Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive57

Request concerning Gilabrand

User requesting enforcement

talk) 06:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Gilabrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:ARBPIA and 3 month topic ban on I/P articles

.

1. [1] [2] Editing material about synagogue being destroyed during 1948 Arab-Israeli war, by definition an I/P topic.
2. [3] Renaming a section entitled "Russia and the Arab-Israeli conflict" to "Israel-Russia relations".
3. [4] Extensively editing a section about Sweden and the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

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

1. [5] Warning by
   WP:ARBPIA

Enforcement action requested (

other sanction

)

Block (user has previously been blocked for 48 hours so a longer block might be appropriate).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User seems unwilling to acknowledge any misconduct on their part or that they will abide by their topic ban or

WP:ARBPIA

.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[6]

Discussion concerning Gilabrand

Statement by Gilabrand

Comments by others about the request concerning Gilabrand

• I'm not going to do any blocking myself here, but this seems like a blatant violation of the sanction. Again. Gilabrand seems intent on completely ignoring the sanction, so I think a longer block is in order -- a week, at least, and perhaps an extension of the original topic ban. I don't see how Gilabrand cannot see how these aren't violations of her sanction. -- tariqabjotu 06:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will however say the first edit is rather trivial though. -- tariqabjotu 06:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My apologies, Tariq, I mistakenly used the wrong diff for the first revision. The actual diff is this which shows quite extensive changes to that section, most of them directly related to the I/P topic area.
      talk) 06:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]

I was invited to help copyedit an article on the Hurva Synagogue that was up for FA review and the administrator who blocked me said he did not object to my working on that article. I did NOT change information. I edited the lead, and all the material I edited appears in the text of the article. In the article on Israel's foreign relations, again, I did NOT change any material. I shortened a certain section that was not in proportion to the rest of the sections in the article, and left ALL THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ISRAEL exactly as they were. I changed a subheading on relations with Russia to conform with ALL the dozens of other sections, which refer to a main article that is called "X country's relations with Israel." These did not change the political message that Factsonthground is so anxious to convey. Factsontheground is stalking and harassing me (and not only me, as you can see from the numerous administrators' pages that are taken up with his complaints and back and forth reparte, feigning innocence but gaming the system. Tariqabjotu is also keen on wiping me out of existence, as he didn't like the fact that I added photos to the Israel page which he has effectively claimed as own. The vindictiveness and hostility is growing by the day and users like Factsontheground are playing a major role in turning Wikipedia into a battleground and a forum for their personal agenda. He and his friends, like Supreme Deliciousness, Ani Mejool, and a host of others, are doing all they can to scare away editors, get others blocked and insert information about Palestinian grievances in every article they possibly can, including those that have nothing to do with the subject. This is so transparent that it is almost laughable. When administrators let them off lightly without looking at the bulk of contributions, they are perpetuating this and helping to create a laughingstock of Wikipedia, furthering its image and as unreliable source of information. On my part, I will try to stick to copyediting, and improving articles with solid content and references, and illustrating them with attractive pictures. That is what I came to do on Wikipedia, and that is what I hope to continue doing. --Gilabrand (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I take it you don't like me very much. Well, nobody else forced you to spam hate material into

talk) 10:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Some parts of this comment are personal attacks.--Severino (talk)

Without addressing the merit of Gilabrand's edits, I'm concerned about some of the actions being taken by other editors are not being done in good faith, or at least there is some Wiki-stalking taking place. I have watched similar actions taken against editors from the "other side", like User:Nableezy, where after he was sanctioned other editors went over his edits with a fine tooth comb trying to find anything they could use to effectively continue to "punish" or "silence" the editor in question. I would ask administrators to keep this in mind when making decisions regarding this and future enforcement actions. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 17:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Gilabrand

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

• Blocked 1 week for violating topic ban. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Meowy

User requesting enforcement

Grandmaster 08:20, 13 March 2010 (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

Diffs

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

# [7] 1st rv

1. [8] 2nd rv
2. [9] 3rd rv

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

# [10] Meowy was placed on 1rv per week revert limitation and civility supervision by Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (

other sanction

)

Block, topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Meowy was placed on revert limitation for edit warring on the arbitration covered area, and was blocked for violation of this restriction many times. See his block log: [11] Last time he was blocked for violation of the revert limitation for 1 month: [12], which soon followed by a block for sockpuppetry. Also, civility is another problem with Meowy. He was recently banned from commenting on any boards, if the discussed issue has no relation to him. [13] Despite all this, he continues the same problematic behavior. He removed large content from Khojaly massacre 3 times within one week without any consensus at talk with other involved editors. Please see diffs above. This is a clear violation of his revert limitation, which allows him to make only 1 rv per week. In addition, he removed postings by other users with incivil comments: [14] He also removes warnings with the same type of comments: [15] I think the above violations require that Meowy is banned indefinitely from Armenia-Azerbaijan related topics. Grandmaster 08:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[16]

Discussion concerning Meowy

Statement by Meowy

I am sorry about that - I did not realise I had previously removed that section within the last 7 days. I cannot now reverse the edit, since the section has been already restored. However, that section does cover a BLP issue [17] [18] that involved material being added to the article that had previously been removed from the Seyran Ohanyan article because it contained unverified extreme allegations about war crimes. So my edit was not some needless, flippant reverting. If administrators were as concientious about patrolling the BLP message boards and enforcing Wikipedia's general BLP policies as they were about enforcing decisions against individuals, that section would not have been there for me to want to remove. Meowy 18:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed Grandmmaster's "he removed postings by other users with incivil comments" claim. This refers to my removal [19] of a flippant and pointless post made by Jarhed on the BLP noticeboard that had said "Frankly, I don't even know where Azerbaijani is, and I can't summon up any reason to care about it". Jarhed has prior history of making bizarre edits during the previous BLP issue about Ohanyan, such as altering the context of editors' posts by moving them around and labeling them "partisan ranting", as well as receiving a warning about making a personal attack against me [20], and then saying he doesn't "give a fig about wikipedia proceedings or formal complaints". I don't think anyone could disagree that the jarhed post I removed was malicious, made with the intent of disrupting a legitimate BLP posting, and that (given its content and its position, right under the initial posting about the issue being raised) it was appropriate to remove it. I don't know why Jarhed decided to make such a post in a thread about a serious issue like war crimes - acting the idiot is as fair an explanation as any. Meowy 22:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Meowy

Meowy's edits are quite justified in the instances highlighted by Grandmaster above. There has been almost a concerted effort to label the current defense minister of Armenia, Seyran Ohanyan, as a war criminal on his article on Wikipedia, on the flimsy basis of an pseudo-investigation by an Azerbaijani parliamentary group. Thankfully, in early January, third party editors dissuaded editors from adding such information on a living person's page on Wikipedia (see here), without any reliable sources.

It might be helpful to draw the administrators' attention to an astonishing event that occurred in early 2007 to the Turkish historian,

The insinuation here is obvious yet subtle - mentioning Ohanyan and elements of the the 366th regiment as participants in an attack that killed several civilians, without any reliable source to point to, is clearly meant to besmirch his own reputation. Constantly adding such information is disingenuous and, who knows, it might even lead to a repeat of the Akcam fiasco. Meowy is correct here in removing information which can potentially be viewed as libel and, in this case, he is removing incendiary information that can lead to confusion in the real world. It's unfortunate to see to what extremes certain editors will go to block an editor who has otherwise contributed and greatly enriched the articles found here. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather more serious than the killing of "several civilians" - which makes the issue of the content that I removed, content that weasily implied (without actually saying it, since no supporting source exists) a named individual's involvement in a serious war crime, one that needs the attention of a competant administrator. Meowy 18:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the content disputes can be a justification for repeated and deliberate removal of a large section from the article, considering that there was no consensus for its removal and that even uninvolved third party editors watching the article told the editors to reach consensus before making significant changes. Yet Meowy chose to edit war, despite his numerous prior blocks for the same violation. As for the content removed by Meowy, the information provided by MarshallBagramyan is not accurate. There are sources that mention the role of the 366th regiment in the massacre, and participation of this unit in the attack on the town is not disputed by anyone. And no, nowhere does the article say that Ohanyan took part in the massacre, it only mentions a well known and undisputed fact that after the regiment was withdrawn from the region some of its personel, including Ohanyan, stayed. That is nowhere near a BLP issue. And I cannot see any possible justification for removal of comments by other users, and extremely incivil edit summaries that accompanied that removal. Grandmaster 20:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the massacre, it is not about the attack on the town. Apart from the two incidents being separate in time and location, the massacre is a possible war crime under international laws, the attack on the town is not - it was completely acceptable given that town was legitimate military target.
The content I removed was weasily worded to imply that a named individual was involved in committing a serious war crime. Resolving BLP issues do not require consensus. That I removed that content 4 days after my previous removal of it is factually correct, as I have admitted. I thought the time span was longer than 4 days - my mistake. That violation was not intentional on my part, and I would have reverted my edit if it had not already been reverted. I have concern that this BLP violation continues unchecked by administrators, while the editor who has just been doing what an administrator should have been doing - trying to remove the violation - will be punished. Meowy 22:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content was removed 3 times, not twice. And removed content included not just info about Ohanyan, which btw does not violate BLP rules, as it only mentions that this person stayed behind after the regiment was withdrawn, but also a large section about the role of the Soviet 366th regiment, which cannot be a BLP issue, as the 366th regiment was not a living person. How can you explain such a removal without any consensus? You said in your edit summary that you were "Erasing off-topic and slanderous "role of 366th regiment of CIS army" section" [22], so clearly this was not about the line that you claim was a BLP issue, as you removed a much larger content, supported by multiple sources. Grandmaster 07:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Meowy

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

This is a content dispute. There are evidently sources that look like they might be reliable. This needs to be discussed and decided using normal dispute resolution. Revert warring is not allowed, especially by an editor previously placed on 1RR. The same editor, Meowy, was last time blocked for a month, and caught socking during the block. Meowy has a very long block log. It seems like it is now time for lengthy block. Jehochman ^Talk 12:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked for one year, the maximum allowed. Jehochman ^Talk 13:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning PCPP

User requesting enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

PCPP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong#Neutral_point_of_view

1. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong#Consensus
2. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong#Point_of_view_editing

Diffs

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

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

The user's editing pattern involves:

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

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

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

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

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

1. Article:

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

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

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

The diffs:[23] [24][25][26][27][28].

Concerns raised regarding this behavior, on the talk page[29][30] is met with no response from PCPP, other than repeated blanking.

Together with the blanking, supported by neither discussion nor edit summary, the user distorts the lead of the article. The statement sourced to Congressional Executive Report on China, 2008: “This entity was charged with the mission of overseeing and carrying out the persecution of Falun Gong, which commenced on July 22, 1999.”, is distorted by the user to “It is responsible for monitoring, studying and analyzing matters relating to Falun Gong, and recommending policy measures for against Falun Gong, and also what the government calls "heretical cults" and "harmful qigong organisations"; and for promptly notifying municipal party committees of trends and developments within "cults".”[31]. The commentary added by the user is mis-attributed and not supported by any source.

2. Article:

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

Shortly following the expansion and addition of sources to

The above was preceded by a similar blanking of content here. Before this, an editor who has continually supported, worked with, and encouraged PCPP, blanks a portion of the content added to the article[32] with an argument to the effect that its good enough for the article to remain a “catalogue.”

4. Article:

Nature of disruption: Whole-scale blanking

In the same article, the user, despite attempts to engage him in discussion, continues to blank a quarter of the article - 10K of content. He attacks the sources themselves, alleging their origin in US makes them anti-China and hence not RS. Kindly review the comments regarding this on talk:[33]. The blanking takes place in these edits: [34]

5. Article: Falun Gong

Nature of Disruption: Blanking.

Three paragraphs deleted with no explanation offered.[35].

6. Article: Falun Gong

Blanks almost the same content as above , this time labeling the sources “questionable” in the edit summary – no supporting discussion on talk. [36]. Concerns raised regarding this can be seen on talk of the article:[37]

7. Article:

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

Content removed in edits with misleading edit summaries: [38]

8. Article: Mass line

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

Adds several paragraphs of unsourced content [39]. And here he reverts ( with misleading edit summaries) contributions by other editors removing well sourced and centrally relevant content[40] ( he offers no explanation for his blanking). The issue was raised here on the talk of the article: [41]

9. Article:

'Nature of disruption: Removes an entire section.

Edit summary makes no mention of it and no discussion on talk. [42]

10. Article:

Comparatively minor disruptions such as repetitive changing of “Persection of Falun Gong” ( term used by academic sources, HRW, UN, Amnesty, US Congress reports, etc) to “Banning of Falun Gong”[43] [44][45]. Attempts to get the user to present a rationale for his insistence on using the word “ban” can be seen here: [46]

11. Article: Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

Blanks a para while falsely claiming in his edit summary that the content he blanked is a “misattribution”:[47]

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

The editor routinely attacks sources which do not align with his POV. Here, as a justification of his blanking of content from that source, the user attacks a Freedom House article by China expert Kurlantzick with claims that : "a) is not a suitable academic source as most of its material relies on original research b) is from an organization funded by the US government, and the countries reported happened to be political opponents of the US c) used as such that claims made by the report is presented as factual evidence in disproportionate amounts"[48] and here he attacks a Reporters Sans Frontiers source on 'grounds' that: " A bunch of rhetorics froma CIA funded organization can hardly meet WP:RS"[49]. The user continues to blank the Freedom House material despite RS discussion[50]. The user also continually engages in personal attack on those attempting to contribute to the article.

--

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

PCPP also repeatedly changes the words from sources to weaken or distort the claims they make, the case often being the latter - distortion of the perspective of the source. These edits he labels: "clarifying", "per WP:NPOV", etc.[51],[52],[53]. In all these cases, the sources said those precise words as were in the article. He provides no other explanation for the changes he makes to them.

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

In addition, I would also like to draw attention to a systematic blanking of critical content and images on articles related to the CPP and its human rights violations which, I notice, has been happening on articles throughout wikipedia. Academic and news sources state that the Chinese Communist Party employs an army, hundreds of thousands strong, targeting Web 2.0 technologies such as Wikipedia, Twitter and youtube[54]. My intent is not to imply that editors involved in such removal of material are all directly related to the CCP, but, to point out that the presence of research and reports, which uncover such activism by CCP’s propaganda departments, makes the issue deserving of further attention of the Wikipedia Community. I humbly request a careful analysis of the issue be done, before any judgment is made on the merits of this concern I raise, and if evidence is found of such activity, the necessary steps be taken to counter it. A lot of evidence exists in Falun Gong related pages themselves. For instance, the Persecution of Falun Gong article has had almost all information regarding the persecution( sourced to Amnesty, HRW, UN CAT, Congressional Executive Reports, academic sources, etc.) , blanked from it. Blanking has been done to the point that in the lead of the article itself, it is made to seem as if this major international crisis is but a mere claim made by practitioners. I point out the issue here on talk[55] In the past, these articles have witnessed attack from self-declared propagandists such as User:Bobby_fletcher. Identified by David Kilgour, and David Matas, and articles such as the ones here: [56][ http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2436], as a major online activist for the CCP, “Bobbly Fletcher” engaged in presenting CCP propaganda on talk, de-tracking discussions, removal of content from the articles, etc. His presence on Wikipedia, and his disruptive activities were continually encouraged and supported by User:PCPP, who himself, as evidence above clearly demonstrates, has blanked vast amounts of info critical of the CCP from these articles.

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

1. [57] Warning by TheSoundAndTheFury (talk · contribs)
2. [58] Warning by Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs)
3. [59] Warning by Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs)
4. [60] Warning by
   talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA
   )
5. [61] Warning by
   talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA
   ) # [<Diff>] Warning by [[User:<Username>|<Username>]] ([[User talk:<Username>|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<Username>|contribs]] · [[Special:Log/block/<Username>|blocks]] · [[Special:Log/protect/<Username>|protections]] · [[Special:Log/delete/<Username>|deletions]] · [[Special:Log/move/<Username>|page moves]] · [[Special:Log/rights/<Username>|rights]] · [[Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/<Username>|RfA]])

The name of the body draws from of its date of formation: June 10, 1999. According to the 2008 Congressional Executive Commission Report on China, the 6-10 Offices maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) facilities, where Falun Gong practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong."[1]

I summarized the statement into proper English, which is perfectly acceptable within editing guidelines. When Dilip doesn't agree with with such changes, he reverts the entire article, along with everything else that goes along with it.

2-5)

Dilip himself added a large amount of questionable statements from a single unverified source from a political website [62], and completely destroyed the POV balance of the article. The only source I ended up removing was his; which is neither peer-reviewed or have any results on google scholar per

5-6)

That was a content dispute between me and another editor. I've since discussed with the editor, [63] who agreed that my edits has merits.

7)

All I did was shuffle a couple of paragraphs around and removed one sentence that is not relevent to the article topic. I only edited that article once, and was immediatle reverted by asdfg in its entirity. [64]

8)

Asdfg removed a large amount of material regarding Maoism, including the template and two web sources[65]. I restored the sources and properly attributed them.

9)

And ignore the fact that I added a large amount of info regarding the thought reform movement. The source I removed was from 1969 and no longer up to date, and contradicted by the info I added. I even searched google scholar for asdfg's claims, and found nothing as it claimed.

10)

The terminology itself was highly disputed, the sources themselves didn't even come to an conclusion, and an AFD on the terminology didn't even come to a clear concensus [66]. I referred to the Chinese's government's official label of the campaign per

11)

The source is disputed on talk page [67] and reached the concensus that it is misattributed.

12)

I am within my right to question such sources per

I find the current situation utterly ridiculous. No matter what I add, the FLG camp always find minor excuses over a couple of paragraphs or labels, and revert my edits entirely because of it. Dilip himself has a habit of disappearing for months, completely ignore the changes and concensus that has since ocurred, and revert back to his preferred version with little discussion. It's even more ludicrous that I have to document every change to single-purpose accounts that are used to promot Falun Gong.--PCPP (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning PCPP

Comment by Asdfg12345

PCPP focuses on picking apart the contributions of others, and watering down the parts that aren't too friendly to the Chinese Communist Party. His behaviour is consistently destructive, and it, along with the explicit and implicit support he receives for it, has seriously eroded my will to contribute to this project (among other things.) Recently he has refined his methods, too. Instead of outright blanking, he just blanks some parts and weakens others; instead of saying nothing, he says a few perfunctory words and discredits the other editors intentions; instead of doing zero research, he does a bit. He is a drag on contributing, and exerts a net negative influence. He only destroys the value of others' contributions, rather than bringing his own ideas and sources to the table and working together for how to incorporate the different viewpoints. He only says the viewpoint of this or that scholar (it would seem, actually, every scholar who has documented the crimes of the CCP) is POV and tries to delete it or weaken it, without any regard for NPOV, which calls for all significant views to be represented. He has recently deleted swathes of material from several articles, then writes misleading edit summaries and notes on the talk page. What's even more bizarre is how the editors calling for my downfall don't care when he does this stuff. It's a bit farcical. I have left maybe a dozen notes to PCPP saying how I would like to work with him, asking him to explain himself, asking him to bring sources to the table that support the POV he wants to see introduced. But he doesn't play ball and just rebukes it all, going right ahead with the deletions and whatnot. It's a very effective technique, to be honest. At the very least, it's dampened my usually boundless enthusiasm--at least enough to take a break from all this for a while. I'll be back, but hopefully he won't be around. (Note: if he changed his approach and started doing research, and discussed his changes nicely, I would love to work with him. He has robust opinions on these subjects that, if sources can be found to support them, need to be represented and explained. But his focus on destroying my work really gets to me. I asked him to just paste onto the talk page stuff he deletes from now on. Maybe that will help. Though his deletions of any mention of the word "indoctrination" or "struggle session" goes on.) --Asdfg12345 05:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by PhilKnight

The only relevant evidence is that which relates to the Falun Gong. The rest could be relevant to the user conduct Request for Comment, but shouldn't be listed here. PhilKnight (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Epeefleche

The nom raises some points here that deserve close examination (which I've not had time for at the moment), and if which accurate should likely be addressed in some manner, though I agree with Phil that the only relevant information is that which relates to the Falun Gong, which does not appear to be the focus of many of the above diffs.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning PCPP

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

• I would propose a topic ban of two weeks from
  uw-sanctions}} left for PCPP, which is a prerequisite for discretionary sanctions to be applied. I have left it now, but unless there is further inappropriate behaviour, the request will be closed with no action. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 11 March 2010 (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 Dilip rajeev

User requesting enforcement:
Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:

• article probation. It is expected that the articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources
  . The articles may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review. Passed 7 to 1 at 06:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)"
• 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

I really don't have the patience for this any longer; I have already given up editing Falun Gong articles. Nevertheless, I would re-open this previously filed request hoping that something be done about that user's persistent Falun Gong advocacy, NPOV editing and aggressive edit-warring. This is particularly important because the disruption has now spilled over onto, and threatens to poison the editing ambiance at, all articles which touch upon the

This renewed request is updated with the latest evidence of highly disruptive behaviour by Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs), who has been editing almost exclusively Falun Gong articles, or those which touch upon Falun Gong - namely Propaganda on the People's Republic of China - since February 2006. In fact, my previous AE request was against him failed; the closing admin commented:

In my experience, rajeev has shown

Dilip rajeev's stated view that nothing from the Chinese authorities is worthy of citing because it is

Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs) has a habit of disappearing (i.e. not editing in article space or talk space) for weeks or months on end. When he returns, he frequently reverts to the last version he feels comfortable with irrespective of the individual merits of each of the changes because the changes which took place were not to his liking. In view of his return and his manifestly unrepentant behaviour, I would reopen the case, seeking an indefinite site ban. Such reverts are usually done without due reference to the discussions which have taken place during his absence.

Today, he hypocritically initiated an AE case against same (see above).

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

1. Dilip rajeev block log
2. Inactive user account 001 block log

• He was given this final warning on 16 May 2009.

Enforcement action requested (

I believe that, in view of his continued disruption and the total lack of any mitigating collaborative successes, an indefinite ban from Wikipedia would now be in order.

Dilip rajeev is a Falun Gong practitioner, and edits Falun Gong articles

disruptive tactics and tendentious editing. These 1 2

attempts (amongst others) by fellow activist asdfg to rein him in have never had much effect.

It has now been demonstrated that Dilip rajeev is a dedicated Falun Gong

habitual disruptive editor whose aggressive and partisan edits have been the subject of numerous comments and complaints from other users, including fellow practitioner User:asdfg12345. Dilip rajeev has been warned repeatedly against edit-warring, and has been blocked a number of times - the last time was a 3 month topic ban; prior to that was a block of 55 hours. He does not appear to have learned anything,nor does he seem to realise that he narrowly escaped sanction by making an opportune disappearance from Wikipedia. I believe it is now time to send the message that such behaviour is not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dilip_rajeev&diff=348906563&oldid=348567851

Discussion concerning Dilip rajeev

Statement by Dilip rajeev

I have done few edits after the same user filed a similar case against me in which I was found innocent. I wont say much here except that I have not edit warred on any of these pages. I am given all kinds of labels from "vandal" to "sockpuppet" by these users attacking me. I merely request that I may please be judged by my contributions, by the diffs, by the content I have contributed to wikpedia - not by claims, not substantiated by any evidence, from those who seek to impose these labels on me. What he presents as "Evidence of edit warring" is PCPP's whole-scale blanking of content which happened between my contributions. And there are no multiple reverts from my side.

I was among the first to draw editors attention, and collect sources to improve that article which was almost completely ignored[68]. Based on painstaking research, I made significant contributions to the article which, back then, carried almost no sourced content: [69]

The original state of the article was: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Propaganda_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China&oldid=327853510

After my contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Propaganda_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China&oldid=346242792

( The above is the only set of major edits I have done since the same user filed a AE against me in which I was found innocent )

The above contributions were labelled "vandalism" and "NPOV editing" by PCPP and his supporter OhConfucious. One of the first paragraphs of sourced content added to the article was blanked by Ohconfucius with a personal attack on me, the editor who contributed the content. His sole explanation for blanking ran: "rv Dilip rajeev - there is nothing wrong with it[the article] being a catalogue; just don't bring your Falun Gong agenda here". The material he blanks and attacks me for adding can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Propaganda_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China&action=historysubmit&diff=342416447&oldid=342311517

PCPP barged in and blanked all the content I added, and with no explanation. So obviously that edit ( for which he gave no explanation) was reverted me ( no multiple reverts -a single revert, and asking for an explanation from him). OhConfucius attempts to present this the other way round. I hope admins will take a careful look and see through the smoke created by these fake allegations.

Since a similar case filed by Ohconfucius, in which I was not found guilty, the above is the only major set of edits I have done. Regarding the intro I added, a full explanation can be seen here.[70] I did not do multiple reverts when the material I considered a superset of the current info in the article was removed - but strove to explain my additions section by section. I absolutely did not engage in any repetitive reverts or edit warring. A full explanation of the intro can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong#Regarding_the_intro

And "Inactive user account" was not "blocked". The user is repeating this allegation against me despite several clarifications I have made before. It was an alternate account I used to contribute to that article ( and all my contribution there were all based on the best available sources such as BBC, The Times, Guardian, DTV, Bayerstein, etc. And I had made significant contributions in terms of content there. I may please be observed that the sole reason I was attacked was that my contributions conflicted with the POV of certain users). The account was and renamed under the suggestion of an admin, to protect my privacy( it being a very sensitive topic in certain regions in India) when it was compromised. Also, I have not been active on the article for several months now. These are non-existent issues that the user frequently rakes up to attack me.

On the 6-10 Office article, I have absolutely not engaged in any edit-warring. I had raised legitimate concerns regarding PCPP's repetitive blanking of material sourced to Congressional Executive Reports, and distortion of sourced content in the lead. It is the very same issue I present in the AE case against PCPP above that Ohconfucius distorts to make it seems as if I am blanking PCPP:

1. Article:

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

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

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

The diffs:[71] [72][73][74][75][76].

Concerns raised regarding this behavior, on the talk page[77][78] is met with no response from PCPP, other than repeated blanking.

Together with the blanking, supported by neither discussion nor edit summary, the user distorts the lead of the article. The statement sourced to Congressional Executive Report on China, 2008: “This entity was charged with the mission of overseeing and carrying out the persecution of Falun Gong, which commenced on July 22, 1999.”, is distorted by the user to “It is responsible for monitoring, studying and analyzing matters relating to Falun Gong, and recommending policy measures for against Falun Gong, and also what the government calls "heretical cults" and "harmful qigong organisations"; and for promptly notifying municipal party committees of trends and developments within "cults".”[79]. The commentary added by the user is mis-attributed and not supported by any source.

Further, I would like to humbly request that if the charges made against me are seen to be baseless, appropriate disciplinary action be taken against these users who've been hounding me around wikipedia and making contributing to these pages almost impossible.

This case shortly follows my presenting a detailed case, with plenty evidence, against PCPP. In my experience, such attacks serve as a mechanism for attention-diversion. Making it seem as if it is a mere to-and-fro exchange of accusations. Hence, I request admins to take a deep, solid look at the evidence I present above.

In summary, I would like to point out:

• I have not done multiple reverts to any page. I had made clear my rationale for changes on talk, and have not, even for a single additional time, attempted to push any major change, when countered by another editor. On the Persecution of Falun Gong page, I explain the paragraphs I later added fully on talk.

• On the 6-10 article, and
  Propaganda in the People's Republic of China
  , I request that my contributions be fully analyzed and then I be judged. I have not engaged in any contentious editing, and have not "warred" with any other user. On the other hand, I have contributed significant to these pages with sources of central relevance. All these content were blanked by PCPP. I have remained absolutely civil despite it, and did not engage in any repetitive revert or edit warring. The users channel attention to two edits which span months, in their attempt to put these labels on me - top make it seems as if I disruptively revert to old versions. I request I be judged by the entire history of my contributions.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Dilip rajeev

Comment by Epeefleche

Obviously, this is outrageous behavior. Just the sort that eats up valuable constructive editor time, without good reason, and poisons the project. I fully support the nomination, and urge that action be taken.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Asdfg12345

Whether Dilip has recently engaged in edit warring should be able to be easily verified. I have looked at the pages in question and it seems obvious to me that he has not. Check the recent shamozzle at the persecution page, for example. He only did one revert to an old version, then rewrote the lead. That was reverted then the page was locked. Two changes, not one a revert. So, that's not edit warring. If you look at the talk page, it's clear he's also trying to engage in discussion.

Similarly for the 610 Office, page. Just look at the history. That's like, two reverts/edits over a couple of days? And what was the substance of those changes? Adding back in a few paragraphs of sourced material and deleting some unsourced material. And it was all discussed on the talk page, but PCPP did not join in. This is typical. The same thing can be found at Mass line. At the 610 office article, another outside editor has now come in to revert PCPP.

Same again for the propaganda in the PRC page. Check the history and it becomes clear who is being destructive. I don't think Dilip has done a single revert on that page at all. Meanwhile, PCPP has deleted 10kb from the page calling it "POV"! It's a wonder that Ohconfucius does not spread his righteous indignation around a bit more.

Overall, this seems to be an issue of editing dynamics and attitudes. It won't work to single one person out, and banning individuals when the evidence against them is summed up seems boneheaded, too. A recent, very clear illustration of how this is about attitudes is to be found on the Falun Gong talk page. Olaf Stephanos made some suggestions, and Mrund sought to dismiss and marginalise Olaf. A non-partisan editor went ahead with a few of the changes, which were not outrageous at all. In fact, they were just questions. So the whole atmosphere is really, really hostile. For the record, I disagree with Dilip, and other editors, on any number of content issues. But I don't think people should be banned unless it's clear they're exhibiting bad faith and behaving destructively. I don't think either of those is the case for Dilip.

There does not appear to be recent evidence (say, since mid-Feb) that Dilip has editwarred on any of the pages he has edited. Further, the nature of his edits is to add information and research. No claims have been made that Dilip has added information outside its prominence in reliable sources (i.e., actually violating WP:UNDUE), simply that he added information critical of the CCP. PCPP, on the other hand, has repeatedly edit warred to push his POV, and rather than adding any research, he just destroys the research of others. But anyway, I'm sorry to say it, but these cases seem to be as much about politics and image as they are about evidence. If Ohconfucius et al can make it look like they are a group of editors neutral on this subject, and Dilip is the pariah who relentlessly pushes his POV, then they win. That's what happened the last several times. --Asdfg12345 06:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Another point I would make is that while some of Ohconfucius's points have merit, most of it is rhetoric recycled from other spaces and times past, replayed here without recent diffs to back it up. Ohconfucius and I are good Wiki-friends by the way (seriously). --Asdfg12345 06:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that my remark is not blanket support for the editor in question. I want to emphasise that if the case is judged on recent contributions, since his long absence, then I don't think there's much to go on, and this case could have been opened without any reference to his recent edits. If this is supposed to address things he has done in the past though, that is different. My only other point would be that the user should be given a chance to correct his mistakes. He has been editing for about the last month now, with no edit warring or other infractions. If I was bringing an AE case against him, I would wait until he actually misbehaves now rather than seeking retribution for bygone sins. And I think it would be unfair not to note whether the user's patterns and attitude had changed since his absence. --Asdfg12345 02:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• To Jayen466: Yes, his massive revert was extreme, but there had been no editing on that page for months. He did a bold edit, and when it was wound back he did not seek to keep putting it in. Dilip has only recently started working towards consensus in discussions; but the same can't even be said for people like Colipon, Mrund etc. They blatantly attack anyone perceived as putting in things that make Falun Gong "look good." But they are quite content to be representatives of among the most cynical and negative anti-Falun Gong points of view. Filling the pages with bad things is okay, but putting in good things is bad. If you let either of these groups of editors have free reign on the pages they will turn it into their version of the truth. The anti-Falun Gong artists have done that quite successfully, all the while marginalising anyone who complains. It's high hypocrisy. Anyway, Dilip has not edit warred recently so there is no basis for this case. I suggest editors learn to work together rather than single out people they don't like, slap them with labels, then try to get them banned. --Asdfg12345 23:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mrund

I am convinced that an indefinite site ban would be the most productive way to deal with Dilip rajeev. Dilip is a vandal and a propagandist SPA. He adds little or nothing of independent value, and he eats up enormous amounts of other contributors' wikilabour that could be put to much better use for the project. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by HappyInGeneral

This is funny, check the number of edits Ohconfucius did to the article, then let's see who is

Every few weeks Dilip reverts back to an older version, and he demands that other editors justify why his edits are wrong. That's placing WP:BRD completely upside-down, and he has done it so many times that he no longer has the excuse that he didn't know how to discuss in wikipedia. This is worsened by the pro-FG editors who revert back to Dilip's version and make the same demands. That is absolutely discouraging for the rest of editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Seb az86556

Those who want the situation in the proverbial nutshell, read Enric's statement above; fully endorse it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Colipon

Wikipedia administration: please settle this matter once and for all. The four aforementioned users have been using these Falun Gong articles as a battleground for years on end and apparently no one here gives enough of a damn to ban them all from the site. The evidence has been crystal clear and given no short of 20 times by various users and on various wikipedia dispute resolution venues. Scour through their contributions and it is immediately clear that their mission here is not to create an encyclopedia but to advocate for a cause - and be destructive while doing it.

I was once 'an outsider' to the Falun Gong articles. I hate the subject, I hate editing it, and I hate arguing about it. I now regret clicking that edit button when I saw the article was basically being used as a piece of Falun Gong promotional material. Falun Gong has been, without doubt, the worst experience I have ever had on this encyclopedia. At numerous points I have contemplated quitting Wikipedia altogether because of these articles on Falun Gong. They not only highlight the ineffectiveness of dispute resolution, but severely undermines the integrity and credibility of Wikipedia.

Scientology has already set a precedent that this encyclopedia should have a zero-tolerance policy on new religious movements trying to paint themselves favorably, and Falun Gong articles are not any different. Anyone who edits Falun Gong to push for a point of view, and edits exclusively Falun Gong should be banned from the site for good - not some 6-month topic ban with the naive assumption that somehow this behavior would 'change' at the expiration of the ban. As we've seen, and as OhConfucius has pointed out - these SPA's editing now stretches to the 'second stage' of Falun Gong advocacy; i.e. when they are banned from Falun Gong, they edit against anything to do with the Communist Party of China. These are not edits in good faith and all of these edits should be stopped by imposing an indefinite site ban akin to those on Scientology. This is within the spirit of the arbcom decision and in line with Wikipedia's general principles. Administrators, this cannot go on. Do something about it. Colipon+(Talk) 15:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jayen466

I will try to comment in more detail later on, when I have more time, but will say now that DR's edits have often been extreme and have consistently caused me concern, both in the Falun Gong and the Sai Baba topic areas. I would certainly support a topic ban restricting him to talk pages at this time. I'd have to look at his recent contributions in more detail before I could say whether a site ban is appropriate. --JN466 00:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that Ohconfucius was the lead editor in taking the Falun Gong-related Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident article to FA status.
• A recent deep revert by Dilip Rajeev in Persecution of Falun Gong [80] turned the article into a piece of advocacy.
• This recent edit in the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident FA [81] turned the first paragraph of the lead into a very one-sided piece of advocacy.

This is a highly contested topic area, and it is to be expected that editors with very diverse viewpoints participate. There are definite POV problems with editors on the other side of the debate too, trying to minimise the appalling persecution Falun Gong practitioners have suffered in China for the past decade, or wishing to deny that there is any persecution at all. However, Dilip Rajeev has not struck me as an editor who has been particularly good at, or interested in, working with opposing editors to build talk page consensus. --JN466 11:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Asdfg12345

I agree it is undesirable to have all editors from one side of a POV debate topic-banned. But if you edit essentially as a single-purpose account [82][83], Wikipedia requires you to be particularly circumspect about your POV. The way not to get topic-banned as a single-purpose account is to learn to

write for the enemy, rather than insisting that every edit one makes benefit one's own group. I see absolutely no evidence of this here. --JN466 12:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Dilip rajeev has unceasingly been a ultrapro-Falun Gong SPA. He leaves for periods of times and then comes back for a bunch of reverts. I suggest that dilip be banned indefinitely from all Falun Gong related topics.--Edward130603 (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by PCPP

Dilip is the type of editor that takes

Dilip has previously received 5 blocks and countless warnings [87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95]on 3RR violations, disruptive editing, and edit warring previously on Falun Gong articles [96], previously operated two blocked socks [97] responsible for edit warring on Sathya Sai Baba [98]. He was also warned on inserting POV material on the Sai Baba articles [99] in disregard of arbcom sanctions. After his many violations of wikipedia guidelines, it's really time to draw the line. Samuel Luo and Tomananda, dedicated anti-FLG activists, were indefinitely blocked because of similar revert behavior, while FLG editors Olaf, Happyingeneral and asdfg were given lengthy article bans for their activism. I fail to understand why Dilip, who's editing behavior is more severe than all other combined, is kept given second and third chances because of his habit to disappear.--PCPP (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a moment's pause by SilkTork

There is a dialogue taking place on Jayen466's talkpage and a reasonable suggestion by Jayen that a moderated discussion take place. If Dilip_rajeev's concerns are legitimate they deserve to be closely examined. Sometimes people do not handle themselves as well as they might, and may well be disruptive; but that does not mean their concerns are not legitimate. I'd be more comfortable if we spent a little while fully investigating Dilip_rajeev's concerns in a non-threatening and impartial manner. If only one of Dilip_rajeev's concerns turn out to have some basis in fact, that will strengthen the article, and if they don't, and Dilip_rajeev has been through a fair and impartial review of his concerns, I feel that Dilip_rajeev will voluntarily withdraw from disruptive editing, so there will be no need for a "topic ban" that can be too easily subverted anyway. I am aware that moderated discussions do not always work; however, I am motivated by some of the comments that Dilip_rajeev has made on Jayen466's talkpage to feel that Dilip_rajeev will engage intelligently and honestly in a moderated discussion. Of course, having made this request, I feel I must offer myself as moderator. I suggest that if the discussion breaks down, that Dilip_rajeev is returned here, and the topic ban in enforced. SilkTork *^YES! 12:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Dilip rajeev

The sanction referred to has been rescinded. Therefore this report is not actionable. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(The article probation was not lifted, it was changed to

standard discretionary sanctions, see motion. The report should be actionable under those.) --Enric Naval (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Has the user been put on notice of the discretionary sanctions? What sanctions have been imposed, by whom, and when? Also, I do not propose to indefinitely block anyone here; that should go to

WP:ANI. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

This is so ^*^($# confusing. Probation, no probation, discretionary sanctions, is all Greek to me. What's notice of discretionary sanctions? This is such a collosal waste of time, as I spent one whole morning filing the case. Am I wrong to have brought the case here? I don't want to be given the run-around, so kindly tell me where I should go to get what the community wants. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, he hadn't been warned, I hsve left him a uw-sanctions template[100]. Anyways, the desired outcome here would be an indefinite topic ban from Falun Gong topic. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be an indefinite ban from the encyclopedia - as his edits on Sai Baba etc. have also been very contentious and destructive. Colipon+(Talk) 22:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Standard discretionary sanctions are in effect; he was also specifically warned about this behavior the last time he was brought to AE and was not sanctioned only because he promised not to continue these large reverts every time he pops up. Obviously he hasn't been able to stop that tendency, so I would suggest a break from the topic area is in order. Shell ^babelfish 12:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to warning, my view is that if the sanction being contemplated would be authorized under the old article probation, and the editor has notice of that probation, an additional warning by {{

talk) 16:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• As it looks like you are now contemplating a temporary topic ban, I would ask for the 'topic' be broadened to include any article which concerns the People's Republic of China, for the reasons stated above. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(

talk) 07:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Is ANI the place to go for that? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the community can do that. Barring any objections, I'm planning to impose the topic ban in 24 hours.

talk) 17:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it would be reasonable to widen the topic ban to everything that has implications with Falun Gong - which is consistent with the spirit of the Arbitration decision - zero tolerance on advocacy and using Wikipedia as a battleground on both sides of the FLG-PRC equation. This common-sense approach means that "Propaganda in the PRC" article would be part of the topic ban, but "Chinese food" will not. "Propaganda of PRC" has been fertile breeding ground for Falun Gong activists since their narrow "topic ban" from strictly Falun Gong articles, but it is unmistakably Falun Gong activism that's taking advantage of this 'topic ban' technicality.

From discretionary sanctions: "The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors;". It is without a doubt that "Propaganda in the PRC" is within the "area of conflict" - not to mention that it is central to Falun Gong advocacy. Thus I think the rationale is very clear to support a wider ban that's within the realm of discretionary sanctions. Colipon+(Talk) 01:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should hold off a little longer. The dispute surrounding Falun Gong and the People's Republic of China has been a longstanding one, and I believe the entire situation needs wider community input, which it is at present failing to attract. I would oppose banning Dilip Rajeev from Falun Gong talk pages, and the best way forward for the encyclopedia's content quality may be moderated discussions away from article space. We are dealing with important issues here; see e.g. this New York Times article. --JN466 09:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. Also per SilkTork, I'll hold on the topic ban. Since reverts seem to be the problem, what about an indefinite 0RR restriction on FLG-related articles?

talk) 12:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I have left a message on Dilip rajeev's talkpage regarding the offer of a moderated discussion: User_talk:Dilip_rajeev#Moderated_discussion. My message includes links to the appropriate sanctions, and a warning that failing to adhere to the points raised in those sanctions will result in a return here for a topic ban. I have given examples of some of the behaviours that would result in a return here, and that includes reverting. The matter is now in Dilip rajeev's own hands. I hope Dilip rajeev will take up the offer of the discussion so we can look into his concerns, but if he decides not to and instead returns to reverting or edit warring, then that will be his choice, and he is fully aware of the consequences. SilkTork *^YES! 14:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any other articles I would have supported less stringent restrictions. But Falun Gong, this is just naive. Nothing good will come out of it. That article has been the battleground between Falun Gong and PRC supporters for years. But it's clear that the Communist Party has lost that war long, long ago, and they have never been taken that seriously anyway. The anti-Falun Gong users who have been banned as a result of the arbitration, interestingly, were not actually Communist Party supporters. Merely a few people who, in my view, felt that Falun Gong was promoting hatred of homosexuals and whose had very negative personal experiences with Falun Gong. Of course, I support their indefinite ban - because they have become too emotionally invested in the subject to edit or discuss objectively. After the ban of all "Anti-Falun Gong" editors, what resulted is a group of strengthened Falun Gong advocates who seize on the situation to turn those articles into Falun Gong propaganda pamphlets, not the least by arousing sympathy from the plight of Falun Gong within China. These editors have grew extremely sophisticated with their editing tactics over the years and now cite wikipolicies whenever possible while skirting the real pillars of Wikipedia - most notably WP:NPOV. These articles were essentially destroyed until July 2009, when Olaf Stephanos was banned. Since then the article has seen marked improvements - and in January 2010, two other SPAs, HappyInGeneral and Asdfg12345, have also been topic banned. Dilip Rajeev is the last SPA who have not been sanctioned with the topic ban, and it's safe to say that he is the worst of the four, which makes this situation rather humorous. I guess it really highlights the sophistication of Dilip's gaming-the-system tactics and his deep understanding on how to use wikipedia's policies to justify his advocacy. For that, kudos to him. I will be happy to engage in discussion with users who are not emotionally invested in this issue. But I refuse to do it with Falun Gong SPAs because I know their primary interest is to promote Falun Gong, not edit an encyclopedia. My past discussions with these users have all been consistently fruitless, and as new users enter Falun Gong wikispace they often feel so intimidated by the poisoned environment that they leave within a month. I hope the administrators truly understand the magnitude of the abuse this encyclopedia has suffered at the hands of Falun Gong advocates, and do something substantial to stop it once and for all. Colipon+(Talk) 15:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I've already given up with

WP:AGF after Dilip's history of hostilities against me and other editors [101] [102] [103] [104] [105], basically dismissing anything that does not suit his POV as "CCP propaganda". Even behind all these guise of "discussion", Dilip's still trying to subvert consensus and restored merged articles [106].--PCPP (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Without further ado, I have opened a case at ANI. Nevertheless, if anything can be done here, I would ask that it be considered. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "kindly tell me where I should go to get what the community wants" -- please don't try this one on. It's not what "the community wants," it's what you and a few others who want to crucify Dilip want. --Asdfg12345 23:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats a lot of "few others". Maybe it is a representation of the community?--Edward130603 (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, don't mind asdfg, he's in cynical mode. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Cs32en

User requesting enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

Cs32en (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

Diffs

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

1. [107] "Cinnamon Stillwell is a neo-conservative political activist, not an independent observer, and the text is an opinion piece." More anti-conservative push (reverting for the sake of reverting a conservative).
2. [108] "Her writing is not based on journalistic independence, but on a political agenda." More disagreements with conservative views. (Hell, I'm as liberal as they come and I see no issue with her.)
3. [109] "This article is not the place to promote the agenda of neo-conservative activists"... clear intentions provided here. Beliefs do not constitute verifiability nor does it disparage them.
4. [110] More defending of conspiracies.
5. [111] "The reaction of "some" Palestinians and Serbians in not notable in the context of this article." Anything that differs from his opinion goes, apparently.
6. [112] See above.
7. [113] See above.
8. [114] "Therefore, arguing that Ahmadinejad does not know anything about 9/11, and for this reason we don't include his statement in the article, misses the point." Eh, weak argument.
9. (Added post-initial filing 07:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)) Talk Page of the 9/11 attacks
10. (Added post-initial filing 07:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)) Reverting my closure of a discussion after I felt consensus was reached. I normally wouldn't do something like this, but I have employed the option multiple times on this page, with it typically closing the argument and preventing further attacks/surges of conspiracy. We do not censor or even try to censor the viewpoint, as we often direct them to the conspiracy article.

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

1. A previous enforcement case
2. [115] Warning by Turian (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (

other sanction

)

A one week block alongside an indefinite topic ban on anything related to September 11th.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[116]

Discussion concerning Cs32en

Statement by Cs32en

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

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

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

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

My edits at September 11 attacks

As Turian (talk · contribs) is claiming that my editing on Wikipedia is about pushing conspiracies, I'd like to provide my edits at September 11 attacks during the last few months (the edits mentioned by Turian above, i.e. #1, #5, #6, and #7, are not included):

• 14:46, December 9, 2009 Adjusting piped link.
• 14:57, December 9, 2009 Reducing overlinking. Direct link to National Mall and to pepper spray. CNN does not need to be singled out.
• 16:20, December 9, 2009 [Correcting mistake in link syntax.]
• 19:20, January 23, 2010 the Capitol, the meeting place of the United States Congress, or the White House
• 15:04, February 25, 2010 Islamic extremism has its own article. (Removing link from "Islamist extremists" to "Islam".)
• 15:07, February 25, 2010 Removing "as a false flag in order to gain popular support for military and police expansion". This is only one of the motives that have been suggested.
• 15:14, February 25, 2010 "Due to lack of results" is unsourced speculation. Antagonism surfaced due to the predominantly military response, the Iraq War that was seen an unrelated to 9/11, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo etc. [Removing synthesis.]
• 21:09, March 1, 2010 (Undid revision 347151625 by Jonund (talk) User:Jonund incorrectly implied existing consensus on the talk page for his edit. Undoing the edit to encourage consensus-based solution. [There is now broad consensus on the talk page for the removal of this content.]
• 21:54, March 1, 2010 {{
  Undue-section}} [Tagging the section. ClovisPt (talk · contribs) removed much of the section in a subsequent edit
  . Broad talk page consensus on this as well.]

In early January, I have created the article Camp Chapman attack, which appeared on Did you know? on January 10. As I have written almost all of the content of this article, it may be a useful example to assess my editing.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does having good edits give you the right to push fringe theories? I am sure we can do without your "good" edits as long as your fringe edits are no longer allowed. –Turian (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have raised concerns about specific edits in your request above. I have provided a specific explanation for each of these edits. Then, you have stated that my edits overall were somehow problematic. I then have listed all my edits to the September 11 attacks article in the last few months to provide a basis for others to evaluate them. Which are the fringe edits that you are referring to?  Cs32en Talk to me  17:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I listed and your talk page obstruction of process. And your explanations were hardly sound at all. You have caused too much trouble in the past, and yet you continue to do it even though people have told you to stop. –Turian (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Cs32en

Comment by Mbz1

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

Comment by Sandstein

Could the requesting editor please annotate the request so as to explain how, specifically, each of the diffs provided violates "the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process" (

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

Thanks. After some review, I am inclined to agree with Wildbear below and to decline enforcement action. This appears to be an attempt to win a content dispute via AE.

dispute resolution. The edits are not prima facie disruptive, they are reasonably well explained by Cs32en above in terms of relevant editing policies, and the arguments made against them in the terms of these policies are weak, and often assume bad faith ("anti-conservative push", "defending of conspiracies"). That is not to say that these edits are correct either as a matter of content or conduct (I take no position on that), only that they are not misconduct warranting sanctions. Rather, they are indicative of content disagreements that ought to be worked out through normal channels.  Sandstein  06:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

Comment by Rklawton

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

I did not "launch into an edit war". Actually, I did not edit war at all. I have removed the opinion piece in this edit and removed the unnecessary fact tag in this subsequent edit (no edits in between), and I haven't edited that section of the article since then.

I did not argue that the author of the article would push a political agenda because she argues against conspiracy theories. Indeed, many people do this, including many journalists. The author of this opinion piece, however, identifies herself as "the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the foreign policy think tank directed by Daniel Pipes, the Middle East Forum" and, according to her website, is the "founder of the 9/11 Neocons, an online discussion group" (see the author's website).  Cs32en Talk to me  16:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...which does not detract from her work to discredit conspiracy theorists. The fact is, you deleted this reference from a non-political article because of her political affiliations, and that's blatantly wrong. Rklawton (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Wildbear

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

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

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

Comment by ClovisPt

After reading/re-reading the edits provided above as examples of Cs32en's supposedly problematic editing style, I don't see a clear attempt to push an agenda. Several of these edits are judgment calls about the relative notability of various items in the September 11 attacks article, which is always difficult when one is dealing with the main page of a complicated subject that spans many items. I especially don't see evidence of conspiracy pushing here. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the prior enforcement guidelines? –Turian (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories#Final_decision, right? I did read it. ClovisPt (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this. –Turian (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for that link. ClovisPt (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Cs32en

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

The submitter has unarchived this section because it was not closed. Unless other admins disagree, I intend to close it without action. The edits at issue are not obviously problematic, at least not to an extent that would merit sanctions. Whether or not they violate

This is ridiculous. So now, we have to deal with all of this conspiracy crap until arbitration gets involved? If nothing is done, then I will be requesting a new arbitration case, since the administrators are currently unable to handle/enforce the prior arbitration. –Turian (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absent opposition, closing per above.  Sandstein  13:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]