Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Wikipedia:AutoEd.

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Caucasian Albania article

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

Request concerning Caucasian Albania article

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Grandmaster 09:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Relevant article

Caucasian Albania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I would like to request an amendment to the remedy that was imposed on this article more than a year ago: [1]. I don't mind the first part of the remedy, which places the article on 1RR, but the second part I believe should be canceled. In my opinion, the sanctions imposed on Caucasian Albania clearly did not work. The situation in Caucasian Albania was in general similar to what was going on in Nagorno-Karabakh, where the new accounts waged an edit war, and which was placed on a different article level sanction: [2] The edit warring on both articles was started by User:Xebulon and his socks User:Vandorenfm and User:Gorzaim, as well as some other sock accounts. At that time Sandstein imposed a sanction that read: All editors with Armenia/Azerbaijan-related sanctions are banned from editing this article and its talk page. For the purposes of this ban, these editors are all who have at any time been the subject of remedies, blocks or other sanctions logged on the case pages WP:ARBAA or WP:ARBAA2, irrespective of whether or not these sanctions are still in force or whether they were imposed by the Arbitration Committee or by administrators. But since all long time editors in AA area were at some point under some sort of sanctions, this pretty much opened the doors for sock and meatpuppetry, since new accounts were not under any prior sanctions. The result is that the article reflects the views of the sockmaster, who was free to make any edits he wished, and established editors could not remove even unreferenced WP:OR claims. At the moment I cannot remove even obvious WP:OR statements introduced by the banned user: [3] Note that the line "Whether Arranian is related to Caucasian Albanian languages cannot be determined" is not supported by any source and contradicts the sources quoted in the article, but I had to roll myself back due to sanctions: [4] This is why the article about Caucasian Albania is in such a poor condition now. I believe what triggered the remedy in question were WP:AE requests by the sock account, who even managed to place an established user on a 1 year topic ban: [5] Note the complaint of the sock: The immediate concern is his editing of the article on Caucasian Albania, where User:Twilight Chill continues waging an edit war against 5 (five) other unrelated editors (Aram-van, Gorzaim, Vandorenfm, MarshallBagramyan, Xebulon). 4 of 5 accounts that he mentioned turned out later to be socks (User:Aram-van, User:Gorzaim, User:Vandorenfm, and User:Xebulon). Another request was filed on me: [6], and also on the sock itself: [7] I understand that admins at the time had no proof of sockpuppetry and assuming good faith believed that the editors filing complaints were genuine newcomers (even though some admins noted that the account filing complaint was suspicious), but considering that those accounts turned out later to be socks, I think the remedy needs to be reviewed. Therefore I think rather than banning everyone who has been under sanctions at some point in time (I myself was last sanctioned 5 years ago, and since then have no history of blocks, bans or any other sanctions), it would be better if established editors were treated on an individual basis. Many of the established editors have plenty of useful contributions in various areas, and excluding them from editing this article because of the old mistakes in my opinion is not fair. The immediate result of this remedy is that while most of the established users are excluded from editing, the sock accounts get unfair advantage and can freely make any controversial edits to this quite a contentious article in AA area. I believe at the moment it is enough to keep Caucasian Albania on 1RR per day for everyone who wishes to edit it. Grandmaster 09:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I should have used {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} template. I can resubmit, if needed. Grandmaster 10:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sandstein, thanks for providing your input. There are presently no disputes going on that article, so WP:DR is not useful here. I just see no reason why me or any other established editor should not be able to edit this article, if he was sanctioned at some point in time. I think it is wrong that a user is excluded from editing process just because he was placed on a revert restriction 5 years ago. Grandmaster 19:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Also note that this request does not concern only me personally, it pretty much concerns most experienced editors in AA area, because I don't think there are any who were not placed under sanctions at some point in time. With this remedy, they are all banned from editing this article, regardless if they actually did anything wrong there or not. If we compare this remedy with the 500 edit limit recently imposed on Nagorno-Karabakh, the latter does not ban the new accounts from actually editing the article, it only places them on 1RR until they gain a certain number of edits. The sanction on Caucasian Albania indef bans everybody who has been sanctioned from editing the article, without giving them any chance to make any contribution to it. This leaves the article to the new accounts, many of whom as it turned out were the socks of the banned users, and started the edit wars that led to this sanction. I don't think this helps to improve the quality of this article. Grandmaster 05:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The list of socks who edit warred on this article at the time the remedy was imposed: Aram-van (talk · contribs), Xebulon (talk · contribs), Gorzaim (talk · contribs), Vandorenfm (talk · contribs), Bars77 (talk · contribs), Rjbronn (talk · contribs) (the list may not be complete). The remedy did not address the sock activity in this article. I believe this was because at the time there was no solid proof of sockery. But in the light of what we know now, I think the amendment is necessary. Grandmaster 05:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Responding to this: [8] I find the accusation of Zimmarod to be a violation of WP:AGF. While reverting my edits, he made no attempt at discussion at talk of the article, to ask me any questions he may have had, but chose to take it here to make some bad faith accusations. The reason why I removed the links to online texts is that one of texts is just a chapter from a book, and that book is already listed in the bibliography, and the second one is an article also listed in bibliography. There's no point in listing the same books and articles twice. As for the online texts, they appear to be posted without any permission of the author, and one of the links is dead anyway. I don't think linking to copyvio is allowed. The result of this rv by Zimmarod: 1) repeated listing in bibliography; 2) restoration of a dead link, and a link to an apparent copyvio material. This may not be worthy of responding, but I see that this user is following my edits, and tries to make a big issue out of nothing. Grandmaster 08:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Unarchived, since the request was not formally closed. Grandmaster 08:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Notification of involved parties

Sandstein: [9], Caucasian Albania: [10]

Discussion concerning Caucasian Albania article

Statement by Sandstein

I do not find this request convincing. If there is indeed problematic editing of this article on the part of others, it is not clear how removing my sanction would prevent or counteract that. The appropriate reaction would instead be to initiate normal dispute resolution proceedings, beginning with user talk page discussions and ending with eventual SPI or AE requests against the editors responsible for any disruption. The request does not show that any dispute resolution has been attempted. Also, on the basis of this request, it is not clear that the article is at all affected by detrimental editing. The request refers to a single edit to the article, uncited but allegedly undone at [11], which it considers original research. That may or may not be so, but the addition is at any rate not disruptive on its face such that it warrants administrative attention; if it is detrimental it can be amended by editors who are not subject to my sanction, which are all but a handful of Wikipedians. On these grounds, I decline the appeal insofar as it is addressed to me as the administrator who imposed the sanction.

That said, as I'm not active in arbitration enforcement, I haven't followed this article (or topic area) for a while. Therefore I have no objection to my sanction being changed or amended as any other uninvolved administrator may deem appropriate.  Sandstein  13:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Caucasian Albania article

I had taken a "sabbatical", so to say, for quite some time and am not very familiar with the changes and activities here since then. But although the applicant might not have been sanctioned for 5 years, as he says, on the English WP, less than 2 years ago he was sanctioned on the Russian WP for being a part of a large group of off-wiki-organised editors' group acting in favour of A side including organised for/anti voting for Admins etc. Though, correct me if I am wrong, Grandmaster.

Considering the severity of activities, as I would judge it, it might be useful to take this fact into consideration when reading the editor's words of appeal. Thanks. Aregakn (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Aregakn - this is not about Grandmaster, this is about a neverending and unproductive edit restriction that is being applied to a single article. I wonder why such an outrageous editing restriction has been unchallenged for so long. That Grandmaster has been hung by the same noose he has often helped tie around the necks of others may give a quiet satisifaction, but is not a reason to support the noose and those who like pulling on it. Meowy 16:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Meowy - I see where you are coming from but no, Aregakn's point is of more merit at the moment. However, if Grandmaster's ability to game the system is finally checked, your idea will have a solid more ground. The noose can be relaxed for others but since it was Gransmaster who caused the sanction in the first place, he and Brandmeister should be kept out of it. Zimmarod (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

But that can't happen. The restriction is not directed specifically at one editor and is not directed at all at the content of edits. It is just a pointless blanket ban affecting just about anyone with any history of editing in this area from editing this particular article from now until the end of time or Wikipedia (whichever comes first). I imagine Sandstein might like to have a legacy that lasts that long - but that isn't a reason to make this edit restriction that legacy! Meowy 20:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Many things can happen since it is discretionary sanctions area. Limiting the ability of edit-warring users to battleground on specific articles while opening the article to other users is a doable thing. Cheers. Zimmarod (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I second Grandmaster's opinion. Some time ago I realized that the current restriction is quite harsh, generally because it actually freezes good-faith editing in breach of WP:AGF so that the article is constantly waiting for improvement by uninvolved users only. The current sanction also creates an unfair situation, where any autoconfirmed sock or meat can edit the article freely, while many established users can't. Brandmeister^talk 15:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I concur with both Aregakn and Sandstein. When I took a look at the Caucasian Albania article's talk pages and why there was an article-wide sanction, it turned out that the sanction was placed by Sandstein to prevent Grandmaster and "old" accounts associated with him (his associate Brandmeister) to continue edit war, in which the Grandmaster-Brandmeister duo were bombarding their opponents with racist comments about the origin of sources used in the article. Exactly the same picture today in the Nagorno-Karabakh article, where Grandmaster is currently in a suspended stage of edit war. As hinted by Aregakn, the Grandmaster is a suspicious edit warring account that cultivated a farm of meatpuppets in ruwiki. Brandmaster was his meatpuppet, and it is unsurprising that he was meatpuppetting for Grandmaster everywhere Grandmaster is launching an edit war. Actually the talk pages show that Brandmeister was actually topic banned as a result of his racism for battlegrounding in Caucasian Albania. Nagorno-Karabakh and Caucasian Albania are both prime examples. I see this request as a cynical effort to re-open the can of worms in the Caucasian Albania article and extend the still simmering dispute in Nagorno-Karabakh to other related topics. This appeal is a good opportunity to cast a more somber look at Grandmaster as a meatpuppeteer and edit war abuser and restrict his and his meatpuppeting farm's ability to game the system. Zimmarod (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at this: while this discussion continues, Grandmaster is deleting links to online texts by reputable academics [12] where his interpretation of Caucasian Albania is criticized. Is this vandalism? Again, I doubt Grandmaster filed this request in good faith. Zimmarod (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Requests filed in bad faith cannot be considered regardless of their merit and substance. See my talk above. Zimmarod (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that I have little time to contribute nowadays. Catoclass, you are right about how permanent should article bans be, I guess. But if we are speaking of the appeal we consider who and why appeals it, right? These are the words of Grandmaster: "...I think rather than banning everyone who has been under sanctions at some point in time (I myself was last sanctioned 5 years ago, and since then have no history of blocks, bans or any other sanctions), it would be better if established editors were treated on an individual basis." But he is or at least was one of the masterminds of a group of more than 20 "experienced editors", as one might call, conducting an organised edit-warring, voting in mediations, admin "elections" etc. This is/was an organised propaganda group and this was not 5 years ago, as claimed. I mean, what would justify allowing this kind of activity to be continued, or can the little time of less than 2 years say "no, this most probably won't happen"? If I am wrong, please somebody correct me about this event(s).

Considering this I would not say that all the "experienced editors" should be lifted the sanctions from. This brings me to an offer of a considerate "compromise change" in the sanction. I think there can be drawn a line-of-severity and maybe all that were sanctioned may appeal for an individual approach. Aregakn (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Passage moved from "A compromise might work better" section as it did not discuss the suggested compromise version. Aregakn (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

And who is that majority? Those who started the edit war are all banned now as socks of the banned user. Xebulon (talk · contribs) and his army of socks, some of whom might still be around under new monikers. Grandmaster 19:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Aregakn search for a compromise shall be appreciated by the community. I took another look at the article's talk pages, and it is pretty clear that the restriction was placed on the article because of misdeeds by established accounts, not Xebulon and other new accounts who argued their case against Grandmaster. The rule was triggered by editwarring by Grandmaster and especially his ruwiki meat Brandmeister, as a result of which Brandmeister was banned from AA for a year. Now, this request is like someone coming to a policemen asking "sorry, can you open the bank so that I can rob it again please." Furthermore, as we speak Grandmaster is disfiguring articles which do not support his point of view on Caucasian Albania. Under s false pretense he removed a well-functioning link to an article in Victor Schnirelmann just yesterday while arguing that the link is dead. The link was not dead, see for yourself [13]. When his manipulation was detected and counteracted, he went on claiming that the article is supposedly a violation of copyright. Yeah ... When Grandmaster removed the link, he never bothered to argue about copy rights infringements, right? And, there are many other links in that article which also can be - according to Grandmaster's logic - copyright violations. Right? But somehow Grandmaster removed the link where Victor Schnirelmann chastises Grandmaster's fellow Azerbaijani historians for falsifications. In theoretical sense, the request to open up the article may have its logic and justifications but this request should be re-filed by someone who was not engaged in editwarring in that article and is not editwarring now. In such case, a discussion and Aregakn's compromise may have more meaning. This particular request should be denied since requests filed in bad faith - with a thinly veiled intention to re-launch an edit war in this case - cannot be considered. Grandmaster is currently editwarring in a related article on Nagorno-Karabakh and pulling all kinds of bad faith tricks to evade an honest consensus building, and actually repeating old arguments he was editwarring with on talk pages in Caucasian Albania. Zimmarod (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You have already been told that if you believe I did something wrong at the article about Shnirelmann, you should file a separate AE request on me. Do it, and the admins will pass their judgment. I already explained everything above, even though I did not have to. And yes, you restored a dead link: [14], and a copyvio link: [15], in addition to duplicate listings in bibliography. I'm not going to discuss this any further, if you have a case, file a complaint. Grandmaster 05:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Grandmaster, I did not see in your explanation that you request a lift only because of all others were socks but that you and other "experienced editors" in the subject are banned too. Don't know the whole story but if there was a ban for all then probably there should have been a reason not to ban only others. I still stay at my point of view considering also the misleading thread that you were not banned in the subject in any way for 5 years, when you were a mastermind of an organised propaganda group quite recently.

I would say this could even become a remedy for AA2 and be extended in other articles, when thought proper, with a possibility of editors to appeal their ban, as I said here, but not for each article rather than the ban as a whole. Aregakn (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It is all true. I have no history of any blocks or bans in en:wiki for 5 years. Whatever happens in other language wikis or wiki projects is not actionable here, and vice versa, especially considering that we are talking about something that took place in ru:wiki 2 years ago, and I'm not under any restriction or sanction there as well for a long time. I see that you trying to focus this entire request on my persona, but once again, it is not a restriction imposed just on me, I'm just one of the many editors affected by it. Obviously, such blanket restrictions affect almost every established editor in AA area, and it is not correct. I don't mind if the admins look at my behavior and consider placing me on a sanction, if you have an evidence of my misconduct in this project, but it should be a subject to a separate request. Grandmaster 05:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Btw, Aregakn, you yourself are not allowed to edit Caucasian Albania because of the sanction logged here: [16] Do you think it is fair? Or you can live with it as long as I'm not allowed to edit it as well? As for Zimmarod (talk · contribs), it is one of those accounts which were registered around the same time in November 2011, and tried to reinstate the edits of the banned user Xebulon in Nagorno-Karabakh. It is worth noting that Xebulon was also involved in edit warring in Caucasian Albania, and it was his sock that filed requests which led to this sanction. I think decisions favoring sock activity (inadvertently, of course) should not be upheld. One way around this remedy is creating a sock account that would have no history of any sanctions, and one can see from the history of the article that Xebulon edited this article without any problem after the sanction was imposed, using sock accounts like Gorzaim (talk · contribs) and Bars77 (talk · contribs). Grandmaster 10:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Grand, my ban was, in short, do not say "possible vandalism" for 1 month and yes, all it was for, was for telling "possible vandalism". It was a general ban but somehow put under AA2. I did appeal but as the time was due before the Admins could come to a consensus they declined the appeal only because of that. Me asking that it is the fact of being banned that I appeal did not go through because of the ban having passed. Now we have a case that we can see it has results even if the time passed and it was needed to be considered. But we have what we have.

I did say there is a level of severity and I do not accept you playing on my ban as a card for unbanning yourself, as that it your only goal as I can easily draw from your above sentence.

And you are gaming the system talking of Wiki.RU and twisting the meaning of your own words "I myself was last sanctioned 5 years ago, and since then have no history of blocks, bans or any other sanctions." when telling that you meant you but not you on other Wikis. Aregakn (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter what your sanction was. According to this remedy, you are not allowed to edit the article in question if you have ever been placed on any sanction, logged at AA2 page. Therefore the remedy applies as much to you, as it applies to me. And no, I'm not trying to unban just myself, because I was not banned personally, I want to unban all the established editors, including yourself, who were placed on sanctions at some point in time, because I believe it is not fair to ban people from the article for the things they did years ago, without consideration to the severity of their violations. And yes, once again, I was last placed on a sanction in en:wiki 5 years ago, because I was a party to the first arbitration case, and back then almost everyone who was a party to that case was placed on a 1 year revert restriction. But that restriction expired years ago, and I see no reason why I should not be allowed to edit an article, while sock accounts have no problems editing it. I see that you are trying to focus this whole issue on my persona, but I repeat once again, this is a remedy that concerns many people, yourself included, and regardless of whether I'm a good or evil person, I believe it is unfair to have this sort of a permanent restriction, which punishes people for prior severe and minor sanctions alike, regardless of the timing, while nothing is done to prevent abuses by the newly created accounts, many of which turned out to be socks of the banned users, and which were active on the same article all this time. I think it's time to reconsider it. Grandmaster 18:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Just take a look at the showcase of bad faith by Grandmaster in the discussion on the Nagorno-Karabakh [[17]]. Grandmaster tries to avoid an honest discussion about the appropriateness of academic sources, as he replies with irrelevant arguments and tries to back up his position with fake evidence. And now compare this with the discussion of on the talk pages of Caucasian Albania. The same arguments that smell of racism, the same attempts to exclude analysis from the very top academics, the same repetitive patterns and gaming as per WP:GAME. Zimmarod (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WP rule say it very clearly that AE requests cannot be filed in bad faith by those who game the system. Zimmarod (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

End of passage Aregakn (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A compromise might work better

Catoclass is right that no sanctions should continue for ever but a possible outcome of fully lifting it should also be considered. As the sanction is on everybody, both, for those conducting a big mess or with single minor dids, I would suggest individual approach and appeals for lifting the sanction as well as a possibility of bringing it back on an editor. Aregakn (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

In that case, the sanction should be applied to an individual. But this particular sanction was a blanket one, and it was not directed at anyone personally. If you believe that someone should be placed on a personal restriction, you must file a separate report on that person. Grandmaster 16:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Too time and effort-consuming would it be. Due to the reason that it was so mass/outrageous that all were banned then it is easier to appeal for unban of each that thinks they are constructive, rather than the opposite you suggest. This is nothing different but in reverse to save time and efforts.

What you say works assuming that there is a minority of disruptive editors (as it usually is) but not when it is a majority. Aregakn (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Here started a discussion among the editors Grandmaster, Zimmarod, and Aregakn not concerning the offered compromise version, which have been moved into the section "Comments by others about the request concerning Caucasian Albania article". Aregakn (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I would even add that this method can also work good as a remedy of the whole AA2 and used on articles where thought appropriate and taken off when appropriate. Aregakn (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Caucasian Albania article

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

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

• This is in essence an appeal of the original sanction and therefore subject to the rules governing AE appeals. Please notify Sandstein (talk · contribs) of this request, and also leave a note at the article talk page. T. Canens (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  Done. Grandmaster 10:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to this request. Though the original sanction may have had some positive effects at the time of its imposition, I see no reason to extend it indefinitely. More importantly, I think there is an issue of natural justice here; someone who has made a mistake in the past that was at the time considered worthy of only a limited sanction, should surely not be permanently penalized because of that mistake. Also, the sanction penalizes the most minor offenders in the same way as the most severe, which again seems an inappropriate outcome. Additionally, when one considers that even those subject to an indefinite ban are entitled to appeal after six months or a year, it seems incongruous to have a sanction for which there is, effectively, no appeal. And why single out this one article for such special treatment? Finally, while I note that Sandstein suggests that other dispute resolution mechanisms have not been attempted to resolve any outstanding issues with the article, it isn't clear to me how any user disqualified from editing the article or its talk page could initiate such a process. In any case, after more than a year under this sanction, I think it's probably time to try relaxing the existing sanction to the usual 1RR for contentious topics. Gatoclass (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Zimmarod, this case is not about Grandmaster or his alleged misconduct, it's about whether a particular sanction on a particular article should be repealed or not. If you think you have a case against Grandmaster, you should start a separate case about that, because it's a separate issue. Gatoclass (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Gregory Goble

Banned from all articles and discussions relating to cold fusion, broadly construed, for 90 days. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Gregory Goble User who is submitting this request for enforcement LeadSongDog come howl! 08:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Gregory Goble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold_fusion Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it contribs SPA campaign of disruption talk:Cold fusion Latest installment Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Warned at [18] Warned at at Cold Fusion (moved from AN to ANI) Additional comments by editor filing complaint Related off-wiki actions here Full disclosure: I (rather obviously) don't have entirely clean hands, as I've tried to persuade the editor to work within WP policies, both on the article talkpage and on the user talkpage. His responses speak for themselves. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested notification Discussion concerning Gregory Goble Statement by Gregory Goble I will post my statement tommorrow, off to the graduation ceremony at USF.--Gregory Goble (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Never will I ever sue or bring legal actions against Wikipedia or any of the Wiki editors. Seriously! Gregory Byron Goble My apologies; time constraints have tardied my response. In consultation while formulating dialog; two or three more days, Thank you so much for your patience. While following a Cold Fusion/LENR seminar I tried to find one person who had a reputation as a crackpot. I couldn't find one among the speakers or the registered attendees; anyone of recognizable importance had impecible reputations as far as I could determine, As I suggested from day one. To improve the article: 1) Wiki needs to view it as science. 2) Wiki needs to recognize which scientific journals are utilized and sourced by scientists in the art of this field of physics. A preview of my response. example A this edit suggestion of mine was not a waste of time... Room Temperature It used to read: "Cold fusion, also called low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR), refers to the hypothesis that nuclear fusion might explain the results of a group of experiments conducted at ordinary temperatures (e.g., room temperature)." The majority of LENR experiments require temperatures well above room temperature. It now reads: Cold fusion is a proposed[1] type of nuclear reaction that would occur at relatively low temperatures compared with hot fusion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gregory_Goble&oldid=473668504 example B this edit succeeded and then was reverted much later... Removed Sentence from Conferences Section (first part of sentence) By 1994, attendees offered no criticism to papers and presentations for fear of giving ammunition to external critics; thus allowing the proliferation of crackpots and hampering the conduct of serious science,[29] (second part of sentence) and by 2002, critics and skeptics stopped attending these conferences. [97] The following is part of my Wiki discourse on this edit. Please follow the rest to see sourced chapters from the book Undead Science. It’s an obscure book. One found at USF (none S.F. library system) one S.F State, none S.F or San Mateo community college. Please read the book to make a responsible response as to whether words may have been taken out of context from an authoritative source. Simon argues that in spite of widespread skepticism in the scientific community, there has been a continued effort to make sense of the controversial phenomenon. “Researchers in well-respected laboratories continue to produce new and rigorous work. In this manner cold fusion research continues… “ and “The survival of cold fusion {research} signals the need for a more complex understanding of the social dynamics of scientific knowledge making; the boundaries between experts, intermediaries, and the lay public; and the conceptualization of failure in the history of science and technology.” {author} Bart Simon is an assistant professor in the department of sociology and anthropology at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. [97] Note that the author is an assistant professor of sociology not physics. To reference part of a sentence from this book may be taking the intent of the author out of context. Conferences (after my edit removal) Cold fusion researchers were for many years unable to get papers accepted at scientific meetings, prompting the creation of their own conferences. The first International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF) was held in 1990, and has met every 12 to 18 months since.[29] With the founding[97] in 2004 of the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ISCMNS), the conference was renamed the International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science—an example of the approach the cold fusion community has adopted in avoiding the term cold fusion and its negative connotations.[73][75][98] Cold fusion research is often referenced by proponents as "low-energy nuclear reactions", or LENR,[99] but according to sociologist Bart Simon the "cold fusion" label continues to serve a social function in creating a collective identity for the field.[73] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&oldid=474082175 NOW Conferences (many weeks later someone reverted my delete) Cold fusion researchers were for many years unable to get papers accepted at scientific meetings, prompting the creation of their own conferences. The first International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF) was held in 1990, and has met every 12 to 18 months since. Attendees offered no criticism to papers and presentations for fear of giving ammunition to external critics;[99] thus allowing the proliferation of crackpots and hampering the conduct of serious science.[100] Critics and skeptics stopped attending these conferences, with the notable exception of Douglas Morrison,[101] who died in 2001. With the founding[102] in 2004 of the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ISCMNS), the conference was renamed the International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (the reasons are explained in the "ongoing" section).[73][75][103] Cold fusion research is often referenced by proponents as "low-energy nuclear reactions", or LENR,[104] but according to sociologist Bart Simon the "cold fusion" label continues to serve a social function in creating a collective identity for the field.[73] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gregory_Goble&oldid=473668504 Clearly Undead science is about cold fusion SCIENCE continuing after a bad start. One chapter is about how it gained this “bad reputation” while the rest is how it survives as science… (increased sophistication of instrumentation and review) hence the title ‘Undead Science” not undead pathological science. To source his book as reasons for the wiki reading public to reason that cold fusion is pathological science or bad science shows poor judgment. The author is not taking such a stance. Wiki influences the public. Care by administrators and editors should be taken to not take authors content out of context if it may cause harm. … a wiki editor or three or four… are using his words to promote a stance harmful to this art; that it is pathological science. --Gregory Goble (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Gregory Goble Comment by IRWolfie- User:Gregory_Goble appears to have very severe competence issues that essentially waste the time of other editors. See some recent examples here: Talk:Cold_fusion#POSSIBLE_SLANDER, Talk:Cold_fusion#The_third_sentence_in_this_article_is_out_of_date_and_erroneous_-_Let.27s_fix_it Talk:Cold_fusion#In_Popular_Culture_-_Cold_Fusion. Most of his comments appear to be borderline incoherent with some going pretty far into the realm of craziness: User_talk:Gregory_Goble#hi. The rambling isn't a new feature: [19]. I suggest there is a very severe issue of WP:INCOMPETENCE rather than negative intent. When he accuses other editors of wikilawyering I'm not even sure he knows what he is saying. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Comment by SteveBaker His post: Talk:Cold_fusion#POSSIBLE_SLANDER (I think he means "libel") where he accuses us of being defamatory towards cold-fusion researchers because we use the term "pathological science". That post was followed three minutes later by an additional post. (It's easy to miss that addition inside his signature blocks.) It says "I love lawyers". I didn't notice when I made my reply - but now that I see it, this constitutes a clear WP:NLT. His threat is unjustified because we don't say that cold fusion is pathological science - we say that it has a "reputation as pathological science" - for which we have plenty of WP:RS showing mainstream scientists saying exactly that in published journals. Aside from the (many) other issues, I believe we have clear grounds for indef-blocking him under WP:NLT without further delay - which means we can take our time deciding whether some other grounds would justify heavier measures. SteveBaker (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Comment by POVbrigand Many of the contributions that Gregory makes on the talk page are hard to understand for me. Lately I did get the idea that some of his contributions were getting better. He seems to have a problem that cold fusion is disposed of as pseudo science. It is a widely held belief in the real world, so it is absolutely correct to incorporate that view in the wikipedia article. I do not see his latest "slander" comment as a legal threat. I think he is again trying to make the point that it is, in his eyes, unfair that cold fusion is treated the way it is. I think everyone should chill and Gregory should think if he really want to contribute constructively or not. As IRWolfie noted above, Gregory's conduct is not malicious. Involuntary mentorship could be a solution. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC) I could be persuaded that mentorship is a way forward - but I have to take the "slander" thing seriously. It is absolutely essential to the functioning of this website that people don't go around hurling legal threats at each other - even if they are 'pretend' ones - and that's worth a limited duration block IMHO. I'd be happy to discuss other remedies (including involuntary mentorship) once he has been brought to an abrupt realization that "Something Is Going Wrong Here And It Is Serious" - but I'm not happy with "Business as usual" because that "slander" posting went beyond the bounds of acceptability. SteveBaker (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC) I think the case for NLT is hard to make, we should have a NLT "expert" evaluate it. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Comment by Binksternet Goble's goal for the article is at cross-purposes to how the topic is viewed by mainstream science. He is here to portray cold fusion as respectable science, but most scientists do not respect it. This constant push by Goble is tiring and time-wasting. The problem is slightly compounded by a lack of competency. I don't see his "slander" comment as crossing the NLT line. I would be happy to see Goble restricted from the topic of cold fusion for a period; such a topic ban would effectively ban him from Wikipedia as he apparently has no other interests. Binksternet (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Result concerning Gregory Goble This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I think a 90 day break from the topic of cold fusion, along with a warning about NLT, would do everyone some good here. His presence there is clearly not helping things, and perhaps some time away will help; if the disruption resumes afterwards, we can up the ban to an indefinite one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC) If there are no objections in the next several hours, I'll close it with a 90 day topic ban from cold fusion topics, broadly construed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Request concerning Ohconfucius, Colipon, Shrigley

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

Request concerning Three editors

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBFLG#Principles

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

Provisions being breached

I am bringing this case under WP:ARBFLG. I believe the named editors are unable to contribute to the Falun Gong namespace in a civil, good faith, or neutral manner. Based on their comments, these editors appear to have difficulty distancing themselves from their strongly held personal feelings on the subject, and edit from an exclusively critical perspective (that is, critical of the Falun Gong and defensive of the government of the PRC). In addition, I have found them to be intolerant of other editors and uncivil, with little attempt or effort at assuming good faith. All three regularly breach the following policies:

• WP:NPOV
• WP:CIVIL
• WP:AGF
• WP:FORUM
• WP:NOTADVOCATE
• WP:EP

The editors have also violated related principles under WP:ARBFLG, such as Wikipedia:ARBFLG#Wikipedia is not a battleground and Wikipedia:ARBFLG#Point of view editing.

Individually they have violated additional policies. Shrigley frequently seems to violate WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, particularly the clause which forbids “religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities.” (he frequently refers to Falun Gong as a “cult,” to its adherents as “cult members,” etc). Colipon’s record includes regular breaches of WP:FORUM, and a rather serious breach of WP:BLP, in addition to the above. Ohconfucius frequently disregards editing policy concerning WP:EP#Talking and editing by making major rounds of revisions while failing to participate in talk page discussions when asked. In the last 72 hours he violated the WP:3RR while editing on this subject.

In full disclosure, this AE is catalyzed by a dispute related to Falun Gong on the page Bo Xilai that I was involved in, along with all three of these editors. I was gratuitously reverted and insulted by Ohconfucius, and found that all three editors were obstructing a good faith process of consensus formation on the talk page. Note that I am not attempting to win a content dispute by bringing this case, and if there are concerns about that I can recuse myself from editing the relevant section of the article. I have bowed out in other cases where I have felt the discussion uncomfortable or unproductive on this topic.

Below is a representative but by no means exhaustive or complete list of diffs from the last several months that displays consistently improper and disruptive editing and discussion behavior.

I am sorry for the length of this case; it was taking time and I had to limit the evidence. The reason I am filing against all three collectively is that on the Falun Gong topic they edit together, express the same views, and have fostered a kind of team dynamic.

OhConfucius

Bo Xilai

Background: A contentious aspect of former Chinese Party official Bo Xilai’s biography relates to his role in the suppression of Falun Gong. This issue has been disputed a lot, and in March a fragile consensus was reached over the phrasing of this section. Homunculus somehow managed to disrupt the balance on May 15 with this edit [20], which involved adding two references and a short sentence on the outcome of lawsuits that were filed against Bo. Ohconfucius reverted, Homunculus inquired why and restored the content, Colipon deleted the entire paragraph, and thus began an edit war and lengthy talk page exchange that involved the three editors named here, as well as several others. What I observed was that Homunculus initiated much discussion on the talk page, issued proposed wording, and solicited feedback from several other editors who were uninvolved in the dispute. [21][22][23]. These editors and two more also then participated in the talk page discussion, and Homunculus attempted several times to use their suggestions to broker a consensus on particular points. I arrived late to the discussion, and made one edit to the page that was quickly and gratuitously reverted by Ohconfucius.

Ohconfucius weighed in once on the talk page discussion before violating 3RR. [[24] Rather than participate constructively, he used the page as a forum to opine that Falun Gong victims of torture are merely engaged in a “propaganda war….in an attempt to gain publicity and cause maximum embarrassment” to the PRC. Other comments he makes here—that the lawsuits Falun Gong filed against Bo were all identical, or that they received never more than “a column inch” in mainstream media, are demonstrably untrue.

As the discussion went on without Ohconfucius’ involvement, he proceeded to break 3RR. He did not attempt to explain any of these edits on the talk page:

• 1st revert: [25]
• 2nd revert: [26]
• 3rd revert: [27] (Note the edit summary – this seemed completely gratuitous, not to mention uncivil)
• 4th revert: [28]

Since I filed this request, he has continued reverting information with no or inadequate explanation or discussion on the talk page, even after being asked to explain several times

• [29] (deleted content because of what Ohconfucius believes it implies?)
• [30] (delete content. Reason is vague.) (I have recused myself from the discussion given that I filed this.)

The editor makes little to no attempt to discuss policies or content in a reasonable manner on the talk page. Instead Ohconfucius attempted to, what appears to me as, marginalize the editor presenting the sources for inclusion. [31][32]

Shen Yun Performing Arts

Background: Shen Yun is an international Chinese dance company whose performers practice Falun Gong and which is usually sponsored by Falun Gong associations where it performs. It plays in prominent opera houses and theaters around the world and at least some of its artists are internationally recognized and accomplished. The company’s performances include acts that depict Falun Gong beliefs and the suppression of the group in China. The Chinese government attempts to delegitimize Shen Yun by describing it as Falun Gong propaganda designed to smear the government’s image, and it tries to shut down its performances through diplomatic and commercial pressure.

• [33] : Deletes all information on performers, citing WP:NOT#DIRECTORY (The list of performers here employed the same format and criteria as is used on other pages about dance and ballet companies, and is not a violation of that policy). The deletion wasn’t discussed on the talk page.

• [34] : Deletes information on performers again, calling it “rubbish.” Still no discussion.

• [35] : Adds a collection of references to exclusively negative reviews into the article introduction.

• [36] : Highlights more negative reviews in the reception

• [37] : Deletes sourced and relevant information about the content and nature of the performances. Was this because none of it was negative?

• [38] : Makes unsourced and incorrect statement in the introduction that depictions of Falun Gong in the performances have received only negative reviews from critics.

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

Background: This topic relates to an event in which five people set themselves on fire on Tiananmen Square in 2001. The PRC claimed they were Falun Gong practitioners, and said that Falun Gong’s doctrines contain exhortations to violence, and used the event to decisively turn public opinion against the group. Falun Gong sources, as well as several journalists and scholars, argued that the event was staged (no doctrinal support for violence or suicide in Falun Gong, no independent investigation permitted, inconsistencies in the government accounts, several of the victims were not known to practice Falun Gong, etc.) I am aware of three books written by experts on Falun Gong which provide a survey of the event (Noah Porter, Danny Schechter, David Ownby): two of the three authors believe the event was staged by the Chinese government. The third believes it is plausible that it was staged, and if not, the participants were probably “new or unschooled” practitioners.

Through his talk page comments, Ohconfucius has made clear that he believes the Chinese government’s account that Falun Gong’s teachings somehow motivated these individuals to protest as such. It’s fine that he holds that opinion—some journalists have posited similar views. However, Ohconfucius seems unable to contemplate other possibilities, and recently wrote on the article’s talk page that editors who disagree on this point are necessarily being “intellectually dishonest.”

In 2009, Ohconfucius worked to get this article promoted to FA status. In 2011, several other editors knowledgeable on the subject discussed and implemented further improvements to the page. Among other things, it was found that the page failed to adequately represent several notable and prominent views on the event. A veteran admin oversaw that process, and indicated he found the discussions surrounding those revisions agreeable and constructive.

The page was then stable for a long while. In Early 2012, Ohconfucius returned. With no talk page discussion beforehand and minimal discussion throughout, he made over a hundred unilateral changes an apparent attempt to restore his preferred version, promote points of view that aligned with his own, and remove sourced content that reflected poorly on the Chinese government.

There are far too many diffs to present (150, maybe, in the span of a couple of days). One can view them by starting from March 30 [39] and moving forward in time.

On the talk page, no attempt was made to understand or engage with older discussions that previously addressed the issues he was editing on. User:Zujine posted several questions and pointed out problems with his edits.[40] Ohconfucius didn’t respond. When Zujine made an edit to the page to address these issues, Ohconfucius promptly reverted with the edit summary “don’t make me laugh.”[41] When Ohconfucius finally did comment on the talk page, it was simply stating his belief that other editors had ruined the page.[42] The specific issues were not addressed. Zujine again asked a series of specific questions[43], but Ohc’s next talk page comment was similar to the first, and amounted to insulting the work of all other editors on the page, calling it a Falun Gong “propaganda piece version that shocked my pants off”[44] No attempt to address the specific content issues raised. All the while, Ohc continues editing at a rapid pace. This pattern continues for a long time, with Zujine pointing out problems[45][46][47][48][49] and Ohconfucius either answering them only partially[50][51] or not at all, all while continuing to make significant edits. He reverts multiple edits that were discussed on talk page: [52][53][54]

Soon after Ohconfucius started making these changes, the article was selected to be featured on the homepage. That process brought in more scrutiny from outside parties, and resulted in the wholesale reversion of nearly all of Ohconfuciu’s changes. In addition, several previously uninvolved editors raised concerns about some of the images on the page (all of them added by Ohconfucius) that had insufficient fair use rationales or other problems[55][56][57] Ohconfucius removed some, but not the most gruesome among them (they all had the same license, and all came from Chinese state-run media). When those images were removed, Ohconfucius restored them, and condescended to the other editors.[58][59]

Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes

[60] Deletes sourced paragraph about the censorship of a Falun Gong art exhibit in Tel Aviv. A number of editors who initially created this page favored inclusion of this material.

[61] This is a dispute resolution case where User:PCPP had violated his topic ban by deleting material on Falun Gong. I brought this to the attention of AE, and PCPP was blocked for 24 hours for violating his ban. Ohconfucius comes to his defense by stating that the 24-hour block against him—that is, the enforcement of his topic ban— was a bad faith “tactical victory by those who sought to oppose him.” Ohconfucius seems quite literally to believe that this is a battleground.

Other

Edit wars (breaking 3RR) to include unsupported claim that the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident was a specie of cult suicide: [62][63][64][65][66][67] / claims editors who removed the addition are practicing censorship: [68][69].

Complains about "Falun Gong editors" who "typically have this world view that if you are not 100% pro-Falun Gong, you are against them" (only other user in the dispute was user:Homunculus); it seems to imply that Homunculus is a "Falun Gong editor" who shares those negative characteristics [70] / adds me and another editor to a "List of editors with a pronounced Falun Gong slant" [71]. Does this make anyone else uncomfortable?

Colipon

Colipon seems to have a long-standing propensity to view Wikipedia as an ideological battleground or soapbox to promote particular negative views of Falun Gong, and to attempt to deemphasize reports of human rights abuses against the group. Colipon is reasonable in other areas, but appears unwilling or unable to contribute in a calm, constructive, good-faith manner on Falun Gong.

I could never hope to dissect all this user’s contributions to these pages, but as evidence of the long-standing nature of this pattern, consider this edit [72] from January 2007, in which Colipon can be seen soliciting help from another editor to conduct and promote original research for the purpose of dealing “a big blow” to Falun Gong’s founder, Li Hongzhi (the editor with whom Colipon was discussing was indefinitely banned for prolific sock-puppetry and outside activism). It goes without saying that this is not the purpose of Wikipedia.

Colipon regularly uses the talk pages to note his general dislike of Falun Gong, to disparage other editors through accusations of bad faith, and to disrupt good faith discussions. When asked to discuss content, not contributors, Colipon recently said he has no intention of doing so (in his words, good faith content discussions are a “waste of time”).

Colipon has been warned more than once to cease this kind of behavior (most recently here [73])

Some diffs follow below.

Sima Nan

Background: Sima Nan is a Chinese government-backed critic of qigong and Falun Gong.

• [74] Restores deleted material to the page that had been effectively shown to violate WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:RS in several previous talk page discussions. Material represents an exceptional, possibly libelous claim about Falun Gong’s founder, Li Hongzhi. Sima Nan himself acknowledged that this allegation against Li was based on anonymous rumors he heard in the early 1990s, and the information is irreconcilable with public positions and statements by Li Hongzhi. I believe Colipon knew this, and restored the material regardless.

• [75] Attempts to justify inclusion of material by saying, essentially, that Wikipedia can repeat potentially libelous material, as long as it is sourced to someone else.

Talk:Shen Yun Performing Arts

Through a series of edits, Colipon uses the talk page as a forum to air his personal views on the topic. The effect is to create an ideological battleground out of the article’s talk page.

• [76] : “Shen Yun is not an artistic performance. It is a propaganda organ of Falun Gong”

• [77]  : “The reason for Shen Yun’s existence is propaganda.”

• [78]) “Shen Yun is not a bona fide arts troupe.”

• [79][80]  : Argues repeatedly (and contrary to evidence) that Shen Yun “tries to mislead people into thinking that it has nothing to do with Falun Gong.”

• [81] Attempts to source above allegation to the Guardian, Daily Telegraph, and Toronto Star. Later he gives up (and to his credit apologizes) when it is pointed out that none of these sources make that claim.[82]

• [83] When another editor (me, actually) explains a series of changes, Colipon simply calls me a member of a tag-team.

Talk:Falun Gong

[84] : Uses talk page as a forum to complain that Falun Gong article is being abused as a propaganda tool by unnamed “Falun Gong users” who have “perfected” their POV-pushing and are gaming the system. No evidence. Who is he referring to? Compares Falun Gong to scientology (an evocative parallel, though so far one quite beyond the reach of any scholar of the topic). Note that Colipon was here agreeing with two other new or unregistered users who were both banned for disruptive editing (and later sock puppetry). One was summarily banned for making similar talk page comments as Colipon makes here.

[85] : More comments on contributors, not content. Here, Colipon is claiming that editors Homunculus and I are intimidating user:AgadaUrbanit (To the contrary, it was AgadaUrbanit who was issuing threats; we were simply asking him to explain his views clearly). Complains that all “rational” editors are gone, implying that editors who continue working on (and improving!) this page are irrational.

[86] More unconstructive complaints that amount to using Wikipedia as a forum. Other editors were in the midst of a good faith discussion on how to improve the article. Colipon distracts the discussion by calling it an “ideological war” and suggesting everyone give up.

Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

Background: As other editors sought to engage Ohconfucius on significant content changes, Colipon opined periodically to defend Ohconfucius and disparage others without discussing content or policies.

• [87] Defends Ohconfucius, who was in the process of making dozens of controversial edits while implicitly refusing to partake in talk page discussion.

• [88] : More use of talk page as a forum to complain about other editors. No discussion of content; just disparaging other editors discussing things.

• [89] : After being asked to discuss content, not contributors, Colipon makes clear that he has no intention of doing so. Calls content discussion a “waste of time.”

• [90] : More of same. In response to an editor pointing out a content issue, Colipon laments what he calls POV-pushing, suggests other editors are acting in bad faith. No attempt to discuss content or policies.

• [91] Laments that the page has been “totally destroyed” since 2009. No specifics. Nothing actionable. Just an insinuation that everyone who has worked on the page, with the exception of Ohconfucius, has destroyed it.

• [92] In response to an editor who raised a concern about Ohconfucius’s misrepresentation of a source and original synthesis, Colipon accuses editor of bad faith, compares them to “banned Falun Gong SPA's”, accuses them of POV-pushing and wikilawyering.

Bo Xilai

• [93] — deletes a paragraph about Bo’s involvement in the anti-Falun Gong campaign. Paragraph was four lines long, exceptionally well sourced to major newspaper, and most of it carefully agreed upon in a previous discussion (in fact, Colipon himself proposed some of this wording). Edit summary says only that it was ‘undue weight.’

• [94] — Justifies deletion on talk page with a variety of spurious explanations—eg. the material on Falun Gong shouldn’t be on the page because dissident Jiang Weiping doesn’t talk very much about it. Although there had never been any consensus to remove this material, Colipon treats the deletion as a fait accompli, and states that editors who would try to restore this information are being tendentious. (He apparently soon realized this was an untenable position, and restored one sentence).

In the ensuing talk page discussion, several other editors—many of whom are not regularly involved in Falun Gong-related topics—tried to constructively identify the material they believed should be included. Several of them suggesting that the material deserved expansion and added weight, and the others agreed that some should remain, some was questionable, etc. As these editors tried to broker a compromise, Colipon weighed in frequently, but it seemed he never moved the discussion forward. Just as agreement would begin to form around certain sentences, Colipon would suddenly revert back to his position that none of the material should be in the article,[95] thus obstructing the process of consensus formation.

• [96] — Colipon says that a sentence describing the reason for rejection of lawsuits is "obvious and sophisticated weasel wording." (The content was straightforward and well sourced.) He did not explain how the suggest wording were weasel words. He said that the phrasing is inconsistent with the sources (it was not, as anyone can check the sources and see). And he argued that because the Financial Times, Daily Telegraph, and New York Times allot only “passing mention” to Falun Gong’s charges against Bo, they are not notable. This appears to be an arbitrary standard. There are dozens of reliable sources that have mentioned the suits, including a very long piece by the Center for Investigative Reporting.

• Colipon believes that some of the Falun Gong lawsuits were dismissed because they were "frivolous." He presented this opinion as a fact on the talk page[97], even though no reliable sources endorse this position. The reliable sources do say that some cases were dismissed on technicalities such as jurisdiction, diplomatic immunity, and so on. Colipon rejects these as the causes for dismissal. I wonder whether it is simply because the reliable sources do not confirm to his opinions.[98] Creating arbitrary standards for content inclusion and making untrue assertions on the talk page presented as fact makes consensus-building difficult.

Quigley/Shrigley

As far as I’ve seen, all of Shrigley’s edits on this topic reflects a strong POV, and very few of his comments are collegial. Most of his edits to this namespace involve either deleting information about the persecution of Falun Gong, disparaging Falun Gong, defending editors who share his POV (regardless of how plainly disruptive they may be), making religious slurs against Falun Gong, and leveling accusations of bad faith against editors with whom he disagrees.

One of my concerns with Shrigley is that he very frequently tries to discredit other editors by claiming they are Falun Gong practitioners (whom he likes to call “cult members”). He does this as a means of ad hominem attack instead of discussing content, as though he believes that it is appropriate to discriminate against particular users because of their religion. To my knowledge, none of the editors regularly involved on these pages at present has ever declared their religious affiliations—Falun Gong or otherwise—on Wikipedia. Aside from that, editors should be evaluated on the quality of their contributions, not their ethnicity, gender, creed, or nationality. On other religion-related pages, it’s my understanding that participation from believers is encouraged. A number of these pages would benefit from the presence of a (responsible) Falun Gong practitioner who can assist in ensuring accurate representations of the doctrine and practices. Users like Shrigley, unfortunately, create a climate that is hostile towards this class of people.

As Shrigley’s edits are more disparate than others, I’ve sorted them chronologically.

June 22 2011: [99] defends User:PCPP’s edit warring at Expo 2010. At issue is whether the page should contain information about how the 2010 World Expo in Shanghai was directly linked to the abduction, disappearance, or torture of about 100 Falun Gong practitioners (according to reports from the Congressional-Executive Commission on China and Amnesty International). Quigley writes that “the misadventures of Falun Gong seem to be a fringe concern, meriting a brief mention on the dedicated controversies article if at all.” This fits a broader pattern of trying to downplay or delete information on human rights abuses by the PRC government.

October 24, 2011: [100] Again, Quigley defends edit warring by PCPP, and suggests that other editors are part of a sinister Falun Gong plot. Declared that “for Falun Gong and its NGO allies of convenience, their lifeblood of U.S. government subsidies is dependent on their ability to suppress the unsavory aspects of Falun Gong's teachings on Wikipedia.” (I’ve never found a reliable source claim that Falun Gong is funded by U.S. government subsidies. The Chinese government has made this claim as part of its media campaign against the group, however). This amounts to a fairly serious accusation of bad faith (and paid advocacy?)

Jan 7 2012: [101] Defends a series of seemingly POV edits by the topic-banned user PCPP at the page Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes. Uses pejorative epithets (“cult”) to refer to Falun Gong (in violation of WP:CIVIL). Argues with one of the sources in order to downplay the severity of human rights abuses by the Chinese government.

Jan 7 2012: [102] Defends user:PCPP in an arbitration enforcement case (PCPP had violated a topic ban by deleting Falun Gong-related content from the Confucius institute article). Claims that “Falun Gongers” have utilized “unsavory” tactics to covertly insert reference to Falun Gong on Wikipedia, thereby trapping PCPP into breaking his topic ban. The implication here is that the editor who had previously worked on that page, and who supported the inclusion of information on Falun Gong, were all Falun Gong followers acting in bad faith. None of the editors who had supported that material have identified themselves as Falun Gong practitioners (a few of them had never edited on Falun Gong pages as far as I’ve seen)

Jan 8, 2012 [103] During a dispute resolution process where editors are supposed to discuss content, Shrigley instead complains that “a bunch of Falun Gong-focused editors” are damaging Wikipedia with their POV pushing. Suggests the blame lies with unnamed “Falun Gong followers”. This amounts to ad hominem attacks, whereby Shrigley is trying to diminish the quality of other editor’s contributions by “outing” them or attacking their presumed religion (whether real or imagined).

March 21 - 23 Bo Xilai:

[104]: Deletes large amount of well sourced material. Editorializes that lawsuits brought against Bo were “unsuccessful” (not true: the cases resulted in a finding of guilt for torture, and an indictment for genocide).

[105] : Repeats same edit as above.

[106] : same again.

[107] : Much the same as above, but this time editorializes that lawsuits against Bo were “ineffectual.”

[108] : On talk page, Shrigley calls the impeccably sourced paragraph about Falun Gong “slanderous,” suggests that editors arguing for its inclusion are “followers of small religiopolitical movements adding large amounts of poorly-sourced protest material to the biographies of provincial Chinese officials.”

April 4 2012:

[109] Deletes all mention of Falun Gong from the biography of Jiang Zemin (the campaign against the group was a major feature of Jiang’s tenure).

[110] : Again deletes sourced information on the suppression of Falun Gong

April 5, 2012:

[111] – Deletes sourced information on the scope and nature of the persecution of Falun Gong. In an act of historical revisionism, Shrigley confuses the causality of the suppression by describing Falun Gong as a “dissident sect” (implication seems to be that it is suppressed because they’re dissidents. It was the other way around). Scholars also note that Falun Gong does not satisfy the definition of a ‘sect.’ Not to mention that the term is often used pejoratively.

April 4 / 5, 2012:

[112] inexplicably deletes Falun Gong from a comprehensive list of religion topic by arguing that it is not a religion but a new religious movement. This is a strange argument to begin with, but also, numerous scholars say simply that Falun Gong is a religion. The Chicago University Press published a book last month called “The Religion of Falun Gong”. This appears to be an attempt to try to delegitimize the group.

[113] : Does same again after being reverted

April 23, 2012

[114] – deletes list of performers, remarking that someone (me) “managed to sneak this in.” Hardly snuck it in – I started a talk page discussion, and Shrigley did not answer it.

[115] : Deletes legitimate content about the Shen Yun company. Editorializes in Wikipedia’s voice that the performance is “antigovernment.” Elevates position of negative reviews. Wrongly identifies the source of accusations of Chinese government interference as coming from Falun Gong sources alone (actual source was the U.S. State Department, which in turn drew on multiple media and NGO reports). Removes defense of Shen Yun from a prominent Hong Kong politician. Deletes sourced content about how a relative of a Shen Yun performer was reportedly kidnapped by Chinese authorities. Adds content that misattributes quotes to a Falun Gong organization.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Briefly on my background in this topic: I joined Wikipedia and later began editing these pages, among many others, at a time when Falun Gong editors were still around but slowly being banished. I am a person who abjures extreme opinions, and consider myself skeptical towards religion in general, and I carried these perspectives into my work here. I exchanged emails with Ohconfucius and Colipon in that vein early on. None of the editors involved seemed too bad at the time, and I initially found a comfortable role trying to mediate on contentious issues.

As my involvement deepened, I read more on Falun Gong, watched the debates, and continued to observe the interactions among editors. Over time I have come to view more dimly the approach of the editors named in this case. As I have read more academic literature on this topic, it has become apparent that the views these editors hold in general fall quite far outside of the spectrum of mainstream academic opinion. These editors do not recognize this, of course, and they tend to reject the authority of experts on the topic. They seem to believe that they alone are neutral and unbiased when it comes to Falun Gong. In the last six months or so, I’ve found trying to edit these pages in the context of their entrenched antagonism against Falun Gong increasingly difficult. I have been repeatedly personally insulted, had my motivations questioned regularly, and have to deal with constant WP:FORUM-ing and personal remarks.

To illustrate the problem further, Ohconfucius writes on his user page, “I am not interested in partisan bickering of whether Falun Gong was being persecuted by the Chinese Communist Party or whether ‘Falun Gong is a Cult’.” But these are not the debate. Scholars on Falun Gong uniformly dismiss the idea that it is a cult (in the pejorative sense, which is how Ohconfucius intended it). And there is no question among reliable sources that Falun Gong is persecuted—and severely at that. The literature on this topic is replete with references to “brutal persecution” on a scale that is “unrivaled” in recent decades. The Chinese government’s campaign against Falun Gong is described in serious literature as being the largest mass mobilization since the Cultural Revolution, one that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of extrajudicial imprisonments, and state-sanctioned torture. Books dedicated to this topic are published in academic presses. And yet in various places, Ohconfucius has expressed doubt that Falun Gong practitioners are mistreated or tortured in custody. He and the other editors here insist—without support from reliable sources—that the persecution is merely alleged, and that Falun Gong practitioners claim torture simply as a means of gaining publicity. It is very difficult to have sophisticated conversations or reach consensus with editors who don’t accept the essential facts.

There is a spectrum of scholarly opinions on Falun Gong, and that’s healthy and productive. Ideally, our goal on Wikipedia should be to reflect the range of views present in the highest quality scholarly literature available—ideas that transcend sensational tropes and ideological battles.

It is also fine to have editors with personal opinions outside this range. We all have personal biases that color our views, and I would defend any editor’s right to hold views outside the mainstream. This is not about suppressing particular viewpoints. The key is that editors should strive to be self-aware in terms of their points of view. All should be able to work in good faith with editors who hold divergent views, should adhere to relevant content policies and editing procedures, and should refrain from accusations of bad faith, personal attacks, incivility, or from using Wikipedia as a forum or platform for advocacy. Users Colipon, Shrigley and Ohconfucius unfortunately have shown themselves unable to do this in this namespace, and they simply do not contribute constructively here. Their appearance on talk pages invariably turns otherwise normal exchanges into entrenched ideological battlegrounds where consensus is all but impossible. They regularly disregard normal editing processes, ignore requests to discuss changes, issue thinly veiled personal attacks, make paranoiac accusations about Falun Gong plots, and use talk pages as forums to complain about Falun Gong or other editors.

A final note about these pages in general: as a whole, the collection of Falun Gong-related articles appears to be in fairly good shape, they are relatively stable, and the trajectory is towards constant improvement. These pages are watched by many interested parties—some of whom are very knowledgeable on the subject—and overt attempts at disruption are therefore normally dealt with easily. Where substantive changes are made, they are generally proposed and discussed in a fairly normal way on talk pages. These editors are, in my opinion, the most persistent threat to the further positive development of these articles. They do not contribute constructively, and the project would not suffer as a result of them being topic banned. Indeed, they were largely inactive on these pages for a long period of time, and the pages did not go to hell—to the contrary, they progressed substantially. Their return to active editing has merely heralded the return of regular edit wars and polarizing ideological battles.

Although the evidence I’ve presented here is only partial, I believe it is sufficient to show a pattern of disruptive editing. Note that this is not intended as an indictment of these users as a whole, merely of their involvement in this namespace.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Shrigley:[116] Colipon: [117] Ohconfucius: [118] (Acknowledgement:[119] (deleted soon after))

Discussion concerning Ohconfucius, Colipon and Shrigley

Statement by Colipon

• I acknowledge this AE from User TheSoundandtheFury. I did a preliminary reading, and believe the case is fairly weak. I will let the administrator pore over this file, and also invite other editors to comment. Colipon+(Talk) 23:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Within the 'evidence' presented against me, Bo Xilai and Sima Nan are very clearly content disputes. That Shen Yun is propaganda is clearly stated in RS, [120] [121], [122]. Colipon+(Talk) 12:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Since about two years ago, I removed all but a few Falun Gong pages from my watchlist and stopped editing them altogether. So it is telling that much of the evidence presented against me is based on articles that ordinarily has very little to do with Falun Gong, and on talk page diffs. Colipon+(Talk) 12:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius

• Whilst it's true the complaint is voluminous, a better course of action may be to remove material that relates to pure content dispute, and edits outside the scope of the Arbcom ruling. It should clearly focus on advocacy, POV-pushing, and to a lesser extent COI editing which is what the case has always been about. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Having struggled past the initial wall of text, I would invite the presiding admin to carefully examine in particular:
  1. weasely-phrased constructions above such as "several journalists and scholars, argued that the event was staged",
  2. ditto "several other editors knowledgeable on the subject".
  3. ditto "more scrutiny from outside parties, and resulted in the wholesale reversion of nearly all of Ohconfuciu’s changes"

     --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• As the filer has brought up the AN3 case he brought against me, which I have demonstrated was rather contrived, I suggest that the complaint may be politically motivated to stop me from stepping up the opposition to 'Falun Gongsters'. He already issued this thinly veiled threat warning me not to continue editing in Falun Gong space on 30 March 2012. Notice how in both cases, I was transgressed in mainspace by Homunculus (and Zujine), and by TSTF in userspace. Add this complaint, it seems rather obvious to me that the two of them are acting in tandem. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Addendum to the above point: Note that neither Homunculus nor TSTF have, before yesterday, made a single edit at Cult suicide (searches for Homunculus; TSTF), for which I was reported for 3RR. Before yesterday, they have not made a single edit to its talk page (searches for Homunculus; TSTF) either. That one or other or both should have this on their watchlists is peculiar because it is seemingly so far from their areas of interest of Chinese human rights, but not so if you consider the sensitivity of Falun Gong to the "cult" label. So for Homunculus to rush to revert me one hour later is yet another strong pointer to their affiliation to Falun Gong. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• In reply to a point that was mentioned in this post by TSTF: yes, I deeply dislike its propaganda and their "down your throat" politics, but I still wish the PRC would legalise Falun Gong. Personal feelings about them apart, I have proven I can walk away from the topic, I have walked away, and I will in the future walk away. But I will not do so at a time of the choosing of any Falun Gong meatpuppet or similar. The only caveat is that, like any editor who has toiled to take an article to GA and then FA, there is the inevitable personal attachment to the article. Ironic thing is that I now find it embarrassing to have such a Featured Article to my credit and wish it could be delisted. That would give me closure for me if I walked away for good. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

(You're wondering why Cult suicide was on my watchlist? It wasn't until yesterday. I've been keeping an eye on your contributions since filing this case.) The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I make around 300 edits a day. It's amazing that you would find anything in there amongst them all. ;-) Or you care very deeply that I don't make any objectionable edits about the Dafa. Anyway, why don't you just come out of the closet? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Ohconfucius, Colipon, and Shrigley

Statement by potentially involved John Carter

I have previously been involved a bit more actively in the Falun Gong related content, so I believe some might consider me perhaps biased, hence my disclaimer in my section title. I have not at this point reviewed the entirety of the complaint above. Having said that, I believe I can make a few statements which might be useful. One, it is worth noting that Ohconfucius was the individual primarily responsible for the Tianenmen square self-immolation article achieving FA in the first place. There was extensive discussion, as per the talk page history, prior to the nomination and during the FA approval process. Several of the points made above were addressed at the time, although I am not sure that the filer of this complaint has reviewed them. However, I believe that at least a few of the complaints above are basically content complaints about matters which had received substantial discussion at that time, and I have no particular reason to believe that there has been any new information on the subject since then.

Also, I note that, having reviewed myself all the material on Shen Yun available on the databanks I have access to, I saw at that time that the majority of the reviews of the performances by individuals who were not perhaps FG supporters were generally at least a bit negative. Admittedly, there were some individuals who spoke highly of them, and there were I believe several positive statements made on the New Tang Dynasty TV and Sound of Hope radio, which are also tied to Falun Gong. It would be far from unusual in that situation for there to be a bias toward the troupe from other entities tied to Falun Gong, and I seem to remember statements to that effect in some of the independent reviews.

Some of the other comments which the filer finds unacceptable are also pretty clearly purely content related, not behavior related. Also, some of the behavior criticized, like Colipon's saying some groups were linked to Falun Gong, are extremely strongly implied in some of the independent reliable sources, if not explicitly stated, and I would see such minor errors as being just that.

The filer seems to be a comparatively new editor who may not have been active when almost all the obvious Western practitioners of FG were banned from the content some time ago. The specific comments I have reviewed to date made by that editor are very strongly reminiscent of the complaints made by those now banned POV pushers. I do not necessarily see any of the subjects of this complaint being necessarily free from bias of any sort. I don't think anyone necessarily qualifies as cuch. I do however think that, based on my quick review, that I personally think that the case is a rather weak one, and that there might potentially be perhaps at least as serious a complaint for POV pushing against the filer as against the individuals whom he has filed a complaint against. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Ohconfucius, Colipon and Shrigley

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

• I'll try to have a look at this sometime in the next day or two. It probably would have been a better idea to chop this up into different threads focusing on each individual person, but I suppose it's here now so we might as well deal with it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum

No action taken. NW (Talk) 01:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Malleus Fatuorum User who is submitting this request for enforcement It Is Me Here t / c 16:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement#Malleus_Fatuorum_topic_banned Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Per the linked Arbitration discussion, I believe that their contributions to an ongoing RfA have gone beyond discussing the merits of the candidate, and are now "disruptive", as it says in the motion. 21 May 2012 Unwarranted, unhelpful attack on a Support voter 21 May 2012 Same sort of thing 22 May 2012 Has lashed out at those who have cautioned him about aforementioned "badgering" 22 May 2012 and 22 May 2012 Again, adding not necessarily helpful comments – the second diff is not by them, but the point is that their contributions to the RfA are starting to provoke other users and so derail the discussion. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Warned on 22 May 2012 by TheSpecialUser (talk · contribs) Warned on 22 May 2012 by MONGO (talk · contribs) Additional comments by editor filing complaint I would be grateful if you could see to the matter quickly (i.e. before the RfA ends) so that the discussion for the rest of its duration may return to assessing the candidate and not other, irrelevant matters. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [123] Discussion concerning Malleus Fatuorum Statement by Malleus Fatuorum Malleus Fatuorum indicates that the wording of the remedy allows him to disrupt RfAs. That such a blatant lie is allowed to stand says all that needs to be said here. Malleus Fatuorum 17:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Malleus Fatuorum 22 May 2012 Malleus Fatuorum indicates that the wording of the remedy allows him to disrupt RfAs - presumably until he is topic banned at each individual RfA. Agathoclea (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Is this an example of civil editing? You twist his words and cast aspersions on his intentions and run off to the principle's office?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC) As phrased (by MF at the RFA, not as phrased above), MF is technically correct, Arbcom did not specifically ask him to stop disrupting RFAs. They instead gave uninvolved admins a tool to use when they perceive that his conduct at a specific RFA has become disruptive. It may be mincing words, but its important if your going to report him for that statement as well. Monty845 17:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Malleus said no such thing. I suggest you remove your obvious lie. Parrot of Doom 17:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC) This is nonsense. The first diff is a simple question. The second is a statement of fact. The third is in reply to someone basically implying that Malleus should shut up. The fourth is a question asking why the nominator did not investigate the nominee more closely than he did. The fifth is a personal attack AGAINST Malleus, but the OP here claims that this is Malleus's fault! There's nothing disruptive about asking questions of supporters, especially since for years people have been asking questions of opposers. This complaint is an obvious escalation of earlier whinging by other users, which may be found on Malleus's talk page. Parrot of Doom 17:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC) I think you are arguing for an unreasonably literalist interpretation of what the user wrote. For example, re. № 1, when someone says "I found no evidence of X," this sentence implies "I looked for X, but found no evidence of it." Therefore to ask, "Have you looked for any?" – i.e. "There is a good chance you found no evidence because you did not look for it in the first place" – is to cast aspersions upon the other user, something which I feel was in this case entirely unwarranted. It Is Me Here t / c 18:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC) You obviously don't then understand the "pile-on" of supports which very frequently happens at RFA. And why have you, an administrator, completely ignored the unwarranted personal attack on Malleus by MONGO? Not only did you ignore it, you also used it as evidence *against* Malleus. Who's the one being unreasonable here? Parrot of Doom 18:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Just to make my position clear here, if I had come to the RfA after the statement I linked (not having had any prior involvement I can remember and not knowing about the ArbCom case Mongo was refering to - researching the Arbcom archives - finding the remedy in question) I would have declared the topic ban instead of !voting on the RfA as the response made it clear to me that he was intending to push to the maximum possible before being topic banned. But I had already !voted in support. Agathoclea (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC) So you're standing by your initial comment? The one that's at best a ridiculous misreading of MF's reply, and at worst a despicable twisting of the facts?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Well said, Cube lurker. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Support topic ban on this particular RfA. Malleus has a long, long history of disruption, particularly at RfA. He is not only badgering multiple support voters with assumptions of bad faith, he has even badgered the nominator below his nomination statement (which is fairly unprecedented). His behavior in this RfA is beyond disruptive, and needs to stop. He's said his piece in his oppose vote, that's all that is necessary. It would be one thing if his comments under the support votes had any substance (i.e. if they were legitimate questions asking for clarification on a specific point), but they're clearly just snarky comments that cast aspersions on other editors (i.e. implying that they are just blindly voting in support rather than researching the candidate's contribution history). If it were another editor, we might give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they're having a bad day. But, this is an editor who is currently topic banned from RfA talk pages, and who has an arbcom remedy which encourages admins to topic ban him from individual RfA's if he becomes disruptive, so this is clearly not an isolated incident. To not act on this would be to send a message to Malleus that his behavior is acceptable. No one is calling for Malleus to be banned from RfA completely (yet), but all we're looking for is for him to not comment any further at this particular RfA. -Scottywong| gab _ 18:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC) I second Scottywongs comments. There is no doubt that Malleus was asking baiting, obnoxiously insulting questions for no apparent reason other than trolling. I am not surprised that his usual partisans rise up to defend his usual obnoxiousness. I've gone out of my way to avoid Malleus because I can't stand him...he could surely extend me the same courtesy and allow me the opportunity to voice an opinion without the merits of my opinion being called into question. It should be well noted that the only reason arbcom didn't send Malleus packing was due to his supposed article contributions. His ice has been thin since and anyone defending his ongoing escapades is doing him and this website no favors. Malleus is surely not irreplaceable.MONGO 18:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC) I'm having trouble seeing what ArbCom remedy or sanction was supposed to be actually violated here.VolunteerMarek 18:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC) "...should his contributions to a specific request for adminship become disruptive, any uninvolved admin may ban him from further participation in that specific RFA." -Scottywong| squeal _ 18:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Eh, let's not get crazy. Basically what -Guerillero says below, these comments are simply part of discussion. You sanction for this, then every time that Malleus dares to express an opinion on an RfA the result will be that someone will go running to AE with bs complaints, asking for sanctions. And then AE will once again turn into a place which just serves as another weapon in the arsenal of battleground warriors, rather than a means of putting fires out. I'm not seeing any disruption here.VolunteerMarek 22:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Support. Looks disruptive to me. At this point, I'm willing to believe that MF doesn't understand why it's disruptive or believe it to be disruptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC) No comment on his responses to !votes, but this comment made within the nomination seems like rather unambiguous disruption. Equazcion (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC) I don't really see the merit of initiating a support/oppose discussion above, as the Arbcom sanction states quite clearly "...should his contributions to a specific request for adminship become disruptive, any uninvolved admin may ban him from further participation in that specific RFA." So if an admin wants to step up and do it, then do it. If not, then we're done here. This doesn't need yet another drawn-out "vote". Tarc (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Question; could some of you people here, especially admins, maybe help out a little with some of the other threads here? We almost never get this many people commenting on 5 threads, much less one, so your help would be greatly appreciated. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose Although I think Malleus has reached the limits in staying within the spirit and letter of the ArbCom ruling and would do good to leave well enough alone. I think his points have been sufficiently expressed in that RfA and another comment could persued me to reconsider my stand. I have a couple of problems here, beginning with the pointed Malleus Fatuorum indicates that the wording of the remedy allows him to disrupt RfAs. statement that was provided without diffs. If he has said as much, surely a diff exists. That this discussion was presented here in such an obviously biased way makes us collectively guilty of proceeding in a non-neutral way when considering the issue. I personally find a great many problems with how he chooses to express himself, but when others choose to repond in an equally pointed way, it makes me much less sympathetic to their cause. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Actually, the accusation that Malleus believes he is allowed to disrupt is directly preceded by a diff. See here, where MONGO says, "I thought arbcom asked you to cease disrupting Rfa." and Malleus responds, "Then you thought wrong matey." -Scottywong| chatter _ 20:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Your posts on this matter are pernicious and outright deceitful. Parrot of Doom 20:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC) There is the larger issue of context here. To think this actually means "I think it is ok to be disruptive" genuinely stretches credibility. That Malleus wasn't correcting Mongo's use of "disrupt" instead of "participate" is the more likely conclusion I would draw, as will others. To present it here as such is certainly not a neutral presentation of the facts. I often agree with you on many points Scotty (including many of your concerns here), and it is a shame that you would choose the least effective way to achieve your goals. It boggles the imagination. I do like you, even though you make it difficult some days. You are truly a talented person whom I could learn a great many things from, but dispute resolution would not be among them. As I have no dog in this hunt, I'm forced to simply use my best judgement, and I have. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Scottywong, I am very disappointed that you have sunk to such a depth only to prove you were right in the first place with your ANI report--and you weren't. Dennis is being nice: your "interpretation" doesn't stretch credibility, it denies it. I don't see why I should take anything from you on good faith: this is ridiculous. I don't know who this Agathoclea person is or what their beef is with Malleus and I don't care; I do know that MONGO here gets away with "obnoxious assholishness" and stating that MF edits like he's always drunk--and here he is, the former admin who couldn't get his bit back, playing holier than thou. I should have blocked you on the spot for this assholish outburst, but I'm just not a fan of civility blocking. Maybe Malleus is not irreplaceable, but I do know that neither Scottywong nor MONGO are going to fill his shoes: the one doesn't have the sense or the spine, the other doesn't have the decency. For now, what can I say. Shove it. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC) "Shove it"...."neither Scottywong nor MONGO are going to fill his shoes: the one doesn't have the sense or the spine, the other doesn't have the decency"...and yet you were just at my talkpage warning me about personal attacks?[124]...are you kidding me...what partisanship.--MONGO 23:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC) That's right. Difference is, I'm right. Feel free to leave me a warning, and I'll leave it on my page, without additional goddamns. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC) No...you've never been more wrong...Malleus is ONLY still editing because I didn't show up at arbcom with my evidence...you can take that to the bank. I'm surely not going to tip-toe around the likes of him or his cronies any longer...--MONGO 00:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Scottywong, you are becoming vindictively deceitful now. You know perfectly well that Malleus's (correct) denial that he has been topic-banned from "disrupting RFAs" is NOT a statement that it is OK for him to disrupt them - he is clearly simply pointing out that he has not been topic banned from RFA at all. If I'd known you were going to turn into such a shit-stirrer, I would never have given you my support in your RFA. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose. This is yet another attempt by the IRCscheming/MMORPGplaying/RANDYenabling brigade to remove unpopular opinions from RFA so they can rubber-stamp adminships for their friends and wikipolitical allies. Skinwalker (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose this nonsense, and if Scottywong won't stop his petty harassment of Malleus, he should lose the admin bit. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Support. MF seems to enjoy goading and badgering others without the slightest provocation. Seems designed to disrupt others' good faith contributions. Malick78 (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose Malleus stayed within what was allowed by the arbcom decision. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Lol. I can tell that most of the above commentators haven't been to AE before (much). Since when have these things been decided by Support oder Oppose votes. This ain't AN/I, essentially because it has the word "discretionary" in it. Probably should just remove any comment above which bolded something or other.VolunteerMarek 00:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC) As an uninvolved admin has already declined the enforcement request, which is action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, short of Guerillero modifying the decision, to overturn the decision will require that either Arbcom overturn, or the matter being sent back to AN or AN/I to overturn? Monty845 00:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Volunteer Marek is correct. Editors don't !vote Support or Oppose at AE. Instead, they leave comments or statements. Also, the AE admin has not declined the request. They examined it and gave their initial opinion. Other AE admins will want to comment (or not comment as it may be in this case). The admins will then try to reach concensus on how best to handle the request. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose - regardless of Monty's point ;) This is just an escalation of Scottywong vs Malleus and, as is more common than not, Malleus has got it right. I agree with Boing! said Zebedee's comment regarding "petty harassment" and vindictive deceitfulness. There is a problem here, and it is not Malleus. - Sitush (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Comment. Of the four diffs presented, the first one is not a violation of NPA. The next three are violations. Cla68 (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose. Per Tarc (and others), even though Malleus's comments may have been a bit snarky, I don't see a violation of the topic ban, which only had to do with the RfA Talk pages. The rest of the "ban" was simply permission to uninvolved admins to ban him from a specific RfA.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose. MF brought up important points at the RFAs. He was not disruptive, he was pointing out the elephant in the room in the case of Dr Blofeld's throwaway support !vote, and in pointing out the lapse in examining a candidates editing history such that four years were added to significant editing. All of this is necessary stuff and it's too bad if feathers get ruffled. Binksternet (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose. MF asked difficult questions at the RfA - not "obnoxious", "insulting" or "trolling" questions, as some above claim. Banning editors from RfA for asking "difficult" questions completely undermines the whole process. It would also represent one more step towards the two-tier "all editors are equal but some editors are more equal than others" Wikipedia that some admins would like to implement. GwenChan 10:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC) OK, this has got to be said at some point; as one of the relatively few admins willing to come here on a regular basis, everyone cool it for a while and let admins have a look. Outside opinions are absolutely valued at AE, but, reading over some of the crap being stated above, if I were one of the reviewing admins I'd probably be tossing out blocks like candy on Halloween at this point. You'd better cut it out or whoever else comes here to review this will probably start doing just that. Incidentally, tossing accusations at either "side" in this conflict is really calling the kettle black, which isn't going to make you look good here. Now I'm going to repeat my request; why don't a few of you at least have a look at a few other threads on this page which are about content (which seems to be important enough to everyone to toss around as both an excuse and a weapon but not important enough for you to worry about yourselves) and perhaps provide some assistance in managing the problems in those areas. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Comment to User:RegentsPark's uninvolved admin comment below; it would apply to anyone under ArbCom sanctions in which any uninvolved admin can issue a topic ban. It wouldn't apply to a clear WP:NPA violator not under ArbCom sanctions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC) However, the question should be whether MF is being disruptive at this RfA. If he is, he should be banned from it, per the ArbCom sanctions. If not, then he shouldn't be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Comment to any other "neutral" (lol) admins that may chime in below...Malleus has "quit" the website...I think this is his third resignation since arbcom gracefully allowed him to persist his usual programming. So we can close this and probably stayed tuned to tomorrows or next weeks "frivilous" complaints about Malleus...MONGO 07:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC) The fact that it's his third recent resignation suggests that maybe we shouldn't simply wait til his editing ramps up again and the same thing happens. What then, someone reports him, he "resigns", we say let's wait again.... Equazcion (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Frankly, MONGO needs to take a long hard look at his own conduct - those diffs cited in this AE in no way justifies this sort of response. Provoked, was he? I imagine it's more of a reflection of the fact he needs to take a break. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Comment: A discouraging number of editor's comments, above, seem to be contributer focused on each other. Please work to make only comments on other comments, strictly, in an area with high emotion. It is only slightly more wordy to say, "that comment makes no sense because . . ." than to say, "you're an idiot," "an ass" etc. Try for the former, please? It leads to better focus on where the focus should be. One can hold the opinion that comment A, B and C are disruptive or the opinion that comment A, B, and C are not disruptive. Explain your reasons for those opinions of comments A, B, and C and leave it to the process to find resolution. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC) While I agree with the general sentiments, the issue here is that in this particular context, the process (and decision) are being misused by specific users in a way which is creating a battleground. MONGO made himself open to criticism for proceeding to issue a warning in a matter where he is clearly involved, then inappropriately proceeding to intervene while making a gratuitous personal attack and assumption of bad faith in his edit summary [125]. He may not be an administrator for obvious reasons, but he is certainly expected to be aware of how this sort of thing works on Wikipedia. Now, it appears that certain users who (at present) hold administrative privileges are showing signs of following this lead; if they continue, it will eventually lead to the same disappointing remedy too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC) The process and the decision are being misued? Perhaps? But if so, generally it will go nowhere and it will, at any rate, get to nowhere faster without personalization. If someone issues a mistaken warning. Then all the pedia, I think is asking is the more useful response is, "your warning is mistaken and here's the reasons why" none of which includes ad hominum, which is uneeded and, yes can be worse things for everyone involved. And, as we all know, 'he started it' is just basically sad. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Meh...dragging up arbcom cases from 5 years ago is just a cheap shot...and expected. I'm not in a position to "warn" anyone...and that is not what I did with Malleus...I merely asked him bluntly and obtusely that I thought he was under arbcom restriction (I didn't know the exact details of such restriction, but knew there was one)...had I seen Malleus earlier comments t this Rfa I would have (not that I have to) stayed away from even voicing my opinion...I also formally apologize for my awful edit summary, but not for the removal of the provocative question by Malleus. With my tenure and experience on this website, I have to remember to set a better example of civility even when faced with egregious personal attacks and cheap shots from administrators such as Drmies and members of the Malleus clan....The history of the Rfa is easy to find...as Arthur Rubin stated above, either Malleus was disruptive or he wasn't...MONGO 15:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC) That is certainly not the intention; if the purpose of RFA is to increase the number of administrators, one would hope that a few of the existing admins would not foolishly do the same sort of thing which has apparently occurred in history already. Also, as you would have noticed, the admin who initiated this request has labelled your request as a "warning" at the top of the report, despite the reality of what you were doing (or as he may end up suggesting, what you thought you were doing). To avoid any misunderstanding, I think in the grand scheme of things, Malleus' conduct on this particular occasion was not so problematic/disruptive (if at all), even though I have on other occasions clearly expressed concerns about his conduct being otherwise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC) Comment: I think everyone would agree that none of this would have happened if younger wikipedians showed proper respect to their elders and betters. This whole episode is proof, if ever it were needed, that it is time to bring back the birch. Tom Pippens (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Kommentar Malleus' comments are snarky, imflammatory, and disruptive; he should be restricted from participation in this particular RFC RFA. Scottywang should be commended for calling him out. ThemFromSpace 17:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Excuse me, what lead you to think that this is an RfC? OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Oops, that was a typo. RfC => RfA. ThemFromSpace 21:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Purely for historical accuracy, I should like to point out my comment (not a !vote) in the RfA in question, in which I asked MF to desist from what I saw as disruption. I make no further comment, either to re-affirm or to diminish my comment (which has generated mixed opinions) but point it out only because it has not been noted in this thread, which I was not aware of when I commented in the RfA.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC) Result concerning Malleus Fatuorum This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I think that all that is needed is trouts for Scotty and It is me here. RFAs are a discussion, so we like to claim. Engaging people in a discussion about their "weak" votes is a common practice. (See the oppose section of every RfA) The diff that you cite is MF explaining the restriction he is under. He is not banned from RfAs or asking the hard questions at RfAs that many people shy away from. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC) I second Guerillero's suggestion. An RfA is a discussion and we should be encouraging responses to both support as well as oppose !votes. In this RfA, my impression is that MF is merely pointing out that a good admin needs to have made significant contributions to content. Whether one agrees or disagrees with that opinion, it is a legitimate one. If we ban MF or making such comments, we would have to ban all editors from disagreeing with any !vote. That is definitely not a good idea. Much of this fuss is due to a hasty, but possibly good faith, ANI report and I suggest the matter be dropped with trouts as suggested by Guerillero. There are plenty of more productive ways to waste time time on Wikipedia! --regentspark (comment) 01:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Ok, echoing TBoNL & VM above can everyone who is uninvolved (and unfamiliar with AE) please cool it. In terms of the evidence and the sanction itself, this diff[126] is in breach of the RfAr ruling, the other 3 are not (I undestand why MONGO redacted this one[127] but I see it as borderline, obnoxious yes, unhelpful yes, but not rising quite to the level of disruption that requires sanction). Whether or not MF was goaded into this is moot - he did it, and at an RFA page. I don't see this as grounds for blocking or banning but would see it as final warning territory. On the matter of the sanction wording this needs clarification. MF cannot be "banned" from RFA pages and allowed to !vote and comment there: if the committe mean that his behaviour is under probation on said pages then that needs to be made explicit--Cailil talk 13:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC) MF was banned from RFA Talk pages - those under WT:RFA. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC) In the "Discussion" section for editors who are not uninvolved administrators, why do we have a plethora of !vote-style comments? Constructive comments about the merits of the complaint are useful, but piling on to demonstrate consensus in favour or opposition of the complaint are not. AGK [•] 13:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC) I suspect that is because some of the participants are more used to AN/I :) With regard to this case, I don't see much evidence of disruption here, indeed I think the balance of MF's contributions are positive, given that he raised legitimate issues in his oppose and additionally motivated the nominator to modify his nomination statement. His comment to Mongo might be seen as provocative given that the two apparently have a history of antipathy; an interaction ban might be a possible solution. Other than that, I see little merit in this case; the nominator may have been miffed by MF's query as to what else he may have failed to investigate but given the former's admitted oversight, it was not an unreasonable query in the circumstances. Suggest this be closed with no action or at most a gentle reminder to Malleus of his obligations with regard to RFA participation. Gatoclass (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC) At this point, I think that it would be best to close this request as no action taken. AE is not WP:WQA. Not that I recommend taking this dispute to that forum, but the disputes dealt with there are more comparable in severity to this one, than those more properly before Arbitration Enforcement. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)