Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Interfase

Interfase (talk · contribs) placed under supervision for 3 months.

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

Request concerning Interfase

User requesting enforcement: Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, violation of 1RR/3RR

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: # [1], first revert on the Kochari article.

[2], second revert on the Kochari article.
[3], third revert on the Kochari article.
[4], fourth revert on the Kochari article.
[5], fifth revert on the Kochari article.
[6], sixth revert on the Kochari article.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): # [7] Warning by MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Left to the discretion of administrator.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: The edit war, without so much as an attempt to discuss the edits, on the Kochari article is rather symptomatic of all of Interfase's edits, really. On the Azerbaijani-language Wikipedia, he has been busy distorting articles related to Armenian geography by declaring them parts of "Western Azerbaijan". A number of editors have expressed concern that these articles on the Azeri Wikipedia do not correspond at all with those found on the other language Wikipedias. The article on khachkars, for example, on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia have been rechristened as "alban xaçkarları" (Caucasian Albanian khachkars), something which is not supported by any source except those published by the government of Azerbaijan. Articles on Armenian churches have similarly been deprived of their identity, and have, once more, been rechristened as "Albanian temples" (see for example the entry on the Saint Sargis Monastery, which is dubbed Avey məbədi. Attempts to remove these erroneous interwikis have been unsuccessful, since the stupid bots keep re-adding them, but also because the above edit wars show how desperate some are to fudge the facts so one cannot tell what's truth, what's fiction.

I think we can save that for another conversation but I think it's necessary that the administrators know these facts as well.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[8]

Discussion concerning Interfase

Statement by Interfase

On Kochari I reverted edits which I identifited as a vandalism. They removed interwikis to azwiki's article which also talks about Kochari dance. I returned them. --Interfase (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. In the Russian Wikipedia, there are several articles about different national versions of Kochari and disambig (ru:Кочари). There is an article about the Azeri dance (ru:Кочари (азербайджанский танец)). Article in Azeri Wikipedia (az:Köçəri) only about Azeri dance (Köçəri — Azərbaycanın milli rəqslərindən biri == Kochari - Azeri folk dance). User Interfase himself confessed that on his user talk page - ru:Обсуждение участника:Interfase#Кочари. --hayk (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Interfase

Looking at the history of the article, I see that it is just about the removal of interwikis. Interfase adds Azeri and other interwikis to the article, which is quite in line with the rules, and other users keep on removing it. In particular, Hayk (talk · contribs) made as many rvs as Interfase, but he is not mentioned in this report. I don't really understand why those interwikis should be removed, and why the person who inserts them is being reported, even if he does nothing wrong by adding them, while those who remove it are clearly wrong, and they are the ones who should be reported. Grandmaster 06:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering why is it that any new account which is suspicious from one side is directly blocked while nothing is done when the exact same thing is done from the other side? Also, Grandmaster has some explaining to do because some of the reports he files are reverts back to content that was reached by a consensus; basically the consensus version that he himself also supported. Here for instance. Reverting under the cover of reverting sockpuppetry is not a valid justification for reverting a wording agreed by all sides. - Fedayee (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both Hayk and Interfase need a slap on the wrist - I concur with Grandmaster regarding Hayk (talk · contribs). I don't really understand whether the iwiki is appropriate here, but judging from the page history, both Hayk and Interfase are responsible for the edit war. Neither of them are really making any attempt to explain themselves on the article's talk page. @Fedayee - Not sure I understand your comment re "Grandmaster has some explaining to do ". NickCT (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Interfase

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

I've placed Interfase under supervision for 3 months, which restricts him to 1RR/week. PhilKnight (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tothwolf

Tothwolf (talk · contribs) blocked for 72 hours.

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

Request concerning Tothwolf

User requesting enforcement: Theserialcomma (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: - Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tothwolf may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: # [[9]] "not one of these three individuals (Theserialcomma, JBSupreme, and Miami33139) has ever made a single positive contribution to an article in this subject area and are clearly not here to build Wikipedia [10] [11] [12] (I never really was able to find anything constructive in these three contribution histories). Based solely on their contribution histories, these three individuals clearly much prefer to attack others (not just myself) and bulk remove content instead of improving Wikipedia."

Explanation: In Tothwolf's arbcom case, 3 main editors (JBsupreme, Miami33139, Theserialcomma) filed evidence of tothwolf's long term uncivil behavior and paranoid/unsubstantiated allegations. as a result, the arbcom case closed with the result of tothwolf being admonished and restricted from making any future uncivil comments against us or any other editors - or he shall be blocked. tothwolf's behavior has remained unchanged. the diff posted shows he is still engaging in uncivil accusations against the same users from whom he's restricted.

diff 2: [[13]] Don't email me, don't contact me, don't bloody show up in IRC channels where you know I visit and brag "I'm gonna get Tothwolf banned!"

Explanation: i've never contacted him off-wiki (and he's contacted me twice - i forwarded each to Arbcom's mailing list), nor have i been on irc with him (ridiculous). per tothwolf's restrictions, he is not to make unsubstantiated allegations without evidence. he just left a message on my talk page - against my requests for him to stay away - claiming i've 'emailed, contacted' and 'showed up on IRC' channels. he's paranoid, delusional, and arbcom has restricted him from making these uncivil allegations. he needs to be stopped.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): {{{Diffs of prior warnings}}}
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): block ; i further request that tothwolf is topic banned from making any allegations about me, or contacting me, or discussing me. [his accusations show that he is either trolling in order to harass me, or he's completely delusional]. either way, he's restricted from this behavior, and so these restrictions should be enforced and tightened.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Tothwolf has been gaming the system since his arbcom restrictions, testing the waters to see how uncivil he can be without repercussions. i hope that an uninvolved admin will scrutinize his restrictions and his behavior and come to the conclusion that the sanctions that resulted from this 2 month arbcom case are worth enforcing.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: i haven't contacted tothwolf's talk page, but he's aware of this, since he just posted on my talk page

That section reads that Tothwolf does not want you editing his talk page, so I've notified him. Sandstein 20:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Tothwolf

Statement by Tothwolf

Sigh. Why am I not surprised Theserialcomma? How many times do you have to be told by myself and others (including multiple administrators) to leave me alone?

I'm quite tired of you misquoting me and editing my words to suit your personal "desires" as you did above, and as you did repeatedly during the ArbCom case [14] (my responses to which were unfortunately moved to the talk page [15] by MBisanz [16] which appears to have led to those misquotes/false statements flying under the radar during the ArbCom case). While I did not mention you by name in my comments, Theserialcomma, I certainly did link to diffs to back up what I said (otherwise you would simply run to an admin, AN/I, or AE here and link to [17] as you've done before).

Theserialcomma, you also made some very misleading statements above... JBsupreme presented no evidence in the ArbCom case [18] and both you and Miami33139 didn't want any part of the ArbCom case when it was still in the RFAR stage as "Hounding of Tothwolf". [19] [20]

To summarise part of this [21] AN/I discussion: "Unfortunately, due to the case name, the material I presented was apparently thrown out and ignored by the person who wrote the draft decision. The original RFAR working name was "Hounding of Tothwolf" [22] but Manning Bartlett attempted to go with a more neutral name of "Tothwolf" [23] when he moved it from the RFAR stage to an open case. The case name discussion from Manning Bartlett's talk page can be found here."

Theserialcomma, the personal attacks you continue to throw around while continuing to make statements such as "he's paranoid, delusional", etc. need to stop right now. This already came up in the last AN/I discussion here where I replied [24] to your last attacks: "You also need to stop referring to me as "paranoid", "delusional", "deviant", etc. That is a personal attack. You began attacking me with such statements after Miami33139 began making them. It's also quite obvious that you are not even medically qualified to make such claims; one of the very first things you are taught is: Don't diagnose unless you have a treatment plan."

Theserialcomma: I'm tired of your on-wiki and off-wiki attacks. This has been going on for nearly a year [25] [26] (full discussion) [27] (full report) (contribs) and clearly you simply being told to leave me alone (repeatedly, by multiple administrators and other editors, no less) isn't going to be effective. I've now emailed ArbCom, and while they obviously can't really stop your off-wiki actions, perhaps this time your on-wiki behaviours will finally be addressed.

You've done this sort of thing to many other editors in the past, eventually leading to some of them finally blowing up at your harassment or baiting and getting blocked, or in the case of most, simply leaving Wikipedia. You apparently seem to enjoy being disruptive and causing strife for others and to be quite honest I'm not sure why someone didn't catch on to you much, much earlier. Wikipedia is not a game where you "win!" when you attempt to get someone "indef'd". [28]

Theserialcomma: Let me be quite blunt with you, continuing to try to get me "banned from Wikipedia" isn't going to stop me from calling you out on your disruptive behaviours and harassment of other editors.

--Tothwolf (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Tothwolf

Result concerning Tothwolf

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

Blocked for 72 hours, escalating from the previous 48, for the reply above alone. It is not a good idea to reply to an enforcement request for personal attacks with ... yet more personal attacks. Sandstein 22:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gilabrand

Gilabrand (talk · contribs) blocked for 48 hours.

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

Request concerning Gilabrand

User requesting enforcement: Supreme Deliciousness 10:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: [29]

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

[30], [31], [32]

She was topic banned from "Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the duration of three months. (For the avoidance of doubts, this includes all pages or discussions related to the topic, broadly construed."

The comment she made here is clearly a discussion comment related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, broadly construed. In the article she had also added stuff related to the Palestinian-Israel conflict so its a part of it: [33]

Note, this is info added later, so admins should take a second look: She also discussed the controversial I-P article Sheikh Jarrah on Nsaum's talk page [34] in a manner that suggested she was trying to use Nsaum as a meatpuppet to circumvent her topic ban.

It can also be argued that her edits to the Israeli art student scam AFD contravene the topic ban. Particularly considering that the reason Gilabrand got topic banned in the first place was spamming I-P related hate material into that very article.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): Not applicable
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Block or ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[35]

Discussion concerning Gilabrand

Statement by Gilabrand

Comments by others about the request concerning Gilabrand

Palestine is not mentioned once on the article in question. The only argument that could be made is that similar editors are involved. The only thing left to say is: BOOOOOOO Cptnono (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her comment in the edit summary touches the Israel-Palestinian conflict by her questioning Factsonthegrounds edit, she was banned from all pages or discussions related to the topic, broadly construed, therefor she violated it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh bummer. I see what you are getting at but it really wasn't against the spirit of the sanction. An argument could also be made that she was baited. From my understanding AE frowns upon and seldomly takes action against offenses like this. I guess we'll see though.Cptnono (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How was she baited into [36] this edit? Yes, Gilabrand was blocked for this by Sandstein, but clearly Gilabrand saw and made a connection. ~~Going over the details of edits such as this and this seems to indicate an unwillingness to abide by the restrictions imposed.~~ Unomi (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I struck out my comments above as they were made while I was under the impression that the I/P restrictions had been in place for a while. Unomi (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Gilabrand was topic-banned from I-P articles for the edits she made to Israeli art student scam. Participating in the AfD discussion for that article is clearly a violation of her topic ban. Insisting, as she did, that this article has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (except in the mind of the person who created it), when she has made edits like this to the article, is not only an assumption of bad faith, but is richly ironic. How she or anyone can argue that her edits to the AfD fall outside the scope of her topic ban is bewildering, to say the least. Tiamut^talk 12:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be argued that voting on that AfD was a violation of the topic ban, but that does not appear to be the argument that Supreme Deliciousness made above. Evil saltine (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it could but it looks like there are other diffs on other articles. If she screwed up somewhere else she screwed up. I can't full on retract my BOOO for the report presented (more diffs needed on other articles for it to matter) but other stuff is other stuff. A better prepared report would be easier to assess since we all know it is coming up for a few of us. Happy editing.Cptnono (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gilabrand was topic banned for her edits to the article that is up at AfD, in which she herself inserted material on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In other words, her disruptive and pointy edits there made it part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To now claim that it has nothing to do with it, is pure hypocrisy. Its the fact that she made an edit at all that is at issue here, and not the contents of those edits. If I am topic-banned from all science articles due to disruptive edits I made at Global warming, and then Global warming is up for an AfD and I comment inn that AfD, its quite a stretch for me to argue that the article in question doesn't fall under the scope of my topic ban. Capisce? Tiamut^talk 12:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Tiamut. you should now better than that. It is (present tense) not I/P conflict article. Please kindly let her be.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mbz1, but I'm not the only one who sees it as an I-P related article, even without Gilabrand's having made it so, by her edits there. User:Avraham seems to as well [37], as he listed it at both the Israel and Palestine wikiprojects to alert their project members to its being at AfD. Tiamut^talk 22:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Tiamut, it does not work this way. It is one of the rare cases, when 1+1 is not equal 2. Palestine and Israel in separate lists do not add to I/P conflict.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off-shoot possible breach?

Please note this ANI where Gilabrand has edited an article on Zimbabwe Israeli relations, removing information on Zimbabwe's take on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Please advise on the enforcement decision regarding this, will this require a new entry? SGGH ^ping! 15:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has blocked for 48, see below. SGGH ^ping! 17:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mbz1

The word "Palestine" is never mentioned in the article in question
The article has absolutely nothing to do with I/P conflict

I suggest:

Speedy close this request
Block Supreme Deliciousness for harassing the user with this request--Mbz1 (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Factsontheground

Aside from the link Supremedelicious provided, Gilabrand also discussed a controversial I-P article (Sheikh Jarrah) on Nsaum's talk page: [38].

She also never responded to the original ANI about posting hate material into Israeli art student scam, which suggests she doesn't accept that she did anything wrong. Factsontheground (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A talk page of a user cannot be considered a page that is related to I/P conflict article.

She was sanctioned for what she's done to your article. What other responses you need to hear.

Kindly leave her alone, better safe your time to come up with a new conspiracy theory.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to leave her alone, but I find it difficult with her deleting my comments, posting on my talk page, posting on other people's talk pages about my edits, etc.

Also I-P topic bans also cover discussing I-P topics on talk pages. Factsontheground (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Factsontheground, Do you know that you started editing the section that states: "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators." I hope you do not consider yourself to be " uninvolved administrator". She has the right to post at your page, and talk to other editors about her concerns over your edits. It is not a part of her ban.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nsaum75

Since an "incident" on my talk page is mentioned above, I feel the need to comment: This whole situation appears to be turning into some sort of witch hunt, with several users trying to find an angle that will "stick" in order to "punish" an editor they may have an issue with. Remember: "anything can be 'revealed' if you go over it enough with a fine-tooth-comb." --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 15:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Gilabrand

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

In the cited edit ([39]), Gilabrand stated in the edit summary "this article has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (except in the mind of the person who created it)". For the sake of argument I am ignoring the inappropriate deletion of Factsontheground's comment and taking this as if she had replied to his comment with what she said in the edit summary. With that we have this exchange:

This user is topic banned from Israeli-Palestinian conflict topics. Factsontheground (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (except in the mind of the person who created it) - Gilabrand

Gilabrand here clearly mentioned the Israeli-Palestinian conflict solely for the purpose of defending herself against Factsontheground's implied allegation that she violated the topic ban. If Factsontheground had not accused her of a violation, she would likely not have mentioned the conflict. This is not meant to say that Factsontheground did anything wrong.

I think it is not in the best interest of Wikipedia to say that this violates the topic ban. It is clearly necessary for the accused to mention the topic in order to mount a defense against an alleged topic ban violation. The argument presented by Supreme Deliciousness appears to be that that necessary mention in itself constitutes discussion of the topic, which itself is a violation of the topic ban. Enforcement in this case would effectively deny an editor accused of violating a topic ban the ability to defend themselves against the accusation. I do not believe that is the intention of the discretionary sanction as specified by Arbcom. Making a reasonable statement rebutting an accusation does not fall under "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Also, Gilabrand would have to mention the topic on this page in order to make a statement, thus violating the topic ban. Therefore, I recommend against a block/ban. Evil saltine (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above applies to this version of the enforcement request. Evil saltine (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the merits of the original complaint, I have now blocked Gilabrand for this edit, which was brought up today in an ANI thread and clearly constitutes a breach of the ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That renders moot the discussion about the previous edits. Closing. Sandstein 18:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wispanow

User requesting enforcement: Jayen466

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

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

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

[40] Wispanow reverts User:Cirt, edit summary: "Undid revision 347913307 by Cirt (talk) This article is based on racism. And Scientology-Believers can source every racism. Removing this improves." Uncivil. Deleting sourced material. Inserting unsourced material. Cirt's edit was marked a "vandalism revert".
[41] Wispanow reverts User:Jayen466, edit summary: "Jayen466 is accused of writing an aggressive, highly biased text leading to a racist viewpoint. I therefore claimed to block him from any Scientology-text with relation to Germany. And stop reverting." As before.
[42] Personal accusation of racism: "The whole article is racism. There is nearly nothing giving a neutral point of view. And User:Jayen466 is by far the main reason ... US and British citizens and even newspapers easily believe and publish any mendacious Germany-Harassment." Wispanow includes this "Barack Obama is an asshole" link in his post to make his point. Uncivil.
[43] [44][45] Failure to comply with WP:V.

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

[46] Warned by User:Moni3
[47] Comments by User:Moni3 and User:John Carter.
Previously blocked for disruption at Scientology in Germany by User:Moni3, unblocked by User:Sandstein.

Enforcement action requested

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

Discussion concerning Wispanow

Statement by Wispanow

Comments by others about the request concerning Wispanow

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

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

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

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

Wispanow engaged in similar disruption at another Scientology/Germany article, here, [48]], [49], December last. He changed the wording, while leaving the source reference unchanged. The source cited was published by the Scientific Services Division of the German Parliament. As in this case, he edit-warred against two editors (John Carter and me), implementing a wording that directly contradicted the cited source. The result was that an admin stepped in and locked the article (in Wispanow's version) for a fortnight, just as has just happened here. --JN466 00:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Wispanow's edit made it say the exact opposite: that Scientology's protection under Article 4 was guaranteed in any case. It is not. When questioned about the edit, he said, "Read the constitution"! The admin who'd locked the article refused to accede to John Carter's and my [[[50]|editprotected request]]. There was no project benefit whatsoever, except that our article was wrong on that point for two weeks. We have the exact same position now, where the current article wording has been altered to claim, for example, that "the courts" (rather than the German government) published information leaflets on Scientology. There is a difference between "the courts" and "the government", but that difference appears to escape User:Wispanow. Yet his version is what around 100 people will be reading today and every day for the next two weeks, while we are here talking about Godot. --JN466 05:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Comment by Sandstein

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Observations by SilkTork

Wispanow has made 54 edits to Scientology in Germany, amounting to an involvement of 5.8% - this is the second largest involvement after Jayen466 (686 edits -73.8%).
The article was failed as a GA on 17 Feb 2009 due to POV issues. It passed as a GA in November.
Wispanow's first edit was this on 21 February 2009. Two of the links are dead, but the one that is still live checks out. The edit appears to be constructive, and is cited. That first edit was reversed two days later by Jayen466 with this edit and refers to a talkpage discussion that I have not yet found.
Also on 21 Feb Wispanow removed some text with this edit with the rationale that the source had been misread. There was a discussion in which Jayen466 explained how the source had been read, and the text was restored.
There follow in Feb 2009 a series of tags, edits and discussions involving Wispanow, in which they are expressing concerns about potential bias in the article. Wispanow appears concerned that the article is describing a total anti-scientology stance in Germany which Wispanow feels is not balanced by information regarding either pro or neutral scientology attitudes in Germany. Jayen466 invited Wispanow to supply reliable sources to support Germany having positive attitudes towards Scientology.
Wispanow occasionally edited the article in line with the concerns raised. Following this edit, Wispanow was given a block warning by Moni3 - [51]. Wispanow's involvement became quite minimal, but still raised POV concerns. Placing this POV tag got Wispanow another comment from Moni3. Wispanow added some more tags - [52] - and gave reasons on the talkpage for their actions - [53]. Moni3, Jayen466 and John Carter responded to Wispanow's concerns, Jayen466 explaining that "If it is accurate and sourcable, then it doesn't violate neutrality." Wispanow was then blocked by moni3 and unblocked by Sandstein - [54].
Wispanow made one more edit in June, then nothing more until these three edits in the past few days which prompted a lock down of the article and this Arb request.
From these observations I would say that Wispanow has concerns about the POV of the article and is frustrated at developments. Wispanow has used inappropriate wording in edit summaries and in talkpage comments. Wispanow has not made best use of negotiation tactics, or of the resources available on Wikipedia for inexperienced editors who are concerned about content - such as Wikipedia:Editor assistance or Wikipedia:Third opinion. While editors have been civilly and calmly engaging with Wispanow, there has perhaps not been enough assistance offered to Wispanow, or to direct Wispanow to areas such as Wikipedia:Editor assistance or Wikipedia:Third opinion. Wispanow has perhaps been alienated and dismissed, and then blocked, which may have increased that person's feelings of frustration.
I do not know enough about the issues to judge how appropriate are Wispanow's concerns, though I would share Jayen466's view that appropriate sources are the best way forward.
I feel that while Wispanow has been unwise in the use of language, and slightly difficult, Wispanow has not been disruptive enough for a topic ban.
I would suggest, time-consuming though it may be, that a moderated discussion between Wispanow and Jayen466 may be of more benefit to future harmony, and the development of the article, than a topic ban. I would be willing to moderate the discussion if both parties are willing. SilkTork *^YES! 01:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I appreciate your goodwill and your kind offer. Two small corrections:
  1. The first "constructive" edit by Wispanow cited by you above duplicated content and sources that were already present in the main part of the article. (One of the sources may have been new.)
  2. The quote "If it is accurate and sourcable, then it doesn't violate neutrality." was by John Carter rather than myself.
- I understand what you are saying about Wispanow's editing experience. However, I do not have unlimited time at my disposal, and certainly no time to waste. I will not enter mediated discussions with Wispanow until he:
  1. apologises for his comments,
  2. acknowledges that he cannot assert in Wikipedia that the German Law Journal is a racist and unreliable source and expect to be taken seriously here, and
  3. gives clear signs of understanding that the way he edited and argued here is absolutely unacceptable for content work.
- I am afraid I have to insist on some minimum standards of ability; I do have a day job, and the amount of time I have spent on this is already out of all proportion to any benefit to this project. --JN466 03:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have checked out one of the instances SilkTork has raised. Jayen's translation is correct regarding the text Kritik an Filmen von bekennenden Scientologen, wie Cruise und John Travolta, und an Auftritten des Jazz-Musikers Chick Korea, ebenfalls Scientology-Anhänger, ist in Deutschland nicht neu: 1996 hatte die Junge Union zum Boykott gegen den Thriller "Mission: Impossible" mit Cruise als Hauptdarsteller aufgerufen. For non-German speakers this is a bit hard to confirm: Google Translate didn't parse the page and Yahoo's Babel Fish didn't handle the passage well. The en:wiki article Junge Union jibes with Jayen's statement. For a single instance over a year ago I can extend good faith (perhaps the editor skimmed and missed that passage). It's a bit worrisome that he didn't follow up in agreement after Jayen's explanation at the talk page. If other instances like this form a pattern, though, then I would endorse Jayen's request. Durova⁴¹² 05:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. I've added two more above, under your earlier post. --JN466 05:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Changing "courts backed the publication" to "courts published" is less serious but unhelpful. What was the other thing you wanted me to look at, exactly? Durova⁴¹² 06:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The thing about "hysteria", above, and about how this came to focus on Scientology in the late nineties. It was sourced. He took it out, leaving the sources in place. Although it is not such a big deal. --JN466 06:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        (ec) The last edit regarding "hysteria" could be reasonable, since the edit changed the text to a shorter summary. The difference in emphasis and POV is tangible and I don't know which version is more balanced. That particular alteration didn't make the citation inaccurate, though. These two more recent examples don't carry the weight of the first two I read (both of which were quite stark). But for someone to come in and make those two stark examples, then defend one of them at talk with claims of being a native speaker, is not acceptable. Am curious what Wispanow's response here will be, because as of this juncture it looks like a final warning would be appropriate. German speakers are not too hard to find; please don't wait a year, Jayen, if this occurs again. Durova⁴¹² 06:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

In that diff, Wispanow rewrote a sentence as follows: "Between 2007 and 2008, there was a discussion to ban Scientology in Germany which was within 3 days considered senseless and quickly dropped because insufficient evidence of unconstitutional activity was found by German Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz.{{Lopsided}}" The "within 3 days" he inserted is unsourced and wrong. It took a year, from 2007 to 2008. And he added a "lopsided" tag to his own sentence.
Under "Legal status", he inserted "Its believers enjoy full protection of the german constitution. Because Scientology or its members or believers did not call the courts, the actual status wether the organisation is a religious organisation or a commercial enterprise and the not directly according tax-exemption is unresolved." No new source is cited to verify that. It is in fact completely made up, and still cites the same 2-page pdf from the German Parliament, which, as you've already verified, says something quite different.
Further down in the US criticism section, the article cites Richard Cohen saying in the Washington Post, "Scientology might be one weird religion, but the German reaction to it is weirder still – not to mention disturbing." This is cited to both the Washington Post and a German scholar, Schön, who quotes Cohen to illustrate American opinion, affirming the notability of the quote. Wispanow adds {{POV-statement}}. Of course it is a POV statement – that was the point, to illustrate the American POV. Almost all the tags he placed in that edit are equally unfathomable. For example, "{{verify credibility}}{{Lopsided}}" for a poll in Der Spiegel saying that 67% of Germans are in favour of banning Scientology. An opinion poll in Der Spiegel lacks credibility and is lopsided? And there is a "fact" tag for "Scientology is generally viewed with more suspicion in Europe," when page 2 of the cited article says: "Europeans in general bear more suspicion toward Scientology than Americans do, but Germans are considered particularly antagonistic". Whatever it is he was doing there, it was not encyclopedia writing. --JN466 08:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletions of sourced material: [55][56][57][58] --JN466 09:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two more observations:
- Browsing through Wispanow's edit history, it appears that Wispanow makes positive contributions, and while at times a bit brusque, does work through issues on talkpages, such as on Talk:Luminous efficacy.
- Doing some quick and dirty research into Scientology in Germany I found these sources: [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], which all support the approach taken by Jayen466 in building the article. From from I have found I feel that it is clear that Jayen466 has taken pains to research carefully in order to build a neutral article on a difficult subject, and has consulted with the community via GA reviews and a Peer Review to ensure that the article is going in the right direction.
Comment: Articles on contentious topics will attract challenges to POV. It would be inappropriate to suppress all such challenges, and is against the spirit of Wikipedia. However, we do have sanctions to use when challenges get out of hand and disrupt the development of an article. When to employ those sanctions will always be a question of judgement. Wispanow has made several strong challenges on the talkpage, and in the article itself, which can be tiresome, and having been there myself more than once I do sympathise with an editor having to deal with challenges. However, in my experience, such challenges can harden an article and make it better, and I note that Moni3 took some of Wispanow's content and incorporated it into a new lead that Jayen466 found acceptable. Wispanow has been willing to engage in discussion, albeit in a sometimes hostile manner, and has left the article alone for many months. Given the circumstances I feel that sanctions at this point would be inappropriate, and I would still urge that the parties attempt to work together. SilkTork *^YES! 12:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Wispanow

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

Cs32en

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

Request concerning Cs32en

User requesting enforcement: –Turian (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Cs32en (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

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

[70] "Cinnamon Stillwell is a neo-conservative political activist, not an independent observer, and the text is an opinion piece." More anti-conservative push (reverting for the sake of reverting a conservative).
[71] "Her writing is not based on journalistic independence, but on a political agenda." More disagreements with conservative views. (Hell, I'm as liberal as they come and I see no issue with her.)
[72] "This article is not the place to promote the agenda of neo-conservative activists"... clear intentions provided here. Beliefs do not constitute verifiability nor does it disparage them.
[73] More defending of conspiracies.
[74] "The reaction of "some" Palestinians and Serbians in not notable in the context of this article." Anything that differs from his opinion goes, apparently.
[75] See above.
[76] See above.
[77] "Therefore, arguing that Ahmadinejad does not know anything about 9/11, and for this reason we don't include his statement in the article, misses the point." Eh, weak argument.
(Added post-initial filing 07:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)) Talk Page of the 9/11 attacks
(Added post-initial filing 07:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)) Reverting my closure of a discussion after I felt consensus was reached. I normally wouldn't do something like this, but I have employed the option multiple times on this page, with it typically closing the argument and preventing further attacks/surges of conspiracy. We do not censor or even try to censor the viewpoint, as we often direct them to the conspiracy article.

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

A previous enforcement case
[78] Warning by Turian (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): A one week block alongside an indefinite topic ban on anything related to September 11th.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: He has been given multiple chances to adhere to the ruling of the arbitration case, yet has not followed through with the ruling or the ruling of the enforcement case. He is one of the problems in the constant push for NPOV fringe theories relating to 9/11. –Turian (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [79]

Discussion concerning Cs32en

Statement by Cs32en

All of the edits that Turian (talk · contribs) enumerates are based on Wikipedia policies.

Per Wikipedia:RS#Statements of opinion, opinion-based articles must not be used "for statements of fact without attribution". I have removed the source, because it was an opinion piece that was used without attribution. Furthermore, the section summarizes the sub-article 9/11 conspiracy theories (see WP:Summary style), and all relevant sources can be found in this article. The sub-article also includes high-quality sources for the information that was sourced to the opinion piece. Therefore, I left the information in the article and removed only the source that was used in an inappropriate way.
The specific political position of the writer of the opinion piece is indeed irrelevant. I have pointed out that the article was not based on journalistic independence, i.e. with the aim of building a reputation based on reliability and fact checking. That's exactly the reason why there is a specific guideline on opinion pieces.
In this edit, I explained that Cinnamon Stillwell is not an editor of a journal who writes an opinion piece, but that she identifies herself as a representative of a political organization that is actively engaged in the controversies related to the information in the article. Therefore, Wikipedia:RS#Statements of opinion is even more relevant than if it would be an opinion piece written by an independent observer.
The specific information I have removed from the article was unsourced, and it contained the word "claim", which is, or course, a word that should normally be avoided.
I think that the mention of the reaction of "some Palestinians" to the September 11 attacks is undue in the main article on 9/11. This, of course, is an editorial decision, and I am very open to debate if another editor brings up the issue at the talk page or reverts my edit.
This is also undue in the main 9/11 article. The assertion that a murder in Britain perpetrated by three Muslims would have been the "most notable" is completely unsourced. The source only says the perpetrators were "found guilty ... at a time when tensions were high following the September 11 attacks". There is no indication that this event was motivated by or otherwise connected to the September 11 attacks.
I don't see a reason why the information that "the Serbian Liberation Front claimed responsibility for the bombing" of the World Trade Center in 1993 (!) is relevant for the article. But again, I'm open to discuss this point.
I have stated on the talk page before that I would not support including Ahmadinejad's views in the article, as long as there is not a notable political controversy about them. In this edit, I clarified that, in my view, the relevant question that a decision on the inclusion of his opinion should be based on is notability in the context of the article's topic, not whether Ahmadinejad has specific knowledge about the September 11 attacks. Again, a statement that is based on our policies.

I hope that I have clarified the issues that Turian (talk · contribs) has raised, and I suggest to dismiss this request. (I'll be away for about 24 hours.) Cs32en Talk to me 21:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do you explain your constant push for fringe conspiracies despite being told many times to stop? –Turian (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Cs32en

Comment by Mbz1

I find the differences that were presented to be of a big concern, and believe Cs32en should be topic banned in accordance with the request.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sandstein

Could the requesting editor please annotate the request so as to explain how, specifically, each of the diffs provided violates "the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process" (WP:ARB911#Discretionary sanctions)? Sandstein 20:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks. After some review, I am inclined to agree with Wildbear below and to decline enforcement action. This appears to be an attempt to win a content dispute via AE. WP:AE is not part of dispute resolution. The edits are not prima facie disruptive, they are reasonably well explained by Cs32en above in terms of relevant editing policies, and the arguments made against them in the terms of these policies are weak, and often assume bad faith ("anti-conservative push", "defending of conspiracies"). That is not to say that these edits are correct either as a matter of content or conduct (I take no position on that), only that they are not misconduct warranting sanctions. Rather, they are indicative of content disagreements that ought to be worked out through normal channels. Sandstein 06:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you failed to read the entire mess that is made on the September 11 attacks talk page? –Turian (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That talk page is not cited in your request. I normally only read what the editor requesting enforcement asks me to. Sandstein 06:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment by Rklawton

Cs32en edits 9/11 as if his and only his view is correct. He removed a well researched, well considered, well sourced commentary published in a reliable source on the grounds that the author was a neo-conservative and immediately launched into an edit war to defend his actions. As far as I know, both liberals and conservatives believe 9/11 conspiracy theorists are whack-jobs. But Cs32en insisted the author was pushing a political agenda. The only agenda I saw in her article was one against conspiracy theorists - the very point of the section in which the source had been included. The bottom line is, unless we want to hand the article over to this one editor, he needs to be topic banned. Rklawton (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Wildbear

The preceding reads like a content dispute, rather than a pattern of abuse calling for arbitration enforcement. Approaching a polarized topic from a particular angle does not in itself constitute abuse; it is how one behaves while editing and discussing. If Cs32en had been engaging in edit warring, or unreasonable behavior on the talk page, then action might be warranted; but it doesn't look to me like that is occurring. Wildbear (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a content dispute. The push for conspiracy theories is a clear violation of the arbitration guidelines/sanctions. If nothing is done here, then I will report the problem directly to the Committee. –Turian (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please read the sanctions concept that the arbitration entails. This goes beyond any mere content dispute. –Turian (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Cs32en

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

PCPP

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

Request concerning PCPP

User requesting enforcement: Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: #Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong#Neutral_point_of_view

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

In presenting this, I hope to bring to the attention of arbcom the continual disruption and removal of content by User:PCPP on Falun Gong and closely related pages. This behavior of the user extends to all articles carrying material critical of the Chinese Communist Party.

The user's editing pattern involves:

1. Repetitive blanking of vast amounts of sourced and centrally relevant material, with no discussion on talk, and often under edit summaries like “rv pov material.”

2. Distortion of sourced content and the addition of personal commentary, which he misattributes to sources already present in the article.

3. And, when under close scrutiny, the watering down of critical sources, with unsubstantiated claims to the effect that they are the content is “pov”, is undue, etc.

Even a superficial analysis can reveal his scouring of articles pertinent to the CCP’s human rights violations, from which he removes critical material, while simultaneously piling accusations against those attempting to contribute to those articles.

What I present below is but a sample of such behavior, all from within the past few months, by the user.

1. Article:6-10 Office

Nature of disruption:Repetitive blanking of sourced and centrally relevant material with no discussion presented.Concerns raised are ignored by the user.

The below content, drawing upon one of the few sources available on the topic, has been blanked 6 times by the user since its inception into the article.

"According to the 2008 Congressional Executive Commission Report on China, "Publicly available government documents detail the central role of the 6-10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong."^[1] The report states: ""6-10 Offices throughout China maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' facilities that are used specifically to detain Falun Gong practitioners who have completed terms in reeducation through labor (RTL) camps but whom authorities refuse to release. The term `transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) describes a process of ideological reprogramming whereby practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong."^[1]"

The diffs:[80] [81][82][83][84][85].

Concerns raised regarding this behavior, on the talk page[86][87] is met with no response from PCPP, other than repeated blanking.

Together with the blanking, supported by neither discussion nor edit summary, the user distorts the lead of the article. The statement sourced to Congressional Executive Report on China, 2008: “This entity was charged with the mission of overseeing and carrying out the persecution of Falun Gong, which commenced on July 22, 1999.”, is distorted by the user to “It is responsible for monitoring, studying and analyzing matters relating to Falun Gong, and recommending policy measures for against Falun Gong, and also what the government calls "heretical cults" and "harmful qigong organisations"; and for promptly notifying municipal party committees of trends and developments within "cults".”[88]. The commentary added by the user is mis-attributed and not supported by any source.

2. Article: Propaganda in the People's Republic of China

Nature of disruption: Blanking of 12 paragraphs of sourced, centrally relevant material, with no discussion.

Shortly following the expansion and addition of sources to Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, PCPP blanks almost all the content added. He offers no explanation for this act. And his edit summary runs “rv POV material.”

3. Article: Propaganda in the People's Republic of China

Nature of disruption: Blanking

The above was preceded by a similar blanking of content here. Before this, an editor who has continually supported, worked with, and encouraged PCPP, blanks a portion of the content added to the article[89] with an argument to the effect that its good enough for the article to remain a “catalogue.”

4. Article: Propaganda in the People's Republic of China

Nature of disruption: Whole-scale blanking

In the same article, the user, despite attempts to engage him in discussion, continues to blank a quarter of the article - 10K of content. He attacks the sources themselves, alleging their origin in US makes them anti-China and hence not RS. Kindly review the comments regarding this on talk:[90]. The blanking takes place in these edits: [91]

5. Article: Falun Gong

Nature of Disruption: Blanking.

Three paragraphs deleted with no explanation offered.[92].

6. Article: Falun Gong

Blanks almost the same content as above , this time labeling the sources “questionable” in the edit summary – no supporting discussion on talk. [93]. Concerns raised regarding this can be seen on talk of the article:[94]

7. Article: Media of the People's Republic of China

Nature of Disruption: Blanking of material under a misleading edit summary

Content removed in edits with misleading edit summaries: [95]

8. Article: Mass line

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

Adds several paragraphs of unsourced content [96]. And here he reverts ( with misleading edit summaries) contributions by other editors removing well sourced and centrally relevant content[97] ( he offers no explanation for his blanking). The issue was raised here on the talk of the article: [98]

9. Article:Thought reform in the People's Republic of China

'Nature of disruption: Removes an entire section.

Edit summary makes no mention of it and no discussion on talk. [99]

10. Article:List of campaigns of the Communist Party of China

Comparatively minor disruptions such as repetitive changing of “Persection of Falun Gong” ( term used by academic sources, HRW, UN, Amnesty, US Congress reports, etc) to “Banning of Falun Gong”[100] [101][102]. Attempts to get the user to present a rationale for his insistence on using the word “ban” can be seen here: [103]

11. Article: Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

Blanks a para while falsely claiming in his edit summary that the content he blanked is a “misattribution”:[104]

12. Attacking reliable sources on talk to justify blanking of material .

The editor routinely attacks sources which do not align with his POV. Here, as a justification of his blanking of content from that source, the user attacks a Freedom House source with claims that : "a) is not a suitable academic source as most of its material relies on original research b) is from an organization funded by the US government, and the countries reported happened to be political opponents of the US c) used as such that claims made by the report is presented as factual evidence in disproportionate amounts"[105] and here he attacks a Reporters Sans Frontiers source on 'grounds' that: " A bunch of rhetorics froma CIA funded organization can hardly meet WP:RS"[106]. The user continues to blank the Freedom House material despite RS discussion[107]. The user also continually engages in personal attack on those attempting to contribute to the article.

--

The above are just a few instances illustrative of the kind of the disruption the user engages in. The arguments the user presents on talk are often of a disruptive nature as well, and often invovles personal attacks on those contributing to the article.

PCPP also repeatedly changes the words from sources to weaken or distort the claims they make, the case often being the latter - distortion of the perspective of the source. These edits he labels: "clarifying", "per WP:NPOV", etc.[108],[109],[110]. In all these cases, the sources said those precise words as were in the article. He provides no other explanation for the changes he makes to them.

PCPP also rarely, if ever, adds any research to the articles. He focuses is often on pulling apart these articles and simultaneously discrediting the contributions of others. This behaviour of his has gone on for a long time and above are but recent instances. I request admins to kindly review PCPP's contribution history. In it is apparent a clear pattern of removal of material critical of the CCP from articles through out wikipedia.

In addition, I would also like to draw attention to a systematic blanking of critical content and images on articles related to the CPP and its human rights violations which, I notice, has been happening on articles throughout wikipedia. Academic and news sources state that the Chinese Communist Party employs an army, hundreds of thousands strong, targeting Web 2.0 technologies such as Wikipedia, Twitter and youtube[111]. My intent is not to imply that editors involved in such removal of material are all directly related to the CCP, but, to point out that the presence of research and reports, which uncover such activism by CCP’s propaganda departments, makes the issue deserving of further attention of the Wikipedia Community. I humbly request a careful analysis of the issue be done, before any judgment is made on the merits of this concern I raise, and if evidence is found of such activity, the necessary steps be taken to counter it. A lot of evidence exists in Falun Gong related pages themselves. For instance, the Persecution of Falun Gong article has had almost all information regarding the persecution( sourced to Amnesty, HRW, UN CAT, Congressional Executive Reports, academic sources, etc.) , blanked from it. Blanking has been done to the point that in the lead of the article itself, it is made to seem as if this major international crisis is but a mere claim made by practitioners. I point out the issue here on talk[112] In the past, these articles have witnessed attack from self-declared propagandists such as User:Bobby_fletcher. Identified by David Kilgour, and David Matas, and articles such as the ones here: [113][ http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2436], as a major online activist for the CCP, “Bobbly Fletcher” engaged in presenting CCP propaganda on talk, de-tracking discussions, removal of content from the articles, etc. His presence on Wikipedia, and his disruptive activities were continually encouraged and supported by User:PCPP, who himself, as evidence above clearly demonstrates, has blanked vast amounts of info critical of the CCP from these articles.

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

[114] Warning by TheSoundAndTheFury (talk · contribs)
[115] Warning by Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs)
[116] Warning by Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs)
[117] Warning by AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
[118] Warning by AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) # [<Diff>] Warning by [[User:<Username>|<Username>]] ([[User talk:<Username>|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<Username>|contribs]] · [[Special:Log/block/<Username>|blocks]] · [[Special:Log/protect/<Username>|protections]] · [[Special:Log/delete/<Username>|deletions]] · [[Special:Log/move/<Username>|page moves]] · [[Special:Log/rights/<Username>|rights]] · [[Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/<Username>|RfA]])

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Topic ban from articles related to the Chinese Communist Party.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: <Your text>

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

Discussion concerning PCPP

Statement by PCPP

Comments by others about the request concerning PCPP

Result concerning PCPP

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

^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference CER was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

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

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

[CER-3] Cite error: The named reference CER was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[a]

[b]

[1]

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