| Blocked 55 hours by Tim Song (talk · contribs) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Tasbian[edit]
Discussion concerning Tasbian[edit]Statement by Tasbian[edit]In every single case the inclusion of the judgement 'controversial' itself is unsourced. Where's the < ref > ? It is a word to avoid, and on that basis it will be avoided. And don't suffer the originator to "thank [you] for your time": thank him for wasting your time .. with the reminder to avail article talk pages as he's utterly avoided to approach doing.Tasbian (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Tasbian[edit]As shown by Cirt above, he has been consistently makeing bad faith edits to several articles over a wide range or topics. this action that I made was to remove a POV pushing and in reality, untrue statement. Regardless of how this is handled, he needs to stop one way or another.--White Shadows you're breaking up 02:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Tasbian[edit]
Not sure a discretionary topic ban can be applied here, as that remedy requires a detailed warning to the user to be given in advance. Instead, I'm going to block the user for disruptive editing given the pattern of behavior noted here. This is pursuant to the administrator's power to prevent disruption, not an AE action. Tim Song (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC) |
Background
Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a persistent POV-pusher and edit-warrior who has been blocked several times and whose disruptive behaviour has been discussed in several reports on admin noticeboards:
Many of these reports resulted in Biophys being sanctioned and warned, yet Biophys has chosen to ignore all these warnings and has continued his heavy disruption. In addition, Biophys has already been sanctioned with a 1RR per the WP:DIGWUREN sanctions. [19]. However, the 1RR sanction was later lifted for the technical reason that "no prior warning was given." According to a June 2009 finding by now arbitrator User:Shell Kinney, Biophys is a regular edit warrior. [20] He is also listed as one of the warned editors at WP:DIGWUREN. [21] Biophys has also been discovered as a member of the WP:EEML, and participated in the cabal's campaign of disruption.[22]. Further evidence of disruption caused by Biophys can be found at WP:EEML/Evidence. Several members of the EEML were found by ArbCom to have proxied for banned users, so Biophys knows that proxying is not allowed. Biophys has been proxying for the community banned User:HanzoHattori in several articles (see evidence below).
Edit warring Massive edit warring at Russian apartment bombings
Biophys has already been blocked twice for edit warring on this article.[23],[24]
Nevertheless, Biophys continues his persistent and massive edit warring.
Revert wars of Biophys in 2010:
Edit warring at Battle for Height 776
Here Biophys is edit warring heavily to keep a known Islamist propaganda source (http://www.kavkazcenter.net) in the article.
This is a terrorist website similar to the illegal Al-Qaeda websites the United States keeps closing down around the world. Their fact-checking is not just zero but they enjoy publishing politically-motivated false rumours like against Gordon Brown and the "European Union's elite pedophile commissioners in Brussels" [45] or the bogus story about Israel trying to harvest organs in Haiti.[46] They continue the episode with their own lies and report about "the fact that "Israel" has brought some 25,000 Ukrainian children into the occupied entity over the past two years in order to harvest their organs." [47]
Russians are always insulted as "invaders", "minions", [48] "infidels" [49], "apostates", "the enemy"[50], "hirelings", "puppets", especially in reports about bombings and other violence against them. Russian victims are purposefully dehumanized.[51] The web site's original affiliation was with Shamil Basayev, [52] who Washington too declared a terrorist and a threat to the United states. [53]
All this is known by Biophys, who has backed the Kavkaz writer Boris Stomakhin since the early days of his account, yet he keeps edit warring to keep this terrorist source in the article to push his POV. After users complained about it, he just accused them all falsely of sockpuppetry.[54]
Human rights in the Soviet Union
Again, this is not the first time Biophys has edit warred on this article (see [76] ).
Proxying for banned editor HanzoHattori
HanzoHattori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an indefinitely banned POV-warrior and sockpuppeteer. His main interest was terrorism and warfare in the Caucasus.
List of HanzoHattori sockpuppets, based on Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of HanzoHattori:
Biophys had tried to help the sockpuppet RamboKadyrov by a warning how to avoid getting CheckUsered.[99] Biophys was also already suspected of proxying for HanzoHattori half a year ago. He answered with a non-denial denial, stressing that he checked the sources.[100] Biophys said that he finds the banned HanzoHattori "the best WP editor" and "a fantastic expert": [101] On the mailing list he revealed previous mail contact with HanzoHattori (20090624-0311) and, moreover, tried to protect a sockpuppet of HanzoHattori and prevent it from being detected: [102] Biophys and his EEML friends then tried to organize a comeback for HanzoHattori: [103]
In recent months, Biophys has visited several little known Caucasus-related articles previously edited by HanzoHattori and his socks, and performed massive edits on HanzoHattori's behalf.
For example:
Between 7 March and 9 March, Biophys performed several edits on behalf on HanzoHattori. All these articles were previously edited by HanzoHattori and his socks. Biophys did not do any edits of his own during this period.
Please note, that Biophys edited all these articles sequentially. It is highly unlikely he would suddenly get interested in all these articles edited or created by HanzoHattori. It is unlikely that Biophys would suddenly (after performing sequential edits on several HanzoHattori articles), get interested in a little known Japanese person (whose article just happens to have been created by HanzoHattori.)
There is yet another sequential row of proxy edits by Biophys on the evening of 5 March.
Yet another row of proxy edits in the early hours of 7 March:
Other evidence:
A 1RR restriction is not enough. Biophys has already promised to follow 1RR: [142] ("I will also try to stick to 1RR").User:Sandstein replied: "in particular, I expect Biophys to adhere to his promise to "try to stick to 1RR"." [143] In September 2009, Biophys still had a userbox "this user follows 1RR" on his now-deleted userpage. The above diffs of edit warring show how well Biophys kept his "promise."
The necessity of topic banning Biophys from Eastern European articles in line with the other EEML sanctions should be self-evident. However, since Biophys has also proxied for HanzoHattori in other articles (such as Teruto Tsubota), this topic ban is not enough. I request a one-year block followed by a EE topic ban for continued heavy disruption despite several sanctions and warnings.
This is what admins had to say during the last AE report about Biophys:
This is largely a harassment campaign by a group of like-minded Russian users, most of whom participated in EEML case. This is also an attempt to re-litigate the EEML case since Russavia and others frequently quote this case and provide links to comments made much earlier. Here is the proof:
Nevertheless, I in fact collaborated and negotiated with User:Ellol in "Bombings" article (see below) and I can continue doing the same with any of the users involved (see the "Proposed conflict resolution" section below).
The reverts. Many diffs by Russavia are not reverts to older version, but changes to a compromise version, or simply significant changes during a single edit. Yes, there are many reverts, but they are usually done in the framework of one or at most two reverts per day (or less frequently). The exception was vandalism fight in one article. I had problems mostly with Ellol and YMB29 who followed my edits and aggressively reverted whatever I did (see diffs in this link [163]).
The alleged proxy editing. I had an email exchange with another person who suggested to make specific changes in a number of articles. Since I was well familiar with the subjects, I agreed to look at the matter (I previously edited many articles in this area [164] [165]). I looked at the suggested changes, agreed with some of them, rejected others, and modified whatever was necessary. But I did not act as "meatpuppet". "Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus" according to WP:SOCK. But I made only such changes I would like to make myself. I did not even touch some articles because I disagreed with all changes he suggested. I also checked the sources.
Everyone is welcome to examine each my single edit (see evidence by Russavia above) to see that they improve the content. I honestly believe these my actions were fully consistent with WP:IAR and other policies, such as WP:RS and WP:NPOV. And I am ready to answer any specific questions about these my edits: [166]. None of the edits was in support of any terrorist organizations. For example, they complained about using Kavkaz Center as a source. Fine, I remove cat "News agency" but keep cat "Propaganda organizations" in the article: [167]. And all other edits considered by Russavia as incriminating evidence are essentially like that and very much noncontroversial.
I just saw this policy (I did not read it before). Well, I am "able to confirm that the changes are verifiable" and that I "have independent reasons for making them". The reason is obviously improvement of the content.
Russian apartment bombings. Here, I had extensive discussions with User:Ellol, and it was me who started a number of topics that needed discussion (please take a look): [168], [169],[170], [171], [172]. I was also looking for the 3rd opinion from User:Alex_Bakharev, who is not "on my side": [173], [174], but unfortunately he was not there. Yes, I believe the mediation by someone like him is the way to go. If you look at my edits, I mostly tried to develop a compromise version. I hardly made even a couple of "blind reverts" in this article.
Battle for Height 776. That was mostly a struggle with a vandal who did such edits: [175],[176],[177]. Vandal or not, but I fully explained everything to him at article talk page: [178]. Yes, "Russian invaders" are insulted at the Islamist web site, kavkaz.org, exactly as Russavia tells. However, they are not insulted in the wikipedia article. The article is written in full compliance with our NPOV policy, as one can see from the diff [179]. Kavkaz.org was only used to source the statements by Chechen fighters, exactly as in hundreds published books [180]. Saying that, I am very open to the idea of removing any references to kavkaz.org (and other sources that refer to kavkaz.org) if they contradict more reliable sources, as I did yesterday [181].
Red Banner. Everything was explained several times at talk page [182]. I agree with last version by User:Altenmann: [183], who modified my version as follows: [184].
Cyberwarfare by Russian state We had some heated debates, but finally came to consensus, including the new title (I did not even edit there for a long time).
Invasion of Dagestan. Here is the discussion. [185]. User:HistoricWarrior007 does OR by claiming that something is "geographically impossible", although tons of publications claim that very much possible.
Human_rights_in_the_Soviet_Union. I discussed and tried to find some compromise here, but User:YMB29 repeatedly removed a lot of text sourced to books [186], and the discussion went confrontational [187]. I asked an advice from User:Altenmann: [188], and he was really helpful, but we did not resolve our differences with YMB29. I finally stopped editing this article a couple of weeks ago. You may look at the contributions of YMB29 (talk · contribs). If you think he can do the job better than me, I have no problem leaving this article to him.
I amware of severe anti-Russian attitude of Biophys. I have no problem with this: everyone is entitled to their position. I see no problem it promoting this anti-Russia attitude into wikipedia articles as long as it is clear who is the bearer of this attitude (and this bearer is notable enough for their opinion to be reported) and it iss not presented as truth about Russia.
At the same time I disagree with usage of my name by Biophys as any kind of validation of his actions. For example, his phrase "I agree with version by User:Altenmann" does not mean that this version was somehow endorsed by me: it just randomly happened that I was the last one to edit this page.
I do remember finding a number of Boiphys's editing habits as problematic, but I have bad memory and don't really care about modern East-European political issues to waste my time on editing/personal conflicts. - Altenmann >t 23:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
We are not a debating society. We are Wikipedia which is based upon WP:FIVE; one of those being WP:NPOV. And the title is NOT NPOV. --Russavia Dialogue 01:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
People,we can not tolerate phrases such as We are not a debating society it is horrible that somebody dare he? I think lot of guys here have to learn that various points of view can be integrated in a particular Wiki article.And you can say it about Biophys and about his opponents.But We are not a debating society is unacceptable.Celasson (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I object to use of my name and our limited recent interaction by Biophys as any kind of justification for his actions. After my indefinite block (which was result of coordinated efforts by EEML cabal to remove me from Wikipedia, and Biophys was member of the EEML group), I avoid articles on controversial topics such as terrorism/Chechnya, so we just edit in different topic areas with Biophys.DonaldDuck (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll just point out that Biophys and two of his opponents, LokiiT (talk · contribs) and Ellol (talk · contribs), were recently on my talkpage bitterly complaining about each other, about issues related to the ones raised here. The threads are at here and here. I also observed him edit-warring persistently against HistoricWarrior007 (talk · contribs) on Russian apartment bombings, in a situation where my impression was that both editors were behaving in a heavily tendentious way. For various reasons I couldn't muster the energy to judge the situation and take action at the time, and so I think it will be better if I abstain from such action now too; however, it appears to me that the time may be ripe for at least a revert limitation, possibly not just on him but also some of the editors on the other side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty amazed Biophys is actually still editing since hes endured some of the worst stalking and herassment himself. If I recall correctly, he got outed and threatened even outside wikipedia. Users who are after him are always extremely nationalistically orientated users who would get a fine pay as lawyers of Vladimir Putin. With users who aren't as nationalistaclly orientated he never really had problems. Biophys doesn't edit "anti-russian" (a wrong term considering that he's Russian himself), in contrary he sometimes protects articles from those who are trying to turn wikipedia in the new Pravda. He was never alone in this, but because of the EEML case many of those are temporarely topic banned at the moment and probably aren't allowed to voice their support right now. Note that Biophys himself survived EEML even though some users posted large lists of supposed "evidence". EEML wasn't long ago. This file for arbitration is an obvious attempt to get him sanctioned at a time when he would get outvoted.
Concerning the further comments that Russavia has made below. It's another attempt at trying to demonise Biophys as someone promoting extremism, a pretex under which many journalists are banned from working in Russia. The source was already discussed at wp:rs several times. I explained the use of such sources here [198] and there's no bad intention whatsoever. Several users have gone after biophys labeling him a 'terrorist lover' or other ridiculous accusations which together with calling him 'anti-russian' means they view him as Enemy of the People. Ironically articles like Alexander Litvinenko are brought up. It's indeed quite so that articles like Anna Politkovskaya are often the setting of edit wars because the pro-Putin editors mostly target such articles. It's sad really, journalists and human rights activists reporting on crimes by the current Russian government are assassinated in Russia every few months. Afterwards their wikipedia pages are targeted by groups of Putin lobbyists attempting to discredit these activists. Anyone who tries to prevent this gets labeled "anti-Russian". Grey Fox (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Biophys claims that his use of a terrorist website to source articles is not a problem and is always done from a NPOV stance. This is false, as can be attested by his persistent reinsertion of an external link (albeit from January 2009) to a terrorist website showing what the terrorist claim are the bodies of killed Russian soldiers, whom are described as "Russian invaders" right there on the page.[199], [200]. This is not NPOV; far from it. Biophys also claims that his other edits are always NPOV, however, this again is false. After I was topic banned last year, Biophys took the opportunity to revert to his favoured version of the Alexander Litvinenko article - one which many editors had struggled to edit due to extreme ownership issues which Biophys seems to have with such articles. He mentions my recent edits to the article above, but what he fails to mention is what I have mentioned at Talk:Alexander_Litvinenko#Changes_made_to_article - that is, Biophys continually reverts to his favoured version, whilst at the same time ignoring issues raised by other editors, and which always involves the removal of sourced information of the article by Biophys; ostensibly because it does not fit in with Biophys' own POV. Such things have been experienced in the past on other articles, such as Talk:Artyom Borovik, where Biophys' edits allowed conspiracy theories to have "centre stage", whilst pushing information from aviation experts out of sight. The same thing was experience at Anatoly Trofimov, where accusations by a person with a history of making unsubstantiated allegations were allowed to appear in the article, but criticism of those claims were not [201],[202], etc. As one can see, Biophys clearly has a history of edit warring over information which does not fit his own POV on the ways of the world, and it is being continued as per the reported articles above. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 17:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I was also going to post a similar complaint about Biophys. I reported him before at the edit warring noticeboard [203], but the request was declined as not being posted in the right place.
I can confirm that Biophys has continued edit warring and also tag teaming after the EEML case. He just pretended to retire and kept quite during the case and for some time after it.
Since the end of January Biophys has resumed edit warring in the Human rights in the Soviet Union article, trying to reinsert his edits from September without any discussion. Even attempts by admin Altenmann to get a discussion going on the issues [204] were eventually ignored by Biophys, as he failed to respond.[205] [206]
But more importantly he continues tag teaming like in the EEML days. He got a user who never edited the article before to revert for him. [207] [208]
He basically admitted it when I asked him about it:
In the Red flag article he tried to insert his POVed jokes [210], even after all the users told him that they are inappropriate.[211] Then he simply goes over to the Red Banner article to insert those same jokes there, because he knew that not nearly as much people edit that article.[212] He does not give evidence of the jokes' notability [213] and continues to edit war. [214][215][216] It is like he is on a mission to sneak in his POVed edits anyway he can and does not care what others have to say...
Obviously he was lucky to escape a ban in the EEML case, but his behavior shows that he learned nothing.
-YMB29 (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Response to "offers" by Biophys
First of all, I don't need to "own" any articles...
As mentioned already, Biophys has made promises before but they were kept only temporarily, until things cooled down.
Also, edit warring is one thing but coordinating it offline and proxying for a banned user, even after the EEML case, is too much. -YMB29 (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Response to personal attack accusations
Don't know how my comments that Biophys brought up are personal attacks. One of the comments was not even made to him. He also quotes out of context (note again that this is common for him when making accusations) to make it seem like I refused to cooperate with him, when in fact I explained: I have tried to resolve this through discussion countless times with him, but he is not interested. He sometimes only pretends to discuss a little but then fails to continue and just reverts. [217]
Biophys tries to present the statements and evidence here as a mass attack against him (don't know if he still thinks FSB agents are involved) due to his political views, but one just has to look at his history on Wikipedia to see that the complaints against him are valid and many users are just tired of his behavior. -YMB29 (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Biophys seems to have gone back to all his old disruptive ways again following a short calm after the EEML case. Just in the past couple of weeks he's engaged in stalking, edit warring and sock fishing, all issues that I had brought up in my EEML evidence page[218], and that I hoped would have come to an end after that.
It started (with me) in late February when he stalked me to the Dokka Umarov article. This was an article he had never edited in before, and his first edit was a revert of my edit (something he has a long history of doing)[219]. (I'm beginning to think he's somehow connected to the POV pushing IP who I had reverted there in the first place). He then continued to edit war in that article[220][221] without discussing things in talk until after, and ignoring everything I was saying, which forced me to take it off my watched list out of frustration. (Also note in that last revert, he used a provocation "trick" I described in my EEML evidence where he does a giant revert-edit while saying something minor/irrelevant in the edit summary.)
I made a somewhat hot-headed response to those provocations of his (given our history, I do believe they were provocations), and he proceeded to report me at an admin's talk page.[222] In his report, he made a bold faced lie about my real life identity, claiming that I had actually said myself that I was "related to" (ie. a sock of) the inactive user Alexandre Koriakine, a name I had all but forgotten about since 2008 when he first accused me and Offliner of being this person's sock along with working for the Russian government (this government accusation was made on a subpage that he deleted, but was confirmed by Future Perfect at Sunrise[223]).
So then, after FPaS had understandably given up on our dispute, Biophys proceeded to report me for sockpuppeting[224]. I made it clear on the page that I believed this was simply a personal attack/revenge tactic and that he was just fishing to see if I had any active socks, since the similarities between myself and the other accused parties are nonexistent; not even so much as back to back reverts or identical edits, and only two or three similar articles. The result[225] of that investigation, involving five users and four IPs, was that they were unrelated. This gives more evidence that he was just fishing and wasting everyone's time on top of it. (Again, puppet fishing was yet another issue I had brought up in my EEML evidence page. The tally of wrongful accusations he's made against me has to be exceeding 10-15 if you include IPs.)
Basically I feel that he's blatantly harassing me, and has been since I first created this account for the specific purpose of avoiding him. If stalking me isn't enough, surely the continuous baseless accusations and lies/prying about my real life identity which have nothing to do with wikipedia content are. LokiiT (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
It is disturbing to see Biophys continuing the EEML habit of proxying for blocked users (compare the compelling evidence by Russavia above to [226]). Already in December, arbcom had clarified to Biophys that this is not OK, and has included proxying for blocked users in the respective user-specific EEML-FoFs [227] as evidence for disruption. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Biophys should not even have edited the articles where the proxying took place. He promised to edit science only, and retired, to avoid sanctions in the EEML arbcom:
The arbcom case had just started when Biophys announced "If I am not banned by ArbCom, I will have to abandon this account and start editing only science". When the case was in its final stage (2 months ago), Biophys again stated "please, do not make new additional sanctions for editors who were not even mentioned in the new evidence like Ostap, me and some others. (...) I am asking because this remedy prevents me from creating an alternative account to edit on different subjects, which I was about to do," and the "last word" "If you allow me editing pure science (I contributed a lot in this area without having a single conflict with anyone), that would be great. I might also edit some heritage articles, like biographies Russian writers and poets. The area of conflict can be defined as either "Human rights in Russia" or "Post-Soviet Russia"."
Biophys also 'retired' (obviously, not) to avoid sanctions during the EEML arbcom: "I marked my account as inactive and disabled email yesterday. (...) If anyone was evicted, this is me. I wish all the best to everyone." This response was made by an editor on 15 October 2009 (!): "I can see it now, when this case is over Biophys once again will come out of his "retirement" and continue to do what he has always done."
Re [228]: Biophys, your involvement with the EEML and the resulting arbcom is where we met. In contrast to the other EEMListees, you apologized for your wrongdoings and promised to not do that again. Believe it or not, that meant something to me. From your reactions, I had the impression that in contrast to other listmembers you seriously reconsidered where you want to go here. And now I see you proxying big time, and understand that all your promises and talk is just strategy to avoid sanctions. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I am actually quite disappointed with adminstrator's discriminative approach to Biophys and Co behaviour. In WP:EEML it was forbidden to name EEML members "Anti-Russian" or "cabal members". At the same time guys like Biophys, Grey Fox, etc. here at these pages and anywhere in WP are allowed to insult anyone as "paid Pro-Putin editors", "paid FSB editors".
I very surprised that criticizing Attacks on humanitarian corridors in Chechnya POV article on absence of the text related to humanitarian corridors equals to being paid Pro-Putin editor, or to being an agent of FSB. See more here. And how this at all relates to being Pro-Putin editor.
I am also surprised that any attempt to fix Biophys extreme POV, as acknowledged already by many editors since Stomakhin arbcase, leads to you being called FSB internet paid editor of fascist "Nashi" group.
I expect that administrators at least here would take measures to enforce arbitration FoF of Piotrus 2 case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes, especially finding on "Involvement by security organs"
6.1) There is no convincing evidence that any of the security organs of the Russian state are involved in Wikipedia editing, directly or indirectly; nor that any editors involved in this matter are acting as agents of or receiving instruction from said organs.
Passed 9 to 0 at 23:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC) 6.2) Several editors have claimed that they are agents of certain Russian security organs. Such claims are disruptive and potentially intimidating to other editors, even when made in jest.
Passed 9 to 0 at 23:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I am surprised that some WP users are allowed to call the names and to insult other users without any consequences. I believe that doesn't promote any collaborative work of the editors and doesn't contribute to already heated atmosphere of Eastern European articles.
Sorry for "I-centric" passage.
Just look into arbitration case which was initiated by Biophys after his unsuccessful edit warring in Operation Sarindar - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys. He got a warning and 3RR block on this article. In sum Biophys has followed Commodore Sloat edits, discovered some unrelated to his matter uncivil comments, summed with his personal accusations and tried to kick Commodore Sloat from WP to OWN Operation Sarindar article.
Now look into arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin, the same picture. He collected all my uncivil comments that I've erroneously made before and made a case against me just to kick me off WP as an editor whose contibutions he was so fiercely opposing. Finally this case from content dispute turned into vlad fedorov civilty case. As a result extremist Boris Stomakhin who was an editor of terrorist web-site KavkazCenter was named as dissident in WP.
Biophys also provokes other users by using various WP procedures. For example, he initiated sockpuppet investigation on users Saiga12 which lead to negative answer and Lokiit just to win content dispute over Chechen articles. And when he gets a response reaction from these authors he insults them by naming paid Pro-Putin editors and claims that it is harrassment campaign against him.
He has also initiated in EEML case campaign against user Ellol whom he accused of issuing coded death threats for him. Now in his response claims that he cooperates with user Ellol. What a drastic change! Perhaps we would ask Ellol himself if he finds Biophys to be cooperative?
Biophys right from his start in Wikipedia unambiguously by his actions was demonstrating why he is here.
Here is his WP program:
"Western security and intelligence services should start harassing FSB and SVR personnel wherever possible. It should be routine to boot these officers from foreign postings. We should disrupt their lives and the lives of their families whenever and wherever possible. American and European internal-security and foreign-intelligence services should track the finances of former and active-duty FSB and SVR officers. If it is possible to cause them pain--for example, by regularly blocking the accounts of officers even tangentially connected to anti-dissident or criminal activity in Europe or Russia--we should do so."
At the end of this, Biophys uncunnily asks "Is that a good idea?". Do I need to point finger at the people who Biophys considers as FSB personnel in WP?
I leave the question of whether Australian guy like Russavia, US guy Commodore Sloat, or Belarusian lawyer like me are paid Pro-Putin agents. In fact this was repeated so many times, that actually all of us are tired of this and even accustomed to these incivilties.
But any objective observer who would analyze Biophys activities (contribs) in WP, will see:
His previous activities:
this edit could be seen only by the administrators. Here Biophys threats with creation of the new artciles which are supposed to be Anti-Russian.
Another such more rude threat by Biophys.
Start with his personal page which was emptied during EEML arbitration. If you would look at his misc links dating back to 2007 you will see that he has contained there as one of the main links a link to methods of propaganda and disinformation, which contained very detailed description of how to disinform and how to advance propaganda.
Now just let us remember articles created by Biophys: KGB internet troll squad, Putin phallus now in light of that please appreciate his "work":
If you won't educate Biophys, perhaps like me in Boris Stomakhin arbcase, these repeated Biophys-centric dramas on Incident admin board, Arb case, and Arb enforcement pages would never stop. Biophys is not showing even an inch of remorse, he still believes that FSB agents are hiding under his bed when he is editing on WP and they try to cut off his electricity supply to prevent him from editing WP.
Biophys claims: "I looked at the suggested changes, agreed with some of them, rejected others, and modified whatever was necessary. But I did not act as "meatpuppet". Being "proxy" or "meatpuppet" means doing something exactly as someone else asked you. I did not do that. I made only such changes (with my corrections) I would like to make myself. In a number cases I did not even touch an article because I disagreed with all changes he suggested. I also checked the sources"
You know we had this situation already, but this could be only established by looking into emails or ICQ logs, which could be easily forged by the people who have it.
I even could imagine such "disagreement" between folks:
Hanzo: Please write: "Putin eats children". Biophys: Hanzo, I disagree with you, Putin not only eats, but also fries children.
Anyway, if this could happen, then what sense bans have here in WP? The reason behind this meatpuppetry is that edits are initiated not by current user, but by banned user. Little "diagreements" between these two are not that important. What is important is the result - in the end article is effectively contributed by banned user, and it's not even important to which extent (smaller or bigger). Vlad fedorov (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
A month ago Biophys came to my talk page and claimed that he had received a email signed by my name with "concerns about his health". Allegedly it was sent during the EEML case (last September — December), he "thought it might be me", but only now that "I indicated my name", he could link it to me. In reality my name has been on my user page non-stop for the past four years with these or those extra bio details. After I asked for more information about that alleged mail repeatedly, Biophys answered "Nothing more to tell at the moment. Thank you." and "Let's drop it" and then diverted from the topic.
At my talk page he stated, entirely on his free will, that "So, that was your impostor who knew your name", while now he speaks differently: "Eloll said it was his impostor, and maybe it was indeed his impostor. I do not know."
Regarding the alleged e-mail, in his recent post he claims to have "immediately deleted it as garbage", what is contradictory with his alleged state of concern with such a mail that now turns to be "a mildly threatening" per his comment. [235]
I think that it must be clear that a story like that can't be treated as an accusation against any Wikipedia user, me in this case. Moreover, internal contradictions inside Biophys'es story indicate that it could be intentionally thought-up as an attempt to disseminate fear-mongering aka "Russians go" what is a very, very bad taste.
ellol (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
This request has now been open for ten days without input by uninvolved admins (and indeed apparently without input by users not involved in Eastern Europe editing disputes). My best guess is this is because
For these reasons, I believe that this request is ill-suited to be dealt with under arbitration enforcement procedures. I propose that we - the admins working at AE - refer it to the Arbitration Committee so that they may decide whether to take it as a full case, dismiss it or otherwise dispose of it. Sandstein 16:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
| Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) warned. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Pieter Kuiper[edit]
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Pieter Kuiper[edit]Statement by Pieter Kuiper[edit]What? I have not hounded Cirt in general, I have only tried to counter his pushing of Aaron Saxton as a Scientiology big shot. Which he was not, he was just a kid when he joined, and left the "elite" a few years later at 21. I do not know what I am supposed to write here. Do I need a lawyer? Cirt is clearly an expert at wikilawyering. He has been throwing the Book of Wikipedia Rules at me, and leaving "warning" at my user page from the beginning. In order to prepare this kind of denunciation. Or to try to tick me off and report me for incivility. But as can be seen in the history of Aaron Saxton, it was Cirt who invented a year of birth, which was of by a year. Yet he put this year in a fact box, with a reference. Clearly inventing false factoids like this is against BLP policies. It was a serious error, which could have had serious consequences for the subject. So I changed it. But Cirt stubbornly reintroduced his false fact. So I want to report Cirt for breaking the rules on BLP. I see that he is an admin: he should be desysopped. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Pieter Kuiper[edit]Comments by Sandstein[edit]Initial comment prior to any reply by Pieter Kuiper: Sanctions under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Discretionary_topic_ban are not allowed as long as the request does not include a diff of a warning of the sort required by the cited remedy. All that could conceivably result from this request, therefore, is such a warning. (A block for disruption under normal admin authority does not appear to be immediately necessary on the basis of the provided evidence.) Sandstein 16:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I am limiting my review to the five diffs provided by Cirt and the explanations given by Cirt why he considers them problematic. Questions:
I would appreciate an answer by both Cirt and Pieter Kuiper, respectively, within two hours of their next edit, or I may choose to operate under the assumption most unfavorable to them should I decide to take any administrative action as a result of this request. Thanks, Sandstein 22:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Durova[edit]Re: Sandstein, this topic is also covered by Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Article_probation which does not require prior warning for administrator action. Pieter Kuiper has been wikihounding Cirt recently. The only edit that Pieter Kuiper has ever made at the "Did you know" process was yesterday when Pieter attempted an out of process rejection of Cirt's most recent submission about Scientology although the article clearly qualified for DYK.[238][239] Pieter has followed Cirt to several Scientology articles where Pieter has been obstructing Cirt's work, mainly by Pieter's introducing ageist original research, and Pieter has removed reliably referenced information while referring to an adult BLP subject as a "kid".[240][241][242] Cirt has done nothing to provoke this person. This looks like a reasonable attempt on Cirt's part to clear the air.[243] The subject of Scientology has been through four arbitrations; we don't need someone who pursues vendettas or picks fights. A formal warning may prevent this problem from spreading. Durova412 17:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Orderinchaos[edit]I became aware of User:Pieter Kuiper through his WP:POINTy behaviour at AfD and DYK in my home area of Australian politics. When I looked into it, it seemed to be a more broadly consistent pattern of following User:Cirt around on topics in any way connected with or related to Scientology. Many of the other issues re DOB of Aaron Saxton are red herrings; Pieter did not deal with this matter in good faith and seemed more interested in undermining the other user (it could simply have been added with a source to the article, without the need for all the rest). This sort of stuff happens (without the attending drama) all the time in my project due to inconsistent information supplied about elected state politicians by state governments, and nobody's ever terribly worried about being proven wrong by a better source (much less being desysopped!!). Cirt has neither provoked these actions, nor responded in kind. I am in agreement with Durova that a formal warning, with sanctions following if the user continues the conduct, would be a suitable resolution to this matter. Orderinchaos 01:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Pieter Kuiper[edit]
Thank you for the replies, Cirt and Peter Kuiper. My assessment of the request is broadly similar to that of Durova and Orderinchaos. People may in good faith disagree whether one should qualify this person as a "senior official" in this "SeaOrg", or how (if at all) one should extrapolate his age from the information in the source at issue. But Pieter Kuiper chose to pursue this disagreement in a needlessly aggressive fashion: by reverting Cirt twice, asking pointed questions on the talk page, following Cirt to DYK to "vote" (meaninglessly, as T:TDYK is not a vote) against the article being featured there, calling for Cirt's desysop here (which is entirely ridiculous) and generally giving the impression of having the main aim of entering into conflict with Cirt rather than resolving the content disagreement in a collegial, friendly and WP:AGF manner. As we know, this mode of editing is unfortunately not uncommon on Wikipedia. That does not make it acceptable, especially in the doubly sensitive fields of BLP and Scientology. For this reason I am warning Pieter Kuiper to stop editing Scientology subjects in anything but a collegial, friendly and constructive manner (as would be expected, e.g., among real-world co-workers) consistent with our etiquette, or he may be made subject to sanctions under WP:ARBSCI#Discretionary topic ban and/or WP:COFS#Article probation. As to Cirt, I do not see a need for a warning or sanction on the basis of this discussion, as he correctly removed the calculated date of birth (whose initial inclusion policy appears to allow) after Pieter Kuiper contested it. Sandstein 05:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
|
| Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) topic-banned from Scientology for two weeks. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Pieter Kuiper[edit]
Block, and/or topic ban, per discretion of reviewing administrator. -- Cirt (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Pieter Kuiper[edit]Statement by Pieter Kuiper[edit]Cirt uses the same tactics as scientologists: trying make people back off by intimidation and litigation. I find it stange that he is allowed to be an administrator with this kind of behavior. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Pieter Kuiper[edit]
In general I think we understand that someone may be angry or upset after an AE rules against them and in the immediate period following they may do something heated and pointedly silly which can be dealt with but overlooked. I would place the very first of Cirt's points re Pieter's conduct in that category, and although I saw it, I wrote it off in those terms. However, the points 2 and onward (particularly the "Hyperinflation" stuff) demonstrate a continuance that is not a mere heat-of-the-moment reaction and shows some willingness to continue the campaign for which he got warned. I think a topic ban re Scientology per Tim, and possibly an interaction ban re Cirt, would be the most appropriate ways to deal with this situation. Orderinchaos 10:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Noting that I support Tim's compromise. Orderinchaos 17:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
This appears to be taking the shape of a campaign of cross-project hounding by Pieter against Cirt. It began on March 22 at the Commons Administrators' Noticeboard.[250] Shortly afterward Pieter nominated a group of Cirt's uploads for deletion, asserting they were out of scope.[251] When Cirt started an article at en:wiki which demonstrated they were within project scope, Pieter Kuiper followed him here and nominated the article for deletion; the article has forty sources now yet he has not withdrawn either nomination. Yesterday Pieter Kuiper returned to Commons and nominated several of Cirt's other uploads for deletion including material uploaded years ago under a previous username. Some of Pieter's points may be meritorious, but he he hasn't engaged in give and take: when he is mistaken or when new evidence supports Cirt, Pieter does not acknowledge it but instead raises a new complaint or becomes aggressive. Pieter's block logs at Commons and at the Swedish Wikipedia indicate a pattern of combative behavior within the last half year.[252][253] Durova412 14:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I think Pieter Kuiper is being railroaded a little here. Compare this case to the recent AE thread on User:Wispanow, who edit-warred to introduce unsourced material, and delete sourced material, was far more uncivil than Pieter here, and claimed the BBC and Time Magazine were anti-German racists. He was given the chance to voice his concerns, at length, in a moderated discussion. Now, Pieter actually had content concerns here that seem considerably more valid and straightforward than Wispanow's. Why isn't he given the same chance as Wispanow, but instead subjected to the full weight of the banhammer? This is uneven and heavy-handed. I'd rather see Cirt and Pieter Kuiper discussing their respective content concerns, with a moderator if need be, so each gets to have their say. --JN466 16:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC) As far as I can see, Pieter Kuiper is an editor in good standing who has edited here since 2005, mostly on science and Sweden topics, has a clean block log, and no discernible prior history with this topic area. [255] He clearly was needled by the messages Cirt left on his talk page, but then, with respect, these did seem a little harsh, and apt to cause such a reaction (especially given that Pieter turned out to have been right on the original content dispute about the birth year). I agree that Pieter Kuiper needs to calm down and take the personal animus out of his interaction with Cirt (and vice versa), but a topic ban seems too harsh at this point, given his five-year history of apparently problem-free editing here. --JN466 17:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Pieter Kuiper[edit]
I am of the view that the request has merit, and concur with Sandstein's analysis in the previous AE thread. Edits such as [260] and [261] are simply unacceptable especially in this topic area, and doing so a few hours after Sandstein's warning shows that the user has little inclination to edit in a collegial manner in this subject area, but instead the edits "generally giv[e] the impression of having the main aim of entering into conflict with Cirt rather than resolving the content disagreement" in an appropriate manner. Therefore, unless another uninvolved administrator objects, I'm inclined to impose a topic ban for three months from all Scientology-related articles and discussions. Tim Song (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Though the request has some merit, the situation could be handled by a 48 hour topic ban to keep the situation from getting immediately worse. I think the 3 month suggestion is way out of proportion to the problem for an ed. without apparent previous problems in this area, and about originally quite trivial issues in the bio. If it continues after that, obviously it's another matter DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
(1) ChrisO/George initially nominated the article for deletion[269] after, for a considerable amount of time, ChrisO hasn't wasted many opportunities to call Shahaf and others who agree with him (e.g. James Fallows, Esther Schapira and many others) conspiracy theorists[270][271][272][273][274][275][276][277][278][279][280] and, on occasion, "whackjob conspiracy theorists".[281]
(2) I'm displeased when ChrisO vitiated the concept of the BLP-vio by applying it (in edit summaries) on non contentious content, such as Shahaf completing his Physics Masters at Bar-Ilan University (cited to Shahaf's CV on his personal website), as a reasoning or justification to reinsert the Yigal Amir/Rabin issue through the backdoor despite being reminded of both BLP and BRD policies. This constitutes, best I can see, a repeated, wilful violation of basic content policies to which the editor in concern is fully aware.
Comments regarding statement by ChrisO:
Comments regarding statement by Jehochman:
Comments regarding statement by Gatoclass:
Comments regarding statement by RomaC:
Comment regarding statement by Cs32en:
Comment 2 regarding statement by ChrisO:
(side-note) ChrisO again shifts focus and gives a snippet into a conversation we've had on April 2009. In that conversation I was trying to talk to his heart and persuade him to take a step back and stop behaving badly on the al-Durrah page. It didn't work and he was soon-afterwards banned on two separate occasions on June (1 week + 1 month article space) and July (1 month) 2009. Another such snippet is where I note ChrisO of my belief -- expressed on September 25, 2009 -- that he should take a break from the page, which prompted him to apply the terms "9/11 truthers" and "whackjob conspiracy theorists".[310] ChrisO has insisted on referring to Shahaf and the ones agreeing with his views with complete disdain irregardless of many requests to tone it down. To note: I still don't see ChrisO making any attempt at establishing his false claim that the highly damaging Yigal Amir "campaign" text is remotely "widely documented".
This is what matters: ChrisO insists on adding the claim that Shahaf campaigned for Amir's release. This is very poorly sourced - one English source and no Hebrew sources. Shahaf himself says it's libel, and is suing the people making that claim. Therefore, per WP:BLP we should not be adding this material!
Do I need to point out what WP:BLP says right at the top of the policy page? "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced — whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". This is what I have done, explicitly citing WP:BLP as the reason for removing this material. Quoting further from WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, "Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory information about living persons should bring the matter to the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard." That is what I have also done here. Everything that I've done in this respect has been by the letter of WP:BLP. I see no reason why I should be sanctioned for following the letter of the BLP policy.
By contrast, Jaakobou's removal of content has been for completely improper reasons, as I've set out above. The material I added is sourced to multiple mainstream reliable sources in English (his claim that there are no Hebrew sources is a red herring; just because sources aren't online doesn't mean they don't exist). See Talk:Nahum Shahaf#Rabin assassination for a summary of the sources. By contrast, an editor's personal dislike of an individual journalist or an individual publication is not valid grounds for removing content. The material Jaakobou added is either unsourced or poorly sourced. WP:BLP requires the removal of such material.
I might point out that over on the BLP noticeboard Quantpole recommended referring the matter here if Jaakobou continued inserting unsourced or poorly sourced material. This intervention is a fairly transparent attempt to get a retaliation in first. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC) (Comment moved to this section from the general discussion section below by Sandstein 22:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this is a fair description of what has been happening. George and RomaC have been doing good work (without my involvement) on cleaning up the article to take out unsourced or poorly sourced material. George has taken material to the RSN to obtain feedback. Nobody has objected to including "positive" material if it can be reliably sourced. The main issue of contention here is that one editor - Jaakobou - is repeatedly restoring unsourced or poorly sourced material which all other editors who have reviewed it have unanimously said should not be included. Don't forget, the onus is on an editor to show why content should be included; Jaakobou is editing against a unanimous consensus. As WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content says, "In order to ensure that information about living people is always policy-compliant (written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources) the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. Editors adding or restoring material must ensure it meets all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, not just verifiability of sources." Jaakobou has not come close to ensuring this; he hasn't even addressed many of the concerns that George has raised, as the lengthy discussions on Talk:Nahum Shahaf (see e.g. George's comments at Talk:Nahum Shahaf#Review of new material) demonstrate. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Gatoclass is right - equating my actions with Jaakobou's is a false equivalence. Could you point out which of the following should not have been done?
I'm happy to agree to Jaakobou and I not making BLP enforcement edits against each other, but I am not at all convinced that Jaakobou understands BLP's requirements. I certainly do, and I have consistently used reliable sources in this article. Jaakobou has not only used unreliable sources, he's added information with no sourcing whatsoever and deleted reliably sourced material for reasons that, to put it bluntly, are just POV bullshit. There is no way that it's legitimate for an editor to delete reliably sourced material because he considers the reporter in question to be "anti-Israeli". This needs to be made very clear to Jaakobou. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever referred to Shahaf specifically as a conspiracy theorist, so your attempt to smear me that way doesn't work. On the other hand, you have called him "a conspiracy nut". From an IRC conversation that we had on 21 April 2009:
I think that speaks for itself, don't you? -- ChrisO (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Just stating in general terms that self-published sources could be used within biography articles to provide positive information about the subject. Durova412 16:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC) (Comment moved to this section from beneath the main header by Sandstein 16:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC))
As someone who has made major contributions to the article, I would say as a general note, there's been a concerted effort to denigrate the subject, both by removing positives and enhancing (at least what are perceived to be) negatives. I also wonder at the insistence on suggesting NS engaged in a "campaign to prove the innocence of Yigal Amir." I see no source which supports that emphasis, and the sources I've seen mention NS's beliefs in this only in passing. I don't think I've even seen a source that suggests what NS thinks the mechanics of the actual assassination actually were unlike, for example, his work on Muhammad al-Dura. Further, in a BLP when good faith questions arise, it is important to gain consensus before reinserting questionable material. IronDuke 03:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I must say I am somewhat suprised by Jehochman's initial response below re ChrisO's insertion of allegedly "controversial" material. It appears that from Talk:Nahum Shahaf#Rabin assassination, there is plenty of verification for the statements added to the article by ChrisO - although admittedly there is only one source which describes the theories advanced by the BLP in question as "conspiracy" theories.
Secondly, it's clear that Jaakobou has inserted material that is either inadequately sourced or wrongly sourced - confirmed by the two threads at BLPN. According to policy, ChrisO was perfectly within his rights to remove it, so I don't see a problem there. That leaves Jaakobou's reinsertion of substandard sources into a BLP to deal with. In my experience, this is a typical modus operandi for Jaakobou - insertion of badly sourced, or completely unsourced material, while removing well sourced material because of alleged "bias" of the authors. This kind of thing can be deeply frustrating to good faith editors. Given Jaakobou's many appearances at noticeboards like this for similar behaviour, I have to ask myself - how much longer is it going to be tolerated? Gatoclass (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe the comparison between ChrisO and Jaakobou's edits are unwarranted. They have nothing in common other than allegedly being BLP violations. The fault of both was the failure to discuss the issue before anything else, but as to the edits themselves, I believe we need to look not just at the dry text of the BLP policy, but also at the reasons why it was created. Other policies and guidelines also need to be looked at, such as WP:V and WP:FRINGE. In short, inserting libelous WP:REDFLAG claims about a living person is prohibited and works against Wikipedia as a whole; this was the nature of ChrisO's edits, which sought to insert a passage supported only by one newspaper article in passing, about him allegedly being involved in a campaign to free the most notorious murderer in Israel's history (surely such a campaign would've been more known, especially in Israeli media?). I don't see how this compares to adding harmless information from the article subject's own resume. I have already posted a similar comment on the talk page, and hope that the dispute is solved there. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Should be noted the article was created by User:Tundrabuggy with much assistance from User:Canadian Monkey, both of whom have since been blocked as sockpuppets. The article was, in my opinion, written in a way that suggested editors were less concerned with whether content was verifiable and sources were reliable, and more concerned with slanting the content to portray the subject as a decorated ballistics expert. Recently some edits have addressed this, for example by pointing out that the only source for "ballistics expert" was Shahaf himself (reliable sources noted widespread questioning of his ballistics qualifications). I've tried to participate constructively here, but some opposition has remained, for example, to any mention of Shahaf's involvement in Rabin conspiracy theories -- despite this involvement being well-sourced. Maybe some editors thought that info would make Shahaf appear less dispassionate? Yesterday Jaakobou told me he is now "not completely against an inclusion" of the Rabin info[322] so we may be getting somewhere. (I remain flexible on how much detail is needed on Shahaf re Rabin.) Anyway, I don't think ChrisO has done anything wrong, on the contrary believe his recent editing here is generally intelligent, policy-compliant and beneficial. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Although Jaakobou (talk · contribs) does not specify whether he filed the request as a complaint about edit-warring or as a complaint about tendentious editing, his comment led me to believe that he request ChrisO (talk · contribs) to be sanctioned for tendentious editing. For edit warring, the 3RR notice board would also be available. Looking at the first edit cited by Jaakobou [323], the content is properly sourced, although the exact wording of any content in an article is, in almost all cases, to some extent and editorial decision on which consensus needs to be reached. (There are more sources available for this content, so BLP is not an issue with regard to the content itself.) In a subsequent edit [324], Jaakobou, instead of attempting to improve the wording, removed the sourced content. Any requests related to edit warring should, in my view, be dealt with primarily at the Edit war notice board. Cs32en Talk to me 15:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree w/comments by YNHockey, for reasons he/she stated.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
On looking at the article and the various diffs presented, there seems to be strange stuff going on on both sides. It seems however that the disagreement between the two editors has overshadowed any wider issue, and I agree with Jehochman's view that each should avoid enforcing BLP against the other. The article, while well sourced generally, appears to confirm that the subject is on the margin of notability - I suspect had this been an incident in my country rather than somewhere on which opinions are so divided, the article would have been uncontroversially deleted at AfD. Orderinchaos 13:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Awaiting statement by ChrisO. I am perplexed, to say the least, how ChrisO can justify the cited edits as BLP enforcement. He's inserting controversial content at the same time he's removing other controversial content. This looks like edit warring by ChrisO and Jaakobou. Jehochman Talk 20:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Additional advice to both ChrisO and Jaakobou: I think both of you need to stop making BLP enforcement edits against each other, because this justification is being stretched, quite possibly too far. Instead, if you have BLP concerns, raise them at WP:BLPN and let somebody uninvolved deal with it. Both of you know well enough how to avoid BLP problems by always using reliable sources when you write about a living person. Jehochman Talk 15:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
| No action taken. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Brews ohare[edit]
Discussion concerning Brews ohare[edit]Statement by Brews ohare[edit]Because it is entirely possible that some "uninvolved" bystander Admin will before long decide to block me from all comment simply based upon their own unsupported and unchallengeable initiative, I will respond now to this motion, although I regard it as frivolous, and punishable as an example of Physchim62 using ArbCom for the purpose of harassment, pure and simple. The terms proposed by Physchim62 as being violated are:
Regarding the violation of this restriction:
Nowhere in any of these diffs was a "physics related topic" discussed. The disputes that have arisen are about the act of promulgating distortions and misrepresentations, not about the content of same. They do not "arise from a physics-related dispute"; instead they arise from the deliberate and reprehensible acts of fabrication and distortion, independent of the content of said unvarnished fabrication paraded as my views. The point is that Physchim62 has been told that "blah-blah-blah" is an unvarnished fabrication paraded as my views, diffs are provided indicating his infelicities, and he has refused to reconsider his statements regardless. The present motion of his is a blatant misuse of ArbCom to avoid all responsibility for his acts, to avoid correcting his unvarnished fabrications paraded as my views, and to reconfigure my self-defense as some kind of crime. Brews ohare (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Reply to Physchim62's Right of reply :
Reply to Hans Adler:
Comments by others about the request concerning Brews ohare[edit]A post by Count Iblis has been removed by myself per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Motions. NW (Talk) 21:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Dr.K.[edit]Let me get this straight: Physchim tries unsuccessfully to label Brews as a pseudoscience promoter on Wikipedia (according to Hans Adler a character assasination attempt against Brews). When Brews tries to defend himself against Physchim's unsubstantiated allegations, Physchim brings an AE enforcement motion against him. I am speechless. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist[edit]There are no violations. I've looked at the 8 diffs posted by Physchim62 (the filer of this AE request) and am appalled at this AE request. I reject the claim that on this occasion, Brews ohare was being deliberately disruptive in support of his physics views. In fact, I see plenty of evidence that the cause of this issue was the comments made by the filer. There was no need to even bring up what may or may not constitute Brews ohare's views on the physics topic while the relevant motions were being considered. The filer was also given multiple opportunities (and explicit suggestions) to disengage, but did not do so. I therefore suggest that this thread is closed without action, except to urge Physchim62 to voluntarily avoid interacting with or commenting about Brews ohare, in the same way that Brews ohare seems to have done with Physchim62 since the close of the case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Pieter Kuiper[edit]Physchem is trying to get Brews blocked. He is clearly baiting with his allegation of pseudoscience. Against a contributor here who has a professional reputation in real life. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Orderinchaos[edit]Recommend closure without action - the diffs don't appear to suggest there has been a violation of the sanction/motion. Orderinchaos 13:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Hans Adler[edit]Since I managed to inject myself into this case, I want to mention several things that may or may not be relevant.
Right of reply by Physchim62[edit]As so many allegations have been raised against my motives in this section, I shall reply here. Apologies in advance for not replying individually to the editors concerned.
As it happened, I asked that the motions be closed on Monday morning, 96 hours after they had achieved a majority. It should be remembered that I opposed both of the motions that passed but, as the speed of light dispute had reached my User talk page over the weekend, I felt that it was better to give some closure to the situation rather than let it fester. Did Brews’ actions contribute to the discussion of my request – which was to his benefit, as it significantly reduces his topic ban – or was it just gratuitous disruption? My opinion is the latter, obviously, or I would not waste my time on asking that the sanctions imposed on him, and very recently ratified and extended by ArbCom, are effectively enforced. Physchim62 (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Comments by Headbomb[edit]These edits were made during an ongoing ARBCOM motion which concerned him, and Brews is perfectly allowed to comment on these motions. You made disparaging comments about him, he replied. There's no case here, regardless of whether the accusations of promulgation of pseudoscience check out or not. SNOW close this, and let's all move on to productive use of our time. I suggest this is done quickly, rather than after 25 people had the chance to beat themselves to a bloody pulp. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Brews ohare[edit]
Even assuming for the sake of argument that there is an violation here, which I seriously doubt, I'm not convinced that any enforcement action is appropriate. Tim Song (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC) |