Request concerning Sarah777[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
MASEM (t) 21:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:

1. [2] First (modification) of Sarah777's profiling speadsheet on the talk page of the poll
2. [3] Sarah updates this "spreadsheet"

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

1. [4] Warning by Masem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (note that no warning is required by the ArbCom, but as a moderator for this other ArbCom case, I felt a warning here was necessary.

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)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[5]

Discussion concerning Sarah777[edit]

Statement by Sarah777[edit]

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.

• (1) This had nothing to do with any edits.
• (2) I have made no anti-British remarks.

Sarah777 (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors[edit]

• Comment by HighKing Let's keep calm. The emerging consensus appears to be that profiling should be banned while the vote is in progress. The profiling is based on public information, and collated. Like other editors here, I don't believe the case has been made that this could be seen as "imtimidating". I believe she set out to demonstrate that a majority of primarily British editors vote one way, and a majority of primarily Irish voters vote another, and that since there are more British voters than Irish, getting things changed can be problematic. Now it's a fact that this has resulted in some editors removing their votes, but the primary issue is intent and knowledge. Did Sarah set out to imtimidate voters and could this have been foreseen? I think not. The obvious solution is to simply ban profiling while the vote is in progress, and I believe any sanctions are unnecessary. --HighKing (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by Jack forbes HighKing has said almost everything I would have. I believe this was taken here too quickly and could have been dealt with without any drama or fuss. There would have been a quick consensus not to profile voters and that would have been that. Jack forbes (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by GoodDay Howabout we just have the 'speard sheet-in-question' removed from the Polling page-in-question. PS: Ain't nobody gonna intimidate me, at that page. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by Bastun I'd support oversight of the profiling and a ban on it recurring on Project pages or userspace, but would oppose a block or ban on Sarah at this time. Reintroduction of her mentoring/civility parole may well be in order, though. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC) (Edit to add: please note Sarah777 has now added the profiling to her own talkpage... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC) )[reply]

• Comment Nothing to see here, move along. If my jedi mind trick doesn't work could this please be closed echo comments above by HighKing and Jack forbes.BigDunc 23:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by BritishWatcher - This sort of profiling should be banned for sure, people need to consider if they would accept a method of profiling people based on Skin colour (if possible on wikipedia) in a dispute on racial matters, it is basically exactly the same thing. Sarahs actions on the ballot page are disruptive and considering her previous blocks were related to anti British POV, her actions on the talk page seem linked. We should also remember that people are allowed to change their votes throughout the 42 days, there for she has something to gain by trying to put people off voting a certain way and instead of doing it in a positive way of arguing the case for change, she chooses to do it in a negative way by claiming bias within the first 24 hours of the vote.

Sarah should not be allowed to continue trying to change peoples minds in such a negative way on the talk page. She clearly went against the moderators wishes by reposting her spreadsheet after Masem had removed it and replaced it with a box explaining why it was removed. This is clearly disruptive and whilst her vote should count, if she continues she should not be allowed to contribute on the talk page of the ballot. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by SarekOfVulcan re-adding the "little spreadsheet" at her talkpage after it was deleted twice from the poll talkpage shows a clear intent to be disruptive, regardless of what her original intentions may have been. Recommend blocking.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by RashersTierneyif a block is imposed on Sarah777 as things stand, I will withdraw from this process entirely. I strongly recommend a de-escalation all round. RashersTierney (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by Domer48 per HighKing, Jack forbes, BigDunc and RashersTierney. Move along now, there is nothing to see here.--Domer48_'fenian' 08:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by Tfz per Domer48, HighKing, Jack forbes, BigDunc and RashersTierney. The spreadsheet is of interest to many, has been done before, and there were no problems. Why here? Move on. Tfz 10:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Sarah777[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Request concerning Lvivske[edit]

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

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

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

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

Anti-Polish comments and some personal attacks:

1. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. [10]
5. [11]

Personal attacks:

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. (post ending)
4. [14]

Other ethic-based comments:

1. [15]
2. [16]

Refusal to back down and behave in a civil fashion:

1. [17]

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

1. [18] Warning by PasswordUsername (talk · contribs)
2. [19] Warning by AdjustShift (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

Additional comments by

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [20]

Discussion concerning Lvivske[edit]

Statement by Lvivske[edit]

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

Comments by other editors[edit]

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

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

I totally agree with Piotrus' request, it's high time this editor gets a slap on the wrist. Today he continued with his provocations: moved the Wołyń Voivodeship (1921–1939) article to Volhynian Voivodeship (1921–1939) without any discussion, reverted on the Ukrainian Insurgent Army article with the disgraceful comment that he's "reverting vandalism" [21], shockingly advocated blanket reverts for combating "biases" [22] and so on and so forth. Loosmark (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I'd also like to point out to Lvivske repeated attempts to disguise reverts as minor edits, after he has been asked not to: [23]. This is getting disruptive quickly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Result concerning Lvivske[edit]

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

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

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

Request concerning Spanishboy2006[edit]

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

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

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

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

1. [24] Listed Kosovo as a disputed state, despite Wikipedia consensus to call Kosovo a 'disputed region'. Both 'disputed country' (or 'state') and 'disputed province' are Albanian and Serb POV respectively.
2. [25] Listed Kosovo as bordering Serbia, pushing POV by claiming that Kosovo's independence is not disputed.

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

1. [26] Warning by Cinéma C (talk · contribs)

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

Additional comments by Cinéma C:

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[27]

Discussion concerning Spanishboy2006[edit]

Statement by Spanishboy2006[edit]

Comments by other editors[edit]

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)[reply]

Result concerning Spanishboy2006[edit]

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

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

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

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

Request concerning Olaf Stephanos[edit]

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

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

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Point_of_view_editing
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox

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

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

1. [39] Serious POV editing. This was the user's first comprehensive rewrite of Falun Gong after article probation - he adds undue weight to the article's intro, highlighting Falun Gong's "plight", and then adds an entire section of selective academic sources, advocating the "good nature" of Falun Gong in the section "Theoretical background", while removing all well-sourced information about Li's claimed supernatural status and apocalyptic claims - claiming it was to "rv Sam Luo's ravings". Modified "Criticism" heading to "Third-party views". Deleted several paragraphs of critical information; replaced it with favourable information.
2. [40] Serious POV editing. Attempting to discredit the source of the critical content, not a legitimate refutation or rebuttal against critical commentary. Also, another paragraph is awkwardly inserted (copied from another article, originally also drafted by himself) its only purpose seems to attack the American Anti-Cult Movement in defense of Falun Gong. User did not attempt to seek consensus before or after the edit, merely attempting to justify it with a long rant that he is "right". A chronic issue is that whenever any critical content is added to the article, he POV edits with "criticism of the critics" to "balance out" the article.
3. In the same edit, he also forcibly inserts that Patsy Rahn is a "Bachelors of Arts" to discredit her published works (he lobbies for it here, discrediting her ad hominem with "Patsy Rahn is a former B-class soap opera actress, who has nothing but a BA in political science". On the talk page, Olaf continues to allude to a single source to justify that the Anti-Cult movement in the United States as "unreliable" and a "lackey of the Communist Party of China".
4. [41] [42] Other attempts at discrediting sources critical of Falun Gong, very clear POV editing similar to previous instance.
5. [43] Another instance of discrediting sources critical of Falun Gong in article body, an unsourced POV edit that aims to "balance out" criticism.
6. [44] A deletion of various critical sites, including all Chinese government-related sites in "External Links", saying it gives "undue weight". (Eventually almost all critical links were deleted, but by other users - see below).
7. [45] Inserting paragraphs about human rights reports on Falun Gong, including a selective claim from a UN report which was later refuted. These edits aim to advocate for Falun Gong's "plight". Note also he adds quotation marks around words like "illegal act" to make them sound less credible.
8. In Sujiatun Thrombosis Hospital, an article that has been a focus of Falun Gong advocacy (and since deleted/redirected after attention from uninvolved editors):

   Restored removal of peripheral comments about whether the allegations are considered by FG to be closed, with the comment "disagree; no reason to remove only this paragraph and leave the three others intact; are you sure you didn't try to make the case look 'closed'?" effectively giving Falun Gong 'the final word' while the dismissed allegations are left hanging - a common tactic by FG editors.

   Blanking entire section because he cannot get his way.

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

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

   All of these edits reflect POV and disruptive editing, aimed at stalling neutral good-faith edits by User:Ohconfucius.

9. [46] Deleting Mrund's edits about Falun Gong's controversial aspects from lead sourced from TIME and James Randi Educational Foundation. Here is his justification for deleting, and here he deletes it again without consensus.
10. [47] This is a lengthy talk-page response to an uninvolved user who suggested that the article was extremely biased in favour of Falun Gong and there have been efforts at erasing critical content. This is a form of very direct advocacy, which is prohibited according to the arbitration. Other talk page advocacy edits include [48] [49] [50] (Rants about personal experiences, personal meeting with founder Li Hongzhi, calling him a "humble man" etc.), (Extremely lengthy advocacy about why the word 'cult' doesn't belong in article, despite reliable sources, and other dissertations); advocating for Falun Gong through blockquotes taken from official Falun Gong website faluninfo.org, with attached personal experiences; More advocacy on the talk pages against the Anti-Cult movement.
11. [51] Removing NPOV tag on a revision that clearly favours Falun Gong, while the NPOV dispute has not been resolved, with justification: "The disputed content and concrete alternatives have not been explicated on the talk page."
12. Here Argues that James Randi, another critic of Falun Gong, is "partisan" and "not an expert on Falun Gong", branding Randi's educational website a "personal blog", saying it cannot be included in the article. Here he calls Randi a "good illusionist" and "does not have an academic background", and that "sometimes he's just plain wrong".
13. [52] In one of his few edits outside the realm of Falun Gong-related articles, he inserts unsourced lines ("imprisoning Falun Gong practitioners to detention centers and labor camps and torturing many of them to death") on the page of Chinese president Jiang Zemin, when the paragraph already has a "citation needed" tag. In contrast, his edits ([53] [54], as part of a protracted edit war with User:Simonm223) on Li Hongzhi, founder of Falun Gong, promote Li's benevolence and positive image. These edits clearly reflect pro-Falun Gong, anti-Chinese government POV editing.
14. [55] Removes quote directly sourced from Li Hongzhi to hide Li's more outlandish dissertations, with justification "it doesn't fit in well with the other [quotes]".
15. [56] This edit is a restoration of Original Research conducted by User:asdfg12345, in defense of Falun Gong's more 'outlandish' claims, reflecting clear advocacy.
16. [57] The user persistently edit wars to keep Falun Gong critic and cult expert Rick Ross out of the article, labelling him a "self-contained cottage industry"; here he deletes Ross again using the term "former criminal" to discredit the source. In this typical revert, he modified all instances of the word "repression" or "ban" to "persecution" and added praise for Falun Gong including: "while others say 'there could no gentler religion than the Falun Gong.'[...] In 1999, the Chinese government said it considered Falun Gong to be a cult; though scholars see this as merely a 'red-herring'." This reflects pervasive anti-critic, pro-Falun Gong POV editing by said user.
17. [58] Delete well-sourced content on "homophobic" teachings, justifying with "Anonymous IP inserting a new section, using substandard sources and ignoring criticism just doesn't work.".
18. He expressed that 'forced labor camp' or 'brainwashing center' are in general appropriate "plain English words" to describe prisons to which supposed FG practitioners are sent, aiming to sensationalize these events.
19. He harasses me while I prepare for this very arbitration case, first posting a lengthy pre-emptive defence on Talk:Falun Gong; he then brings it up in an unrelated disucssion stating: "[Colipon] is at this very moment preparing to lose his face by blatantly misusing the arbitration enforcement process against me to gain an upper hand in content disputes..."
20. Numerous diffs on personal attacks, which severely violate WP is not a battleground listed below:

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

• Topic ban or complete block.

Additional comments by Colipon+(Talk):

My first impressions with the article was that it was similar to ongoing disputes at Scientology, with a group of dedicated apologist editors making blatant POV and disruptive edits and making real work on the articles very difficult. Falun Gong is a bit more complicated. There is a protracted, large-scale propaganda war between the spiritual movement and the Communist Party of China. Two polarizing sides of the issue make it much, much harder to deal with, as there are activists on both sides. Both sides use exaggerated 'evidence', borrowed 'experts', sensationalist claims and other forms of propaganda to attack each other. Because both sides clearly have an agenda against the other, "NPOV" becomes very delicate - there will be routine disruptions from both sides. No revisions of articles is ever stable.

The propaganda war manifested itself on Wikipedia in 2006, with anti-Falun Gong activists and pro-Falun Gong practitioners constantly opposing each other and engaging in disruptive editing. To my knowledge, after arbitration, all of the anti-FLG editors (Sam Luo, Tomanada, etc.) were banned or have left. As a result, since June 2007 and until mediation in July 2009, the Falun Gong family of articles have become unmistakably dominated by pro-Falun Gong activists. These articles all suffer from serious POV issues heavily biased in favour of Falun Gong, are readily being used as a direct form of advocacy for the Falun Gong movement, and users from all backgrounds (including those who are anti-Chinese gov't) have raised concerns - but all have been either discouraged by the drama, or their attempts at other means of dispute resolution have failed.

Conflict of Interest
The user I mentioned above is undoubtedly a single-purpose account and has been editing Falun Gong-related articles since 2006 (along with a team of 3 other very easily identifiable FLG activist editors - asdfg12345 (talk · contribs), Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs), and HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs)). After the ban of Anti-FLG users Sam Luo and Tomanada, he and a very consistent group of Falun Gong practitioners have seemingly taken over all Falun Gong-related articles. All four users, to varying degrees, erase critical content, engage in lengthy advocacy commentary on talk pages, tag-team against other editors, and two users in particular (Olaf, dilip rajeev) show very little respect for any users who wish to bring balance to articles, hurling ad hominem accusations and personal attacks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion concerning Olaf Stephanos[edit]

Statement by Olaf Stephanos[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Point-by-point discussion of the alleged violations[edit]

1. I don't think there's much to say here. User:Free456 is a sockpuppet of Samuel Luo, and I reverted him.
2. In this edit, I have merely pointed out that Margaret Singer cannot be taken to reflect the academic consensus on the matter. She had been given an extremely prominent place in the "Reception" section. There was discussion on this wording, I took part and did not try to enforce it, agreed to removing all the references to the court decisions, and have even spoken on behalf of Singer's inclusion as a significant minority viewpoint here. I still think it is acceptable to mention her, as long as she is not given undue weight and is presented in the proper context.
3. Pointing out Patsy Rahn's academic credentials with a sourced reference to her biography (on the website of the host of the conference in question) shouldn't be a problem, especially since I did nothing to enforce that edit. Just a little while earlier, Colipon had inserted this edit that appealed to Margaret Singer's credentials, but apparently he doesn't see any problem there (frankly, I don't, either). Lastly, I have not called the ACM a "lackey of the Communist Party of China"; I have only mentioned that a peer-reviewed source discussing the ACM discourse and Falun Gong contains these words: "By applying the ['cult'] label and embracing theories that posit passive followers under the mental control of a dangerous leader, the government can aggressively destroy the group, all the while claiming to be protecting religious freedom. In this respect, the Western Anti-Cult Movement has served, unwittingly or not, as a lackey in the party's efforts to maintain its political dominance." [59]
4. The first diff is admittedly an attempt to restore the primary sources about Singer and her expertise. This was my only revert. See point #2. On the other hand, posting the second diff as a piece of "evidence" is preposterous. In my next edit five minutes later [60], I revert my changes and say "Sorry, my bad. Seems like another organisation has taken over the name "American Family Foundation"." Colipon knows this by reading the rebuttals on my talk page, but he still chose to include this diff. In my humble opinion, that is quite indicative of his approach to this arbitration enforcement case.
5. This is nothing but a link to a section that discusses the anti-cult movement in light of reliable sources.
6. My rationale is apparent, see the edit summary. At the time of the edit, the External Links section looked like this.
7. Adding sourced information shouldn't be a problem. Adding quotation marks around the words "illegal acts" means that they are the words of the Chinese Communist Party.
8. All of this is done in good faith. See the edit history of the article to see what User:Ohconfucius was doing, as well as the article's talk page. Also note my words, "I'm not going to start an argument. Let's see what they say here."
9. The edit summary directly points out the problems: "1) The word 'controversial' is not even found in the article. 2) James Randi website is a personal website; see Wikipedia:Sources. 3) The third sentence was not attributed to anyone." In addition, I don't see what's the problem with my talk page justification that was mentioned by Colipon.
10. I see this as good faith discussion on the talk page, pointing out issues with undue weight, among others. I admit that some of these edits are not directly discussing the article contents; but they are argumentative replies to people who have raised questions, or to personal attacks such as User:Mrund's "Please just act like a grownup, Olaf, OK? I suggest you go and insert some useful material into some other article instead of sabotaging my attempts to improve this one." (The latter comment was related to edit disputes surrounding point #9.) The "advocacy" for what faluninfo.net says about the issues at hand is directly relevant to this article, as self-published sources can be used as sources about themselves. The "advocacy" against the anti-cult movement simply presents some academic arguments against the ACM ideology, and ends with the words, "But here we mostly focus on a careful scrutiny of the editors' contributions and evaluate them against the official policies. I wrote the above to introduce some of my own views on these matters, and I am ready to continue discussion, but we shouldn't stray too far from the actual purpose of this talk page."
11. The tag was removed simply because tagging an article must be followed by discussion on the talk page. On these pages, it has been almost a norm that editors have refused to discuss the bones of contention, yet they want to leave a tag and never tell others what exactly needs to be done to get it removed.
12. Randi's website is subject to WP:SPS. As long as his views on Falun Gong haven't been published by a reliable source, I don't see why they should be included in an encyclopedia.
13. The first one is a good faith edit on the Jiang Zemin article – never reverted by anyone and apparently not contested (it's still there!). In the first diff on the Li Hongzhi page, my edit summary expresses the intent: "Some edits were justified, such as removing mentions of some obscure proclamations. But systematic removal of positive third party references is not acceptable. The things I restored are notable." I tried to engage User:Simonm223 in discussion here, but he wasn't really up for it.
14. The section is named "Theoretical background", and the rest of the references deal with academic issues. [61] Apparently, nobody considered this quote very important, since it hasn't been restored to this day.
15. The idea of this edit was to point out the discrepancy between the sources. It was discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard, and third party editors approved of it. [62] There might have been a better way to express the same thing.
16. First of all, Rick Ross has been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard in this thread. It was agreed that his personal website is subject to WP:SPS, and that his inclusion can only be considered if his views on Falun Gong have been published by a reliable source. Secondly, I did not label Rick Ross "his own self-contained cottage industry"; it was quoting User:Vecrumba who said these words on the RSN. The "typical revert" is merely restoring sourced content whose removal was not discussed on the talk page. The word "persecution" had been changed by User:PCPP in his previous edits. [63] [64]
17. I was trying to get the anonymous IP to discuss these changes, instead of adding a new subsection and presenting a synthesis of material from various sources (including a private website). Needless to say, the IP wasn't really up for discussion.
18. A short comment I wrote on the talk page. Falun Gong practitioners are imprisoned in brainwashing centers and forced labour camps; there's nothing "sensational" about it, it's just extremely frightening. See the article Persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China. I feel that choosing this diff as "evidence" against me really expresses something profound about Colipon's mission on Wikipedia.
19. I quickly moved the "pre-emptive defence" posted on the Falun Gong talk page to my private talk page, as soon as I was pointed out that Talk:Falun Gong was an inappropriate location. However, as I said before, some of the fallacies in Colipon's evidence were clearly indicated in this version, yet he chose to ignore most of them. As for my comment regarding the misuse of WP:AE, I think the ArbCom can decide for themselves.
20. Comments on the so-called "personal attacks":

• there is absolutely nothing that can be interpreted as hostility towards User:John Carter in this diff.
• "Yeah. Stop playing a martyr, Colipon, and stick to the work at hand. I'm not going to get involved with your strawmen. Let's just agree to disagree." was a reply to this rant posted by Colipon on the article's talk page.
• "raging anti-FLG bull" was a humorous allusion to a 1980 film by Martin Scorsese. The whole thread is available here. My comment reads in its entirety: "Do you expect to convince me, Colipon? Actions speak louder than words. In my eyes you have come across as one raging anti-FLG bull – but let's leave open the possibility that I'm wrong. Whatever the case, that doesn't mean you wouldn't be welcome here, as long as you follow the rules."
• Colipon left out the strikeout in my comment "The face of your ideological struggle just looks so much better with a faux moustache and a gargantuan plastic nose", another example of carnivalesque Bakhtinian satire that I've found an amusing way to point out the sheer absurdity of some arguments.
• the reason I have reminded Colipon of this edit are my simple requests to make him retract his words. Despite numerous attempts, he has refused. Personally, I think it is somewhat worrying that Colipon has openly expressed sharing a similar agenda with User:Samuel Luo, who was banned indefinitely during the previous arbitration case.
• originally, Colipon finds my comment "I merely proved through direct quotes that your shining helmet of neutrality seems to be made of cheap Chinese tinfoil" humorous, as intended ("haha. I like it. :)" [65]), but now uses it as evidence against me.
• when I turn User:Mrund's insinuation of pro-FLG editors being similar to banned scientologists, and Colipon's comment "After reading the archives and history here it is a little naive to go on believing that if we keep this group of Pro-FLG users on this page, that it will be possible to improve it. Therefore my opinion is that a "wholesale ban" is more than necessary" [66], into full-blown satire by beginning my reply with a link to a humorous picture that is so overboard that it's clearly a joke, he takes the whole sentence out of context and even claims it is a response to something different, namely to the "commentary from a wide range of editors that the article is poorly written, biased, and whitewashed of any criticism".

Final words[edit]

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

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

• No additional evidence was presented against me, and the Falun Gong "critics" mainly relied on vague rhetorics and spurious claims (such as saying that I favour the Epoch Times or Clearwisdom as sources).
• The few diffs that they offered merely recycled Colipon's arguments above, or had absolutely nothing to do with the description they gave (for instance, see the link offered by User:Edward130603 that allegedly "turned away a newcomer to the FLG discussions"). My words: "I'm afraid that any discussion on other matters (apart from improving the article) is bound to carry us further away from our goals. It might only lead the regular group of editors to hurl accusations at each other of misrepresenting the difficult issues, i.e. 'whitewashing' or 'denigrating' Falun Gong."
• A perfectly matching description of the 'wikilawyering' allegations can be read here: Wikipedia:Wikilawyering#Misuse of the term. Their offenses are not argumentative, but generalising and dismissive. Instead of producing evidence, the term is used as a mere shortcut to some unidentified behaviour.
• Being the defendant in an arbitration enforcement case, and in light of the patent frivolousness of the "evidence", I find this comment extremely bizarre: "I believe his targeting of Colipon in this way is to create wriggle-room for himself and his fellow FG practitioners/advocates."
• User:Vecrumba's comment was attributed to the RSN, and a link was given: "See the discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard." [67] Looking at the thread, there is no way anybody could interpret these as my words.
• Looking at the talk pages of the editors who have excoriated me, it appears they have exchanged e-mails outside Wikipedia and discussed their tactics in this arbitration enforcement case. See the following comments:

• Seb az86556 on Ohconfucius' talk page: "you did well in keeping the this Olaf-guy at bay, and I can see now why the Falun Gong thing you emailed about will be "total war"..." [68]
• Colipon on Edward130603's talk page: "Anyway, do you have e-mail?" [69]
• Colipon on Mrund's talk page: "I'd sent you an e-mail today. Please check! :)" [70]
• Ohconfucius on Mrund's talk page: "I'm glad you're back. Drop me an email, I'd like a private chat with you." [71]

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

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

Comments by other editors[edit]

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

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

• Pretty much a compilation of distortions are what I see in what User:Colipon presents above. I am not getting into even trying to refute them point by point. Looking into individual diffs, the larger context of the edits, their sourcing, etc., ought to convince the evaluating admin(s) that these are legitimate edits and the majority positive, highly sourced, well-written contributions to the wikipedia project. Further, these distortions are are based on stuff nit-picked from the user's contributions which span a couple of years at least. I request admins to kindly evaluate things in depth and, if found necessary, to please let User:Colipon and a few other users running this campaign of attack against editors know of its inappropriateness. Also, I see the user making an allegations against me as well claiming that I "show very little respect for any users who wish to bring balance to articles, hurling ad hominem accusations and personal attacks." I request admins to please go through my comments[72][73][74] on the talk of the article and judge for themselves how my interaction with other editors on the topic have been. If colipon's allegation is found baseless, kindly urge user Colipon to refrain from repeatedly making such attacks.Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment by Edward130603 I agree with Peredman and Martin. Olaf is a single-purpose account who often uses satirical comments to mock and confuse his opponents. For example, recently, his comments have turned away a newcomer to the FLG discussions as you can see here, [75]. User:Seb az86556 who has just followed the discussion for barely 24 hours. Olaf constantly uses these tactics to keep Wikipedia showing FLG in a positive light.--Edward130603 (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Comment by Ohconfucius:Fully endorse Seb's commemts directly above. Olav has proudly admitted that he instigated the Arbcom case which removed his dedicated but not so clever opponent Samuel Luo, giving Falun Gong devotees a free run of Wikipedia. Olav seems to be implying that a CCP-led assault on FG is happening again, and is trying to discredit Colipon whilst trying to claim all the good faith for himself. The reality which he finds uncomfortable, is that several editors with solid track records (thus a lot harder for him to discredit than just Colipon alone) on other articles have seen the problems with the FG family of articles, and appear to be out to correct the problem. I believe his targeting of Colipon in this way is to create wriggle-room for himself and his fellow FG practitioners/advocates.

  I stopped editing Falun Gong family of articles back in the third quarter of 2008 because I was stressed out by the single purpose accounts running around which were hell bent on giving Falun Gong a whitewash with added peroxide. I was one person fighting three or four dedicated followers, and that was before I had any experience dealing with him (Olav). Now that several 'rational' WP editors have reacted to this blatant point pushing by Falun Gong, I am not going to take a back seat. This edit encapsulates the problem well: "I will be here keeping you in check, and there is no way to get rid of me, because I know what I'm doing. I know how dispute resolution works, what are my rights as an editor, and what kind of behaviour entails punishment. I'm not going to burn myself, nor is there anything in my edit history that would incriminate me." He categorically states that he knows the system inside-out, and implied he will will outsmart any editor/enforcer out to get him. His biggest weakness, IMHO, is his arrogance and his propensity to make personal attacks. Olav is a wikilawyer par excellence- His attempts to sidestep allegations of personal attacks by saying he was quoting someone else is just gutless; saying he was exercising "humour" or "satire" are just lamentable tactics where ownership of words typed out on his own keyboard suddenly morphs into someone else's when his balls are on the block. Note how, all of a sudden, User:Vecrumba (and not he) now said to Colipon that Rick Ross was "his own self-contained cottage industry". All WP editors know the importance of attribution.

  Brevity is the enemy of the Falun Dafa – it's a common tactic by Falun Gong editors to demand that everything be sourced to the hilt; they resist any attempt at removing text which praises or defends FG because it is sourced, and it soon becomes a tug of war as to which side is capable of flooding the article with enough sourced coatracks, creating undue emphasis. The other side of the two-pronged approach is to discredit sources offering the opposing viewpoint. In one sentence, Olav objects to sourcing James Randi's comments to his blog on the grounds that it is a WP:SPS, and then he happily defends citing Clearwisdom (CW) or The Epoch Times (ET) when it suits him (as if these latter were highly respected sources and not SPS). Incidentally, FG devotees apply arguments to Xinhua that they ought to be applying with the same fervour to CW or ET; needless to say, they don't. The Falun Gong machine churns out numerous "studies", "reports" – which are hard to match for any editor in competition to add text from reliable sources – and the FG editors manage quite successfully to sideline criticism through a liberal application of WP:UNDUE. I would add that the misuse of sources and the use of ironic quotes is endemic. My allegations of misquoting of sources is from personal experience; these are however easy to sidestep because it's the encyclopaedia which 'anyone can edit'. I am not saying that Olav is directly responsible for all the above, but think it important that Arbs realise the general unhealthy climate which exists in FGverse, and the game which is being played out within these servers.

  These two edits and this revert are another example of the FG approach. The allegations have been found to be somewhat wanting in hard fact, yet the Dafa continues to voice opposition to it (as if this opposition is sufficient to render the accusations valid) - this goes with the maxim: 'you throw quantities of mud often enough, and some of it is bound to stick'. When he failed to repel my reasoned deletion, and to avoid breaching WP:3RR, he inserted this paragraph with no direct relevance, without comment. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by John Carter - In the comparatively short time I have been involved in the article, Olaf has regularly violated the talk page guidelines, which probably qualifies as disruptive editing as per the Arbitration Committee ruling. He also rather often indicates that he is a practicioner of the movement, indicating a very realistic WP:COI concern. He gives the impression to me, frankly, of a rather boorish college boy who has developed a bit of a following and on that basis thinks he can get away with what he wants. This includes being opposed to content which I belive wikipedia content guidelines demand. I ascribe at least part of this to the fact that based on his editing history, he has never really edited anything which is not related to Falun Gong, and I believe that this lack of understanding of the project here may well be one of his most serious and basic problems. My own history of what some might call leniency regarding bans and blocks is one which might well indicate to others that I believe virtually any editor with a history with the project is someone we would prefer not losing, and this is true. I think Olaf might be one such editor. On that basis, for what little it might be worth, I think that what might be the best option here would be for an indefinite ban to be placed on the subject, which could be reviewed and reconsidered after the editor involved has spent a possibly predetermined length of time involved in working on any content not related to this topic. If over that time he displays improvement in his current problems, which seem to me to be an almost self-righteous arrogance and what I can only call truly appalling interaction with other editors, particularly those he disagrees with or dislikes, then the ban might be lifted. It might not be unreasonable to ask of him that he seek a mentor as well. Alternately, if such an arrangement is too complicated, I wouldn't myself have any serious objections to a topic ban of six months or so, with the proviso that should his conduct continue in like manner thereafter the ban be restored. John Carter (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Olaf Stephanos[edit]

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

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

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

Request concerning DoingWell and 170.206.224.50[edit]

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

User against whom enforcement is requested:

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas [76]

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

1. 08:29, 9 August 2009 Edit to article David Miscavige, related to Scientology topic, as leader of Church of Scientology
2. 08:31, 9 August 2009 Edit to WP:BLPN board, in subsection about David Miscavige

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

1. 07:22, 9 August 2009 Topic ban by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) imposed on 170.206.224.50 (talk · contribs)
2. 07:22, 9 August 2009 Topic ban by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) imposed on DoingWell (talk · contribs), account associated with 170.206.224.50 (talk · contribs)
3. 07:25, 9 August 2009 Topic bans of both DoingWell (talk · contribs) and associated IP 170.206.224.50 (talk · contribs), by admin Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs) = logged at WP:ARBSCI case page in Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

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

• Note: DoingWell (talk · contribs) = 170.206.224.50 (talk · contribs), see Formerly IP Editor, now with a user name., and [77] followed by [78]
• Requested action: Block of DoingWell (talk · contribs) and 170.206.224.50 (talk · contribs), for violation of topic ban

Additional comments by Cirt (talk):

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

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

• Notification of DoingWell (talk · contribs) = [79]
• Notification of 170.206.224.50 (talk · contribs), IP associated with DoingWell (talk · contribs) = [80]

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

Discussion concerning DoingWell and 170.206.224.50[edit]

Statement by DoingWell and 170.206.224.50[edit]

Comments by other editors[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Result concerning DoingWell and 170.206.224.50[edit]

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

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

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

Request concerning Hudavendigar[edit]

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

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

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

1. First revert
2. Second revert, which was a revert of this edit, [81]

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

1. [82]
2. [83]
3. [84]
4. [85]

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

Discussion concerning Hudavendigar[edit]

Statement by Hudavendigar[edit]

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.

Comments by other editors[edit]

• His last block was for a whole week, another block isn't going to change much. A topic ban is in order.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I think admins should protect those controversial articles and urge users to find a consensus. Otherwise this edit wars will not stop. Both parties are pushing their own POVs, and blocking them will not help us to find a solution to this problem. I hope everybody understands what I mean. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 05:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Hudavendigar[edit]

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

• Blocked for one month. Clear violation of 1RR restriction. I have also left a message to the user indicating I would be willing to change the block to a lengthy topic ban (likely 6 months) if they have interest in editing any other areas of Wikipedia. Shell ^babelfish 08:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Next time you report someone who's been put on 1RR please mention that in the description; the AA log is huge so helpful pointers will make things go more smoothly. Thanks! Shell ^babelfish 08:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request Concerning Activist Editing[edit]

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)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:

• Andries (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ProEdits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ombudswiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that these user violated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Conflict_of_interest

• On August 5th 2009 I removed the BLP violating material as per RS recommendation here [97] from the article. [98]. Following that I had seen strong opposition by the above Anti Sai Baba activist. User:ProEdit edit-warred and added back the BLP violating material inspite of knowing that its as per the WP:RS recommendation here [99]

So far I asked for help from 2 administrators [100], [101] with no results. I have come here hoping for some help in implementing WP:RS recommendations and to stop Activist from hindering the BLP fixes to the article.

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

User:Andries: User:Andries was banned from the Sathya Sai Baba article due to his WP:COI. He is allowed to write in Sathya Sai Baba talk page. He misused this and wrote comments in WP:RS Sathya Sai Baba discussion forums.

User:Andries opposed the WP:RS recommendation in the talk page and also removed the 'Resolved' tag from the WP:RS discussion and wrote comments challenging the conclusions of other wikipedians in the WP:RS.

• Andries edits removing the Resolved Tag here - [102],
• Andries comments challenging WP:RS decision about removing BLP violating material here -

[103]

[104]

[105]

I have a question? Is User:Andries allowed to write his views in the Reliable source noticeboard discussions inspite of his WP:COI?

User:ProEdits: I looked at his userpage and contributions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ProEdits. In 'Robert Priddy' talk page discussions he used the first person pronoun "I" meaning he is Robert Priddy. Robert Priddy is a well known Anti Sai Baba activist in the web. If he is Robert Priddy why is he allowed to editwar in the Sathya Sai Baba article and talk page?

• User:ProEdits due to his WP:COI editwarred and added back BLP violating material [106] there by he violated the remedies of the Second Arbitration. He also added his strong opposition to removing the BLP violating material from the article here - [107].

User:Ombudswiki:

• User:Ombudswiki has been writing extensively telling other editors what they have to do in the Sathya Sai Baba article. His user page says he is 'Brian Steel'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ombudswiki. 'Brian Steel' is another well known Anti Sai Baba activist in the web who has negative attack page criticising Sathya Sai Baba. User:Ombudswiki edits and contributions fixing 'Brian Steel' website links in the Sathya Sai Baba article [108], [109] and his repeated recommendation to use Dale Beyerstein book (though declared unreliable in RS) to other editors in talk page [110] and his other contributions convinces me that he is likely to be the same Brian Steel. Being an Anti Sai Baba activist I don't see how Brian Steel will let other editors fix BLP issues in this article with out conflict.

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):

I request either topic ban or other sanctions other sanction) for these activist for editwarring and removing BLP violating material from the article due to their WP:COI. With out the arbitration enforcement on these activist I don't see how the WP:BLP issues in the Sathya Sai Baba article can ever be fixed.

Additional comments by Radiantenergy (talk):

I would sincerely appreciate if some one could look at this case. I am fed up fighting with one activist after another with WP:COI in trying to implement a RS recommendation. At the same time BLP issues have to be fixed in the article. We cannot leave BLP violating material in the article simply beacuse its opposed by the activist. I would like to remove the BLP violating material as per WP:RS recommendation with out going into edit-war with these activist. I am just frustrated seeing how difficult it is to fix the BLP issues in this article. Letting well known activist edit Sathya Sai Baba related articles and talk pages is not only against core wikipedia principles but also is against the remedies proposed by second arbitration rulings. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Radiantenergy (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion concerning the enforcement request with respect to Sathya Sai Baba[edit]

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)[reply]

Bhimaji, You may not agree with me on all issues. Of course everybody is entitled to their opinion. Regarding BLP violating material it was discussed by very respected experienced wikipedians in the WP:RS where they concluded that BLP violating material has to be removed from the article. We always try to implement WP:RS recommendation in the BLP articles no matter who objects it. This is not just a discussion about BLP violating material but its more serious issue about well known 'Anti Sai Baba' activist popular on the web editing the Sathya Sai Baba article and talk page. This is not only a serious violation of the Wikipedia's core principles but as well as violation of the second arbitration remedy of 'Conflict of Interest' mentioned in the above discussion. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You started the WP:RS discussion with inaccurate and factually incorrect claims. You mislead the WP:RS noticeboard. This is not about opinions, it is about basic facts. It doesn't matter how experienced the Wikipedeans were; if they didn't know the facts then the conclusions are unsafe. Bhimaji (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bhimaji, there were no factual incorrect claims. The cout name was immediately changed in the WP:RS even before the main discussion started. I will recommend you to read the WP:RS discussion again as you were not involved in this discussion. Its easy to miss the main details of the long WP:RS discussion. Again here the case is about Activist editing. From your perspective its clear that you don't care about Activist editing the Sathya Sai Baba related articles. But this is a serious violation of Wikipedia core principles and cannot be allowed. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop, plese. This discussion does not belong here. We only concern ourselves with arbitration enforcement.

• Administrator comment: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2#Conflict of interest is a principle, not an enforceable remedy. If no enforceable remedy is provided and an argument how the edits provided violate it, this request will be closed soon.  Sandstein  13:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I request you not to close this case - I have looked at only a few of these activist contributions so far and I need some time atleast another day or two to look at all their contributions so that I can present the case as you requested above. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Andries, ProEdits and Ombudswiki[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Request concerning Dailycare[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modi%27in_Illit&diff=308550197&oldid=308217125 (random example)
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modi%27in_Illit&action=history (history)
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ma%27ale_Adumim&action=history (history)

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/w/index.php?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:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADailycare&diff=308570270&oldid=308506349

Discussion concerning Dailycare[edit]

Statement by Dailycare[edit]

Comments by other editors[edit]

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)[reply]

Hi SlimVirgin! I ask you to please keep the content dispute off this page and comment on Talk:Modi'in Illit if you have an opinion on the content. If you see a conduct issue with my edits, or those of Dailycare, please feel free to comment on that. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's quite difficult to separate the content issue from the behavioral one, because no one should be adding material that goes against the view of practically all reliable sources on the issue. If we give equal space to Israel on the one hand, and practically all governments on the other, as you seem to want to, as though it's just a question of differing but equally valid views, we're violating NPOV, V, and to some extent NOR. Can you show where Dailycare's edits have crossed the line into becoming tendentious? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Dailycare's edits, as I pointed out earlier, isn't the content dispute, which is a separate issue. It's the fact that he makes edits that he knows do not have consensus while the talk page discussion is still ongoing. This is not just tendentious, but disruptive editing. Several users have reverted him (especially myself), but none of us have introduced new controversial content or made any controversial change for that matter (except reverting Dailycare). I have personally made a very serious compromise (IMO, anyway) on the content, but this is, again, the content issue, which is quite easy to separate from the behavioral issue. When a user seeks to make a controversial change in an article, it's their job to attain consensus for the change, not everyone else's job to attain consensus that the change doesn't need to be made. That's how all processes on Wikipedia work, like requested moves for example, where no consensus defaults to the original version, not the proposed change. Same with XfD, etc. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, just speaking of that one issue, that edit does have consensus—wiki-wide consensus, as it's an issue that has been discussed many times in the past. It can't be overturned by a small number of editors on the talk page, because it's based on NPOV and V. His edit is not even slightly controversial; yours is.

My only concern about Dailycare is that he turned up out of the blue in June this year and is editing only sporadically, but then that applies to a number of other I/P accounts too, all of whom should be checkusered in my view—in fact, I'm fast coming to the view that everyone editing I/P articles should be randomly checkusered, but that's no doubt beyond the scope of this report. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much like to hear your opinion on the legality of Modi'in Illit and Ma'ale Adumim, but this is not the place to discuss that. Please post something at Talk:Modi'in Illit. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am baffled by this edit just made by you. You have not only not discussed it, but also made it at a time when a related behavioral dispute is ongoing (this AE case). This is not really nice of you, and if you wish to get involved, for the 3rd time I invite you to the talk page. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had already commented on talk when you posted the above. [114] The point is you're forcing people to re-argue the same issue on the talk page of multiple Israeli settlements, telling them the edits violate SYN because the sources don't specifically name that settlement, and telling them they violate LEAD because it's UNDUE. With respect, that is arguably tendentious editing. You've reverted entirely, or removed from the lead, or rephrased as "opponents claim," that Modi'in Illit is an illegal settlement seven times since July 27. [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] But the edit is accurate, and clearly it's highly relevant (not UNDUE), given that the presence of the settlements is one of the major obstacles to peace in the area.

I make no comment on any other issue; I've looked only at this one. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brewcrewer[edit]

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.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Dailycare[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Request concerning Monlonet[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Grandmaster 16:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

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

1. [129] rv without any discussion at talk
2. [130] rv without any discussion at talk
3. [131] rv without any discussion at talk
4. [132] rv without any discussion at talk

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

1. [133] Warning by Brandmeister (talk · contribs)

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

Additional comments by Grandmaster:
The account of Monlonet is used solely for edit wars, to revert contentious articles such as Duduk and Mount Ararat. On Duduk he already made 4 rvs within the last 2 days, removing sources which he did not like, and making no attempt to discuss his reverts at talk, while telling other users to check the talk, to which he never ever contributed. In addition, he is canvassing, trying to mobilize other users for edit warring. [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.--Grandmaster 16:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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] Grandmaster 08:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Grandmaster 06:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[145]

Discussion concerning Monlonet[edit]

Statement by Monlonet[edit]

Comments by other editors[edit]

This account is quite close to SPA and has been meatpuppeting recently. Brand[t] 07:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Monlonet[edit]

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

• I am indefinitely blocking Zvartnotz2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Monlonet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive45#Zvartnotz2) for the abuse of sock- or meatpuppets to edit-war on Duduk.  Sandstein  07:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Interfase[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

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

1. First revert of Tzitzernavank Monastery article
2. Second revert
3. Third revert
4. First revert on Amaras Monastery article
5. Second revert
6. Third revert
7. Fourth revert
8. Fifth revert
9. Sixth revert

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

1. Warning of AA2

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]

Discussion concerning Interfase[edit]

Statement by Interfase[edit]

Comments by other editors[edit]

Result concerning Interfase[edit]

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

• Edit warring is continuing since this report; since this is the first block, I've made it 48 hours. Shell ^babelfish 04:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Meowy[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:

1. [162], [163] Violation of Revert limitation (formerly known as revert parole). You are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. User did not attempt to explain the removal clearly until the second revert either. [164]
2. [165], [166], [167], [168], [169] Not assuming good faith by making sudden and unjustified accusations against editors. I have made clear my concerns at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision including suggestions on how to fix the problems [170], and have notified other talk pages so a discussion can happen in a central location [171], [172], [173], [174], [175]. Other editors have not accepted Meowy's interpretation of my actions either [176], [177], [178], and also think they represent a failure to assume good faith [179]. Also engaging in incivility by behaving aggressively and with unneeded hostility, in particular to quote the civility policy, Quoting another editor out-of-context to give the impression that he or she holds views they do not hold, or to malign them, given that the evidence makes clear that I do not hold the views that Meowy has suggested. These actions collectively are applicable to the restriction under Civility supervision (formerly known as civility parole). If you make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then you may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses.
3. A look through Meowy's edits suggests that he has been repeatedly ignoring his editing restrictions on other pages as well. These include violation of 1 revert per week restriction on Azerbaijan with [180], [181]. Failure to assume good faith and personal attacks at User talk:MarshallBagramyan [182]. Severe incivility on Talk:Armenian Highland [183], particularly, to quote the civility policy again, Rudeness: insults, name-calling and excessive sarcasm and Using derogatory language towards other contributors or, in general, referring to groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, religious groups, or others in a derogatory manner. It is clear that another user was offended by such comments [184] and Meowy's response shows that he has not acknowledged the damage that such comments make to Wikipedia and the editing environment [185].

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.

Discussion concerning Meowy[edit]

Statement by Meowy[edit]

Additional comments by User:AlexandrDmitri (User talk:AlexandrDmitri)[edit]

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]

Comments by other editors[edit]

Result concerning Meowy[edit]

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

• The evidence here seems quite clear. I note the 1RR violation mentioned at Camaron's point number one and severe violations of AGF and CIV as exemplified by points two and three. The edit warring at Azerbaijan seems a bit too stale to act upon, but the rest of the examples are quite recent.
• Meowy blocked for a month (the violations aren't so egregious as to go higher, though I understand that the maximum in this case is a year). I shall decline to topic ban for the time being, but one should go into effect if this comes up again.
• Lida Vorig notified to remember to assume good faith. NW (Talk) 22:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]