Requests for enforcement

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

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

Lvivske

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 Lvivske

User requesting enforcement:
_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes#Editors_reminded, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions

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

Anti-Polish comments and some personal attacks:

Personal attacks:

Other ethic-based comments:

[9]
[10]

Refusal to back down and behave in a civil fashion:

[11]

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

[12] Warning by PasswordUsername (talk · contribs)
[13] Warning by AdjustShift (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Since it seems that comments on his talk page and in discussion asking him to tone it down and be more civil are failing to be effective, something else needs to be done. This user is creating much bad blood between Polish and Ukrainian editors, adding him to Digwuren's sanction list and a stern warning from AE admins may, hopefully, give him a pause. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC) PS. Considering his repeated bad faith towards Polish editor and biased editing of Poland-related articles, a topic ban seems could be helpful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [14]

Discussion concerning Lvivske

Statement by Lvivske

I just hope that whichever admin reads this protest actually looks at the links posted above and realizes how minor they are, and that Piotrus is just grasping at straws. This is just another attempt by a pro-Polish editor with an agenda to censor editors from trying to improve the article in question, and provide a NPOV.--Львівське (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

See also the other disputant at #Poeticbent. Sciurinæ (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

→ The above report by a German user Sciurinæ (talk · contribs) includes also a stunt by Lvivske (talk · contribs) who yet again, presents himself there as an opinionated problem user insulting Polish Wikipedians at large with descriptive language. --Poeticbent talk 16:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Piotrus' request, it's high time this editor gets a slap on the wrist. Today he continued with his provocations: moved the Wołyń Voivodeship (1921–1939) article to Volhynian Voivodeship (1921–1939) without any discussion, reverted on the Ukrainian Insurgent Army article with the disgraceful comment that he's "reverting vandalism" [15], shockingly advocated blanket reverts for combating "biases" [16] and so on and so forth. Loosmark (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excsue me, but User:Paweł5586's edits were vandalism. He reverted needlessly the order of the article, and put blatant bias back into the piece that I had just removed. What is this kangaroo court you guys have set up here?--Львівське (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Paweł5586 added something you disagree with it, that's completely not vandalism. Also please stop using insulting language as "kangaroo court", the decision here will be made by an uninvolved Admin. Loosmark (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's insulting is that its 5 editors ganging up on 1 who's merely trying to keep articles unbiased. It's clear as day to any passer by what you're trying to do here. It's sad...--Львівське (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that the move was carried despite consensus on talk not to move.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRNC...--Львівське (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus of you and 1 other person? And the other person is under dispute too? That's not consensus! Nonetheless, the spelling I moved it to had twice as many google hits, 4x as many on google scholar. If done Boolean looking for "Wołyń Voivodeship" on google scholar it yeilds NOTHING. I was very justified in my move to be WP:BOLD and improve the article.--Львівське (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd also like to point out to Lvivske repeated attempts to disguise reverts as minor edits, after he has been asked not to: [17]. This is getting disruptive quickly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I disguise reverts by starting talk page sections on the change I made (re: "quote about terror"). I'd be horrible in espionage...--Львівське (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marking reverts as minor edits is disgraceful in any case, it is against the basic wikipedia etiquette. Instead of inventing excuses coupled with cinism i suggest you stop with such behavior. Loosmark (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, I'll stop "inventing excuses" when you stop inventing infractions. Deal?--Львівське (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are going to lie in the face of the obvious? Do you really think the admins won't see that you deleted a big chuck of text and marked it as "spelling"? You are not helping your cause but do as you wish. Loosmark (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the last few days, since the initiation of this report, this user has actually shown quite a considerable willingness to discuss the topics and he's toned down a lot of the extreme anti-Polish rhetoric which he manifested initially. Basically the relevant topics are by their nature controversial and so can involve emotionally worded strong statements (and I understand that). As a result I think this report should just be closed with no action as long as Lvivske continues being constructive. Basically, let this one go, though keep it in mind - just remind Lvivske to discuss his edits and the edits of other editors he disagrees with. Lvivske, just keep in mind that I - and probably other Polish editors - are very willing to listen on these difficult topics, just don't call us "Polish propagandists" or the like and your input will definitely be considered and appreciated. There is plenty of room for cooperation here. Thanks.radek (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radek there is a small problem with your reasoning, and namely as you can see from the discussion above Lvivske refuses to admit there was anything wrong with his behavior, blames others on ganging him, accuses others of vandalism, lies that about his edits etc., etc. it is true that his behavior improved on the talk page of the massacres article but my bet is if he "survives" this report he'll revert to his old behavior. Loosmark (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he reverts to his old behavior then we can refer back to this report and it'll be still here. In that case the admins in charge will see that this was a problem in the past, that he got a pass once already and will take that into consideration. I think it'd be fine if the a note to that effect is made along with the 'no action' in the results section.radek (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Lvivske

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

No action at this time. The diffs given weren't civil but neither were they so egregious to need immediate sanction. Since Lvivske has improved his civility since this report, consider this the official warning and notification of ArbCom sanctions required by Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions. Shell ^babelfish 15:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spanishboy2006

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 Spanishboy2006

User requesting enforcement:
Cinéma C 01:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Spanishboy2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Probation

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

[18] Listed Kosovo as a disputed state, despite Wikipedia consensus to call Kosovo a 'disputed region'. Both 'disputed country' (or 'state') and 'disputed province' are Albanian and Serb POV respectively.
[19] Listed Kosovo as bordering Serbia, pushing POV by claiming that Kosovo's independence is not disputed.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

[20] Warning by Cinéma C (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Indefinite block or topic ban from Kosovo related articles

Additional comments by Cinéma C:

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[21]

Discussion concerning Spanishboy2006

Statement by Spanishboy2006

Comments by other editors

A possible sockpuppet of Sinbad Barron (ie. the Mr.Neutral gang). This user has constantly pushed for Kosovo to be presented as a "country" despite a heavy range of issues raised by a wide number of users asides Cinema C. This "block of users" seems to carry with it an unhealthy obsession with using Noel Malcolm sources and basing the articles according to the publisher's opinion. Compare this edit by Spanishboy[22] to the following on a non-Kosovo article but where the Kosovo topic is instrumental: [23] (which was traced by following the trail of a user who had already taken an interest on Kosovo here[24]). Malcolm is not credited on his Kosovo piece but is so in his South Ossetia speech, as well as on the article[25]. The evidence which blocked these users also resulted in the block of another terrible user called User:Metrospex. There had been similarities between these users but only when Noel Malcolm was raised after a period of silence did it strike me that this may be the case. The only other user who has insisted on using Malcolm is Aigest who I have to say, does so more cautiously and on other pages. So I'd check the IPs on this one, and carry out whichever other methods are used to established puppetry. Evlekis (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Spanishboy2006

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

Note: Editor was blocked for 2 weeks under WP:ARBMAC by User:J.delanoy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like we should see what happens when the block expires. We don't want to pile on multiple sanctions. If this user is a possible sock puppet account, I strongly suggest filing the evidence at WP:SPI and specifically asking a checkuser if these accounts can be linked with any others. Make sure to do a thorough job of finding all related accounts. Jehochman ^Talk 03:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Olaf Stephanos

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 Olaf Stephanos

Note: I have been preparing this over the space of a few days. I am still trying to familiarize myself with arbitration. Never done it before and hope to never do it again. Apologize for the length or mistakes in format, I tried my best.

User requesting enforcement:
Colipon+(Talk) 15:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Olaf Stephanos (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:

Central to these diffs is one pervasive, consistent issue - the editor's tendency to always want to tip the article POV towards Falun Gong's favour, no matter the situation. This user certainly goes out of his way to remove, restructure, move, or otherwise tone down reliably sourced content critical of Falun Gong followed by extremely lengthy argumentative rants on the talk pages.

[26] Serious POV editing. This was the user's first comprehensive rewrite of Falun Gong after article probation - he adds undue weight to the article's intro, highlighting Falun Gong's "plight", and then adds an entire section of selective academic sources, advocating the "good nature" of Falun Gong in the section "Theoretical background", while removing all well-sourced information about Li's claimed supernatural status and apocalyptic claims - claiming it was to "rv Sam Luo's ravings". Modified "Criticism" heading to "Third-party views". Deleted several paragraphs of critical information; replaced it with favourable information.
[27] Serious POV editing. Attempting to discredit the source of the critical content, not a legitimate refutation or rebuttal against critical commentary. Also, another paragraph is awkwardly inserted (copied from another article, originally also drafted by himself) its only purpose seems to attack the American Anti-Cult Movement in defense of Falun Gong. User did not attempt to seek consensus before or after the edit, merely attempting to justify it with a long rant that he is "right". A chronic issue is that whenever any critical content is added to the article, he POV edits with "criticism of the critics" to "balance out" the article.
In the same edit, he also forcibly inserts that Patsy Rahn is a "Bachelors of Arts" to discredit her published works (he lobbies for it here, discrediting her ad hominem with "Patsy Rahn is a former B-class soap opera actress, who has nothing but a BA in political science". On the talk page, Olaf continues to allude to a single source to justify that the Anti-Cult movement in the United States as "unreliable" and a "lackey of the Communist Party of China".
[28] [29] Other attempts at discrediting sources critical of Falun Gong, very clear POV editing similar to previous instance.
[30] Another instance of discrediting sources critical of Falun Gong in article body, an unsourced POV edit that aims to "balance out" criticism.
[31] A deletion of various critical sites, including all Chinese government-related sites in "External Links", saying it gives "undue weight". (Eventually almost all critical links were deleted, but by other users - see below).
[32] Inserting paragraphs about human rights reports on Falun Gong, including a selective claim from a UN report which was later refuted. These edits aim to advocate for Falun Gong's "plight". Note also he adds quotation marks around words like "illegal act" to make them sound less credible.
In Sujiatun Thrombosis Hospital, an article that has been a focus of Falun Gong advocacy (and since deleted/redirected after attention from uninvolved editors):
Restored removal of peripheral comments about whether the allegations are considered by FG to be closed, with the comment "disagree; no reason to remove only this paragraph and leave the three others intact; are you sure you didn't try to make the case look 'closed'?" effectively giving Falun Gong 'the final word' while the dismissed allegations are left hanging - a common tactic by FG editors.

Blanking entire section because he cannot get his way.

Covert edit warring under guise of restoring "balance", by introduction of a weaseley phrase, and misrepresentation of source that the allegations have been "found credible by Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine", and re-adding removed problematic material with no substantive discussion (relying on edit summary).

Introduction of material tangential and not specifically related to the article's subject as a method of 'counterbalancing' the removal referred to immediately above - again, so he could have final say on what is "right".

All of these edits reflect POV and disruptive editing, aimed at stalling neutral good-faith edits by User:Ohconfucius.
[33] Deleting Mrund's edits about Falun Gong's controversial aspects from lead sourced from TIME and James Randi Educational Foundation. Here is his justification for deleting, and here he deletes it again without consensus.
[34] This is a lengthy talk-page response to an uninvolved user who suggested that the article was extremely biased in favour of Falun Gong and there have been efforts at erasing critical content. This is a form of very direct advocacy, which is prohibited according to the arbitration. Other talk page advocacy edits include [35] [36] [37] (Rants about personal experiences, personal meeting with founder Li Hongzhi, calling him a "humble man" etc.), (Extremely lengthy advocacy about why the word 'cult' doesn't belong in article, despite reliable sources, and other dissertations); advocating for Falun Gong through blockquotes taken from official Falun Gong website faluninfo.org, with attached personal experiences; More advocacy on the talk pages against the Anti-Cult movement.
[38] Removing NPOV tag on a revision that clearly favours Falun Gong, while the NPOV dispute has not been resolved, with justification: "The disputed content and concrete alternatives have not been explicated on the talk page."
Here Argues that James Randi, another critic of Falun Gong, is "partisan" and "not an expert on Falun Gong", branding Randi's educational website a "personal blog", saying it cannot be included in the article. Here he calls Randi a "good illusionist" and "does not have an academic background", and that "sometimes he's just plain wrong".
[39] In one of his few edits outside the realm of Falun Gong-related articles, he inserts unsourced lines ("imprisoning Falun Gong practitioners to detention centers and labor camps and torturing many of them to death") on the page of Chinese president Jiang Zemin, when the paragraph already has a "citation needed" tag. In contrast, his edits ([40] [41], as part of a protracted edit war with User:Simonm223) on Li Hongzhi, founder of Falun Gong, promote Li's benevolence and positive image. These edits clearly reflect pro-Falun Gong, anti-Chinese government POV editing.
[42] Removes quote directly sourced from Li Hongzhi to hide Li's more outlandish dissertations, with justification "it doesn't fit in well with the other [quotes]".
[43] This edit is a restoration of Original Research conducted by User:asdfg12345, in defense of Falun Gong's more 'outlandish' claims, reflecting clear advocacy.
[44] The user persistently edit wars to keep Falun Gong critic and cult expert Rick Ross out of the article, labelling him a "self-contained cottage industry"; here he deletes Ross again using the term "former criminal" to discredit the source. In this typical revert, he modified all instances of the word "repression" or "ban" to "persecution" and added praise for Falun Gong including: "while others say 'there could no gentler religion than the Falun Gong.'[...] In 1999, the Chinese government said it considered Falun Gong to be a cult; though scholars see this as merely a 'red-herring'." This reflects pervasive anti-critic, pro-Falun Gong POV editing by said user.
[45] Delete well-sourced content on "homophobic" teachings, justifying with "Anonymous IP inserting a new section, using substandard sources and ignoring criticism just doesn't work.".
He expressed that 'forced labor camp' or 'brainwashing center' are in general appropriate "plain English words" to describe prisons to which supposed FG practitioners are sent, aiming to sensationalize these events.
He harasses me while I prepare for this very arbitration case, first posting a lengthy pre-emptive defence on Talk:Falun Gong; he then brings it up in an unrelated disucssion stating: "[Colipon] is at this very moment preparing to lose his face by blatantly misusing the arbitration enforcement process against me to gain an upper hand in content disputes..."
Numerous diffs on personal attacks, which severely violate WP is not a battleground listed below:

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

Topic ban or complete block.

Additional comments by Colipon+(Talk):

My first impressions with the article was that it was similar to ongoing disputes at Scientology, with a group of dedicated apologist editors making blatant POV and disruptive edits and making real work on the articles very difficult. Falun Gong is a bit more complicated. 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.

Conflict of Interest
The user I mentioned above is undoubtedly a single-purpose account and has been editing Falun Gong-related articles since 2006 (along with a team of 3 other very easily identifiable FLG activist editors - asdfg12345 (talk · contribs), Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs), and HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs)). After the ban of Anti-FLG users Sam Luo and Tomanada, he and a very consistent 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, and two users in particular (Olaf, dilip rajeev) show very little respect for any users who wish to bring balance to articles, hurling ad hominem accusations and personal attacks.

They are also known to invoke Wikipedia policy whenever it works to their favour. Misrepresentation of sources has been endemic, and these four abovenamed editors are known to engage in tag-team edit warring, and backing up each other's problematic edits, but occasionally conceding when it is clearly demonstrated that the misrepresentation has occurred. More often than not, the neutral revision provokes another flurry of introducing "highly sourced material" ostensibly to restore the balance of bias in favour of Falun Gong. 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.

Pervasive personal attacks; hostilities
User:Olaf Stephanos has become especially hostile of late and severely violates the principle that "Wikipedia is a not a battleground", constantly attacking other users. Just in the last month alone, for example, he cagily disparaged the efforts of new non-aligned User:John Carter by alluding to the fact that he edits "things that are widely considered either as parodies or otherwise ridiculous topics"; he made numerous personal attacks against me, including telling me to "stop being a martyr" and calling me "one raging anti-FLG bull", and when I asked him to stop his personal attacks, this was his lengthy reply accompanied with more personal attacks; On the same talk page, Olaf tells User:Mrund: "I have not attacked you personally"; in the same edit, he writes, "The face of your ideological struggle just looks so much better with a faux moustache and a gargantuan plastic nose". He later asserted his personal attacks to be "satire" and "humour".

In addition, Olaf persistently disparages my character and neutrality by repeatedly making references to my post over two years ago on the talk page of now banned user (and anti-FLG activist) Sam Luo, and wrote a sarcastic comment which began with:

I merely proved through direct quotes that your shining helmet of neutrality seems to be made of cheap Chinese tinfoil. If you weren't peacocking around with phrases like "neutral-minded editors calling on the pro-FLG side to adhere to NPOV", there would be no need to point out your double standards. Why don't you start playing your cards openly?.

Moreover, in response to my call for investigation on Falun Gong articles and related commentary from a wide range of editors that the article is poorly written, biased, and whitewashed of any criticism, Olaf wrote a lengthy 4-paragraph rebuttal which opened with:

"Guys, guys, here's a handkerchief to wipe your foaming mouths [...] I will be here keeping you in check, and there is no way to get rid of me, because I know what I'm doing [...] I'm not going to burn myself, nor is there anything in my edit history that would incriminate me."

All Falun Gong related articles are currently on probation, this is by no means the first time I have encountered problematic users who violate terms of the arbitration. Because serious arbitration enforcement cases are time consuming, they have not been filed until now. This cannot go on. It is imperative that any or all problematic conduct should result in conclusive action against any guilty party. My suggestion is that admins conduct a thorough investigation on Falun Gong and its related articles, investigate all the regular users who edit the pages, and enforce a wholesale ban on any user (including myself) that they find possess a clear activist agenda, whether on behalf of the Chinese gov't or on behalf of Falun Gong. My belief is that because of the chronic nature of the problems and because activist users are increasingly becoming adept at weasling out of WP policy violations, that a ban will be the only effective measure to end these chronic problems.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
User has been notified here.

Discussion concerning Olaf Stephanos

Statement by Olaf Stephanos

First of all, I would like state what I suppose will be obvious by examining the diffs provided above: this is an attempt to misuse WP:AE to gain an upper hand in a content dispute.

I have been editing these articles for several years, and my stated intent has always been to respect the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Whenever there have been problems or disagreements, I have engaged in extensive discussion; I have taken matters to the community noticeboards, especially after the latest mediation case was initiated; I have absolutely no intent to keep away "critical" sources just because they are critical, as long as they are given due weight and meet the requirements put forth in WP:RS and WP:V; and I have done my very best not to break WP:3RR, or to engage in prolonged edit warring, even though the articles have faced numerous assaults and occasionally even outright vandalism.

I assume there will be a group of editors leaving their comments on me before the ArbCom gives its final judgment. Some of them will probably try to make me look negative; others will undoubtedly defend me. My argumentative and articulate style of speech, along with my knowledge of the policies and guidelines, has made me a demanding opponent in the eyes of those who support direct action and try to take over these pages by force, or who insist on substandard sources, undue weight, and original research. (On a side note, the main Falun Gong article was recently protected after our mediator's WP:BRD model was breached.) I also initiated the original Falun Gong arbitration case that ended up with the topic ban of User:Samuel Luo and User:Tomananda. In my view, these are the real reasons for singling me out.

Before I go into details about the accusations against me, I would like to point out that Colipon is blatantly misrepresenting some of the diffs (such as this one), and that it is not an accident on his side, because already on August 7 he has read an initial list of rebuttals that is now available on my talk page. In addition, he knows that many of the removals (such as Rick Ross) have been approved on a community noticeboard, but he still chooses to use them as "evidence".

I will also highlight the fact that the following diffs are relatively old: #1 (8 June 2007), #5 (21 June 2007), #6 (12 June 2007), #7 (14 June 2007), #9 (10 March 2008), #10 (2nd & 3rd: 12 January 2008, 4th: 10 March 2008, 5th: 11 March 2008, 6th: 14 July 2008, 8th: 7 March 2008), #11 (15 July 2008), #12 (1st: 12 March 2008, 2nd: 12 March 2008), #14 (15 July 2008), #16 (4th: 4 July 2008), #18 (17 March 2008).

Point-by-point discussion of the alleged violations

I don't think there's much to say here. User:Free456 is a sockpuppet of Samuel Luo, and I reverted him.
In this edit, I have merely pointed out that Margaret Singer cannot be taken to reflect the academic consensus on the matter. She had been given an extremely prominent place in the "Reception" section. There was discussion on this wording, I took part and did not try to enforce it, agreed to removing all the references to the court decisions, and have even spoken on behalf of Singer's inclusion as a significant minority viewpoint here. I still think it is acceptable to mention her, as long as she is not given undue weight and is presented in the proper context.
Pointing out Patsy Rahn's academic credentials with a sourced reference to her biography (on the website of the host of the conference in question) shouldn't be a problem, especially since I did nothing to enforce that edit. Just a little while earlier, Colipon had inserted this edit that appealed to Margaret Singer's credentials, but apparently he doesn't see any problem there (frankly, I don't, either). Lastly, I have not called the ACM a "lackey of the Communist Party of China"; I have only mentioned that a peer-reviewed source discussing the ACM discourse and Falun Gong contains these words: "By applying the ['cult'] label and embracing theories that posit passive followers under the mental control of a dangerous leader, the government can aggressively destroy the group, all the while claiming to be protecting religious freedom. In this respect, the Western Anti-Cult Movement has served, unwittingly or not, as a lackey in the party's efforts to maintain its political dominance." [46]
The first diff is admittedly an attempt to restore the primary sources about Singer and her expertise. This was my only revert. See point #2. On the other hand, posting the second diff as a piece of "evidence" is preposterous. In my next edit five minutes later [47], I revert my changes and say "Sorry, my bad. Seems like another organisation has taken over the name "American Family Foundation"." Colipon knows this by reading the rebuttals on my talk page, but he still chose to include this diff. In my humble opinion, that is quite indicative of his approach to this arbitration enforcement case.
This is nothing but a link to a section that discusses the anti-cult movement in light of reliable sources.
My rationale is apparent, see the edit summary. At the time of the edit, the External Links section looked like this.
Adding sourced information shouldn't be a problem. Adding quotation marks around the words "illegal acts" means that they are the words of the Chinese Communist Party.
All of this is done in good faith. See the edit history of the article to see what User:Ohconfucius was doing, as well as the article's talk page. Also note my words, "I'm not going to start an argument. Let's see what they say here."
The edit summary directly points out the problems: "1) The word 'controversial' is not even found in the article. 2) James Randi website is a personal website; see Wikipedia:Sources. 3) The third sentence was not attributed to anyone." In addition, I don't see what's the problem with my talk page justification that was mentioned by Colipon.
I see this as good faith discussion on the talk page, pointing out issues with undue weight, among others. I admit that some of these edits are not directly discussing the article contents; but they are argumentative replies to people who have raised questions, or to personal attacks such as User:Mrund's "Please just act like a grownup, Olaf, OK? I suggest you go and insert some useful material into some other article instead of sabotaging my attempts to improve this one." (The latter comment was related to edit disputes surrounding point #9.) The "advocacy" for what faluninfo.net says about the issues at hand is directly relevant to this article, as self-published sources can be used as sources about themselves. The "advocacy" against the anti-cult movement simply presents some academic arguments against the ACM ideology, and ends with the words, "But here we mostly focus on a careful scrutiny of the editors' contributions and evaluate them against the official policies. I wrote the above to introduce some of my own views on these matters, and I am ready to continue discussion, but we shouldn't stray too far from the actual purpose of this talk page."
The tag was removed simply because tagging an article must be followed by discussion on the talk page. On these pages, it has been almost a norm that editors have refused to discuss the bones of contention, yet they want to leave a tag and never tell others what exactly needs to be done to get it removed.
Randi's website is subject to WP:SPS. As long as his views on Falun Gong haven't been published by a reliable source, I don't see why they should be included in an encyclopedia.
The first one is a good faith edit on the Jiang Zemin article – never reverted by anyone and apparently not contested (it's still there!). In the first diff on the Li Hongzhi page, my edit summary expresses the intent: "Some edits were justified, such as removing mentions of some obscure proclamations. But systematic removal of positive third party references is not acceptable. The things I restored are notable." I tried to engage User:Simonm223 in discussion here, but he wasn't really up for it.
The section is named "Theoretical background", and the rest of the references deal with academic issues. [48] Apparently, nobody considered this quote very important, since it hasn't been restored to this day.
The idea of this edit was to point out the discrepancy between the sources. It was discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard, and third party editors approved of it. [49] There might have been a better way to express the same thing.
First of all, Rick Ross has been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard in this thread. It was agreed that his personal website is subject to WP:SPS, and that his inclusion can only be considered if his views on Falun Gong have been published by a reliable source. Secondly, I did not label Rick Ross "his own self-contained cottage industry"; it was quoting User:Vecrumba who said these words on the RSN. The "typical revert" is merely restoring sourced content whose removal was not discussed on the talk page. The word "persecution" had been changed by User:PCPP in his previous edits. [50] [51]
I was trying to get the anonymous IP to discuss these changes, instead of adding a new subsection and presenting a synthesis of material from various sources (including a private website). Needless to say, the IP wasn't really up for discussion.
A short comment I wrote on the talk page. Falun Gong practitioners are imprisoned in brainwashing centers and forced labour camps; there's nothing "sensational" about it, it's just extremely frightening. See the article Persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China. I feel that choosing this diff as "evidence" against me really expresses something profound about Colipon's mission on Wikipedia.
I quickly moved the "pre-emptive defence" posted on the Falun Gong talk page to my private talk page, as soon as I was pointed out that Talk:Falun Gong was an inappropriate location. However, as I said before, some of the fallacies in Colipon's evidence were clearly indicated in this version, yet he chose to ignore most of them. As for my comment regarding the misuse of WP:AE, I think the ArbCom can decide for themselves.
Comments on the so-called "personal attacks":

there is absolutely nothing that can be interpreted as hostility towards User:John Carter in this diff.
"Yeah. Stop playing a martyr, Colipon, and stick to the work at hand. I'm not going to get involved with your strawmen. Let's just agree to disagree." was a reply to this rant posted by Colipon on the article's talk page.
"raging anti-FLG bull" was a humorous allusion to a 1980 film by Martin Scorsese. The whole thread is available here. My comment reads in its entirety: "Do you expect to convince me, Colipon? Actions speak louder than words. In my eyes you have come across as one raging anti-FLG bull – but let's leave open the possibility that I'm wrong. Whatever the case, that doesn't mean you wouldn't be welcome here, as long as you follow the rules."
Colipon left out the strikeout in my comment "The face of ~~your~~ ideological struggle just looks so much better with a faux moustache and a gargantuan plastic nose", another example of carnivalesque Bakhtinian satire that I've found an amusing way to point out the sheer absurdity of some arguments.
the reason I have reminded Colipon of this edit are my simple requests to make him retract his words. Despite numerous attempts, he has refused. Personally, I think it is somewhat worrying that Colipon has openly expressed sharing a similar agenda with User:Samuel Luo, who was banned indefinitely during the previous arbitration case.
originally, Colipon finds my comment "I merely proved through direct quotes that your shining helmet of neutrality seems to be made of cheap Chinese tinfoil" humorous, as intended ("haha. I like it. :)" [52]), but now uses it as evidence against me.
when I turn User:Mrund's insinuation of pro-FLG editors being similar to banned scientologists, and Colipon's comment "After reading the archives and history here it is a little naive to go on believing that if we keep this group of Pro-FLG users on this page, that it will be possible to improve it. Therefore my opinion is that a "wholesale ban" is more than necessary" [53], into full-blown satire by beginning my reply with a link to a humorous picture that is so overboard that it's clearly a joke, he takes the whole sentence out of context and even claims it is a response to something different, namely to the "commentary from a wide range of editors that the article is poorly written, biased, and whitewashed of any criticism".

Final words

I find this arbitration enforcement case a real waste of my precious time. I suggest that the ArbCom issues a warning to User:Colipon to prevent him, as well as other like-minded editors, from further misusing the dispute resolution process in the future. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 12:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. A lot of accusations were hurled at me in the comments below. I would point out the following:

No additional evidence was presented against me, and the Falun Gong "critics" mainly relied on vague rhetorics and spurious claims (such as saying that I favour the Epoch Times or Clearwisdom as sources).
The few diffs that they offered merely recycled Colipon's arguments above, or had absolutely nothing to do with the description they gave (for instance, see the link offered by User:Edward130603 that allegedly "turned away a newcomer to the FLG discussions"). My words: "I'm afraid that any discussion on other matters (apart from improving the article) is bound to carry us further away from our goals. It might only lead the regular group of editors to hurl accusations at each other of misrepresenting the difficult issues, i.e. 'whitewashing' or 'denigrating' Falun Gong."
A perfectly matching description of the 'wikilawyering' allegations can be read here: Wikipedia:Wikilawyering#Misuse of the term. Their offenses are not argumentative, but generalising and dismissive. Instead of producing evidence, the term is used as a mere shortcut to some unidentified behaviour.
Being the defendant in an arbitration enforcement case, and in light of the patent frivolousness of the "evidence", I find this comment extremely bizarre: "I believe his targeting of Colipon in this way is to create wriggle-room for himself and his fellow FG practitioners/advocates."
User:Vecrumba's comment was attributed to the RSN, and a link was given: "See the discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard." [54] Looking at the thread, there is no way anybody could interpret these as my words.
Looking at the talk pages of the editors who have excoriated me, it appears they have exchanged e-mails outside Wikipedia and discussed their tactics in this arbitration enforcement case. See the following comments:

Seb az86556 on Ohconfucius' talk page: "you did well in keeping the this Olaf-guy at bay, and I can see now why the Falun Gong thing you emailed about will be "total war"..." [55]
Colipon on Edward130603's talk page: "Anyway, do you have e-mail?" [56]
Colipon on Mrund's talk page: "I'd sent you an e-mail today. Please check! :)" [57]
Ohconfucius on Mrund's talk page: "I'm glad you're back. Drop me an email, I'd like a private chat with you." [58]

I will take no stance on whether such behaviour is inappropriate; I just want to make sure that the ArbCom is aware of it.

✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 08:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

Olaf's style in discussions is extremely hostile and supercilious. He constantly works to present Falun Gong in a positive light, justifying his POV-pushing edits with endless wikilawyering. He hardly touches any non-FG articles though, which means that a topic block and a complete block would amount to the same thing. Either would be most welcome. I support Colipon's suggestion. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by PerEdman I can't get my head around this editor. He occasionally inserts quirky comments into ongoing discussions where it's very unclear to me what he's trying to say, but if I try to ask for clarification, I get more of the same. He would also post long ..harangues with multiple references to more or less relevant policy or guidelines without specifying how he believes those references are relevant. I would classify this style as disruptive to the constructive discussions of the talk page, making consensus-building very difficult. I have believe I have seen a propensity to more strongly oppose the inclusion of anything potentially critical of Falun Gong, than he opposes the inclusion of anything positive, sometimes even when dealing with a single author/source who has both positive and negative comments on Falun Gong. His arguments against such sources are occasionally contradictory or irrelevant. PerEdman (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: If this were any other article, I would suggest no action taken. But the articles in which this author is active are on probation, which for me puts the behavior over the limit of acceptance. PerEdman (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much a compilation of distortions are what I see in what User:Colipon presents above. I am not getting into even trying to refute them point by point. Looking into individual diffs, the larger context of the edits, their sourcing, etc., ought to convince the evaluating admin(s) that these are legitimate edits and the majority positive, highly sourced, well-written contributions to the wikipedia project. Further, these distortions are are based on stuff nit-picked from the user's contributions which span a couple of years at least. I request admins to kindly evaluate things in depth and, if found necessary, to please let User:Colipon and a few other users running this campaign of attack against editors know of its inappropriateness. Also, I see the user making an allegations against me as well claiming that I "show very little respect for any users who wish to bring balance to articles, hurling ad hominem accusations and personal attacks." I request admins to please go through my comments[59][60][61] on the talk of the article and judge for themselves how my interaction with other editors on the topic have been. If colipon's allegation is found baseless, kindly urge user Colipon to refrain from repeatedly making such attacks.Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to say, really? This is a content dispute. I am sure in the time to come, given the current editing on the pages, that there will be real Arbitration Enforcement cases brought to the committee. Yesterday's blatant violation of the WP:BRD model springs to mind, where one third (about 20kb) of the article was blanked with no consensus, then reverted several times, until the page was locked. I was going to make some remarks about Martin and PerEdman's responses, but I suppose there's no use.--Asdfg12345 13:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Edward130603 I agree with Peredman and Martin. Olaf is a single-purpose account who often uses satirical comments to mock and confuse his opponents. For example, recently, his comments have turned away a newcomer to the FLG discussions as you can see here, [62]. User:Seb az86556 who has just followed the discussion for barely 24 hours. Olaf constantly uses these tactics to keep Wikipedia showing FLG in a positive light.--Edward130603 (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by HappyInGeneral This is Wikipedia so there are some rules. The first I would like to mention is WP:NPA. Now I would not even like to mention who started it (although I guess a much better case could be easily built against Colipon, PCPP, Bobby Fletcher, Martin Rundkvist, etc...) yes, this is stroked through because if we would go on this route we would do nothing else but fuel WP:NPA and generate a destructive editing environment and that is BAD!, because it's much more important to see who is keeping it alive. With this in mind I would prefer if our mediator User:Vassyana and/or some of the uninvolved editors like: User:John Carter‎‎, User:Maunus, User:Richardshusr (who are also administrators, with some recent edit history on the talk pages), would issue warnings with notes, basically educating each user who they notice that is engaging in personal attacks (or reply's with other personal attacks to a personal attack), making them thus aware, that yeah, this can actually be seen as a personal attack, so better refrain from it and better foster a consensus based building of the articles, like one that is suggested here, and which basically would come to ease the WP:BRD process. As I see it what Colipon did here is just another example of WP:NPA by misusing evidence, proven by Olaf above, to influence the ongoing content dispute. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Seb az86556 Since I was mentioned in one of the above comments, I feel obliged to give my own view. On the one hand, this user's comments have not "turned me away;" I am merely not into sitting here 24/7 answering every personalized comment thrown at me since the time I have completed kindergarten. Having said that, I have been witness to a style of argumentation and evasion that quickly borders on what is maybe not personal "attacks" but rather personal discrediting in the manner of who-are-you-and-what-do-you-know-anyways. The fact that the user discribes himself as a "demanding opponent" (see above) can be taken as either confidence or arrogance. As for his self-cited "knowledge of the policies and guidelines," I can testify that even though I followed this tit-for-tat spiel for barely 2 days, it has become obvious to me that the user frequently insists on legalistic wikilawyering, which can at times, no doubt, be warranted, but can at other times be disruptively abused as a form of filibuster. In addition, the user insists on bringing in "uninvolved editors" but brands anyone new to the talkpage as involved or partisan within a matter of just a few short hours. This fate is likely to strike anyone who wishes to join the discussion, and this tactic makes any attempt to neutralize the environment futile. As I said in the beginning, I am not quick to leave because of one or two remarks, but others might be, and in the interest of bringing some neutral voices to the editing-process and in the interest of wikipedia, this has got to stop, no doubt. As I see it, this report was filed in order to find out how. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ohconfucius:Fully endorse Seb's commemts directly above. Olav has proudly admitted that he instigated the Arbcom case which removed his dedicated but not so clever opponent Samuel Luo, giving Falun Gong devotees a free run of Wikipedia. Olav seems to be implying that a CCP-led assault on FG is happening again, and is trying to discredit Colipon whilst trying to claim all the good faith for himself. The reality which he finds uncomfortable, is that several editors with solid track records (thus a lot harder for him to discredit than just Colipon alone) on other articles have seen the problems with the FG family of articles, and appear to be out to correct the problem. I believe his targeting of Colipon in this way is to create wriggle-room for himself and his fellow FG practitioners/advocates.
I stopped editing Falun Gong family of articles back in the third quarter of 2008 because I was stressed out by the single purpose accounts running around which were hell bent on giving Falun Gong a whitewash with added peroxide. I was one person fighting three or four dedicated followers, and that was before I had any experience dealing with him (Olav). Now that several 'rational' WP editors have reacted to this blatant point pushing by Falun Gong, I am not going to take a back seat. This edit encapsulates the problem well: "I will be here keeping you in check, and there is no way to get rid of me, because I know what I'm doing. I know how dispute resolution works, what are my rights as an editor, and what kind of behaviour entails punishment. I'm not going to burn myself, nor is there anything in my edit history that would incriminate me." He categorically states that he knows the system inside-out, and implied he will will outsmart any editor/enforcer out to get him. His biggest weakness, IMHO, is his arrogance and his propensity to make personal attacks. Olav is a wikilawyer par excellence- His attempts to sidestep allegations of personal attacks by saying he was quoting someone else is just gutless; saying he was exercising "humour" or "satire" are just lamentable tactics where ownership of words typed out on his own keyboard suddenly morphs into someone else's when his balls are on the block. Note how, all of a sudden, User:Vecrumba (and not he) now said to Colipon that Rick Ross was "his own self-contained cottage industry". All WP editors know the importance of attribution.
Brevity is the enemy of the Falun Dafa – it's a common tactic by Falun Gong editors to demand that everything be sourced to the hilt; they resist any attempt at removing text which praises or defends FG because it is sourced, and it soon becomes a tug of war as to which side is capable of flooding the article with enough sourced coatracks, creating undue emphasis. The other side of the two-pronged approach is to discredit sources offering the opposing viewpoint. In one sentence, Olav objects to sourcing James Randi's comments to his blog on the grounds that it is a WP:SPS, and then he happily defends citing Clearwisdom (CW) or The Epoch Times (ET) when it suits him (as if these latter were highly respected sources and not SPS). Incidentally, FG devotees apply arguments to Xinhua that they ought to be applying with the same fervour to CW or ET; needless to say, they don't. The Falun Gong machine churns out numerous "studies", "reports" – which are hard to match for any editor in competition to add text from reliable sources – and the FG editors manage quite successfully to sideline criticism through a liberal application of WP:UNDUE. I would add that the misuse of sources and the use of ironic quotes is endemic. My allegations of misquoting of sources is from personal experience; these are however easy to sidestep because it's the encyclopaedia which 'anyone can edit'. I am not saying that Olav is directly responsible for all the above, but think it important that Arbs realise the general unhealthy climate which exists in FGverse, and the game which is being played out within these servers.
These two edits and this revert are another example of the FG approach. The allegations have been found to be somewhat wanting in hard fact, yet the Dafa continues to voice opposition to it (as if this opposition is sufficient to render the accusations valid) - this goes with the maxim: 'you throw quantities of mud often enough, and some of it is bound to stick'. When he failed to repel my reasoned deletion, and to avoid breaching WP:3RR, he inserted this paragraph with no direct relevance, without comment. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by John Carter - In the comparatively short time I have been involved in the article, Olaf has regularly violated the talk page guidelines, which probably qualifies as disruptive editing as per the Arbitration Committee ruling. He also rather often indicates that he is a practicioner of the movement, indicating a very realistic WP:COI concern. He gives the impression to me, frankly, of a rather boorish college boy who has developed a bit of a following and on that basis thinks he can get away with what he wants. This includes being opposed to content which I belive wikipedia content guidelines demand. I ascribe at least part of this to the fact that based on his editing history, he has never really edited anything which is not related to Falun Gong, and I believe that this lack of understanding of the project here may well be one of his most serious and basic problems. My own history of what some might call leniency regarding bans and blocks is one which might well indicate to others that I believe virtually any editor with a history with the project is someone we would prefer not losing, and this is true. I think Olaf might be one such editor. On that basis, for what little it might be worth, I think that what might be the best option here would be for an indefinite ban to be placed on the subject, which could be reviewed and reconsidered after the editor involved has spent a possibly predetermined length of time involved in working on any content not related to this topic. If over that time he displays improvement in his current problems, which seem to me to be an almost self-righteous arrogance and what I can only call truly appalling interaction with other editors, particularly those he disagrees with or dislikes, then the ban might be lifted. It might not be unreasonable to ask of him that he seek a mentor as well. Alternately, if such an arrangement is too complicated, I wouldn't myself have any serious objections to a topic ban of six months or so, with the proviso that should his conduct continue in like manner thereafter the ban be restored. John Carter (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Olaf Stephanos

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

Six month topic ban from Falun Gong and related articles. I would suggest that Olaf Stephanos use this time to experience other areas of Wikipedia and focus on calmly and civilly interacting with other editors. If the hostility and POV pushing are not resolved, it is likely that the topic ban will be extended or reinstated. Shell ^babelfish 16:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dbrisinda

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

Request concerning Dbrisinda

User requesting enforcement:
Enric Naval (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary_sanctions

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

[63][64][65][66] adding POV tag and re-adding after several editors reverted and said in the talk page that there is no basis for the tag
[67] JeanandJane also restored the tag once

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

[68] Warning by Brunton (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
topic ban or something that stops the disruption.

Additional comments by Enric Naval (talk):
For [[::User:JeanandJane|JeanandJane]] (talk · contribs), the decision requires that an uninvolved admin gives him a warning in his talk page with a link to the discretionary sanctions decision), so please someone make the honors.

Both editors started placing the POV tag and arguing for it when they failed to convince other editors of their proposed changes. Both editors have been pushing flawed interpretations of sources and cherry picking sources for weeks now in Talk:Homeopathy, to the point where good faith fails and one starts suspecting pure naked POV advocacy. JeanandJane already displayed this behaviour in Talk:Oscillococcinum. Both editors try to squeeze every positive remark from sources beyond reasonable limits while ignoring the equivalent negative sources, which goes against WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT.

Notice that this article has seen heavy edit warring, advocacy and POV pushing in its talk page the past, in addition to edit wars in the article with POV tags.

P.D.: talk page has had 150 comments in the last 4 days, with many different topics conflated together instead of being in separate sections.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

[69] Dbrisinda
[70] JeanandJane

Discussion concerning Dbrisinda

Statement by Dbrisinda

Comments by other editors

~~This appears to be a straightforward WP:3RR violation~~, but without more, doesn't seem to me conduct that rises to the level of Arbitration Enforcement. —Whig (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is not even a 3RR violation. (Only 3 edits in total to the page in 24 hours, and only 3 reverts at all on the page by this user.) This is simply continued biting against an intelligent and competent new user who threatens to disturb the (improved, but still unduly anti-homeopathic) status quo at the homeopathy article. The first act was when on the first day that he edited the article some of his edits were reverted with the completely unfounded claim that he was a sockpuppet of Dr.Jhingaadey. It continued with an SPI, ANI, and now he is being dragged here. This is disgusting. I would say it's immoral, but I know Enric a bit better and suspect it's just carelessness. Hans Adler 19:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, the first time he added the POV tag was not a revert. —Whig (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Hans, you mean Wikipedia:ANI#DanaUllman? That one is about banning DanaUllman, not about these two editors. I think that the SPI case is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dr.Jhingaadey? It only mentions one IP, so I guess that Brangifer realized that Dbrisinda was not a sock. Has there been a new thread somewhere? This is getting difficult to follow. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Enric, I understand you couldn't know this. BullRangifer seriously screwed this up: He suspected (plausibly, as I now agree) that Dr.Jhingaadey edited under a certain IP, and very implausibly that he also edited as Dbrisinda. He tried to create an old-style checkuser request and was confused that it didn't work. It didn't occur to me to check for this error, so I commented there without noticing the problem. My comment led him to seriously refactor the report, removing all references to Dbrisinda.[71] Then someone showed him the proper place at SPI. As a result, the original report concerning Dbrisinda isn't even in the history of the SPI. Hans Adler 01:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Dbrisinda

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

DoingWell and 170.206.224.50

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 DoingWell and 170.206.224.50

User requesting enforcement:
Cirt (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:

DoingWell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
170.206.224.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas [72]

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

08:29, 9 August 2009 Edit to article David Miscavige, related to Scientology topic, as leader of Church of Scientology
08:31, 9 August 2009 Edit to WP:BLPN board, in subsection about David Miscavige

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

07:22, 9 August 2009 Topic ban by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) imposed on 170.206.224.50 (talk · contribs)
07:22, 9 August 2009 Topic ban by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) imposed on DoingWell (talk · contribs), account associated with 170.206.224.50 (talk · contribs)
07:25, 9 August 2009 Topic bans of both DoingWell (talk · contribs) and associated IP 170.206.224.50 (talk · contribs), by admin Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs) = logged at WP:ARBSCI case page in Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

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

Note: DoingWell (talk · contribs) = 170.206.224.50 (talk · contribs), see Formerly IP Editor, now with a user name., and [73] followed by [74]
Requested action: Block of DoingWell (talk · contribs) and 170.206.224.50 (talk · contribs), for violation of topic ban

Additional comments by Cirt (talk):

Comment: Violations of topic bans on WP:SPAs and associated SOCKs imposed under WP:ARBSCI should be enforced, or else there is little point in imposing them in the first place. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Notification of DoingWell (talk · contribs) = [75]
Notification of 170.206.224.50 (talk · contribs), IP associated with DoingWell (talk · contribs) = [76]

Cirt (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning DoingWell and 170.206.224.50

Statement by DoingWell and 170.206.224.50

Comments by other editors

This editor did show signs of a pro-scientology advocacy position, but he or she adopted a named account when requested to by other editors, and didn't have that account long enough to do much one way or the other before being topic banned. In other words, while this editor should be alerted to the impropriety of coming in as a single-purpose advocate, I wonder whether there isn't room for a bit more extension of the assumption of good faith when the editor did at least take a step in the right direction. I suggest that the user be offered at least a few more days to demonstrate their fitness or lack of it as named-account editor before issuing a long-term ban. BTfromLA (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in dispute that the topic ban was already instituted per WP:ARBSCI Single purpose accounts with agendas, at 07:25, 9 August 2009, however the user in question then decided to violate the topic ban anyway, at 08:29, 9 August 2009, and at 08:31, 9 August 2009, despite the fact that the user had been notified on his talk page about the topic ban at 07:22, 9 August 2009. Cirt (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that means he (or she) violated the letter of the law. But the punishment seems a bit too swift and draconian to me... I realize that this is a particularly hot question regarding scientology articles, but I still think folks should be given an ample chance to adjust their edits to the requirements of Wikipedia before they get banned. Doesn't seem like the user in question was allowed time to acclimate. If there is a history with this user that I don't know about, I might change my mind. BTfromLA (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point you are making, but this is enforcement of decisions, not review. Even if the ban were wrong, it should be appealed not evaded or dismissed. Unless a very clear consensus changes the topic ban, then the user is topic banned and the only question left is whether the user has violated the topic ban. Cirt (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To my eyes there doesn't seem to be much real question regarding violation of topic ban. I guess the only question I do have is regarding the nature of the block requested and what his reasons for a block of that length are. John Carter (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning DoingWell and 170.206.224.50

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

Blocked, 48 hours. Given the close proximity of the ruling and notification I've chosen not to give a long block, however, if DoingWell doesn't take the hint, I'm sure escalating blocks will follow. Shell ^babelfish 16:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hudavendigar

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

Request concerning Hudavendigar

User requesting enforcement:
Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Hudavendigar (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
Second revert, which was a revert of this edit, [77]

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Given Hudavendigar's numerous blocks, his propensity to simply label all those who oppose him as deluded individuals who are hellbent on defaming the name of the Republic of Turkey, and his attempts to equivocate and falsify the historical record of the Armenian Genocide with the use of unreliable sources, perhaps a topic ban on Armenian-Turkish articles is warranted here, if not another lengthy block.

Additional comments by Marshal Bagramyan (talk):
It might be helpful to administrators to understand the sort of atmosphere Hudavendigaar is fomenting on Wikipedia. On the talk page of the Van Resistance article, most recently, he left the following message, apparently because it does not conform to his views: "This article, like many others Armenian nationalists and extremists got their hands on, has become so propagandistic, it is comical, and I will try to contain myself from correcting it or balancing. It should stand as a monument to Armenian self-deception. It is entertaining actualy. Not a single mention of the fate of the Muslim inhabitants of Van for example. A whole ethnic war rages, city's Turkish population is decimated, ethnically cleansed, but not single word is left about them in this pathetic article. Nice!"

Attempts to discuss his controversial edits, which are supported by otherwise highly partial and unreliable sources, are met by other editors with scorn, impropriety and absolutely useless statements such as the aforementioned quotation, as well as the following: "You need to stop foaming at the mouth and limit the discussion to facts here. Removing all that you do not imporve [sic] is not a way to defend facts, one does that only to protect propaganda. The very fact that we are having this so-called discussion here is the reason the tag is there in the first place" [82]. Recently, he has been creating new articles, with all the usual nonsense that is found on (usually Turkish-sponsored) websites and blogs denying the historical reality of the Armenian Genocide (e.g., see the wording on Armenia used here)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Notification to Hudavendigar

Discussion concerning Hudavendigar

Statement by Hudavendigar

Comments by other editors

Result concerning Hudavendigar

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

[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]