Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:44, 25 May 2008

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331

Edit this section for new requests

The Northern Ireland Troubles

I feel I need to apologise in advance for raising this most contentious of subjects again but I have genuine concerns. As a relatively new editor I was soon made aware of the problems which had gone before and resulted in an ArbCom decision on the Troubles and I can see why that was necessary. Although it isn't a subject of much interest to me I have noted far too much edit-warring and apparant "ownership" of articles being asserted to ensure that the modern history of Ireland (and particularly Northern Ireland) is kept with a particular slant. That bias is maintained with weasel words and an undue weight being applied to particular opinions. In my case this led to a baptism of fire because my first edits on Wikipedia were at the Ulster Defence Regiment article and as a complete novice I was bombarded with policy and convention notices, received two bans for edit-warring, which shocked me but very quickly taught me how to avoid it. To illustrate my concerns I have stepped outside my area of interest (which is military history) to edit an article at The Troubles and although I haven't added as many weasel captions as I feel I should because of the fear of totally vandalising the article, I've left enough there to show any reader why the article doesn't reflect the verifiable history of that period. There appears to be an unofficial cabal at work on Wikipedia whose motives are to keep ownership of articles related to the troubles. They apply various tactics which are in the guise of enforcing policies laid down by the site. This includes tag teaming to force the unwary into edit-wars, terrible incivility, policy pushing in the extreme (well beyond what is necessary), accusations of conflict of interest, outing and more. I've been subject to all of these and I'm now noting a number of other posters in the same genre getting the same. I do accept that as (still) a relative newcomer, there is much I don't know but I do have a certain pride in my intelligence and perception. My "unfairness" radar is working overtime. My work here is an excellent reflection of what's happening however. If any admin takes a look at what I have managed to achieve and note the one area where I've had problems I think it would be immediately apparant that there is an issue which needs to be addressed. I've sought advice and some admins and editors think this could be addressed by the existing ArbCom decision. I don't want to be a crusader. Nor do I want to spend my time on Wikipedia doing nothing except reporting violations of ArbCom. I want to be able to contribute sensibly and constructively. I've brought this matter to the attention of this board because of genuine concerns and I hope that something can be done to resolve it. IMO if it's not, then Wikipedia will not be able to achieve a high status rating as a true encyclopedic source of information on the internet.GDD1000 (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User: Francis Schonken/3RR

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat#Article_probation

Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has reverted three different editors in less than 2 hours at the Prem Rawat article which is under probation [1][2][3] The material reverted did not contravene BLP policy. Momento (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User warned (User_talk:Francis_Schonken#Three_Revert_Rule) by User:Steve Crossin who is the WP:MEDCAB volunteer currently mediating in these articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, you entered well over 1200 words to provide "context" for Momento (who happens to agree with everything you say on Prem Rawat related articles) on this very page, and yet, when that very same editor here, makes an obvious vindictive accusation against an editor who doesn't share your views, you have less than 20 words to say about it? Your double standard is embarassing. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 04:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Caesarjbsquitti and unsourced POV

This is regarding WP:ARB9/11
Caesarjbsquitti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been continuously posting remarks about an unverified theory that the attacks on America were related to the Taliban's policy on opium trade. ([4]), ([5]), ([6]). I tried replying about the lack of sources to verify this([7]). Another user warned him not to use the talk page as a forum for general discussion. ([8]), but he continued. I gave him a warning on his talk page about the arbitration decision.([9]) He and I continued the discussion on his talk page (which is fine).([10]). In this discussion, I told him about the lack of sources and he mentioned a movie. Regardless, he continued his actions in a montage of edits that I reverted as they did not have anything to do with 9/11, but with the Taliban and opium.([11])

Someone please topic ban this user as I have given him enough arbcom and POV-pushing warnings. -- VegitaU (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some diffs in which this user introduced such materials in articles? All I can see are talk page discussions, and for that, a topic ban may not be warranted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user has not edited any 9/11 articles, just the talk page. I'm just annoyed by the constant, endless discussions of new "theories", or conspiracies that go unsourced and just take up talk page space without resulting in any meaningful addition or discussion on improving the article. If no topic ban is warranted, can users just keep talking without end about these views? Should I take this discussion elsewhere, like WP:ANI? -- VegitaU (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just reposting this very pertinent material from my talk page:

Hi Haemo, sorry to burden you with this but a user making soapboxing edits keeps popping up on watch list - I've been ignoring this for months but I think it's gone too far to be ignored this time. I believe you're aware of User:Caesarjbsquitti‎'s use of Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks and Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories as soapboxes for his theories on half-truths[12][13][14][15]. He seems to have written a book about "half truth" (The Jesus Christ Code. © The LIGHT: The Rainbow of Truth. to be released spring 2008 - self published) and he's been making posts about his opinions and research on half-truths on a number of pages for a long time - Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks is just the latest.

He was previously blocked for this behaviour in November 2007 after being warned and advised that wikipedia is not a soapbox.[16]

In January 2008 the sysop Lquilter warned him again for soapboxing[17].

And now he is at it again.

I made th original ANI posting in November 2007 after User:Caesarjbsquitti‎ made a series of trolling soapboxing comments to talk:feminism[18]. Since then he has not only repeated the same behaviour but replicated it on a number of articles. He refuses to heed the warnings given and considers them to be "wikistalking" by the political correct "gate-keeper" editors (which is quite an assumption of bad faith).[19]

I'm afraid this is not an isolated incident. This is a list of a few of the incidents of the same beahviour in the last 7 months:

2008

Talk:Conspiracy_theory[20]
Talk:Feminism[21]
Talk:Domestic violence[22][23][24]
Talk:Violence against women[25]
Talk:Political correctness[26]
Talk:Pro-life[27]
Talk:discrimination[28]
Talk:Democracy[29]

2007 and earlier

Talk:Feminism[30][31][32][33][34][35][36]
Talk:Nazism[37]
Talk:Lucifer[38]

User page

The use of his user-page is problematic as well. At worst it borders on being as a soapbox about "half truths" and as an ad for his book - see it here

Again I'm really sorry to burden you with all this but User:Caesarjbsquitti has and is continuing to make tendentious posts to talk pages--Cailil ^talk 23:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree with this sentiment, and think this pattern of behavior is relevant. --Haemo (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Matthead ethnic and personal remarks

User Matthead has been listed on editing restriction due his ethnic based attacks, personal attacks against editors and disruptive editing [39] on 3rd January 2008.

Today I issued a complaint on this board which was resolved with a to this user to end his ethnic based remarks and personal attacks.

Since this warning the user continued remarks for which he was notified not to make are continued:

Personal attacks are continued "your behaviour on Talk:Karkonosze was appalling"

Accusations based on ethnic background are continued : "desperately trying to push his Polish POV" See here[40]

Also here is something I consider rather disruptive: Changing names of Polish politicians who resisted Germanisation to German version and giving German names to locations in modern Poland: [41] I have nothing against giving German names in historical context and introductions but giving German names as alternative names to modern locations in Poland seems disruptive.

I am issuing this here as I was instructed by Admin Rlevse.

I would really like the ethnic remarks and personal attacks to stop. The above AE is regarding: Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement

11) Any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. The restriction shall specify that, should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below. Before the restriction shall come into effect for a particular editor, that editor shall be given an official notice of it with a link to this decision.

   Passed 7 to 1, 18:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans.

Regards, --Molobo (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo's anti-German, anti-Prussian, anti-Teutonic Knights statements are countless. Only today (12:49, 22 May 2008) on Talk:Prussia, he referred to Prussia as source of constant wars, militarism, symbol of racism and discrimination and ethnic cleansing by Germanic invaders against Baltic and Slavic people. While the reasons for abolishing that militaristic creation were numerous, the bottom line is that the world is now free from it and the militarist state of Prussia. That's a very encyclopedic and neutral summary of 700+ years of Prussian (and also Polish/Slavic and Lithuanian/Baltic, BTW) history, not at all influenced by his private POV. With his edits (another 'mistake' in Germany...) and (NPOV, spelling, interesting why other content was blocked but this one was allowed due to "unknown causes"...), he insinuated that it was not an accident that the "design-your-own" stamp service of the Deutsche Post was misused. I've encountered him too many times on various articles, and I'm more than fed up. -- Matthead Discuß 21:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody is entitled to his opinion. The term "Prussian militarism" is well known and used by scholars. Matthead cut of the important part of the quote:"Eberswalder-since 1945 Prussia no longer exists as a region. Nobody names any region today with that name, due to its abolishment as source of constant wars, militarism, symbol of racism and discrimination and ethnic cleansing by Germanic invaders against Baltic and Slavic people. While the reasons for abolishing that militaristic creation were numerous, the bottom line is that the world is now free from it. And so the location term also disappeared. No serious atlas today would use that name for any location of Poland or Russia, instead the modern location is used". As to Matthead's comment, i don't know what to actually say, the ethnic cleansing of Old Prussians, Poles in XIX century, enslavement of Baltic people during crusades and discrimination policies based on racism in Prussia are well described in both scholary sources and Wikipedia, as is the invasion of Teutonic Knights of the region that started the country. I can only recommend to read history articles and books extensively. Best regards. As to DP, I clearly stated that spokesman stated it was accident[42]. The fact it was explained by "unknown circumstances" is also a fact.--Molobo (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw can Matthead explain why it is important for him add German names to modern Polish cities in modern Poland outside historical context presenting them as alternative version of the city names and why Polish activists against Germanisation are being changed by him to Germanised names[43] under the tag

'cleanup'. I would like why it is important to delete information that certain scholars worked in Poland[44] Thank you and best regards. --Molobo (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, knock it off the both of you, before my patience evaporates and I permaban the whole sorry pack of you EE flamewarriors. Any more misconduct in this little area of Polish-German conflict and my banhammer will come down faster than you can say "jackrabbit". Hey, who knows, I might even have discretionary sanctions to help. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ad hominem, Piotrus? Is having ANI and 3RR on my watchlist stalking, Piotrus? It was you who very early[45] 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(!)[46], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If you launch a request for clarification asking for an extension of Digwuren remedies to include that, I'd be happy to add a statement in its favor, with a few diffs.--Relata refero (disp.) 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

[47] 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.

[48] 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

[49]

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)[reply]

In the interest of fairness, since User:M.K included my name above while stressing also that he did not participate in this edit war, I’d like to mention that he himself is not impartial to Eastern European disputes and whether such fact would have any bearing on the outcome, his pro-Lithuanian POVs verging on revisionism with regards to Polish national heroes can be easily exemplified,[50] regardless of the remarkable scope of his other contributions. Please speedily close this thread since it did not originate in good faith and therefore it is counterproductive. --Poeticbent talk 20:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Provide diffs that user who started to vandalize, otherwise it may be seen as user harassment. If you speak about this as nothing wrong, well WP:BLP clearly states: Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. and particularly Unsourced or 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, user pages, and project space. Contributor clearly indicated why this material was removed, instead of supporting this action he/she faced threat of block and allusion to vandalism from sysop [51]. So actually it is a example of mischievous actions from sysop. M.K. (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [52] [53] even though the Encyclopædia Britannica online article at http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9036725/Giant-Mountains is clearly titled "Giant Mountains", and after [54] 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)[reply]

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

Or Polish POV and vanity has skewed this article for too long. Does it mean Matthead that you tried to use Wikipedia as battleground by using generalised statements about particular ethnic groups such as above ? Your remarks seem far more far reaching against other nationalities then remarks your condemn. As to Karkonosze I don't see why the military use of German Army during WW2 is somehow connected to Godwin's Law, since its part of history. Just my two cents--Molobo (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your allegedly shared origin does not at all diminish the fact that in most of your edits you clearly represent Polish nationalist interests to which you habitually count picking on Germany and Germans all throughout history until today. This is not to say that I believe you about your being half-German, as you make it sound like, since you also seem to have lived in various countries and all your life in Poland at the same time depending apparently on the usefulness in the context, and same with your family ("Sad to dissapoint you but I am quite Polish, I know nothing of other nationalities in my family."). The whole thing about Matthead is a red herring here. Sciurinæ (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Copernicus article eg. uses Frombork even though Frauenburg is the appropriate name of the town, for his time, and until 1945. That is the kind of POV that needs to be reduced. The group that adds doubtful statements to Wikipedia is very small, BTW, and you are an integral part of it. Almost two years ago, you have been blocked for a year with the remark "the edit warring and incivility continues, and shows no sign of ever stopping." This prediction was correct, sadly. -- Matthead Discuß 20:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an hour ago, you removed the German names from the list of peaks in the Giant Mountains, claiming articles exist, mountains in Poland and Czech Republic, no need for outdated name). And you obviously did not look up the articles to which the few existing links point. Your contributions, or rather deletions, do not make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. -- Matthead Discuß 20:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim is incorrect. I removed names from locations in Poland and Czech Republic that have their own articles where German name can be given as agreed by fellow editor Kotniski.Feel free to add them to their own articles if there are missing. Mountains that have no articles were left with German version of the name. There is no reason for modern locations in Poland and Czech Republic to be given alternative German names as German isn't a second official language in neither country and we use former names only in historic context and in intro of articles. This is largely way out of above discussion. I suggest you move it elswhere or end the discussion.--Molobo (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone can look up Kopa and Kotel, "locations in Poland and Czech Republic that have their own articles". As said before, your contributions do not make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. I agree, though, that this is pointless. -- Matthead Discuß 20:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthead, Kopa stayed with its former name. I restored Kotel's former name per your suggestion. You could have contacted my on my discussion page to point the error. Once this locations will have their articles, names will be moved there in proper places. I have nothing against German names in right historical context and in introduction about former naming of the locations, but giving German names as alternative to used officialy in modern Poland and Czech Republic doesn't seem to be proper. Best regards--Molobo (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I still think this thread did not originate in good faith and should be speedily closed, since disruptive behavior of user:Boodlesthecat was mentioned, I do think it is a good idea to add him to the Digwuren's warn list, due to his edits accusing other editors of antisemtism ([55] [56] [57]) or "Jew bashing trolling". His edits on Talk:Fear:_Anti-Semitism_in_Poland_after_Auschwitz were unconstructive and confrontational ([58]), and after being blocked for the second time in the space of few days for 3RR violation (including 10RR!), his unblock request don't show any remorse - instead, he is accusing other users of misconduct and cabalism ("I was right" argument), see [[59]].. If anybody's behavior in this discussion merits review under Digwuren's "creating a battleground", I believe it is that user's.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boodlesthecat hardly ever edits these issues. I'd say that this would be completely unnecessary extension, of the sort that we particularly would wish to avoid. The "warning list" should be of a reasonable size; nor should we penalize editors from "outside" for venturing into this zone, quite the opposite. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean I can go to, let's say, Israeli-Palestinian article, call some people trolls and get off free since I don't edit those articles often? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on if you're wrong in that particular instance:)

But seriously, no, you should be held accountable if you were to do that; but you should not be declared "involved" spuriously.

By the way, please do go and edit I/P articles. More eyes always good... --Relata refero (disp.) 08:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [60] 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".[61]

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[62][63]. 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.[64][65] I then removed the "Criticism" heading since the "criticism" was covered through the article.

This was reverted by WillBeback [66]. After reading Will's rationale in Talk I used my one-revert-per-day to return to my NPOV version [[67]]

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". [68][69][70]. As you see, I am right and Francis is wrong [71].

In a similar situation I spent an hour removing errors, finding new sources for "citation needed" material and improving readability of the "Teachings" section.[72] Within 11 minutes of completion Francis reverted and re-inserted the following errors.[73].

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.[74] During this period Francis has characterized my edit summaries as "lies" [75], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[76]
Made sweeping (and false) assertion about what "all other sources claim".
- 10:04, May 1, 2008 (sticking to the source)[77]
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)[78]
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)[79]
- 02:24, May 12, 2008 (Eye witness trumps all)[80]
Deleted material claiming it's misquoted, while in fact it's almost a verbatim quote.[81]
- 05:56, May 16, 2008 (Removed misquoted Galanter)[82]
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)[83]
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)[84][85]
Repeatedly asserted that the New York Times is an unreliable source. (He'd previous asserted that the L.A. Times was an unreliable source.[86][87][88][89])
- [90][91][92][93]
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)[reply]

So what was Admin Will Beback doing whilst Francis was characterizing my edit summaries as "lies" [94], 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)[95]

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)[96]

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)[97]

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.[98]

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)[99]
- 02:24, May 12, 2008 (Eye witness trumps all)[100]

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.[101] 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.[102]
- 05:56, May 16, 2008 (Removed misquoted Galanter)[103]

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.[104]. 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)[105]

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)[106][107]

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.)
- [108][109][110][111]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

<--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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[112][113][114] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [115]; 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 [116].
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.[117]. 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 [118]
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. [119], this time targeted at User:Momento, which he self-reverts a few hours later [120], 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)[reply]

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.[121][122][123] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [[124]] You have the right to disagree with my assessment, but please do not refactor my comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Request Decision/Closure

This AE discussion has not progressed since May 20. Could an admin please make a decision on whether Momento has been edit warring, or advise why no decision has been made? I note that Momento has today again removed a criticism related section title from the article (Criticism by Former Followers)82.44.221.140 (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 [125] [126] [127], My Mentor [128] [129] [130], and My Princess [131] [132] [133]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

could we maybe pause all this for a few days?, i have exams this week.--Jac16888 (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Over a week old
Already settled by discussion between Eusebeus and Jac16888 on their talk page
Already settled by a parallel discussion between me and Alaskan Assassin on my talk page? [134][135]

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

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[136] [137] occur after this was supposedly "settled"? --Pixelface (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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

Notice as well, assuming bad faith: [138], [139], [140], [141], [142]
Incivility: [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150]
Dramatizing: [151], [152], [153], [154], [155]
Use of obscenity/curse/swear words in edit summary: [156], [157]
Also, not signing post.
Seeing AfD as a game: [158]
Finally, I'm not sure if the calling me "Pumpkin" rather than LGRdC or Roi is mocking: [159], [160]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

And so it goes on

Eusebeus is continuing to edit-war over Scrubs episodes - this time at My Chopped Liver - see [161], where he reverts three times in less than a day. Catchpole (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - There was no 3RR violation. See [162]. Catchpole (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Setanta747

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

Setanta747's rvs are the same. He violated the sanction and is blocked 48 hours. Domer48's edits were a week apart and I find Setanta747's arguments weak...Rlevse

Arbcom case: The Troubles.

Setanta747 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Setanta747 is on probation from the above case, and is limited to one revert per article per week, which was imposed here. He has reverted twice on Car bomb to this version, first revert at 21:49, 21 May 2008 and second revert at 22:10, 21 May 2008. Domer48 (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you cannot count, Domer. I made one revert, after you had reverted an edit I had made.

Besides that, I made a request that any reverting of my edits be discussed on the article's talk page, which both you and BigDunc, who seems to have jumped to your aid, have ignored.

I request that this report be withdrawn. --Setanta747 (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You made two reverts, it's that simple. You reverted to your previous version of 13 May, it's the same wording. --Domer48 (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have trouble with the meaning of the word revert also, Domer. I made an edit, which you reverted on the 15th of this month (edit summary: "Par revert"). I then restored my original edit, as there had been no explanation as to why you had reverted my edit in the first place.

After reinstating my edit, you reverted again. The upshot being that you initiated an edit war, as you have thus far made no attempt to explain your reverts. You do not own the article. --Setanta747 (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User Matthead

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

warned, diffs old, will not have much sympathy for Matthead next time....Rlevse

User Matthead has been listed on editing restriction due his e ethnic based attacks, personal attacks against editors and disruptive editing [163] on 3rd January 2008. However since then he returned to disruptive editing in my view.

Here are examples of behaviour I consider disruptive and not proper on what should be online encyclopedia:

Rude and flaming comments: Stop your pathetic trolling as responce to other editor.

Accusations of views based on ethnic background of editors: Polish POV has been disseminated too far in the past, and will be reduced

Ethnic based insults: Seems like EndOfTrolling for Polish POV now, indeed

Ethnic insults "Frederick II making token gestures for the welfare of his new Polish subjects" His bio article says, "750 schools were built from 1772-1775." Maybe he should have build hundreds of token sand boxes and Kindergartens for his Polish subjects instead.

These are just some examples, more examples of such behaviour could be found as well as additional problems. I ask admins to intervene so that Wikipedia is free from ethnic based attacks, insults and personal attacks.--Molobo (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What case is this a part of? See the instructions: "Be prepared with: A link to the final decision in their arbitration case; a list with summary disposition is at WP:AER" — Rlevse • Talk • 09:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digwuren. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement 1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans. --Molobo (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your diffs are old, though. We can hardly block for stuff over a week stale. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morsechi is correct, report promptly. See closing remarks above. Notify the user too. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Sylviecyn

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

The edit in question does not constitute a serious enough violation of Wikipedia's civility and anti-disruption policies, but it is evident that it is non-constructive. Whilst Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Article probation will not be invoked at this time (that is, no article ban is being issued further to this thread), a final caution regarding maintaining professionalism in the future has been issued at User talk:Sylviecyn.

To answer a peripheral query raised below, this warning will not be logged on the committee's decision page: such records are reserved for (in that case, at least) blocks, bans, and restrictions only.

Anthøny 19:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat/Proposed_decision

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

Notice of arbcom decision: [164]

And no, I'm not going to help with it given the recent arbcom decision, which I think is absolutely incompetent and/or corrupt. That's an informed assessment, by the way, not a personal attack on the arbcom. They're idiots -- that's a personal attack on them. [165]

Edit summary: Idiots on Wikipedia libelling private persons [166]

If a user is not only addressing the arbcom as "absolutely incompetent and/or corrupt", but is also indicating no interest in participating in dispute resolution and making comments such as "idiots in Wikipedia", I would think that editing privileges are being forfeited. I ask uninvolved admins to make a determination if applying article probation remedies is warranted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Below you suggest that we "limit the use of round trips to AE to egregious violations of the spirit of this project." Are you saying that calling the ArbCom "idiots" is so egregious that it requires banning an editor? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sylviecyn's remarks were partially in reference to this edit by Momento:[167]. Do you think Momento acted properly in that edit? In my opinion, edits like that are more disruptive and harmful than Sylviecyn's remarks. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this user called the ArbCom "idiots"; she called them "corrupt" that it is far more serious, in my opinion. If a party in this case does rejects the ArbCom ruling and declares her intention not to participate in WP:DR, what is the point in affording her editing privileges? Certainly she can exercise her free speech right elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. We obviously differ in assessing what constitutes an " egregious violations of the spirit of this project", and that is why I have asked uninvolved admins to make a determination. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find Momento's edit worse than the various attempts I have witnessed to introduce material of a similar nature about Rawat. We seem to be in the throes of a deviancy amplification spiral. I feel the middle ground is almost entirely unoccupied in our work. Jayen466 21:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's one thing to introduce material about Prem Rawat to an article about Prem Rawat. It's a very different thing to add material about a critic's unrelated criminal charges, in what appears to be an obvious attempt to "poison the well" by making an ad hominem attack. It's hard to justify that edit as anything but POV pushing, which has been a major problem with editors on both sides of the Prem Rawat topic. Rather than forgive Momento, who isn't contrite anyway, I think we should enforce the article probation as the ArbCom asked us to do.

As for Sylviecyn, if everyone who complains about the ArbCom is banned this will be a much smaller project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Momento's edit was in the article Criticism of Prem Rawat, listing the viewpoints of various critics. I am sure Momento would argue that adding background on the people propounding such criticism is legitimate in such an article, and that the material was adequately sourced. Do I think it is good encyclopedia writing? No. But I don't think adding Collier's isolated allegation that Rawat was drunk at Millennium and slurred his speech makes for a great encyclopedia article either. It should not be about writing an exposé of Rawat, should it? Nor should it be about writing a hagiography. It should be about summarising the best available sources in as neutral a manner as possible, and staying at arm's length from extremist viewpoints on both sides. To give another example, the inclusion of Khushwant Singh's description of the ashram in India as "affluent" in the Divine Light Mission article smacks of an attempt to "expose" Rawat. Yet when we write about the Vatican City, the description of the wealth and treasures housed in the Vatican City takes on the air of pride (regardless of the fact that this wealth is the result of tithing millions of people, whether they wanted to be tithed or not, over centuries). Do you see what I mean? These are subtle POV issues. Jayen466 22:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one has added anything about Rawat being drunk, that I recall. However that assertion is at least related to the topic. You say that Momento's edit wasn't "good encyclopedia writing". That's the problem. That's right, it isn't good encyclopedia writing and it's typical of edits that Momento has been making for the past two years. Adding derogatory information about critics and repeatedly deleting criticism is POV pushing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slow day in the newsroom I guess... This seems completely without merit. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, she didn't call them corrupt, she also allowed for incompetence, don't put words in her mouth. Regarding the edit summary, anyone who libelled someone on wikipedia probably is an idiot to some extent... we may have to wait for a certain girlfriend issue to finish playing out to know for sure... I'm not sure the edit summary was accurate, but at least it's descriptive. Her disruption level cannot even be seen from the heights of which Momento towers above us all, and jossi sees (almost) no problem with his edits or attitude yet. It was only yesterday when jossi stated here on this board we should try and limit our visits here...well that didn't last long... -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here, with regards to the call for banning Sylviecyn (talk · contribs) from the article in question, is whether this edit is part of a more wide-spread and/or long-term history of disruption. My personal opinion is that the edit, in itself, is not disruptive enough to warrant an immediate ban; however, it is not the attitude the community expects of editors contributing on any Wikipedia article, and certainly goes against the spirit of the recent arbitration ruling (that disruption is unhelpful, especially on such a high-profile/controversial page), and I do believe a warning should be issued, cautioning against such future comments. With regards to the edit, the purpose of the arbitration ruling is not to stifle criticism of the committee or its decision (which is indeed often required, if effective oversight and criticism is to be delivered, but should be phrased in a diplomatic and appropriate fashion), but to ensure editors contribute professionally, and refrain from edits which are disruptive.

In short: if this is the only such disruptive edit from Sylviecyn, then I for one do not believe invoking the clauses of the committee's Prem rawat ruling to ban him/her would be justified (although a final warning would be). On the other hand, if this edit constitutes part of a larger history of disruption on that page, and evidence supporting the presence of such a long-term history is presented, then I believe a ban from the relevant articles would be in order.

Anthøny 10:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AGK. I believe that there have been past incidents with this user but these took place quite a long time ago. A final warning posted in this user's page, as well as logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat#Log_of_blocks_and_bans could be a good way to close this AE request. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat#Log_of_blocks_and_bans page going to be used for things other than blocks and bans now? Should we also be logging spurious attempts to use AE to remove editors as well? The page states it should be used for logging "any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here". Do you really believe this qualifies under that definition? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, according to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop#History of editing restrictions Sylviecyn self-imposed an indefinite editing restriction regarding the Rawat articles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I made those posts and edit summaries in anger, which of course, is a big no-no, not just here but anywhere. I apologize to everyone. I lost my cool and I'm sorry. Block me if you must, but please, please pay much more attention to the the real issue at hand, which is the smear campaign attempted by Momento against Neville Ackland, who once spent one or two or three days in his long life protesting at a Prem Rawat live program in his (Neville's) town, located near the Rawat place called "Amaroo." I don't approve of what Mr. Ackland got arrested for, but his actions on the days he protested against Rawat have nothing to do with his arrest and subsequent conviction. Come on, folks, get real here.

What really set me off yesterday was the fact that Momento attempted to disredit Mr. Ackland (who has already paid his debt to society for his drug bust and conviction, by spending time in jail) by combining apples with oranges, in his typical, imo, illogical and obfuscating "Momento" manner, which clouded the issues (again) by attempting to smear yet another critic of Prem Rawat, by saying he is (as Elan Vital does on its websites): they are criminals, mentally ill, the dregs of society, and totally, man, totally, lying apostates. -- all according to CESNUR -- which is, once again, an opinion

I don't think the Arbcom members are idiots or corrupt. I'm sorry for saying that. I was angry. I really don't think those things and I'm sure they have many more issues to deal with than the Prem Rawat articles. So, I once again give my sincere mea culpas for saying those things, but please know that I'm also very frustrated with Wikipedia right now and I don't know what to do about it. I sincerely apologize for those comments. How do I retract them? I just don't know how anymore.

All that said, I also think that any reasonable person would have to conclude that the Arbcom never really did anything helpful (amid all the long, involved efforts of so many!) to resolve the several problems surrounding the Prem Rawat series of articles, except to set Jossi loose to further dictate the time of myself and all the other very sincere and smart individuals, who only want to set forth a straight-forward, factual, and honest accounting of Prem Rawat's biographical sketch here on Wikipedia. Is that so wrong? Contrary to Jossi, et al's beliefs about me and others, all I want is to see a mere modicum of truth to be written, according to the reliable sources -- and to see the truth set forth as documented by scholars, the media, and critics alike --but not by defaming or libelling Prem Rawat, or anyone else for that matter. I don't think that's necessary at all. If we all stick to the reliable sources, then there shouldn't be any problems here. It's all so frustrating!

Please block me if you must. And please, please forgive my verbosity here. I know I'm a motor-mouth, but I'm also a mature, 54 year old Vermont woman (not mentally ill as Elan Vital wants you to believe) -- I can well handle a block if I deserve it. I know I lost my cool and must be punished if necessary -- let the uninvolved folks decide that, okay? Meanwhile, I give my very best wishes to you all and many thanks to those who had the courage to come to my defense. It was not necessary nor expected, but many thanks. Here's a big fat Vermont Spring smile to you all! :-) Cynthia J. Gracie, P.O. Box 73, Granville, Vermont 05747 I wish everyone well!!! Sylviecyn (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Homeopathy

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

arb case still pending

This topic is well-known to be a troublespot and there is an Arbcom injunction concerning it. The point in question is a small flurry of activity on my talk page - see User talk:Colonel Warden#Studies. One editor posted a list of sources for my attention. Another couple of editors then turned up to warn me off this material. Their attitude and statements seemed menacing per WP:HARASS. The second of them, User:Fyslee, demanded that I choose sides, contrary to the usual precept that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Ordinarily, I would shrug off such ridiculous threats but this topic is so difficult to make progress with that it would be helpful to thin out the hotheads so that cooler heads may prevail. Please consider a topic ban for this pair. They are both quite familar with the Arbcom injuction and so should have known better. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting.... A rather twisted and devious manner of misusing a noticeboard. This is a spurious report which can easily be checked. Among other things, CW fails to mention that the "editor [who] posted a list of sources" is a banned user and that those postings were yet another occurrence of block evasion, and that everything that happened was in the context of dealing with that user's sockpuppet and were proper notifications, certainly not harassment.

Actually there were three of us at the talk page: admin MastCell (talk · contribs), Enric Naval (talk · contribs), and myself, Fyslee (talk · contribs). Admin Gwernol (talk · contribs) was also helpful in warning the sock. We were all actively dealing with yet another sock of a banned user, who keeps appearing under new usernames or IPs and tries to misuse Wikipedia for advocacy (not proper editing) of homeopathy.

Enric Naval was letting Colonel Warden know that any cooperation with this banned user could end up with (not that he was yet) him acting as a meatpuppet. Then MastCell notified CW that he had blocked the sock, Then CW stated that the banned user's actions were "good faith attempts". I then questioned that and explained the situation. I then asked CW to make it clear whether he wished to support Wikipedia policies or not. There was no attempt to get him to "choose sides" (as his statement above could imply) regarding homeopathy, pro or con, or even for or against users. Just about policies regarding how we deal with banned users and their sockpuppets: "Either you are for Wikipedia policies or you are against them. Make your choice clear to all." There is nothing "good faith" about block evasion!

To paraphrase CW: "Please consider a topic ban for Colonel Warden. He is quite familar with the Arbcom injunction and so should have known better." Since this misuse of this noticeboard deals with a topic (homeopathy) that is under extra attention, and all editors who deal with this subject in an improper manner (regardless of where it happens at Wikipedia) are subject to increased scrutiny and likelihood of being sanctioned for their actions (see: Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation), Colonel Warden seems to deserve a topic ban (his own chosen sanction above) or some other "reward" for his actions here. He should not be allowed to misuse notice boards, make spurious accusations, or lend support to a banned user's bannable actions. -- Fyslee / talk 02:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might be missing something here, but I don't think this is a matter for WP:AE, because there is not (yet) an arbitration committee decision relating to this area. And, on the basis of the evidence presented here, I wouldn't consider a topic ban on anybody. My recommendation is that people need to step away from the keyboards for awhile and let this issue pass. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed the right place because the Homeopathy topic is on probation. This means that Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages. In this case, users Enric Naval and Fyslee were being uncivil and harassing by suggesting that I might be a meatpuppet. Their suggestion was both offensive (per WP:MEAT) and irrational, since if I were somebodies' puppet, then it would be pointless to talk to me. Their edits just added to the contentious atmosphere which surrounds this topic and so were disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No edits were made regarding homeopathy. This was a matter regarding a banned user who was attempting to enlist Colonel Warden as a meat puppet. The sockpuppet was blocked and CW was advised. No one said that he "might be a meatpuppet." but the danger of becoming one was present and some good advice was offered, since he might not have known that that particular user was a banned user. There was never anything uncivil or harassing, and CW hasn't presented any evidence to back his charges. He should have just gratefully accepted the advice and immediately distanced himself from the banned users actions, instead of showing sympathy by calling them "good faith".

He seems to fail to realize what the issue was about, or rather he is obviously refusing to do so. This is beyond AGF. He's obviously twisting things rather deviously. He is personally attacking myself and Enric Naval, and it needs to stop. -- Fyslee / talk 07:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Mastcell dealt with the matter of the banned user in a pleasant and unthreatening manner. This topic is best left to editors who can deal with it in a similarly dispassionate way. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I didn't want to be menacing :( . I should have worded it something similar to "you are going to get manipulated into introducing OR into Homeopathy by an abusing blocked editor, and you are going to get yourself into problems because of that guy" --Enric Naval (talk) 09:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is best dealt with by de-escalation. Dr. Jhinghaadey is blocked/banned and his socks will be blocked where they appear. His edits should generally be reverted, as contributions from banned users are unwelcome. On the other hand, we're talking about Colonel Warden's userspace. Editors are generally allowed quite a bit of leeway in their own userspaces. If CW wants to keep the list of sources around in his userspace, I don't see this as overly problematic. I don't see him acting as a proxy for Dr Jhinghaadey just because he'd like to keep the list around in his userspace. Let's all take a deep breath and disengage here. MastCell ^Talk 16:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem with CW keeping the list on his userspace --Enric Naval (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 * User warned ([[User_talk:Francis_Schonken#Three_Revert_Rule]]) by [[User:Steve Crossin]] who is the [[WP:MEDCAB]] volunteer currently mediating in these articles. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 01:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
+*Jossi, you entered [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Section_break well over 1200 words] to provide "context" for Momento (who happens to agree with everything you say on Prem Rawat related articles) on this very page, and yet, when that very same editor here, makes an obvious vindictive accusation against an editor who doesn't share your views, you have less than 20 words to say about it? Your double standard is embarassing. -- [[User:Maelefique|Mael<span style="color:red">e</span>fique]] <small>[[User_talk:Maelefique|<sup>(t<span style="color:red">a</span>lk)]]</sup></small> 04:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 ==User:Caesarjbsquitti and unsourced POV==