulting in a ban from Wikipedia for 1 year." Again, thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- I fail to see how I should be affected by any sanction. I do not go out of my way to directly or indirectly interact or comment about Mythdon. I've purposely avoided commenting on his last two RFAs. I've also in no way commented on his recent requests for clarification. I also have not even touched this page concerning this enforcement until I saw that Mythdon had been blocked again and that there was continuing discussion here. I want you to explain how I should be banned from anything regarding Mythdon.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- How about: (1) Ryulong (talk · contribs) shall not directly or indirectly, interact with, or comment about Mythdon (talk · contribs). This applies anywhere on Wikipedia, except at the following pages, when Ryulong requests arbitration enforcement, amendment or clarification, with respect to both the case, and any finding, remedy or enforcement directly pertaining to Mythdon. Except when responding on those pages to such a request filed by Ryulong, Mythdon (talk · contribs) shall not directly or indirectly, interact with, or comment about Ryulong, at any time, anywhere on Wikipedia. In addition to this, Mythdon (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing any page that falls under WikiProject Totukatsu (including articles), and any discussions relating to those pages, broadly construed." and (2) "If Mythdon violates this sanction, he will be blocked for up to 1 month per incident, with the third incident resulting in a ban from Wikipedia for 1 year. If Ryulong violates this sanction, he will be blocked for up to 1 week per violation, with the third violation resulting in a ban from Wikipedia for 1 month." Obviously, this could be tweaked, such as with a timer on the topic ban. Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- I tried to stay out of this as much as possible, but the only possible way for Mythdon and I to have absolutely no interaction would be the topic ban that he attempted to get out of with one of the previous requests for clarification, and an ensuing drama on ANI after it was brought up on WT:TOKU. I have still yet to see anything constructive come about from his editing the same pages I do. Even after the block and Nathan contacted him on his talk page to voluntarily choose a different area of interest, he does not understand that there should be a different topic area he should edit.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- My concern with that wording - and I really hate to assume trouble, but I think given history we should be on the safe side - is it might provoke Mythdon to open a bunch of requests for clarification and appeals and the like solely to get around the prohibition. I'm not sure what we can do to get around that, though. As well, you're talking as if this would be a two-way ban, but can we really impose such a ban on Ryulong as arbitration enforcement when he's not even alleged to have violated any of the remedies? Steve Smith (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- As suggested above, a ban on interacting with Ryulong, and commenting on him except on arbitration-related pages that are immediately related. The admin placing the interactional ban would need to serve as an intermediary if there was anything that absolutely needed to be communicated outside the walls of arbcom. –xenotalk 19:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Pmanderson
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Pmanderson
User requesting enforcement:
Andy Walsh (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Pmanderson_topic_banned, Subsequent motion; See notes below.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
- [21] Adds text to the main MoS page with the snide edit summary "add useless words to clarify due to pointless objectioon".
- [22] Makes inflammatory remarks about regular MoS editors.
- [23] Refers to another editor's position as "irrelevant"
- [24] Goes back to add that it's also "tendentious" and "inflammatory"
- [25] Replies to an editor with the edit summary "response to sole instance of reasoning", thus impugning the remainder of that editor's contributions to the discussion
- [26] A large statement in which PMA refers to me and "my friends" suggesting some kind of cabal, even though I don't know most of the MoS editors from Adam, and ending with a statement implying that I and others should not be editing content at all
- [27] Misstates the position of an ArbCom member in an attempted red herring (Here is said member refuting PMA's statement)
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
I request that the 12 month topic ban from all MoS pages and their accompanying discussions be restored on PMAnderson, since he has demonstrated that he cannot control his rhetoric.
Additional comments by Andy Walsh (talk):
In this motion, PMAnderson was allowed back on the MoS pages (except for ones related to date linking) with the caveat that "All editors whose restrictions are being narrowed are reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in their editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion". Despite statements that he was ""not planning to return for a while, even if this amendment passes" PMAnderson immediately returned to the MoS pages after his restriction was narrowed and began a campaign of aggressive and incivil rhetoric. Regrettably, all the examples I cite above are within 24 or 48 hours of his restriction being narrowed.
In the interest of disclosure, I have had occasional disagreements with PMA in the past but they were never incivil, and they are so long ago that I can't find the diffs. I was not party to the date delinking case nor did I even comment on it. I also acknowledge that PMA does bring some good ideas to the table, and is capable of rational, civil discussion when he chooses to. However, he doesn't choose to often enough.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[28]
Discussion concerning Pmanderson
Statement by Pmanderson
- Andy Walsh misstates what I said, which was Noetica's question is therefore when did you stop beating your wife? and irrelevant tp the issue at hand. I was asked repeatedly, "Why does a given piece of text mean X?" It means Y, which directly contradicts X, and I suggested clarifications which make it beyond doubt that it means Y. At the third repetition, the question does become tendentious, irrelevant, and inflammatory, just like the notoriously unanswerable question quoted. I am still awaiting the next accusation: that I called Noetica a wife-beater</irony>.
- This is criticism of a post, not of an editor - as are the rest of these, insofar as they are anything; if it was excessive, I am willing to strike. But I am not quarrelling with Noetica, who has indeed posted rather lavish compliments to me after this incident; we disagree.
- Since I have pointed this out already elsewhere, I am puzzled by Andy Walsh's continued use of this charge, which is indeed specious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Response to Ohconfucius: Ohconfucius is under the same restriction I am; he comes here to comment while calling me an anarchist. I am not starting an AE on this - my view is that such stuff should be left to defeat itself; but surely what goes for the goose goes for the gander. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Response to Goodmorningworld. This is precisely why MOS causes so many problems. It cionsistently makes instructions which violate all three of the criteria in WP:CREEP:
- There is rarely any indication of an actual problem (as opposed to a hypothetical or a perceived problem).
- The proposed instructions don't solve this problem (as opposed to treating symptoms or making symbolic gestures).
- The instructions are usually overcomplex, forbid reasonable (sometimes preferable) idioms, and are normally unnecessary prohibitions.
- Those who regard recognizing this as anarchism have forgotten that Wikipedia is not a government, and that writing English is an art, not an exercise in painting by numbers for which they need to supply an instruction kit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments by other editors
- No comment on the merits of the conduct at issue, but since it does not seem to violate a specific enforceable arbitration remedy, I am not sure that arbitration enforcement admins can do anything here. Sandstein 04:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have no idea. I was told to come here when I raised my concerns at the discussion page for the motion announcement, which grew into a huge conversation. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- "...and began a campaign of aggressive and incivil rhetoric" is a good way of describing the behavior seen in the previous day or two. PMAnderson has lost no opportunity to resume his (self-stated) crusade to abolish the MOS at WP. Arbitration was specifically about behavioral issues, so it is disappointing to see inflammatory language such as the following:
- - "Masters of MoS",
- - "...prejudices of six editors",
- - "...question therefore is like 'when did you stop beating your wife?': tendentious, inflammmatory, and irrelevant...",
- - "...before resorting to dispute resolution on this confused and obnoxious thread",
- - "Why do we need to rule on it, except to satisfy a will to power?",
- - "...six "usual suspects...",
- - "...we should pull the plug on this swamp. It's a breeding place for controversy, and a indiscriminate mass of unsourced, uncited, arbitrary and silly edicts made up in class one day",
- - "Feel free to prove yourself more capable at that than at this specious charge...",
- While none of this is particularly horrific, it clearly indicates a mentality of abrasiveness (that has been absent at the MOS for a couple of months now). PMAnderson has done nothing today but demonstrate his unwillingness to work constructively in a collaborative environment. In addition, his self-stated crusade to demolish the MOS renders him unsuitable for (real) assistance at the MOS pages. Sorry, but I support a long-term block for PMAnderson to all the MOS pages (and associated talk pages).
- HWV258 06:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I am sure there are other pertinent examples, but I would just make the observation that a similar pattern of incivility was deemed to sufficiently demonstrate the lack of good faith, resulting in the 6-month topic ban of another editor who sought to further his own agenda through personal attacks and verbose wikilawyering. A similar sanction may be a appropriate in this case. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- This editor has been involved in a heated discussion for several days at WP:NCON where he makes substantial edits to the guideline before any consensus has formed to change it. I also see the edit summary comments here , though perhaps toned down a little. His comments on the talk page are also bordering on uncivil. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is the problem with AE; it attracts all sorts of irrelevant complaints. I surreverted a direct reversion (once) on a page which has no consensus - indeed, as many editors object to it as defend it. I may do again, or leave it to others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- The behavior I'm referring to is not related to a dispute. Please don't play this off as "some editors who disagree with your edits coming to attack you on AE". I'm merely commenting to let people know that a there's similar behave pattern in other pages that might otherwise be overlooked. And it was clearly not one edit, as anyone who looks at that page history can see. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is the problem with AE; it attracts all sorts of irrelevant complaints. I surreverted a direct reversion (once) on a page which has no consensus - indeed, as many editors object to it as defend it. I may do again, or leave it to others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Per [29] and specifically "(3) All editors whose restrictions are being narrowed are reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in their editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion...", as well as the original terms of enforcement for all restrictions in the Date delinking case, allegations of incivility and edit-warring on style guidelines by editors under restriction can and should be addressed here. Nathan T 15:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- However, note the intention of ArbCom: this case deals with MOS and progeny; not with other guidelines - and WP:NCON is a naming convention. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- I was about to file an enforcement request against Ohconfucius for this edit, when I noticed Pmanderson had mentioned it above. Pmanderson objects (I think) to being called an anarchist, but what caught my attention was Ohconfucius referring to Pmanderson as "Pam Anderson". This is, in my view, a deliberate dig by Ohconfucius at Pmanderson. To realise this, you need to know some of the history here, including a recent exchange (from July 2009) where Pmanderson asks people to call him either Septentrionalis or Pmanderson, and not any of the various quasi-derogatory nicknames applied to him by those he has been in dispute with. The recent background to this is here, a few paragraphs down: "editors should not willfully distort other usernames, as in this edit (I say willful to exclude typoes, which this is not). Ohconfucius and GregL have picked up this minor obnoxiousness from Tony, who seems to have reformed." Then scroll back up the page to the statement by Lar, and you will see Pmanderson saying the following: "Either Pmanderson or Septentrionalis will do; wiki-friends have nicknames. But "Mandy" or "Manderson" are intentional pinpricks". In the same vein as Ohconfucius's earlier use of "Mandy", I submit that Ohconfucius's use of "Pam Anderson" here is an 'intentional pinprick'. If so, then this is classic baiting on the part of Ohconfucius, trying to provoke a response from Pmanderson. Whether this needs enforcement against Ohconfucius or not, I leave up to the admins reading this section, as I may be reading too much into this. Carcharoth (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- On a more general point, it would be good to remind those editing at the manual of style (MOS) pages and talk pages that the original case scheduled a stability review three months after the case. I was recused in the case and remain recused on the requests and any such review (though I might present evidence). The wording clearly says that if the MOS hasn't stablised, further sanctions may be forthcoming. The wording is here. I would ask those editing MOS pages to read what Tony1 (one of the parties to the case) said here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I hope people heed your words Carcharoth. Nothing is gained by name-calling and subtle digs. I tried to be clear in my statement that PMAnderson does do good work, even though I vehemently disgree with his methods, which all too often involve edit warring and insults. I don't think it's fair to make people wait around three months when the behavior I've outlined is serious and current. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- The three months date from the end of the case on 14 June, so that would be on 14 September. One of the things I noticed is that some editors, immediately their restrictions were relaxed, went straight back to "their" MOS pages and started editing them again to roll back the changes that had happened while they were "away". Greg L in particular went straight to MOSNUM and made a series of edits making changes. Only later did he go to the talk page to discuss those changes, using the words "I had been away from MOSNUM for a while" (yes, he had been topic banned from such pages, initially indefinitely, but the restrictions were partially lifted recently after two months). I don't know what definition of 'stability' ArbCom will be using, but I do know that what I'm seeing at the moment doesn't look like stability. I would also guess that if ArbCom do a review and find things are not stable, then they will look at more people than just the ones that were involved in the date delinking case. If I was presenting evidence for such a review, I would certainly take a closer look at the history of disputes at MOS. Carcharoth (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Noetica's comment: I am not a litigious editor; nor have actions ever been taken against me. Faced with obstinate and unWikipedian behaviour, I typically present my evidence and arguments incisively and resolutely, and attempt to engage the perpetrator in dialogue; and I do not edit-war. If a firm but rational stand doesn't work, I have been known to withdraw completely, since there are better things to do. A committed and serious MOS editor, I nevertheless withdrew last December – for more than half a year, since PMAnderson had made productive work at WP:MOS next to impossible. I am amazed that he now comes back unchastened by ArbCom's sanctions, and completely unattentive to ArbCom's admonitions. He returned as soon as he could to his old ways: as rude, disruptive, and recalcitrant as ever at WT:MOSNUM, and in his trigger-happy editing of both WP:MOSNUM and WP:MOS, where I had started discussion of a point. He demanded answers to his questions (and got answers), but he refused to answer plain questions put to him. The whole sorry episode is recorded here. When his case was clearly lost, by a majority of seven opinions to one, he persisted in soapboxing about his opponents (presumably with me as the ringleader) in terms that smear us as little better than Taliban zealots. Us! In his edit summaries also, as recorded above. And now at his own userpage, where he misreports events according to his own coloured view of the situation. No wonder people are provoked to use mild pet names for him. I don't know what should be done. Something, though. We work hard to maintain high standards at Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is difficult enough without an editor who appears not to understand the goals of MOS constantly operating against us. The guidelines serve Wikipedia well: quietly and without fuss, for those editors consulting MOS who do not look below the lid. PMAnderson should be taken seriously as a persistent threat to stability, good order, and our collegial development work in the service of the community.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 04:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Pressed for time so I'll limit myself to just this comment. Calling PMAnderson an anarchist in no way, shape or form is an insult. It is a simple statement of fact. (Although I would qualify it by calling him a style anarchist). There is nothing at all wrong with being an anarchist. It is one possible position of many to take within a compass rose of ideological stances. Anarchists, however, tend to operate on the margins. Generally their positions do not gain majority support and so they must content themselves with the status of a gadfly. Unfortunately PMAnderson is not content with that. He is tirelessly at work making use of WP's full arsenal of fratricidal weapons, from "subtle" insults to warnings and threats to intimidating editors by a dizzying array of means including but not limited to making sure that anyone who argues against him finds themselves added to an ongoing Arbitration. In the past PMAnderson has been treated very lightly by the Arbs who have allowed him to wreak much damage. It will be interesting to see if this pattern continues. Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Result concerning Pmanderson
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Interfase
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Interfase
User requesting enforcement:
Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Interfase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
- First revert of Tzitzernavank Monastery article
- Second revert
- Third revert
- First revert on Amaras Monastery article
- Second revert
- Third revert
- Fourth revert
- Fifth revert
- Sixth revert
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Left to the discretion of administrator. Perhaps a week-long block, or a slight topic ban.
Additional comments by Marshal Bagramyan (talk):
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[30]
Discussion concerning Interfase
Statement by Interfase
Comments by other editors
Result concerning Interfase
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- Edit warring is continuing since this report; since this is the first block, I've made it 48 hours. Shell babelfish 04:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Pedrito
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Pedrito
User requesting enforcement:
JaakobouChalk Talk 23:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Pedrito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria#Pedrito_restricted
Pedrito has been indefinitely banned from Israel-Palestine conflict-related articles.
9) Pedrito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
- While he has not directly violated the ban, it appears that he has messaged another user [31] in a request to influence an article related to the conflict. I will note in favor of the user from whom this was requested, that he did not made the requested change. (assuming this is true) However, I believe that it is a violation of the ban, which was enacted in order to completely disengage the users it dealt with from being an influence on Israel-Palestine articles on Wikipedia.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
block.
Additional comments by JaakobouChalk Talk:
There's room to inspect the activity of the notified editor.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Notified - [32].
Discussion concerning Pedrito
Statement by Pedrito
Comments by other editors
Result concerning Pedrito
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- I don't believe this is a violation. While editors should not proxy for someone who is banned or restricted, that doesn't prevent a restricted editor from offering reasonable suggestions. Of course, someone who decides to make an edit based on a restricted editor's suggestion needs to realize that they are taking personal responsibility for the content. Unless there's a pattern of disruption here, I don't believe any action is necessary at this time. Leaving open for further comments. Shell babelfish 04:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't a violation of the restriction as it's written. However, you could request a clarification on the WP:RFARB page. PhilKnight (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)