Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Ohconfucius (
talk) 01:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Pmanderson (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Date delinking#Pmanderson_topic_banned
"31.1) Pmanderson is topic banned for 12 month from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions."
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
The user has edited the policy page 6 times since the case closed (
1
2
3
4
5
6)
In the
fifth edit, he remove a link to the
WP:Manual of Style and replaced it by a link to an article, with a possibly deceptive edit summary. This undiscussed change may well have been contentious (it has since been
reverted) and appears to involve just the scope that Remedy 31.1 refers to
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
I am seeking clarification as to what was covered by the restraining order – I am under similar editing restraint and would gladly like to know whether same freedom applies to me. If he has been in breach, a brief spell on the benches or a strongly worded warning would be in order.
Additional comments by
Ohconfucius (
talk):
moved here from
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification following
advice from clerk.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
This is the result of the quarrel over date-delinking, once brought to ArbCom, and settled at WP:ARBDATE. So far, the appeal to ArbCom has been ignored, except for Mbisanz recusing himself from clerking it; understandable, since Ohconfucius made a big deal about his commenting on the original case, when he wasn't clerking on it.
What does any of this evidence have to do with date-delinking? Why am I being dragged back into the date-delinking case?
Ohconfucious appears to have missed has now inserted
this edit (which should, by the "logic" here, be the most outrageous), in which I inserted a space between two paragraphs.
As for the edit summary complained of, it says, in full: refer to article, with sources; there are advantages to working on an encyclopedia. There are; these include access to articles on English grammar when we want to indicate what that grammar actually is; they have citations and sources; MOS doesn't.
As Roger Davies wrote, now on the talk page of WP:ARBDATE, topic bans are intended to give severely disrupted topics a break from disruption and to give topic-banned editors an opportunity to get used to working in less contested areas. The naming conventions are in fact much less contentious; it was with relief that I returned to discussing them, as I have been doing for years. Applying them is less so, as the recently concluded Macedonia case will show; I have been discussing that also, and its consequences, with several admins and some arbitrators. Nobody suggested that this topic ban applied in any way.
It may indeed be possible to apply this decision mechanically, so that it will amount to a site ban; did ArbCom mean that? (And if so, did they mean it, somehow, just for me, or does it apply to all parties alike?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Addendum: I have assumed this ban (as the others of the same wording) was limited to {{ style-guideline}}s (this would include other templates transcluded into such guidelines, which was what I did wrong), because the express reason for not limiting them to discussion of date-delinking was that the actual wording would be easier to administer. The interpretation Ohconfucius suggests is not.
In addition, my restriction was suggested in the last days of the case, on limited evidence, and passed by a close vote. It never occurred to me that it was meant as a ban from most of Wikipedia space; if ArbCom had meant that, wouldn't they have been clearer?
(And, as said above, I have edited and discussed the new naming convention on Macedonia, in company with clerks and Arbs; surely one of them would have warned me if I had been in violation of a just-passed arbitration?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I see that Ohconfucius has compared me to Lightmouse; there seems to me a clear differentiation: Until this matter arose, I left dates alone, as ArbCom wished; Lightmouse (a sockpuppet of the infamous Bobblewick) refused to. Ohconfucius has indeed spent his time in article space, not only delinking dates (redundantly, a bot is being built to do it) but switching articles from one dating format to another, a violation of MOS and of the Jguk ArbCom decision to which it refers.
This is Date Warring. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a correction to one thing dragged in falsely by Ohconfucius above: The protection of Xenovatis' talk page had nothing to do with any complaints against Pmanderson, as far as I can tell (and if it had, it would be a breach of protection policy); the talk page was merely abandoned because the editor chose to move to a new name. Also, whatever conflict there was between Xenovatis and Pmanderson, it wasn't over style guideline edits, so what has it to do with anything here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Pmanderson topic banned, "Pmanderson is topic banned for 12 month from style and editing guidelines". His edits reported by Ohconfucius were to Wikipedia:Naming conventions, a policy that is not part of WP:MOS (which was the area of conflict in the case). I would appreciate comments by arbitrators or other uninvolved editors whether the naming conventions are "style and editing guidelines" for the purpose of the topic ban. I would tend to agree that they are. Sandstein 05:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually this is still open under clarfications - since there does seem to be a disagreement about what the remedy was supposed to cover, maybe we should wait and see if an Arb comments? Shell babelfish 16:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I am on record as stating that the Naming conventions are not content guidelines and I have argued that the naming conventions should not stray the content of articles and the content guidelines (such as the MOS) should not stray into the naming conventions, eg with the use of hyphens and dashes in page names. There are two exceptions (1) The naming conventions should use WP:V for the definition of what is or is not a reliable source and (2) the section WP:NPOV#Article naming could be in either policy, and for historic reasons is where it is. -- PBS ( talk) 10:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
User requesting enforcement:
MASEM (
t) 21:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Sarah777 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Sarah777 restricted
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Block per remedy.
Additional comments by
MASEM (
t):
As part of the
Ireland article names ArbCom case, I've been appointed moderator to help resolve the issue. The users of the Ireland Collaboration Project have agreed to use a wiki-wide single transferable vote to resolve the issue after years and months of discussion did little to bridge the gap. That poll recently opened. Sarah777 has since started creating a spreadsheet on the poll's
talk page that attempts to sort out the votes by who is admittedly Irish, British, or otherwise indeterminable. This itself is a questionable approach and I am currently seeking AN/I input as to whether such profiling is appropriate, as it has already caused two people unassociated with the project to remove their votes to avoid being profiled. However, in Sarah777's specific case, she is already under restriction per the above remedy "from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks." I believe that her reasoning for using this poll (as can be seen in her comments about it
here) are indicative of what the remedy was to deal with and that a block is necessary. (I will note that she has voted in the poll, so a block at this time would not silence her input to the results). --
MASEM (
t) 21:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[5]
This has absolutely nothing to do with any Arbcom ruling, I propose that this request be refused. I also don't think analyzing the voting patterns should be banned. That is censorship, but I have already pointed out to the Moderator that if he engages in censorship I will not revert his actions. Arbcom said: Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks.
Sarah777 ( talk) 21:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The "profiling" may be unhelpful, the editor's behaviour might be disruptive, but that is not relevant to the arbitration measure in question. In the diffs supplied, only the inclusion of figures as to how the poll would stand "[w]ithout the [perceived] British input" [6] comes anywhere close to the behaviours proscribed by the remedy, and falls quite short of "engaging in aggressive biased editing" or "making anti-British remarks". Furthermore, the remedy does not allow for the enforcement requested (a block), only a page-ban. So, in sum, perhaps hypothetically Sarah777 ought to be blocked or page-banned, but certainly not for the edits in question under the remedy cited. Skomorokh 07:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Sarah777's "My little spreadsheet" is harmless, IMO. If you find Sarah's "little spreadsheet" helpful, you can analyze it; if you find it unhelpful, please ignore it. Sarah777 has not violated the ArbCom sanction imposed on her, so there is no need to take any action. AdjustShift ( talk) 07:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
talk 19:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
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:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
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)
Additional comments by
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [20]
See also the other disputant at #Poeticbent. Sciurinæ ( talk) 23:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
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" [21], shockingly advocated blanket reverts for combating "biases" [22] and so on and so forth. Loosmark ( talk) 08:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Cinéma C 01:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
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:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
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:
[27]
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 [28] to the following on a non-Kosovo article but where the Kosovo topic is instrumental: [29] (which was traced by following the trail of a user who had already taken an interest on Kosovo here [30]). Malcolm is not credited on his Kosovo piece but is so in his South Ossetia speech, as well as on the article [31]. 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)
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)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Grand
master 06:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Zvartnotz2 (
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:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Permanent ban, topic ban or at least revert resctriction.
Additional comments by
Grand
master:
The account of
Zvartnotz2 (
talk ·
contribs) was created about the same time as that of
Apserus (
talk ·
contribs). Both were used for edit warring at the article
duduk, where they tried to remove the information supported by reliable sources. Zvartnotz2 did not make any attempt at any discussion, and I made a CU request
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apserus/Archive, which showed that Apserus and Zvartnotz2 are unrelated to each other, but that Apserus used an IP to rv the article (maybe forgot to log in), and that Zvartnotz2 used 2 sock accounts to edit war on another article. Zvartnotz2 appears to be an SPA, which was created for the sole purpose of edit warring, and I don't think that any reformation is possible. He is currently blocked for 24 hours,
[35] but I expect him to resume the edit war when he is back from the block. It is also possible that the activity of Apserus and Zvartnotz2 on the article about
duduk is coordinated outside of wikipedia due to similarity of their actions.
Grand
master 06:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The same article about duduk is now reverted by 67.150.124.123 ( talk · contribs), an obvious SPA and possibly a sock of Zvartnotz2. An admin intervention is needed to stop disruption. Grand master 12:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
CU says that it is possible that the IP is the same person as Zvartnotz2: [36] Grand master 19:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[37]
Duduk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should be reverted and semi-protected if IP disruption begins. It would be easier to determine the socks then. I gave Zvartnotz2 a warning. Brand t] 19:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Colipon+(
Talk) 15:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
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:
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
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.
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).
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)
P.S. A lot of accusations were hurled at me in the comments below. I would point out the following:
✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 08:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Cirt (
talk) 00:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas
[76]
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Additional comments by
Cirt (
talk):
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.
Cirt ( talk) 00:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Marshal Bagramyan (
talk) 16:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
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:
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" [86]. 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
I actually had to read this a few times to understand exactly what I was in violation of. The restriction placed on me by an admin over a year ago states:
"any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions"
Concerning this particular revert, it simply restored a whole section and paragraph, which was fully referenced and rather devoid of any inflamatory description or language, that an editor (who has been also following me on these pages) simply deleted without any cause and explanation or discussion. The deletion itself violated numerous Wikipedia rules and policies.
I am at a loss so as to how I was "uncivil" and "aggressive" in the above matter.
On the other hand one or more of the editors who have stalked me and were on the same list (Meowy), have right in the article in dispute have shown aggressive and hostile attitudes as I will show below.
Deleted section was itself an improvement on a previously deleted version, where I had added actual Armenian sources and references that proved the point about the Armenian rebellions, which is certainly a central element of an article named "Armenian-Turkish Relations". The undo simply restored a version that I had edited last, and did not erase or undo any other editor's contribution.
As such I did not think it was in violation of any restrictions put on myself. In retrospect, it seems it was an intentional trap that I should have avoided.
For many months, maybe a dozen different versions of this paragaraph I had edited, with extensive archival research and back up, have been wholesale deleted. Repeatedly. Now, that is what is "uncivil" and "aggressive" in any book.
Never taken to arbitration by the way!
Every time I had improved it, and still met the same fate. It seems those who complain about me here are subject to a different set of Wikipedia rules.
In general though, in the short time I had contributed to Wikipedia, a short list of editors, have continued to stalk and revert almost any contribution I have made. It is a well know group, and contrary to the claims against me above, I have been the party abused, stalked, harassed, insulted as shown below:
Your lies are just going to get reversed. Don't you have anything better to do with your time? Meowy 21:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The NY times citation is a fake, there is no such article (all NY times reports for that period are available online, and nothing for Bitlis exists for that date). ... Meowy 02:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC) (It is not!)
BTW, reading that http://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/Niles_and_Sutherland.pdf the initial feelings are one of amusement and astonishment that someone could come up with such breathtaking lies.
All you seem interested in doing is inserting out-and-out lies into articles, using as "sources" extreme nationalist Turkish propaganda. Little wonder nobody chooses to engage constructively with you. Meowy 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
More skillful propagandists of Hudavendigar's ilk realise that in some articles it is better to let sleeping dogs lie. However, he has chosen to awaken this article, so let's now tear him apart by telling in the article the full horror of the history he wishes to rewrite and whitewash. Meowy 20:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
You're like a broken record. Stop removing sources and replacing verifiable info with your Turkish fairy tales about rebellions and revolts; people have warned you enough times already and you're still acting like the village idiot.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You, as well as most other users, know that's a blatant lie. ....--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
... Litteracy of denialists did not changed since Ataturk. Only changed was denialists become more uncivilized, as they become more illiterate. The book you are using (you did not even use the facts inside the book) is full of crap. I bet, You "User:Hudavendigar" did not spend your single "dime" on it, a by product of illiteracy. I bet you have not even read it. You can not tell us what is stated in the page 20 at the 3th paragraph. If this book is the proof of your lie (you claim: "I am not forcing any conclusions" without adding any facts), you are supporting the title of a book without even reading it. --Seemsclose (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
"Editor Murat, the main culprit for this article's lamentable state, has inserted and reinserted a section titled "Armed Armenian Revolts Against Ottoman Rule", which is full of fabrications. There were no "Armed Armenian Revolts Against Ottoman Rule"". Meowy 01:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
"your 6Dec post is a POV diatribe that could have come from a card carrying MHP fanatic"..."Your Turkish nationalist propaganda sources"... "straight from a Turkish propaganda website"..." Murat's obscene misuse of the word "revolt""..."which is actually a tawdry pack of lies" Meowy 01:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
This level of harassment, intimidation, ethniclally charged slurs and insults have been continuous and frankly I had so far received little protection from various admins I have raised this with. I am not some irresponsible editor intent on spreading fabrications and instigating edit wars. I have utmost respect for truth, whatever color it is. I have never included any material that is not true and backed by proper references. If that was the case, someone would have challenged them properly. So far no one did. I have always responed to every criticism and complaint by improving my edits and providing back up, hoping, maybe naively, truth will prevail. Same with this particular article.
This seems to be main reason why it is so important to this group that I am silenced here.
I have also noticed in the history of this article that any editor not part of this activist group or who has dared to contribute in any way contradicting the general pov slant of the the piece has been reversed and intimidated away.
If my edits were "all lies", then it should have been taken to an impartial panel or admin and let the facts stand and lies fall, instead of deleting it incessantly and hoping the paragraph and the editor will disappear.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Enric Naval (
talk) 18:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
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:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
topic ban or something that stops the disruption.
Additional comments by
Enric Naval (
talk):
For
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:
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)
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)
All of this seems quite silly to me. When a new editor tries to fix a perceived problem and the edit is reverted, and when subsequent discussions don't end in consensus, it's perfectly normal to put a dispute tag on the article. If you think about it, it must be quite surprising for a new editor that drawing attention to a bona fide dispute can even be considered disruptive. This only makes sense once you understand that in Wikipedia we don't solve disputes as they arise, but instead we let them smoulder until one side gets banned or loses through a technicality such as bad behaviour. A new editor can't know this. I certainly didn't know this when I made this mistake at a language related article in my first month here.
Punishing Dbrisinda for falling into this common trap is not OK. And a general 1RR for dispute tags is also not appropriate because it would only give the stronger party in this dispute a tool to get new members of the weaker party into serious trouble for innocently breaking a surprising technicality. Hans Adler 22:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved admin go to JeanandJane's talk page and place a link to the discretionary sanctions? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 00:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Previous Arbitration Case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2
User requesting enforcement:
Radiantenergy
Radiantenergy (
talk) 20:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Sanction or remedy that these user violated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Conflict_of_interest
Diffs of edits for Activitist that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Activist_editing
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Additional comments by
Radiantenergy (
talk):
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: I notified all the 3 editors who are involved in this case here [111], [112], [113]
I see some serious problems here. The original RS question posted by radiantenergy had serious factual inaccuracies. It was misleading and inaccurate.
Andries pointed out many of these problems, but they never really got corrected or even properly discussed.
The question being asked is really a BLP policy question rather than a source reliability question. radiantenergy refused to consider raising the question on the BLP noticeboard.
While Andries may have a COI, radiantenergy seems unconcerned with factual accuracy, downplaying the difference between a California superior court - the lowest level of state court - and the California Supreme Court.
So, in my opinion, the original RS question posted by radiantenergy is fundamentally flawed and should be ignored. Sanctions on the basis of it would be ridiculous. Bhimaji ( talk) 09:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Closed without action. The requesting editor has not cited, despite being asked to, an actual remedy or sanction by the Arbitration Committee that has been violated and that administrators can enforce. The principles cited in arbitration cases are not, by themselves, subject to arbitration enforcement because they are just restatements of general policy or practice. This means that this dispute is unsuited for this forum. To the extent that this is a dispute about the application of WP:RS, please use WP:DR. Sandstein 05:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
User requesting enforcement:
Ynhockey (
Talk) 23:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Dailycare (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
The user is engaging in tendentious editing by constantly inserting controversial material on which there is no consensus to the article, despite the discussing being active. The user posts a message on talk, after which he makes pretty much the same edit (with slightly different wording) every time. The user has not been notified of this case ( WP:ARBPIA) as far as I am aware, but has been notified that his edits are disruptive.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3ADailycare&diff=304713870&oldid=303924476 – original warning (might be slightly harsh) before the user joined the discussion on the talk page. No other warnings have been given.
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
According to the text of the remedy, he should be warned and if this does not help, eventually blocked.
Additional comments by
Ynhockey (
Talk):
Just another reminder that the content dispute is not the issue here, and I hope that the content dispute with the user is settled on the
talk page, which has an ongoing discussion.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
I don't know anything about Dailycare's editing, and Ynhockey may well be right about it; I don't want to interfere with the report as such. However, one of the examples of the tendentious editing is this. As far as content goes, Daily Motion is correct. It is not only "opponents" who regard Israeli settlements as illegal, but everyone other than successive Israeli governments, the settlers, and their supporters. This issue has been dealt with many times on Wikipedia over the last few years, and the outcome has always been that we should frame the issue the way most reliable sources do, including the UN. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the underlying tendentious editing issue, but I have a greater concern: This user's first edit included some fancy ref formatting and some fancy block quotes formatting, strong evidence that this user has has a previous account. I guess we can run CU, but a negative result should not make a difference. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LuvGoldStar/Archive stands for the precedent that negative CU results do not make a difference when a user is "obviously" a sockpuppet. Unless of course there's a good reason to distinguish between editors that are seen as pro-Israel and editors that are seen as anti-Israel.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Not actionable. No discretionary sanctions can occur at this time because Dailycare's warning did not include a link to the arbitration decision as required by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions. Moreover, only one actual diff is provided of the allegedly objectionable conduct, and that one diff is on the face of it not disruptive. Any sockpuppet concerns should be discussed at WP:SPI. Sandstein 05:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
User requesting enforcement:
--
NovaSkola (
talk) 00:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Lida Vorig (
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:
The user is flagging Azerbaijani articles by inserting that, it is not notable in English wikipedia on which there is no consensus to the article, despite the discussing being active. The user flagged at least 10 Azerbaijani articles for no reason, and in six of her Azerbaijan-related AfD nominations today, Russian-language sources were easily located, or were in fact already in the article at the time she nominated it.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
According to the text of the remedy, he should be warned and if this does not help, eventually blocked.
Additional comments by
NovaSkola:
Just another reminder that the content dispute is not the issue here, and I hope that the content dispute with the user is settled on the
talk page, which has an ongoing discussion.
Also user's anti-Azerbaijanism could be traced throught this site, in which clearly states anti-Azerbaijanian view of this user. This user also has same IP http://www.pracuj24www.info/kraj-hy-show-Սպասարկող:Տեղեկամատյան
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lida_Vorig
Hi again :)
While browsing, I found some articles that I didn't think meet the WP:NOTABILITY guideline. From a previous experience I knew articles can be deleted, so I searched and found the AFD. User:NovaSkola lists all the articles he created on his page, while he created a lot of notable articles, the 8 in my opinion are not notable.
Since the nomination, Azad Asgarov was proven to be a president of some federation in Azerbaijan. So I would like to withdraw the nomination, but don't know how.
That being said, I really would like to know how this ( http://www.pracuj24www.info/kraj-hy-show-Սպասարկող:Տեղեկամատյան) proves that I'm Anti-Azerbaijani and 100% armenian (capitalization belongs to NovaSkola, he seems to have a problem with that word). I keep looking at it, but can't figure out what it is. My name isn't there, my ip address, which NovaSkola claims he traced, isn't there. This is whole experience is just another proof that cleaning up is never easy Lida Vorig ( talk) 19:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm the editor who first noted these problematic AfDs by Lida Vorig and added them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Azerbaijan. Of a total of 8, IMO there's 5 which are clearly notable, 2 which are borderline, and 1 which seems non-notable. It seems to me that Lida Vorig can also speak Russian [122], so even if these aren't bad-faith nominations, they're a clear example of being unable to follow WP:BEFORE --- my Russian is rather poor and I can't even speak Azeri at all (just have basic conversational knowledge of a distantly-related language written in a different script) but I was able to find at least some sources for almost all of these articles. cab ( talk) 02:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
—
Ryūlóng (
竜龙) 02:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Mythdon (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Motion 2 based on
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Mythdon monitoring users' use of Rollback
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
"Not applicable."
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Block of some sort, per the case remedies
Additional comments by —
Ryūlóng (
竜龙):
As I state above, Mythdon only undid the rollback that I performed because it was a rollback, and that is confirmed
by his response to me on his user talk.—
Ryūlóng (
竜龙) 02:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a
diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.
If I get blocked for this revert, then I'm perfectly fine with that. Nothing else needed to say, but please look at my talk page. Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 03:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Myth did it for more reasons other than it just being a rollback. This is evidenced by his statements on the talk page, and anything saying otherwise is misleading.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 03:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
User requesting enforcement:
Grand
master 16:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Monlonet (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
revert restriction or topic ban
Additional comments by
Grand
master:
The account of Monlonet is used solely for edit wars, to revert contentious articles such as
Duduk and
Mount Ararat. On Duduk he already made 4 rvs within the last 2 days, removing sources which he did not like, and making no attempt to discuss his reverts at talk, while telling other users to check the talk, to which he never ever contributed. In addition, he is canvassing, trying to mobilize other users for edit warring.
[134]
[135]
[136]. Tries to exert pressure on users who haven't joined his edit war:
[137] Now he joined an edit war at
Urartu:
[138] and reverted Urartu to the version of
76.232.252.180 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS), after the article was semiprotected. That IP is almost identical to
76.232.252.185 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS), which is used for canvassing. It is possible that he is related to
Zvartnotz2 (
talk ·
contribs), who was engaged in edit warring on the same article about duduk.--
Grand
master 16:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The CU results on this user: [139] It is possible that he is connected to Zvartnotz2 ( talk · contribs). See my report on Zvartnotz2 ( talk · contribs), which was archived without any action: [140] Grand master 08:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
It is also interesting that today Zvartnotz2 added an image to his user page, [141], and then removed it: [142], and 1 minute after Zvartnotz2 added the image Monlonet added the same image to his user page, [143] and removed it a few minutes later: [144] It is the same person using 2 accounts. Grand master 06:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[145]
This account is quite close to SPA and has been meatpuppeting recently. Brand t] 07:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Marshal Bagramyan (
talk) 17:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Interfase (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Left to the discretion of administrator. Perhaps a week-long block, or a slight topic ban.
Additional comments by
Marshal Bagramyan (
talk):
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[146]
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Ohconfucius (
talk) 02:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Dilip rajeev (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Dilip rajeev (
talk ·
contribs) has been editing Falun Gong articles (almost exclusively)
since February 2006. He has a habit of disappearing (i.e. not editing in article space or talk space) for weeks on end. When he returns, he frequently reverts to the last version he feels comfortable with irrespective of the individual merits of each of the changes because the changes which took place were not to his liking. Such reverts are usually done without due reference to the discussions which have taken place during his absence. Some diffs immediately below, show this modus operandi
His habit of making radical reverts is a matter of historical record. Some examples of this tendency are below:
For myself and a number of neutral editors who have joined the Falun Gong wikiproject, Dilip's latest reverts to the 'Self Immolation' and 'Organ harvesting' articles have become the last straw in our tolerance of his disruptive behaviour.
The following is a brief history of the significant edits which took place after the article was declared a Good Article through collaborative work by me and User:asdfg12345. The radical changes put through by Dilip rajeev to a good article were all done within a period of about a week, without prior substantive discussion to speak of:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
He is a
habitual disruptive editor whose aggressive and partisan edits have been the subject of numerous comments and complaints from other users, including fellow practitioner
User:asdfg12345. Dilip rajeev has been warned repeatedly against edit-warring, and has been blocked a number of times - the
last time was a 3 month topic ban; prior to that was a block of 55 hours. I believe that, in view of his continued disruption since the topic ban and the total lack of any mitigating collaborative successes, an indefinite ban from Wikipedia editing Falun Gong-related articles or their talk pages. would be in order; he should also be banned from any edit which potentially touches on Falun Gong on the
Communist Party of China,
Jiang Zemin,
Cult suicide,
Censorship in the People's Republic of China etc.
A ban on editing Sathya Sai Baba articles should also be considered to minimise Dilip rajeev's disruption to the project overall. As Dilip rajeev appears to possess some less than prudent tendencies, such a move may also safeguard his personal safety and that of his family against the wrath of Baba supporters.
There is a protracted, large-scale propaganda war between the spiritual movement and the Chinese regime. The polariation makes 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. "NPOV" becomes very delicate - as both sides clearly have an agenda against the other, there will be routine disruptions from both sides. No revision 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 banished. 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, and are used as direct advocacy for the Falun Gong movement; users from all backgrounds (including those who are anti-Chinese gov't) have raised concerns - but all have been either discouraged by the drama, or their attempts at other means of dispute resolution have failed.
Dilip rajeev is a Falun Gong practitioner, and edits Falun Gong articles almost exclusively since 2006 along with a team of 3 other very easily identifiable FLG activist editors - asdfg12345 ( talk · contribs), Olaf Stephanos ( talk · contribs), and HappyInGeneral ( talk · contribs). After the ban of Anti-FLG users Sam Luo and Tomanada, this group of Falun Gong practitioners have seemingly taken over all Falun Gong-related articles. All four users, to varying degrees, erase critical content, engage in lengthy advocacy commentary on talk pages, tag-team against other editors. Rajeev in particular shows very little respect for any users who wish to bring balance to articles, by sundry disruptive tactics and tendentious editing. These 1
In my experience, Rajeev has shown great animosity when non-FG devotees edit this article. There has been a long history of unchecked edit warring, even over the placement of {{ NPOV}} tags. Such tags are routinely removed (as here) with not so much as a 'how do you do', as if the contents suddenly become neutral when the tag disappears. Reverts are usually very provocatively done - blind and wholescale, often destroying many intervening edits which have accurate and well-reasoned edit summaries - and any ensuing discussion makes clear that the user is always 'right' and anyone who opposes him 'wrong'. Anything which is sourced from sources he approves of have a right to stay and any sources he disapproves of are "CCP propaganda" or somesuch. Dilip rajeev's tendency to introduce ironic quotes (like here) and weasel words are already mentioned above. Not only is he completely and blindly partisan, Dilip rajeev often expresses points of view which are unique; his style and content introduced have been frowned upon from time to time by most others, and also by asdfg.
In all Falun Gong articles, misrepresentation of sources has been endemic, and these four abovenamed editors are known to back up each other's problematic edits. They occasionally concede when it is clearly demonstrated that misrepresentations exist. However, more often than not, the neutralising revision provokes another flurry of introducing "highly sourced material" ostensibly to 'restore balance', but which usually tilt bias back in favour of Falun Gong; some such introductions give their cause the last word. Adding, removing, restructuring, moving, or otherwise changing any material that appears to upset the pro-FG bias in any of the articles is met with the same tactics.
Dilip rajeev's stated view that nothing from the Chinese authorities is worthy of citing because it is unreliable propaganda demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of what is WP:NPOV. He is known to endlessly pontificate on moral questions, and lawyer around citing paragraphs of WP:RS and WP:NPOV to support whatever position he favours in regards to a certain link or source. He maintains a website which he uses as Falun Gong advocacy. It seems that he passionately believes the persecution of Falun gong practitioners at the hands of the Chinese authorities, and is unable to put these views to one side when he is editing; and when he edits, it is with such great fervour and aggression that leaves little or no place for others who wish to contribute.
I would add that the above edits from the 'self-immolation' article demonstrate a pattern of behaviour which can be seen throughout his editing in FGverse. Whilst there is nothing inherently wrong with inserting text favouring one viewpoint, to continue to do so and to ignore the other viewpoints (and all those who support it) when an article manifestly lacks balance is problematic. There are numerous discussions in which he openly advocates Falun Gong, the principles of "truthfulness, compassion and forbearance". He appears only to able to observe only twoone of the three 'virtues' ("truthfulness"), and even so, he appears to do it with his rose-coloured spectacles.
Arbcom will already know about sockpuppet account. From this, it can be seen how he ran User:Inactive user account 001, the sock apparently to protect himself against members of the Baba cult.
After said sock account was blocked, he continued to repeatedly edit war at Sathya Sai Baba
Dilip rajeev creates an ambiance of intolerance and hostility, leaving behind a trail of breaches of WP:NPOV, 3RR and other guidelines wherever he goes. He is responsible, in whole or in part, for driving away a number of neutral editors from the Falun Gong articles. His editing Sathya Sai Baba demonstrate his propensity to be controversial; his forays there are nothing short of spectacular drama. He has demonstrated that he is incapable of working with others who do not share the same views as himself, and I am regrettably of the conclusion, after observing numerous attempts by myself and other editors to discuss, negotiate and mediate, and after many months of suffering his various antics and POV-pushing, that Wikipedia is best off without him. A wholescale indefinite ban is warranted to end this editor's disruption of wikipedia, once and for all. Ohconfucius ( talk) 02:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Arbitration enforcement
From: oh confucius (ohconfucius@hotmail.com)
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 4:19:41 AM
To: dilip_rajeev@msn.com
I wish to inform you that an arbitration enforcement case concerning your behaviour has been filed here.
Ohconfucius ( talk) 04:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I continue to be baffled by the discussion below concerning the scope of authority of admins in this matter. I would just point out that in January 2008, Dilip rajeev was topic banned for 3 months without coming to AE; prior to that was a block of 55 hours. Olaf Stephanos was also given a 6 month topic ban recently here at AE for just such a violation. Ohconfucius ( talk) 17:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Per Shell's comment, I have now realised that Samuel Luo was only topic banned indefinitely, but though it was a site ban. I have now amended the request above. Ohconfucius ( talk) 01:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Reaction to asdfg's comments: My only ideology is WP:NPOV. If Dilip's latest reverts to the 'Self Immolation' and 'Organ harvesting' articles are part of Dilip's latest "improvements", I would hate to see what getting worse is like. He may be good at sourcing, but note that he frequently hides behind the "highly sourced material" as defense against removing any text which he wants to stay. Ohconfucius ( talk) 13:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, a lot of accusations and all of them absolutely baseless.
I'll start with the sock accusation regarding the Sai Baba page. The "Sai Baba" topic being an extremely sensitive topic here in India, and any criticism of which could potentially result in threat on my safety as well as my family's safety, I had wanted anonymity when contributing to the pages( Ref: BBC Documentary, Secret Swami)( Even 70 year olds have been attacked in the very state where I live for exposing critical information on this person.) All my contributions there has been well sourced - to the BBC, The Times, The Guardian, The DTV, etc. It was a legitimate alternate account. Admins had also agreed there was no evidence of abusive socking from that account. Further, I had informed the arbcom, in a mail in February, regarding the account.
A newly registered editor, wanting to find out the real identity of the alternate account, started an SPA case against me - admins who were mislead by the manner in which the user presented the case initially mistook my account for a sock, revealing the identity of my alternate account. Shortly following this revelation of info, people related to the sai baba group had a large scale attack launched against me on several blogs and website.
Admins suggested that I rename the original alternate account and I did. That I "returned to edit warring" on the pages is a baseless mis-characterization. It is not uncommon on wikipedia for editors to get cornered and attacked when their contributions are not in- line with other's POV.
The above user had attacked me with claims along the same lines here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dilip_rajeev/Archive
And he was clearly told by the admins that I had not operated any abusive socks.
The article had remained stable in this version for over a year : http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident&oldid=300212095
The above User, Ohconfucius, came and and reverted it to a two year old revision - ignoring the pages of discussion that resulted in the newer version.
The user refuses to focus on the content being blanked out by his revision while attacking, personally, editors like me who bring up concerns on such a revert - chosing to base it ona "good article" comment.
The information and sources that got blanked out in the revert to the two year old version includes:
And above are among the best sources and most notable sources available to us on the topic.
None of this removal was on the basis of any consensus. I had raised my concerns to the effect on talk, pointed things out clearly, requested that if any well sourced info from the two year old version ( which is extremely biased on builds on CCP propaganda ) be missing in the newer version, it be identified and incorporated into the newer article. PLease see my comment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident#Carification_from_Dilip
I attempted a single revert to the stable version with the comment: "Please see talk page. The revision of the stable article to a two year old version, with no consensus/discussion, had blanked of several prominent 3rd party sources. Kindly see talk."
I was quickly reverted back by the above user, who, refusing to focus on the content, cast a set of baseless, distorted and misleading accusations against me. I refrained from any further revert to avoid a meaningless revert war.
It is true that I reverted to an approx. 10 day old version. But I was unaware of the discussions going on talk when I did the revert. Over 40 KB of centrally relevant, well sourced information as from Amnesty, Kilgour Matas, US COngress, etc., I had noticed, was removed in a series of edits. All images on the pages, showing statistic from the KM reports etc. had gotten removed as well.
I brought up the issue on the main page of Falun Gong article. I reproduce my comments, requesting admin attention, in their entirety below. I had pointed out I did the revert and was requesting admin attention to the revert as well as to the current state of affairs in the article.
Requesting admin attention on the organharvesting sub-page
Kindly review the flurry of changes that have happened in the the past couple of weeks: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China&diff=309220914&oldid=309152359
A 66 KB article, every sentence in which had been highly sourced, has got reduced to a 26 Kb stub. Could admins kindly review such changes - the article comes under the probation placed by the ArbCom on these pages.
I have attempted to restore the page as of around Aug 8th, when this flurry of removal started -and not just info sourced to Amnesty, Congressional Reports, Kilgour Matas reports, etc. have been blanked out but several centrally relevant images from the KM reports have been blanked out as well.
Requesting kind attention on the issue. Dilip rajeev ( talk) 09:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Kindly see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident#Carification_from_Dilip. The page was reverted to a two year old revision - in the process blanking out several pages of content sourced to western academia. I merely restored this removal of info on a stable article, requesting that we discuss and make changes based on consensus - incorporating stuff from the two year old revision that might be missing in the stable article. While the user accuses me of "blanking two weeks of work" on The Tiananmenn square page, he choses to ignore that what I did was merely undo the user's revert to a two year old version ( an edit that ignored completely years' of work on the page).
I request admins to kindly go through/ compare the revisions and see for themselves.
The same pattern has occured on almost all related pages - and by the same set of users in the past two weeks. Li Hongzhi article has had info removed , addition of several paras of info irreleavent to the individual's notability, in violation of WP:BLP , etc. Persecution of Falun Gong article has undergone such changes as well.
I'd also like to point out that these flurry of changes started at around the same time as these comments were made by the same users involved in the changes. The "discussion" and "consensus" that resulted in the removal of all this info has been largely between the editors engaged in the below exchanges.
- 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"..." [147]
- Colipon on Edward130603's talk page: "Anyway, do you have e-mail?" [148]
- Colipon on Mrund's talk page: "I'd sent you an e-mail today. Please check! :)" [149]
- Ohconfucius on Mrund's talk page: "I'm glad you're back. Drop me an email, I'd like a private chat with you." [150]
I'd also like to point out that am not accusing all editors involved in the conversation. Mrund, for instance, just received these comments on talk and there is little evidence of him being involved in the recent removal of info on these pages.
As regards the removal of info on a 66KB stable article - reducing it to a 26 KB article, another stable page being reverted to a two year old revision ,etc. I'd like to point out that the very majority of info removed in the process are material centrally relevant- sourced to western academia, Human rights bodies, etc. - Amnesty, AP, Congressional Reports, a Yale Univ Thesis, Kilgour Matas Reports,etc. I point this out because, in the past, we have witnessed such blanking being covered up by claims to the effect that it was primary sources such as ET or Faluninfo.net that was removed. Demonstratably, and very clearly, it is reliable 3rd party sources being blanked out here. In all of these pages, primary sources such as Faluinfo.net are very sparingly used ( despite that they are identified as being reliable by scholars such as David Ownby.)
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 11:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I was reverted by Ohconfucius , whose edit summary ran: "rvv - where's the discussion?". I pointed out I had brought up the issue on the main page [151]. When I was reverted again, I refrained from doing any more reverts, again to avoid an unnecessary edit war and thought would bring up the issue in detail on the article's talk when I find more time.
The 10 day old version I reverted to is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China&oldid=309225056 ( 66KB article, content stable for a almost a year )
The version from which I reverted ( the current version, after removal of 40 K info and ALL images) is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China&oldid=309223036 ( 26 KB article )
If reviewing admins even causally compare the two versions, what motivated me to attempt restore all the info removed would be apparent.
I cannot express how much I appreciate User:DilipRajeev's effort to copy his rant verbatim to here, it makes life so much easier. As he himself said it, he was unaware of the talk page discussions (which should mean he is aware now?) and reverted a whole bunch of well discussed changes on the organ harvesting page. That itself is typical of WP:OWN behaviour, which seemed pandemic across all the FLG pages. But not only that presumably after he has become aware of the discussions he did not revert back his own edit, did not participate in the discussion, and instead posted a long winded rant on an unrelated page requesting admin intervention. The same thing happened last time I dealt with him, moving the issue right up to the WP:AN/I, accusing me of "adding in material from a clearly propagandistic video", "vandalism", "dis-information", the lot, while we were carrying out a conversation to resolve the matter. This, in my opinion, is clearly disruptive, inflammatory (that incident partly caused my hiatus on Wikipedia) and completely without remorse. -- antilived T | C | G 09:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Response to Asdfg12345 If by having an ideology of that an encyclopedia should have a neutral point of view opposes Dilip's ideology, I'll gladly be his "ideological opponent" (unless you are accusing every one of us being CCP propagandists?). The only criteria for his edits is to improve the outlook of FLG in Wikipedia articles (I can go add lots and lots of poorly written, poorly sourced text that praises FLG and he'd have no problems for it). By his criteria there can never be enough "discussion" to warrant a change that puts FLG in a more negative light (although I can hardly say it's specific to him, it's certainly the most prominent).
a small side-note: Asdfg12345 raises a good issue here, it's quite obvious that all the people that regard Dilip highly are FLG-practitioners. Maybe it IS an ideological issue after all? -- antilived T | C | G 07:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Dilip rajeev states that he was unaware of discussions going on in talk when he reverted two weeks worth of good-faith collaborative edits. He could have investigated it and being the one who performed the revert, he should have created such a discussion, but he did not. Because this is not the first time he has done so, it is far too late to claim ignorance as a defense. I don't know what to make of this. I suppose it's possible, as Ohconfucius writes, that he's a devoted Falun Gong practitioner who cannot bear to see other sources represented and therefore acts in this way. What I can say is that it's disrupting a volatile subject matter. The terms in which he defends himself above are sadly typical. The edits made are "attacks", he is being "attacked" when demands are made that he follow WP:BRD or WP:NPOV. Such partisan behavior can be handled on many subject matters, but in the Falun Gong articles, on probation, with a very strong partisan conflict between the Chinese Communist Part and Falun Gong, it is extremely disruptive. I'm sorry to say that I believe the editing climate on these pages will be improved without the poorly-motivated reverts and deletions repeatedly made by Dilip rajeev in the past. As a final note, I do not believe a blanket ban is necessary at this point - an indefinite subject ban from all articles on Falun Gong and possibly China subjects would allow the editor to grow into a well-rounded, constructive Wikipedia contributor in areas where he can maintain a semblance of objectivity. / Per Edman 09:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Confirming that there is a group of editors resisting the insertion of any criticism in Falun Gong articles, that this has stalled editors who keep trying to balance that articles (myself I tried to make a few changes), and that the articles have benefited from boldly ignoring unreasonable objections raised by these users. A topic ban of Dilip rajeev from anything related to Falun Gong would help improve those articles and would reduce the level of persistent advocacy. Topic ban should include making any edit that makes reference to Falun Gong stuff in any article or talk page in any namespace, broadly constructed. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 09:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
See clarification, admins can impose topic bans of their own. Can someone hand the topic ban to Dilip rajeev and close this? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 21:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I was involved in long term edit disputes with Dilip, who has has demonstrated his lack of good faith previously by:
Most of the other issues were already mentioned by Colipon and Ohconfucius above. Basically, his method of destructive editing involve:
Since mediators become involved in the FLG articles, the users of both sides have became more cooperative, and dilip's continued disruption and violation of the arbcom ruling damages on the mediation, and as such warrants a topic ban or block .-- PCPP ( talk) 10:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The best that can be said about Dilip rajeev, and the one thing that makes him only the second most disruptive editor on everything having to do with Falun Gong over the past few years, is that he isn't there all the time. His contributions take the form of drive-by shootings. He cares only about Falun Gong, which in his mind is all good and whose reputation must be boosted, and the Sai Baba cult, which he used to fight on Wikipedia. Dilip is not primarily interested in making a good encyclopedia. He actively disrupts attempts in that direction. I am not optimistic about his willingness or ability to do any productive work here. Martin Rundkvist ( talk) 13:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
It is not clear to me that this is a case for arbitration enforcement. Which remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong allows uninvolved administrators to enact the requested "indefinite ban from Wikipedia"? Unless this request is amended to cite an actual arbitration sanction or remedy that has been violated (as of this writing, it cites only principles enunciated by the Committee, which are not by themselves enforceable), it may be closed without action. Sandstein 15:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article probation, which has now been added to the request, places the article on article probation (which would allow topic bans by admins), but also states that "The articles may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review." I understand this to mean that under this remedy, any topic ban may only be imposed as a result of action by the Arbitration Committee. If so, admins on their own can't do anything here and a request to the Committee would be required. Sandstein 15:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
In reply to John Carter below and Ed Johnston on my talk page, yes, a case can be made that ArbCom meant to enact standard article probation, but if so, why the confusing extra text about review by the Committee? On the face of it, that would appear to be a lex specialis limiting the terms of article probation for this case. Absent clarification by the Committee, I am not ready to enact a sanction that is not authorized by the remedy (assuming any sanctions are required at all; I've not looked at the merits of this request). Sandstein 16:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I would support a topic ban or a block of Dilip rajeev. He is a disruptive editor and often edit wars to get his way. Dilip simply has no care for the good faith work of other editors if they don't match with his POV.
Sandstein, I think that the Article Probation remedy allows blocks/restricted editing for disruptive editors. -- Edward130603 ( talk) 15:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
This enforcement case has been out for quite a while now. Can a administrator come and close the case now?-- Edward130603 ( talk) 23:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I find it difficult to convince myself that a Francophone soccer-player, a piano-player from North Carolina, an archaeologist and convinced atheist, a Hong Kong resident, and an art-instructor with a staunch belief in Judeo-Christian deism would manage to agree on and produce one-sided, slanted revisions — unless one subscribes to the notion that all those who do not cheerfully support every source which celebrates the accomplishments and wisdom of a controversial religion must be part of a great heathen-conspiracy led by Hel and the time of Ragnarök has finally come to pass.
I have yet to become familiarized with the new rule which explains to the underlings exactly how long they would have to wait before Dilip descends from his watchtower to approve of the changes that had been thoroughly discussed before being implemented to the articles he apparently
owns. It becomes terribly frustrating when, upon finally coming to some agreements in the course of tough discussions, one knows that said debates take place under the auspice of an omnipresent divine eye that will fire its wrath-filled flames of destruction down to earth should the inferiors' actions fall into disfavor. Just as there should be no cabal, there should not be a god-like Übermensch with no need for explaining or justifying his actions, either — especially when he himself has been
warned and informed of the fact that not everyone in the pool of unworthy minions follows the creed of Dilipianity.
The behavior is clearly disruptive and violates remedy 1) of the Arbitration Case closed on 06:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC) which states "Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review". Seb az86556 ( talk) 15:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Sandstein is correct: as written, the remedy does not appear to support direct admin action, but asks for a review by the arbitration committee following a corresponding motion; bans or restrictions should result from such a review. -- JN 466 15:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The existing remedy includes a specific link to Wikipedia:General sanctions, which, in the second paragraph, specifically does allow for parties other than the ArbCom to impose general sanctions, although it also permits such sanctions to be revoked later if so desired. I have to assume that the presence of such a link indicates that it would be possible for uninvolved administrators to place sanctions, effectively at the community's request, on such topics. John Carter ( talk) 16:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
My comments are mainly procedural.
Thank you for considering my comments. -- Vassyana ( talk) 00:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Dilip Rajeev is a very difficult user to work with. He was the primary user that drove me away from working on Falun Gong articles in 2007. After my two-year hiatus from the FLG zone, my first attempts to make good faith changes over at ‘Organ Harvesting’ in July 2009 was directly met with a horde of personal accusations from dilip. Dilip’s style of disruptive editing and disrespect for users who do not share his POV has been a serious detriment to improvement to Falun Gong articles. Note in his defense, he writes “But I was unaware of the discussions going on talk when I did the revert.” I am baffled he is able to utter these words as a form of defence. This type of blatant disregard for other contributors' edits is not acceptable. He also often throws poorly argued but very offensive accusations at people who are displeased with his disruptive behaviour.
Although there seems to be an on-going debate about the semantics of sanctions, a long-term topic ban for Rajeev serves the basic spirit of the arbitration – that is, to foster a more cohesive and productive editing environment. Dilip’s past behaviour has undoubtedly turned away and frustrated many good faith editors and significantly hindered progress in the Falun Gong articles - to a degree no less severe than now topic-banned user Olaf Stephanos. Olaf and Dilip's argumentation on talk space differ in that Olaf responds directly to comments by other users while Dilip simply uses overarching statements to conclude that he is 'right', and then engages in edit-warring and reverts regardless of other users' input (as shown in evidence above) - this is the reason dilip has many more warnings against him than other Falun Gong SPAs. In all this adds up to make dilip the most destructive user on these articles. Similar to Olaf, if dilip was truly interested in working on the project rather than pushing his views on two controversial movements, he can still remain a valuable contributor outside the realm of Falun Gong and Sathya Sai Baba. Colipon+( Talk) 19:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I have n't followed the Falun Gong article closely. However I will like to share Dilip Rajeev's role in the Sathya Sai Baba article. Dilip Rajeev using the account 'White_Adept' added several unreliable sources and material banned by second arbitration commitee in the Sathya Sai Baba article since Jan 2009. He made 200+ edits in 10 days and changed a neutral article to NPOV nightmare. He always edit-warred with other editors who tried to remove the unreliable sources which he added. I had put an arbitration enforcement case here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive36#I_seek_Admin_help_in_this_case:_White_Adept_and_Arb.com_rulings where he was warned of sactions if he added questionable sources into the Sathya Sai Baba article.
Even after this case Dilip Rajeev still continued to add the same banned material in the sub-article '1993 murders in Prashanthi Nilayam'. I have always wondered why Dilip Rajeev was not afraid to break wikipedia rules or even arbitration enforcement rules. Many co-editors had become frustrated unable to stop his POV pushing and edit-warring in the Sathya Sai Baba article.
If you ask me if Dilip Rajeev disrupted the Sathya Sai Baba article? My answer is definite Yes. He did a lot of damage to that article. It has taken me and other editors almost 6 months to get rid of the unreliable sources Dilip Rajeev added into the Sathya Sai Baba article and bring it back to the original neutral state. Lately in the last 1 and 1/2 months after Dilip stopped interfering in the Sathya Sai Baba article the article has tremendously improved and has become more neutral and well balanced. I hope that the Sathya Sai Baba article will stay that way in the future instead of becoming a NPOV nightmare once again. Radiantenergy ( talk) 02:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, sometime in 2008 i came upon the Wikipedia Sathya Sai Baba page. The page at best was poorly written and lacked any real coherancy and information. Sometime later, in 2009 i read the page again and was disgusted with the way Sai Baba was presented. i know people have different opinions but it seems there lacked any human dignity or neutral presentation of a living person. That is when i signed up for a wikipedia account. 16:07, February 15, 2009 . i couldnt make any changes as the page had been blocked.
i'm not familiar Dilip Rajeev or his writing as he stopped around the time i began, but i do know the article in early 2009 was, in my opinion, horrendous. you will have to consult the history of the page to see who made the contributions.
J929 ( talk) 02:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been involved with these articles for a long time. I believe Dilip is editing in good faith. Much of the calls for a ban here come from Dilip's ideological opponents, who of course find his presence a nuisance. I agree that Dilip's editing is unthoughtful in the cited instances, and I don't know why he annoys people like that when he doesn't have to. On the other hand though, he is improving, and he has made good contributions to these pages in terms of research and finding sources, and that shouldn't be discounted. His once a fortnight changes that get reverted in ten seconds aren't what is making or breaking the editing environment on these pages--they are minor, and he only did it a couple of times, and I'm sure he won't keep doing them after this incident. He notes, in his defence, that he was undoing changes that he felt had been pushed through without discussion, and were often cases of vast deletions of material referenced to reliable sources. There is actually nothing wrong with doing this. This is merely the bold-revert-cycle. It would only be a problem if he edit-warred, and I see no evidence of that. Mostly this seems like a difference in taste. People disagree with each other all the time. There should be a plurality of views on wikipedia. If there was some genuinely disruptive activity coming from Dilip's corner I would want him banned too, but I don't see evidence of it.-- Asdfg 12345 18:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Camaron · Christopher ·
talk 11:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Meowy (
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 Meowy has been under these sanctions since October 2007.
[161]
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable, Meowy was warned about conduct like this when the sanctions were placed originally, further warnings are not required in the remedy.
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Meowy has been blocked a total of five times for violation of editing restrictions, this excludes overturned blocks or block setting adjustment.
[186]. According to the editing restrictions Enforcement: Violations of limitations, supervision, or bans imposed by the remedies in this case may be enforced by brief blocks of up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year. If any block is given the exact time is down to the discretion of administrators, however it is clear from the block log that short blocks have failed to correct Meowy's behaviour. A topic ban may also be appropriate as many
Eurovision Song Contest articles, such as
Eurovision Song Contest 2009, would come under articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area as Meowy's conduct suggests that disallowing him to continue editing such articles should be considered.
Additional comments by
Camaron · Christopher ·
talk:
Lida Vorig (
talk ·
contribs) is also under editing restrictions (
[187]) from the same Arbitration Committee case and has violated them by also failing to assume good faith
[188]. While the evidence suggests that Lida Voring's behaviour has not been as severe as Meowy's, particularly less aggressive, Lida Voring should probably be warned that such comments are not assuming good faith, and that making such accusations without evidence disrupts dispute resolution and can also be considered incivil.
Note that I am an administrator myself, but have not taken any enforcement action as I would be considered an 'involved administrator' for this remedy.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Notification of Meowy,
notification of Lida Vorig.
I endorse Camaron's statement as a party who attempted to interpret the purpose behind the tag. Meowy has again responded asserting bad faith on Camaron's behalf, citing issues of ownership of the page, understanding of the purpose of tagging, and questioning Camaron's role as an administrator. [189]
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Ohconfucius (
talk) 01:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Pmanderson (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Date delinking#Pmanderson_topic_banned
"31.1) Pmanderson is topic banned for 12 month from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions."
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
The user has edited the policy page 6 times since the case closed (
1
2
3
4
5
6)
In the
fifth edit, he remove a link to the
WP:Manual of Style and replaced it by a link to an article, with a possibly deceptive edit summary. This undiscussed change may well have been contentious (it has since been
reverted) and appears to involve just the scope that Remedy 31.1 refers to
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
I am seeking clarification as to what was covered by the restraining order – I am under similar editing restraint and would gladly like to know whether same freedom applies to me. If he has been in breach, a brief spell on the benches or a strongly worded warning would be in order.
Additional comments by
Ohconfucius (
talk):
moved here from
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification following
advice from clerk.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
This is the result of the quarrel over date-delinking, once brought to ArbCom, and settled at WP:ARBDATE. So far, the appeal to ArbCom has been ignored, except for Mbisanz recusing himself from clerking it; understandable, since Ohconfucius made a big deal about his commenting on the original case, when he wasn't clerking on it.
What does any of this evidence have to do with date-delinking? Why am I being dragged back into the date-delinking case?
Ohconfucious appears to have missed has now inserted
this edit (which should, by the "logic" here, be the most outrageous), in which I inserted a space between two paragraphs.
As for the edit summary complained of, it says, in full: refer to article, with sources; there are advantages to working on an encyclopedia. There are; these include access to articles on English grammar when we want to indicate what that grammar actually is; they have citations and sources; MOS doesn't.
As Roger Davies wrote, now on the talk page of WP:ARBDATE, topic bans are intended to give severely disrupted topics a break from disruption and to give topic-banned editors an opportunity to get used to working in less contested areas. The naming conventions are in fact much less contentious; it was with relief that I returned to discussing them, as I have been doing for years. Applying them is less so, as the recently concluded Macedonia case will show; I have been discussing that also, and its consequences, with several admins and some arbitrators. Nobody suggested that this topic ban applied in any way.
It may indeed be possible to apply this decision mechanically, so that it will amount to a site ban; did ArbCom mean that? (And if so, did they mean it, somehow, just for me, or does it apply to all parties alike?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Addendum: I have assumed this ban (as the others of the same wording) was limited to {{ style-guideline}}s (this would include other templates transcluded into such guidelines, which was what I did wrong), because the express reason for not limiting them to discussion of date-delinking was that the actual wording would be easier to administer. The interpretation Ohconfucius suggests is not.
In addition, my restriction was suggested in the last days of the case, on limited evidence, and passed by a close vote. It never occurred to me that it was meant as a ban from most of Wikipedia space; if ArbCom had meant that, wouldn't they have been clearer?
(And, as said above, I have edited and discussed the new naming convention on Macedonia, in company with clerks and Arbs; surely one of them would have warned me if I had been in violation of a just-passed arbitration?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I see that Ohconfucius has compared me to Lightmouse; there seems to me a clear differentiation: Until this matter arose, I left dates alone, as ArbCom wished; Lightmouse (a sockpuppet of the infamous Bobblewick) refused to. Ohconfucius has indeed spent his time in article space, not only delinking dates (redundantly, a bot is being built to do it) but switching articles from one dating format to another, a violation of MOS and of the Jguk ArbCom decision to which it refers.
This is Date Warring. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a correction to one thing dragged in falsely by Ohconfucius above: The protection of Xenovatis' talk page had nothing to do with any complaints against Pmanderson, as far as I can tell (and if it had, it would be a breach of protection policy); the talk page was merely abandoned because the editor chose to move to a new name. Also, whatever conflict there was between Xenovatis and Pmanderson, it wasn't over style guideline edits, so what has it to do with anything here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Pmanderson topic banned, "Pmanderson is topic banned for 12 month from style and editing guidelines". His edits reported by Ohconfucius were to Wikipedia:Naming conventions, a policy that is not part of WP:MOS (which was the area of conflict in the case). I would appreciate comments by arbitrators or other uninvolved editors whether the naming conventions are "style and editing guidelines" for the purpose of the topic ban. I would tend to agree that they are. Sandstein 05:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually this is still open under clarfications - since there does seem to be a disagreement about what the remedy was supposed to cover, maybe we should wait and see if an Arb comments? Shell babelfish 16:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I am on record as stating that the Naming conventions are not content guidelines and I have argued that the naming conventions should not stray the content of articles and the content guidelines (such as the MOS) should not stray into the naming conventions, eg with the use of hyphens and dashes in page names. There are two exceptions (1) The naming conventions should use WP:V for the definition of what is or is not a reliable source and (2) the section WP:NPOV#Article naming could be in either policy, and for historic reasons is where it is. -- PBS ( talk) 10:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
User requesting enforcement:
MASEM (
t) 21:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Sarah777 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Sarah777 restricted
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Block per remedy.
Additional comments by
MASEM (
t):
As part of the
Ireland article names ArbCom case, I've been appointed moderator to help resolve the issue. The users of the Ireland Collaboration Project have agreed to use a wiki-wide single transferable vote to resolve the issue after years and months of discussion did little to bridge the gap. That poll recently opened. Sarah777 has since started creating a spreadsheet on the poll's
talk page that attempts to sort out the votes by who is admittedly Irish, British, or otherwise indeterminable. This itself is a questionable approach and I am currently seeking AN/I input as to whether such profiling is appropriate, as it has already caused two people unassociated with the project to remove their votes to avoid being profiled. However, in Sarah777's specific case, she is already under restriction per the above remedy "from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks." I believe that her reasoning for using this poll (as can be seen in her comments about it
here) are indicative of what the remedy was to deal with and that a block is necessary. (I will note that she has voted in the poll, so a block at this time would not silence her input to the results). --
MASEM (
t) 21:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[5]
This has absolutely nothing to do with any Arbcom ruling, I propose that this request be refused. I also don't think analyzing the voting patterns should be banned. That is censorship, but I have already pointed out to the Moderator that if he engages in censorship I will not revert his actions. Arbcom said: Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks.
Sarah777 ( talk) 21:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The "profiling" may be unhelpful, the editor's behaviour might be disruptive, but that is not relevant to the arbitration measure in question. In the diffs supplied, only the inclusion of figures as to how the poll would stand "[w]ithout the [perceived] British input" [6] comes anywhere close to the behaviours proscribed by the remedy, and falls quite short of "engaging in aggressive biased editing" or "making anti-British remarks". Furthermore, the remedy does not allow for the enforcement requested (a block), only a page-ban. So, in sum, perhaps hypothetically Sarah777 ought to be blocked or page-banned, but certainly not for the edits in question under the remedy cited. Skomorokh 07:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Sarah777's "My little spreadsheet" is harmless, IMO. If you find Sarah's "little spreadsheet" helpful, you can analyze it; if you find it unhelpful, please ignore it. Sarah777 has not violated the ArbCom sanction imposed on her, so there is no need to take any action. AdjustShift ( talk) 07:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
talk 19:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
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:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
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)
Additional comments by
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [20]
See also the other disputant at #Poeticbent. Sciurinæ ( talk) 23:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
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" [21], shockingly advocated blanket reverts for combating "biases" [22] and so on and so forth. Loosmark ( talk) 08:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Cinéma C 01:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
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:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
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:
[27]
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 [28] to the following on a non-Kosovo article but where the Kosovo topic is instrumental: [29] (which was traced by following the trail of a user who had already taken an interest on Kosovo here [30]). Malcolm is not credited on his Kosovo piece but is so in his South Ossetia speech, as well as on the article [31]. 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)
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)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Grand
master 06:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Zvartnotz2 (
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:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Permanent ban, topic ban or at least revert resctriction.
Additional comments by
Grand
master:
The account of
Zvartnotz2 (
talk ·
contribs) was created about the same time as that of
Apserus (
talk ·
contribs). Both were used for edit warring at the article
duduk, where they tried to remove the information supported by reliable sources. Zvartnotz2 did not make any attempt at any discussion, and I made a CU request
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apserus/Archive, which showed that Apserus and Zvartnotz2 are unrelated to each other, but that Apserus used an IP to rv the article (maybe forgot to log in), and that Zvartnotz2 used 2 sock accounts to edit war on another article. Zvartnotz2 appears to be an SPA, which was created for the sole purpose of edit warring, and I don't think that any reformation is possible. He is currently blocked for 24 hours,
[35] but I expect him to resume the edit war when he is back from the block. It is also possible that the activity of Apserus and Zvartnotz2 on the article about
duduk is coordinated outside of wikipedia due to similarity of their actions.
Grand
master 06:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The same article about duduk is now reverted by 67.150.124.123 ( talk · contribs), an obvious SPA and possibly a sock of Zvartnotz2. An admin intervention is needed to stop disruption. Grand master 12:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
CU says that it is possible that the IP is the same person as Zvartnotz2: [36] Grand master 19:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[37]
Duduk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should be reverted and semi-protected if IP disruption begins. It would be easier to determine the socks then. I gave Zvartnotz2 a warning. Brand t] 19:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Colipon+(
Talk) 15:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
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:
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
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.
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).
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)
P.S. A lot of accusations were hurled at me in the comments below. I would point out the following:
✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 08:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Cirt (
talk) 00:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas
[76]
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Additional comments by
Cirt (
talk):
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.
Cirt ( talk) 00:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Marshal Bagramyan (
talk) 16:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
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:
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" [86]. 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
I actually had to read this a few times to understand exactly what I was in violation of. The restriction placed on me by an admin over a year ago states:
"any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions"
Concerning this particular revert, it simply restored a whole section and paragraph, which was fully referenced and rather devoid of any inflamatory description or language, that an editor (who has been also following me on these pages) simply deleted without any cause and explanation or discussion. The deletion itself violated numerous Wikipedia rules and policies.
I am at a loss so as to how I was "uncivil" and "aggressive" in the above matter.
On the other hand one or more of the editors who have stalked me and were on the same list (Meowy), have right in the article in dispute have shown aggressive and hostile attitudes as I will show below.
Deleted section was itself an improvement on a previously deleted version, where I had added actual Armenian sources and references that proved the point about the Armenian rebellions, which is certainly a central element of an article named "Armenian-Turkish Relations". The undo simply restored a version that I had edited last, and did not erase or undo any other editor's contribution.
As such I did not think it was in violation of any restrictions put on myself. In retrospect, it seems it was an intentional trap that I should have avoided.
For many months, maybe a dozen different versions of this paragaraph I had edited, with extensive archival research and back up, have been wholesale deleted. Repeatedly. Now, that is what is "uncivil" and "aggressive" in any book.
Never taken to arbitration by the way!
Every time I had improved it, and still met the same fate. It seems those who complain about me here are subject to a different set of Wikipedia rules.
In general though, in the short time I had contributed to Wikipedia, a short list of editors, have continued to stalk and revert almost any contribution I have made. It is a well know group, and contrary to the claims against me above, I have been the party abused, stalked, harassed, insulted as shown below:
Your lies are just going to get reversed. Don't you have anything better to do with your time? Meowy 21:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The NY times citation is a fake, there is no such article (all NY times reports for that period are available online, and nothing for Bitlis exists for that date). ... Meowy 02:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC) (It is not!)
BTW, reading that http://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/Niles_and_Sutherland.pdf the initial feelings are one of amusement and astonishment that someone could come up with such breathtaking lies.
All you seem interested in doing is inserting out-and-out lies into articles, using as "sources" extreme nationalist Turkish propaganda. Little wonder nobody chooses to engage constructively with you. Meowy 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
More skillful propagandists of Hudavendigar's ilk realise that in some articles it is better to let sleeping dogs lie. However, he has chosen to awaken this article, so let's now tear him apart by telling in the article the full horror of the history he wishes to rewrite and whitewash. Meowy 20:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
You're like a broken record. Stop removing sources and replacing verifiable info with your Turkish fairy tales about rebellions and revolts; people have warned you enough times already and you're still acting like the village idiot.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You, as well as most other users, know that's a blatant lie. ....--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
... Litteracy of denialists did not changed since Ataturk. Only changed was denialists become more uncivilized, as they become more illiterate. The book you are using (you did not even use the facts inside the book) is full of crap. I bet, You "User:Hudavendigar" did not spend your single "dime" on it, a by product of illiteracy. I bet you have not even read it. You can not tell us what is stated in the page 20 at the 3th paragraph. If this book is the proof of your lie (you claim: "I am not forcing any conclusions" without adding any facts), you are supporting the title of a book without even reading it. --Seemsclose (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
"Editor Murat, the main culprit for this article's lamentable state, has inserted and reinserted a section titled "Armed Armenian Revolts Against Ottoman Rule", which is full of fabrications. There were no "Armed Armenian Revolts Against Ottoman Rule"". Meowy 01:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
"your 6Dec post is a POV diatribe that could have come from a card carrying MHP fanatic"..."Your Turkish nationalist propaganda sources"... "straight from a Turkish propaganda website"..." Murat's obscene misuse of the word "revolt""..."which is actually a tawdry pack of lies" Meowy 01:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
This level of harassment, intimidation, ethniclally charged slurs and insults have been continuous and frankly I had so far received little protection from various admins I have raised this with. I am not some irresponsible editor intent on spreading fabrications and instigating edit wars. I have utmost respect for truth, whatever color it is. I have never included any material that is not true and backed by proper references. If that was the case, someone would have challenged them properly. So far no one did. I have always responed to every criticism and complaint by improving my edits and providing back up, hoping, maybe naively, truth will prevail. Same with this particular article.
This seems to be main reason why it is so important to this group that I am silenced here.
I have also noticed in the history of this article that any editor not part of this activist group or who has dared to contribute in any way contradicting the general pov slant of the the piece has been reversed and intimidated away.
If my edits were "all lies", then it should have been taken to an impartial panel or admin and let the facts stand and lies fall, instead of deleting it incessantly and hoping the paragraph and the editor will disappear.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Enric Naval (
talk) 18:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
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:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
topic ban or something that stops the disruption.
Additional comments by
Enric Naval (
talk):
For
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:
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)
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)
All of this seems quite silly to me. When a new editor tries to fix a perceived problem and the edit is reverted, and when subsequent discussions don't end in consensus, it's perfectly normal to put a dispute tag on the article. If you think about it, it must be quite surprising for a new editor that drawing attention to a bona fide dispute can even be considered disruptive. This only makes sense once you understand that in Wikipedia we don't solve disputes as they arise, but instead we let them smoulder until one side gets banned or loses through a technicality such as bad behaviour. A new editor can't know this. I certainly didn't know this when I made this mistake at a language related article in my first month here.
Punishing Dbrisinda for falling into this common trap is not OK. And a general 1RR for dispute tags is also not appropriate because it would only give the stronger party in this dispute a tool to get new members of the weaker party into serious trouble for innocently breaking a surprising technicality. Hans Adler 22:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved admin go to JeanandJane's talk page and place a link to the discretionary sanctions? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 00:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Previous Arbitration Case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2
User requesting enforcement:
Radiantenergy
Radiantenergy (
talk) 20:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Sanction or remedy that these user violated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Conflict_of_interest
Diffs of edits for Activitist that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Activist_editing
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Additional comments by
Radiantenergy (
talk):
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: I notified all the 3 editors who are involved in this case here [111], [112], [113]
I see some serious problems here. The original RS question posted by radiantenergy had serious factual inaccuracies. It was misleading and inaccurate.
Andries pointed out many of these problems, but they never really got corrected or even properly discussed.
The question being asked is really a BLP policy question rather than a source reliability question. radiantenergy refused to consider raising the question on the BLP noticeboard.
While Andries may have a COI, radiantenergy seems unconcerned with factual accuracy, downplaying the difference between a California superior court - the lowest level of state court - and the California Supreme Court.
So, in my opinion, the original RS question posted by radiantenergy is fundamentally flawed and should be ignored. Sanctions on the basis of it would be ridiculous. Bhimaji ( talk) 09:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Closed without action. The requesting editor has not cited, despite being asked to, an actual remedy or sanction by the Arbitration Committee that has been violated and that administrators can enforce. The principles cited in arbitration cases are not, by themselves, subject to arbitration enforcement because they are just restatements of general policy or practice. This means that this dispute is unsuited for this forum. To the extent that this is a dispute about the application of WP:RS, please use WP:DR. Sandstein 05:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
User requesting enforcement:
Ynhockey (
Talk) 23:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Dailycare (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
The user is engaging in tendentious editing by constantly inserting controversial material on which there is no consensus to the article, despite the discussing being active. The user posts a message on talk, after which he makes pretty much the same edit (with slightly different wording) every time. The user has not been notified of this case ( WP:ARBPIA) as far as I am aware, but has been notified that his edits are disruptive.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3ADailycare&diff=304713870&oldid=303924476 – original warning (might be slightly harsh) before the user joined the discussion on the talk page. No other warnings have been given.
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
According to the text of the remedy, he should be warned and if this does not help, eventually blocked.
Additional comments by
Ynhockey (
Talk):
Just another reminder that the content dispute is not the issue here, and I hope that the content dispute with the user is settled on the
talk page, which has an ongoing discussion.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
I don't know anything about Dailycare's editing, and Ynhockey may well be right about it; I don't want to interfere with the report as such. However, one of the examples of the tendentious editing is this. As far as content goes, Daily Motion is correct. It is not only "opponents" who regard Israeli settlements as illegal, but everyone other than successive Israeli governments, the settlers, and their supporters. This issue has been dealt with many times on Wikipedia over the last few years, and the outcome has always been that we should frame the issue the way most reliable sources do, including the UN. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the underlying tendentious editing issue, but I have a greater concern: This user's first edit included some fancy ref formatting and some fancy block quotes formatting, strong evidence that this user has has a previous account. I guess we can run CU, but a negative result should not make a difference. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LuvGoldStar/Archive stands for the precedent that negative CU results do not make a difference when a user is "obviously" a sockpuppet. Unless of course there's a good reason to distinguish between editors that are seen as pro-Israel and editors that are seen as anti-Israel.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Not actionable. No discretionary sanctions can occur at this time because Dailycare's warning did not include a link to the arbitration decision as required by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions. Moreover, only one actual diff is provided of the allegedly objectionable conduct, and that one diff is on the face of it not disruptive. Any sockpuppet concerns should be discussed at WP:SPI. Sandstein 05:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
User requesting enforcement:
--
NovaSkola (
talk) 00:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Lida Vorig (
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:
The user is flagging Azerbaijani articles by inserting that, it is not notable in English wikipedia on which there is no consensus to the article, despite the discussing being active. The user flagged at least 10 Azerbaijani articles for no reason, and in six of her Azerbaijan-related AfD nominations today, Russian-language sources were easily located, or were in fact already in the article at the time she nominated it.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
According to the text of the remedy, he should be warned and if this does not help, eventually blocked.
Additional comments by
NovaSkola:
Just another reminder that the content dispute is not the issue here, and I hope that the content dispute with the user is settled on the
talk page, which has an ongoing discussion.
Also user's anti-Azerbaijanism could be traced throught this site, in which clearly states anti-Azerbaijanian view of this user. This user also has same IP http://www.pracuj24www.info/kraj-hy-show-Սպասարկող:Տեղեկամատյան
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lida_Vorig
Hi again :)
While browsing, I found some articles that I didn't think meet the WP:NOTABILITY guideline. From a previous experience I knew articles can be deleted, so I searched and found the AFD. User:NovaSkola lists all the articles he created on his page, while he created a lot of notable articles, the 8 in my opinion are not notable.
Since the nomination, Azad Asgarov was proven to be a president of some federation in Azerbaijan. So I would like to withdraw the nomination, but don't know how.
That being said, I really would like to know how this ( http://www.pracuj24www.info/kraj-hy-show-Սպասարկող:Տեղեկամատյան) proves that I'm Anti-Azerbaijani and 100% armenian (capitalization belongs to NovaSkola, he seems to have a problem with that word). I keep looking at it, but can't figure out what it is. My name isn't there, my ip address, which NovaSkola claims he traced, isn't there. This is whole experience is just another proof that cleaning up is never easy Lida Vorig ( talk) 19:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm the editor who first noted these problematic AfDs by Lida Vorig and added them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Azerbaijan. Of a total of 8, IMO there's 5 which are clearly notable, 2 which are borderline, and 1 which seems non-notable. It seems to me that Lida Vorig can also speak Russian [122], so even if these aren't bad-faith nominations, they're a clear example of being unable to follow WP:BEFORE --- my Russian is rather poor and I can't even speak Azeri at all (just have basic conversational knowledge of a distantly-related language written in a different script) but I was able to find at least some sources for almost all of these articles. cab ( talk) 02:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
—
Ryūlóng (
竜龙) 02:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Mythdon (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Motion 2 based on
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Mythdon monitoring users' use of Rollback
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
"Not applicable."
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Block of some sort, per the case remedies
Additional comments by —
Ryūlóng (
竜龙):
As I state above, Mythdon only undid the rollback that I performed because it was a rollback, and that is confirmed
by his response to me on his user talk.—
Ryūlóng (
竜龙) 02:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a
diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.
If I get blocked for this revert, then I'm perfectly fine with that. Nothing else needed to say, but please look at my talk page. Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 03:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Myth did it for more reasons other than it just being a rollback. This is evidenced by his statements on the talk page, and anything saying otherwise is misleading.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 03:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
User requesting enforcement:
Grand
master 16:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Monlonet (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
revert restriction or topic ban
Additional comments by
Grand
master:
The account of Monlonet is used solely for edit wars, to revert contentious articles such as
Duduk and
Mount Ararat. On Duduk he already made 4 rvs within the last 2 days, removing sources which he did not like, and making no attempt to discuss his reverts at talk, while telling other users to check the talk, to which he never ever contributed. In addition, he is canvassing, trying to mobilize other users for edit warring.
[134]
[135]
[136]. Tries to exert pressure on users who haven't joined his edit war:
[137] Now he joined an edit war at
Urartu:
[138] and reverted Urartu to the version of
76.232.252.180 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS), after the article was semiprotected. That IP is almost identical to
76.232.252.185 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS), which is used for canvassing. It is possible that he is related to
Zvartnotz2 (
talk ·
contribs), who was engaged in edit warring on the same article about duduk.--
Grand
master 16:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The CU results on this user: [139] It is possible that he is connected to Zvartnotz2 ( talk · contribs). See my report on Zvartnotz2 ( talk · contribs), which was archived without any action: [140] Grand master 08:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
It is also interesting that today Zvartnotz2 added an image to his user page, [141], and then removed it: [142], and 1 minute after Zvartnotz2 added the image Monlonet added the same image to his user page, [143] and removed it a few minutes later: [144] It is the same person using 2 accounts. Grand master 06:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[145]
This account is quite close to SPA and has been meatpuppeting recently. Brand t] 07:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Marshal Bagramyan (
talk) 17:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Interfase (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Left to the discretion of administrator. Perhaps a week-long block, or a slight topic ban.
Additional comments by
Marshal Bagramyan (
talk):
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[146]
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Ohconfucius (
talk) 02:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Dilip rajeev (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Dilip rajeev (
talk ·
contribs) has been editing Falun Gong articles (almost exclusively)
since February 2006. He has a habit of disappearing (i.e. not editing in article space or talk space) for weeks on end. When he returns, he frequently reverts to the last version he feels comfortable with irrespective of the individual merits of each of the changes because the changes which took place were not to his liking. Such reverts are usually done without due reference to the discussions which have taken place during his absence. Some diffs immediately below, show this modus operandi
His habit of making radical reverts is a matter of historical record. Some examples of this tendency are below:
For myself and a number of neutral editors who have joined the Falun Gong wikiproject, Dilip's latest reverts to the 'Self Immolation' and 'Organ harvesting' articles have become the last straw in our tolerance of his disruptive behaviour.
The following is a brief history of the significant edits which took place after the article was declared a Good Article through collaborative work by me and User:asdfg12345. The radical changes put through by Dilip rajeev to a good article were all done within a period of about a week, without prior substantive discussion to speak of:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
He is a
habitual disruptive editor whose aggressive and partisan edits have been the subject of numerous comments and complaints from other users, including fellow practitioner
User:asdfg12345. Dilip rajeev has been warned repeatedly against edit-warring, and has been blocked a number of times - the
last time was a 3 month topic ban; prior to that was a block of 55 hours. I believe that, in view of his continued disruption since the topic ban and the total lack of any mitigating collaborative successes, an indefinite ban from Wikipedia editing Falun Gong-related articles or their talk pages. would be in order; he should also be banned from any edit which potentially touches on Falun Gong on the
Communist Party of China,
Jiang Zemin,
Cult suicide,
Censorship in the People's Republic of China etc.
A ban on editing Sathya Sai Baba articles should also be considered to minimise Dilip rajeev's disruption to the project overall. As Dilip rajeev appears to possess some less than prudent tendencies, such a move may also safeguard his personal safety and that of his family against the wrath of Baba supporters.
There is a protracted, large-scale propaganda war between the spiritual movement and the Chinese regime. The polariation makes 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. "NPOV" becomes very delicate - as both sides clearly have an agenda against the other, there will be routine disruptions from both sides. No revision 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 banished. 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, and are used as direct advocacy for the Falun Gong movement; users from all backgrounds (including those who are anti-Chinese gov't) have raised concerns - but all have been either discouraged by the drama, or their attempts at other means of dispute resolution have failed.
Dilip rajeev is a Falun Gong practitioner, and edits Falun Gong articles almost exclusively since 2006 along with a team of 3 other very easily identifiable FLG activist editors - asdfg12345 ( talk · contribs), Olaf Stephanos ( talk · contribs), and HappyInGeneral ( talk · contribs). After the ban of Anti-FLG users Sam Luo and Tomanada, this group of Falun Gong practitioners have seemingly taken over all Falun Gong-related articles. All four users, to varying degrees, erase critical content, engage in lengthy advocacy commentary on talk pages, tag-team against other editors. Rajeev in particular shows very little respect for any users who wish to bring balance to articles, by sundry disruptive tactics and tendentious editing. These 1
In my experience, Rajeev has shown great animosity when non-FG devotees edit this article. There has been a long history of unchecked edit warring, even over the placement of {{ NPOV}} tags. Such tags are routinely removed (as here) with not so much as a 'how do you do', as if the contents suddenly become neutral when the tag disappears. Reverts are usually very provocatively done - blind and wholescale, often destroying many intervening edits which have accurate and well-reasoned edit summaries - and any ensuing discussion makes clear that the user is always 'right' and anyone who opposes him 'wrong'. Anything which is sourced from sources he approves of have a right to stay and any sources he disapproves of are "CCP propaganda" or somesuch. Dilip rajeev's tendency to introduce ironic quotes (like here) and weasel words are already mentioned above. Not only is he completely and blindly partisan, Dilip rajeev often expresses points of view which are unique; his style and content introduced have been frowned upon from time to time by most others, and also by asdfg.
In all Falun Gong articles, misrepresentation of sources has been endemic, and these four abovenamed editors are known to back up each other's problematic edits. They occasionally concede when it is clearly demonstrated that misrepresentations exist. However, more often than not, the neutralising revision provokes another flurry of introducing "highly sourced material" ostensibly to 'restore balance', but which usually tilt bias back in favour of Falun Gong; some such introductions give their cause the last word. Adding, removing, restructuring, moving, or otherwise changing any material that appears to upset the pro-FG bias in any of the articles is met with the same tactics.
Dilip rajeev's stated view that nothing from the Chinese authorities is worthy of citing because it is unreliable propaganda demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of what is WP:NPOV. He is known to endlessly pontificate on moral questions, and lawyer around citing paragraphs of WP:RS and WP:NPOV to support whatever position he favours in regards to a certain link or source. He maintains a website which he uses as Falun Gong advocacy. It seems that he passionately believes the persecution of Falun gong practitioners at the hands of the Chinese authorities, and is unable to put these views to one side when he is editing; and when he edits, it is with such great fervour and aggression that leaves little or no place for others who wish to contribute.
I would add that the above edits from the 'self-immolation' article demonstrate a pattern of behaviour which can be seen throughout his editing in FGverse. Whilst there is nothing inherently wrong with inserting text favouring one viewpoint, to continue to do so and to ignore the other viewpoints (and all those who support it) when an article manifestly lacks balance is problematic. There are numerous discussions in which he openly advocates Falun Gong, the principles of "truthfulness, compassion and forbearance". He appears only to able to observe only twoone of the three 'virtues' ("truthfulness"), and even so, he appears to do it with his rose-coloured spectacles.
Arbcom will already know about sockpuppet account. From this, it can be seen how he ran User:Inactive user account 001, the sock apparently to protect himself against members of the Baba cult.
After said sock account was blocked, he continued to repeatedly edit war at Sathya Sai Baba
Dilip rajeev creates an ambiance of intolerance and hostility, leaving behind a trail of breaches of WP:NPOV, 3RR and other guidelines wherever he goes. He is responsible, in whole or in part, for driving away a number of neutral editors from the Falun Gong articles. His editing Sathya Sai Baba demonstrate his propensity to be controversial; his forays there are nothing short of spectacular drama. He has demonstrated that he is incapable of working with others who do not share the same views as himself, and I am regrettably of the conclusion, after observing numerous attempts by myself and other editors to discuss, negotiate and mediate, and after many months of suffering his various antics and POV-pushing, that Wikipedia is best off without him. A wholescale indefinite ban is warranted to end this editor's disruption of wikipedia, once and for all. Ohconfucius ( talk) 02:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Arbitration enforcement
From: oh confucius (ohconfucius@hotmail.com)
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 4:19:41 AM
To: dilip_rajeev@msn.com
I wish to inform you that an arbitration enforcement case concerning your behaviour has been filed here.
Ohconfucius ( talk) 04:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I continue to be baffled by the discussion below concerning the scope of authority of admins in this matter. I would just point out that in January 2008, Dilip rajeev was topic banned for 3 months without coming to AE; prior to that was a block of 55 hours. Olaf Stephanos was also given a 6 month topic ban recently here at AE for just such a violation. Ohconfucius ( talk) 17:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Per Shell's comment, I have now realised that Samuel Luo was only topic banned indefinitely, but though it was a site ban. I have now amended the request above. Ohconfucius ( talk) 01:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Reaction to asdfg's comments: My only ideology is WP:NPOV. If Dilip's latest reverts to the 'Self Immolation' and 'Organ harvesting' articles are part of Dilip's latest "improvements", I would hate to see what getting worse is like. He may be good at sourcing, but note that he frequently hides behind the "highly sourced material" as defense against removing any text which he wants to stay. Ohconfucius ( talk) 13:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, a lot of accusations and all of them absolutely baseless.
I'll start with the sock accusation regarding the Sai Baba page. The "Sai Baba" topic being an extremely sensitive topic here in India, and any criticism of which could potentially result in threat on my safety as well as my family's safety, I had wanted anonymity when contributing to the pages( Ref: BBC Documentary, Secret Swami)( Even 70 year olds have been attacked in the very state where I live for exposing critical information on this person.) All my contributions there has been well sourced - to the BBC, The Times, The Guardian, The DTV, etc. It was a legitimate alternate account. Admins had also agreed there was no evidence of abusive socking from that account. Further, I had informed the arbcom, in a mail in February, regarding the account.
A newly registered editor, wanting to find out the real identity of the alternate account, started an SPA case against me - admins who were mislead by the manner in which the user presented the case initially mistook my account for a sock, revealing the identity of my alternate account. Shortly following this revelation of info, people related to the sai baba group had a large scale attack launched against me on several blogs and website.
Admins suggested that I rename the original alternate account and I did. That I "returned to edit warring" on the pages is a baseless mis-characterization. It is not uncommon on wikipedia for editors to get cornered and attacked when their contributions are not in- line with other's POV.
The above user had attacked me with claims along the same lines here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dilip_rajeev/Archive
And he was clearly told by the admins that I had not operated any abusive socks.
The article had remained stable in this version for over a year : http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident&oldid=300212095
The above User, Ohconfucius, came and and reverted it to a two year old revision - ignoring the pages of discussion that resulted in the newer version.
The user refuses to focus on the content being blanked out by his revision while attacking, personally, editors like me who bring up concerns on such a revert - chosing to base it ona "good article" comment.
The information and sources that got blanked out in the revert to the two year old version includes:
And above are among the best sources and most notable sources available to us on the topic.
None of this removal was on the basis of any consensus. I had raised my concerns to the effect on talk, pointed things out clearly, requested that if any well sourced info from the two year old version ( which is extremely biased on builds on CCP propaganda ) be missing in the newer version, it be identified and incorporated into the newer article. PLease see my comment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident#Carification_from_Dilip
I attempted a single revert to the stable version with the comment: "Please see talk page. The revision of the stable article to a two year old version, with no consensus/discussion, had blanked of several prominent 3rd party sources. Kindly see talk."
I was quickly reverted back by the above user, who, refusing to focus on the content, cast a set of baseless, distorted and misleading accusations against me. I refrained from any further revert to avoid a meaningless revert war.
It is true that I reverted to an approx. 10 day old version. But I was unaware of the discussions going on talk when I did the revert. Over 40 KB of centrally relevant, well sourced information as from Amnesty, Kilgour Matas, US COngress, etc., I had noticed, was removed in a series of edits. All images on the pages, showing statistic from the KM reports etc. had gotten removed as well.
I brought up the issue on the main page of Falun Gong article. I reproduce my comments, requesting admin attention, in their entirety below. I had pointed out I did the revert and was requesting admin attention to the revert as well as to the current state of affairs in the article.
Requesting admin attention on the organharvesting sub-page
Kindly review the flurry of changes that have happened in the the past couple of weeks: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China&diff=309220914&oldid=309152359
A 66 KB article, every sentence in which had been highly sourced, has got reduced to a 26 Kb stub. Could admins kindly review such changes - the article comes under the probation placed by the ArbCom on these pages.
I have attempted to restore the page as of around Aug 8th, when this flurry of removal started -and not just info sourced to Amnesty, Congressional Reports, Kilgour Matas reports, etc. have been blanked out but several centrally relevant images from the KM reports have been blanked out as well.
Requesting kind attention on the issue. Dilip rajeev ( talk) 09:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Kindly see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident#Carification_from_Dilip. The page was reverted to a two year old revision - in the process blanking out several pages of content sourced to western academia. I merely restored this removal of info on a stable article, requesting that we discuss and make changes based on consensus - incorporating stuff from the two year old revision that might be missing in the stable article. While the user accuses me of "blanking two weeks of work" on The Tiananmenn square page, he choses to ignore that what I did was merely undo the user's revert to a two year old version ( an edit that ignored completely years' of work on the page).
I request admins to kindly go through/ compare the revisions and see for themselves.
The same pattern has occured on almost all related pages - and by the same set of users in the past two weeks. Li Hongzhi article has had info removed , addition of several paras of info irreleavent to the individual's notability, in violation of WP:BLP , etc. Persecution of Falun Gong article has undergone such changes as well.
I'd also like to point out that these flurry of changes started at around the same time as these comments were made by the same users involved in the changes. The "discussion" and "consensus" that resulted in the removal of all this info has been largely between the editors engaged in the below exchanges.
- 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"..." [147]
- Colipon on Edward130603's talk page: "Anyway, do you have e-mail?" [148]
- Colipon on Mrund's talk page: "I'd sent you an e-mail today. Please check! :)" [149]
- Ohconfucius on Mrund's talk page: "I'm glad you're back. Drop me an email, I'd like a private chat with you." [150]
I'd also like to point out that am not accusing all editors involved in the conversation. Mrund, for instance, just received these comments on talk and there is little evidence of him being involved in the recent removal of info on these pages.
As regards the removal of info on a 66KB stable article - reducing it to a 26 KB article, another stable page being reverted to a two year old revision ,etc. I'd like to point out that the very majority of info removed in the process are material centrally relevant- sourced to western academia, Human rights bodies, etc. - Amnesty, AP, Congressional Reports, a Yale Univ Thesis, Kilgour Matas Reports,etc. I point this out because, in the past, we have witnessed such blanking being covered up by claims to the effect that it was primary sources such as ET or Faluninfo.net that was removed. Demonstratably, and very clearly, it is reliable 3rd party sources being blanked out here. In all of these pages, primary sources such as Faluinfo.net are very sparingly used ( despite that they are identified as being reliable by scholars such as David Ownby.)
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 11:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I was reverted by Ohconfucius , whose edit summary ran: "rvv - where's the discussion?". I pointed out I had brought up the issue on the main page [151]. When I was reverted again, I refrained from doing any more reverts, again to avoid an unnecessary edit war and thought would bring up the issue in detail on the article's talk when I find more time.
The 10 day old version I reverted to is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China&oldid=309225056 ( 66KB article, content stable for a almost a year )
The version from which I reverted ( the current version, after removal of 40 K info and ALL images) is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China&oldid=309223036 ( 26 KB article )
If reviewing admins even causally compare the two versions, what motivated me to attempt restore all the info removed would be apparent.
I cannot express how much I appreciate User:DilipRajeev's effort to copy his rant verbatim to here, it makes life so much easier. As he himself said it, he was unaware of the talk page discussions (which should mean he is aware now?) and reverted a whole bunch of well discussed changes on the organ harvesting page. That itself is typical of WP:OWN behaviour, which seemed pandemic across all the FLG pages. But not only that presumably after he has become aware of the discussions he did not revert back his own edit, did not participate in the discussion, and instead posted a long winded rant on an unrelated page requesting admin intervention. The same thing happened last time I dealt with him, moving the issue right up to the WP:AN/I, accusing me of "adding in material from a clearly propagandistic video", "vandalism", "dis-information", the lot, while we were carrying out a conversation to resolve the matter. This, in my opinion, is clearly disruptive, inflammatory (that incident partly caused my hiatus on Wikipedia) and completely without remorse. -- antilived T | C | G 09:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Response to Asdfg12345 If by having an ideology of that an encyclopedia should have a neutral point of view opposes Dilip's ideology, I'll gladly be his "ideological opponent" (unless you are accusing every one of us being CCP propagandists?). The only criteria for his edits is to improve the outlook of FLG in Wikipedia articles (I can go add lots and lots of poorly written, poorly sourced text that praises FLG and he'd have no problems for it). By his criteria there can never be enough "discussion" to warrant a change that puts FLG in a more negative light (although I can hardly say it's specific to him, it's certainly the most prominent).
a small side-note: Asdfg12345 raises a good issue here, it's quite obvious that all the people that regard Dilip highly are FLG-practitioners. Maybe it IS an ideological issue after all? -- antilived T | C | G 07:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Dilip rajeev states that he was unaware of discussions going on in talk when he reverted two weeks worth of good-faith collaborative edits. He could have investigated it and being the one who performed the revert, he should have created such a discussion, but he did not. Because this is not the first time he has done so, it is far too late to claim ignorance as a defense. I don't know what to make of this. I suppose it's possible, as Ohconfucius writes, that he's a devoted Falun Gong practitioner who cannot bear to see other sources represented and therefore acts in this way. What I can say is that it's disrupting a volatile subject matter. The terms in which he defends himself above are sadly typical. The edits made are "attacks", he is being "attacked" when demands are made that he follow WP:BRD or WP:NPOV. Such partisan behavior can be handled on many subject matters, but in the Falun Gong articles, on probation, with a very strong partisan conflict between the Chinese Communist Part and Falun Gong, it is extremely disruptive. I'm sorry to say that I believe the editing climate on these pages will be improved without the poorly-motivated reverts and deletions repeatedly made by Dilip rajeev in the past. As a final note, I do not believe a blanket ban is necessary at this point - an indefinite subject ban from all articles on Falun Gong and possibly China subjects would allow the editor to grow into a well-rounded, constructive Wikipedia contributor in areas where he can maintain a semblance of objectivity. / Per Edman 09:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Confirming that there is a group of editors resisting the insertion of any criticism in Falun Gong articles, that this has stalled editors who keep trying to balance that articles (myself I tried to make a few changes), and that the articles have benefited from boldly ignoring unreasonable objections raised by these users. A topic ban of Dilip rajeev from anything related to Falun Gong would help improve those articles and would reduce the level of persistent advocacy. Topic ban should include making any edit that makes reference to Falun Gong stuff in any article or talk page in any namespace, broadly constructed. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 09:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
See clarification, admins can impose topic bans of their own. Can someone hand the topic ban to Dilip rajeev and close this? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 21:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I was involved in long term edit disputes with Dilip, who has has demonstrated his lack of good faith previously by:
Most of the other issues were already mentioned by Colipon and Ohconfucius above. Basically, his method of destructive editing involve:
Since mediators become involved in the FLG articles, the users of both sides have became more cooperative, and dilip's continued disruption and violation of the arbcom ruling damages on the mediation, and as such warrants a topic ban or block .-- PCPP ( talk) 10:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The best that can be said about Dilip rajeev, and the one thing that makes him only the second most disruptive editor on everything having to do with Falun Gong over the past few years, is that he isn't there all the time. His contributions take the form of drive-by shootings. He cares only about Falun Gong, which in his mind is all good and whose reputation must be boosted, and the Sai Baba cult, which he used to fight on Wikipedia. Dilip is not primarily interested in making a good encyclopedia. He actively disrupts attempts in that direction. I am not optimistic about his willingness or ability to do any productive work here. Martin Rundkvist ( talk) 13:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
It is not clear to me that this is a case for arbitration enforcement. Which remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong allows uninvolved administrators to enact the requested "indefinite ban from Wikipedia"? Unless this request is amended to cite an actual arbitration sanction or remedy that has been violated (as of this writing, it cites only principles enunciated by the Committee, which are not by themselves enforceable), it may be closed without action. Sandstein 15:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article probation, which has now been added to the request, places the article on article probation (which would allow topic bans by admins), but also states that "The articles may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review." I understand this to mean that under this remedy, any topic ban may only be imposed as a result of action by the Arbitration Committee. If so, admins on their own can't do anything here and a request to the Committee would be required. Sandstein 15:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
In reply to John Carter below and Ed Johnston on my talk page, yes, a case can be made that ArbCom meant to enact standard article probation, but if so, why the confusing extra text about review by the Committee? On the face of it, that would appear to be a lex specialis limiting the terms of article probation for this case. Absent clarification by the Committee, I am not ready to enact a sanction that is not authorized by the remedy (assuming any sanctions are required at all; I've not looked at the merits of this request). Sandstein 16:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I would support a topic ban or a block of Dilip rajeev. He is a disruptive editor and often edit wars to get his way. Dilip simply has no care for the good faith work of other editors if they don't match with his POV.
Sandstein, I think that the Article Probation remedy allows blocks/restricted editing for disruptive editors. -- Edward130603 ( talk) 15:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
This enforcement case has been out for quite a while now. Can a administrator come and close the case now?-- Edward130603 ( talk) 23:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I find it difficult to convince myself that a Francophone soccer-player, a piano-player from North Carolina, an archaeologist and convinced atheist, a Hong Kong resident, and an art-instructor with a staunch belief in Judeo-Christian deism would manage to agree on and produce one-sided, slanted revisions — unless one subscribes to the notion that all those who do not cheerfully support every source which celebrates the accomplishments and wisdom of a controversial religion must be part of a great heathen-conspiracy led by Hel and the time of Ragnarök has finally come to pass.
I have yet to become familiarized with the new rule which explains to the underlings exactly how long they would have to wait before Dilip descends from his watchtower to approve of the changes that had been thoroughly discussed before being implemented to the articles he apparently
owns. It becomes terribly frustrating when, upon finally coming to some agreements in the course of tough discussions, one knows that said debates take place under the auspice of an omnipresent divine eye that will fire its wrath-filled flames of destruction down to earth should the inferiors' actions fall into disfavor. Just as there should be no cabal, there should not be a god-like Übermensch with no need for explaining or justifying his actions, either — especially when he himself has been
warned and informed of the fact that not everyone in the pool of unworthy minions follows the creed of Dilipianity.
The behavior is clearly disruptive and violates remedy 1) of the Arbitration Case closed on 06:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC) which states "Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review". Seb az86556 ( talk) 15:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Sandstein is correct: as written, the remedy does not appear to support direct admin action, but asks for a review by the arbitration committee following a corresponding motion; bans or restrictions should result from such a review. -- JN 466 15:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The existing remedy includes a specific link to Wikipedia:General sanctions, which, in the second paragraph, specifically does allow for parties other than the ArbCom to impose general sanctions, although it also permits such sanctions to be revoked later if so desired. I have to assume that the presence of such a link indicates that it would be possible for uninvolved administrators to place sanctions, effectively at the community's request, on such topics. John Carter ( talk) 16:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
My comments are mainly procedural.
Thank you for considering my comments. -- Vassyana ( talk) 00:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Dilip Rajeev is a very difficult user to work with. He was the primary user that drove me away from working on Falun Gong articles in 2007. After my two-year hiatus from the FLG zone, my first attempts to make good faith changes over at ‘Organ Harvesting’ in July 2009 was directly met with a horde of personal accusations from dilip. Dilip’s style of disruptive editing and disrespect for users who do not share his POV has been a serious detriment to improvement to Falun Gong articles. Note in his defense, he writes “But I was unaware of the discussions going on talk when I did the revert.” I am baffled he is able to utter these words as a form of defence. This type of blatant disregard for other contributors' edits is not acceptable. He also often throws poorly argued but very offensive accusations at people who are displeased with his disruptive behaviour.
Although there seems to be an on-going debate about the semantics of sanctions, a long-term topic ban for Rajeev serves the basic spirit of the arbitration – that is, to foster a more cohesive and productive editing environment. Dilip’s past behaviour has undoubtedly turned away and frustrated many good faith editors and significantly hindered progress in the Falun Gong articles - to a degree no less severe than now topic-banned user Olaf Stephanos. Olaf and Dilip's argumentation on talk space differ in that Olaf responds directly to comments by other users while Dilip simply uses overarching statements to conclude that he is 'right', and then engages in edit-warring and reverts regardless of other users' input (as shown in evidence above) - this is the reason dilip has many more warnings against him than other Falun Gong SPAs. In all this adds up to make dilip the most destructive user on these articles. Similar to Olaf, if dilip was truly interested in working on the project rather than pushing his views on two controversial movements, he can still remain a valuable contributor outside the realm of Falun Gong and Sathya Sai Baba. Colipon+( Talk) 19:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I have n't followed the Falun Gong article closely. However I will like to share Dilip Rajeev's role in the Sathya Sai Baba article. Dilip Rajeev using the account 'White_Adept' added several unreliable sources and material banned by second arbitration commitee in the Sathya Sai Baba article since Jan 2009. He made 200+ edits in 10 days and changed a neutral article to NPOV nightmare. He always edit-warred with other editors who tried to remove the unreliable sources which he added. I had put an arbitration enforcement case here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive36#I_seek_Admin_help_in_this_case:_White_Adept_and_Arb.com_rulings where he was warned of sactions if he added questionable sources into the Sathya Sai Baba article.
Even after this case Dilip Rajeev still continued to add the same banned material in the sub-article '1993 murders in Prashanthi Nilayam'. I have always wondered why Dilip Rajeev was not afraid to break wikipedia rules or even arbitration enforcement rules. Many co-editors had become frustrated unable to stop his POV pushing and edit-warring in the Sathya Sai Baba article.
If you ask me if Dilip Rajeev disrupted the Sathya Sai Baba article? My answer is definite Yes. He did a lot of damage to that article. It has taken me and other editors almost 6 months to get rid of the unreliable sources Dilip Rajeev added into the Sathya Sai Baba article and bring it back to the original neutral state. Lately in the last 1 and 1/2 months after Dilip stopped interfering in the Sathya Sai Baba article the article has tremendously improved and has become more neutral and well balanced. I hope that the Sathya Sai Baba article will stay that way in the future instead of becoming a NPOV nightmare once again. Radiantenergy ( talk) 02:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, sometime in 2008 i came upon the Wikipedia Sathya Sai Baba page. The page at best was poorly written and lacked any real coherancy and information. Sometime later, in 2009 i read the page again and was disgusted with the way Sai Baba was presented. i know people have different opinions but it seems there lacked any human dignity or neutral presentation of a living person. That is when i signed up for a wikipedia account. 16:07, February 15, 2009 . i couldnt make any changes as the page had been blocked.
i'm not familiar Dilip Rajeev or his writing as he stopped around the time i began, but i do know the article in early 2009 was, in my opinion, horrendous. you will have to consult the history of the page to see who made the contributions.
J929 ( talk) 02:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been involved with these articles for a long time. I believe Dilip is editing in good faith. Much of the calls for a ban here come from Dilip's ideological opponents, who of course find his presence a nuisance. I agree that Dilip's editing is unthoughtful in the cited instances, and I don't know why he annoys people like that when he doesn't have to. On the other hand though, he is improving, and he has made good contributions to these pages in terms of research and finding sources, and that shouldn't be discounted. His once a fortnight changes that get reverted in ten seconds aren't what is making or breaking the editing environment on these pages--they are minor, and he only did it a couple of times, and I'm sure he won't keep doing them after this incident. He notes, in his defence, that he was undoing changes that he felt had been pushed through without discussion, and were often cases of vast deletions of material referenced to reliable sources. There is actually nothing wrong with doing this. This is merely the bold-revert-cycle. It would only be a problem if he edit-warred, and I see no evidence of that. Mostly this seems like a difference in taste. People disagree with each other all the time. There should be a plurality of views on wikipedia. If there was some genuinely disruptive activity coming from Dilip's corner I would want him banned too, but I don't see evidence of it.-- Asdfg 12345 18:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Camaron · Christopher ·
talk 11:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Meowy (
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 Meowy has been under these sanctions since October 2007.
[161]
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable, Meowy was warned about conduct like this when the sanctions were placed originally, further warnings are not required in the remedy.
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Meowy has been blocked a total of five times for violation of editing restrictions, this excludes overturned blocks or block setting adjustment.
[186]. According to the editing restrictions Enforcement: Violations of limitations, supervision, or bans imposed by the remedies in this case may be enforced by brief blocks of up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year. If any block is given the exact time is down to the discretion of administrators, however it is clear from the block log that short blocks have failed to correct Meowy's behaviour. A topic ban may also be appropriate as many
Eurovision Song Contest articles, such as
Eurovision Song Contest 2009, would come under articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area as Meowy's conduct suggests that disallowing him to continue editing such articles should be considered.
Additional comments by
Camaron · Christopher ·
talk:
Lida Vorig (
talk ·
contribs) is also under editing restrictions (
[187]) from the same Arbitration Committee case and has violated them by also failing to assume good faith
[188]. While the evidence suggests that Lida Voring's behaviour has not been as severe as Meowy's, particularly less aggressive, Lida Voring should probably be warned that such comments are not assuming good faith, and that making such accusations without evidence disrupts dispute resolution and can also be considered incivil.
Note that I am an administrator myself, but have not taken any enforcement action as I would be considered an 'involved administrator' for this remedy.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Notification of Meowy,
notification of Lida Vorig.
I endorse Camaron's statement as a party who attempted to interpret the purpose behind the tag. Meowy has again responded asserting bad faith on Camaron's behalf, citing issues of ownership of the page, understanding of the purpose of tagging, and questioning Camaron's role as an administrator. [189]