Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive172

C1cada
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning C1cada

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 00:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:AA2


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

The user has stated openly several times that he refuses to accept a consensus. This is in despite of the fact that there are at least seven editors who are opposed, for example, to just one of his proposals :
 * Blatant override of WP:CONSENSUS
 * 1) 18 April "I don't need consensus to correct matters of fact."
 * 2) 23 April "I don't require consensus to act there either."
 * 3) 26 April "I'm not prepared to accept this is a consensus issue. It concerns matters of fact which are not open to dispute."
 * 4) 27 April "There is a sense in which it is valid to say that there are matters of fact that are not open to "consensus" concerning their veracity."
 * 5) 28 April "That's the fact of the case. That really isn't up for consensus."
 * 6) 30 April "Otherwise starting next week I intend to make a series of edits in the usual WP:EDITCONSENSUS way addressing the issues, which are not properly contentious and don't need consensus from the Talk Page, though naturally I shall take account of any input here."
 * 7) 1 May "If it's all the same to an editor, I shall continue to choose my own words at edit without referring to the management here."
 * 8) 2 May "I do so hope I shall be able to edit constructively at the article and not have to deal once again with these sort interventions by an editor."

The user edits in the main space to that effect. He unwaveringly commits to his goal by (re)inserting contentious information never discussed or agreed upon at the talk page:
 * 1) 21 April
 * 2) 23 April
 * 3) 25 April
 * 4) 29 April
 * 5) 1 May
 * 6) 1 May

The talk page of Armenian Genocide is filled of the user's ultimatums. He expects users to run off on his own schedule when it comes to them. He doesn't bother evaluating the concerns raised about his proposals. In fact, he acts as if those concerns, and the users that express them, don't exist. Without reaching a consensus, and considering the reasons as to why he is being reverted at the main space, the user returns to the talk page and declares more ultimatums until there's no response in the given time-period, and (re)inserts his edit again. The gaming of Wikipedia policies, such as WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:BOLD, to further his intentions are also concerning. He was advised specifically for this very issue, but hasn't stopped since. The article has underwent several edit-wars due to this very reason.
 * Repeated ULTIMATUMS and I DIDN'T HEAR THAT-like remarks:
 * 1) 21 April (07:13) "But if this issue is not sorted adequately by 23 April at the end of the 72 hour period I mention above, I shall intervene again."
 * 2) 22 April (03:29) "Fix it before tomorrow afternoon, or I will."
 * 3) 24 April (15:28) "I don't see any dissent here, surprising really concerning the vehemence with my edit was reverted. I should think 24 hours is sufficient notice to give for editors to record their dissent. Thus, tomorrow evening, if I don't see any disagreements about the content, I shall move the edit into the article per WP:EDITCONSENSUS in the usual way."
 * 4) 24 April (22:45) Same ultimatum as above, but on a different issue.
 * 5) 25 April (09:05) "If you have some significant issue you dissent over which can best be constructively debated here, please indicate it in the next few hours."
 * 6) 26 April (01:11) "I don't see dissenting voices here. I propose WP:BOLD moving the edit into the main article for WP:EDITCONSENSUS this evening (12 hours hence) if there are no objections."
 * 7) 27 April (03:12) "Unless their are significant dissenting voices, this is what I shall move into the article tomorrow evening for WP:EDITCONSENSUS along with nhe definition from the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia we discuss below."
 * 8) 27 April (11:01) "Again if there are dissenting voices please make yourself heard before tomorrow evening."
 * 9) 28 April (02:57) "I am going to go ahead with putting the proposed modification forward for WP:EDITCONSENSUS this evening."
 * 10) 30 April (04:51) "Unless I see cogent objections, I propose to start implementing this after the weekend."
 * 11) 30 April (15:56) "Otherwise starting next week I intend to make a series of edits in the usual WP:EDITCONSENSUS way addressing the issues, which are not properly contentious and don't need consensus from the Talk Page, though naturally I shall take account of any input here."


 * WP:PERSONAL ATTACKS and CURSES
 * I recently made a series of edits to remove personal attacks and curses made towards me. After doing so, the user said: May 1 "I don't mind that and perhaps it was deserved."


 * These curses and insults are highlighted at a relevant ANI report: Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive883


 * Other remarks worthy of attention:
 * 1) 19 April "Wikipedia doesn't care about your Talk page bands."
 * 2) 25 April "As far as possible I shall ignore him, and otherwise remain entirely neutral in my dealing with him." (when referring to a user)
 * 3) 27 April "But I shall keep this article on my watchlist and intervene vigorously on behalf of the anglophone community as I think necessary."
 * 4) 27 April "Come fall, I may start some systematic attempts at improving the article."
 * 5) 28 April "I am very anxious to protect the precise usage of that word, especially as used in relation to the Armenian Genocide."
 * 6) 28 April "I should hope to see new arguments in that case and will continue to defend my edit."
 * 7) 1 May "If it's all the same to an editor, I shall continue to choose my own words at edit without referring to the management here."
 * 8) 1 May "An editor needs to do a lot better than this to accommodate me."
 * 9) 2 May "I do so hope I shall be able to edit constructively at the article and not have to deal once again with these sort interventions by an editor."

In light of the ultimatums declared by the user, the user is also aware of the fact that the Armenian Genocide article is 1RR restricted. For several times now, after being reverted at Armenian Genocide, he declares beforehand that he plans to revert the next day, and then does so without hesitation a few hours after the 24 hour mark. In one such instance, the user stated: "after waiting response and observing a time period of some 36 hours so that the one revert per day rule was comfortably observed, I restored the wikilink to Grace Knapp and its citations with an edit that in fact reduced the caption length."
 * Additional concerns
 * WP:GAMING THE SYSTEM:

The ultimatums above appear to be just another strategy to overcome the 1RR obstacle and reinsert his edits outside the 24 hour mark.

These edits are coupled by the abuse of WP:BOLD to justify unilateral edits:


 * WP:CANVASS

When the user has difficulty garnering support towards his position, he shops various Wikiprojects to help support his case. For example, when the user failed to gain support from other users regarding changes he wanted to implement in the POTD template, he went along and stuck the template in major Turkish-related WikiProjects and talk pages: WikiProject Turkey, Portal talk:Turkey, and Turkey.

This continued even after being given a formal AA2 advisory from admin when the user tried to canvass the very admin that gave the advisory:


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

C1cada displays all of the signs of a disruptive editing pattern. The user does not engage in consensus building. He rejects or ignores community input. He cannot satisfy Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. His editing pattern is tendentious and edit-wars frequently to get his way. This is mostly due to an attempt by the user to minimize and manipulate the legality and veracity of the Armenian Genocide by the use of his own POV to characterize the events. Most of this disruption occurs in one of the most sensitive articles in Wikipedia: Armenian Genocide. The article is under 1RR restrictions and the user, during its most sensitive time-period (100th anniversary of the AG), attempted to exclude 'massacre' from the POTD blurb for the Armenian Genocide. When that failed, he attempted to downgrade the systematic nature of the genocide by employing the term 'pogrom' instead, even when several users, as aforementioned, were against such classifications. In a more recent edit, he replaced the word 'killed' with 'perished' and 'genocide' with 'killings' in the lead. This wasn't discussed, let alone proposed in the TP. The user also plays with words by saying 'Genocide' is not the same as 'genocide' and advocates the use of 'genocidal' instead of 'genocide' (see: here and here respectively). This is also observed by this edit, which confines the AG to the year 1915. This POV then continues with each one of his proposals. Take, for example, "The atrocities committed between 1915 and 1916 are recognised as genocide in international law." There has been no source provided by the user that claims that only the first year (1915-16) account as genocide under 'international law'. He points to a report by the IAGS, but the report doesn't make any mention that the genocide is acknowledged until 1916. Hence, the wording he chooses is nothing more than his personal observations and opinions. Such reports are neither scholarly or academic and cannot be considered a WP:RS either. Nevertheless, the user himself has said that there is no source needed for such claims. The refusal to "get the point" regarding consensus and outright reluctance to provide any sources to justify his edits has been the cause of multiple edit-warring disputes. Also, I included some diffs prior to the formal warning to show that the user has not changed his conduct even after the advisory. So in light of all I mentioned here, I propose he be banned from editing topics related to Armenia, and more specifically: the Armenian Genocide.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Related ANI reports:
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive882
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive883


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * The user is not only reluctant when it comes to backing off his insults, but says that I 'deserved' them. By saying such a statement, he confirms that he still stands by all those insults. This is not dialogue that should be encouraged.


 * Wording is indeed important. This is what every user on the TP is willing to discuss. However, this isn't about the words per se, it's about the problematic methodology used by this editor when discussing and implementing these very issues. Due to this user's refusal to "get the point", coupled with the blatant disregard to consensus building, discussion has become almost impossible and therefore, the article is now subjugated to a series of unnecessary edit-wars. Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion concerning C1cada
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by C1cada
I have addressed this user in very neutral terms since Fred warned me my behaviour had crossed a red line. Of course I'm very anxious to respect the Committee's strictures.

The editing dispute here concerns two matters of fact. One is that the Armenian Genocide was not confined to the Armenians living within the boundaries of present-day Turkey and the second is that, so far, recognition of the genocide in its legal sense is confined to the atrocities of 1915-1916. The French Wikipedia currently gives the best account. My motivation for wishing to clarify on these issues stem not from a 'denialist' stance, but in the first place to record the experience of Russian Armenians living in present-day Armenia, and second to preserve the integrity of the word 'genocide' in its legal sense as a crime against humanity closely defined in international law.

The editing dispute here seems to me to derive from inadequate copy skills in English. Faced with an editor making adjustments to copy to clarify details such as the above, an inadequate editor has no recourse but to revert copy to some safe haven of the past. When the copy is rephrased to accommodate their concerns, they nevertheless persist in claims of "edit-warring".

For example, when I created a section "Massacres after World War I" recording the experience of the Russian Armenians, after pointing out the lede necessitated it and offering it first to the established editors, this user reverted it in full, insisting it be taken to the Talk Page. I took it to the Talk Page and over a period of a few days absolutely no modifications were suggested. When I restored it the article it was immediately reverted again, insisting that it record the genocidal nature of the attacks. I readily concurred since that was plainly implied by the context, "Ottoman policy", referenced in the text and the subsequent remarks. Finally the section remains in place. However the user could have avoided all the time wasting by inserting "genocidal" on their account, a clarification that, frankly, many readers might well think unnecessary in the context

It's manifestly clear that that the Armenian Genocide article needs improvement. I intend to persist doing that. Presently my goals are to implement parenthetical referencing throughout and to correct obvious errors of copy such as "The Armenian Genocide has been corroborated by many authorities" that I reference on the Talk Page. Come fall, I hope to spend some time improving its contents. Too much of the article consists of quoted copy-paste. c1cada (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by 92slim
has a long history of unnecessary talks in the Armenian Genocide talk page. This of course is not disruptive behaviour, but he has, nevertheless, borderline aggressively insisted that 's "English skills" were lacking when this was not apparent from the latter, citing just one example of disruptive behaviour. The main problem is that C1cada masks his own POV ideas (which he never backed with any sources, including the dates he provides, AFAIK) with excuses such as "copy editing", or failing to understand what WP:CONSENSUS means when he wants to contribute to the page.

If he's not restrained from editing the topic in question, the disruption and edit-warring on the articles will continue forever. After seeing that he ignores Admin advice all the time, it would be unexpected that he would listen to another user's advice. I think he needs to understand how Wikipedia works better. But this should be temporary in my opinion. --92slim (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's certainly interesting mention "the articles current dire state", when you yourself have not contributed one single bit to the article. As for "the article seems to be ruled by AG deniers and Armenian opponents of those AG deniers.", this couldn't be further from the truth. If you check the article's talk page, you would see that this Mandaean view that you have presented is very far from the truth; plenty of random IP's and users continue to contribute to what you call a "mostly useless discussion", including yourself. Maybe you should focus on making constructive edits instead of criticizing the work of other Wikipedians who work on the topic, and that includes the proper use of WP:CONSENSUS. --92slim (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That is your own opinion, which is respectable, but not necessarily true. The article is backed by reliable sources that share both sides of the spectrum, and that's what really guides the editing. --92slim (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Fred Bauder
Please keep in mind that the enforcement alert addressed personal attacks not general editing behavior. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:C1cada&oldid=659174876#Warning I see little evidence that direct personal attacks have continued. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is difficult, but not impossible, to assist people with copyediting problems in a way they can accept. Often the problem is that the direct translation of word in English has different connotations than it does in English. This phenomenon plagues professional translators as well as Wikipedia editors. Simultaneously paraphrasing and getting the right connotations is equivalent to translating poetry. Not being able to get every word right is to be expected. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I could uncover problems by closely examining the examples given, but the discussion at Talk:Armenian Genocide seems productive and within acceptable limits. With repect to post WW1 killings in lands occupied by Turkey during the Russian revolution, I don't seem much fine-grained discussion of sources, but I note that the material is now included in the article and seems to fit. We have articles concerning the killing of one person, if there is sufficient material a separate article regarding the killing of tens of thousands of people during this phase might be justified. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield
C1cada is to be commended for his good faith attempts at improving the Armenian Genocide article. The bringer of this complaint considered the article to be so perfect that he actually nominated it for GA status - but the GA reviewer thought the article to be in such a state that it did not even pass the initial stage of its review. The Armenian Genocide article seems ruled by two cliques: AG deniers and Armenian opponents of those AG deniers. Together, those two camps have been responsible for the articles current dire state, and have been responsible for filling 22 talk pages with mostly useless discussion. C1cada is approaching the article's obvious problems with a new set of hands and a fresh pair of eyes. It is little surprise that the old guard are trying everything to stop him, in particular using claims of "consensus" to restrict his edits. Consensus should not be used to retain incorrect content, or unreferenced content, and should not be used to remove properly referenced new content or restrict the right to be bold when faced with an article containing obvious problems that incumbent editors seem to have been happy to live with. I don't agree with every edit C1cada makes or with every piece of content he wants added or rewritten - but he IS moving the article forward with positive editing and that, in the end, should be what matters the most. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the article is in such a dire state that it is unredeemable and so is not worth my editing time. I doubt C1cada realizes how bad it actually is. I would want to rewrite it from scratch, but that is not ever going to be possible so I prefer to leave it alone (except to provide some small encouragement to positive edits when they are made). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes
It appears that C1cada has been involved in slow-motion 1RR edit war on the page about Armenian genocide after receiving an WP:AE warning on 18:00 April 25:, ,,. Although most edits by C1cada seem to be reasonable, some of them may be interpreted as POV-pushing on "pro-Turkish" side:
 * 1) -  she/he uses word "pogrom" that implies involvement of civilian population in the killings, however these atrocities are known to be conducted by Turkish military. Moreover, most of the events were not pogroms.
 * 2) - removal of notion that  Armenians lived "in their historic homeland within Ottoman Turkey"
 * 3) telling that it was not a genocide

And his comments are obviously not appropriate : "It is not as if the problem is that you are perhaps dyslexic or educationally disadvantaged" and so on. My very best wishes (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Dr.K.
This case represents a rather difficult situation which has arisen in the flagship article of the very contentious area of AA2. Although my discussions with C1cada have been pleasant and courteous I don't think I have accomplished much toward my goal of attempting to bring C1cada to accept my argument, namely that his editing approach invoking WP:EDITCONSENSUS at every opportunity and then issuing a correspondent ultimatum and after that proceeding with his proposed edit, is not constructive in this DS/1RR-regulated area and that his/her approach is a recipe for an endless, diachronic, but ironically 1-RR-respecting edit-war. This type of slow-edit-war-driven editing in a DS-regulated area is unacceptable imo. Further, C1cada has declared multiple times that some of his edits are not subject to consensus because they are self-evident. That too I find disturbing, especially in a WP:CONSENSUS-driven project. There is also C1ada's insistence on commenting on the relation of editors to English in terms of being native speakers of the language or not that I find problematic. These issues are addressed in my reply to the editor, one of several examples. There are more diffs I can give but I believe in diff-minimisation for optimum results. If AE can somehow resolve these issues it will be a positive development. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning C1cada

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


 * Open several days now, and wow there is a LOT of backstory to read through here. Anybody interesting in helping?   02:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You are misunderstanding and/or misinterpreting what sorts of decisions are not subject to consensus. You cannot say something constitutes "matters of fact" or is "not properly contentious" and thereby declare your actions (made in defiance of what others think) to be immune to consensus.  There are, to be sure, a small number of things here that cannot be overridden by consensus, but disagreements regarding facts and wording do not normally fall into that category.  Even if you are convinced something is obvious and that no sane and honest person can disagree with it, that doesn't give you permission to take "ownership" of the article and force it to read the way you think it should — you must still respect Wikipedia's established procedures for dispute resolution, and if other editors disagree with you, you need to give honest consideration to the possibility that their interpretation of the facts may be superior to yours (or, at least, that what they are saying may be worthy of consideration).


 * Further, you have been notified that editing activity on "pages regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts" is subject to enhanced scrutiny (discretionary sanctions) w/r/t editors' adherence (or lack thereof) to proper standards of behaviour and to Wikipedia's core policies. Your conduct, as illustrated in the discussion of this AE request, shows a pattern of disruptive editing, including edit warring, incivility, personal attacks, and a battleground mentality — none of which are acceptable on Wikipedia.


 * The "discretionary sanctions" (DS) guidelines authorize any of a broad range of sanctions against an editor who violates the stated behavioural standards. While I would be justified per the DS guidelines in blocking you entirely for up to a year, I am going to stop short of doing that in order to give you a chance to work productively in other areas of Wikipedia.  You are hereby topic-banned for SIX  MONTHS from editing, discussing, or seeking to move or delete any article or other page (including talk pages) on the subject of the event commonly referred to as the "Armenian Genocide" — including any references to this event in pages dealing primarily with other subjects.  This topic ban will end on Friday, 6 November 2015, at 00:00 UTC.  Per the general exceptions to limited bans found at WP:BANEX, you may discuss this banned topic in the context of appealing the ban or seeking clarifications about its scope in a non-frivolous manner — but you are not to try to take advantage of the exception for reverting obvious vandalism or BLP violations (let other people deal with those sorts of things).


 * For the record, I am setting the duration of your topic ban at six months because you said you were planning to do significant work on the Armenian Genocide article "come fall"; because of this ban, you will need to wait a while longer than that before jumping back in. And when (if) you do choose to resume editing in this topic area, you must take special care to follow the accepted Wikipedia content and editing behaviour policies, even if you disagree with them; otherwise, you risk a longer topic ban or a complete block from all editing.


 * Please read WP:AC/DS (the "discretionary sanctions" page), and if you decide to appeal this topic ban, understand that you must follow the instructions which you will find on that page under "Appeals and modifications". I hope you will find ways of contributing productively to other subject areas on Wikipedia during the next six months, and that you will be able to edit productively in your currently banned topic area once your ban has expired.  Be advised, though, that any attempt to defy or evade this ban (including, but not limited to, sockpuppetry) will result in an extension of the ban, or in your being blocked.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Request concerning Ohconfucius

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 20:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun_Gong_2

User:Ohconfucius was previously indefinitely topic banned from Falun Gong-related page by Arbcom. The topic ban was provisionally suspended for a one-year trial period per this motion. I think a review of his conduct is in order before the probationary period expires.

During Ohconfucius’ one-year reprieve, he has continued a pattern of POV editing, edit warring, and commenting inappropriately on other users. Most worrying, he restored a polemical anti-Falun Gong essay in userspace after being told by arbitrators to permanently delete it.

Background (see also WP:GAME)
In July 2012, Arbcom voted to indefinitely ban Ohconfucius from Falun Gong-related topics due to edit warring, incivility, and violations of WP:NPOV.

In April 2014, Ohconfucius appealed to lift the topic ban, and assured arbitration committee that he would not return to editing Falun Gong.

Arbcom’s response to this request was tepid, but seven arbs ultimately agreed to provisionally suspend the ban with a probationary period of one year. One arbitrator said his agreement was conditional and asked Ohconfucius to "steer well clear of matters of controversy" related to Falun Gong.

Ohconfucius reneged on his promises and quickly resumed making controversial edits to Falun Gong articles. It seems to me that he had gamed the system, and not for the last time.

He was brought back to Arbcom. The arbitrators again urged caution; one arb said to "move on" from editing Falun Gong, and another told him that he must permanently delete all of the anti-Falun Gong essays that he kept in his userspace and refrain from commenting on other editors or else he (the arbitrator) would request reinstatement of the ban. 

Ohconfucius deleted the offending essays in his userspace. After the ArbCom case was closed, however, he simply reposted a permalinked version on his user page. This week he restored the page entirely.

Violations of WP:ATTACK, WP:HARASS, WP:POLEMIC
– Ohconfucius’ polemical essay on Falun Gong contains attacks against named individuals, groups, and several Wikipedia editors (myself included), violating WP:NPA, WP:ATTACK, WP:HARASS, and WP:POLEMIC. Note that Ohconfucius has been told on two occasions, by two members of Arbcom, that this essay is inappropriate. User:Seraphimblade told him to permanently delete it or else face reimposition of the topic ban.

Violations of WP:NPOV
Ohconfucius has continued previous patterns of POV editing. Most edits involve deleting/whitewashing reliably sourced information on the Chinese government’s human rights practices or claiming material is not supported by sources when it actually is.



Violation of WP:WAR
Ohconfucius made multiple reverts on September 9 on a Falun Gong-related article, ignoring talk page discussions. (Note: I initially thought these were a 3RR violation, but because some were performed in succession, it’s actually more like 3 reverts).

– misstates facts about the history of the 610 Office

– reverts (apparently convinced that he's right, while he's not)

– deletes information because it was unsourced (see bottom of diff)

– after a source was added, deletes it again

– deletes information from lede

– deletes again

– adds quote from Chinese government source and omits Ownby's views

– same edit again

– deletes information about man in Chengde

– deletes again (he's right about this one, but a revert nonetheless)

Violations of WP:CIVIL
– This talk page discussion is representative of an inability to assume good faith and a reflexive tendency to personalize discussions – something he’s been warned about repeatedly.


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above: yes
 * Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above: yes
 * Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months (see the background section): yes

Just a quick comment. I believe Ohconfucius' reply elucidates the problem. Instead of addressing his apparent breaches of policy and ArbCom rulings, such as direct personal attacks and using Wikipedia as a platform for ax-grinding and polemics, we get more name-calling from a seemingly unblockable ivory tower and "no further comments." I am not a Falun Gong activist or a so-called Falun Gongster and fundamentally do not see this as a content dispute. Neither have I said that Ohconfucius is "pro-regime." I stated that the direction of his edits on this topic generally serve to improve the image of the Chinese government. Note that he admits to editing from an "anti-Falun Gong" viewpoint instead of NPOV and seems to perceive the Falun Gong namespace as a zero-sum game. There were valid reasons for his indefinite topic ban in the first place; later he was put on probation, and I simply believe the situation should be assessed once again. Best regards. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * I am restoring this unresolved case from the archives and respectfully plead the AE staff to move forward with it. This was the second time it was archived due to inactivity. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Ohconfucius
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by Ohconfucius
I have said time and again that I try hard to leave my personal opinions outside of the mainspace articles. Nowadays, I only make a very small number of edits on Falun Gong topics, yet I still get continually attacked by Falun Gong activists, so I'm not going to dwell on the issue before us. Falun Gong are known for their tenacity and relentlessness, wearing their critics down. The attacks were stressful for me in the past. I just find their attacks on me tiring. Tiring that the Falun Gong activists manifest the very intolerance of criticism of their movement that the Regime does with people who criticise their rule. I have repeatedly asserted that the Falun Gong and the Regime are heavily shaped by the Cultural Revolution, and are thus the antitheses of each other, and this observation/position appears to rile Falun Gong activists.

This request is yet another content dispute with the filer of the request and User:TheBlueCanoe, both of whom have a history of editing Falun Gong articles from what I believe is a highly partisan and advocate's viewpoint and with whom I have had running content disputes over the years. A new and inexperienced Falun Gong editor, who for the moment shall remain nameless, has joined their ranks recently, and may have contributed with text copied verbatim from elsewhere. I would merely say that I find copyright violations equally objectionable as the propaganda of the Falun Dafa and of the Regime, and part of that editing work is to remove copyvios or otherwise make clear that these are positions and not fact. All my edits have, I believe, adequate edit summaries explaining my rationale. Whilst the complainant has only found examples he objects to showing my bias, he failed to give me any credit for this comment (for example), which certainly shows that I am editing objectively and in good faith.

The Regime almost insists upon the "L'état, c'est moi" conflation between the party and the state in the same way as Falun Gongsters insist on labelling all people who do not support their movement as supporters of the Regime. IIndeed, I restored the essay within my own userspace after learning about the former's complaint to EdJohnson, in which he repeated his previous provocative smear that I was somehow "pro-Regime". It made me suspect whether he understood that anti-Regime people can also be anti-Falun Gong. If the distinction between the two is not clear in his own head, one must question whether he ought to be editing such polemic topics on Wikiepdia.

In view of the foregoing, I would state that the assembled should not be too surprised if there were no further comments from me on this case. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 05:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please do not be misled into confusing my fatigue of Falun Gong shenanigans with arrogance. I certainly do not feel I am unblockable, though my two principal accusers seem to share the belief that I think I'm immune to sanction. I am but an ordinary editor who does not want any further personal emotional reaction (i.e. stress) to this topic, and certainly no further drama. The editing issues being complained of here are content disputes – exactly the same as the last time – despite the attempt to position them otherwise. As I already stated above, I reinstated my essay because there seems to be some fundamental questions as to my allegiances and stance. Even after its reinstatement, it appears that there continues to be miscomprehension and even misrepresentation of my personal position and editing stance. Notwithstanding, to save myself reinventing the wheel at every juncture, I feel that the content of my essay is of value. Writing essays is a valid expression of one's personal sentiments, and serves to document emotional and editing issues faced every day on Wikipedia, so I would oppose its outright deletion of my effort because editing of Falun Gong articles is a rather unique experience. However, as it appears that there may be some sensitivity to the naming of names therein, I will make suitable redaction. I hope that will be satisfactory. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 03:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
It is worth noting that this subject has already been discussed with Ed Johnston at User talk:EdJohnston and the comments Ed made in response.
 * I also think it worth noting that the previous arbitrations have made it rather obvious that this is a vital article to the Falun Gong movement, which is remarkably active in the West, and that editors associated with the movement have been much more "sanctioned" historically than others. As for the claims that Ohconfucius' edits are ideologically-driven, I would be interested in knowing what "ideology" is allegedly driving him, because that has not so far as I have seen been indicated, and he has in the past reacted very strongly and negatively to allegations of being on the side of the PRC, understandably, I think. I also note as per his history that he has edited other, related articles in the broad qigong field, and that it is primarily on the basis of his work that the only FG FA out there exists. None of that is indicative of any sort of ideological involvement to my eyes, let alone being driven by ideology. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Awaiting closing, and basically supporting the idea that at most Ohconfucius be given a warning. AGF unfortunately really doesn't apply when the evidence of the history and nature of the self-declared (and otherwise) biases of a number of editors involved with the topic is so clearly visible as it is in this case. And, again, we should also note that it is, apparently, the opinion of one of the larger "advocacy" groups dealing with China in the Western world, from which we draw most of our editors, and that on that basis is likely to still be subject to POV pushing from that side. Kww has said in an active request for arbitration that there were basically two reasons to impose discretionary sanctions, one to prevent incivility, and the second to keep the content up to the standards of policies and guidelines. The second is, probably, more important than the first in general, and I have reason to believe, knowingly or unknowingly, Ohconfucius is probably acting in accord with that principle, even if he might be, perhaps, outnumbered in doing so. It might make more sense to place the related content on indefinite full coverage, so that edits can only be made by an uninvolved admin after consensus for such changes on the article talk page, and it is a kind of narrow topic, at least in terms of directly related articles, so it might be workable here, but I don't know whether it is permissible by the existing rulings. If it isn't, maybe we should seek an ARCA for such. John Carter (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure that "righting great wrongs" is the best way to describe Ohconfucius's approach here. Falun Gong is, unfortunately, a political hotbed issue, particularly regarding China and Chinese expats. And it is one of, maybe the, leading critic of the PRC regime in the Western world. A lot of people including editors are both sympathetic to their efforts (including me, and I think Ohconfucius himself) while at the same time acknowledging that the efforts of their "political machine" crosses the line about as often as the partisan political machines of the various political parties in the West do. Some might say that the political machines fairly consistently stay on the wrong side of the line, actually. No one, including either him or me, really in any way agree with the PRC, but at the same time we have to acknowledge that given the dearth of information we have on internal matters we are more or less obliged to give its press releases due WEIGHT, because we don't have any real evidence to the contrary. I remember in Ownby's book, for instance, where he basically gave the press statement about a Western spy being involved in the formation of Falun Gong about the same amount of space as the total length of the one and only statement from the PRC to date about it. He can't give more, because the statement is more or less a stand alone, but he did, basically, almost repeat it. The almost knee-jerk Western dismissal of PRC statements is one of the issues which it is hardest for most people to overcome, and I think in that regard he might be one of the few who really is working to keep the content in line with the policies as they can best be applied in this definitely sub-optimal situation of a lot of partisan sources on one side and damn few partisan sources on the other, but those partisan sources being between them pretty much all that is available. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by coldacid (uninvolved)
Despite the conversation on 's talk, this essay is certainly questionable, and considering 's comment in the June 2014 amendment request, it seems that is definitely tempting fate. Whether this is the editor taking the WP:ROPE they were given and hanging themself with it, or not, I can't say. For sure, though, we should hear from Seraphimblade on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by coldacid (talk • contribs) 02:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with 's "quick comment". Regardless of the content dispute, ' attitude even here on this AE request demonstrates that the editor should be strongly encouraged to edit other topics. At the very least, they should be topic-banned from anything relating to Falun Gong, and their attack essay deleted and salted. Ohconfucius has been given enough rope. Would still like to hear from you on this. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 15:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment by My very best wishes
This edit by Ohconfucius strikes me as very recent and highly problematic (I know how important this article is to Falun Gong propagandists, but you should accept it as an unfortunate consequence of one of your fellow FLG editors choosing to plagiarise an entire chunk of it). Otherwise, I am not sure this AE request would be reasonable, given that most other diffs/edits by Ohconfucius were rather old (although also problematic), and Arbcom did not ask for reviewing this matter after a year, judging from their motion. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not think that editors in this area should be cursed and treated as "Falun Gongsters" (per Ohconfucious). During FG-2 case I talked with some of them, and they looked as good-faith and highly educated contributors, and in particular, User:Homunculus, very different from crude political SPA I have met in other subject areas. Unfortunately, she is no longer active in the project, just as many others, possibly due to the disputes and sanctions...
 * I think it would be fine for Ohconfucius to express his opinion about editing FG in his essay. However, he targeted several specific contributors: "more sophisticated undeclared/clandestine FLG advocates who are well versed in Wikipedia's policies appeared. Homunculus and TheSoundAndTheFury ..." and links them to WP:COI (in the end of the paragraph). I do not really know: perhaps there is an evidence of their WP:COI? If so, Ohconfucius must provide his evidence here, and these contributors should be sanctioned? But I did not see anything about their WP:COI during FG-2 case... My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Re to comment by Ohconfucius on my talk page . Yes, Ohconfucius removed these passages from his essay dated April 2 2015. Yes, that would be fine and sufficient, but he continue blaming others as "Gongsters" and "Falun Gong advocates" on this very page (see his statement above) and even on my talk page. No, this is not a fair assessment of these people, given their contributions to the project . My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In summary, I think this is hardly a reasonable AE request based on the most recent diffs (and it could be left without action), however given the suspended topic ban, a review of editing by Ohconfucious during the entire year and based on all provided diffs would still be reasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TheBlueCanoe
Here’s what Seraphimblade said at arbitration:


 * “If Ohconfucius' pattern of commenting on editors rather than edits continues or speculating on their motives, I'll be in favor of reinstating the topic ban. In that vein, Ohconfucius:, I will be requesting reinstatement of the topic ban if you do not get rid of all of your userspace material on Falun Gong and leave it gone.”

Reposting an archived version of the userspace essay less than a month later was clearly defying the spirit, if not the letter, of the request. More interesting is that Ohconfucius completely restored the essay last week, after a complaint about it was filed on EdJohnston’s talk page. I have no idea how to account for this--tempting fate, or maybe Ohconfucius thinks he's unblockable.

On the NPOV issue, some of these diffs bear examining more closely:


 * Deletes information claiming it’s not in the source, but it was.


 * Deletes information about torture, saying he wasn’t clear on the source, but the source was clearly cited.


 * - Adds a notability tag to the article, saying all mentions of the subject are trivial. The subject was the central focus of articles by several major news organizations--something no impartial editor would call trivial coverage.


 * Says reports of torture is merely a Falun Gong allegation, which it’s not.

I’ve tried to give the benefit of the doubt that these were all honest mistakes, and maybe they are. But looking more closely at the history I’m not so sure, and it does seem that the user is ideologically driven. Certainly some of the reasons he’s given for deleting cited information on these pages are pretty flimsy (e.g. )

It also goes without saying that I don’t appreciate the insinuations that I’m a sock, a “meatpuppet” or a “Falun Gong propagandists” for trying to address and correct the issues I see on these pages. The Blue Canoe  16:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * @User:EdJohnston, Ohconfucius has blanked his userspace page at your request, but he still links to an archived version of it from his main user page. And given his record of reneging of promises made during arbitration proceeding, there is no guarantee that he will not simply restore it again in a couple weeks or otherwise continue to speculate inappropriately on other editors' motives. Secondly, it may be true that Ohconfucius sees himself as "manning the barricades against a tide of Falun Gong editors," and that this is what's behind his incivility and breakdown in good faith, but this doesn't accurately describe the reality on these pages, and hasn't for several years. I've edited Falun Gong articles for a couple years now, and have seen no such tide of Falun Gong editors (one editor, who emerged in the last couple months, does not a tide make). Instead, three of the main articles on Falun Gong have been promoted to Good Article status on the basis of solid editing by the very people whom Ohconfucius likes to accuse and disparage. Meanwhile, I have not seen Ohconfucius make any real or meaningful contributions to Falun Gong pages. Aside from minor formatting changes, a major thrust of his edits is to either sanitize information on human rights abuses by the Chinese government or to advance Chinese government narratives against Falun Gong, often in a way that is inaccurate and requires correction. He is certainly not the one who is defending pages against activist editors on either side.


 * Finally, it seems that he has been warned already on several occasions. After being banned indefinitely, he's been given several more lengths of rope, each time accompanied by a reminder from the arbitration committee to exercise better judgement, to stop commenting on other editors, to steer clear of controversy, to move on, etc. But since he himself has never issued any kind of mea culpa, it's not surprising that his conduct doesn't change.  The Blue Canoe  12:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * OccultZone, You are correct that he was not site banned, but he was indefinitely topic banned from editing Falun Gong articles. Sorry, I assumed that was clear.
 * EdJohnston, I think most of us here are ready to put the case behind us, so in the absence of other views maybe your proposal is sufficient (also, you should be thanked for trying to see this case through to a proper close). Hopefully this isn't followed by an escalation that brings us back to arbitration in a couple months. But I'm curious, in which of the above examples of Ohconfucius' editing is he responding to actual (as opposed to perceived) tendentious editing? It seems to me that a person's perception of other editors does not absolve them of a responsibility to adhere WP:NPA, to say nothing of WP:V and WP:NPOV.  The Blue Canoe  12:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by OccultZone
I have also seen a lot of work by Ohconfucius around, I agree that he knows how content can be made better, every allegations that have been made here, I have no comments on them, and I really believe that EdJohnston is correct with his assertion, he had asked Ohconfucius to blank the pages, and Ohconfucius did blanked them. I would also like to correct that Ohconfucius was never banned.(Check WP:BAN)  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Ohconfucius

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


 * As a purely procedural note, the view I expressed regarding Ohconfucius' userspace material was an opinion of mine, and was not part of the formal terms of the restriction being suspended. That does not, of course, mean that I'm particularly thrilled to see they were restored, but that is not in itself grounds to revoke the suspension. There may exist other grounds to do so, if so, I'm sure the admins here will make that call. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Restored this complaint from archive 15 April. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Before filing here, User:TheSoundAndTheFury posted a request at my talk page (permalink) asking for an indefinite topic ban on Ohconfucius. The same talk thread includes some responses by me. Ohconfucius sometimes leaves intemperate edit summaries and sometimes accuses people (such as BlueCanoe) of being 'FLG editors' without enough reason. For a while he was declining to blank or delete a page about Falun Gong conduct matters at User:Ohconfucius/essay/Editing Falun Gong articles on Wikipedia, but he has now done so. Ohconfucius also edits on topics that are not controversial and is credited with 22 Good Articles. Ohconfucius sees himself as manning the barricades against a tide of FLG editors and this affects the tone of his edit summaries. He should realize that that the problem has now been drawn to his attention, and continued activism may bring new complaints. I don't see him as a defender of the Chinese government. The imminent expiry of the suspended sanction isn't urgent because the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=631252824#Motion FLG discretionary sanctions] allow a new topic ban to be imposed at any time. I recommend this be closed with no action against Ohconfucius. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I accept that Ohconfucious tries really hard to keep his personal bias in check when editing in this area. I accept that he fails often enough to be a problem. The deep-rooted problem of Righting Great Wrongs seems to me not to be going away over time, and I think the restriction should be reimposed, because otherwise I foresee escalating drama and potentially the loss of someone who is, in every other area, nice to have around. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This report has been open for a long time. Though admins have expressed some opinions (myself and JzG) I don't see a strong consensus. User:Seraphimblade said he wasn't expressing an opinion. The legacy of Ohconfucius's appearances at Arbcom seems to fall in a gray area. Arbcom wasn't sure either. Ohconfucius is not an ideologue and actually creates some good content but he often responds harshly to what he perceives as tendentious editing by Falun Gong supporters. Unless there is more decisive input here, I'm tempted to close this with no action. Except, I would delete the following files with the deletion summary 'Arbitration enforcement':
 * User:Ohconfucius/essay/Editing Falun Gong articles on Wikipedia/user analysis
 * User:Ohconfucius/essay/Editing Falun Gong articles on Wikipedia
 * EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing with no ban, but the two pages about the case in Ohconfucius's user space are being deleted. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Request concerning Xtremedood

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 22:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIPA


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


 * 1) Claiming a popular battle to be a "hoax" clear attempt to WP:RGW.
 * 2) Edit warring ,
 * 3) failure to understand WP:CON, "2 against 1 is not a consensus".
 * 4) Blanking of the material that he don't like. Indeed, if he claims that it is 'unsourced', then why he don't remove the opposite material that is also unsourced?
 * 5) WP:SOAPBOXING.
 * 6) WP:ASPERSIONS, "Your edits often seem disruptive and unprofessional", though the seems to be making good edits.
 * 7) Canvassing a particular side.
 * 8) Attempts to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along ,(4 Indians and 1 non-Indian) a warning can be found here, this was his response.


 * That is all from last 7 days. He had demonstrated this sort of WP:BATTLE mentality in the last report as well.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Your edit was far different than this kind of remark, his is misleading, while yours clearly questions about its qualification as WP:RS. You removed it because you thought that the source is unreliable, while Xtremedood objected to each of them because he believes that the whole battle is hoax. There is big difference in what he is thinking and what others are thinking. Concerning the 2 recent ANIs during this report, his edits do violate WP:CENSOR of material that is often sourced with a reliable source and when it comes along with the BLP violation that has been added below, we will have to think more.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is still WP:SOAPBOX to misrepresent the credibility of the source, call it unreliable but don't connect it with the group that concerns some sort of ethnicity. How about this edit? This was the article where I found him first. Then the AfD of Battle of Rajasthan was clearly unwarranted. He could try RfC or any other WP:DR method for addressing his doubts. Although he went to canvass and comment on the nationalities of those who he opposed, even though none of them(except maybe 1) have revealed their nationality, overlooking is likely going to cause more disruption and lower chances for sanctions in future.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed with, a warning will suffice.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Xtremedood
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by Xtremedood
OccultZone has already made a complaint in the past which was dismissed. He seems to have been stalking my contributions, rather than engage in a pragmatic debate on whether or not the Battle of Rajasthan article should be deleted. To claim a battle with such limited sources is "popular" is a clear fallacy. OccultZone has not been able to provide a single legitimate source as to the relevant location of the supposed conflict, the generals involved, and why there are sources saying that conflict continued till 739 A.D. when OccultZone's sources say the decisive battle to stop all battles occurred in 738 A.D.

1) I have not violated WP:RGW, as various other users have agreed with me about the scarcity of sources pertaining to this supposed battle. There are even other users claiming that the article's name should be changed (thus opposing the legitimacy of this as a "popular" battle).

2) These edits do not constitute "edit warring." FreeatlastChitchat and I have been debating for over a month as to whether certain content should be allowed or omitted on the article. There was a DRN discussion mediated by Keithbob, in which we discussed in great detail this article. There has been no resolution as of now, and FreeatlastChitchat's attempt to mediate has also been rejected. Clearly OccultZone seems very desperate to try gather up information about me, he seems to be stalking my contributions. He does not know the background information pertaining to this whole thing. The 3RR was also respected. In the past he also accussed me of making wrong edits of the Mughal-Sikh war battles. However, a thorough investigation found (by administration) that I was correct in my edits. OccultZone's heavily biased accusations should therefore be dismissed.

3) Consensus was not reached in this matter.I agreed to wait for consensus after OccultZone's first complaint. However, OccultZone did not answer my relevant questions pertaining to the sources at hand. From April 20th to April 29th, there was no response. OccultZone, rather than wait for consensus simply reverted the article on April 28th, . This means for 8 days he did not make a response, and randomly suggested that 2 against 1 constituted a consensus, which it does not according to WP:Consensus. OccultZone has failed to answer why the 3,843 figure by the Indian government should not be in the Indian Claims section when that section exists. He also failed to properly detail why the source was supposedly incorrect. The source that I wanted was a third-party source (non-Governmental) and it may therefore be less biased.

4) Once again, OccultZone seems to be stalking my contributions without properly analyzing the context of these changes. I had a meaningful discussion with Nijgoykar in which he verified the source of an Arab invasion (the sources were largely Indian) but was unable to verify the source of "forced conversion," therefore the changes meet proper discussion. see []. WP:Verifiability states "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." I was looking to verify this information and followed proper procedure. As for the Invasion of Rajasthan difference, I have stated it here that I deleted it: []. There is simply no source for a 40,000 Hindus against 100,000 Arabs battle occuring during this time. OccultZone may be ignorant of the immense dynamics of warfare. 100,000 soldiers is not a small figure. There should be some historical record of this. I am still waiting for anyone to source me this figure. As for the third link, I have already stated that there is no historical record of the battle of Rajasthan existing. The only sources are biased and do not adhere to WP:Identifying reliable sources.

5) This does not adhere to the 5 points outlined in WP:Soapboxing. OccultZone did not wait for Administrative decision, rather he tried to delete the template. This is not right. He should have atleast tried to contest it. This may represent heavy ideological bias. Simply saying "not a hoax" here does not suffice to not contest it.

6) Once again, OccultZone seems to be stalking my contributions without properly analyzing to context or simply trying to defame. The context of the conversation may be seen here.

7) This does not constitute canvassing. Another user (AshLin) first invited 2 people. Consensus on AfD is not based upon a tally of votes, as outlined here: []. Bringing forth more diverse discourse may provide for more policy-related discourse. See the full dicussion here.

8) Statement was aimed at fostering more diverse dialogue. See point 7. OccultZone's twisting of statements should not be taken seriously. There are clearly a lot more users with interest in Indian topics being involved than many other users.

OccultZone is on record of using blackmailing attempts, threatening me to withdraw a statement or he will inform administration. He said "If you wouldn't retract that part from your comment, I would consider bringing you to either WP:ARE or WP:ANI.". This constitutes clear blackmailing. He also displays immense bias by simply deleting a template, rather than try and engage in constructive dialogue by contesting it. The real battleground mentality is being displayed by OccultZone in his failed (previous) attempt to accuse me of wrong edits on the Mughal-Sikh related articles, his inability to properly address concerns pertaining to the 1971 war article, and his "speedy keep" bias pertaining to the Battle of Rajasthan. Xtremedood (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Response to Dolescum
As to adhere to Wikipedia's policy WP:Other Stuff Exists, which states "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." If that section did not exist for these articles, then it should not exist for this one. The heavy anti-Muslim bias is something I wish to oppose that sadly exists on certain articles on Wikipedia. This bias goes against NPOV. I provided my reasoning in the edit summary. It was based upon sound reasoning. I did not brake any revert rules, it was a one time edit. Any changes I made can be found in that edit. Better left for discussion on the talk page. Xtremedood (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Response to Delibzr
I am not the one who put A.R. Rahman on the list, look at the history, it has been there longer. I simply organized the format and added some new figures. Your source for Dharmendra that he was a Sikh does not work, I looked at the source. The source indicated in the article states he was a former Hindu. If you have a legitimate source feel free to remove it and to discuss it in the talk page with me. Your accustion of me removing content on the Criticism of Sikhism page is baseless. The link for the supposed criticism does not work [], either fix the link or provide me proof of that. I did not find any source that said that Nanak had a debate with Mullahs in Makkah. The whole story sounds fishy to me as why would a person who Sikhs claim to be a non-Muslim (who are not allowed in Makkah) go there and have a debate with religious leaders? The whole passage seems kind of weird and the link did not work. You need a legitimate source for that. Xtremedood (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Dolescum
Further to the appearance of removing material he disapproved of, Xtremedood recently attempted to remove all mentions of Criticism of Muhammad from the Muhammad article. The reason given was to point to the Jesus article and provide a very selective reading of WP:OSE. Dolescum (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Delibzr
Xtremedood has brought bad references(rumor sites) on List of converts to Islam from Hinduism. He claims that A. R. Rahman was a Hindu who converted into Islam, when he was atheist. He claims that Dharmendra was a Hindu who converted to Islam, when he is a devoted Sikh, same with his son. He is violating biographies of living persons on these articles.

On Criticism of Sikhism he removed what he disliked, and wanted to see. Reference was already accessible and supported that info.

Xtremedood has misused references on Battle of Rajasthan, and he has insulted the academics. That article is not going to be deleted or even end up with a merge or redirect, that means his participation was totally disruptive on that AFD. He had to use talk page not AFD or speedy deletions for his doubts, but he seems not to be capable of engaging in a proper discussion without edit warring. He has issues with WP:COMPETENCE. Delibzr (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Xtremedood you went ahead to claim everyone to have been converted into Islam and you remove what you don't like. Link is working and book is available online. What you do is, you hate if anything goes against you. I am shocked that you are not blocked for your propaganda pushing.


 * And User:EdJohnston, Xtremedood is still violating BLP by putting false information on List of converts to Islam from Hinduism. His agenda is to spam that Mughal Empire won over Maratha Empire, when it is highly opposite. He removes any mention of Maratha victory or expansion by putting his own opinion. He is still misrepresenting refs, and making disruptive page moves. I would ask for a few months of ban from this whole area. Delibzr (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * User:EdJohnston you had told not to make any reverts anymore and discuss the content instead, Xtremedood returned to violating BLP and edit warring in just 2 days, see Delibzr (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Calypsomusic
is adding source misrepresentation in articles

In Muhammed bin Qasim he writes about other scholars:


 * Elliot who hated Islam 
 * U.T. Thakkur, a staunch Indian nationalist

Elliot is a mainstream pillar of British historiography on medieval India, so the claim that he hates Islam is absurd. Xtremedood is claiming that this source "Maclean, Derryl N. Religion and Society in Arab Sind, Brill Academic Publishers, 1989 ISBN 90-04-08551-3 pg.22-29" says that Elliot "hates" Islam.

But the source says nothing of the sort about Elliot or Thakkur:

There is also a series of unexplained edits by him with blanking of sections, for example here and here He even marked one of those edits as Minor in the edit summary. 

His disruptive editing has been brought to his attention by       , and at DR and at ARE but as these edits show, nothing has changed.

Statement by Sitush
Xtremedood was basically right regarding the Battle of Rajasthan. Ok, it wasn't deleted but it is already changing dramatically because (a) the "battle" only seems to exist in the eyes of Hindu nationalists and their ilk; (b) as the later comments here indicate, the title is likely to be changed. Effectively, it was a hoax title, if not an entirely fictitious article.

Xtremedood is also basically right here. They've dealt with it poorly at the end but 2 vs 1 is not much of a consensus, perhaps especially when Ghatus is involved, and using a Government of India source in the way that was being proposed clearly wasn't ideal. Xtremedood should have run through WP:DR for options but underlying it all is a desire to use decent sources and that has struck me in my other limited dealings with them.

I don't have time to go through everything but I do know from things I've seen at Mughal-Maratha Wars that Xtremedood is basically one of the good 'uns there, which Delibzr and Ghatus are not. This type of thing from Delibzr is clearly very poor but Xtremedood's reversion was in turn reverted and Ghatus, who should know better, seemed to have no inclination to set things straight. Similarly, Xtremedood is wanting to use modern reliable sources there but the other two seem not so keen - again, Ghatus could have done something with the article given things said in this thread but they showed no inclination and seem arguably to still be insisting that an outdated historian with a very well known Hindu bias should carry weight disproportionate to NPOV.

Xtremedood's way of handling things might be better but it is my suspicion that they are up against a series of pro-Hindu, pro-India "usual suspects". It's at worst a "six of one and half-a-dozen of the other" scrap and I can feel the frustration. They should be advised to make better use of things outlined at WP:DR and given a decent warning that if they do not then things could get worse for them very quickly. That's all, although warnings to others who are involved might not go amiss. - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * you say this is soapboxing. It isn't. The subject area is rife with Hindutva and less extreme pro-Hindu sources, just as it is rife with stuff from the other extreme. They're making a very good point and I've lost track of the number of times I've had to do similar. The difference seems to be that I usually get away with it, probably because I'm relatively a big beast here rather than a newcomer. I doubt very much you would cite SOAPBOX at me for that, and if I'm right then you shouldn't do it for Xtremedood. I removed that particular source 12 hours ago, and no-one has put it back yet (and shouldn't!) - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Xtremedood was making the point that the source was unreliable - the thing is mentioned just above the response from them that you diff'd. It is unreliable and, as likely as not, it is influenced by the Hindutva revisionism because it is quite evident that the author knows nothing of substance about which he is writing. The book is a dreadful potted history, of the sort that could be cobbled together from op-eds, news stories, populist websites and the like. Why anyone tried to defend it is beyond me.


 * I'm sure Xtremedood has not behaved perfectly in all of this. I'm equally sure that the same could be said of others. Rap him on the knuckles, dish out a general warning to all involved and point in the direction of WP:DR. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by
My feeling is that is a bit of an overenthusiastic new editor, whose infractions are nothing unusual. He made a series of POV edits here, which I queried on the talk page. When he didn't respond after a few days, I reverted them. On the AfD for Battle of Rajasthan, his original point was well-made and I supported deletion initially. His overenthusiasm shows in the huge number of posts he made on the AfD page (something like 60-70 in a week). But the subject is a tricky one. So, on balance, we decided to retain the page but work on the content and the somewhat problematic page title. I think a mild warning to be a bit more cooperative with the other editors is all that is needed. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Xtremedood

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


 * Please see Articles for deletion/Battle of Rajasthan, where Xtremedood has nominated an article for deletion. Xtremedood's questions seem valid to me, and if his behavior regarding that article is the main issue, I'm not seeing any reason for an AE sanction. A review of the AfD comments by others suggests that, if the Battle of Rajasthan article survives, it is likely to be changed to describe the overall Arab invasion of the 8th century and will not focus on this single poorly-attested battle. I would close this AE request with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per the reasoning in Sitush's comment, I am planning to close this soon with no action, unless other admins think sanctions are needed. User:Delibzr and User:Xtremedood have also clashed at List of converts to Islam from Hinduism and I've left warnings for both parties. See details at the AN3 report. That dispute needs either a talk page consensus or a report at WP:BLPN. The reference that Xtremedood included to justify having King Chakrawati Famas in the list is not suitable for Wikipedia.  Even the current, greatly reduced List of converts to Islam from Hinduism contains dead links as references for the conversion of some living people. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As pointed out by User:Delibzr, Xtremedood [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_converts_to_Islam_from_Hinduism&diff=661944393&oldid=661819712 has reverted again] at List of converts to Islam from Hinduism without first getting a talk page consensus. This is contrary to the warning I issued per [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=661638618#User:Delibzr_reported_by_User:Xtremedood_.28Result:_Both_warned.29 the AN3 complaint]. So I'm blocking Xtremedood for 48 hours for edit warring. He is already notified under WP:ARBIPA. I don't see the need for any action beyond that for the present AE complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As pointed out by User:Delibzr, Xtremedood [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_converts_to_Islam_from_Hinduism&diff=661944393&oldid=661819712 has reverted again] at List of converts to Islam from Hinduism without first getting a talk page consensus. This is contrary to the warning I issued per [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=661638618#User:Delibzr_reported_by_User:Xtremedood_.28Result:_Both_warned.29 the AN3 complaint]. So I'm blocking Xtremedood for 48 hours for edit warring. He is already notified under WP:ARBIPA. I don't see the need for any action beyond that for the present AE complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Request concerning TheRedPenOfDoom

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 07:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC) A dynamic IP editor using AT&T and geolocating to the NY/NJ area, see here. Amended by


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate :
 * "TheRedPenOfDoom is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves."


 * Additionally: Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate :
 * "Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions."


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

Refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing per WP:BATTLEGROUND or accept the validity of the Arbitration Committee's findings

 * 1) 24 February 2015 Argues that wikipedia is in fact a battleground
 * 2) 12 March 2015, Nazi analogy re: Arbom's GamerGate enforcement
 * 3) 13 March 2015, Defense of Nazi analogy
 * 4) 16 March 2015, Further criticism, note closing comment: "Gamergate Ahoy! Keep them socks coming!"

Adds an anti-Gamergate "flag" to their user page

 * 1) 23 March 2015, Evidence of battleground mentality

Continues battleground behavior

 * 1) 9 March 2015, Battleground; Non-neutral, unconstructive hyperbole
 * 2) 11 March 2015, Battleground; Insults fellow editor
 * 3) 17 March 2015, Battleground; Insults fellow editor
 * 4) 21 March 2015, Battleground; Insults multiple fellow editors
 * 5) 24 March 2015, Battleground; Insults fellow editor
 * 6) 26 March 2015, Battleground; Non-neutral; Insults journalist
 * 7) 30 March 2015, Battleground; Non-neutral; Insults journalist
 * 8) 24 April 2015, Battleground; Insults fellow editor (Responds with "If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas" to an editor who posts "[I am] a Pro-GamerGater [but] I am not a troll")

In response to the comments above, they're politely reminded to avoid battleground behavior

 * 1) 24 April 2015, "This could be taken as battleground mentality by others, commenting on the editor and not the content."

Continues despite reminder

 * 1) 1 May 2015, Battleground; Non-neutral; Aims to offend
 * 2) 2 May 2015, Battleground; Non-neutral, BLP violation (Sommers)
 * 3) 5 May 2015, Battleground; Insults fellow editor
 * 4) 8 May 2015, Battleground; Insults fellow editor
 * 5) 8 May 2015, continued

Additional

 * 1) 26 February 2015, 26 February 2015 Inappropriately redacts a link posted by a new editor (the link contained no BLP violations) and attempts to intimidate the editor.
 * 2) 16 March 2015, 8 May 2015, 10 May 2015 Repeatedly uses a mocking term for Gamer-gaters, also referenced in the poster on their user page
 * 3) 17 March 2015 Alleges without substantiation that editors  and  are conspiring offsite with Gamergaters to edit the article. This misinterpretation is indicative of their perception of anyone they view as opponents


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

While these linked edits are the most recent and problematic this editor's contributions to the topic area are generally unconstructive and combative. I encourage those reviewing to confirm this with their own random sampling of contributions since the official admonishment.

In summary: the result of the sanction seems to have had little or no effect on the editor's BATTLEGROUND mentality, only a reduction in the frequency with which they post in the topic area. The several months elapsed since their sanction, their inapparent change in attitude and their reluctance to avoid the topic area or accept the committee's findings of wrongdoing suggest only explicit prohibition will eliminate this disruption.

I expect arguments in opposition will focus on my status as an IP editor rather than the substance of my filing, suggesting the message is less important than the messenger. Such arguments should be weighed accordingly.

I expect secondary criticism for not constructively engaging on the editor's talk page prior to filing. Please note the editor's pattern of dismissing or ignoring rather frequent criticisms on their talk page from more respected editors, across a broad range of topics, then consider the likely effect an IP editor's comments would have. 168.1.75.18 (talk) 07:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Responses
Your allegation of "off-wiki planning" is baseless. Either provide evidence or redact the claim. 107.77.70.115 (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Both the article page and talk page are protected. I'm unable to post to either so there are no actions I have to be held accountable for. My concern is this editor's interactions with other editors who deserve to be treated civilly. I find it difficult to rationalize the position that because I'm an IP editor these editors don't deserve to be treated civilly. 107.107.56.133 (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you'd mischaracterize my situation when you're aware of the details. My internet connection is a mobile hotspot, not a mobile phone, and the IP changes frequently. I had two choices to keep my postings consistent: (1) register a new account, which would raise questions as to its authenticity or (2) post through a proxy as I chose to, so the IP address wouldn't change. For some reason you found it necessary to block that proxy almost immediately, not because it had been used for vandalism or to harm Wikipedia but because rules are rules and proxies aren't allowed. I can accept that. But now when I submit a perfectly rules-complaint filing you (and others) argue first: we should ignore the rules the reported editor's broken and secondly we should make new rules to prevent my filing. WP:IAR for the good of the encyclopedia. The onus is on you to explain how allowing a tendentious editor to continue participating in a contentious topic furthers the good of the encyclopedia. This seems more like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 107.107.56.189 (talk) 08:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :



Discussion concerning TheRedPenOfDoom
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by PeterTheFourth
It seems far more likely that this IP editor is than TRPoD is. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the IP who claims to be the same IP as that which originally posted this request did not register an account (or, perhaps, use their original account) because they were worried that they'd be blocked.

Statement by MarkBernstein
Clearly without merit, this appears to be mere sour grapes in a familiar content dispute. What is interesting here is the apparent tactic of coming to AE from a phony or hidden account with no history; instead of “throwaway” accounts used in the past, this time we seem to have a true Teflon account which cannot be sanctioned. If that’s true, it’s yet another example of how Gamergate is publishing a roadmap that can be used by more professional and resourceful organizations to subvert the encyclopedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh -- and calling down the sanction hammer for referring obliquely to sea lions, not to mention the concerted off-wiki planning carried on in plain sight of all -- would deserve plenty of trout, has the complaining party not taken steps to appear here wearing a trout-proof raincoat as a disguise. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Starship.paint
Is anybody actually reading the diffs as they are explained now? Try focusing on the message and not the messenger; an offense is the same no matter who reports it. The diffs show me a consistent history of inflammatory comments, of which some seem to be written in anger. We need to lessen the heat in this area. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé !  00:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
I am very concerned about grievances brought to this venue by an IP who cannot in any way be held accountable for their actions, or even be easily identified from moment to moment. I know this is not the place to discuss it, but I would be in favor of not allowing dynamic IPs to participate here unless they create an account. BMK (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by GregJackP
I do not believe that a dynamic IP should have standing to file this complaint. Especially since the articles in question don't allow editing by IPs. Let them create an account if they want to file. GregJackP  Boomer!   01:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (anonymous)
I cannot believe what I am reading. Shame on you all for suggesting such absurd, unjust, perversions of policy and the very fundamental principles Wikipedia is based upon. Is this or is this not "the encyclopedia anyone can edit"?

"Setting a precedent" is irrelevant. That IPs haven't brought action before is no reason to suppose there is any prohibition against them doing so. I see no such regulation. The default assumption is that IP editors can do anything that editors with accounts can do - that is why pages are "protected" against the IP edits that are possible by default, not "opened" to editing by IPs. If Wikipedia doesn't like this then the WMF should stop pretending to run an open encyclopedia and require an account for any modification.

The question of the filer possibly avoiding scrutiny is an obvious and pointless distraction. Even if it were immediately evident that the filer had done something wrong, it would not reflect on any judgment of TheRedPenOfDoom. The idea that "standing" is required to bring a complaint is also absurd. Bad behaviour is bad behaviour, and pointing it out should not require being directly affected by it. As for contacting TRPoD directly to "address the behaviour"? Have you looked at how many diffs there are? Have you considered that this is in the aftermath of an Arbcom proceeding where "battleground behaviour" was explicitly one of the issues examined? How many times do people need to be told to behave themselves? Besides which, the IP already illustrated that someone else attempted this in the interim.

74.12.93.177 (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Dumuzid
As a very recent editor, I thought I'd give impressions from a slightly different perspective. First of all, the bar to getting an account on Wikipedia is astoundingly low. It is not a great injustice to ask that a person be minimally responsible for their actions when they try to adversely affect someone else's rights. Being the encyclopedia anyone can edit does not mean that Wikipedia should be institutionally blind to the relative merit of contributors. Allowing anonymous third parties to bring enforcement actions, especially based on "battleground conduct," is to invite chaos. I'd go so far as to say "Battleground behavior" complaints should be limited to those who allege they have been directly affected by said conduct, but that's not the question here. Standing is a useful concept for a reason, and I think it is utterly lacking here. But I will of course defer to the wiser wikipedians among us! Dumuzid (talk) 03:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by zzuuzz
I am only tangentially involved through the block of the filer. I find the IP editor's credentials lacking. The reliance on a proxy then a mobile phone is unconvincing. Perhaps we could say to accuse someone of battleground behaviour you need to first be in the war. This resembles the behaviour of a blocked or banned user who has been in the war and is trying to evade something. I think IP editors are entirely entitled to lodge complaints, however I do not believe at this time that this unregistered user is an IP editor (we have ways of classifying dynamic IP editors). A new account will not be convincing either. This complaint, which I have no intention of reading, will need support from someone else if it is to stick, in my opinion. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning TheRedPenOfDoom
Without any regard at all concerning the merits of the actual complaint, I am concerned about setting a precedent for allowing this sort of AE filing by a dynamic IP editor with no provable history of editing alongside the named editor, especially in this particular topic area. There's a surprising number of topic-bans, IBANs, editors with relevant block log entries and histories of bad behavior.

I have gone through the AE archives and reviewed the last dozen pages of AE filings, about 3+ months worth, 75 cases. Not a single one of them was filed by an IP, and I found at least two cases where the filer was a very young account and the case handling was colored against the filer for that reason. Points raised were that it was impossible to tell whether the young-account filer was a sock of a blocked or topic-banned user, or had created an alternate account to avoid scrutiny of their own edits.

With this filing by a dynamic IP, the same issues apply: How can I tell whether the IP is being operated by a topic-banned or IBANned editor who would have no standing to bring this complaint? Would allowing this case to move forward set a precedent that would encourage those with "unclean hands" in this area to start filing cases as IPs?

What's worse is that not only is the Gamergate controversy not editable by IPs, Talk:Gamergate controversy itself isn't editable by IPs. And I don't see any IPs from the filer's range attempting to address the issue with TRPoD on their User Talk page.

This is really too much for me to believe that this IP editor is simply an innocent bystander who happened to notice something and bring it to AE's attention. I am very strongly leaning toward closing this without action, but without prejudice against having an editor with standing of bringing a complaint. 01:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Zad68. This request should be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I am closing this request as No action due mainly to the particular circumstances and characteristics of the request, which are a combination of: I understand the argument "Who cares how the request gets filed, just look at the diffs" but that ignores the real concerns of opening up AE to misuse, which would degrade the usefulness of the process and lead to damage to the encyclopedia. I note in this closing that the actual merits of the complaint have not been reviewed, this is a procedural close. 14:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor is trying to open and comment on the request using a series of dynamic IPs with no demonstrable history of involvement with the named editor or the topic area
 * Neither the article nor the article Talk page can be edited by IPs
 * The very high number of topic-bans and IBANs in the area that would disqualify an editor from bringing this request here, but there's no way to tell if the editor operating the IPs is affected by such a sanction
 * The subjective nature of this request, which isn't looking for action on a "bright line" infraction like a 1RR violation but rather over whether there is battleground behavior, which requires interpretation and is context-specific
 * Concerns over setting a precedent for allowing IPs to file this kind of AE request, which might encourage editors with named accounts and "dirty hands" to file requests as IPs to avoid scrutiny

Request concerning TheRedPenOfDoom

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 10:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate :
 * "TheRedPenOfDoom is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves."


 * Additionally: Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate :
 * "Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions."


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

Refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing per WP:BATTLEGROUND or accept the validity of the Arbitration Committee's findings

 * 1) 24 February 2015 Argues that wikipedia is in fact a battleground
 * 2) 12 March 2015, Nazi analogy re: Arbom's GamerGate enforcement
 * 3) 13 March 2015, Defense of Nazi analogy
 * 4) 16 March 2015, Further criticism, note closing comment: "Gamergate Ahoy! Keep them socks coming!"

Adds an anti-Gamergate "flag" to their user page

 * 1) 23 March 2015, Evidence of battleground mentality

Continues battleground behavior

 * 1) 9 March 2015, Battleground; Non-neutral, unconstructive hyperbole
 * 2) 11 March 2015, Battleground; Insults fellow editor
 * 3) 17 March 2015, Battleground; Insults fellow editor
 * 4) 21 March 2015, Battleground; Insults multiple fellow editors
 * 5) 24 March 2015, Battleground; Insults fellow editor
 * 6) 26 March 2015, Battleground; Non-neutral; Insults journalist
 * 7) 30 March 2015, Battleground; Non-neutral; Insults journalist
 * 8) 24 April 2015, Battleground; Insults fellow editor (Responds with "If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas" to an editor who posts "[I am] a Pro-GamerGater [but] I am not a troll")

In response to the comments above, they're politely reminded to avoid battleground behavior

 * 1) 24 April 2015, "This could be taken as battleground mentality by others, commenting on the editor and not the content."

Continues despite reminder

 * 1) 1 May 2015, Battleground; Non-neutral; Aims to offend
 * 2) 2 May 2015, Battleground; Non-neutral, BLP violation (Sommers)
 * 3) 5 May 2015, Battleground; Insults fellow editor
 * 4) 8 May 2015, Battleground; Insults fellow editor
 * 5) 8 May 2015, continued

Additional

 * 1) 26 February 2015, 26 February 2015 Inappropriately redacts a link posted by a new editor (the link contained no BLP violations) and attempts to intimidate the editor.
 * 2) 16 March 2015, 8 May 2015, 10 May 2015 Repeatedly uses a mocking term for Gamer-gaters, also referenced in the poster on their user page
 * 3) 17 March 2015 Alleges without substantiation that editors  and  are conspiring offsite with Gamergaters to edit the article. This misinterpretation is indicative of their perception of anyone they view as opponents


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

"While these linked edits are the most recent and problematic this editor's contributions to the topic area are generally unconstructive and combative. I encourage those reviewing to confirm this with their own random sampling of contributions since the official admonishment.

In summary: the result of the sanction seems to have had little or no effect on the editor's BATTLEGROUND mentality, only a reduction in the frequency with which they post in the topic area. The several months elapsed since their sanction, their inapparent change in attitude and their reluctance to avoid the topic area or accept the committee's findings of wrongdoing suggest only explicit prohibition will eliminate this disruption."

Reposting the Ip's thing because people only focused on the fact that they were an IP, so im reposting it because i dont give a flying fuck if i violate my ban or not because lets face it: i lost the will to edit due to GG. I suspect that this too will be ignored because i'm topic banned and ill probably get sanctioned because of it. If you do that, don't forget to block my other account (that i never use other than mobile). I don't have another account pls ignore ;)

none of those diffs have me calling TRPOD a "fag", also nce speed, you collect diffs on everyone that you dislike? And i Dont care if i get banned. Retartist 10:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom&diff=662281028&oldid=662259524

Discussion concerning TheRedPenOfDoom
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by PeterTheFourth
See here and here for actual battleground combat by the filer of this request e.g. calling TRPoD a 'faggot'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Relevant question: is a topic banned editor eligible to file requests for the sanctioning of other editors based on what happened in that topic area? PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Lukeno94

 * I have no stake in this case, but I find it rather troubling that Retartist has refiled the case that was originally filed by a dynamic IP, and made very few changes to it. The fact that the case has been filed in almost an identical manner raises questions about Retartist, who shouldn't be filing this case anyway as a topic-banned editor in my opinion. Given that Retartist apparently doesn't care about their fate, I suggest a block for their topic ban violation, and declining this case with extreme prejudice. And before you accuse me of being "one of the bad guys", Retartist, you should note that I was one of those who strongly objected to MarkBernstein's return. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Andy Dingley
I too have no stake in this particular case. However I've had a fair bit of experience with Red Pen before, at the usual variety of articles for such a prolific editor. I cannot think of an example of his editing, on any topic, where he has not exemplified the very worst of "battleground mentality". I first encountered him at List of unusual deaths, where the article history and long talk: archives are a prime example of his editing style: focussed on ego, self-aggrandisement and the application of petty bureaucracy and wikilawyering to push his personal viewpoint. I have never yet seen him editing in a way simply to improve an encylopedia, except when it was shoving a (usually hardline deletionist) agenda.

As to Retartist's re-filing of this, then I commend him for that. This is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (even with all the collateral damage that brings to articles) and we start restricting that over politically sensitive topics like this at our peril. I believe that those trying to quash enforcement action here, when there is so clearly a case to answer, are acting awfully close to hushing up a case because they're defending the editor involved, and not through the claimed reasons for why IPs aren't now allowed to raise cases. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq
Retartist is 'indefinitely banned from "any article, page, or discussion relating to GamerGate, broadly construed" for inserting BLP-violating external links after having previously been offered guidance on such' (11 February 2015). Reposting what is obviously the work of an editor seeking to avoid scrutiny is never desirable, and it is particularly unhelpful given that the request for enforcement concerns claims of battleground behavior.

Upon examination, the shotgun diffs do not live up to their claims. The February/March diffs are old and tame—the excited description of "Nazi" is entirely incorrect because the mention of superior orders was with regard to the well-known "I was just following orders" defense which is a criticism of a line of reasoning, not a "you're a nazi!" attack.

The 5 May 2015 diff ("the THIRTY FUCKING SIX pages of archives are more than enough evidence that what the page DOES NOT NEED is more rehashing of the same baseless position") is entirely appropriate when read in context and is certainly not "Insults fellow editor". Would admins reviewing this request please browse the section concerned: Talk:Gamergate controversy (permalink). Complaining about TRDOD's response misses the point that the entire section (particularly given the thirty six pages of archives!) is a misuse of Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Masem
As directly involved/engaged, I believe that tRPoD (among others, but he's the only one there that has been specifically under sanction) is continuing a battleground attitude to the page, but to a degree that the isolated incidents that I observed would be difficult to make a proper case out of and were far from bright line problems. But ignoring the issues with how this case was filed (and if it is a meritable filing), the total sum shows the same attitudes and behaviors that those that were sanctioned on the actual cases were behaving as: that is, a refusal to discuss anything that isn't within their primary narrative, shutting down discussions and showing contempt for the Gamergate supporters/movement that are the key subject for the article and thus a possible COI with editing the article.

To take what Johnuniq has pointed out, I'm fully aware there's 36 archive talk pages (Heck, I found a academic study that analyzed the nature of the GG article talk page discussion as of January, that's how much data there is), and in context of that specific thread, it was frustration with an editor that felt the thread should have been kept open and was edit warring the hatting of the thread on the talk page to do so. But in context of the larger picture, this is a sign of how tRPoD does not want to engage in discussions of any point contrary to how the current article's narrative is. As per the original case and the proposed issues that some editors had with me, ArbCom recognized that talk is completely the right place to discuss issues with the article instead of edit warring. Trying to shut down discussion by saying "there's 36 pages of archives!" is not helpful particularly if they are coming from new voices to the article discussion. Yes, many of these are the same "the article is biased, fix it!" with no followup or actionable points, and that is weary - hence why we have a talk page FAQ to point these people to. But this is not true for all such new contributors. This is the same behavior that people like Ryulong and NSBS were engaged with - they didn't want to hear there were any problems with the article and would refuse to engage in dispute resolution processes. Mind you, this is a difficult article to write under our policies and as it involves potential BLP we have to be careful, but policies (outside BLP) are not hard-fast rules, and editors like tRPoD are using such policies as a tool to shut down discussion rather than a starting point to figure out how best to write the article in a objective neutral manner. That is not helpful and fuels the battleground mentality that the case warned about before. This might be the normal approach tRPoD uses per Andy above and might be okay in other areas of WP that aren't as contentious, but on the GG talk page, it is not warranted particularly in light of the Arbcom decision.

Whether this is actionable at this time, I really don't know - as fully engaged, I have not reached a point where I felt a ArbCom request like this was necessary - but if we're going to leave this request open for comment, this seems like the right place to mention these issues. --M ASEM (t) 13:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning TheRedPenOfDoom

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


 * I find myself largely in agreement with Johnuniq above. Given that Retartist's filing of this case was a clear breach of his own topic ban, and given that he was coming here with unclean hands himself (having most recently insulted other editors in the field with "faggots" and "fuck you all" ), I have blocked Retartist for a month. I'll leave this open for a little while to allow for input from other admins, but unless there are objections I am minded to speedy-close this fairly soon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Filing by topic-banned editor rejected. if you'd like to draw up your own request, feel free. 13:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)