Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Casliber (
talk ·
contribs) 01:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Mythdon (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Mythdon_admonished
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
I can't see how anything short of a longer block is going to convince the user to engage in hte community in a proactive and not combative manner.
Additional comments by
Casliber (
talk ·
contribs):
<Your text>
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a
diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.
All I have to say is that I already struck the comment. No further action is needed. Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 01:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Andy Walsh
(talk) 03:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Pmanderson (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Pmanderson_topic_banned,
Subsequent motion; See notes below.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable.
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
I request that the 12 month topic ban from all MoS pages and their accompanying discussions be restored on PMAnderson, since he has demonstrated that he cannot control his rhetoric.
Additional comments by
Andy Walsh
(talk):
In
this motion, PMAnderson was allowed back on the MoS pages (except for ones related to date linking) with the caveat that "All editors whose restrictions are being narrowed are reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in their editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion". Despite statements that he was
""not planning to return for a while, even if this amendment passes" PMAnderson immediately returned to the MoS pages after his restriction was narrowed and began a campaign of aggressive and incivil rhetoric. Regrettably, all the examples I cite above are within 24 or 48 hours of his restriction being narrowed.
In the interest of disclosure, I have had occasional disagreements with PMA in the past but they were never incivil, and they are so long ago that I can't find the diffs. I was not party to the date delinking case nor did I even comment on it. I also acknowledge that PMA does bring some good ideas to the table, and is capable of rational, civil discussion when he chooses to. However, he doesn't choose to often enough.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[11]
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 23:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Pedrito (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria#Pedrito_restricted
Pedrito has been indefinitely banned from Israel-Palestine conflict-related articles.
9) Pedrito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable.
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
block.
Additional comments by
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk:
There's room to inspect the activity of the notified editor.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Notified -
[14].
untwirl( talk) 18:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)"As a general comment, I am opposing the talk page participation of everyone involved. I would like to see these editors return to being involved in related discussions, as they are knowledgeable and valued, but I believe that we need to give the community the ability to enter this topical area, review the lingering debates and unsolved mysterious omissions, and if necessary restart old discussions which have been improperly handled in the past. Uninvolved people are more likely to do this if they are not going to be pounced upon by involved people. The uninvolved people may miss some crucial aspect that has already been discussed, however in that scenario, the restricted editors can still mention that on a user talk page of someone who is uninvolved. i.e. the prevention from entering "community discussion" would not extend to small comments directly to another user, however prolonged engagement in a discussion on a user talk would. Entering the fray of an existing user_talk discussion to support another editor would also. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)"
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Wikidemon (
talk) 15:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
ChildofMidnight (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#12.3.9 ChildofMidnight topic banned
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#12.3.13 ChildofMidnight and Scjessey restricted
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#12.3.14 ChildofMidnight and Wikidemon restricted
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Additional comments by
Wikidemon (
talk):
After posting similar screeds on his talk page and elsewhere
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45] without the Nazi references, ChildofMidnight was cautioned
[46] that rehashing the arbcom case on his talk page and mentioning me by name among his supposed stalkers and harassers were violations of the sanctions.
ChildofMidnight is again referring to me, ScJessey, Baseball Bugs, and Tarc as among his stalkers, harassers, bullies, censors, Nazis, etc. Here others opine that it is "heavily imlied" [47] and "anyone with at least a shred of familiarity with this case will know precisely to who[m]... [the Nazi references] refer to." [48] Here ChildofMidnight makes clear that I am one of "this small group of POV pushers" he means to compare with Nazis. [49] [50] In other instances, he has included Bigtimepeace, Wizardman, Arbcom generally, Jimbo, and others among the Obama-related censors.
These edits are also violations of his community sanction not to interact with Baseball Bugs (which is more specific as to prohibited conduct), and general behavioral policy (e.g. WP:NPA). Wikidemon ( talk) 15:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
CoM is deliberately pushing buttons to get a reaction, and he will continue to be inflammatory until he gets one. Why waste our time? Indef now, save us all a bunch of petty annoyance. The Nazi thing was the final straw, and though he removed the images, he failed to comply with NYB's unambiguous statement about the complete unacceptability of that sort of namecalling. Frankly, I would support an indef for any user making that sort of comparison; CoM's history of deliberate shit-stirring makes it that much easier. → ROUX ₪ 16:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I find gratuitous comparisons to Nazis particularly distasteful, as do many; if an editor with no history in this conflict is needed to refile this report on another board, I'll volunteer. Nathan T 20:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
User requesting enforcement:
MeteorMaker (
talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Jayjg (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria#Jayjg_restricted
Jayjg is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles [59].
For the purposes of editing restrictions in this case, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as it was defined in the Palestine-Israel articles case, encompassing the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, as well as any edits on the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict on any other article or talk page, or any other page throughout the project. [60]
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
""The Washington Times is a mouthpiece for the ultra conservative Republican right, unquestioning supporters of Israel's Likud government." [65]
"Lind writes that the most supportive members of Likud in the Republican Party are southern Christian fundamentalists. “The religious right believes that God gave all of Palestine to the Jews, and fundamentalist congregations spend millions to subsidise Jewish settlements in the occupied territories,” says Lind." [66]
[...] "the [Washington] Times editorial content is generally considered favorable toward Israel by pro-Israel activists." [67]
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable.
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Block
Additional comments by
MeteorMaker (
talk):
It would be helpful to know the exact boundaries of what the ArbCom (twice) has loosely defined as "the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, as well as any edits on the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict on any other article or talk page, or any other page throughout the project". Can topics such as Ahmadinejad, anti-Semitism, pro-Israel bias in media, the Qu'ran and different modern interpretations of what it says about Jews be discussed or not?
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a
diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.
From the late nineteenth century, as a direct result of European influence, movements appear among Muslims of which for the first time one can legitimately use the term anti-Semitic. Hostility to Jews had, of course, roots in the past, but in this era it assumed a new and radically different character...A specific campaign against Jews, expressed in the unmistakeable language of European Christian anti-Semitism, first appeared among (Middle Eastern) Christians in the nineteenth century, and developed among Christians and then Muslims in the twentieth....The first anti-Semitic tracts in Arabic appeared toward the end of the nineteenth century. They were translated from French originals - part of the literature of the Dreyfus controversy. [emphasis added]
I don't find these charges to have particular merit. More significantly, I am concerned that User:MeteorMaker has returned to Wikipedia after a several month hiatus apparently for the sole purpose of getting Jayjg sanctioned or banned. This is, at best, extremely unhelpful. Also troubling is the use of the phrase "Jews (and by extension, Israelis)" as pointed out above. 84.228.230.47 ( talk) 18:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
This is completely absurd, and does a disservice both to Jay and Wikipedia. You cannot contort language and reason to bring issues like antisemitism and Holocaust denial within a narrow category of "Israel-Palestinian conflict". Those who assert this is not a "get Jay" vendetta protest too much. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I am closing this request without action because the discussion is starting to become unhelpful and because consensus (among uninvolved admins, at least, and notably including two arbitrators) is that the edits - including edit 4 - did not violate the topic ban. However, FT2 and arbitrator Coren have cautioned Jayjg that, in FT2's words, "Jayjg should continue to take care, and should avoid or consult if there is a serious concern an edit may stray over the line." Sandstein 21:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Leatherstocking (
talk) 05:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
SlimVirgin (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Post-decision motion passed
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable.
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Topic ban.
Additional comments by
Leatherstocking (
talk):
An important tenet of
Wikipedia:Biographies of living people is
WP:BLP#Criticism and praise. In my view the various LaRouche articles have been fairly well balanced and stable for a substantial period of time. There are published sources available which contain both extravagant praise and extravagant criticism of LaRouche, but the articles were not dominated by either.
Beginning on August 28, SlimVirgin began a series of controversial edits, 69 of them at last count, despite the "controversial" tag on the talk page which asks that controversial edits be discussed in advance. The edits are so numerous that it is difficult to unravel the overarching trend. However, the examples that I have given characteristic. The general effect of these edits has been to eliminate well-sourced material that presents LaRouche in a favorable light, while giving disproportionate amounts of space to highly derogatory criticism from obscure individuals, in a manner that overwhelms the article and appears to take sides.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
notification diff
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Ohconfucius (
talk) 02:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Dilip rajeev (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Dilip rajeev (
talk ·
contribs) has been editing Falun Gong articles (almost exclusively)
since February 2006. He has a habit of disappearing (i.e. not editing in article space or talk space) for weeks on end. When he returns, he frequently reverts to the last version he feels comfortable with irrespective of the individual merits of each of the changes because the changes which took place were not to his liking. Such reverts are usually done without due reference to the discussions which have taken place during his absence. Some diffs immediately below, show this modus operandi
His habit of making radical reverts is a matter of historical record. Some examples of this tendency are below:
For myself and a number of neutral editors who have joined the Falun Gong wikiproject, Dilip's latest reverts to the 'Self Immolation' and 'Organ harvesting' articles have become the last straw in our tolerance of his disruptive behaviour.
The following is a brief history of the significant edits which took place after the article was declared a Good Article through collaborative work by me and User:asdfg12345. The radical changes put through by Dilip rajeev to a good article were all done within a period of about a week, without prior substantive discussion to speak of:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
He is a
habitual disruptive editor whose aggressive and partisan edits have been the subject of numerous comments and complaints from other users, including fellow practitioner
User:asdfg12345. Dilip rajeev has been warned repeatedly against edit-warring, and has been blocked a number of times - the
last time was a 3 month topic ban; prior to that was a block of 55 hours. I believe that, in view of his continued disruption since the topic ban and the total lack of any mitigating collaborative successes, an indefinite ban from Wikipedia editing Falun Gong-related articles or their talk pages. would be in order; he should also be banned from any edit which potentially touches on Falun Gong, for example on the
Communist Party of China,
Jiang Zemin,
Cult suicide,
Censorship in the People's Republic of China etc.
In view of his disruption at Sathya Sai Baba articles as demonstrated above, as well as by User:Radiantenergy below, I request a ban on editing of all articles related to same to minimise Dilip rajeev's disruption to the project overall, and serve to protect his personal safety and that of his family against the wrath of Baba supporters. I also request that he should also be banned from any edit which potentially touches on Sathya Sai Baba. This would appear to be justified as Baba is another 'hot topic' which has already been the subject of two Arbcom cases.
There is a protracted, large-scale propaganda war between the spiritual movement and the Chinese regime. The polariation makes it much, much harder to deal with, as there are activists on both sides. Both sides use exaggerated 'evidence', borrowed 'experts', sensationalist claims and other forms of propaganda to attack each other. "NPOV" becomes very delicate - as both sides clearly have an agenda against the other, there will be routine disruptions from both sides. No revision of articles is ever stable.
The propaganda war manifested itself on Wikipedia in 2006, with anti-Falun Gong activists and pro-Falun Gong practitioners constantly opposing each other and engaging in disruptive editing. To my knowledge, after arbitration, all of the anti-FLG editors (Sam Luo, Tomanada, etc.) were banished. As a result, since June 2007 and until mediation in July 2009, the Falun Gong family of articles have become unmistakably dominated by pro-Falun Gong activists. These articles all suffer from serious POV issues heavily biased in favour of Falun Gong, and are used as direct advocacy for the Falun Gong movement; users from all backgrounds (including those who are anti-Chinese gov't) have raised concerns - but all have been either discouraged by the drama, or their attempts at other means of dispute resolution have failed.
Dilip rajeev is a Falun Gong practitioner, and edits Falun Gong articles almost exclusively since 2006 along with a team of 3 other very easily identifiable FLG activist editors - asdfg12345 ( talk · contribs), Olaf Stephanos ( talk · contribs), and HappyInGeneral ( talk · contribs). After the ban of Anti-FLG users Sam Luo and Tomanada, this group of Falun Gong practitioners have seemingly taken over all Falun Gong-related articles. All four users, to varying degrees, erase critical content, engage in lengthy advocacy commentary on talk pages, tag-team against other editors. Rajeev in particular shows very little respect for any users who wish to bring balance to articles, by sundry disruptive tactics and tendentious editing. These 1
In my experience, Rajeev has shown great animosity when non-FG devotees edit this article. There has been a long history of unchecked edit warring, even over the placement of {{ NPOV}} tags. Such tags are routinely removed (as here) with not so much as a 'how do you do', as if the contents suddenly become neutral when the tag disappears. Reverts are usually very provocatively done - blind and wholescale, often destroying many intervening edits which have accurate and well-reasoned edit summaries - and any ensuing discussion makes clear that the user is always 'right' and anyone who opposes him 'wrong'. Anything which is sourced from sources he approves of have a right to stay and any sources he disapproves of are "CCP propaganda" or somesuch. Dilip rajeev's tendency to introduce ironic quotes (like here) and weasel words are already mentioned above. Not only is he completely and blindly partisan, Dilip rajeev often expresses points of view which are unique; his style and content introduced have been frowned upon from time to time by most others, and also by asdfg.
In all Falun Gong articles, misrepresentation of sources has been endemic, and these four abovenamed editors are known to back up each other's problematic edits. They occasionally concede when it is clearly demonstrated that misrepresentations exist. However, more often than not, the neutralising revision provokes another flurry of introducing "highly sourced material" ostensibly to 'restore balance', but which usually tilt bias back in favour of Falun Gong; some such introductions give their cause the last word. Adding, removing, restructuring, moving, or otherwise changing any material that appears to upset the pro-FG bias in any of the articles is met with the same tactics.
Dilip rajeev's stated view that nothing from the Chinese authorities is worthy of citing because it is unreliable propaganda demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of what is WP:NPOV. He is known to endlessly pontificate on moral questions, and lawyer around citing paragraphs of WP:RS and WP:NPOV to support whatever position he favours in regards to a certain link or source. He maintains a website which he uses as Falun Gong advocacy. It seems that he passionately believes the persecution of Falun gong practitioners at the hands of the Chinese authorities, and is unable to put these views to one side when he is editing; and when he edits, it is with such great fervour and aggression that leaves little or no place for others who wish to contribute.
I would add that the above edits from the 'self-immolation' article demonstrate a pattern of behaviour which can be seen throughout his editing in FGverse. Whilst there is nothing inherently wrong with inserting text favouring one viewpoint, to continue to do so and to ignore the other viewpoints (and all those who support it) when an article manifestly lacks balance is problematic. There are numerous discussions in which he openly advocates Falun Gong, the principles of "truthfulness, compassion and forbearance". He appears only to able to observe only twoone of the three 'virtues' ("truthfulness"), and even so, he appears to do it with his rose-coloured spectacles.
Arbcom will already know about sockpuppet account. From this, it can be seen how he ran User:Inactive user account 001, the sock apparently to protect himself against members of the Baba cult.
After said sock account was blocked, he continued to repeatedly edit war at Sathya Sai Baba
Dilip rajeev creates an ambiance of intolerance and hostility, leaving behind a trail of breaches of WP:NPOV, 3RR and other guidelines wherever he goes. He is responsible, in whole or in part, for driving away a number of neutral editors from the Falun Gong articles. His editing Sathya Sai Baba demonstrate his propensity to be controversial; his forays there are nothing short of spectacular drama. He has demonstrated that he is incapable of working with others who do not share the same views as himself, and I am regrettably of the conclusion, after observing numerous attempts by myself and other editors to discuss, negotiate and mediate, and after many months of suffering his various antics and POV-pushing, that Wikipedia is best off without him. A wholescale indefinite ban is warranted to end this editor's disruption of wikipedia, once and for all. Ohconfucius ( talk) 02:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Ohconfucius ( talk) 04:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Arbitration enforcement
From: oh confucius ([email protected])
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 4:19:41 AM
To: [email protected]
I wish to inform you that an arbitration enforcement case concerning your behaviour has been filed here.
I continue to be baffled by the discussion below concerning the scope of authority of admins in this matter. I would just point out that in January 2008, Dilip rajeev was topic banned for 3 months without coming to AE; prior to that was a block of 55 hours. Olaf Stephanos was also given a 6 month topic ban recently here at AE for just such a violation. Ohconfucius ( talk) 17:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Per Shell's comment, I have now realised that Samuel Luo was only topic banned indefinitely, but though it was a site ban. I have now amended the request above. Ohconfucius ( talk) 01:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Reaction to asdfg's comments: My only ideology is WP:NPOV. If Dilip's latest reverts to the 'Self Immolation' and 'Organ harvesting' articles are part of Dilip's latest "improvements", I would hate to see what getting worse is like. He may be good at sourcing, but note that he frequently hides behind the "highly sourced material" as defense against removing any text which he wants to stay. Ohconfucius ( talk) 13:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, a lot of accusations and all of them absolutely baseless.
I'll start with the sock accusation regarding the Sai Baba page. The "Sai Baba" topic being an extremely sensitive topic here in India, and any criticism of which could potentially result in threat on my safety as well as my family's safety, I had wanted anonymity when contributing to the pages( Ref: BBC Documentary, Secret Swami)( Even 70 year olds have been attacked in the very state where I live for exposing critical information on this person.) All my contributions there has been well sourced - to the BBC, The Times, The Guardian, The DTV, etc. It was a legitimate alternate account. Admins had also agreed there was no evidence of abusive socking from that account. Further, I had informed the arbcom, in a mail in February, regarding the account.
A newly registered editor, wanting to find out the real identity of the alternate account, started an SPA case against me - admins who were mislead by the manner in which the user presented the case initially mistook my account for a sock, revealing the identity of my alternate account. Shortly following this revelation of info, people related to the sai baba group had a large scale attack launched against me on several blogs and website.
Admins suggested that I rename the original alternate account and I did. That I "returned to edit warring" on the pages is a baseless mis-characterization. It is not uncommon on wikipedia for editors to get cornered and attacked when their contributions are not in- line with other's POV.
The above user had attacked me with claims along the same lines here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dilip_rajeev/Archive
And he was clearly told by the admins that I had not operated any abusive socks.
The article had remained stable in this version for over a year : http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident&oldid=300212095
The above User, Ohconfucius, came and and reverted it to a two year old revision - ignoring the pages of discussion that resulted in the newer version.
The user refuses to focus on the content being blanked out by his revision while attacking, personally, editors like me who bring up concerns on such a revert - chosing to base it ona "good article" comment.
The information and sources that got blanked out in the revert to the two year old version includes:
And above are among the best sources and most notable sources available to us on the topic.
None of this removal was on the basis of any consensus. I had raised my concerns to the effect on talk, pointed things out clearly, requested that if any well sourced info from the two year old version ( which is extremely biased on builds on CCP propaganda ) be missing in the newer version, it be identified and incorporated into the newer article. PLease see my comment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident#Carification_from_Dilip
I attempted a single revert to the stable version with the comment: "Please see talk page. The revision of the stable article to a two year old version, with no consensus/discussion, had blanked of several prominent 3rd party sources. Kindly see talk."
I was quickly reverted back by the above user, who, refusing to focus on the content, cast a set of baseless, distorted and misleading accusations against me. I refrained from any further revert to avoid a meaningless revert war.
It is true that I reverted to an approx. 10 day old version. But I was unaware of the discussions going on talk when I did the revert. Over 40 KB of centrally relevant, well sourced information as from Amnesty, Kilgour Matas, US COngress, etc., I had noticed, was removed in a series of edits. All images on the pages, showing statistic from the KM reports etc. had gotten removed as well.
I brought up the issue on the main page of Falun Gong article. I reproduce my comments, requesting admin attention, in their entirety below. I had pointed out I did the revert and was requesting admin attention to the revert as well as to the current state of affairs in the article.
Requesting admin attention on the organharvesting sub-page
Kindly review the flurry of changes that have happened in the the past couple of weeks: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China&diff=309220914&oldid=309152359
A 66 KB article, every sentence in which had been highly sourced, has got reduced to a 26 Kb stub. Could admins kindly review such changes - the article comes under the probation placed by the ArbCom on these pages.
I have attempted to restore the page as of around Aug 8th, when this flurry of removal started -and not just info sourced to Amnesty, Congressional Reports, Kilgour Matas reports, etc. have been blanked out but several centrally relevant images from the KM reports have been blanked out as well.
Requesting kind attention on the issue. Dilip rajeev ( talk) 09:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Kindly see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident#Carification_from_Dilip. The page was reverted to a two year old revision - in the process blanking out several pages of content sourced to western academia. I merely restored this removal of info on a stable article, requesting that we discuss and make changes based on consensus - incorporating stuff from the two year old revision that might be missing in the stable article. While the user accuses me of "blanking two weeks of work" on The Tiananmenn square page, he choses to ignore that what I did was merely undo the user's revert to a two year old version ( an edit that ignored completely years' of work on the page).
I request admins to kindly go through/ compare the revisions and see for themselves.
The same pattern has occured on almost all related pages - and by the same set of users in the past two weeks. Li Hongzhi article has had info removed , addition of several paras of info irreleavent to the individual's notability, in violation of WP:BLP , etc. Persecution of Falun Gong article has undergone such changes as well.
I'd also like to point out that these flurry of changes started at around the same time as these comments were made by the same users involved in the changes. The "discussion" and "consensus" that resulted in the removal of all this info has been largely between the editors engaged in the below exchanges.
- Seb az86556 on Ohconfucius' talk page: "you did well in keeping the this Olaf-guy at bay, and I can see now why the Falun Gong thing you emailed about will be "total war"..." [81]
- Colipon on Edward130603's talk page: "Anyway, do you have e-mail?" [82]
- Colipon on Mrund's talk page: "I'd sent you an e-mail today. Please check! :)" [83]
- Ohconfucius on Mrund's talk page: "I'm glad you're back. Drop me an email, I'd like a private chat with you." [84]
I'd also like to point out that am not accusing all editors involved in the conversation. Mrund, for instance, just received these comments on talk and there is little evidence of him being involved in the recent removal of info on these pages.
As regards the removal of info on a 66KB stable article - reducing it to a 26 KB article, another stable page being reverted to a two year old revision ,etc. I'd like to point out that the very majority of info removed in the process are material centrally relevant- sourced to western academia, Human rights bodies, etc. - Amnesty, AP, Congressional Reports, a Yale Univ Thesis, Kilgour Matas Reports,etc. I point this out because, in the past, we have witnessed such blanking being covered up by claims to the effect that it was primary sources such as ET or Faluninfo.net that was removed. Demonstratably, and very clearly, it is reliable 3rd party sources being blanked out here. In all of these pages, primary sources such as Faluinfo.net are very sparingly used ( despite that they are identified as being reliable by scholars such as David Ownby.)
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 11:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I was reverted by Ohconfucius , whose edit summary ran: "rvv - where's the discussion?". I pointed out I had brought up the issue on the main page [85]. When I was reverted again, I refrained from doing any more reverts, again to avoid an unnecessary edit war and thought would bring up the issue in detail on the article's talk when I find more time.
The 10 day old version I reverted to is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China&oldid=309225056 ( 66KB article, content stable for a almost a year )
The version from which I reverted ( the current version, after removal of 40 K info and ALL images) is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China&oldid=309223036 ( 26 KB article )
If reviewing admins even causally compare the two versions, what motivated me to attempt restore all the info removed would be apparent.
I cannot express how much I appreciate User:DilipRajeev's effort to copy his rant verbatim to here, it makes life so much easier. As he himself said it, he was unaware of the talk page discussions (which should mean he is aware now?) and reverted a whole bunch of well discussed changes on the organ harvesting page. That itself is typical of WP:OWN behaviour, which seemed pandemic across all the FLG pages. But not only that presumably after he has become aware of the discussions he did not revert back his own edit, did not participate in the discussion, and instead posted a long winded rant on an unrelated page requesting admin intervention. The same thing happened last time I dealt with him, moving the issue right up to the WP:AN/I, accusing me of "adding in material from a clearly propagandistic video", "vandalism", "dis-information", the lot, while we were carrying out a conversation to resolve the matter. This, in my opinion, is clearly disruptive, inflammatory (that incident partly caused my hiatus on Wikipedia) and completely without remorse. -- antilived T | C | G 09:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Response to Asdfg12345 If by having an ideology of that an encyclopedia should have a neutral point of view opposes Dilip's ideology, I'll gladly be his "ideological opponent" (unless you are accusing every one of us being CCP propagandists?). The only criteria for his edits is to improve the outlook of FLG in Wikipedia articles (I can go add lots and lots of poorly written, poorly sourced text that praises FLG and he'd have no problems for it). By his criteria there can never be enough "discussion" to warrant a change that puts FLG in a more negative light (although I can hardly say it's specific to him, it's certainly the most prominent).
a small side-note: Asdfg12345 raises a good issue here, it's quite obvious that all the people that regard Dilip highly are FLG-practitioners. Maybe it IS an ideological issue after all? -- antilived T | C | G 07:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Dilip rajeev states that he was unaware of discussions going on in talk when he reverted two weeks worth of good-faith collaborative edits. He could have investigated it and being the one who performed the revert, he should have created such a discussion, but he did not. Because this is not the first time he has done so, it is far too late to claim ignorance as a defense. I don't know what to make of this. I suppose it's possible, as Ohconfucius writes, that he's a devoted Falun Gong practitioner who cannot bear to see other sources represented and therefore acts in this way. What I can say is that it's disrupting a volatile subject matter. The terms in which he defends himself above are sadly typical. The edits made are "attacks", he is being "attacked" when demands are made that he follow WP:BRD or WP:NPOV. Such partisan behavior can be handled on many subject matters, but in the Falun Gong articles, on probation, with a very strong partisan conflict between the Chinese Communist Part and Falun Gong, it is extremely disruptive. I'm sorry to say that I believe the editing climate on these pages will be improved without the poorly-motivated reverts and deletions repeatedly made by Dilip rajeev in the past. As a final note, I do not believe a blanket ban is necessary at this point - an indefinite subject ban from all articles on Falun Gong and possibly China subjects would allow the editor to grow into a well-rounded, constructive Wikipedia contributor in areas where he can maintain a semblance of objectivity. / Per Edman 09:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Confirming that there is a group of editors resisting the insertion of any criticism in Falun Gong articles, that this has stalled editors who keep trying to balance that articles (myself I tried to make a few changes), and that the articles have benefited from boldly ignoring unreasonable objections raised by these users. A topic ban of Dilip rajeev from anything related to Falun Gong would help improve those articles and would reduce the level of persistent advocacy. Topic ban should include making any edit that makes reference to Falun Gong stuff in any article or talk page in any namespace, broadly constructed. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 09:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
See clarification, admins can impose topic bans of their own. Can someone hand the topic ban to Dilip rajeev and close this? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 21:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I was involved in long term edit disputes with Dilip, who has has demonstrated his lack of good faith previously by:
Most of the other issues were already mentioned by Colipon and Ohconfucius above. Basically, his method of destructive editing involve:
Since mediators become involved in the FLG articles, the users of both sides have became more cooperative, and dilip's continued disruption and violation of the arbcom ruling damages on the mediation, and as such warrants a topic ban or block .-- PCPP ( talk) 10:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The best that can be said about Dilip rajeev, and the one thing that makes him only the second most disruptive editor on everything having to do with Falun Gong over the past few years, is that he isn't there all the time. His contributions take the form of drive-by shootings. He cares only about Falun Gong, which in his mind is all good and whose reputation must be boosted, and the Sai Baba cult, which he used to fight on Wikipedia. Dilip is not primarily interested in making a good encyclopedia. He actively disrupts attempts in that direction. I am not optimistic about his willingness or ability to do any productive work here. Martin Rundkvist ( talk) 13:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
It is not clear to me that this is a case for arbitration enforcement. Which remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong allows uninvolved administrators to enact the requested "indefinite ban from Wikipedia"? Unless this request is amended to cite an actual arbitration sanction or remedy that has been violated (as of this writing, it cites only principles enunciated by the Committee, which are not by themselves enforceable), it may be closed without action. Sandstein 15:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article probation, which has now been added to the request, places the article on article probation (which would allow topic bans by admins), but also states that "The articles may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review." I understand this to mean that under this remedy, any topic ban may only be imposed as a result of action by the Arbitration Committee. If so, admins on their own can't do anything here and a request to the Committee would be required. Sandstein 15:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
In reply to John Carter below and Ed Johnston on my talk page, yes, a case can be made that ArbCom meant to enact standard article probation, but if so, why the confusing extra text about review by the Committee? On the face of it, that would appear to be a lex specialis limiting the terms of article probation for this case. Absent clarification by the Committee, I am not ready to enact a sanction that is not authorized by the remedy (assuming any sanctions are required at all; I've not looked at the merits of this request). Sandstein 16:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I would support a topic ban or a block of Dilip rajeev. He is a disruptive editor and often edit wars to get his way. Dilip simply has no care for the good faith work of other editors if they don't match with his POV.
Sandstein, I think that the Article Probation remedy allows blocks/restricted editing for disruptive editors. -- Edward130603 ( talk) 15:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
This enforcement case has been out for quite a while now. Can a administrator come and close the case now?-- Edward130603 ( talk) 23:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I find it difficult to convince myself that a Francophone soccer-player, a piano-player from North Carolina, an archaeologist and convinced atheist, a Hong Kong resident, and an art-instructor with a staunch belief in Judeo-Christian deism would manage to agree on and produce one-sided, slanted revisions — unless one subscribes to the notion that all those who do not cheerfully support every source which celebrates the accomplishments and wisdom of a controversial religion must be part of a great heathen-conspiracy led by Hel and the time of Ragnarök has finally come to pass.
I have yet to become familiarized with the new rule which explains to the underlings exactly how long they would have to wait before Dilip descends from his watchtower to approve of the changes that had been thoroughly discussed before being implemented to the articles he apparently
owns. It becomes terribly frustrating when, upon finally coming to some agreements in the course of tough discussions, one knows that said debates take place under the auspice of an omnipresent divine eye that will fire its wrath-filled flames of destruction down to earth should the inferiors' actions fall into disfavor. Just as there should be no cabal, there should not be a god-like Übermensch with no need for explaining or justifying his actions, either — especially when he himself has been
warned and informed of the fact that not everyone in the pool of unworthy minions follows the creed of Dilipianity.
The behavior is clearly disruptive and violates remedy 1) of the Arbitration Case closed on 06:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC) which states "Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review". Seb az86556 ( talk) 15:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Sandstein is correct: as written, the remedy does not appear to support direct admin action, but asks for a review by the arbitration committee following a corresponding motion; bans or restrictions should result from such a review. -- JN 466 15:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The existing remedy includes a specific link to Wikipedia:General sanctions, which, in the second paragraph, specifically does allow for parties other than the ArbCom to impose general sanctions, although it also permits such sanctions to be revoked later if so desired. I have to assume that the presence of such a link indicates that it would be possible for uninvolved administrators to place sanctions, effectively at the community's request, on such topics. John Carter ( talk) 16:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
My comments are mainly procedural.
Thank you for considering my comments. -- Vassyana ( talk) 00:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Dilip Rajeev is a very difficult user to work with. He was the primary user that drove me away from working on Falun Gong articles in 2007. After my two-year hiatus from the FLG zone, my first attempts to make good faith changes over at ‘Organ Harvesting’ in July 2009 was directly met with a horde of personal accusations from dilip. Dilip’s style of disruptive editing and disrespect for users who do not share his POV has been a serious detriment to improvement to Falun Gong articles. Note in his defense, he writes “But I was unaware of the discussions going on talk when I did the revert.” I am baffled he is able to utter these words as a form of defence. This type of blatant disregard for other contributors' edits is not acceptable. He also often throws poorly argued but very offensive accusations at people who are displeased with his disruptive behaviour.
Although there seems to be an on-going debate about the semantics of sanctions, a long-term topic ban for Rajeev serves the basic spirit of the arbitration – that is, to foster a more cohesive and productive editing environment. Dilip’s past behaviour has undoubtedly turned away and frustrated many good faith editors and significantly hindered progress in the Falun Gong articles - to a degree no less severe than now topic-banned user Olaf Stephanos. Olaf and Dilip's argumentation on talk space differ in that Olaf responds directly to comments by other users while Dilip simply uses overarching statements to conclude that he is 'right', and then engages in edit-warring and reverts regardless of other users' input (as shown in evidence above) - this is the reason dilip has many more warnings against him than other Falun Gong SPAs. In all this adds up to make dilip the most destructive user on these articles. Similar to Olaf, if dilip was truly interested in working on the project rather than pushing his views on two controversial movements, he can still remain a valuable contributor outside the realm of Falun Gong and Sathya Sai Baba. Colipon+( Talk) 19:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I have n't followed the Falun Gong article closely. However I will like to share Dilip Rajeev's role in the Sathya Sai Baba article. Dilip Rajeev using the account 'White_Adept' added several unreliable sources and material banned by second arbitration commitee in the Sathya Sai Baba article since Jan 2009. He made 200+ edits in 10 days and changed a neutral article to NPOV nightmare. He always edit-warred with other editors who tried to remove the unreliable sources which he added. I had put an arbitration enforcement case here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive36#I_seek_Admin_help_in_this_case:_White_Adept_and_Arb.com_rulings where he was warned of sactions if he added questionable sources into the Sathya Sai Baba article.
Even after this case Dilip Rajeev still continued to add the same banned material in the sub-article '1993 murders in Prashanthi Nilayam'. I have always wondered why Dilip Rajeev was not afraid to break wikipedia rules or even arbitration enforcement rules. Many co-editors had become frustrated unable to stop his POV pushing and edit-warring in the Sathya Sai Baba article.
If you ask me if Dilip Rajeev disrupted the Sathya Sai Baba article? My answer is definite Yes. He did a lot of damage to that article. It has taken me and other editors almost 6 months to get rid of the unreliable sources Dilip Rajeev added into the Sathya Sai Baba article and bring it back to the original neutral state. Lately in the last 1 and 1/2 months after Dilip stopped interfering in the Sathya Sai Baba article the article has tremendously improved and has become more neutral and well balanced. I hope that the Sathya Sai Baba article will stay that way in the future instead of becoming a NPOV nightmare once again. Radiantenergy ( talk) 02:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, sometime in 2008 i came upon the Wikipedia Sathya Sai Baba page. The page at best was poorly written and lacked any real coherancy and information. Sometime later, in 2009 i read the page again and was disgusted with the way Sai Baba was presented. i know people have different opinions but it seems there lacked any human dignity or neutral presentation of a living person. That is when i signed up for a wikipedia account. 16:07, February 15, 2009 . i couldnt make any changes as the page had been blocked.
i'm not familiar Dilip Rajeev or his writing as he stopped around the time i began, but i do know the article in early 2009 was, in my opinion, horrendous. you will have to consult the history of the page to see who made the contributions.
J929 ( talk) 02:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been involved with these articles for a long time. I believe Dilip is editing in good faith. Much of the calls for a ban here come from Dilip's ideological opponents, who of course find his presence a nuisance. I agree that Dilip's editing is unthoughtful in the cited instances, and I don't know why he annoys people like that when he doesn't have to. On the other hand though, he is improving, and he has made good contributions to these pages in terms of research and finding sources, and that shouldn't be discounted. His once a fortnight changes that get reverted in ten seconds aren't what is making or breaking the editing environment on these pages--they are minor, and he only did it a couple of times, and I'm sure he won't keep doing them after this incident. He notes, in his defence, that he was undoing changes that he felt had been pushed through without discussion, and were often cases of vast deletions of material referenced to reliable sources. There is actually nothing wrong with doing this. This is merely the bold-revert-cycle. It would only be a problem if he edit-warred, and I see no evidence of that. Mostly this seems like a difference in taste. People disagree with each other all the time. There should be a plurality of views on wikipedia. If there was some genuinely disruptive activity coming from Dilip's corner I would want him banned too, but I don't see evidence of it.-- Asdfg 12345 18:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
It appears as if the editing climate surrounding Falun Gong articles is rather tense at this time and a lot of involved editors have been far too focused on each other rather than content. Maybe if a few uninvolved admins could put articles on this topic area on their watchlist and help keep the lid on any disruptive behavior, the editors involved in the dispute could be strongly encouraged to either work out their issues, or take a step back from the topic area for a while. Shell babelfish 02:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Tony
(talk) 10:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Pmanderson (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
I believe it is reasonable to widen Mr Anderson's topic ban to include
Naming Conventions and its talk page, to protect the project from incivility and disruption.
Additional comments by
Tony
(talk):
ArbCom's remedy did not include a topic ban on policy pages.
WP:Naming conventions is the only significant policy page related to article style, and the user is clearly (1) violating the remedy by making edits that change the relationship between that policy page and MoS, and (2) gaming ArbCom's remedy by using the talk page to denigrate MoS and its regular editors, while recently having been banned again from participation at MoS itself.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a
diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.
diff of notification
Tony
(talk) 10:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
This is an effort, like the previous request for arbitration enforcement against me, to use claims of incivility to silence a voice that simply disagrees with a guideline with which Tony has a strong emotional identification.
The way to get more respect for the "Manual of Style" is to write one worth having: one based on consensus, not on revert-warring; one based on English style guides, not on the opinions of a handful of Wikipedians who assert ownership of the page. This will never be done until more Wikipedians want one; but that does not change its condition; and criticisms of text are not criticisms of persons.
I would prefer a first-class MOS, which would be concise, contain only the guidance that was necessary for Wikipedia, reflect the consensus of Wikipedia as a whole, and be based on sources. That would be brief, coherent, and stable.
As for the claim made here, ArbCom decided while the full extent of the date-delinking decision was still in effect on everybody, that editing or discussing Naming Conventions had nothing to do with date-linking. The edit that gave rise to that discussion was my edit of the same clause now at issue.
I therefore request that if any administrative action be taken, it be taken against Tony1. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The reported diffs do not concern date (de)linking and thus do not violate Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Pmanderson topic banned. The "extension" of this topic ban at [99] does not appear to be provided for or allowed by any arbitration remedy or other Committee action. Such an extension would need to be made by the Committee itself, through motion or amendment. Because the extension is not founded on Committee authority, it is void and unenforceable, at any rate here at AE. This means that this request, in my opinion, is not actionable. If Pmanderson's editing is deemed to be problematic, I recommend requesting a community sanction on WP:ANI (after a WP:RFC/U) or Committee action. Sandstein 11:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Sandstein, if you believe that my decision based on the latest motion by the Committee (vis a vis re-widening the sanctions if the behavior became problematic) was incorrect it would be productive to bring up your concerns with me or the Committee. It seemed to me in reading the latest motion that several members of the committee specifically noted that a return to disruptive behavior would be looked upon badly and be reason for additional sanctions; I believe a "re-widening" was specifically mentioned but I'll have to go look through the discussion again. I could very well be misreading the intent of the motion, but only the committee could tell us that; snide comments here that you feel bounds were overstepped won't actually do anything to resolve any concerns you may have. Shell babelfish 02:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)