Important information Shortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,[a] or is no longer an administrator;[b] or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. ^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. ^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Could someone please have a kind word with Stevewunder (talk · contribs) about his topic ban (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand#Stevewunder topic banned and warned? He is a relatively new editor, and I believe he may not understand our conventions about topic bans. He could use a little guidance, rather than a stern warning. Thanks! --Vassyana (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as I am a friend of Alastair I am involved, but thought I would point out this series of edits by Abtract which would appear to be in violation of this ruling, although Alastair last edited on the page a month previous. Anyway, I will leave it for someone impartial to decide. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, how about Alastair's edit followed by Abtract's revert four days later. Abtract was blocked two weeks in January by Shell Kinney. It seems that the ruling is being gamed. Alastair came to the article before Abtract, as far as I can tell, reviewing the history back one year. The block will be a month, the maximum allowed by the ruling. Jehochman ^Talk 10:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this is an edit war from prior to the arbitration ruling:

• 22:23, 22 February 2009 Abtract (remove text that has been disputed for several months) [1]
• 04:04, 18 February 2009 Alastair Haines (restore undisputed text) [2]
• 19:06, 24 January 2009 Abtract (remove disputed ideas with no citation) [3]
• 20:20, 20 December 2008 Casliber (leave a fact tag then - text can be analysed better if present rather than absent - some of it I have read before IIRC) [4]
• 08:23, 19 December 2008 Abtract (remove OR and POV) [5]
• 23:10, 18 December 2008 Alastair Haines (restore description of notability) [6]
• 08:35, 25 November 2008 Abtract (rv renewed attempt to introduce pov which isn't that relevant even were it to be properly cited) [7]
• 02:41, 25 November 2008 Alastair Haines (Undid revision 253440542 by Abtract (talk) please provide sources for alternative views you are aware of ... and add them! :)) [8]
• 19:07, 22 November 2008 Abtract (remove para laced with pov) [9]
• 06:56, 2 May 2008 Alastair Haines (multi-ref) [10]
• 00:20, 2 May 2008 Alastair Haines (+chastity) [11]

A look at the discussion page does appear to indicate that the chastity paragraph was disputed in November and December, and undiscussed since then. So "restore undisputed text" does not seem to be an accurate edit summary. Alastair Haines' edits appear to be contrary to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines#Alastair Haines restricted (discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page) and the final sentence of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines#Motion re Abtract (avoid any unnecessary interaction with Abtract). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've come across something that I feel was/is being done a bit surreptiously regarding birth/death templates, and after a comment from someone else regarding it, I've come to the conclusion that besides the issue of essentially misrepresenting what was supposedly a consensus, manipulating a change to the MOS and arbitrary change to biography infoboxes based on that, it also seems to me that this has violated the temporary injunction against automatically delinking dates at WP:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Temporary injunction. I outlined why I think this is effectively a violation here. I'd appreciate input and any suggestions for what steps I should take regarding what has gone on. It's been suggested to open an WP:RfC about it, but I'm not sure that is the solution for someone having manipulated and avoid process for initiating change, even though it may be unintentional, but I do think misrepresentation was involved in doing so. The editor who did this wants me to take it back to MOSNUM, although it was apparent that the original discussion wasn't so much of a discussion, much less a clear consensus, than it was a forum for him to keep pushing his idea. There were 5 or 6 persons involved and never did I see a clear consensus endorsing his templates, much less a change to the MOS or implementing what is essentially widespread change undercover. What this does by having accomplished the changes made means that unless an editor adds a special parameter to the editor's new template, there is no option for date linking to re-implemented in infobox templates without changing each one individually. Meanwhile, the older template, which applies to over 660,000 articles, can be changed back to linking by adjusting the template itself. In any case, by having slipped in this change to the MOS and infoboxes, which means the templates should be updated now, he is effectively accomplishing wide delinking in what I think is not in the spirit of the injunction. Any suggestions/help would be greatly appreciated. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked but I don't see anything that would be an injunction violation. Can you point to a recent change (provide a diff) of a date or year being delinked either directly (in an article) or indirectly (by making a change to a template)? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new date templates {{birth-date}} and {{death-date}} that Wildhartlivie mentions neither link nor delink. As I have stated frequently in multiple venues, I have no opinion either way on the link delink or autoformatting issues. I have been adding the new date templates to articles that were not using a birth or death template and my practice has been that if the article used a date link for the birth or death date then when adding the new templates, I leave the date link as it was, using the right hand parameter of the templates as described in the docs. If it had no date link, I don't add one. Here are representative examples:

1. retain link: [12]
2. No link before, no link after[13].

I believe a review of my edits will reveal that I am neither adding nor deleting links. My interest in date and event templates has solely to do with improving microformat (metadata) support in wikipedia. -J JMesserly (talk) 06:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the issue is a little more complex and subtle than whether something is being linked or delinked. It isn't whether actual linking or delinking is occurring, but whether the changed template allows for linking should that be the outcome of the arbcom case. The template that has been in use for 2 1/2 years can be changed easily at the template itself and would take effect immediately on all articles using that template. The new one J JMesserly is using does not automatically allow for linking to be re-implemented, as he said, unless an additional parameter in the template is used which the user must add to link the date. Presently, if the linking parameter is used, then effectively, dates are being linked. If it is not used, linking cannot be used regardless of the outcome. In that, using the template effectively violates the spirit of the injunction against linking as I understand it. It doesn't really matter about an opinion on datelinking, what seems to me to matter in regard to the injunction is the effect of a change. Without going through extensive history searches, I can offer one example in which J JMesserly has inserted the new template in at least one article here that does not use the datelinking parameter. Datelinking could not be implemented on that article without making manual edits to the template in the article, which I don't believe can be determined without checking each article individually. That this template has already been incorporated into the MOSNUM, implements and effectively mandates the use of the new template, which includes extended and additional date linking instructions, on a wholesale basis, is what I think may violate the arbcom injunction in practice, if not in word. How this change came about is an entirely different matter and where that should be discussed is something different, and I have been trying to determine where that should be. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had to press a few emergency buttons today on Balkanian`s word (talk · contribs) and an IP user (today at 85.74.200.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who were wildly edit-warring on two pages in parallel. Please see follow-up discussion with both users on their talk pages. I slapped a revert limitation on the IP user (coupled with an injunction to edit only logged-in in future), and I would like to see the same revert limitation on B.w., as he has shown a rather persistent tendency to revert-war. Recognising I'm probably too "involved" content-wise with him, I'd like to bring this proposal here for review. My suggestion would be 1rv/24, coupled with an injunction I like to use in such cases: every revert to be preceded by explanation on talk, and waiting period of 3 hours between explanation and revert to allow for prior discussion. All to be logged under WP:ARBMAC. Thoughts? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want just to give my opinion of Futs request. I reverted at first place [14] as a clear vandalism, as it removed well-source material, without an explanation. But, this was reverted again from the anon, again without explanation, although on that page, there is a clear consensus that Souliotes are Cham Albanians, as there is in Talk:Souliotes too. After I was reverted for the first time I assumed good faith and explained to the anon that he was doing disruptive edits, and that there is a consensus about the material he removed. Also, I asked him to discuss, and not to revert, with no response. As wiki guides I did not insult him, and asked him to discuss, and when this was not done by the anon, I realized that there was no problem of understanding of wiki, but just unwillingness to discuss. So, as he was removing significant parts of a page's content without any reason, which may be shown in the revert (5,000 bytes), and the edit summary were frivolous, as they were based only on say-sos, I continiued reverting him as a clear case of vandalism, and told an administrator, Fut. in this case, about the situation. So, I do not agree that I was edit-warring, as I took all steps needed to explain that what he was doing was not contributive. As fut, points I have been edit-warring (with anons, or not) three times during the past days on pages like Greeks in Albania and Souliotes, but what he fails to say, is that I (an disruptive user?) and other users have reached a consensus on all of them. As such, I see no need of limitation, as I really do not intent to revert pages, if vandalism does not occure, as I have not reduced pages but only expanded them till now. Thanks.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of temporary injunction in the Date delinking arbitration case. Diffs follow:

• [15]
• [16]
• [17]
• [18]
• [19]

Dismas (talk · contribs) was previously warned of this injunction and has continued to delink dates despite this (this is just a sampling of what I found in the contribs, there may be more). —Locke Cole • t • c 15:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was two months ago. No decision has been reached on this yet?!

Okay, that aside... I'll stop. I would have stopped delinking if someone had pointed out that this issue was still undecided on my talk page. Why go to the lengths of starting an arbitration case when a simple note on my talk page would have sufficed? And if linking for the sake of autoformatting isn't policy, then why is it still pointed out on MOS:DATE?

Locke Cole, next time you go squirrel hunting, please don't take an elephant gun. Dismas|^(talk) 21:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Locke Cole is not "starting an arbitration case". He is merely asking for enforcement of the existing injunction, which you apparently knew about and ignored. I wonder why.... Tennis expert (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To keep people from running afoul of this injunction perhaps it would be best if an administrator blanked User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js and protected it? There's no use for this script other than to violate this injunction. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Locke, this is probably something you want to propose as a motion at the RFAR, since blanking a page isn't part of the injunction and there is no policy saying Lightmouse can't put a script in his userspace, just an injunction saying people can't do a thing that script does in a certain manner. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only purpose of the script is to violate the injunction. I'd rather not bother ArbCom with this if we can reach an agreement here that it serves only as a way for people to accidentally violate this injunction. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really; if the dates are already unlinked, users can can use the script to make the date formats consistent. See this question and this answer. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dabomb87; it can be used without violating the injunction, such as by GA and FA editors bringing a candidate into line with the criteria they have agreed upon.

See here for where I mused about this. I think it would be helpful if the script notifies editors of the injunction, with the notice disabled by a configuration value that the editor must consciously set (I guess the script could automatically edit monobook.js at the users request...self-modifying javascript...eww)

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I request a warning or remedy for Xx236 (talk · contribs). The respective cases are Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2. The area of dispute is Eastern Europe. Though not a party, Xx236 has participated in Piotrus2 and thus should know about the respective rulings and cautions.

• Xx236 has engaged in personal attacks and assumption of bad faith on my talk [20] [21] [22] [23] and on article talk eg here and here. I warned him here. Xx236 continued his attacks against me and others.
• Xx236 has engaged in disruptive editing by placing POV tags without outlining an NPOV violation and fact tags to sourced sentences [24], see also this tagging [25] and the reasoning [26].
• Xx236's user page identifies Xx236 as Pole and contains a section where Xx236 "collects German language jewels". Two slurs are in German, the first "vieleicht kannst du mir helfen, ein paar polacken aufzumucken" is a (linguistically wrong) phrase containing a German curse word for Poles ("Polacken"), the second one "Kaum gestolen, schon in Polen." is a (misspelled) phrase that equals thieves and Poles. I feel like someone wants to present Germans as prejudice, the third phrase he presents in the section is about a German lady who stole her china from Poland during the war.

I find this behaviour unacceptable, harmful, and constructive discussion impossible. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified him of the editing restrictions. PhilKnight (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, as a Polish admin on en wiki, I've joined the discussion, and left a comment asking that user to be more civil on his talk. Hopefully that's the last time we see him on this board. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for assistance here Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Centre Against Expulsions - introduction. Xx236 (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two phrases quoted by Skäpperöd aren't invented by me, they were written by other users on my pages in Wikipedias, I understand them as hostile to me, so I preserved them. Is there any law here demanding cancelling some texts from my page? I'm sorry but I'm not aware of it.Xx236 (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skäpperöd just acknowledged I was right, moving "Expulsion after WWII" to Flight and expulsion of Germans, (BTW without any discussion). So I was right but I'm the bad guy and Skäpperöd, who misquoted and removed my edits is the good one?Xx236 (talk) 10:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody says you are a bad guy. The charge was unacceptable and harmful behaviour in the cases outlined above and the impossibility of constructive discussion. That's a huge difference. And what has my page move to do with "you are right and I am wrong"? I just adjusted a descriptive title of another article to match the actual content of the article, because that is what descriptive titles are for - to describe the article's content. We should discuss any issues you have with this move at the article's talk, not here. You have have not been hurt by or excluded from the community, merely received a warning for your behaviour, and we should close this case and focus on improving articles now. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom case: Sathya Sai Baba 2

Over the last while, there have been some unproductive edits on Sathya Sai Baba. Radiantenergy (talk · contribs) did an informal poll, in which editors Andries (talk · contribs), Jayen466 (talk · contribs) agreed with him to revert from this version of the page 14 months back to a 2007 version. I, in addition to White adept (talk · contribs), disagreed with the revert, because it contained many primary sources which are at odds of principle 2 (in terms of primary sourcing), and also on the basis that Radiantenergy had made no effort to fix the perceived problems in the article space. Radiantenergy then reverted back to a 2007 revision, with an edit summary of "As per the consensus among involved editors I am reverting the article to the December 2007 version as the current version has broken many of the WP:BLP rules. Please see the talk page for details". When I then queried him/her for specific BLP violations, I received none. Then White Adept stepped in and reverted to an earlier revision. In his/her edit summary, White adept assumed bad faith: "Fixed revert by possible sock radiantenergy. You are covreing all well sourced material in favour of propaganda - absolute proaganda. I hope editors would pay attention to this."

What we need here are clear guidelines that will ensure productive editing of this article, with more experienced editors or administrators ready to kick into action when there is a conflict. At the moment we have polarized views that are being constantly removed and then placed back in to the article when reverted. There are also considerable number of single-purposed IP editors (see [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], etc) and throwaway accounts on the article (see [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], etc) so semi-protection is a consideration. Remedy 2 states that the article should seek to use better sources and citation style, which doesn't seem to be happening at the moment. ←Spidern→ 14:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spidern - just a couple of clarifications. I reverted to the version just before radiantenergy did the revert( this version.) I just removed that water projects section - added by some IP - which obviously was completely unsourced advertisement.

Second. There absolutely was no consensus on talk for "radiantenergy" to do the revert. I point this out on talk. Also the reason why I suspect radiant energy to be a sock of banned user wikisunn I point out here: [45]

White adept (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you suspect a user of sockpuppeting, then the best thing to do is report them at sockpuppet investegations citing your evidence. But accusing a user of sockpuppeting in edit summaries and on an article talk page are not constructive, and does not assume good faith. ←Spidern→ 18:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are 5 involved users related to this article. As per consensus and only after 3 involved users agreed to revert the article was reverted to a better version. Please see this link about the consensus by involved editors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Revert_to_earlier_version. I know Wikipedia encourages editors to revert to a better version if the current article has WP:BLP. This current article had several WP:BLP issues. I had created an arbitration enforcement case here before about discussing those WP:BLP issues. Its archived. I cannot find it now or I would like to point to that link. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the version of the article before you reverted. Other than undue weight, can you find any outright violations of WP:BLP? ←Spidern→ 15:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will quickly give one very clear example. The very second paragraph accuses Sai Baba that he committed Murder though he never committed any murder. It says as follows. "Several allegations including sexual abuse, deceit, murder and financial offences surround Sathyanarayana Raju." How is killings in his ashram same as accusing him of Murder. Isn't this a clear WP:BLP violation accusing some body of commiting murder when they did not commit one based on unreliable sources?

There are other violations I need to write a detailed report. That's going to take some time. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When we were in discussion before you reverted the page, I specifically requested that you point out all instances of improperly sourced material or any BLP violations, so that I could address them. You pointed a few instances out, but this instance was not among them. Instead, you insisted that it was too much work and that reverting would be a far better course of action. ←Spidern→ 18:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is quite well sourced I presume! These allegations are the sole reason for this person's notability in international media. The Times, The Guardian, The BBC, DTV, CBC all have reported on this. These allegations being central to the person's notability and very well sourced how is this a violation of BLP?

White adept (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said on the Sai Baba talk page that if Radiantenergy and Andries agreed that the previous version was better, I would endorse their decision. This was based on my reading of the previous arbcom findings, rather than a detailed study of the article version to be reverted to (I am currently too busy elsewhere ;-) to devote much time to the Sai Baba article). I know from the 2006 and 2007 arbcom decisions that Andries is a committed Sai Baba opponent, while Radiantenergy seemed to be more favourably disposed towards Sai Baba. I thought if two people at opposite ends of the spectrum of opinion agree that the article has gone so pear-shaped that it is better to return to an older version, then it is most likely so. (However, I thought that the video passages recently added were probably a useful addition to the article and should be reinstated after reverting, if their copyright status works out.)

There have been two recent BLP/N threads on Sai Baba, one initiated by Spidern, and one by me. There was another BLP/N thread in January. There has been a recent RfC; RegentsPark (talk · contribs) commented that he thought there were still BLP issues. As for the socking allegations, there may be something to that, in both cases. I alerted Jehochman to them a while ago but didn't hear back. Jayen466 17:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mere unproductive and counterproductive edits are not a clear violation of these arbcom cases. So I think this thread is off topic here. (Some edits after the arbcom case introduced factual mistakes that remained uncorrected for years and nobody seemed to care in spite of my repeated complaints on the talk page to which nobody replied.) It is clear for me that the article did not improve in any version after the latest arbcom decision. So going back to the arbcom instead of this thread seems a better idea. Andries (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Something needs to be done to the article soon. The entire section entitled 'Killings in the ashram' is full of opinion, innuendo and extraneous material (not to mention the leading title) and is obviously in violation of BLP. Anyone reading the section will be left with the impression that the sai baba was somehow culpable in the killings which is not something, whatever the actual reality may be, that has (apparently) gone beyond the level of innuendo.--RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 13:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is wrong with the section title "Killing in the ashram"? That sounds to me neutral and less vague than "Deaths in the ashram". Deaths in the ashram happen probably daily because there are so many people there. Andries (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • May be editors and admins from other projects can help in resolving the WP:BLP issues in this article. Radiantenergy (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think these discretionary sanctions should be applied to Russavia (talk · contribs) as he continue attacking other editors. A month ago he said the following:

"You are an Estonian editor who hates Russia and are here to help advocate your hate-filled POV on those subjects.....You are a nobody, and as a nobody people could care less what your opinions on anything....Digwuren if you don't like it, then don't let your ass hit the door on the way out, because your stalking, your removal of information without edit summaries is unacceptable, and I will continue to argue for their inclusion with editors who aren't harrassing me such as yourself"

Please see this diff

He has been warned after this incident. However, he continue doing precisely the same. He declares others to be "serial stalkers", he declares arguments by others to be "bullshit", "civility be damn". He tells to another user (Your reasons) are "utter bullshit", and so on.

Today, he makes personal offenses again. In the last diff he again calls Digwuren "nobody", although he replies to a completely different question asked by another user. Please note that Russavia was already listed in these sanctions for harassment. Biophys (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these conversations were on his own talk page, and this is not violating WP:NPA. If a user is getting overheated, the civil thing to do is leave them alone on their own talk page, not continue posting in order to provoke an outburst that can then be reported at WP:AE. It looks like a user has lost his cool after been pressed (or trolled). Jehochman ^Talk 09:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. WP:CIV policy applies to all editing on Wikipedia, including user pages, talk pages, edit summaries, and any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians.. In the last diff Russavia tells: "Gamsakhurdia, the racist/xenophobic first president of Georgia recognised the terrorist state ... Digwuren is simply clutching at straws, and is attempting to push upon WP his nobody definition". If you believe this is an appropriate way to debate issues, I am sorry.Biophys (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly asked Digwuren and Martintg to stay away from my talk page. This was ignored by Digwuren who continued to troll, and was also ignored by Martintg who also continued to troll. They keep pushing and pushing and pushing and trolling and trolling and trolling, what exactly kind of response does one think they are going to get. And Biophys joined in on the harrassment/trolling as well (except Biophys admitted his stalking). What exactly does one have to do around here to get it thru your skulls? And then there's this crankery - hey Biophys, I love your continued veiled accusations of myself sockpuppeting/meatpuppeting even after you were shown to have been so far off base it wasn't funny, but even when you were shown wrong you still continued with the crankery. PLEASE, will someone make this bullshit stop!!!! I'm here to help create encyclopaedic content, not to be the subject and target of Biophys' and others continued paranoid delusions. --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I made the following points above, with supporting diffs:

1. R. has been previously included in the list of bans in this arbitration case for harassing another user.
2. He made an uncivil comment about D. approximately a month ago.
3. He has been officially warned by an uninvolved administrator for misbehavior after that.
4. He continue making uncivil comments at different pages. If someones needs more supporting diffs, I would be happy to provide more diffs with his inappropriate comments made during the last 1-2 months, not mentioning things he did earlier. Sorry for pushing this issue. It would be fine if this only involved me. But this became an issue for others as well.

• Rules are the same for everyone. If there is another user who made any comments like Russavia did, who was repeatedly warned and blocked for harassment and continue doing the same, the discretionary sanctions should be applied to him.Biophys (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(o.d.) OK, this is obviously a pre-emption of a case I am in the process of filing at WP:RFA which can be seen in progress at User:Russavia/AE; head 'em off at the pass eh Biophys? There has been a systematic pattern of stalking and harrassment of edits by Biophys (subsided), but taken up by Digwuren and Martintg. To answer each of these points raised by Biophys:

• The first point was done as the continued stalking by Digwuren was pissing me off, and was apologised for here. Of course, not a single issue I raised was answered by other editors, and was quietly dropped by said editors, however, the stalking that I requested to be stopped obviously was not. My response to the misguided admin is noted here and here.

• Yes, I did tell another editor on my talk page that his argument was bullshit, because it was. Please note the history of the article in question. I removed a link to a Youtube video, and also a link to a website with the lyrics. And quite rightly so as WP:LINKVIO. Hapsala and Digwuren kept reverting, without an ounce of WP:AGF, claiming it's politically motivated. I placed at Talk:We Don't Wanna Put In, that these are linkvio, and yet they reverting back in claiming I'm just a POV-pushing, politically motivated editor. I also left a message on Hapsala's talk page, telling him I have better things to do than to run to an admin to report for LINKVIO, which got this response from Hapsala at User_talk:Russavia/Archive_9#Edit_warring. And yes, I did tell him his reason was bullshit, because low and behold, an editor finds a link to a NON-LINKVIO copy of the video, that I am fine with. So I want Hapsala and Digwuren sanctioned for lack of AGF, and also for repeatedly re-including links against the WP:LINKVIO policy.

• Yes, I did say "bullshit, and civility be damned" on my talk page. In fact I said: "I'm calling utter bullshit on your claim Martintg. With you, there's the attempted speedy deletion of articles in progress in my userspace. And I don't see you or Digwuren having previously edited on ANY of the articles which you have stalked me on in the last 24 hours - those being the "list" articles, including List of official languages by state, List of countries and capitals in native languages, List of official languages. Only an absolute idiot would believe your claim. If you don't stop stalking edits and harrassment I will take it to Arbcom. This is your final warning - civility be damned, when I can't edit without editors stalking my edits, and undermining the editting process - every f'ing article I edit I have to contend with this bullshit. Enough is f'ing enough!!!!!!!!!!!" This was in direct response to Martintg: "Given the volume and breath of articles you edit, and that a very small subset of these articles intersect with the range of articles we edit, your accusations of stalking have absolutely no foundation in reality. These personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith must stop." Take a look at User:Russavia/AE for the "eSStonia" example, which on Moreschi's talk page they claim they found by a "bot", the details of which still have not been forthcoming. Also note here that Biophys (finally!!!) admits that he stalks me (look under what circumstances he makes this admission, it is hilarious!) Yes, apparently my edits are POV and are so bad that people need to stalk and hound my edits and basically just make my editing on WP a right pain in the arse, but to understand what Biophys means as POV, you have to understand Biophys' very very long history of advocacy of conspiracy theories and attack materials on WP. POV edits by myself, is removing extremely poorly claims from an article inserted by Biophys that Putin is a paedophile (a claim that Biophys himself has asserted twice he believes is true -- here [can anyone believe that a claim of a BLP being a paedophile was actually in the lead of that article!?!? If that is not advocacy, what the hell is] and one I will have to dig deep to find due to Biophys wiping his talk page instead of archiving), re-writing them in totally NPOV language, and adding critical commentary (sourced of course, as are all of my edits) calling such claims "wild and unsubstantiated". That folks, is my POV-pushing. Here's another example of my POV-pushing that Biophys saw fit to remove; of course, it is all totally relevant, and it is meticulously sourced (as my edits on WP are). And here it is again. Note, for example, in both cases "Dismissal" (a neutral term) is changed to "Persecuition" (sic). Just who is POV-pushing here? Need more? Look at the egregious ownership of articles and aggressive wholesale revision of edits by Biophys here. This is seen again and again and again, all over Wikipedia with Biophys. A look at the egregious POV-pushing of removal of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, whilst leaving Kosovo and Taiwan from articles, even though it is noted that all 4 have disputed status, is something that would be interesting to look at in terms of POV-pushing by these editors. I've suggested time and time again (since their latest round of stalking started), to include Abkhazia, Kosovo, South Ossetia and Taiwan in articles such as List of official languages by state, with a notation that their status is disputed, but the POV-pushing warriors are removing A & SO, leaving the others, based purely upon their own POV, without the slightest regard for NPOV. And I'm the POV-pusher Biophys? Get out of town. I challenge a single editor to show me where I am responsible for such egregious POV-pushing like that, that warrants my systematic stalking not by just Biophys, but by 1) Biophys, 2) Martintg and 3) Digwuren. Biophys has admitted his stalking, is a similar admission going to be forthcoming from the other 2? I won't hold my breathe. You'll also note that I asked both Digwuren and Martintg to stay away from my talk page; this was ignored.

• As to Digwuren being a nobody, he is a nobody the same way that I am a nobody, as are most WP editors...unless Digwuren presents his credentials on international relations, he is a nobody as far as definitions go. Note Biophys, that I haven't been banned for a year because of continued and aggressive POV-pushing. You'll note on that article talk page the silly claims from another edito mentioned above that article leads can mention something in the lead briefly, only to have it expanded upon, not in the article, but again in the lead!! (All in the interest of poisoning NPOV of course - my comment). I finally got that comment after having asked 3 times for an answer. See what bullshit one has to deal with, with such editors? One asks a question, and it takes 4 or 5 attempts to get an answer (and sometimes get no answer at all as evidenced on my RFA preparation page). And one wonders why people get pissed.

• As to being listed in on the arbcom, I am disputing this, and I want it removed POST-HASTE. At no stage when I was blocked was this Arbcom even mentioned to myself; it was not until some time later that I even became aware of this arbcom. I was blocked for 2 weeks (without being able to mount a defence) because I placed a WP:COI template on Biophys' talk page, because...well....I am not even allowed to say so, because it will be seen as WP:OUTING, which is why I was blocked (didn't matter that Biophys was caught sock-puppeting on Commons). I was at no stage blocked under those arbcom sanctions!!!!! I already have plans to raise this at RFA, mainly due to my talk page having to be wiped of my own personal identifying information due to an incorrect CU being done. If my name is not removed from this list, I will post my defence in the open, so that blind freddy can see it in all it's glory, and one will see not only way the block iffy, but that it has nothing to do with that Arbcom in the slightest.

If any admin is even going to touch this, I want the stalking looked at, I want Biophys' BLP violations sanctioned, I want Biophys' ownership of articles looked at, I want Biophys' tedious editing of articles looked, I want tedious refusal to answer questions looked at, I want the whole lot looked at, and look at the whole picture, and I've only just started with evidence here. Would you like to know more?. Because there is plenty more evidence which would be shown, which would put everything into some resemblance of perspective. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people might think from the above that I'm a particular target of User:Russavia. However, this is not so. For a particular example, consider this section. Russavia has unhelpfully labelled it "Martintg's POV-pushing". I do not need to tell the regular readers of this page that such titles are discouraged by the talkpage policy. It isn't a heat-of-a-moment thing, either: after removal, under the custom of WP:RPA, of the section, he restored it under a guise of "valid questioning", ironically, removing other comments in the process.

I'll try to resist the temptation to list other cases of bad temper here, but these are not isolated cases. Very unfortunate. Δι��ουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And instead of renaming the section, you removed the entire section relating to the question, which took 4 times to be asked before it got anything resembling a response. And yes, what I removed was you using the talk page as a forum/soapbox. Which another editor noted here, which saw you tediously remove the other editor's warning but leaving your soapboxing, which then saw the other editor completely remove your soapboxing, and this is after I removed it. So your point is? --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia only confirms his bad demeanor by blaming others and me of something that we never did. I never followed his edits with the purpose to create disruption or to harass him (that is what "wikistalking" means). To the contrary, I politely debated all issues with him in a hope that Russavia can change his behavior - like here yesterday. Unfortunately, this did not happen.Biophys (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is uncivil to post a superficially polite comment on a user's talk page when you know that comment is likely to upset them. Next time something like this happens, file a report at WP:WQA and let an uninvolved party help with difficult communications. It takes two to fight. If you disengage, there is no fight. Jehochman ^Talk 09:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I got your message: no communications with this user. I am not sure why you are talking about "two". Obviously, five or more users are involved, based on my diffs alone. Thank you for the comment.Biophys (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]