Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Edit this section for new requests

Digwuren edit restrictions following edit war suggested

Arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren

Several editors engaged in an editwar at Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz, with two of them (User:Boodlesthecat, User:Poeticbent) and the article getting blocked. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Contested_protection, Talk:Fear:_Anti-Semitism_in_Poland_after_Auschwitz#This_is_really_quite_enough and ongoing unblock requests of the two editors. I suggest that the actions of all participants get reviewed whether they merit addition to the list at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren, as edit summaries including vandalizing, Polonophobia, anti-Polish sentiment, please keep anti-Polish propaganda shots out this article do not seem very civil to me. I suggest that the two users mentioned above get put under edit restriction, as well as User:Piotrus, who was heavily involved, and used his admin powers. -- Matthead  Discuß   00:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Matthead is a well known editor who never passes an opportunity to criticize Polish editors. He was one of the first to get sanctioned by the restriction he cites. If any action needs to be taken here (other than speedy closing this thread), it is to restrict him further from stalking (do note he is not involved with the recent Fear discussion, but as usual, he will not pass up the opportunity to criticize his opponents elsewhere). Wikipedia is not a soapbox to criticize other editors.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem, Piotrus? Is having ANI and 3RR on my watchlist stalking, Piotrus? It was you who very early[1] used the new Digwuren list as a soapbox and a handy tool to get several users edit restricted, with about 3 dozen diffs collected over months apparently - without any stalking? In your own words in the "Off-topic discussion about user's right to collect evidence": "As that ArbCom proved, collecting evidence is expected." Anyway, thanks to you collecting evidence, I soon found myself restricted and immediately blocked for a minor issue, adding a remark to a closed 3RR case (in which you had introduced a totally unrelated West German city and then even editwarred about it), something which you had done before on request of the very admin that restricted/blocked me. You know about the edit restriction concept and should adhere to its spirit. Don't be surprised if it swings back to you. After all you had already been added to that list, but managed to get removed(!)[2], just like you found an admin who unblocked you recently. Piotrus, you are really stretching it in many ways, for about three years now. Is your remark above the way you interpret WP:AGF for yourself? -- Matthead  Discuß   00:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy close - an unsupported complaint, the issue of edit warring already resolved by an unattached administrator. greg park avenue (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I requested that "actions of all participants get reviewed", "following edit war". And that includes you, I have to say, as according to your contribs you hardly did anything else on Wiki over the last ten days or so other than being heavily involved at Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz and its talk, including Reverting another vandalism by User:Boondlesthecat a notorious disruptive editor, now qualifing also for temporary ban from editing for countless personal attacks WP:NPA. -- Matthead  Discuß   01:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

He removed a reference from a notable source Luke Ford I included on TALK PAGE together with my comment. How did you feel if I changed now your comment above? Woudn't you consider it as vandalism or not? greg park avenue (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat removed (rm antisemitic commentary by Greg park avenue) the talk entry "Even Jews are tired of Thane Rosenbaum who obviously masquerades as son of holocaust survivor" added by you. Frankly, I have no idea why the webpage entry on the uninvolved author Thane Rosenbaum written by Luke Ford who "is a writer, blogger, and pornography gossip columnist known for his salacious disclosures and traditionalist Jewish religious views" is of any interest to the book "Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz" written by Jan T. Gross? Are any or all of these persons Jews, and if so or not, does it matter? I'm beginning to understand what's going wrong here, though: a porn gossip columnist as notable source (WP:RS?!) on Wikipedia in regard to sensitive issues like Anti-Semitism. And the user who removed it got blocked, rather than the user who added it?! -- Matthead  Discuß   03:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no pornography on that webpage entry, nothing but sophisticated comments from Jewish intellectuals, even writers about Mr Rosenbaum's book. And please refrain from speculation about other editors suspected anti-semitism. There is no trace of anti-semitism in my comments, all you can find some phrases maybe politically incorrect. greg park avenue (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Matthead's recent comments like :

Polish POV has been disseminated too far in the past, and will be reduced Seems like EndOfTrolling for Polish POV now, indeed. Do not speak highly about his neutrality in subjects related to Poland and Polish editors.--Molobo (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Technical note this thread should be moved to the section for new requests, as I fail to see how this complain have been resolved (it stands in 5. Resolved part now). M.K. (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Pls read directions at top? Add the case name. But let me guess..Digwuren? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Digwuren, I started to read the involved article pages, there are violations of WP:LINING, possible antisemitism, general incivility and bad faith examples. M.K. (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be adverse to putting Poeticbent (talk · contribs) on Digwuren restriction, but the case itself really needs fixing. Isolating civility in such a manner is silly. Eastern European articles suffer from other problems that will really only be solved with revert restrictions and topic-bans (that is, ARBMAC-style remedies need to applied). Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In my view WP:BLP issues should receive attention in order that such activities do not continue in the future. M.K. (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Some developments after reading corresponding articles , which may be in contradiction with general WP policies and Arbcom decisions:

user:Greg park avenue

• you play the fool pretending that you don't understand.

• [3] violation of WP:LIVING.

• Reverting another vandalism by User:Boondlesthecat a notorious disruptive editor, now qualifing also for temporary ban from editing for countless personal attacks WP:NPA

• If the term "Jews" you found offensive, then guess who more anti-semitic is, you or me?

• Rant my ass.// Who else would know Hebrew names of rare holidays, Jewish customs or Jewish slang words as "shiksas"? Do you? I don't think you can handle this. You don't even sound like Jewish.

• [4] violation of WP:LIVING

• Why do you ignore vandalism, disruption and edit warring practiced by the above mentioned user?// And the issue of Mr Rosenbaum's martyrdom wasn't brought by me, but was introduced in the main space by this rogue editor in question.//For any possible WP:BLP violation, I apologize, didn't mean that.

user:Poeticbent (Blocked for 3RR)

• please keep anti-Polish propaganda shots out this article, WP:BALANCE, thank you;

• encyclopedit style; emotive eloquence and outbursts of anti-Polonism

• the only "virulent quality" (see your own quote) is that of Gross' and Wiesel's Polonophobia. We have nothing to discuss on Talk page until you revise your attitude toward your fellow editors. (needs additional investigation per WP:LIVING)

user: Boodlesthecat (Blocked for 3RR)

I am not very comfortable with these:

• you are now simply vandalizing the article by removing well suorced material simply becuase you disapprove of it

• [5]

user:Piotrus

• next time you change other's users talk I will simply block you for vandalism intimidation and violation of WP:LIVING.

user: 68.75.166.204

• Gamiel, you little worm... don't make this an ethic holy war...I'm POLISH and I DON"T LIKE WHAT YOU DOING HERE and The RACEISM HERE

In my view, this case (involving Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz) shows WP:LIVING violations as well, therefore editors who there were involved in such activities should be informed with appropriate templates , while "comments" which violates this policy should be removed from WP history permanently. Other activities are covered by Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Remedies. Perhaps, topic ban to involved parties should be considered as well.

As I did not participated in the involved articles I may missed some relevant info, so please review and subsequent diffs.M.K. (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see Piotrus warning to a user who started to vandalize other user's talk page to stop this as intimidation. It was a simple warning to stop vandalization or face block. I see nothing wrong in that.--Molobo (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As discussed above, Boodlesthecat repeatedly removed the porn gossips columnist's "Even Jews are tired..." quote about an unrelated author which had been added by Greg park avenue, which then was re-added by Piotrus with the block thread. The quote is about T. Rosenbaum, not about J. Gross, the author of the book the article is about, and per Wikipedia:LIVING#Non-article_space "poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages". Boodlesthecat did remove as policy requires, but Piotrus threatened him with his admin powers. Besides, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Editors_warned, "All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee. This applies both to the parties to this case as well as to any other editor that may choose to engage in such conduct." It seems to me that the quote "Even Jews are tired..." is a generalized statement about a particular ethnic group, and dragging such a statement from the web to Wikipedia in an editwar means using it as a battleground. -- Matthead  Discuß   18:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Does it mean Matthead that you tried to use Wikipedia as battleground by using generalised statements about particular ethnic groups such as Seems like EndOfTrolling for Polish POV now, indeed ?--Molobo (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Trying to distract, Molobo? You are scoring an own goal, as your behaviour on Talk:Karkonosze was appalling, I ask everybody to read it. In that request to move the article Karkonosze to Giant Mountains and even on WP:RM, Molobo repeatedly made the wrong statement Karkonosze/Krkonoše - as per naming of Encyclopædia Britannica [6] [7] even though the Encyclopædia Britannica online article at http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9036725/Giant-Mountains is clearly titled "Giant Mountains", and after [8] this was pointed out to him you keep saying something which simply is not true. He made several other statements like (1,280 Karkonosze hits on Google scholar compared to meager 50 for giant mountains) - They are 1,280 hits for Karkonosze right now on Google scholar compared to yours 50 hits for enigmatic giang mountains. Seems like EOT when in fact there are not only the first 50 ones, but 717 in total, and all of them in English, compared to 677 for Karkonosze +mountains. On that talk, Molobo was desperately trying to push his Polish POV, I urge everyone to read not only single diffs there. For example, according to him, Giant Mountains Is not a English word but translation of German term for Polish and Czech mountains. He puts my name in a section head line Unproductive edit warring by Matthead and even fulfills Godwins law Nazi listening station during WW2 ?. That is why I request "EndOfTrolling", and that he is added to the Digwuren list, too. -- Matthead  Discuß   20:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Half of my family comes from Germany Matthead. Please stop with this fixation on Poles and Poland. Being Polish doesn't come with set of established beliefs and views. You spread your accusations of "Polish POV" all over Wikipedia discussions as here where I was completely uninvolvedPolish POV has been disseminated too far in the past, and will be reduced

Does it mean Matthead that you tried to use Wikipedia as battleground by using generalised statements about particular ethnic groups such as above ?--Molobo (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Momento edit-warring over criticism section at Prem Rawat

• Article probation, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat#Article_probation
• Momento (talk · contribs) twice removed the Criticism section in less than an hour:
  1. First time, in three steps: 21:35, 17 May 2008 - 21:36, 17 May 2008 - 21:47, 17 May 2008
  2. Second time, revert 22:16, 17 May 2008
• In the mean while some talk had been going on at Talk:Prem Rawat#Criticism section, not amounting anywhere near to a consensus to remove the entire section.
• Momento's behaviour is uncooperative to say the least, please take him out for some time, not too long, just enough to make him realise this is not an acceptable method to take control over something he doesn't like. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Francis has complained here that I employed edit warring at the Prem Rawat article over the "Criticism" section. He is wrong. The "Criticism" heading was added by Mukadderat without discussion the day before my edit. [9] NPOV policy says "Care must be taken to ensure the overall presentation (of an article) is broadly neutral". In this case, having a section called "Criticism" is a "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself" and "may require additional attention to protect neutrality and avoid problems like POV forks and undue weight".[10]

So in good faith I spent 20 minutes relocating the three paragraphs of the new "Criticism" section into the appropriate places. The substance of two paragraphs had already been covered in the article (Mishler in "Coming of Age" and Kent's view by others in "Teachings") so I added the cited sources to that existing material[11][12]. The third paragraph, a five sentence comparison of two charismatic religious leaders (Osho and Rawat) by Schnabel is too big and out of proportion to the rest of the article, so I relocated it to the "Teachings of Prem Rawat" article where it belongs.[13][14] I then removed the "Criticism" heading since the "criticism" was covered through the article.

This was reverted by WillBeback [15]. After reading Will's rationale in Talk I used my one-revert-per-day to return to my NPOV version [[16]]

This isn't edit warring, it is me removing and repairing an undiscussed edit by an uninvolved editor that contravenes NPOV guidelines.

On the other hand, since this article was unprotected Francis has reverted me four times. He reverted me three times claiming that the source I quoted (Fahlbusch E. et al) didn't support my addition of "despite rival claims from his own family". [17][18][19]. As you see, I am right and Francis is wrong [20].

In a similar situation I spent an hour removing errors, finding new sources for "citation needed" material and improving readability of the "Teachings" section.[21] Within 11 minutes of completion Francis reverted and re-inserted the following errors.[22].

• Briefly,
  • 1. Lipner doesn't refer to "dogma" or " direct inner experience' but to "ritual" and "true religion is a matter of loving and surrendering to God who dwells in the heart" as I corrected
  • 2. Galanter source refers to premies giving satsang not Rawat which I corrected.
  • 3. Naming Van der lans and Derks is undue weight, which I corrected.
  • 4. Inserted material than has been tagged "citation needed" for more than a month, which I corrected.

I used my one-revert-per-day to reinstate my much improved version.[23] During this period Francis has characterized my edit summaries as "lies" [24], criticized me in the "talk" pages and filled this complaint without informing me. How long can he get away with this behavior?Momento (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am just beginning to look through the evidence. As regards the Galanter quote, Momento is right. Here is the complete quote from Galanter:

What were some of the trappings of religious practice in this emerging movement? Potential initiates were usually introduced to the Divine Light Mission at a session of religious discourse called a satsang, where experienced members presented the philosophy of the sect to the assembled group. The satsang could be delivered to active members or to those with only a casual interest. It was something of a polemic interspersed with parables, and because members were bright and sophisticated, these discourses tended to be engaging, making use of both Hindu mythology and Western philosophy.

— Publication Information: Book Title: Cults: Faith, Healing, and Coercion. Contributors: Marc Galanter - author. Publisher: Oxford University Press. Place of Publication: New York. Publication Year: 1990. Page Number: 23.

Galanter is indeed referring to satsang, not to Rawat's discourses; it is an important difference. Jayen466 13:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the Lipner quote from questia:

This movement, which has been called 'Sant Mat', i.e. the View of the Sants or poet-saints who assumed prominence across an east-west swathe from about the late thirteenth century, was not homogeneous. Rather it was a pastiche of socio-religious attitudes based on the kind of devotional religion (bhakti) first expressed about a millennium earlier in the Bhagavadgītā. Yet Sant Mat was characterised by most if not all of the following features, namely a tendency to sit loosely to sectarian boundaries and iconic worship, and to Brahminic ideas of caste and precedence; to call upon God by non-exclusive names (even across religious divides, though there seems to be a preference for Vai ava epithets 28 ); to express core teaching verbally in pithy, vernacular verse (mostly in forms of Hindi); to regard the devotional uttering of the divine Name as having intrinsic saving power; to regard the externals of birth and ritual as having no religious value; and to reckon true religion as a matter of loving and surrendering to God who dwells in the heart. 29 Many of the Sants, some of them women, came from low castes; some were even untouchables. Not surprisingly, they did not take kindly to the idea that ritual purity and caste status determined access to salvation. Sant religion was a religion of the heart, accessible to all.

— Publication Information: Book Title: Hindus: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. Contributors: Julius Lipner - author. Publisher: Routledge. Place of Publication: London. Publication Year: 1998. Page Number: 120-121.

Jayen466 22:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

refactored evidence - see below

I can add more evidence of problematic behavior during and since the ArbCom case, and will do so this evening [or tomorrow]. I request that folks avoid making a final decision here until all the evidence is in. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• I closed this and blocked Momento for 3 days. Then after 1/2 day or so I unblocked him and have decided to seek further evidence and input for all concerned and uninvolved admins. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Refactored and added evidence, all from May:

• Claimed that numerous reliable and scholarly sources are wrong just because he knows they're wrong.
  • 21:57, May 1, 2008 (chinese whispers)[25]
• Made sweeping (and false) assertion about what "all other sources claim".
  • 10:04, May 1, 2008 (sticking to the source)[26]
• Reverted to his version of intro, which didn't include the claim of notability, despite extensive discussion of newer version
  • 22:57, May 2, 2008 (merged info from the last two versions of the lead/removed cites to article)[27]
• Deleted fact reported by AP, replacing it with 2nd-hand reporting in a memoir which makes a derogatory assertion about a living person, claiming that that source, "trumps all". (In response to my assertion that the AP trumps a memoir).
  • 23:43, May 11, 2008 (hotel beds correct figure)[28]
  • 02:24, May 12, 2008 (Eye witness trumps all)[29]
• Deleted material claiming it's misquoted, while in fact it's almost a verbatim quote.[30]
  • 05:56, May 16, 2008 (Removed misquoted Galanter)[31]
• Deleted material sourced to Time magazine, asserting "excess weight"
  • 22:14, May 16, 2008 (relocated "teaching" material from "Leaving India" section to "Teachings" section. Remove Time quote and Collier quote as undue weight)[32]
• Twice deleted "criticism" section and sourced material that had been developed via extensive discussions on talk page.
  • See above
• Deleted all mention of organized opposition, gave inadequate explanation
  • 21:25, May 17, 2008 (REmoved extremists websites)[33][34]
• Repeatedly asserted that the New York Times is an unreliable source. (He'd previous asserted that the L.A. Times was an unreliable source.[35][36][37][38])
  • [39][40][41][42]
• There is an active mediation effort related to this topic but Momento has failed to participate. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission
  • He was also a party in at least one previous mediation effort: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat
• His talk page contains numerous complaints and warnings from a variety of editors, including those who share his POV.
  • User talk:Momento

In summary, this is a single-topic editor and acknowledged student/follower of the movement. His is apparently editing Wikipedia with the sole intention of promoting certain POVs regarding his teacher. He does so in a disruptive manner that frequently ignores consensus and Wikipedia norms, or that is simply incorrect. He has been editing for more than two years and shows no improvement. Rather than a short block, I suggest an indefinite topic ban. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So what was Admin Will Beback doing whilst Francis was characterizing my edit summaries as "lies" [43], criticizing me in the "talk" pages, making numerous inappropriate reverts and edits and filling this complaint without informing me? Certainly not warning or blocking Francis. Instead he supported Francis's unjustified claim that I "edit warred over the 'Criticism' section". I can't deal with all of Will's allegations but I'll make a start -

• Claimed that numerous reliable and scholarly sources are wrong just because he knows they're wrong.
  • 21:57, May 1, 2008 (chinese whispers)[44]

So what. This is a conversation on the talk page and as the diff clearly shows I marked my comment "OR".

• Made sweeping (and false) assertion about what "all other sources claim".
  • 10:04, May 1, 2008 (sticking to the source)[45]

It was true at the time I said it but you provided more sources and correctly corrected my error.

• Reverted to his version of intro, which didn't include the claim of notability, despite extensive discussion of newer version
  • 22:57, May 2, 2008 (merged info from the last two versions of the lead/removed cites to article)[46]

Can't see the problem here. The lead has gone through many changes and the current version is much closer to my two week old merged version than any previous one.[47]

• Deleted fact reported by AP, replacing it with 2nd-hand reporting in a memoir which makes a derogatory assertion about a living person, claiming that that source, "trumps all". (In response to my assertion that the AP trumps a memoir).
  • 23:43, May 11, 2008 (hotel beds correct figure)[48]
  • 02:24, May 12, 2008 (Eye witness trumps all)[49]

A person who attended meetings with Rennie Davis and writes what she witnessed is reporting "first hand" and the comment isn't derogatory. The AP report is not a "fact", it's the writer's unverified and contradicted opinion.

• Twice deleted "criticism" section and sourced material that had been developed via extensive discussions on talk page.

False. There was no discussion about inserting the heading "Criticism" into the "Reception" section. The last discussion about "Criticism" section was in April when the discussion was about merging and no decision was made. Mukadderat's decision to insert a "Criticism" heading into this article was undiscussed and therefore not agreed.[50] All sources were kept and I properly removed the undiscussed and inappropriate edit.

• Deleted material claiming it's misquoted, while in fact it's almost a verbatim quote.[51]
  • 05:56, May 16, 2008 (Removed misquoted Galanter)[52]

False. A careful reading of Galanter will show that it wasn't "Rawat's early western discourses (that) were something of a polemic interspersed with parables" as the article incorrectly stated. It was "experienced members (who) presented the philosophy of the sect to the assembled group.[53]. It was the satsangs of the "experienced members" that " were something of a polemic interspersed with parables", not Rawat's. So I properly removed the misquoted material,

• Deleted material sourced to Time magazine, asserting "excess weight"
  • 22:14, May 16, 2008 (relocated "teaching" material from "Leaving India" section to "Teachings" section. Remove Time quote and Collier quote as undue weight)[54]

Firstly, I relocated the misplaced paragraph that discusses teachings to the "Teachings" section, where editors have been happy to leave it. The "Teachings" section summarizes more than 20 sources and leaving individual quotes from Time magazine and Collier would constitute undue weight.

• Deleted all mention of organized opposition, gave inadequate explanation
  • 21:25, May 17, 2008 (REmoved extremists websites)[55][56]

False. The explanation was entirely adequate. The first sentence was sourced to RickRoss.com a self published website and unsuitable for a BLP. And the second sentence spelled the address of another self published website also unsuitable for a BLP. They should never have been there in the first place and I properly removed them.

• Keeps asserting that the New York Times is an unreliable source. (He'd previous asserted that the L.A. Times was an unreliable source.)
  • [57][58][59][60]

False. A close look at the diffs Will provides will show that I didn't "repeatedly assert that the New York Times is an unreliable source". I said in relation to conflicting sources that "we should be a little more cautious about accepting the NYTimes at face value".

• His talk page contains numerous complaints and warnings from a variety of editors, including those who share his POV.
  • User talk:Momento

Have you noticed how many of those complaints are from you and Francis?

Since Will brought up the subject of the NYTimes and reliable sources, here's Will badgering me about Collier as a source and how he reports it to another editor -

Are you asserting that Collier is the most reliable source we can use for this article, more reliable than newspapers or scholarly accounts? If so there's lots of material from that book that I'd like to add. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No.Momento (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No what? Is Collier a reliable source for the comments of Rennie Davis, and other personal observations? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You asked me a question. The answer is "No". Yes, Collier is a reliable source, providing normal Wiki policies are followed.Momento (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

So if you agree that Collier is not more reliable than newspapers why did you assert that previously? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You asked me if Collier is " the most reliable source we can use for this article". And the answer is still "No". As for whether Collier is more reliable than "newspapers", that obviously depends on the particular material in question and the newspaper concerned.12 MayMomento

And yet after denying that that "Collier is the most reliable source available" three times just two days earlier, he wrote to another editor -

Momento asserts that Collier is the most reliable source available. If a highly reliable source says that someone was drunk then it is not a BLP violation to discuss that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This blatant dishonesty isn't an accident. Admin Will has harassed me and distorted my actions and views to an extraordinary degree. Every edit I have made that is described on this page has been correct and according to Wiki policies and guidelines. He was wrong about the "Criticism" section, wrong about Galanter, wrong about the NYTimes, wrong about the "Intro" edit, wrong about the BLP violating links and disgraceful about Collier. I don't deserve to be blocked, I deserve to be protected.Momento (talk) 10:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate if before such measures are taken, that evidence about other editors behaviors that may have triggered the last round of editing disputes and reverts is allowed to be presented. I am under severe time limitations due some personal issues, but would do my best to present evidence no later than tomorrow AM UTC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If jossi has an issue with other editors, he should file a complaint about them in the appropriate place. This is not about other editors, it's been going on for 2 years already (it may take two to tango, but why is one of them always Momento?!). Regardless of what other editors are or are not doing, this kind of behaviour is wrong. Even if jossi could prove someone else was edit-warring, it would not be terribly germane to this issue, unless you believe two wrongs make a right. How about instead, let jossi try and defend Momento's behaviour by talking about the edits in question and explain why they should be allowed? Somehow, I don't think he's up for that challenge... -- Maelefique ^(talk) 23:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I will have a look at this tomorrow and may provide feedback then. Jayen466 01:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

<--Replying to Momento's replies above:

If Momento doesn't like a heading that is no excuse for deleting all the material under that heading. He didn't complain about the heading on the talk page, he just deleted the material and then removed the heading when it was empty. Simply moving the citation to existing material elsewhere in the article does not compensate for the removed material. After two years of editing this topic it's impossible to believe that he wouldn't have realized that deleting all the criticism woould be contraversial and disruptive. He certainly knew that after objections were raised on the talk page and after his deletion was reverted, but he deleted the material a second time anyway. Even after the ArbCom case Momento has repeatedly removed sourced material that is necessary for NPOV, a policy that requires we include all siginificant points of view. If Momento doesn't understand this polcy, and instead edits to promote his POV, then that's unacceptable. Unless Momento is willing to change his behavior, and allow reasonable mention of criticism and opposition to his guru, then he should be banned from editing the topic, in accordance with the ArbCom's probation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I find this whole presentation to be skewed for effect, and with a clear intention to get rid of an opponent in a content dispute. Momento was blocked, unblocked, and now we should all go back to editing. I mean .... enough. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, no offense but you are not a neutral party in this. You have argued on behalf of Momento on several previous enforcement requests, including a 3RR and a sockpuppet case.[61][62][63] Momento shows no contrition or proper understanding of the concept of NPOV as it applies to his teacher. He's willing to edit war to keep out properly source, neutrally-presented negative material. You appear to be condoning the POV pushing by Momento, disruptive behavior that treats Wikipedia like a fighting match. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

At this point in time, no involved editor in these articles can honestly call themselves a "neutral party". I am not condoning any one's behavior, just re-read the section below. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Section break

WP:AE is not a place to address content disputes, but to address editor's behaviors that may be in violation of ArbCom remedies. As such, I will not address specific edits made by involved editors.

We just came out of a long and exhaustive ArbCom case on this and related articles. During the time the case was open on March 18, and until the arbcom case closed on May 12, the article was protected due to edit-warring in which User:Momento (the user about which this AE posting was made) and User:Francis Schonken (the filer of this AE posting) and others were protagonists. (log [64]; diff evidence of edit warring is available in the evidence page).

During the ArbCom proceedings active editors of these articles engaged in discussions in different articles and together sought WP:DR by requesting MedCab assistance, initially with the related article Divine Light Mission and extending it to other articles as well: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20_Divine_Light_Mission.

• User:Francis Schonken has chosen so far not to participate in the mediation effort, despite being made aware of it via article talk pages as well as directly [65].
• During the time the article was protected, editors sought to continue discussions that could move things forward during that time. Francis did not.
• As soon as the protection was lifted, Francis springs to action and starts editing the article as if nothing has happened, making substantive changes to the article, without explanations or prior discussion.[66]. There are times in which being bold is warranted, and other times in which this is not a good idea. After a protracted ArbCom case, for example.
• Momento reacts with by undoing many of these edits, moving material to other articles, removing new material added by Francis, and re-instating previous versions of certain paragraphs [67]
• A series of reverts ensues in which User:Francis Schonken, User:Momento, and User:Will Beback participate. Common sense soon prevails and the article is brought back to the version pre-ArbCom case. (It begs the question, why do we need this AE report? What is the purpose of re-filing an AE case, when the source of the dispute has been removed?)
• During the last few days, personal attacks by User:PatW, which was blocked during the ArbCom case, re-ocurred. [68], this time targeted at User:Momento, which he self-reverts a few hours later [69], although the damage was already done, unecessarily escalating a content dispute into a personal dimension. (What is the point of making a personal attack, leaving it for a few hours, and then removing the attack without an apology, with a possible motive to escape the obvious consequences as established in the probation? At this point in the game, editors should know better that to push their luck.)

What all this demonstrates? That editors such as Momento, Francis Schonkem, and PatW need to start getting clued in the fact that editing is a privilege, not right, and that clicking the edit button carries responsibilities as well. Would it be possible that editors start using the edit button not to beat their opponents over the head? Would it be possible that editors start thinking that maybe such attitude gives you a short-lived high, but that in the long run an edit that you know will not fly and that will escalate an already tense situation, is not the best of behaviors? What about starting thinking in these terms: "How can I improve this article in a manner that other editors would accept it and that I can live with"; "Does this edit have the potential to remain in the article, or will it be reverted on-sight?"

Quoting User:FT2, a member of Arbcom in a recent discussion: The primary concerns of Wikipedia related to editors' communications are 1/ the prevention or reduction of gross breach of integrity of the editorial process, and 2/ the prevention or reduction of social friction, or other actions, that might detract editors from congenially collaborating on the objectives of the project, or significantly impede the aims of the project.

The breach of integrity of the editorial process includes never-ending disputes and no attempts to bridge differences. After the ArbCom case closed some of us are making good-faith efforts to conduct an orderly debate so that the focus can be on improving content rather than engage in useless edit wars and the escalation of inter-personal strife. It may not be easy given the animosity that has been generated through the presentation of evidence in which each side of the dispute has tried to paint their opponents in the worst possible light, so tempers are high and the tension palpable. But please, we have no other choice than to work together and within an effort that will result in article stability so that eventually we can move our energies to other articles.

I would encourage all editors involved, to take the article probation seriously and make good faith attempts in dispute resolution, with the assistance of the good volunteers at MedCab, and limit the use of round trips to AE to egregious violations of the spirit of this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is the cornerstone of the project. When an editor repeatedly edit wars to remove criticism of his guru, after numerous warnings to stop, that adds up to an egregious violation. There is no sign that Momento regrets any of his edits or think he's done anything wrong. Even you've had to warn him repeatedly about his editing behavior.[70][71][72] Your extensive posting above seems to deal more with other editors than with Momento. I suggest that if you think those editors are guilty of egregious that we file separate requests about them. This request concerns violations by Momento. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It takes more that one to tango, Will. I don't condone editing behavior that is not constructive, but an editor's behavior needs to be considered in the context of the highly charged atmosphere, the baiting, the personal attacks, and the edits of others which contribute to escalation. That is why arbitrators have placed these articles in article probation: to help restore normalcy in to the editorial process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Article probation will help "restore normalcy" when it is enforced on disruptive editors. The atmosphere becomes highly charged when editors with deeply-held beliefs use Wikipedia to promote those views. If editors can't edit a topic in a neutral fashion then they should find other topics. If Momento is topic-banned there will still be over 2.3 million other articles he can edit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, snipped unfounded PA material jossi launched against me, and Momento. For the time being, zero tolerance for this type of PA's. I should not be brought in a position where I have to retort unfounded nonsense. That is for me a precondition to answer to other concerns. I'll see for some time whether the snips of the PA material stick, and return for my answers then. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

These are not personal attacks, but comments on behavior. This user has been already asked not to refactor comments that are not personal attacks. See [[73]] You have the right to disagree with my assessment, but please do not refactor my comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, Francis is not responsible for Momento's disruption. Please don't add material that it's relevant to this request for enforcement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion, could someone of the less involved editors here maybe close/archive this thread (from the subsection title #Section break till after this -hopefully- last comment): consensus seems to be that the subthread diverts from and is largely irrelevant to the main topic of the issue filed here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I do think that my comment is very pertinent to the issue at hand. That is why I posted it here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This issue is about Momento's edits. Do you have anything to say about Momento, or just other editors? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 22:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Read my comment and you will see that I refer to Momento and those editors that interacted with him. This is a page to discuss violations of the ArbCom probation, and as such, context is needed so that uninvolved admins can make a decision on if and how to enforce any remedies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming the comment you're referring to is the one above, where you talk about Momento's actions 4 times, Francis' actions 8 times, Will's actions once, and PatW's actions 2 times... nice shotgun approach. Seems a little coincidental that Momento seems to get stuck in the middle of all of these actions doesn't it? (oh wait, I forgot, you're not talking about Momento, you're providing "context"...) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 23:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Meowy

Meowy (talk · contribs) is involved in edit warring together with MarshallBagramyan on the same articles about Lachin (town and district). He was explained many times that in controversial articles like this independent sources are preferable. However he restored to the article a reference to the Armenian nationalistic author Samvel Karapetian yet again, which is 2 rvs within the last 2 days. [74] [75] His persistence on using this particular source is very strange, considering that I provided a much better independent source, which he mentions in his subsequent edit, but does not use for whatever reason. I’m not quite sure what this user is trying to do, but in any case it is an obvious and deliberate violation of 1RR limitation, on which he was placed as per the arbcom case AA2: [76] and which is still in force. Grandmaster (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Not for the first time (and - I bet - not for the last time) Grandmaster indulges in some gameplay, trying to exploit Wikipedia for his own ends. I have not been "edit warring". The only person who says that the cited source, a book by Karpetian, is unacceptable is Grandmaster himself - and, beyond broad and unproven slurs like "Armenian nationalistic author" he seems incapable of articulting what his specific objections to the source are. In fact, he agrees that the source is factually correct in its information - the information being the former name of Lachin. The alternative source is not a "better source", it is a foreign-language online source written in Cyrillic. Given that the English-language source - the book by Karapetian - contains exactly the same information, it should be the one used for an English Wikipedia article. Meowy 17:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The source that you are persistently trying to include has a strong conflict of interest in this issue, Karapetyan openly expresses his racist views about Turkic people to a western journalist. Such source cannot be considered neutral or reliable, and you know that. And I'm not the only one objecting to the use of this source, another 3 editors agreed with me. But this board is not about content disputes, you made 2 rvs in the last couple of days, which is a clear violation of your 1RR parole. Grandmaster (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The only racism is from you, you who are dismissing a source, which happens to be a detailed, comprehensive and reliable book (and a book which you have never laid eyes upon), for no other reason than that its author happens to be Armenian. There is no "conflict of interest" - you yourself have admitted that the fact that Ardalar is the former name for Lachin (for which the book is being used as a reference) is a correct fact. And I only made one revert, on 13th May. The revert was to restore the Ardalar information - information that you agree was correct! Meowy 18:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I am at a loss to understand what Grandmaster's agenda is here. I added the Ardalar information to the entry. He then removed it. Another editor re-inserted it. Grandmaster's pal Atabek erased it again. I restored it. Meanwhile, Grandmaster dismissed the source because of its author, dismissed the old map I cited as another source, demanded I upload a scan of said map (with the implication that I was lying about its contents), then, when I did upload it, he dismissed all maps as sources! And all this is over a trivial fact he himself admits is correct! What is his objection to a reader knowing that the old name of Lachin is Ardalar? Or is his real agenda to engineer situations in which he can manipulate Wikipedia procedures in order to attack editors he disagrees with? Meowy 19:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I only want the article to be properly sourced in accordance with the wiki rules. I do not understand why you have to use this source that causes so many objections from other users, when there are perfectly acceptable ones. And it is not just about this article, you try to insert the same source to every article about this region to support other claims. It appears that the purpose is to get it accepted first by using it to support a claim that is not so controversial, and then expand its use on other claims. If you only want to state that the older name of the region was Ardalar, you don't need that source at all, I found a better one and provided it at talk. Why cannot we stick to neutral sources? However you go as far as violating your parole just to reinsert it once again to the article. I do not understand this persistence and I don't think you are allowed to violate your parole, whatever your motivations are. This is very simple, you violated your parole, when you really did not have to, and you did that on purpose, knowing the consequences. Grandmaster (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "If you only want to state that the older name of the region was Ardalar, you don't need that source at all" - if that were your true opinion (that the fact was uncontested and thus didn't need a reference), then why did you erase the mention of Ardalar when you erased the mention of the reference, and then ask to see the scan of the map for proof of the former existence of a place called Ardalar? And are you saying you remove information you know is correct just because you don't like the source?

I will continue to use that book, "Armenian Cultural Monuments in the Region of Karabakh", as a source whenever I feel it is needed: it is credible, comprehensive, and unique (there being no other book in English dealing with that subject in such depth). Your sweeping dismissal of everything in a book you have never even set eyes upon says much about your overall attitude here. And, once again, I made only one revert. Meowy 21:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And as further proof, Grandmaster says in the above that he accepts that Ardalar is the old name for Lachin, yet on this [[77]] talk page he says the exact opposite, quote "the city was founded in Soviet times too. How could they have any old names? This is just invention of Armenian propaganda to justify the claims on Azerbaijani lands". It is as I suspected. His objection to a reader knowing that the old name of Lachin is Ardalar is because that trivial but truthful fact disagrees with some lies contained in Azerbaijani propaganda. Meowy 23:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You made 2 rvs, second one by restoring the source that was not considered reliable by other users. And I don't mind mentioning that the old name of the town (at the time a village) was Ardalar, as long as it is properly sourced. I was only asking you to provide a third party source, which I eventually found myself. You persistence on using Armenian sources and rejecting Azerbaijani ones is a violation of wiki rules, which require using third party sources for controversial topics. You were claiming that An "Azeri author" is not capable of reflecting on "historical truth", which is a pretty racist claim. But despite that, I still suggest that we give preference to neutral sources when writing about controversial topics, that will help to increase the reliability of the articles, as there will be less claims that the article is dominated by Armenian or Azerbaijani propaganda. Grandmaster (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan

MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs) is involved in edit warring in Nagorno-Karabakh related articles, which is the area covered by the arbcom cases Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. He fails to cite any reliable sources to support his claims and resorts to edit warring to keep the nationalist Armenian source that he uses as his sole reference in the article. While the rv parole me and other users were placed on a year ago has expired, I voluntarily agreed to stick to it, and the admins recommended other users editing the arbcom ruling covered area do the same. [78] However MarshallBagramyan made 2 rvs on Lachin within the last 2 days, in contrast to what the admins recommend: [79] [80] In a situation when everyone else voluntarily sticks to 1RR, such behavior is nothing but baiting others to violate the parole and disruption, and in my opinion this user should be placed on the same editing restrictions as others. I see no reason why anyone should be able to make more than 1 rv per week in this topic area anyway, some people are clearly gaming the system. Grandmaster (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan warned,[81] as per ArbCom remedy. If the user persist after this warning, please post a new request. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Has he been placed on 1RR, or just warned that he would be if he persists? Grandmaster (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Eusebeus still edit-warring over TV episode articles

On April 19, Jac16888 initiated an AE thread concerning Eusebeus, saying Eusebeus "has begun blindly restoring redirects." That thread was closed April 23 by GRBerry with no action taken. Since then, Eusebeus has continued to edit war over Scrubs episode articles like My Best Friend's Mistake [82] [83] [84], My Mentor [85] [86] [87], and My Princess [88] [89] [90]. I believe that's a violation of the ArbCom remedy where "The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute." and the also the Principle that "Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited" and the Principle that "It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits." As far as I know, no other involved party of E&C2 has been edit-warring with Eusebeus on those articles, and restrictions were not imposed on Eusebeus in particular — so I could understand if no action is taken yet again. However, if that's the case, I think an amendment of the remedies of the E&C2 arbitration case may be in order. Any input would be appreciated. --Pixelface (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't think that maintaining the status quo, and neither undoing existing redirects nor creating new ones is the appropriate thing to do? You may well consider that They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute is a sword whose edge may well be directed at you. Kww (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring is never the right thing to do. Catchpole (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And may be symptomatic of the person's abiity (or lack thereof) to negotiate with others in an ongoing basis. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Eusebeus and I have since reached something of an agreement over the scrubs articles, at least in the sense that we have both come to the conclusion that an article can stay if it shows some possibility of being more than a plot and music list, as has happened with My Princess, which you neglected to mention does still have an article, with Eusebeus's consent. The two of us have managed to establish a common ground over editing styles. While we both have very different viewpoints, neither of which are likely to change, we've still agreed to work together, the first time I've seen that happen in this "conflict". It would be nice if maybe a few other editors, from both so-called "sides", had a go at this. There's no reason both "sides" can't be more civil in this, if we keep sniping at each other its just going to go on for ever.--Jac16888 (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Jac's comment above and say that, despite our earlier differences, we will be trying (I hope) to chart a way forward with respect to Scrubs. I cannot help but wonder if this is a singularly ill-advised vendetta based on my earlier filing at A/N in which I singled out certain behavioural patterns which, I see, are being repeated. Eusebeus (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

True that. I find some folks eminently agreeable once moving away from the festering sore of TV episodes - and Eusebeus has done some much-needed translating work for which I am grateful, as well as some streling copyediting advice on Dirty Dancing. We are in desperate need of more skilled at prose and it would be great to see more efforts in these areas. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How does your continued edit-warring over Scrubs episode articles mean I have a "vendetta" against you? Jac16888 says you two have reached something of an agreement, but you've also dragged Alaskan assassin into this. You keep spreading the dispute. On Talk:List of Scrubs episodes, Oren0 supported un-redirecting the articles and Colonel Warden also supported the reversion of the redirects. Is edit-warring how you plan to "chart a way forward"? --Pixelface (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Far more editors spoke in favor of keeping the redirects, and the whole situation has been stable for a week. Are you worried that the problem might go away unless you keep reporting it on noticeboards?Kww (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• could we maybe pause all this for a few days?, i have exams this week.--Jac16888 (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  Good luck....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I really can't see a motive for this report other than enflaming an already unpleasant situation. This report documents events that are

1. Over a week old
2. Already settled by discussion between Eusebeus and Jac16888 on their talk page
3. Already settled by a parallel discussion between me and Alaskan Assassin on my talk page? [91][92]

What's the purpose of bringing it to AE now?Kww (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The parties were told to cease engaging in editorial conflict. That's why I filed the report. And frankly I was unaware of the discussion at User talk:Alaskan assassin or User talk:Kww. Alaskan assassin said "gotcha" and you say it's settled? And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't these two reverts[93] [94] occur after this was supposedly "settled"? --Pixelface (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Gotcha" followed by his actions (he ceased undoing redirects) seems to be agreement to me. As for the other two edits, they are a week old, and the undoing of the redirect was by an anonymous IP ... really hard to come to agreements or terms with anonymous editors.Kww (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So "editorial conflict" is okay as long as it's against anonymous IPs? --Pixelface (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am somewhat concerned about other unconstructive behavior with regards to the editor under question.

• Notice as well, assuming bad faith: [95], [96], [97], [98], [99]
• Incivility: [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107]
• Dramatizing: [108], [109], [110], [111], [112]
• Use of obscenity/curse/swear words in edit summary: [113], [114]
• Also, not signing post.
• Finally, I'm not sure if the calling me "Pumpkin" rather than LGRdC or Roi is mocking: [115], [116]

Please also consider DGG's comment regarding Eusebeus' incivility and how Eusebeus ignoed DGG's warning and brushed off BrownHairedGirl's later warning on his talk page and even edited her post. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• To make the obvious point, none of this is germane to the question at hand, which is my supposed disruptive editing over Scrubs episodes. This is Arbitration Enforcement. As you seem eager, however, to bring up this litany of my abuse at every venue, may I suggest three doors down on the left you will find WP:RFC, which you may find highly suitable to your needs? It is a fairly straightforward matter to launch a user RfC. Eusebeus (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It is relevant here, because the arbitrators encouraged editors to work constructively and to not inflame the situation. Many of these instances cited above do not demonstrate efforts to work constructively, but do show evidence of making things worse. I disagree with plenty of editors, but I do not devolve into hyperbole or toss blatant insults at them. I just hope that you could show similar courtesy to those with whom you disagree, but if you are unwilling to do so, then I hope someone else can persuade/convince you. I always hold out the hope that all of us can "get along" somehow or other. The attacks and anger is just not necessary. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• I agree that Eusebius has been edit-warring over Scrubs in an unpleasant way. Redirecting the episode articles seems to be a continuation of TTN's work. I have restrained myself from reverting this provocation en-masse because warring in this way is an obvious violation of Arbcom's injunction. Eusebius should be sanctioned accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And so it goes on

• Eusebeus is continuing to edit-war over Scrubs episodes - this time at My Chopped Liver - see [117], where he reverts three times in less than a day. Catchpole (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I see from your talk page that you have a history of this kind of disruptive and tendentious editing practice. I have reported you to 3RR since you have now reverted me 3 times in a 24 hour period. Eusebeus (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

9/11 general sanctions

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Bov and all IPs limited to1RR per page per week and a warning about logging out to avoid scrutiny would be the place to start and warned not to log out to avoid scrutinty. Log at arb 9/11 case too...Rlevse

---

152.131.10.133

152.131.10.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is another tendentious, povpushing account that is disrupting 9/11-related articles. Checkuser has indicated that this is a sockpuppet of a named editor.[129] I believe they are logging out intentionally to avoid scrutiny. I suggest the editor (whether editing via named account or IP) be topic banned per WP:ARB9/11. Jehochman ^Talk 11:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, it seems that the CU was inconclusive. Could you please clarify? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The CU revealed that it's a named editor, apparently logging out to evade scrutiny. I am looking for a review of their edit history to see if enforcement is needed. The editor's indentity remains private until a determination is made. If this were an anon, that would be a different situation. Jehochman ^Talk 23:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah; this is unacceptable behavior if they are involved in the topic already. If they are just some user, then whatever — warn them as an IP and let it drop. But if they're someone involved in the topic and not banned, then they need to be held to account here. Logging out and editing with an IP account is not an acceptable way to behave if it is to avoid sanctions or scruntiny. --Haemo (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's hard for me to make a value judgement on whether someone is intentionally trying to avoid scrutiny or just prefers to edit while logged out. The user in question is Bov (talk · contribs). I will decline for the moment to disclose his other IPs, since you did not spot them; if a ban is enacted and you suspect him of violating it, you can file a RFCU. Although with no prior warnings, it would seem that starting out with a 1RR per page per week and a warning about logging out to avoid scrutiny would be the place to start. Thatcher 02:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, this isn't the first time this has come up: [130], never went anywhere last time...but it is ongoing. RxS (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, in either case, the reviewing admin should consider Bov's editing history, which is highly involved in the subject area, and the previous complaints regarding this IP when deciding on a course of action. --Haemo (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should issue a warning to this editor to use only one account when editing in the 9/11 article series. Perhaps we should add that to the general sanctions: all editors are required to use only one account when editing 9/11 related articles. This would help avoid gaming or the appearance of gaming, the two of which may be impossible to distinguish. Jehochman ^Talk 20:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, and will propose it as an amendment to the arbcom decision. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Followup: A couple of arbs basically said "yes, we don't need to decide because admins already can do that" and archived it.[131] Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.