Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive34

I'm posting because I'm concerned with user:Piotrus' closure of 3RR report [35]. This is in relation to the Arbcom caution at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2#Piotrus_cautioned where he is cautioned to avoid using his administrator powers or status in situations in which his involvement in an editing dispute is apparent. Piotrus and Radeksz are close editing associates, for instance as was already found by admins in the previous case [36],(see more on particular envelopment [37]). This surely can't be allowed to go on so soon after such behavior was reprimanded by ArbCom. M.K. (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I caught this earlier when I saw your edit summary on AN/3. I just assumed it was an admin friendly to Piotrus that closed it or someone else ... I wouldn't have thought Piotrus himself would do this so soon after Piotrus 2. Have no idea about the rightness or wrongness of the AN/3 nom, but Piotrus is too involved to have closed it. Yes, this is more than borderline; it is clearly the kind of act that the ruling you cite was designed to prevent. What can or will be done is another question, as an ArbCom caution seems to means very little in practice. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; among other things the ArbCom failed to stop users like MK from block shopping or smearing the reputations of others. "close editing associates" - huh? I've noticed editors edit warring on an article on my watchlist, I warned both parties, end of story. My action was already endorsed by other admins. The only questionable thing here is MK stalking certain users (like reporting only one side of an edit war, or complaining about a user (me) he has launched several RfCs and RfArbcoms against, to no avail...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think that using admin status to close a AN/3 nomination and try to "save" a user you are known to be aligned/friendly with is a violation of the arbcom caution issued against you? BTW, MK doesn't appear to be smearing your reputation here, though your unjustified allegation that he is doing so could be a smear of him. That he reported you here should no more surprise you than it would me if you reported him or Lokyz (as you have in the past). That's how AE tends to work. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Known to be aligned/friendly". More of your unbacked accusations? And lo and behold, I warned this user. If I blocked him, would you call him my dearest ally? I find your logic strange, albeit not to surprising, considering it was you who launched the last arbcom against me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if it is in fact inaccurate, but that you are aligned/friendly I would have thought to have been an obvious truth known to all with experience. The diffs M. K. supplied back the assertion for those with little experience here. Do you deny this? You two don't, for instance, talk to each other by email and such? At the least you know you will be perceived as aligned and thus the faith of any admin intervention is likely to be doubted. At the very very least you know that you and M. K. have long-term issues with each other and that any closure of a listing made by M. K. is unlikely to be interpreted by anyone as neutral. I know you are a smart guy Piotrus, so I don't understand how you could fail to perceive these things ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a game of D&D, Deacon. And frankly, who you perceive as my cabal ally or enemies is not of my concern, and the last arbcom case proved that.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you answer my question rather than throwing about straw men? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Deacon of Pndapetzim,

your demeanour is bordering WP:DICKishness.

We all know Wikipedia is not known for the consistency of its procedures. It prides itself for not being a bureaucracy. Yet, amidst that maelstrom of arbitration, there is one policy that is very clear, very straightforward. That policy is WP:3RR.

The only questions to be asked are: was the report accurate? Was the closure within policy? If the answers are 'yes, yes', then the horse is dead and needs no more beating. There are no forms to fill out, there are no inquisitions to be answered by administrators; there is only The Policy.

Attempting to turn a simple case of applying such an extremely simple policy into a circus of parliamentary procedure is a prime example of WP:DICK. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the report was misleading, as it reported only one side of an edit war, thus an admin who would have not reviewed everything in detail might have ended up acting out against only one of the pair of edit warring editors... and yes, I agree with you and Shell below that we are witnessing a good example of a "tempest in a teapot". That said, making such tempests can be part of a well-thought strategy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Piotrus made the right call on the report. Unless there's some contention here that his closing was incorrect, you're creating a tempest in a teapot. Also, if you're going to claim "known to be aligned/friendly", we really need to see some diffs that support the accusation first. (i.e. the first diff doesn't say anything about the issue and the second is simply you repeating the accusation) Shell ^babelfish 11:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To whom you are referring? What accusation?

Why close editing associates? Because:

• Piotrus attempted to communicate with Radeksz off-wiki:
  • After a revert-war between Radeksz and Piotrus' arch enemy Boodlesthecat, Piotrus (despite being inactive at that time there) requested in the Polish Wikipedia from Radeksz to enable his email. Perhaps due to that Radeksz was inactive there, Piotrus had then requested in the English Wikipedia from Radeksz to look in the "native project" [Polish Wikipedia]. Piotrus removed this note immediately thereafter and Radeksz' email has been enabled since then.
• Radeksz is on Piotrus' Christmas card list.
• Piotrus has attempted to dissuade the admin who has blocked Radeksz for edit-warring the previous time.
  • Piotrus has argued that since he has "warned" Radeksz in Polish about the edit-warring, Radeksz shouldn't be blocked, since there shouldn't be a warning and a block for the same offence if there hasn't been any other offence in between.
    • Now guess why Piotrus is rather quick to "warn" his friends for public offences that might result into a block.
• Piotrus asked Radeksz to comment in the Piotrus 2 arbitration...
  • This happened after Piotrus had previously told him to address one of his workshop proposals and Radeksz voted "strong support".
• Piotrus has referred (ironically ?) to Radeksz as an "ally" .
• Piotrus has been in a revert war on the same Armia Krajowa article earlier [38][39]
• Piotrus has contested the same piece of information, which was completely removed by Radeksz in the reported revert war.
  • Piotrus even told him to address this.
• Piotrus has judged at the Edit-warring board that User:M00D0R should receive a warning and has then given him the warning. It should be noted that Piotrus' relation to him is bad enough to consider him as neutral admin, required in such cases per basic policies
  • Piotrus accusing him of stalking: [40][41]
  • "M0RD00R is certainly biased and non-neutral when it comes to Poland-related subjects"
  • "MOORDOOR, please don't muddy the waters"
  • Queries at Arbitration/Enforcement: [42][43]
  • "I have disagreed with MORDOOR on certain topics since long ago"
  • Piotrus filling 3RR case against him: [44] [45] and vice versa.
• We have the entire discussion about whether Piotrus is neutral to Radeksz before, so that Piotrus was perfectly well-aware that he is being associated with Radeksz. As well as [46]

So we having non neutral admin, who is a party in a dispute, and using his admin status by closing reports and issuing "warnings" to right and left (newest one directed to me [47] (removed at sight by other admin [48]), therefore it is straight forward neglect of Arbitration ruling, plus it can be seen as neglect of such policies as WP:ADMIN and WP:HARASS as well. The question still stands, how to prevent future abuse of admin status. M.K. (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I have interacted a few times with those users in a past. So? I have not blocked either of them, instead I've treated them both equally, just as the case (both doing 3 reverts) deserved. I still find it strange that you chose one of those users to report and the other, to ignore... this wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that one of them is Polish and has disagreed with you in the past, would it? Anyway, I've interacted with thousands of Wikipedians, and I believe I can take rational, neutral admin decisions in regards to almost all of them. Several neutral admins have agreed with my decision, so as far as I am concerned, this is EOT. PS. Perhaps for full picture, MK should present the history of his (always failed) attempts to harass me, including one RfC and two ArbCom cases... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read Shell's clear question: [Is there] some contention here that his closing was incorrect ? If there isn't, end of story. If there is, could you, please, present that and not Christmas addresses. I also was greeted by Piotrus on Christmas, and in return did not even bother to say the same. What does Cristmas have to do with all this? Also, please, guys, let's abstain from words like this: I just assumed it was an admin friendly to Piotrus that closed it. Not everybody who once agreed with Piotrus would agree on another occasion. Read the issue, not the user. Dc76\^talk 19:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm commenting as the admin who did close the AN3 report, and who removed P's warning there. I think P made a mistake by putting the warning up, but find it hard to see as a serious breach. If we want to pick nits, then technically P didn't use his admin powers in what he did so the arbcomm ruling doesn't apply. Had he issued blocks it would have been different. And the end result was both sides warned, which is what P said, so there is no miscarriage of justice here to worry about William M. Connolley (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the concern over the block removal, the misuse of status against MK should also be noted. "MK is encouraged to stop block shopping against users he doesn't like" posted on AN/3 with the hat of an adminAfter another admin (William Connelly) removed the above, Piotrus "informed" the other admin that M.K. has a a history of stalking and harassing Polish editors; at the very least, his reporting of this case was biased, as he reported only one user (one with whom he has disagreed with several times in the past). Both of these are potentially additional misuses of status. Though I am fully aware little can be done unless it is taken for an arbcom motion, they should at least be noted for the recorded. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be of interest to note that the arbitration cited above was started by Deacon after he decided to take another step defending an editor who was stalking/harassing/being disruptive towards me and other Polish editors, having already defended that user against "attacks by Piotrus" in two AE threads when I complained about disruptive actions of that user (Deacon went even as far as overturning a block given out by a neutral admin). The arbitration ended with significant warnings and admonishments towards that user (here and below). Further, the arbitration warned and restricted another user who was found to have been stalking/criticizing me for quite a few years, seeking out threads discussing my person, inevitably appearing there to criticize me and defending anybody who disagreed with me in any fashion (here] and here). I wonder why I am getting a deja vu feeling all of the sudden... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, didn't Deacon start an arbcom aganst Piotrus, that in the end found Piotrus innocent of 99% of Deacon accusations? And didn't MK start several similar proceedings against Polish editors, including Piotrus, with a similar futile outcome? I would strongly recommend people take criticism of Piotrus originating from Deacon and MK with a large quantity of salt. Disclaimer: I have been accused by those editors of being a member of Piotrus/Polish cabal and such, although their accusations are completly false (as proven by arbcom). Tymek (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interested editors may note that the discussion has moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FEastern_European_disputes. I'd suggest closing this thread as to not generate extra wikidramu on two pages.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user has breached the 1RR on Troubles related articles set out here First revert here then here and here. User has been told to drop the accusation about tag teaming also by Fozz. Also user is well aware of sanctions and was warned about them before. BigDunc^Talk 04:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mooretwin removed a warning - not impressive. This part of it looks cut and dry, but Domer and Dunc's contributions will also have to be looked at.--Tznkai (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BigDunc also made two reverts in 24 hours [53] and [54].

Domer made one simple[55] and one partial [56]

Mooretwin is clearly the most problematic party here (more reverts, including one apparently intended to enforce the 1RR restriction) - I intend a block at least two weeks long. BigDunc has earned himself a short block. Unsure about Domer, since even partial RVs are better than reverts.--Tznkai (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are not reverts of the same content surely they count seperatly, the same type of reverts happened with The Thunderer and when report was made no block was given as they were not the same content. It is not as far as I am aware 1 edit per page or is that what it is? I have no intention of reverting the content again and as can be seen from the history of the article I have not reverted. BigDunc^Talk 06:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The revert restriction refers to any reversions on the same page within 24 hours - regardless of the particular content. I'm not sure to which incident with the Thunderer you refer to.--Tznkai (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my understanding of the sanctions and if that is what they are then my reverts were not done with intention of breaching the sanctions and as I said I did not restore the content that Mooretwin reverted because I thought then I would be breaching sanctions. BigDunc^Talk 06:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both should be blocked, both users being among the "usual suspects" and the face of the restriction has to be maintained. That BigDunc reported here another user for an offense he himself committed is not impressive (and I do not believe the above claim that he doesn't understand the meaning of "revert"), while Mooretwin only violated the rule after BigDunc (he shows awareness of another's 1rr vio in one of his edit-summaries). BigDunc's block should be shorter not because the offence here is much worse, but because his log is clean and Mooretwin's is heavy. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not claiming I dont know what a revert is I do but I thought that it had to be reverting the same content. BigDunc^Talk 06:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also as stated above I didn't revert the edits that were reverted as I thought that would be a breach and I have no intention of reverting. BigDunc^Talk 06:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading WP:3RR: A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. You are either claiming to have believed that reverts must include the same content in order to be added to each other and thus not to have known how a revert is defined on wikipedia. That's hard to believe, frankly, given the extent and nature of your wiki-experience. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can honestly say that is what I thought in regard to 1RR I am not trying to make myself out to be stupid I thought with regard to 1RR it was the re revert of an editor that was covered in the sanctions. BigDunc^Talk 06:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mooretwin blocked for two weeks. Dunc, regardless of whether or not you understood the exact nature of the revert parole, the point is that reverting is not the right answer, and the sanction is to impress that upon you and all the other editors. I am past my naptime, so I will return to this in the morning, my recommendation to other admins is as above if someone gets to it before I do.--Tznkai (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it was an honest mistake on my behalf and I will not do it again now that I am aware of my mistake. BigDunc^Talk 06:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I was the person who warned them both, and then it stopped I wasn't even going to go here. If Mooretwin has been blocked, but Domer hasn't I find that worrying, especially as Domer was quick to inform me the first time I went over 1R on that very article (at the time I was unaware there was an ArbCom really). I have to say I do feel somewhat for Mooretwin; to have two editors revert the exact same thing every time, but because he's only one editor he runs the risk of breaking the ArbCom ruling must be very frustrating. Whilst taking everything in good faith I would suspect the editors simply share the same political viewpoint and agenda on article content it somewhat smells that both editors are removing the same single part word each time looks rather suspicious, given their history of following each other around. --Blowdart | ^talk 09:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what history of following who around? BigDunc^Talk 10:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one was particularly silly, as by wikipedia's own definition both Protestant and Catholics would be an ethnic grouping. Heck it's happened to did the same to me on the removal of an image from the exact same page where two editors with an opinion can use 1RR to enforce it. It's no wonder he feels ganged up on when all it takes is a two editors against one situation on a troubles related article. I'm not suggesting meat puppetry, but it does show how easily 1RR can be used to push a single point of view if one "side" has more editors than the other. While his cries of tag teaming are annoying and it would help if both sides went to the talk page first I can certainly understand his frustration and how it appears to him. ArbCom's 1RR enables those whose "side" has the most editors to push their revisions. In an ideal world this would be a neutral side, but in Troubles related articles it appears only those with a real interest and a "side" are wanting to edit them. --Blowdart | ^talk 11:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some text which was not mentioned in the article here Mooretwin then reverted me here this is their first revert. I then made my first revert here and was again reverted by Mooretwin here, this being their second revert. Dunc, then reverted Mooretwin here, this being Dunc’s first revert. Mooretwin then reverted for the third time here.

I don’t wish, nor do I think admin’s are, particularly interested in the nature of content dispute so I’ll not comment on that at all. What I will say however, is apart from the breech of AE sanctions which is obvious; the edit summary here by Mooretwin however is bang out of order. Mooretwin has been told about this already and then was given a formal warning about it, but still they persist. As was correctly summarised, any time he is reverted he is victim of tag teaming, and not just that editors both disagree with him.

It is my opinion, and I stand to be corrected, that the examples I’ve given above constitute a breech of the 1RR. That 1RR is pacifically designed to prevent this type of behaviour. I was not aware, that 1RR was applicable to the whole article, regardless of the edits involved. This I would consider to be very restrictive indeed, and open to all kinds of abuse. I have discussed the 1RR privately with Admin’s, on how with my current understanding of it, how it can be abused, or gamed which ever term you prefer. Could we have so clarification please on this, with some considered thought on its practical application?

Finally, it’s my opinion that early intervention in these situations can reduce tensions and deescalate situations arising. I also accept that Admin’s can’t be expected to sit on articles to prevent this type of situation, and that personal responsibility must be taken seriously. I admit that I have on occasion quietly let Admin’s know of potential situations and have seen positive results. On this occasion, I therefore apologise for not seen this coming, my only defence being I was asleep at the time and just woke to this. As Admin’s who are familiar with the history and background to all this will attest, I have on a number of occasions now defended editors with whom I’m in dispute, and requested that they not be blocked. I have failed to report breeches of AE sanctions, and tried alternatives. I don’t want to see anyone blocked, because it generates bad blood and just leaves editors resentful. I do understand however, that AE sanctions and formal warnings must be respected and seen as a last resort.

I have no intension of knowingly breeching AE sanctions, and civility is not an issue with me. I just hope that editors lose the confrontational tone and attitude, and try to be a bit more civil with each other. If I can offer any advice to Admin’s, it would be to tackle the issues of civility more, and take a more active interest in how subjects are discussed on talk pages. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best advice anyone can give you in regards to 1RR or editing at Wikipedia in general is to simply reserve reverting *only* for vandalism. While there are cases for WP:BRD, its unlikely that process is going to work on controversial articles, such as those covering the Troubles. Shell ^babelfish 11:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domer I'm sorry but no, you reverted the exact same word out twice yesterday. You first removed it here, Mooretwin restored it here and then you reverted the edit here. Mooretwin then restores it again and you revert again here. I point you to WP:3RR, A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.. A revert is not limited to the revert links in the diff view, but any action that reverses. You reverted twice, as did Mooretwin. Or I can't actually count. Which is perfectly possible *grin* --Blowdart | ^talk 11:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Blowdart. I've lost count of the number of times that editors have raised concerns about possible tag teaming by users Domer48 and BigDunc and it will hardly seem just if remedies are not applied across the board particularly when both in this case have broken 1RR. Domer's double revert mentioned above is certainly against the spirit of 1RR if not the letter. Valenciano (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am still convinced that Mooretwin's justifications for his actions are considerably more problematic, but BigDunc and Domer48 should be very familiar with the sanctions and their terms by now. I propose a 3 day block for both because they did in fact violate the sanctions.

Lets be clear here: we're not getting anywhere with these sanctions - we're just treading water. If anyone has bright ideas how to fix the overall problems with The Troubles. I'd like to hear them, but that is a conversation best had elsewhere.--Tznkai (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the first I knew of the sanctions was when Domer wielded them at me about a previous edit Domer is beyond "should be very familiar" into "knows and applies them". Even without the "I didn't know it applied to the whole article" mitigation (new one on me too) there was still a specific set of reverts on the same "ethno" word, which is not, by any means, the whole article. I don't view 1RR as treading water either, it's simply being abused right now to push one point of view because there are more active editors promoting it. Like I say it would be great if it was the neutral point of view, but it's now (and I'm as guilty as being non-neutral in this as anyone) --Blowdart | ^talk 13:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Blowdart for pointing out the obvious with the links you provided. I first removed it here, and then I reverted the edit here. That's it one revert! Blowdart you appear to have put the same link in twice by accident. Thank you also for pointing out this edit were I made you aware of the 1RR rule, it is however posted on the article talk page so you must have missed it. I'm disappointed at the tone you use when you suggest that I "wielded them" on you and suggest you review the edit again. I've also "wielded" them on editors I normally agree with, here and here being two examples, so please accept it in the spirit it was given.

I did? I was thought I was being darned careful too, but you're right. My sincere apologies. Oh and I didn't mean to insinuate that you're only notifying 1RR to those whose viewpoint you disagree with, not at all; but rather that you're not unaware of them. --Blowdart | ^talk 11:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valenciano I think you should also be cautioned about accusations of tag-teaming. That is, as SirFozzie has suggest here, and if you absolutely have to bring it up yet again, do so in the context of the ongoing ArbCom case with DIFFS that show that they're tag teaming you, not just that they both disagree with you. If you do this again, I will block you for personal attacks. That would apply to Blowdart also.

Tznkai, I'd have to disagree with you with a 3 day block because I did not in fact violate the sanctions. Blowdart inadvertently used the same diff twice. Apart from that however, I think it would be unjustified on the grounds that I have been actively trying to prevent trouble on Troubles articles and despite provocation and incivility I have refused to respond in a like manner. That I have tagged editors that I normally agree with is a point in fact. Could you please review my edits, and if as I have indicated and illustrated above not breeched any sanctions, consider withdrawing your proposal. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 15:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made no accusation of tag teaming - I said that other editors have raised this issue on several occasions on the past and you've now supplied a difference that shows this to be true. If I recall correctly SirFozzie also said that you were "skating on thin ice" with your comments about other editors. I suggest that you remember that and focus on following the spirit of 1RR rather than making unfounded allegations. Valenciano (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of Domer48 exceeding 1RR, I think s/he did:

• edit by Mooretwin followed by revert by Domer48
• revert by Mooretwin followed by revert by Domer48

PhilKnight (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you PhilKnight for illustrating that I did in fact Not breech 1RR. As to Valenciano comments, please read my post again, I said you should be be "cautioned" about accusations of tag-teaming, this in light of SirFozzie remarks. While on the subject of SirFozzie comments re: "skating on thin ice" you are also mistaken, and have nothing to do with "comments about other editors." Since you also were mistaken on "Domer's double revert" I can only suggest you consider your comments before making them. This is the perfect example why we should always insist of diff's to support editors unfounded accusations. Thanks again PhilKnight, --Domer48_'fenian' 22:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to find a way to be fair here, trying figure out exactly what the dispute reduces to. There was an edit war involving at least 3 users: Mooretwin, Domer48, and Bigdunc. Mooretwin and Bigdunc broke the existing revert restriction most obviously, Domer48 the least obviously. This whole issue is occluded by partisanship and accusations of tagteaming. I am unwilling and unable to deal with the tag teaming accusations - at the end of the day its indistinguishable from two editors who have a similar point of view.

The purpose of the revert restriction is two fold: to directly prevent edit wars, and to break the habits of edit warring and encourage compromise. Our success at these tasks has been limited, and what little progress made always threatens to unravel at even the appearance of favoritism.

I believe that Domer48 and BigDunc both believe that their actions did not constitute reverting in a way that breached the restrictions - but that does not make their actions not contributing to the edit war. To that end, I am blocking them both for 2 days. This is not a solution that will make everyone happy, least of all me, but I am afraid that is the best I have. I invite other admins to think of better solutions--Tznkai (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is reasonable and reasonably fair I think. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster has been POV pushing in the Armenian-Tatar massacres 1905-1907 for quite some time now. He insists on calling Caucasian Tatars Azerbaijanis despite me providing 35+ sources calling the population of what is now Azerbaijan Tatars. Despite the magnitude of sources available on the subject, the article has been stuck in the stub form for years thanks of course to Grandmaster. I broke my 1RR per WP:VANDAL which states Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. I believe the change of Caucasian Tatar to Azerbaijani is unacceptable and constitutes to vandalism just like if someone was to change Roman to Italian. VartanM (talk) 09:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since VartanM filed a report on me, I think it would be good to take a look at his own behavior in the article Armenian-Tatar massacres 1905-1907‎. First of, VartanM has been placed on editing restriction back in December 2007: [57], which limit him to 1rv per week. Yet in the aforementioned article he made 2 rvs today, both times with inflammatory comments: [58] [59] I would like to draw specific attention to his 2nd revert, where he calls vandalism my good faith edit, supported by reliable secondary scholarly sources. He insists on using an obsolete ethnonym for Azerbaijanis, without clarification, that Tatar was what Azerbaijani people were called in the Russian empire, despite the fact that I cited many sources about that. The claim about 35+ sources supporting VartanM's position is not true. In fact, those sources say completely the opposite. I provided quotes on talk of the article. And him calling my edit vandalism, leaving such messages at my talk, [60] and deliberately violating his 1rv per week parole is absolutely not acceptable. This looks very much like baiting other users. And the fact that as soon as he broke his parole he came here to report me speaks for itself, it is nothing but an attempt to divert attention from his own violation. Grandmaster 12:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing roman to Italian wouldn't be vandalism. It'd be somewhere between silly and historically inaccurate, but it falls within reasonable content dispute. Deliberately compromising the integrity of Wikipedia is a high standard reserved for... well, not this.--Tznkai (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the admins to address deliberate violation of revert parole by VartanM. Is he allowed to do that by accusing other editors of vandalism? Grandmaster 16:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silly and historically inaccurate is if its done once. But not when a user has been edit waring and pushing a pov for years not supported by the academia and has effectively stopped the progress of the article, despite the 35+ sources available in the talkpage. That's when I can loudly accuse him of vandalizing the article and wikipedia's integity, and I have all the proof in the history of said article. VartanM (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no 35+ sources on the talk of the article that support VartanM's position. I already explained that those sources do not support what VartanM claims, in fact, they say quite the opposite. I quoted them at talk of the article. So constant referring to 35+ as supporting VartanM's position is just an attempt to mislead the admins. Grandmaster 05:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply outrageous, it's almost impossible that you are not aware that what you are claiming is a complete fabrication. The article was renamed on the basis of that 35+ sources, now you came up with this lie about what I am allegedly doing and my alleged intentions. Please assume good faith, particularly when you know that your allegations are not true. Worse is that you perfectly know that your version is inaccurate and bogus. The sources of the time ALL! Were either writing Tatar or Tartar, which by no means you have even denied. But yet you still introduce this claim that the Russians referred to them as Tartars... (no one will guess, that it was everyone, not just the Russians). But you had the audacity to push that used term further back, by even adding the term Azerbaijani there too! Two different sources were provided that Tatar also included other Muslims, non-Turkic Muslims. If you had good intentions, you would not have done that, particularly when two articles were renamed because it was shown again and again that you can not do that.

If at least one administrator was to do his homework and check what the problem is, and how you kept bringing it back, knowing full well that you are wrong, then he'd be forced to conclude that what you did was in fact vandalism. If administrators want to see real example of misleading, they should read this sort of edits, where you try to provoke me, by making claims which you know are baseless... or worst that you did not check what you were reverting (again!). For those who have no clue, check his claim: Are you trying to say that Armenians fought with some unknown Tatar people, who had nothing to do with Azerbaijanis? Now dear admins, check the version he reverted: Caucasian Tartars (modern Azerbaijanis)... worse is that I even disagree with my own compromise. But for the sake of peace, I compromised. I rest my case. VartanM (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about the name of the article. It is about how to refer to the people involved in the fight, i.e. whether to use anachronistic terms or modern ones. As one can see from numerous sources that I cited on talk, most modern secondary sources use the modern term, Azerbaijani, or Azeri. In any case, content disputes are not vandalism, as you have already been explained. --Grandmaster 06:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This "Azerbaijani" issue keeps cropping up, and will probably continue to crop up until it is resolved by outside arbritration who can cut through the vested interests. In a pre-Republic of Azerbaijan context, changing Azeri (or Azeri Tartars, or Azeri Turks) to Azerbaijani is exactly like changing Roman to Italian. I even saw a recent Azerbaijani English-language news article using the word "Azerbaijanian"! If Azerbaijan wants to use words in such a laughable way then that's their business, but Wikipedia should follow the standards set in other articles. Personally I think "Azerbaijani" should not be used as an ethnic term for any period, it actually describes a nationality: a citizen of the modern country that calls itself Azerbaycan. Meowy 20:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing your personal thought is much appreciated. Too bad historians, ethnographers and linguists have made their own educated choice, and that is using the terms Azeri/Azerbaijani in an ethnic sense since at least the late 19th century. As for Azerbaijanian, this term was a preferred translation offered by the bulk of Soviet-published English-Russian dictionaries, nowadays rather archaic but still valid. I believe I have already suggested that you do some research before jumping in with ridiculous and easily rebuttable statements driven by your badly concealed disdain of anything that has to do with Azerbaijan; something that has really grown old by now. Parishan (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continue your continuous bad faithed and incivil remarks against other members Parishan. I hope at least once, one day an administrator will check your longstanding content disruptions only paralleling those of AdilBaguirov. One for example over here. Even throwing an alleged consensus and requesting a reply when you twisted authors words. And when you are reported, it's ignored and archived.

Reminding the administrators that Parishan created articles which are fabricated history from top to bottom. He even ignores criticism, not bothering to address them nor read them. See here and here about some of the issues on why the article is inaccurate. And see here the only reply Parishan provided that shows he read nothing. What makes things even more ironic is that he likes using that single quote from Shnirelman so much (out of context). It didn't seem he had any use of Shnirelman who wrote so much about the Albanian Church (the article Parishan created) and who considers his creation top to bottom (there is little which Shnirelman didn't cover from Parishan's creation) as a complete fabrication (which is shared by the mainstream Academia). VartanM (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with other editors, why you never follow the dispute resolution procedures? Constantly accusing others of vandalism, fabrication, disruption, etc is a severe breach of WP:AGF, and is not helpful at all. Parishan created many good articles, including the one about the Church of Caucasian Albania, which became a DYK and third party users involved in talk of the article did not see any serious problems with it. So what's is your point in mentioning that one here? Grandmaster 07:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I still expect someone to address deliberate parole violation by VartanM. If it is Ok to violate the parole, then everyone should feel free to do the same. A clarification on that would be much appreciated, as this place is intended not for discussion of content issues, but for reporting violations of sanctions imposed by arbitration. Grandmaster 07:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Since it appears that VartanM is under AA/AA2 restrictions and he's violated those restrictions an article ban might be appropriate here. Not only did he violate the revert restriction, but by calling those reverts "vandalism" that probably steps over the line of the civility restrictions. Shell ^babelfish 11:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  So you're basically saying that you don't care if someone was to rename, Roman Empire to Italian empire and you would ban the user from the article who reverted such a misleading statement. Did you even look at the talkpage of the said article? VartanM (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  So basically you're saying that the rules shouldn't apply to someone when they think they're right? Shell ^babelfish 20:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're basically saying that we should tolerate outright vandalism now? Perhaps the admins should acquaint themselves with the matter on hand before advocating such impulsive solutions as "article ban"? What Parishan and Grandmaster as well as a number of other editors by extension are engaged in is a systematic attempt to introduce anachronistic terms that clearly do not belong in the periods on hand. I'm quite surprised that this concept has eluded all of the admins this far. Speaking of which, whatever happened to the complaint filed against Parishan?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the accusations of vandalism are a breach of civility supervision both VartanM and MarshallBagramyan has been placed on as part of their editing restrictions. Since they keep on repeating the same accusation over and over, despite being explained that there was no vandalism, I believe the admins should also address civility violations of the aforementioned users. And Marshall, do you even know what "anachronistic" is? If anything, it is VartanM who is introducing anachronistic terms to the article in question, while most modern sources which I quoted on the talk of the article use the modern term. In any case, this is not a place for content disputes. There are dispute resolution procedures that VartanM never tried to follow, and he deliberately violated his 1rv per week parole. Grandmaster 05:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Now someone needs to make a decision on arbitration enforcement. Grandmaster 18:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So constant referring to 35+ as supporting VartanM's position is just an attempt to mislead the admins. [61] Go by your own standards of assuming good faith. Don't take it wrong, but Marshal's level of English is obviously above yours, check the definition of anachronism here on Wikipedia. That's exactly what you are doing. You don't even deny it, Yes, Azerbaijani people were called Tatars back at the time. [62] Among the several sources provided here are the four which you decided to ignore:

Azerbaijani national identity is a recent growth, following a period in the early twentieth century when Azeris identified themselves with other … (New Terror, New Wars, Paul Gilbert, Edinburgh University Press, 2003 p. 61)

Azerbaijan features an official national identity based on an improbable blend... In actuality there has been little historical basis for national identity formation among Azeri elites. ... (National Identity and Globalization, Douglas W. Blum, Cambridge University Press, (2007) p. 106 )

Azerbaijani national identity is a relatively recent formation: before World War I, the people of this territory were alternatively referred to as Turks, Tatars, and Caucasian Muslims. (Language Policy in the Soviet Union, Lenore A. Grenoble, Springer, 2003, p. 124)

In fact, the very name Azerbaijani was not widely used until the 1930s; before that, Azerbaijani intellectuals were unsure about whether they should call themselves Caucasian Turks, Muslims, Tatars, or something else. (Modern Hatreds, Stuart J. Kaufman, Cornell University Press, 2001, p.56)

I'll requote what vandalism is: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. On the above diff, you admitted that what you reverted was not accurate and that those people were in fact called Tatar. You also know that Russians weren't the only ones who called them Tatars and on top of that you added the Azerbaijani term even with the term Tatar. You suppressed a word, which by your own admission was accurate. If there can be a better evidence to show deliberate change, I hope the admins will provide us with such evidence when they revert changes of birth dates with nonsense without any proof on the intentions of the editors to call it deliberate. I'm also intrigued by their silence about Parishan's disruptions. AA2 clarified that now every sort of disruptions can result with blocks and bans. This gives any uninvolved admin the right to ban for content disruption and that's why Grandmaster was reverted. The only replies we have received so far is on my alleged violation of 1RR, but nothing about whatever or not Grandmaster's edit was acceptable. VartanM (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*poke* Any other admin opinions on the suitability of an article ban for VartanM and/or length of such a ban? Shell ^babelfish 20:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there wasn't a legitimate reason to go over 1RR, so a ban could be applied, but it doesn't appear to be an especially serious breach of conduct. Perhaps a 1-week ban from the article, but not the talk page? PhilKnight (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An enforcement block is necessary here, especially given the intransigence above. We can't have users thinking they can violate restrictions by making disingenuous citations of WP:Vandalism. I'm giving him 24 hours. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:VartanM has been engaging in POV-pushing and systematic deletion of information somehow related to Azerbaijan. I recall him and his supporters accusing me of Armenophobia on Arbcoms for adding Azeri names to multilingual lists, where Armenian was also present. If that is a phobia, then what should one call the active ridding of Wikipedia of numerous pieces of information mentioning Azerbaijan, Azeris or the Azeri language?

• He distorted information in the article Azerbaijani language making a false claim and trying to tie it to a source (the source refers to the time when the official name for Azerbaijani was тюркский - 'Turkic' (rarely translated as Turkish), which does not suggest what VartanM claims).
• He removed [63] [64] [65] a sourced piece of information on Azeri being the lingua franca of the region. Upon further discussion with a third party, he agreed to a compromise version, but later was unable to provide sufficient argumentation with regard to new evidence in favour of my arguments. As a result, he initiated an edit war refusing to leave a relevant comment on talkpage and using the outdated compromise version as pretext for reverting [66] [67] [68]. Having been placed on 1RR VartanM engaged in what seems meatpuppetting to me, and had the article reverted first by MarshallBagramyan, then by Fedayee, again with no comment on talk. At least in the case of the latter the act of meatpuppetting is obvious given that his recent contributions have been limited merely to adding interwiki and tags to articles.
• He deleted the Azeri spelling of the name of the Armenian poet Sayat-Nova, whose surviving works are mostly in Azeri. Moreover he claimed that 'there was no Azeri' back then, despite academic sources indicating that it was Azeri that the poet wrote in.
• Without any adequate explanation, he replaced Category:Azerbaijani music with Category:Turkish music, as opposed to just adding the latter.
• He was recently reported by myself for making xenophobic comments against Azerbaijan on Talk:Albert Asriyan in suggesting that Azerbaijan has no violinists of its own and therefore is in need of "stealing" them from other cultures. In that same case, he repeated his insulting statement, not once but twice. He got off with a warning. He made similar claims earlier in that it was understandable why he could find few sources mentioning Azerbaijani film director Seyidzadeh, as "not everyone can be Parajanov's" (Sergei Parajanov was an prominent Armenian film director). He is also known for his inappropriate and disrespectful comments in edit summaries: [69] and [70]. Just now, he accused me of creating an article based on fabricated facts, even though every source that I used for that article was neutral. I am fed up with this user's inability to take responsibility for his words. The many warnings he has been getting do not seem to do the trick.
• He stripped the article Names of Jerusalem of the Azeri name saying it was not "biblical", without further explaining what that meant. In the many discussions VartanM and his supporters had with me over the inclusion of Azeri into that article, none of them ever managed to justify their point despite trying hard to do so. It seemed like a case of screaming phobia towards Azeri, much like the listed activities by VartanM.
• He mass-nominated Azerbaijan-related images for deletion: [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77].

The aforementioned facts lead me to believe that one of VartanM's main objectives on Wikipedia is to obsessively rid it of references to Azerbaijan. Whatever he cannot get rid of, he makes insulting comments about. I fail to understand this behaviour and hope measures are taken to stop this continuous destructive manifestation of bad faith.

As for User:MarshallBagramyan, this user seems to have some serious attitude problems. Quite honestly, I am getting tired of him constantly labelling my activity on Wikipedia as "BS" [78] [79] both before and after being reprimanded for incivility. Parishan (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

Ferrylodge has been giving me a headache on Talk:Abortion, so I'm too close to this to have anything resembling a reasonable perspective. Could someone review Ferrylodge's (and my) edits on Talk:Abortion to see if he's out of line in a way that would trigger restrictions?--Tznkai (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Request to Amend the restrictions to extend them from article space to talk space, eleven months ago. The request was rejected. Even if the request had not been rejected, I would not think anything I said at the pertinent talk page today was disruptive,[80] unless you consider opposing blatant and politically motivated censorship disruptive. No one forced Tznkai to engage in a talk page discussion with me. Apparently she did not enjoy the discussion. Nor did I.

It also seems pertinent that I pretty much ended the conversation before Tznkai decided to bring the matter here. I said: "Given time, I could find lots more and lots better examples for you. But I do not have the time right now."[81] Bringing the matter here seems quite punitive.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge, you're stepping over the line in a few places there - for example "You are behaving like a censor and a propagandist." is a bit much for anyone to swallow. However, I think the stepping over the line was all into the realm of incivility and personal attacks and not in ways that would trigger the Arb case. The two of you (with a little outside help) are engaged in one of the perennial debates on the subject - is imagery nothing more than an emotional appeal or is the lack of imagery simply poor coverage of the subject. I doubt its something that's going to be solved between a small group of editors (much larger discussions have been held before) so I'd suggest running an RfC or using some other form to notify interested editors about the new image suggestions. Shell ^babelfish 08:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the perspective Shell.--Tznkai (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for the perspective Shell. I think it would be naive to think that there is no censorship or propaganda at Wikipedia, and this seems to me like a clear case in point. However, I suppose it would have been better for me to say something like "that solution would result in censorship and propaganda" instead of "you are a censor and propagandist". And Tznkai might try to rephrase stuff like "Your very reasoning shows that it comes from an emotional pro-life knee jerk reaction" (plus try reading Arbcom restrictions before trying to get them enforced).  :-) Incidentally, I am in favor of legal abortion of embryos on demand, as a means of birth control or for whatever other reason a woman chooses. But that does not mean I favor pro-choice propaganda and censorship on Wikipedia. And let me be very very clear: to have an entire article about abortion, with pictures of women and historical artifacts and surgical procedures and instruments, and the like, without even a drawing of what is aborted in an average abortion (before it is torn apart!), is the worst kind of propagandist whitewashing. I have no regrets about saying so, and will keep saying so.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endhorse Ferrylodge's opinion. I was the one who started the picture discussion and it went nowhere, not particularly shocking, but it must be known that the discussion isn't limited to Ferrylodge and he isn't the only one who has complained. It makes sense to illustrate the process of abortion on an article about abortion. If someone thinks that's offensive, too bad. Wikipedia isn't PG rated. 70.181.150.70 (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC) - Wikifan12345. Sorry, computer is acting weird. 70.181.150.70 (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an administrator who believes he has neither particularly strong feelings about the subject matter either way, nor prior involvement in editing the article, I can't see anything that would trigger sanctions on that talk page, and am surprised to see what appears to be a good faith content disagreement wind up here. (Just a thought about that dispute: have you considered looking at how other general reference works have chosen to illustrate their article on abortion?)  Sandstein  21:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some general reference works show more detail of the embryo/fetus than others. Unfortunately, the images in Google Books are not searchable as such; it's much easier to search for words than to search for images in Google Books.

The abortion article, like millions of other Wikipedia articles, uses tons of footnoted sources that are not general reference works. Likewise, Wikipedia articles include tons of images that are not in any other general reference work; e.g., many of the images currently in the Abortion article are not found in any other encyclopedias. Anyway, I think this should be a matter of common sense, more than an effort to mimic Brittanica and the like. Do people think I should really do a comprehensive survey of existing reference books? It seems more relevant how other Wikipedia articles treat similar subjects. I'll just add this: the idea that an image of what's aborted is "irrelevant" to the abortion article is absurd.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing other editors of working for CAMERA and then ignoring all subsequent protests [82] [83] violates WP:AGF and is a personal attack. Accusing any volunteer editor of working for any organization is extremely insulting, especially when it's CAMERA (everybody here knows why). Such accusations are a blatant violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision:

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Editors making such accusations should not be allowed on Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything beyond this single diff provided here or some other pattern of incivility? Shell ^babelfish 02:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a a pattern of incivility going back to when he first opened his account actually, but I don't want to turn this into a RFC. If you would like one example I would point you to roof knocking, which I created. The day after he and I had a strong disagreement about an issue unrelated to that article, he nominated the article deletion. As the adf progressed towards a "keep", he plastered the article with a whole bunch of nonsensical irrelevant tags. He got himself blocked for 3rr when he kept on putting back the tags after they were removed by other editors.

In any case, Cerejota's accusation/attack on it's own is an egregious WP:CIVIL violation. His insult goes to the core of a Wikiepdian. The last thing any of us - who volunteer out precious time to publish knowledge - want to be accused of is that we are just "taking marching orders" from some corporate entity. Moreover, as all the admins that cruise this page are well aware about the "whole scandal" where editors were banned for being part of CAMERA scheme. I don't have to elaborate why accusing editors of being part of this scheme again is a WP:NPA violation.

Finally, I'm overly curious what would happen if one editor accused a whole bunch of editors of working for Hamas. Why do I have this nagging feeling that admins would be crawling over each other to see who can give the accuser the longest block?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Cerejota finally replied to the protests at the talkpage by announcing that his accusations are legitimate because there currently is meatpuppetry going on and he is merely calling a spade a spade . His further accusations were surely encouraged by the lack of one admin even asking him to stop. This is ridiculous.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied when I got back, and I didn't accuse you or anyone in the specific. I pointed out that there was an apparent relationship between items gaining the attention of CAMERA, and then appearing in the talk page. I specifically said that I had no evidence. I, however, did point out that I believed that you have a vendetta against me, based on previous encounters, including trying to get me blocked for 24 hours (for something the blocking admin called "lame" when doing it - after all 3RR is 3RR - and which he undid in less than 3 hours), the "Roof Knocking" AfD, and my request for sanctions against Tundrabuggy. You accuse others of incivility, but you are not exactly stellar yourself, with there being exactlly two recorded apologies on your part that I recall (one for accusing me of 100RR and another recent one to another editor for "whining").

Furthermore, after the 100RR fiasco, in your talk page you thretened me with taking me to ArbCom over content issues, and when I told you that ArbCom doesn't rule on content issues you said I was wrong - in spite of me providing you with the verbatim text from WP:ARBCOM. Not only that, when I approached you, you launched a series of unjustified attacks, using diffs that didn't prove your point, and dishonoring a good faith request you stop posting escalating comments on my talk page. I will provide diffs if requested.

You act like a bully, protecting your guys, like Tundrabuggy or Flippet, zealously and without regards of their behavior, and waiting for the right moment to strike those you oppose, misderecting, misrepresenting, and failing to assume any good faith whatsoever. Everyone you "protected" gets blocked for egregious disruption, and you dare call me "uncivil"? I mean, User:Doright outright called a number of editors antisemites (and then tried to obfuscate the matter), and I kept my mouth shut - because it had no consequence to the actual article, and I am not going to feed trolls. You should stop whining and own up to the fact that it takes two to tango and there is no way in hell that you can eliminate editors with whom you disagree simply on the basis of disagreement.

In spite of all of this, I am willing to move forward with you or any editor that shows a disposition to edit conforming to the encyclopedic goal. I know you understand sarcasm, humor, and so on. That shows intelligence. Do not insult our intelligence with unnecesary requests to silence productive editors working for consensus, rather than pushing POV - the record is there for all to see.

Of course, both this message and the previous closed one were done behind my back, with neither notification on my talk page, nor in the talk page of the article: this is not a good faith report but a revenge. --Cerejota (talk) 08:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two huge misconceptions on your part. Firstly, I never claimed I was an angel that was never uncivil. The difference is, as you pointed out, I apologize after I realized that I acted like a jerk. You acted very egregiously, accusing other another and I for working for CAMERA. There was one thread where another and I were making basically the the same point. You float into that thread and announce that this very argument is being pushed by CAMERA and editors here are "taking marching orders from CAMERA". You were obviously referring to us. Plain and simple, these type of unsubstantiated, controversial, and insulting accusations should never be hurled at another editor. Yet, what happens? You play naive and cute, claiming you were not referring to any specific editor.

The second misconception is that you think I fancy myself as some neutral arbitrator over other editors behavior. You're wrong. I won't call out every single editor if they're behavior is illegitimate. I will never encourage or condone incivility, but no, I will never drag someone like Tundrabuggy or Fliplett, who are my friends, to an ANI (I'll probably tell them via email to calm down). If they get dragged to some noticeboard I will probably defend them to the extent I can under Wikipedia policies, just like other editors will try their darndest to bury them to the extent they can under WP policies. Which leads me to my final point - let those editors and admins that fancy themselves as uninvolved and neutral act like their neutral and let those pseudo-neutral editors and admins shed their colors. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I didn't accuse any editor directly, and when asked directly by one editor, I replied I had no evidence. I will not retract a statement that is supported by an ArbCom desicion. Like your denial that ArbCom doesn't rule on content, you seem to misunderstand a key fact here: the problem is that there is a proven patern of organized meatpupettry directed by CAMERA, and I simply pointed out the similarity between the behavior then, and the behavior now. If I am not mistaken, this is not uncivil, but stating the obvious: water gets you wet, fire burns, the CAMERA walk amongst us. I am not saying this is the case with you, but in Spanish we have a phrase: el que se piqa es por que aji come roughly he who burns its because the peppers he eats. The extreme exception and offense taken at the mere suggestion of similarity among an avowed block of editors simply means it strikes a chord. I wish it didn't.

I do wear my true colors: I refuse to take sides, but I am by no means neutral: my side is fighting systemic bias and egregious soapbox/battlefield issues, for example, not accepting Al-Jazeera, which is viewed by more people than CNN, as reliable source for very bad reasons or trying to include material in the article that fits the CAMERA narrative but not that of any other source - or likewise, trying to pass off sources like the ISM or PNN as neutral or trying to flood the article with Al-Jazeera pictures. I am pretty much the only guy who as amatter of routine switches position during discussion - and definitely the only one that has reverted edits by editors on both sides of an edit war. I am a ronin, you (pro-X editors) are all samurai (and ninjas). Neutrality is not the issue, groupthink is the issue.

This has been apparently difficult for "us v them" warriors like you to process - and some in the other side two (RomaC can't stand me - because I defended Tundrabuggy from a bad atatck on his part!!!!). I take each argument, and process it, and spit out opinions, and sometimes compromise attempts. A lot of the good things this article has have been consensus reached to a large extent by frameworks I put in place. I also have a highly developed sense of gallows humor and don't-give-a-fuckism - with an oversized bullshit detector. Try to pick on someone else.

You are also making a misconception of your own: I am not interested in prosecuting anyone, nor do I drag people to noticeboards. I will defend myself. I will be patient to a very high limit. But you have taken me so many times to different noticeboards is beginning to sound like crying wolf. I will say, tho, that there is a significant difference between Contentious Editors and CAMERA/EI Rangers - ones are POV Pushers who disrupt certain articles (and accuse everyone else of being POV pushers) but make huge contributions to the encyclopedia in other respects and the others are POV Pushers who wish wikipedia didn't exist, because they wouldn't have to edit it. I do know we have a bunch of the first (to a certain extent excluding you - and others too -, you do not push POV, you simply disrupt - and then do very good things with baseball articles) and while I have suspects for the second, I can't prove anything, and I hope there are none. But shit, discussing if Gaza is a densely populated place as if it were the worse piece of OR? You call that productive?--Cerejota (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cerejota, I understand you have this continuing fantasy of being considered neutral but, I'm sorry, your past behavior and your comments on this very thread pretty much precludes that from ever happening. I mean your claim to neutrality is because you don't consider Al-Jazeera as reliable as CNN. That's just hilarious. ARBCOM found that at one point there was attempted meatpuppety in the past from CAMERA. So you're understanding that ARBCOM ruled that there will always be meatpuppetry is obviously ridiculous and the fact that you continue with these very libels during this very thread is despicable.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters especially, however in my understanding 'I am by no means neutral' doesn't imply he was claiming to be neutral. PhilKnight (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil before you consider me an equal-level bickerer with Brewcrewer, please note that you are in fact realizing a basic issue in communicating with Brewcrewer: he selectively reads whatever one says. Somehow, in his mind, me saying "I am by no means neutral" became "I am neutral". How can one communicate productively with someone who makes such flexible interpretation of reality? I am being serious here: what is your recommendation as an admin that I use in face of this? Asking me to stop editing would mean that all someone has to do to disrupt is behave in such a fashion. I really want to be productive, but its hard to ignore egrerious misrepresentation and constant strawman arguments. So any help would be well recieved.--Cerejota (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cerejota, your comment was a but unclear/ambiguous, but I thought your overall point was that you considered yourself neutral in the I-P conflict. I apologize if I misrepresented your views. So can you make this clear for us? Do you consider yourself generally neutral in the I-P conflict or do you find yourself leaning towards one side?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point: you are defining a complex situation as being made up of only two sides. Sorry, but life is more complex than that. And of course, around here, we do not have to be neutral, but we have to make neutral articles. One way of doing this is clashing two POVs into a war of attrition, scoring points, banning editors, etc. Another way is to be reasonable, engage in constructive debate, seek agreement, use sources, and only fight meatpuppetry and egregious disruption. I take the second, am afraid you prefer the first. --Cerejota (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by an editor not involved at this article and never (that I recall?) been in significant conflict or collaboration with either editor. Brewcrewer is a tendentious editor who refuses to deal with any kind of policy-based discussion (eg Attempted summary of arguments on all sides). This conduct wastes enormous amount of the time (and temper) of good-faith editors and can only result in long-term damage to articles and to the project. I will add that the accusations of antisemitism mentioned by Cerejota are becoming an increasingly frequent tactic for disruption. When even reminding people of the possible consequences (eg Jcom Radio) gets the objectors indef-blocked, it is of the first importance that administrators act against those who would smear other editors to article-damaging purpose. PR^talk 13:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Brewcrewer, I don't see any kind of substance to this complaint - you need to ratchet the volume back a few notches; starting to make claims of libel is treading on thin ice. Cerejota is discussing how talk page discussions have resembled the organizations aims; at no time did he single out editors or direct anything that resembled incivility toward any party. If anything, Brewcrewer, your behavior here is more actionable. Shell ^babelfish 16:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Shell: He never said it straighout (he's smarter then that), but a perusal of the thread shows exactly who he had in mind. There was an assertion made by a few editors at Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Population density of Gaza that the density claims made by the article were incorrect and unsupported by reliable sources. Cerejota comes into the discussion and announces that CAMERA has made the same exact argument and there are editors here that are "taking marching orders from CAMERA. Whom he was referring to was obvious from the discussion. Indeed, right after he made this accusation, editors who knew who he was referring to responded in protest over these baseless and disruptive accusations. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've notified Cerejota and Brewcrewer of the WP:ARBPIA restrictions. I think if they don't stop bickering, they should be temporarily banned from the article and talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am late to town, but I too thought this an egregious violation of WP:CIVIL and poisons the atmosphere. As I have mentioned elsewhere, certainly if one kept up with the talking points of Electronic Intifada or International Solidarity Movement one might find similar talking points with the pro-Palestinian editors here, but we do not accuse them of being "Electronic Intifada Jihadists" ...as Cerejota called the pro-Israeli people "CAMERA rangers" in her initial comment above. In fact it is surely inevitable that there will be parallels in the thinking and writing of various advocacy groups for both sides in such a current event article. The accusation implies not only that we do not think for ourselves, but that we are doing something illegal (wiki-wise) and works as a kind of intimidation against putting our views on the talk page and trying to come to consensus. Cerejota's description of himself is self-serving, at the very least, and not accurate, and in fact he has taken me to noticeboards at least twice. This accusation was excused by other editors, and it appears it was an expansion of an earlier accusation by user:RomaC[84]. If nothing is said/done about it, it will become quite acceptable to use such comments against pro-Israeli editors whenever an issue of contention comes up. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a serious violation of WP:CIVIL but outright accusations of antisemitism are just a little blowing off? I dont think all this is really necessary, but I dont think CAMERA needs to be brought up whenever there is a disagreement. But to the issue, I dont think Cerejota was accusing anybody, he in fact said quite clearly that he was not accusing any of the parties that took issue with the comment. Nableezy (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, something that is not very well understood in this neck of the woods, is that the issue of antisemitism in the area of I-P conflict desperately needs to be addressed. I agreed it was uncivil to call people that, but I do think that the issue (and its counterpoint - "No one can say anything bad about Israel without being accused of antisemitism" & "Anti-Zionism isn't antisemitism" ) should be addressed in the context of this area and arbcom sanctions etc. In the case you are talking about, the person who made the accusation had been engaged in dialogue and had been frustrated in trying to put forward his perspective. In this case, as Brewcrewer notes below, Cerejota had not been involved with this discussion at all, and these comments were gratuitious. Interestingly, when Cerejota put my name up for sanctions at this board (successfully I might add) I was not notified either nor did I have an opportunity to present a rebuttal. It was done "behind my back," as he puts it. According to PhilKnight there is no requirement for any kind of warning or notification. See: [85] At any rate, it is rather a bit of chutzpah to demand for yourself what you don't do for others. He is luckier than I was, as he has been notified and had an opportunity to defend himself, as well. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provided the argument between Cerejota and Brewcrewer has stopped, then no further action should be necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil: I'm perplexed by your proposal. You want to ban Cerejota and I from the Gaza conflict page because we're bickering at this page? Firstly, if you look through the threads at AE and ANI, pretty much all the goes on is "bickering". I've never heard of sanctions taken against an editor for bickering at an ANI page. Moreover, the bickering might come to an end if just one admin would just ask Cerejota "Hey, you're an amazing guy and all but can you please stop accusing editors of working for CAMERA?" I'm still amazed noone even bothered with this simple request.

Secondly, I'm not exactly sure what the benefit will be in banning us from the Gaza conflict page when there was no bickering going on over there. The thread that instigated this whole brouhaha is Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Population density of Gaza. If you look through the thread you will see that we were working towards some sort of compromise. I was part of the discussion, which over the most part was "bickerless". Cerejota who took no part in the discussion or at an attempt at compromise suddenly showed up and made his CAMERA announcements. When he joined the discussions with his accusations I never responded and just brought this issue here. I guess banning us both from the talkpage will lessen the chances of us bickering, but the ban isn't really related to the problem. For example, we "bickered" as well at Roof knocking.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me rereading Cerejota's comment that he acknowledges he has no evidence and claims he is not accusing any editor directly. Even so, he is now arguing that because some editors have taken offense, that this qualifies as "evidence" -- that it "strikes a chord." Thus anyone who is offended by this pejorative label (ie being told they are "taking marching orders" or are "CAMERA rangers") are the accused. So I would say that means that at least brewcrewer and I are targeted (and guilty) simply because we have taken offense. This would include other editor who might sign on to having been offended! For example [86]. Notice how this editor is made to feel defensive about his position, though Cerejota asks him why he would think he was referring to him [87] when he was the very one arguing the position most forcefully. Did Cerejota read the section in question, or what? If he was not accusing those who were arguing the point, who exactly was he accusing? All this despite the fact he acknowledges zero evidence. Without evidence, he should remove the characterisation and apologise. "I simply pointed out the similarity between the behavior then, and the behavior now." "the CAMERA walk amongst us" -- I can't believe this kind of battlefield mentality is conducive to good collaboration. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may weigh in. I have had disagreements with Cerejota but I regard him as a relatively non-biased editor, and the 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict talk page generally benefits from his input. Turning to the the editor who has initiated this complaint, I regard brewcrewer as an intelligent editor but I am concerned for example when he sympathizes with an editor who is being criticized (and was later blocked) for leveling accusations of "antisemitism" at Arab editors: "The swarm of nasty pov-pushers butchering the article in the name of a consensus are really out of control...Hopefully, one day the pov pushers will go back to their porn habit, leave Wikipedia alone, and we'll be able to get back to editing neutral articles instead of propaganda pieces." [88] This sort of "us against them" rhetoric is not productive, in my opinion, especially on already-divisive articles. RomaC (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment on the "porn habit" comment. We all had a long long "discussion" about putting in a photograph of a totally burned and blackened baby (termed "Babyque" by Cerejota). Perhaps you remember? The photograph came from the International Solidarity Movement and Flickr and the title said the baby had been killed by Israel and then run over by an Israeli tank. I seem to recall that some of us referred to that photograph, as well as some others that you and others wanted to use to illustrate the article, as "obscene" and "pornographic." They were and they are. There is much in the article that is finally being neutralised, but putting words like "The Gaza Massacre" in the lead and pictures of burned babies run over by IDF tanks as illustration, and galleries of Palestinian casualties, also creates an "us against them" editing environment, much greater than a personal note on another editor's talk page which also made the point that he should remain civil and take a break from the article. This point was left out in your ellipse. Context is so important, don't you agree? Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm: "Babycue" ;). I hear your point, and to a certain extent I even agreed the picture situation. However, why not try a different approach? Think about it from a different perspective? Is encyclopedic quality really decreased because we tell our readers "The arabs call this the Gaza Massacre"? Really? Do a couple of pictures of wounded and killed really do that? They might be offensive to your point of view, or to your values as a person - but are your values better than mine? Spic is highly offensive to me, and I wish we deleted it, but I understand why it exists and why it is not a good idea to mess with it. Its not us (latinos) v them (racists), its us wikipedians collecting knowledge, among them the highly offensive slurs used in the real world. If I took your view (and Brewcrewer's) that anything not good for my narrative is propaganda, I would be all day decrying wikipedia's racism for allowing Spic to exist. How does that make wikipedia better?--Cerejota (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing other editors of working for CAMERA and then ignoring all subsequent protests [89] [90] violates WP:AGF and is a personal attack. Accusing any volunteer editor of working for any organization is extremely insulting, especially when it's CAMERA (everybody here knows why). Editors making such accusations should not be allowed on Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is arbitration enforcement. Please specify the arbitration remedy or arbitration-based sanction that you think this is in violation of. The thread will otherwise be closed. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're pretty obvious. But if you think closing this thread is the most constructive action to take, then go ahead. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could a neutral administrator please take a look and please give a {{subst:Palestine-Israel enforcement}} notice if warranted to Historicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and another editor, who has just jumped into the fray, Mhym (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? I have never been on this board before so please bear with me here....

There has been edit warring, (claimed) BLP violations, AGF and NPA violations, etc., on at least five articles related to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, heating up in the past five days. Discussion on the talk page to WP:BLP/N and WP:AN/I have failed to resolve anything, one of the five pages is now indefinitely protected, and the edit war continues sporadically on another. For reference here is the edit war history of Historicist, who is the most active editor, copied from AN/I.

• Rashid Khalidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Edit warring here:[91][92][93][94] leading to indefinite article protection.[95]
• Henry Siegman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Edit warring here:[96][97][98][99][100]
• Moshe Ya'alon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Edit warring here:[101][102][103][104]
• Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A single edit by Historicist[105] in what looks like an edit war by multiple parties but it is hard to tease out.
• Arnaud de Borchgrave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). One edit, no edit warring.[106]
• Alleged Ya'alon quotation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Original location of this material, created by Historicist[107] then turned into a redirect per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Ya'alon quotation

The civility / behavior problems can be found on the article talk pages, for example, accusing long-term productive editors who object to BLP violations as only being on Wikipedia to promote "anti-Israel propaganda".

As an involved party I'm the first one to accept that I'm on notice of arbitration enforcement, and should not edit war or commit incivilities either. It is a little one-sided, though, because I'm trying to patrol articles, maintain sanity and stability, avoid BLP vios, and watch out for editing problems.Wikidemon (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikidemon, the biographical articles probably aren't in the scope of the WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. PhilKnight (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How so? These are articles about scholars, military figures, politicians, and partisans whose life work is the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the edit warring and the war of words (both off Wiki and in the edit warring and incivility over questionable BLP material) relate to these people calling each other liars, propagandists, academic frauds, murderers, etc. over the Israel / Gaza flare-up. The subject of the arbitration decision per [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles and WP:General Sanctions and general sanctions is "The entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted." The committee was deliberate in applying its decision to the broad subject matter, not just a specific set of articles. To clean up the articles about the events and nations, without cleaning up the articles about the people, is like bailing out the front half of the boat and leaving water in the back half - it doesn't work. I made this request at the suggestion of User:ChrisO, one of the administrators active in enforcing the arbitration decision, here.[108] So if not here, where? I'll let ChrisO know and maybe get some further guidance. Wikidemon (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but just so you know, Chris isn't one of the admins enforcing the arbitration decision. PhilKnight (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on whether or not warnings are necessary at this point, but the articles themselves do seem to be within the scope of WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict: "The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted." The "broadly interpreted" clause would allow the inclusion of biographies of individuals who are associated with the conflicts, the peace process, Arab/Israeli politicians, or other pro/anti-Israel debates. Another indicator can be seen by the names of the editors who are edit-warring at these articles: In multiple cases, it's the same group of editors who use the other Israel/Palestine articles as battlegrounds, some of which editors have already been placed under other ARBPIA restrictions. So if the dispute is overflowing to other articles, it would seem reasonable that the ARBPIA authorized sanctions would also be appropriate to use in these new articles as well. --Elonka 19:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me - I saw ChrisO's name all over the sanctions log and knew he(?) was an administrator so I made assumptions. I now see he was a sanctioner and a sanctionee as well. The case and the template are a little ambiguous as to whether the template is a "notice" or a "warning". On the community-imposed Obama article probation, which worked pretty well but applied to a fairly narrow range of articles and a somewhat less tendentious subject, we used a template as a neutral notice. That is to say it did not indicate that someone had done something wrong, just establishing for the record that they are on notice of general sanctions. The problem here is the threshold I have to overcome as a non-administrator to get any administrator to pay attention to this. There's been a 3+ month long push by one primary proponent and a few others stopping by of various pieces of disputed material trying to disparage scholars, one Palestinian-American professor in particular who was the subject of anti-Obama political attacks as an alleged "PLO spokesman" during the US election (which is how I came to notice this). That has lead to page protections (at least 3), a number of BLP reports, edit warring involving probably a dozen editors over the period, etc. This mini-meltdown continues, and seems to be beyond BLP/N, AN/I, and the article and editor talk pages to resolve.Wikidemon (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I think a reading of the diffs and Talk:Henry Siegman will show that Historicist was making a valid argument, and that he was actually trying to prevent a Wikipedia entry from libeling Moshe Ya’alon. I think furthermore that his critics on Talk:Henry Siegman were guilty of WP:BITE and dealing with him by confrontation rather than explaining how he could make his reasonable edits under WP policies. Any bad behavior on Historicist's part should be dealt with first by education rather than imposing blocks. I have disagreed with Historicist, and reverted his edits, but I think he's being unfairly accused here. Nbauman (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That cut-and-paste is an utter misreading. We have edit warring BLP violations into multiple articles simultaneously, accompanied by vexatious incivility, over a months-long period, with two blocks, 3+ page protections, multiple AN/I reports, etc. This is not a WP:BITE situation for a new editor's innocent mistake, it is long-term tendentious POV pushing on one of Wikipedia's most heated topics. I'm not making an accusation here, by the way. I'm asking for a notice that Israel-Palestine arbitration enforcement applies to future behavior. We are about to have a second article edit protected now. What is the alternative, that it is okay for this to continue? This is the last stop before a behavior RfC and a clarification or new case before ArbCom. The whole thing would be a lot simpler if a concerned administrator could put their foot down and say to Historicist (and to be fair and level to every editor on the page), no more accusations and edit warring. Wikidemon (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's my feeling that a formal notice of WP:ARBPIA is not necessary at this point. I did, however, put a note on Historicist's talkpage with some advice, which I hope will be helpful. Wikidemon, in terms of getting admin attention, I can sympathize that sometimes it is difficult. Do you ever use IMs? I can frequently be found on AIM and Gtalk, and you're welcome to bounce ideas off of me. You can point me at a developing situation, and I'll give you my honest opinion about whether or not administrator intervention might or might not be helpful or appropriate in that particular case. --Elonka 21:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Less than a week ago Momento (talk · contribs) was warned on this page "that, if he continues to edit-war in order to resolve [...] issues [regarding the Prem Rawat article], instead of requesting appropriate intervention, he may also be sanctioned" [109]

Momento however continues to apply reverts to the Prem Rawat article, citing only two from the last 24 h. (reverting out "Balyogeshwar" despite a standing consensus to keep it in which was agreed several months ago): 10:44, 26 January 2009 - 20:15, 26 January 2009

Momento was warned recently not to edit war on this article (20 January 2009); Momento is well aware the article is under article probation; Momento has been blocked for edit-warring on the Prem Rawat page in the past, which was 72 hours on last instance (see block log), and despite a recent formal warning on this AE page, continues the same behaviour: I don't think a block of this user should be less than his previous blocks for edit-warring on the page of his preferred guru.

As before, the relevant ArbCom remedies are Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Remedies from the Prem Rawat RfAr page --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an edit war! Cla68 correctly suggested that the lead should start with who Rawat IS not WAS. This suggestion has been accepted by all and all the edits made are good faith attempts to reflect the change to the present tense. There has been and continues to be discussion on the talk page about it. Seven editors have edited the Prem Rawat article in the last 24 hours. Pongostick has made 4, I have made 3, Cla68 has made 3, WillBeBack has made 3, Rumiton has made 3, Jayen and Surdas 2 and Sylvie and now Wowest 1. All editors have added and removed material since Cla68's suggestion. I have made only 4 edits since the Arbcom warning and have already noted in the discussion that we may need Arbcom intervention. Please don't reward FrancisSchonken's targeting of me, he is trying to use you to get at me. He says about me "my preferred guru", be very careful about supporting an editor whose actions are solely based on religious intolerance.Momento (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Momento, Cla68 said nothing about names, so citing him is irrelevant. There has already been extensive discussion of this matter going back at least four years.   Will Beback  talk  21:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right will, he didn't say anything, he just added a new title "Lord of the Universe" to this article without discussion. You and Francis allowed it to continue but my removing it is an edit war. And, according to Cla68's suggestion to put the first sentence into the present tense, which everyone agrees with, means that "Balyogeshwar" must go because he isn't known by that name. It is a title and it hasn't been used for more than 20 years.Momento (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And, according to Cla68's suggestion to put the first sentence into the present tense, which everyone agrees with, means that "Balyogeshwar" must go because he isn't known by that name.

Everyone does not agree that we should omit the subject's life story from his biography. I think athat Cla68 just meant we should also include his current job title, not that we should delete his former titles and names. Regardless, there is no conensus for this change to text that has been stable for months, and which has been discussed for years. You've been warned about edit warring just this week, so ther's no excuse for this.   Will Beback  talk  21:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Cla68 changed the grammar tense of the first sentence from the past tense to the present tense there have been more than 20 edits that have maintained his present tense suggestion. No one is suggesting we "should"omit the subject's life story from his biography" but since the source for "Balyogeshwar" is a book written over 30 years ago, it cannot be said Rawat "is known as". And since the change in the article was started by Cla68 and I have made the same number of edits as you, how can I be edit warring and you're not. At least this gives Arbcom another chance to see how you and Francis single me out for special treatment.Momento (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "...since the source for "Balyogeshwar" is a book written over 30 years ago...": that's not the most recent source used: either you neither really look at talk page discussions nor references, either you're wilfully disturbing processes. Neither is an excuse for edit-warring. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source for Balyogeshwar is "The world of gurus" by Vishal Mangalwadi. According to the author's website it was written in 1977.Momento (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, more recent sources are e.g. mentioned in talk page discussions, see the one I linked to above. Still, no reason to embark on the next edit-war as you did. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mangalwadi refers to DLM in the same paragraph so that dates it as the 70s. And the Srinivas Aravamudan book gives it as an alias of Guru Maharaj Ji which dates it to the 70s also. So neither support the claim that Prem Rawat IS known as "Balyogeshar" which is what the lead sentence incorrectly said. I was right to remove it. And it is not an "alternative name" as Will suggested, it is a Hindi title given to Rawat by others and discarded by him when he eliminated Indian/Hindu aspects of his teachings.Momento (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Momento, none of what you offer here is a valid excuse for edit warring. There was no BLP violation. If you wanted to make a change to sourced, stable text that had been discussed at great length, then you should have discussed it first on the talk page rather than started an edit war.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Say "edit warring" as often as you like WillBeBack but two edits isn't an "edit war". Pongostick, Cla68, Rumiton and your good self have made as many edits as I have, why is it that I'm the only one edit warring.Momento (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the problems with this article, it would appear that some editors are logging out to make reverts.[110][111] (and from the other day [112]).   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Momento, there's no religious intolerance. Objecting to accusations you can't substantiate, and which (like all personal attacks and most strongly the frivolous ones) reflect back unfavourably on the accuser. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an outside observer, I think those three edits I made recently may be the first I've ever done to the Rawat article, I'd say that a checkuser needs to be run on those IP reverts and that an uninvolved admin check the diffs to see if Momento did violate the article probation and the revert warning he was given recently. If so, I would suggest a longer than 72-hour block to follow the principle of escalating corrective actions. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The spirit of last week's warning appears to have been to encourage Momento to use regular processes rather than engage in edit warring. Although I do not edit Prem Rawat or related articles, my role in Jossi's retirement may lead some editors to doubt my neutrality here, so seconding Cla68's request for neutral review. Momento may be stretching the BLP policy a bit farther than it actually extends: the policy does not authorize unlimited reverts to neutral information. Talk discussion and content RFC are preferable, especially so soon after a formal warning. Durova^Charge! 23:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need any more evidence or another neutral review Durova, anyone can see that I made three edits in 24 hours as did Cla68, WilBeBack, Rumiton and Pongostick. What separates me from these other editors (and the 6 other people who have edited this article in the last 24 hours) is that FrancisSchonken and WillBeBack's claim that my last two edits equal an "edit war". Since one was to remove an undiscussed and inappropriate addition to the article, the only question is why are you and the other admins allowing this witch hunt to go on? No one complains that Cla68 was naughty to add material without discussion, no one complains that Cla68, Rumiton, Pongostic and WillBeBack made 3 edits in 24 hours, no one even cares that the first sentence now has a redundant comma! No, hold on a minute, I care. And I'm going to remove it [113]. Is this what you mean by "unlimited reverts"?Momento (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks just like a day's Rawat editing to me, with Momento on 2RR [114][115] Will on 2RR [116][117], Pongostick on 4RR [118][119][120][121], Surdas on 3RR [122][123][124], and two IP reverts. By all means run checkusers. Now of course you might ask, why is it that Momento is dragged here with his two reverts, rather than Surdas or Pongostick, or indeed Will? And if anyone still cares about writing an encyclopedia rather than counting reverts and hoping for the AE post that will finally get rid of the hated opponent: It's nonsense to say "Prem Rawat, also known as Balyogeshwar". Bal is Hindi for "baby" or "kid". It's a name Rawat had when he was six, and it meant "the kid master yogi". We've discussed that a number of times before as well. It's like saying "Bill Clinton, also known as Little Billy." If there's still people who don't get it, and insist on reverting that back in, it's not for lack of being told. I am tempted to say lock the article or topic-ban the lot of them for a week. Jayen466 02:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen: Bravo! Olé! I hope more people like you will come to Wikipedia, and fewer of a differente kind.--Pedrero (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that Momento bears blame in this matter is that he instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable. And then he proceeded to edit war over it, depsite having been specifically warned not to do so less than a week ago. While the inclusion or exclusion of this or that name may have merit, it should be discussed rather than just done unilaterally, especially when the issue has been discussed for over four years, including just last year at length including Momento. His behavior qualifies as tendentious editing. User:Pongostick has been warned repeatedly not to edit war, and informed of the topic probation. He has no excuse either.   Will Beback  talk  04:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WillBeBack's comment above is a complete lie. Cla68 is the editor who "instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable" when he changed the lead that had been stable for months to put it in the present tense.[125]. By changing the tense, which I agree with, he wrote that PR is a guru, which is not true. The article and every scholar on the subject says PR dropped the tiitle "Guru" and almost divine status in the early 80s. Rumiton reverted the error [126]. Cla68 then made an edit to say PR is a "spiritual leader", which is not great [127]. And then added "Lord of the Universe" as a current name for PR, without discussion, which is completely untrue [128]. I then made my first edit of the day, removing the "LOTU" and "Balyogeshwar" titles that are not current names.[129]. Then followed a dozen edits whilst people tried to get the best wording for who PR is - "philanthropist, teacher, teacher of meditation" etc but not "guru, LOTU or Balyogeshwar". During this WillBeBack reverted once, claiming to "restore names that have been discussed extensively", which is a complete lie since "LOTU" was a new addition less than 24 hours old, had not be discussed extensively and is not a title by which Rawat is currently known. [130] The "LOTU" inclusion was removed by Rumiton [131]. And then reinserted by a new editor Surdas. [132]. Removed by Pongostick [133] and then reverted by WillBeBack to include "LOTU" with the dishonest edit summary "undiscussed deletion of sourced, discussed material" since the "LOTU" title was not discussed. Pongstick reverted, Surdas reinserted "LOTU". [134] I made my second edit of the day and removed "LOTU" [135] and then another edit to remove "Balyogeshwar" because the sentence, now in the present tense for the last dozen edits, required that an old title from the 70s wasn't appropriate for the present.[136] My editing in the 24 hour was based purely on Cla68's correct suggestion that the first sentence of the lead should state who PR is not what PR was. That suggestion has been accepted and still holds 20 edits later, the "LOTU" title has also been dropped and "Balyogeshwar" remains even though the source for it was written more than 30 years ago. It is a complete disgrace that admins who have read this complaint and followed the diffs haven't thrown this "complaint" back to FraqncisSchonken with a warning to stop harassing me. [WP:HA] WillBeBack should also be warned, his gross distortion of the facts above to try to paint me as the person who "instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable", demand it.Momento (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't approve of Jayen's querulous contribution above (in view of Pedrero's reaction I'd even qualify it as somewhat "populist").

Only a few days ago Jayen attempted to infuse more and stricter WP:NOR material into the WP:NPOV policy. And then here the crux of the reasoning s/he presents is an elementary WP:NOR transgression. What should be the crux of our thinking on the content of this matter is what the sources say. It is a fact that readily available sources (reprints as well as new publications, e.g. from US university presses) refer to the subject of the Prem Rawat article as "Balyogeshwar". So, on the content side of the matter: no, Jayen's comment is missing the point, defends an "Original Research" stance and can only be qualified as tendentious editing.

And then Jayen's defense of the behaviour: where was, e.g., Will notified that he would have been behaving improperly on the Prem Rawat article? Where was he reprimanded recently for reverting on this WP:AE page? Will wasn't, that's clear. So, no, there's not a sound reasoning to put Will and Momento on the same line: it's just "quid pro quo" mud-slinging, bad style because Jayen provides a gloss of equality to what is profoundly unequal. So also on the behaviour side of the matter reprehensible tendentious editing by Jayen.

I think it's about time to take the cloak of protection offered to *edit-warring* editors like Momento by *ambiguous* editors like Jayen away, then pretty soon imho editing articles like Rawat's will become a harmonious enterprise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Knowing another language is not original research, neither is having a rudimentary understanding of the culture one is purporting to write an encyclopedic article about. Here is Balganesh (baby Ganesh), here is Balhanuman (baby Hanuman), here is Balkrishna (baby Krishna). Jayen466 14:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I think you have made your point rather well, Jayen. What do other editors think? Rumiton (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does any of that have to do with the edit warring that is being complained about here? These arguments should be made to explain edits and seek consensus beforehand, not to justify an edit war after the fact. (Even so, Jayen's links don't seem to touch on what Prem Rawat has been called during his life, the topic of this dispute. Whatever point Jayen is making belongs on the article talk page, not on WP:AE.)   Will Beback  talk  16:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Will, as far as I can see, Momento's first removal of the Balyogeshwar name at 10:44, 26 January 2009, as diffed in the filing above, was not even a revert. The name had been there for months. Its removal became necessary because of Cla68's sensible edit changing the first sentence to present tense: [137]. The old wording, "Prem Rawat, also known as Balyogeshwar ... became guru at age 8 ..." had long enjoyed broad acceptance by all, including Momento, because Rawat was called Balyogeshwar at the time he became guru. Once Cla68 changed it to present tense, "Prem Rawat, also known as Balyogeshwar ... is a spiritual leader based in California" [138], the childhood name no longer fitted. Rawat is no longer known as Balyogeshwar, and has not been for decades. That's what Momento fixed. So now Momento's two reverts, inasmuch as they relate to the Balyogeshwar name, are actually one. That gives you one more revert than Momento [139][140] – and they are proper reverts, making the same change twice and undoing, rather than building on what another editor had just done – and you are just as aware of the strictures against edit-warring, just having reminded Momento of them. ;-) So let's remember WP:KETTLE and stop this. I suggest we return the article to strict 1RR rules; I seem to remember that worked quite well last year (once we had defined exactly what it meant). Jayen466 19:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't recall anyone discussing these deletions before making them. The fact that an uninvolved editor drops in and changes the tense of a single word doesn't mean that we should re-write stable, relevant, sourced text to accomodate his change. The names could have just as easily be kept by splitting the sentence or other minor changes. For reasons that I don't entirely understand, Momento and other pro-Rawat editors have objected to including his alternate names, and it's pretty clear that Cla68's minor change was used as a pretext for deleting them. This issue does not involve any violation of BLP or other extenuating circumstances to excuse the edit warring that did occur. Momento knew he was making a controversial edit. He didn't discuss it and then he restored it, still without discussion. On a topic like this, already under probation, editors should seek consensus or at least give a thorough discussion before upsetting the apple cart. Constantly re-fighting settled issues is tendentious editing. 1RR can't work in an environment where brand new accounts and IPs appear out of nowhere to further edit wars started by established editors. I don't see any admins stepping up to handle the violations by Pongostick, so perhaps this case needs to go back to the ArbCom to get enforceable remedies.   Will Beback  talk  19:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Taking a more charitable view, one could also concede that the appellation "boy yogi" (which is what balyogeshwar means) is not very appropriate for someone in his fifties, especially when the text has been changed to imply that that is what he is called today. As for your point about 1RR, I'd suggest it is still worth giving a try. At any rate, my impression is that new editors are popping up on both sides of the debate, and 1RR would force people to talk and work out agreements. (Here's hoping!) Jayen466 19:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I don't concede that we should delete things from biographies just because they happened decades ago. The text that implied he was being called that today should have been changed rather than deleting the relevant, sourced text. If a random editor visited Jimmy Carter and changed "is a former U.S. President and peacemaker" to "is a U.S. President and peacemaker" then we wouldn't delete the presidency even though it was almost 30 years ago. We'd adjust the grammar instead. As for 1RR, it didn't work before so I don't know why you think it would work now. 3RR isn't even being enforced, despite the ArbCom probation. What would work is if editors treat this as a controversial topic and use the talk page to seek consensus before making significant changes. Do you object to that?   Will Beback  talk  20:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • [141] Hope that will do it for anyone. If not, then let's have any further discussion on where and how to mention the Balyogeshwar name on Talk:Prem_Rawat, please. Jayen466 00:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Anyone who wants to make any significant change to the article, especially to material that has already been discussed, should first discuss it on the article talk page. There's no excuse for starting these edit conflicts.   Will Beback  talk  01:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • PS: Jayen, thanks for drafting that version, which is close to the status quo ante. It's fine with me.   Will Beback  talk  08:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • • Can't agree with Jayen's edits shown in the diff above ([142]). It is just continuing the edit-warring. Sorry, Will, can't agree with you, these edits are not "fine with me", neither are they close enough to the status quo ante to be even near to acceptable. They are just Jayen showing off disruptive behaviour. The talk page discussion I linked to above (TWICE already, and here for the third time shows external links, AS SAID ABOVE to "readily available sources, including new publications, from US university presses", in other words scholarly publications, from English-speaking countries, published when Rawat was about 40 years old, *still* preferring Balyogeshwar as name for the subject. It shows Jayen (as well as Will, as other participants for that matter) ignoring what others have to say, and certainly not finding any time to look at a previous discussion or external links contained therein before feverishly proposing and implementing new solutions.
                    Really, this has to stop. I reiterate: Jayen has been disruptive while (1) being tendentious and incorrect on the level of content preferring a quick original research over careful perusal of sources, and (2) tendentious and showing favouritism on the level of behaviour. His way of ignoring other peoples comments and links is taking near proverbial dimensions. (as he recently did in the WT:NPOV discussion finally admitting "Having now read [XYZ] – which I failed to do at the time). Seems like for Jayen it's WP:TLDR too often, typing faster than reading previous discussion and external references. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Francis, this revert, while you clearly believe it to be right, is against the consensus expressed here and on the talk page, which is that this version is not good. Concerning the question whether Balyogeshwar is a honorific, see [143]. It is from the Encyclopaedia Indica, it is written by an Indian, and it states that he received the appellations "Balyogeshwar" and "Guru Maharaj Ji" when he took over as guru from his father. It was not a name given at birth, and was not bestowed for any other reason. As for recent books using Balyogeshwar, your 1992 source is a revised version of a book first published in 1977, as has been pointed out before. It uses seventies' language throughout. I'd also like to add that American scholars are not the most reliable sources when it comes to telling apart Indian names and honorifics. David G. Bromley and Anson Shupe, bless them, writing in 1981 (Strange Gods, pp. 44–45), apparently thought that "Ji" was Rawat's surname, and wrote things like, "Since Ji had earler ...", "At one point, Ji was ..." "Ji" means "Mr." or "Dear Sir". So much for the reliability of world-class US scholars on Indian names. Jayen466 12:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Jayen, you provide diffs and external links: none bear out the claims you make, unless with an unacceptable dose of OR. Here's the catch: for everyone else you want to make the NOR policy more stringent, and you often enough point out that for BLPs core content policies (...like WP:NOR) need to be interpreted stricter than on average... That's what I call your profound ambiguity.
                    This is an ownership thing maybe: using all available means to have "pro" people take ownership of Rawat-related articles (comparable to what is being discussed re. Scientology articles), and then incoherences in interpretation and pushing of policy don't matter.
                    Like I've said before: my recommendation to you is that you continue to engage yourself in the Scientology RfAr (you're deeply involved anyway) until it has come to its conclusion, before taking unilateral action in the sense of pushing policy change or change encyclopedia content contrary to current policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It is correct that I am arguing in the direction of ownership by "pro" people in the case of Scientology articles, because they have long been firmly in the hands of passionate and committed opponents of Scientology, to the detriment of article quality and sourcing standards (read the evidence page if you haven't done so already). I am also resisting attempts to eliminate pro people from the Rawat articles like this present effort, based on ganging up on them and hauling them to AE when they sneeze, while other people do the same and worse and no one comments. This is not quite the same as arguing for ownership by pro people.
                      As for your other points, I am not aware of trying to "change content contrary to current policy." If you have a problem with a specific edit of mine, kindly let me know on my talk page, or the article talk page. Lastly, the Scientology RfAR has been quiet for most of this month, and it may take months to come to any conclusion. I believe I am quite within my rights to voice my opinion on policy talk pages in the meantime. If there is a policy or guideline that says that people involved in arbitration should not initiate or participate in any such discussions, then please point me to it; if it is only your opinion that I should not comment, then it is noted as such. Cheers, Jayen466 13:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • If all Momento did was 1 revert, then I'm not sure if it's serious enough for a block, in spite of the previous warning. I did, in fact, add Lord of the Universe to the lead without discussion (it was based on the Register article which stated that Rawat is also known by this title), so I don't think it necessarily improper for someone to remove that and ask for further discussion first. Cla68 (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No offense, but I think you're right that you "started" this, so to speak, even if with the best of intentions. Technically, the article probation applies to all editors but new or occasional editors can't be expected to know that. This topic has so many contentious issues that it is like a minefield. As my high school physics teacher liked to say in similar circumstances, "your punishment is 50 lashes with a wet noodle." Just don't do it again. ;)   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Well, after searching the web, it doesn't look like there's too much out there in reliable sources to use to improve the article, so we're left with making sure what's there is as encyclopedic as possible. The omission of what Rawat currently is from the intro was glaring, and hopefully now has been fixed. It seems that what the current editors of that and related articles, besides yourself, are working on right now is trying to message the wording as much as possible to their POV. In my opinion, all of this fighting over articles that probably contain as much information as is already available until something else gets published in the future is a waste of time for everyone involved. I would suggest topic banning all of the clearly pro and anti- Rawat editors from all these articles and calling it a day. Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense!!!! This is hilarious. It's taken you days to figure out what every conscious editor knew from the start. I spelled it out for you 30 edits ago.[144] "Wet noodle"? You should resign as an admin and FrancisSchonken should be topic banned 6 months.Momento (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi sent me an odd email last night (quite surprising) in which he both admitted that I was the proximate cause of his retirement, and acted offended. So setting the record straight. On 22 January at AE I defended Jossi against an unsubstantiated attack on his character,[145] then did likewise when someone posted a corresponding attack from the other side.[146] In the current dispute, going to mediation or a content request for comment would be a very good idea on all sides. Yet one specific party was warned for edit warring very recently. So particular attention there may be appropriate. Any Wikipedian whose neutrality may be challenged ought to disclose it proactively when weighing in at AE. Walking the walk there, and anyone who may have been contacted via backchannels about it is welcome to get both sides of the story. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Durova^Charge! 17:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Jossi was offended by your evidence section doesn't really matter to us here. What matters is if Jossi has any explanation or defense for his violations of the community's trust and standards which are detailed in your evidence. Cla68 (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should have a look through Durova's evidence to see how well it stands up to scrutiny. I have not clicked through all the diffs. But edits like this [147], given as examples of Jossi's wrongdoings, or Durova's entire argumentation in this section, don't convince me at all. Jayen466 14:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When Jossi was a Wikipedian he faced several investigations spurred by his self-proclaimed conflict of interest. He was examined by Wikipedia's best and brightest and was cleared of all charges, in fact commended for his restraint. It seems now he is gone his history will be written by a self-serving reporter at the Register. It is a sad and pitiful situation. Rumiton (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to discuss the current ArbCom case in which Jossi is a party. This noticeboard is for discussing enforcement of remedies in closed ArbCom cases. The applicable one here is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat.   Will Beback  talk  21:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent>I believe that the editors of the Prem Rawat articles are in need of formal mediation. We had some informal mediation last year, but that fell apart after our mediator had his own problems and left Wikipedia. When formal mediation was subsequently explored, I was against assigning a designated representative for each side (for various reasons), but now I'm willing to consider representatives if that's what a mediator requires. I have been asking editors to refrain from making major edits on these article(s) main spaces for some time now, until they have proposed their changes and gained consensus on the talk page(s). Formal mediation will certainly make the process more tedious and slow everything down, but this article(s) always takes a lot of time and seems to be in a perpetual status of change, despite already-agreed-upon matters having been stable in the article(s). The practice by some editors of changing long-standing, stable edits is getting real old, real fast, given we are going on five years editing these Rawat articles. There are 39 archives on the Prem Rawat talk page alone! I'm sort of throwing out a desperate plea for help here to the community for some genuine assistance to rein things in. I also think that a tag needs to be placed on all Rawat articles warning new editors to discuss changes on the talk pages before editing the articles. Food for thought. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall (correct me if I err) we were heading towards mediation but Francis didn't think it was a good idea. Rumiton (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are erring. Further, please comment on edits, not on editors, that was near (too near) to a personal attack. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe Rumiton is erring, nor do I think he has attacked you. [148] Jayen466 12:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, Rumiton is erring, and the contrary is not borne out by the diff provided by Jayen. And I'm getting tired of these lame defences of near SPAs by profoundly ambiguous editors. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sylviecyn is right that editors should discuss significant edits before making them. However I don't agree that mediation is needed at this time, because it is designed to settle specific content disputes and there aren't any major ones right now. However there is clearly are problems with the interactions of editors on the topic and the ArbCom's remedies haven't worked out well in solving them.   Will Beback  talk  21:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is some Admins are reluctant to apply the remedies. Last week Nik Wright2 made a dishonest complaint against me and FrancisSchonken and WillBeBack vigorously supported it. The remedy applied by Sandstein and backed by PhilNight was that Nik Wright2 was topic banned for one month and I was warned not to edit war to solve similar problems. [149] A few days passed and FrancisSchonken made this complaint about me and WillBeBack has supported it to the extent of falsifying the editing. He has said I deserve "blame in this matter in that Momento instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable. And then Momento proceeded to edit war over it". [150] In fact, it was Cla68 who "instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable".[151][152] And Cla68 belatedly confirms it here. [153] And it was WillBeBack who indulged in the "edit war". [154][155] WillBeBack's response to Cla68's belated admission is that he should be "lashed with a wet noodle". "Wet noodle" for Cla68 for "instigating changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable"? An Arbcom complaint for me for, and I'll let Cla68 say it, "If all Momento did was 1 revert, then I'm not sure if it's serious enough for a block, in spite of the previous warning". You're right Cla68, the revert isn't serious. What is very serious is the long term and persistent harassment of another editor (me) by FrancisSchonken [156] and WillBeBack. FrancisSchonken needs to be topic banned from Prem Rawat and associated articles for six months (he made this absurd complaint after Nik Wright received a one month ban for the same behaviour). In May last year after another FrancisSchonken/ WillBeBack harassment I wrote "I don't deserve to be blocked, I deserve to be protected". [157] WillBeBack needs to be stripped of his admin status. If a Wikipedia admin is allowed to indulge in this sort of behaviour despite previous complaints and appeals for help, heaven help Wikipedia.Momento (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Momento, if I've been found by the community to have abused the admin tools then I'd willingly resign as admin. However I don't see any evidence of that, nor any evidence of other misbehavior on my part. Please stop making these unsupported charges.   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about "admin tools". This is about you deliberating supplying false evidence to admins about the grounds for this complaint. You claimed I deserve "blame in this matter in that Momento instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable. And then Momento proceeded to edit war over it". Is your claim true or not?Momento (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that you deleted the sourced name "Balyogeshwar" and inserted the unsourced occupation "philanthropist" without ever discussing those changes.[158] It is also true that you deleted the name a second time after it was restored.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer the question "Yes" or "No". Up above you say to Cla68 "No offense, but I think you're right that you "started" this". Is that not true? Of course it is because Cla68 preceded my edit of the lead with three of his own. It was Cla68 who "instigated" the changes to the lead which had "already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable" when, with his first edit, he added "is" and removed "was", added the unsourced "based in California, United States", removed "people" and added "followers" and added "reportedly"; all without discussion. Is that not true? And when these initial, undiscussed changes to the previously stable lead were reverted by Rumiton to the "discussed, sourced and stable version", Cla68 then added the unsourced "spiritual leader", reinserted "based in California, United States", changed "became" to "reportedly became". And then with his third edit added the undiscussed and chronologically flawed "Lord of the Universe". All of which preceded my first edit! So let me ask you again - am I the person who "instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable" as you claimed? Or is Cla68 the one who "instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable"? A simple - "It was Momento" or "it was Cla68" will be sufficient. Momento (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Momento, I did source the "spiritual leader" name to the Register article and linked to it in my comment on the talk page to justify why I was making the addition. The fact that the Register used that title to refer to Rawat appeared to show that that was the most neutral, best descriptive term to use to describe what Rawat is. Momento, please tell the truth, or it may be hard to assume good faith with your participation here. Cla68 (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where you added it. [159] Here's what WP:CS says "Sources should be cited when adding material to the biography of a living person". Do you see a cite for your addition? I don't. And here's what WP:RS says "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page".Momento (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) When AE threads grow as long as this one is, it's unlikely that anyone will intervene. So offering as evenhanded a solution as possible here: The Register is not generally recognized as a reliable source at Wikipedia. So it would be better to remove reference to it and any information that hinges upon that source. Recommend shaking hands and agreeing to mediation/content RFC as an alternative to edit warring. That goes for all sides, however, in light of the recent formal warning if Momento resumes edit warring I would certify a conduct RFC on Momento. Per reasoning above, parity arguments do not apply here. On one side, you have a questionable reliability source disallowed. On the other, you have an offer to certify user conduct RFC. That looks appropriate in both cases. So here's hoping everyone is reasonable enough to mark this thread resolved and leave it at that. Durova^Charge! 01:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still have several problems.

• The Register is not just a questionable reliability source, it is a source whose aims are directly opposed to those of Wikipedia. It is an act of gross disrespect by one editor to have included a quote from it in the first place, and of disingenuous partisanship on the part of others when they did not immediately revert it.
• Momento has been treated in a most discriminatory way here, and so far no one has acknowledged it. He did not edit war initially, as removing a defamatory link from a BLP is to be recommended. He was chastised for doing it himself, rather than asking for wider community assistance. I believe he accepts that.
• We tried for mediation last August, but contrary to Francis Schonken's recollection above, the attempt was torpedoed by him. See [160]

This is what the mediator said in closing:

== Case closed ==

Further to Francis' withdrawal from this Mediation, I am afraid the only course of action now available is to close. I have held off this for as long as possible, in the hope that a reconsideration would arise; evidently, this is not forthcoming.

Mediation requires the agreement of all parties at all times for it to take place; that one party (and a major one in this dispute, to boot) has stricken his previous agreement, and superseded it with a disagreement, unfortunately falls short of the requirements we hold on the Committee.

To that end, I am closing this case. The ball is now firmly in the parties' court: as a group, formal Mediation has not worked (due to a lack of agreement). The decision is now in your hands as to where to proceed from here on in. Returning to the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal may be an appropriate course of action.

Good luck in your future attempts at discussing your differences.

Regards, Anthøny 11:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This long and painful history needs to be acknowledged. Rumiton (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Momento has been painted as the bad guy, and the truth is way more complex. Rumiton (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Rumiton's summary. Jayen466 13:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How times have changed, when someone supposes a need to inform me of the Register's shortcomings. Thank you for adding levity to a dull morning. AGK referred the dispute to Medcab. You can go there, or content RFC. Or--ideally--stop trying to cast a content dispute in polarizing/dramatic terms such as 'bad guy' and get on with the work of building a collaborative encyclopedia. Multiple AE threads within one month are not a good thing; other forms of dispute resolution may open without your endorsement if this pattern continues. Durova^Charge! 17:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Resolved", Durova? "Be reasonable enough to leave it at that"! Be under no illusions folks, this issue isn't resolved until FrancisSchonken is appropriately punished for his fraudulent complaint. And WillBeBack punished for the lies he's told in support of it. It's time admins thought about what is good for Wikipedia instead of hiding their heads in the sand.Momento (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia remedies are preventitive, not punitive. Durova^Charge! 21:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not, since past remedies have done nothing to prevent this second attack.Momento (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has been prepared to make a decision I've called on "Admins prepared to make difficult blocks" for help.Momento (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, firstly, I'm sorry there hasn't been much response from uninvolved admins. There is currently a request for comment on ArbCom Enforcement, which makes reference to this failing. I've read this discussion, and looked at the article history, and to be perfectly honest, I can't see anything block worthy. Yes, the assertion that you were edit warring is, at best, an exaggeration. However, beyond indicating that Francis's should avoid making spurious reports in future, I don't believe that I could justify any further action. PhilKnight (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at "best" it is an "exaggeration". But this isn't an at "best" situation for FrancisSchonken. He is fresh out of another spurious claim by NickWight2, so he is completely familiar with the need for accuracy in these matters. And yet to make his complaint Francis had to ignore that Pongostick made 4 edits, WillBeBack made 3, Rumiton made 2, Jayen and Surdas 2 and Sylvie 1 all between my first edit and my second. It's harassment Phil, pure and simple. And the fact that the last five edits of the Rawat article show FrancisSchonken making one edit and reverting to it twice in 24 hours is ample evidence to conclude that FrancisSchonken still believes there is one rule for him and a hundred for me. [161] The latest example in an ongoing campaign made possible by WillBeBack's vigorous support.[162] WillBeBack constantly shouting "edit war" and even claiming that I "bear blame in this matter" because I "instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable", is a complete lie that he has not retracted or apologized for despite several explicit requests from me to address the issue. If you care to apply the rules/precedence then FrancisSchonken must be topic blocked for a period greater than NikWright2 was for a making a spurious complaint to this forum. If you're OK with admins harassing other editors and lying in Arbcom Enforcements then WillBeBack is just doing his job. But if harassing other editors and lying in Arbcom Enforcements is not part of the Admin brief then WillBeBack must be formally warned to cease and desist and under go a period of probation.Momento (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any other comments?Momento (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]