Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:07, 2 February 2009

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

Ferrylodge

WP:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

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

There was a Request to Amend the restrictions to extend them from article space to talk space. The request was rejected. Even if the request had not been rejected, I would not think anything I said at the pertinent talk page today was disruptive, unless you consider opposing blatant and politically motivated cesnorship disruptive.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucius/Date delinker

As noted here By Earle Martin: [1] "Ohconfucius has continued to make mass edits delinking dates using his alternate account, Date delinker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (see contribution history; a random example is provided in the evidence section of this arbitration), in direct contravention of the temporary injunction issued against such activities by the arbitrators."

Regards, AKAF (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to AKAF for this and MBisanz for leaving a note on my talk page - I wasn't aware of this page before. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 14:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of injunction dated 2009-01-13T11:56:50, delivered by one of the clerks for the case to Ohconfucius' talk page. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Date delinker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely pending review and conclusion of the Arbitration case, and it has been noted at User talk:Date delinker. seicer | talk | contribs 14:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Parishan

I am very annoyed at the behavior of user Parishan (talk · contribs). The point is this, I have been for a long time involved in the extremely heated discussions about the ancient population of Artsakh. User Parishan, who had not participated in the ongoing discussion, suddenly adds in the article a very dubious merit which was still discussed in the talkpage and certainly there was more time needed to reach a consensus. The way that Parishan "quoted" the historian Robert Hewsen, the place where he did that, the fact that he left no edit summary, and his post in the talkpage show that he whether simply neglected the ongoing discussion or did not even read it.

A similar behaviour he showed some time ago when he wrote in the same article that Sisak was not a real person [2], while I had 3 times highlighted in the talkpage that this person is note even mentioned in the article ([3][4][5]).

Recently Parishan endless moved the title of Aghstev River to Aghstafa River without even adding a letter to the talk page ([6][7][8]), the result being a long move-war and that the title of that article is till now disputed. And something that is really concerning me: all the time that there was a discussion going in Talk:Aghstafa River, and I showed that there was no justification for his renaming, givien that Aghstev appears to be more common in English language sources, Parishan not even a single time reacted there.

I have perceived that user Parishan has been edit-warring at articles as Lingua franca ([9] [10] [11] [12]), Church of Caucasian Albania ([13] [14]) and Amaras Monastery ([15] [16] [17] [18]). According to WP rules we should work together and use talkpages to settle differences, something I tried to do in talk:Artsakh. So I experience this kind of edits disruptive and I expect the admins will take measures to ensure that this user will stop his unfair treatment. --Vacio (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, Parishan was involved in the discussions in Artsakh article from the very beginning, just check the talk of the article and you'll see that he is a long time contributor to that article. And he explained in much detail why he restored the quotes that Vacio deleted from the article. [19] Vacio removed the following quote from the article about Artsakh many times:

Robert H. Hewsen believes that these tribes were "certainly not of Armenian origin", and "although certain Iranian peoples must have settled here during the long period of Persian and Median rule, most of the natives were not even Indo-Europeans". Hewsen, Robert H., Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence upon the Caucasian Albanians, in: Samuelian, Thomas J. (Hg.), Classical Armenian Culture. Influences and Creativity, Chico: 1982, 27-40.

Note how it disappears every time after Vacio's edits: [20] [21] [22] while no consensus on its deletion has ever been reached at the talk of the article. So why does Vacio think that it is Ok for him to delete sourced info from the article without any consensus with other involved parties, and not Ok for others to restore it? It should also be noted that Vacio has been twice placed on editing restrictions, but both times the sanctions were lifted, first time because the admin was given incorrect information that Vacio had no prior warning, [23] [24] [25] and second time after Vacio promised not to edit war. [26] [27] Yet Vacio continues edit warring on Artsakh and other pages. --Grandmaster 09:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for Aghstafa River, one can check the talk of the article and see that there's a consensus on renaming the article to Akstafa River, and the only one stonewalling and blocking the consensus is Vacio. There are another 4 users involved in discussion on talk of that article, and while no one else agreed to the name proposed by Vacio, he attached a tag claiming that the name is disputed, despite the fact that most of the editors reached a consensus on the appropriate title for the article: [28] --Grandmaster 10:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the way I acted in Aghstafa River is in accordence with WP rules: I used the talkpage to settle a difference rather than move-warring, you can not resent me for agreeing or disagreeing with one or another version, after all admin Parsecboy said, it seems that "...Agstev is the preferred spelling in English"[29] and that "Aghstafa is the least preferred]"[30]. So why do you rebuke me for placing the "Title Disputed" tag in the article, when the current title is the least preferred and by the way the result of move-warring rather than discussion?

Then, I think accusing me for edit-warring in the Artsakh article is not fair here. I belive we should first reach a consensus before adding an information which is disputed in the talkpage. I believe this way to settle differences is what we learned from Khoikhoi, Francis Tyers and other madiators (cf. [31][32][33]), and this is the way we recently (although partially) reached a consensus for the intro of Nagorno-Karabakh. I hope admins will carefully read the ongoing discussion (Talk:Artsakh#Population) and see that I indeed have the purpose to reach a consensus rather that deleting or readding an infornation by means of edit-warring. I have each time the bad experience that after the dubious infrnation is added in the article there is no interest anymore for consensus, in particular some time ago user Grandmaster added the same dubious passage in the Nagorno-Karabakh article, unlike my complaints that there was no consensus for that and that his treatment was unfaur, however he was not anymore interested in a discussion for consensus and did not even respond to my posts in the talkpage there[34]. I also ask the attention of admins to the behavior of Grandmaster in the current discussion: almost each time he neglects to react on my arguments which I think are sufficient to leave off the quote of Hewsen in question (I even get the impression that he is not noticing them), repeating each time that the "does not justify a removal of the quote". and now he is again adding the dubious quote in the article [35]. The quote that he added in the article differs even from the original text of Hewsen, something I noticed in the talkpage yesterday[36], but apparently once again neglected. Is this the way we should work together? And how we should reach a consensus when we don't listen each other? --Vacio (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should first reach a consensus, and then remove information from the article. And how can you explain removal of another quote, from the Russian scholar Shinerelman, from the same article? You removed it many times without any explanation at all. It was one of the quotes restored by Parishan. I explained many times that all existing scholarly opinions should be fairly represented in the article. If you indeed want to reach a consensus, you should not remove anything unless there's a consensus to do so, and you should seek mediation, if no consensus has been reached. The way you act is nothing but edit warring, which was a reason you were placed on parole twice before. --Grandmaster 12:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true Grandmaster: first time I rewrote ([37]) the article based on "Armenia: A Historical Atlas", the last work of the western scholar Robert Hewsen, I indeed left many passages out which did not fit with this work (including some passages written by myself earlier), second time you reverted some of my edits ([38][39][40][41]), I asked you for explanation, which you had not, therefore I resored them ([42]), finally third time I indeed reverted the last edits of Parishan for which I came here ([43]), if the latter was a violation of WP rules (frankly I had loosed my hair), I honestly appologize. As for Shnirelman, as far I can remember, I have but once left him out by my last rewrite of the article, but I believe we don't have differences at that point, so it couldn't have been edit warring. --Vacio (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vacio, familiarising myself with the discussion at Talk:Artsakh was the very reason why I decided to restore information you deleted without any reasonable explanation; particularly the deletion of a clarifying quote from Shnirelman (without deleting the actual reference) which you never accounted for on talkpage.

With regard to the other articles, I did make use of the talkpage on Amaras Monastery, and I had provided straightforward rationale in my edit summaries earlier, unlike MarshallBagramyan who made very unacademic statements while reverting my edits and insulted me on talkpage. As for Lingua franca, the heated discussion on talkpage and a whole lot of uncommented and unrebutted excerpts from third-party sources dating back to November indicate quite clearly that my reverts were more than justified. Parishan (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without reasonable explanation!? Did you read for example that: "...the author himself makes some changes in his recent work about the populaion of Artsakh, e.g. he says it is doubtful that Artsakh has been under Median rule before 2nd c. BC"[44]. The problem here is not whether you are right or not, Parishan, the problem is how you try to settle differences. Labeling the argumanations of an other user as "not reasonable", is not sufficient to "decide" it. You know how long the discussions has been going about the ancient population of Artsakh? Do you know how controversial the topic among the scholars themselves is? You have but rarely edited the Artsakh article (three, as far as I remember, including the aforementioned two ones) and its talkpage. I hope you admit that your recent behaviour was not proper. If yes, I am even willing to close the discussion here, after all I don't think restrictions are always the best manner to incite us to assume good faith. And as a matter of fact, if you indeed decide to work together to reach a consensus, I would only be happy for. --Vacio (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vacio's words do indeed carry weight. For that matter, GM's arguments are groundless, as he himself is guilty of removing sources and shamefully changing the wording (one of countless examples) of the text when they don't correspond to the sources. Their manipulation also carries double standards, as they use sources such as Viktor Shnirelman's Memory Wars to discredit Armenian history when the same author reserves a good chunk of his book to criticize Azeri "historians" for committing the same blatant acts of falsification that we see on Wikipedia. Was it not Parishan who removed from an article the notion that Turkic tribes invaded the region in the 12th century? Someone has to come and put the brakes on this silly game of removing mention of Armenians prior to the 19th century and the equally ridiculous notion that Turkic tribes never invaded the region.

Parishan defense for his edits on the Lingua Franca page is abysmal and unconvincing, since he misused the sources to sustain a fringe theory only supported by the pseudo-scholars in Baku. The time is ripe for someone to do something about his disruptions. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a source criticizes Azerbaijani historians, why cannot it be used as a source of criticism of the Armenian scholars? I see no logic here. Both sides were involved in manipulation of historical facts, and Shnirelman is not the only source on that. And of course any accusations of me changing sources are baseless, and are off-topic here. The problem is that suppression of info from a reliable source is not acceptable, if there are different views on the subject in the scholarly community, we should present all notable ones. I don't see Parishan making any reverts in the article about Artsakh in excess of 1rv per week, even though he is not under any revert restriction, so what's the point in placing him on parole? If anything, Vacio was the one who reverted the article more than once a week, so if anyone is to be placed on parole, it should be Vacio. Grandmaster 06:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tundrabuggy and edit warring over images at 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

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

Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs) banned from 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict article for 1 month (free to edit associated talk page) by PhilKnight. Cerejota (talk · contribs) notified of discretionary sanctions and warned.

I am quite frankly tired of the constant edit warring around images, an a discussion were the arguments change by the minute 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict.

WP:ARBPIA was supposed to take care of this type of POINT behavior, were one editor is warring over content that by any objective measure belongs in an article. I know ArbCom doesn't rule on content, but my issue is not that: is that every time I see consensus developing, positive conversations happening, in comes Tundra and bang, screams "no consensus" reverts everyone, and then generates a new polarization. Reasonable differences are to be expected, but POV pushing to where no consensus is possible is not.

I have tried in multiple occasions to engage Tundra, and have even defended the editor from uncalled for attacks, but the behavior exhibited is not one that moves us forward, but keeps us stuck in a partisan and devisive environment. Let us argue with the dim hope of acheiving a good article, not with the nagging feeling that one is in the talk page of some debate website.

But really, this is the straw:

Tundrabuggy (Talk | contribs) (142,259 bytes) (→Gaza strip: No consensus. POV and unbalanced. Time to take this to arbitration I think)

Ok. ArbCom, ball in your court.

--Cerejota (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly ban Tundrabuggy and Cerejota from removing or reincluding images on this article for a month? PhilKnight (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tundrabuggy is a troll. Ban him permanently. Moreschi (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is outrageous and beyond the pale. Even the editors that are opposed to TB and interact with him on a daily basis have not had the gall to accuse him of being a troll. An admin should know better then to hurl unsubstantiated insults at an editor. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brewcrewer, the above comment is your 13th comment in this thread. I get that you don't like my decision, but it's getting to the stage where I think it's time to suggest you consider putting down the stick, and backing away from the horse. PhilKnight (talk)

Well then, if your counting is correct this is my 14th. But you're in a close-second place, so I wouldn't give up it I were you ;-) If I recall correctly, in the previous brouhaha at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive30#Jaakobou you were also in a hurry to consider the conversation over when a multitude of editors began criticizing your unilateral highly-questionable actions. But turning to the substantive issue if I may, would you like to comment on User:Moreschi's insult above? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contra Moreschi, I don't think Tundrabuggy is a troll. He seems to be a fairly standard-issue dogmatic ethnic/religious nationalist who sees Wikipedia as a battlefield - a means of promoting his POV and a place to oppose POVs that he doesn't like. Such people tend to go in one of three directions - mellowing and adapting to Wikipedia's requirements, getting frustrated and leaving, or getting blocked or banned for being a nuisance. Tundrabuggy currently seems to be aiming for the latter. It wouldn't be a great loss to us, frankly. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware this is somewhat off-topic, however I asked Moreschi about his understanding of the word troll when he stood for ArbCom, and his definition was basically that of a disruptive or tendentious editor. PhilKnight (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more in terms of the ED kiddies who like to run around messing things up "for the lulz". Tundrabuggy is certainly tendentious and has been disruptive, but he seems to be motivated more by ideology than sociopathy. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had several disagreements with Cerejota on that page, he's new to I/P articles. But I've found him more than amenable to discussion, consensus and good-article building, and he came to that page because of a keen and real interest in military history, which indeed is in part what the page deals with. I won't comment on Tundra, since I'm biased, except to remark, more for comic effect, that I don't believe Cerejota shares outland views like Tundrabuggy's belief that Jews, collectively, constitute 1% of the world's Muslim population. It is hard to work with people who think like that.Nishidani (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outland? You do the math. 14 million Jews worldwide, 1.5 billion Muslims Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an aside, however I think he was saying that around 20% of humanity are Muslims, while 0.02% are Jews. I'm not sure if that was relevant to improving the article though. PhilKnight (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes in fact it was absolutely relevant to the WP:UNDUE aspect of the article, since the editors attempting to quash the pro-Israeli perspective, attempting not to include smaller pro-Israeli demonstrations on the grounds that the Arab ones were so much bigger. According to this thinking, we should only include large demonstrations, which would effectively wipe out the pro-Israel voice. The diff presented was an analogy, but apparently blinders on make it impossible for some to see another's perspective except to ridicule it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following comments here, and a bit more background checking, I've given Tundrabuggy a 1-month ban from 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, and listed Cerejota as notified of the restrictions. PhilKnight (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very sneaky - posting this here without giving any sort of notice to Tundrabuggy to discuss his edits. I would think the blocking admin would have made sure that TB had a chance to discuss his edits before banning him from the article. Cerejota previously unsuccessfully tried to get TB blocked on some nonsense 3rr violation, so this looks like revenge. This ban was based on some kangaroo court of partisan editors (see block log). I would strongly advise the banning admin to reconsider this ban. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page is on my watchlist, and the edit warring over pictures has got out of hand. PhilKnight (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, apparently overlooked by the banning admin was that per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, a ban must come after some sort of warning, none of which was given to this editor. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree PhilKnight (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding, right? A vaguely worded warning from his first week of editing nine months ago is the warning?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The standard message was given to Tundrabuggy June 2nd. This is the same warning everyone else gets, and yes, it covers the requirement dictated by the remedy.--Tznkai (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That satisfies the letter of the ruling, but not the spirit. Turn it around and look at it in the context of some other topic area (say, pseudoscience). Would it be fair to ban an editor for 30 days from an article, without a single warning to their talkpage, and then defend it as, "Oh, well, you were warned 6 months ago, you should've known a ban was coming?" I think that if an editor is editing in such a way that no warnings are needed for several months, that we should do them the courtesy of at least one new "warning shot across the bow" on their talkpage before proceeding to a lengthy ban. --El on ka 21:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This is not simply a question of bureaucracy. The question is whether Tundrabuggy was aware that the topic area was under arbitration sanctions. Clearly he was - he has been notified before and he is well aware of what is expected of him. It should not be necessary to notify an editor every time he edits a new article in the same topic area or after every arbitrary period of time. If an editor is aware of arbitration sanctions, he should modify his behaviour thereafter. There is no time limit at which a notification "expires". -- ChrisO (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this qualify as a 'warning shot across the bow'? Nableezy (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's more shocking, it that Cerejota, one of the most partisan editors I have ever come across (see history of Roof knocking) gets some friendly warning while he knows good and well about the Arbcom rules for I-P articles, while TB a relatively new editor, gets blasted with a ban without any sort of valid warning. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brewcrewer, I notified the entire talk page of the article in question, on a single thread. --Cerejota (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little surprised by the ban as well. Before imposing discretionary sanction bans, the ArbCom requires that a warning be issued to the editor first, to give them an opportunity to moderate their own behavior. I see no such warning on Tundrabuggy's talkpage. --El on ka 21:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tundrabuggy has had plenty of exposure to arbitration sanctions before; he certainly can't be said to be ignorant of the restrictions that the ArbCom has imposed on these articles. If I recall rightly, I notified him myself some time ago about arbitration sanctions [45], and I note that his talk page is full of people requesting him to stop edit-warring and reverting against consensus, so there was clearly a problem here that needed to be resolved. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but though you're an administrator, you're also an involved editor in the topic area. I'm more looking for something in the nature of, "Hi, I'm an uninvolved admin. Your behavior lately when you <fill in blank> was not acceptable, and discretionary sanctions are being considered. To avoid this, you need to <fill in blank>." Then, if the editor still ignores a clear warning, then on the next infraction, admins can either choose to warn again, or just proceed to a ban or block. The amount of warnings necessary prior to a sanction can vary depending on a lot of factors: Is this an editor with a history of good content contributions, or an obvious SPA; is the editor antagonizing a lot of other good editors, or are there multiple people that are causing the problem; has the editor been banned/blocked before, etc. My own experience with Tundrabuggy is that when he receives a clear warning from an uninvolved administrator to modify behavior, he does so. But I haven't seen a warning from PhilKnight on Tundrabuggy's talkpage for several months. Instead, TB's talkpage was quiet for days, and then suddenly PhilKnight appears with "You are banned for 30 days". If I were an editor in that topic area (or any topic area), that's not how I'd like to be treated. And even for you, ChrisO, if you were being disruptive, even though you've received warnings (and a ban) in the past, I would hope that any administrator who was concerned about your behavior would do you the courtesy of a warning before placing another discretionary sanction. Isn't that how you would like to be treated? --El on ka 22:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Cyde's warning. PhilKnight (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TB has nicely asked Cyde to explain his comment and to give further advice about how to proceed. Ten days have passed and Cyde has yet to get a chance to respond. Most perplexing is that Cyde has not made one edit to the article or commented on the article's talkpage, yet claims to have been "looked over the article history". The article is 30-odd days old and has already churned out 26 archives full of TB's comments and attempts at consensus-reaching. Did Cyde look through all 26 archives? I find it hard to believe. Similarly, PhilKnight claims that the page was on his watchlist and noticed the edit-warring going on for a while. As far as I know, PhilKinght has not made one edit to the article or comment to its talkpage. I have a hard time believing that editors watching the article were unable to find one opportunity to help out with the edit-warring and extreme POV violations that are going on there on a daily basis. I know I should assume more good faith, but I can't help but be suspicious when I see admins swooping out of the sky and issuing bans and refusing to make any sort of attempt at normal discussion with the editor under discussion. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I watchlist the current month's articles listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues. PhilKnight (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been suggetsed that a number of people on the talk page opposing Tundra are SPA's, for what that's worth (I can't speak to that, just noting it). Effectively, no warning was given Tundra which is highly improper. June 2nd(?) was a while ago. I'll also note that on Cerejota's talk page, the message reads: "This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem..." Is that a warning? I'll answer my own rhetorical question: no. So, one user gets a ban with no warning, and the other involved user gets no ban and no warning... IronDuke 21:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how relevant this is, but I've pointed out the ARBPIA sanctions a couple of times on the talkpage of this article, including reproducing the entire notice once. Anyone who has been editing it consistently over the last couple of weeks will have seen the notice. Avruch^T 22:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note that the last time PhilKnight has been involved in an Arbitration enforcement issue it was also a very questionable action taken against a pro-Israel editor. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive30#Jaakobou, where PhilKnight issued a "final warning" to an editor after a bunch of uninvolved admins agreed that no warning at all was warranted. I would suggest that PhilKnight remove himself from being an uninvolved admin regarding the I-P conflict. I am not suggesting that he isn't neutral, but I think it's important that editors have true confidence in the system. PhilKnight has apparently lost the confidence of half of the editors at the I-P conflict. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's true that PhilKnight has "lost the confidence of half of the editors at the I-P conflict" and even if it were that doesn't necessarily mean he's doing anything wrong. This article is a hotspot, with lots of conflict and inappropriate comments and actions flying around. Which "side" you're on is really not relevant - we all ought to be on the side of Wikipedia, and permitting this sort of poor conduct is not to Wikipedia's benefit. Avruch^T 22:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I explicitly disclaimed any ideas that PhilKnight is doing anything wrong. However, as I stated above, it is important the editors involved in the I-P conflict have confidence in the system and trust that they will be treated fairly. Unlike the other uninvolved admins, PhilKnight has clearly lost the confidence of half the editors. Of course "we all ought to be on the side of Wikipedia" and it's the most beautiful thing I've heard today. However, it is important that we be practical and realize what's going on here. There will be partisan editors here at WP for as long as WP exists. Most fundamental is the partisan editors have confidence that the system will treat all partisans fairly. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I’ve actually been having similar thoughts about Phil, but haven’t been sure enough to post them. Seeing as you’ve opened the discussion, I’ll make my thoughts known. I believe that, in terms of adminstrative actions, PhilKnight is reliably “pro-Palestinian.” I say this purely from my own, anecdotal observations, not from any exhaustive look at his logs. If there is a strong feeling that I make a study of it, I will, though I’d really rather not. I recall that in the Eleland “cunt”/”douchebag”/”He can go fuck himself” affair, wherein Eleland (a pro-Palestinian editor) compared a self-identified Jewish editor with a Nazi (widely regarded as itself being antisemitic), Phil reduced his block to a week, citing in the log that it was based on “rough consensus.” By my count, the feeling was running at about 9 for the block, 9 against, discussion here “Rough?” Yes. “Consensus?” Not at all. Phil does not, AFAIK, take much part in editing articles in the I-P area. This would allow him to appear as “uninvolved” when enforcing ARBPIA decisions, but my impressions leave me with the feeling that he has a strong POV, and that his enforcement efforts are demonstrably one-sided. I’d like to be wrong about this, and would welcome evidence to the contrary. IronDuke 22:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that Tundrabuggy had been warned on his talk page before a ban was put in place. That being said, Cerejota did warn him at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#edit_summary that this discussion had begun and based on Tundrabuggy's almost continuous presence on the talk page I would find it hard to believe that he was not aware of this discussion before the block came down. I would also like to point out that Cerejota previously referred Tundrabuggy to the 3 revert warning board for removal of pictures of casualties of the conflict (there was some consensus to include pictures of the casualties of the conflict) after which Tundrabuggy continued to remove pictures [46]. A summary of these events can be found at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_25#Pix_.28restored.29. This latest removal is the straw that breaks the camel's back.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, counting Cerejota's warning as something to be reckoned with is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. Cerejota himself was blocked a few weeks ago for edit-warring at an I-P conflict article. Cerejota spends most of his time here at WP edit-warring and issuing bogus warnings to editors (see his talk page history). He secretly brought this complaint here without giving TB any sort of notice. The 3rr that he initiated against TB was nonsense and was consequently closed with no action taken. The picture controversy is exactly the type of issue where TB's viewpoint is needed. Unless of course we want the whole article plastered with pictures of dead and burned Arab babies.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I know you and Tundrabuggy are buddy buddy and it's quite obvious that you hold the same opinions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. [47] That in itself should be a warning that your edits might lack a necessary amount of neutrality, or give the appearance of a lack of neutrality. But this discussion should clearly be about policy, not politics. We wouldn't be here if Tundrabuggy were just expressing his viewpoint. Tundrabuggy repeatedly removed pictures against consensus and after numerous, numerous discussions where consensus was that they should be kept. It's called edit warring and it can get you blocked on wikipedia. Please take care not to confuse the issues.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll be the first to admit that TB and I are buddy-buddy, and we share similar views about the I-P conflict. However, this conversation should not be about politics nor about who is buddies with who. What's important is that we not confuse a partisan and previously blocked editor's comment as a valid warning. TB has removed the pictures when there was no consensus for the addition of the POV-violative pics. Even with all the SPA's, you guys were unable to get any sort of consensus to turn the article into a picture album of dead Arab babies. If you call me non-neutral because I opposed turning the article into the Holocaust article, then yeah, I'm not neutral.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't lump me in with the SPAs. As far as being one of the "guys" you refer to, my concern with the page is with the censoring of the pictures, which began with anonymous editors removing them without edit summaries. I am in the group of "guys" who would like to see this page reflect an "honest" portrayal of this war. That includes not forgetting about the casualties. Obviously, this issue goes hand in hand with finding a "balance" on the page that people will accept. Do some of Cerejota's edits look partisan to me? Yeah. Do some of your edits look partisan to me? Yeah. Do some of my edits look partisan to you? I suspect they do. (By the way, don't tell anyone, but I actually secretly do have an opinion about things). What's relevant here however, is the constant edit warring by Tundrabuggy that has gone on over these pictures, which in my opinion, was against consensus. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There never was a consensus to add a whole bunch of dead-baby pics to the article. Yet TB is the one banned for edit-warring for removing these pics that were added by multiple SPA's without a consensus. Outrageous.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are confused at what pictures are in question here. But that is irrelevant, or is this discussion about content and not behavior? Nableezy (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you reread the archives. It took a long time to even find a picture of a casualty from this conflict that was properly sourced and copyrighted. There's only ever been one picture of a dead baby that I'm aware of. But Tundrabuggy has removed all the available picture of casualties at one time or another. (Picture of the dead girl [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]) (pictures of bodies at the morgue [53] [54] [55] [56]) (picture of a dead infant [57] [58] [59]) (Picture of a wounded man [60]) But don't worry. I'm sure Tundrabuggy will be back to fight another day.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate with an opinion now that I've fully read the rest of this... the requirement for a warning is intended to ensure that folks open to sanctions understand that before they fall afoul of them. We don't need to assume that they'll forget with time once told- clear warning one time is all that is needed to make editors aware that caution is necessary, and awareness is all the warning step is supposed to create.

Since he's an editor in the conflict area, has been warned directly about the IP sanctions, has been warned and cautioned repeatedly about his conduct and has most likely seen my notes about the IP sanctions on the talkpage of the article in question... It seems strange to suggest that Tundrabuggy would have been unaware that his actions left him vulnerable to sanction. If he was aware, then the need for a warning is met. Avruch^T 22:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea behind warning is to ensure that an editor is aware of communal norms and special restrictions - Tundrabuggy's behavior has been an issue multiple times before and even though time has passed, there's no reason to believe he would have simply "forgotten" what is and isn't acceptable. Regardless of the special sanctions in this area, his behavior was over the line. Editors who consistently edit war and block/stall consensus should be politely led out of that subject area and encouraged to contribute in places where they can contribute productively. There's only so many times we can say "please don't do that" before we have to acknowledge that the soft touch doesn't always work. Shell ^babelfish 23:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sanction against Tundrabuggy is harsher, and more unilateral, than what I'd have done. But hey, I stopped bothering after I openly displayed my strident anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian bias. Whatever. Within the spectrum of reasonable use of discretionary sanctions. To be honest, some of the behavior on this noticeboard thread is actually much more troubling and sanction-worthy than anything from Cerejota or Tundrabuggy. MastCell ^Talk 00:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda agree with the last sentence. I'm logging out till tomorrow, so everyone can party on without me :-)--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, MastCell. Missed that, looks like quite the party. Avruch^T 00:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After having reviewed more of the background, I support the ban. It is stronger than I might have issued, especially without a more timely warning, but it is indeed within the scope of allowable sanctions. --El on ka 02:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hang on, "Possibly ban Tundrabuggy and Cerejota from removing or reincluding images on this article for a month?". That would simply be wrong. Cerejota simply reinserted images removed by Tundrabuggy and me (violating WP:POINT on my part) so if you are going to ban anyone for a month it should be Tundrabuggy and me. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Here's a diff showing Tundrabuggy removing an image.

2. Here's a diff showing me violatibg WP:POINT.

3. Here are exhibit A and exhibit B showing Cerejota fixing both edits.

I rest my case. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well surprise surprise -- a one month ban without even having had a warning or a chance to defend myself in this discussion! How very fair of everybody. I will only say that I am sure that those who support the ban could not have followed this article very well. I have made my case over and over on the talk pages, on ANI boards etc. There was no consensus to add the pictures. The pictures were POV and unbalanced in the article. I was one of many who thought so. I would just ask the banners here one question. Why is it acceptable to leave pictures in for which there is no consensus? Why is it edit-warring when the pictures are POV and unbalanced and there is no consensus? Why wouldn't the burden be on the people who insist on putting them back in despite consensus? Also, since no warning was necessary since I "should have known," I assume there is now precedent to no longer require a personal warning for anyone, and the policy of warning is no longer in effect? Or am I somehow a "special case?" Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why you'd be angry -- much of the tongue-clucking and head-wagging over your "behavior" comes from editors with a pronounced political slant. It must suck from your point of view, but one can only calmly protest and hope it does some good. IronDuke 02:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks IronDuke, I do appreciate what your support and those of the other editors that have supported me.Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? What's my political slant? I'm curious. Avruch^T 03:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I was speaking of you. But you're welcome to say what it is, if you'd like. IronDuke 03:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]:::Well, Avruch, I do not understand your position in regard to me. Perhaps you would clarify what exactly I did with that article that was so egregious? I would appreciate it. When there is no consensus to add the material, why isn't the burden on those who insist on adding it? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well guess I really am the "special case." As User:PhilKnight did manage to give the appropriate warning to Cerejota, despite the fact that he/she "probably was already aware of it" or some such. [61] Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying problem?

Troubling, as MastCell says? Yes, definitely. Let me repost something I said a while ago in that thread that MastCell referenced, because it's still going on today:

Some editors - who don't by any means represent everyone who shares their POV - are using obnoxious methods to delegitimise and intimidate anyone who disagrees with their views. In particular, critics of their views are tarred as racists and enemies of their side. They go further, by attacking in similar terms anyone who disagrees with their debating or editing tactics. They also behave as a faction, using Wikipedia policies as a club to attack their perceived opponents while minimising policy violations by their perceived friends. They are purposefully trying to create a situation in which Wikipedia's policies and conduct standards aren't applied to them or their faction because admins are too intimidated to intervene.

We've seen this over and over again, and we can see it going on now in this thread. PhilKnight is being attacked for acting against a pro-Israel editor. Over on WP:AN/I at this very moment, other members of the same faction are attacking SheffieldSteel for daring to give a pro-Israel editor a 3RR warning [62]. We've just had a very long and bitter AN/I thread in which pro-Israel editors and pro-Palestinian editors have attacked admins for being either too harsh or too lenient in dealing with transgressors [63]. As usual we have bad-faith pile-ons and false accusations of political motives. This kind of barracking is why admins often steer clear of Israel-Palestine issues, because they know they will be attacked by vindictive partisans. Every thread to do with admin decisions on the topic area seems to turn into a bitter hate-fest that goes on for dozens or hundreds of posts. Who could blame uninvolvd admins for steering clear? Personally I think we need to do some spring cleaning and get rid of the worst partisans on both sides; they're not contributing much that's useful anyway. Arbitration enforcement, IMO, should extend to dealing firmly with editors who consistently disrupt talk threads by behaving like petulant children. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who would be some of the partisans on the pro-Palestinian side you think ought to be gotten "rid of?" IronDuke 02:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the silence is suddenly deafening. But to Chris' point. It would be nice if those admins who don't steer clear of these areas were to actually go in and make a comment or two on the article's talk page so we know he/she is there, or give a warning rather than to suddenly show up and put nasty comments or bans on an editor's page. One wonders just how much real understanding of the situation such an admin really has, or whether he has been recruited by one of the page's partisans. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd be quite happy to nominate myself for the role of one of the apparently "pro-Palestinian" editors to be got rid of if that helps smooth things over. Of course the reality is that it wouldn't change anything. The funny/disturbing thing is that simply attempting to produce Wiki articles that describe the objective reality of Israel-Palestine related issues in a neutral and verifiable way based on reliable sources without censorship is often perceived as pro-Palestinian by many editors. Strange but true. Many editors appear to have malfunctioning intentional stance implementations in their brains and perceive bias everywhere. Consequently, objective reality is apparently biased according to this fatally flawed approach. In that kind of environment consensus becomes meaningless and disruptive violations of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTCENSORED are inevitable. It's similar to the Teach the Controversy, Evolution vs ID issues where many editors (like me) have to spend time firefighting manufactured controversies that have little relation to objective reality. Tundrabuggy, you are a special case in the sense that you have openly stated the political reasons why you object to and remove certain images and the political consequences of including such images from your perspective. You've made your POV quite clear and that's a good thing in my book. However, editing on that basis is inconsistent with what Wiki is trying to do, produce good encyclopedia articles. I personally don't think it merits a ban. It would be better if you simply acknowledged that your political views compromise your approach to editing and try to fix that (...your editing not your political views). Sean.hoyland - talk 05:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking out of your hat. I have said and I stand by the fact that the pictures did not improve the article, but rather made it unbalanced. The fact is that it took FIVE DAYS to reach a stalemate over a supposed picture of a burned baby which was supposed to have been run over by an Israeli tank(!) and those "pro-Palestinian" editors like yourself could see nothing wrong with the fact that they were taken by the International Solidarity (with Palestine) Movement or in putting them into the article. You editors could see nothing wrong with showing the faces of dead children, of bodies piling up at the morgue. The fact is that there were many many other editors who agreed with my position, demonstrating that there was no consensus to add them. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I don't have a hat because it's 34C here right now...oh, I see what you mean. We have already discussed the issue to death and the impressive array of arguments brought to the table, almost all of which were inconsistent with guidelines and what we are supposed to be doing here only provided yet more evidence that some editors simply do not want certain kinds of images in this particular article (in quite stark contrast to other articles). This is apparently the case even when the images come from a reliable source such as Al Jazeera. I, like others have repeatedly tried to use rational arguments to at least attempt to get some kind of agreement, even if just in principal that a minimum set of images that describe the basic key features of this event be included. Apparently even that isn't possible despite suggesting as some kind of concession that we use a 1:1 ratio for images from both belligerents. A consensus is meaningless if the views of editors are inconsistent with guidelines. The reality is that a set of editors are advocating the absence of information. I oppose that and so I will inevitably appear pro-Palestinian to those editors. In actuality my objectives are related to NPOV and opposing censorship. I can assure you that I have very strong partisan views about religion based political movements and people who use violence but that is neither here nor there. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My defense

I realise I am already banned but I still feel I have the right to make my case, so here goes. On the 20th Cerejota took this to the EditWar board: ("Contiguous edits count as one, so no vio".) [64]. This led to a note on the article talk page from the admin, William M Connolley [65]. "The edit warring about pictures made it to WP:AN3. Now that the rather emotive destroyed-Israeli-house pic is removed from the intro the article seems vaguely balanced, and I think emotive pix should stay *out* until there is a clear conclusion to the pix discussion above. The current state looks plausible to me. Further edit warring to include them, before the discussion is concluded, will be looked upon unfavourably. William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)"

Since then, the 20th:

[66] 21:00, 20 January 2009 Cdogsimmons (Talk | contribs) (137,941 bytes) (?Gazans: restored picture, based in part on talk page discussion, that was previously removed by Tundrabuggy) (undo)

[67] 17:55, 23 January 2009 John Hyams (Talk | contribs) (133,525 bytes) (?Casualties: Removing identifyable girl's face per discussion on talk page) (undo)

[68] 21:24, 23 January 2009 Cdogsimmons (Talk | contribs) (133,456 bytes) (Undid revision 266026666 by John Hyams (talk) If anything, there is consensus to keep the girl's image. Not remove it.) (undo)

[69] 16:27, 24 January 2009 Oren0 (Talk | contribs) (133,292 bytes) (?Casualties: re-remove dead girl photo, per discussion on talk. This doesn't serve any encyclopedic purpose) (undo)

[70] 15:02, 24 January 2009 Brunte (Talk | contribs) (133,307 bytes) (Restore DeadGazagirlcloseday14.JPG) (undo)

[71] 15:09, 25 January 2009 Tomtom (Talk | contribs) m (136,432 bytes) (?Incidents) (undo) Remove

[72] 16:38, 25 January 2009 Cdogsimmons (Talk | contribs) (136,080 bytes) (Undid revision 266206061 by Oren0 (talk) re-re-restored picture of dead girl removed by Oreno. No consenus on talk page for its removal.) (undo)

[73] 20:02, 25 January 2009 Tundrabuggy (Talk | contribs) (139,411 bytes) (?Casualties: Removing image on the grounds that there is NO consensus on the talk page to include it, AND that it violates Undue#Balance) (undo)

[74] 22:02, 25 January 2009 Timeshifter (Talk | contribs) (139,770 bytes) (?Casualties: Gallery. Wikipedia is not censored. WP:CENSOR) (undo) (TimeShifter adds 4-5 photos)

[75] 23:38, 25 January 2009 Cerejota (Talk | contribs) (140,606 bytes) (?Casualties: I dislike galleries, and I removed the wounded child picture as overkill, pun not intended) (undo) -- (removed one picture changed the pictures around)

[76] 17:22, 26 January 2009 Tomtom (Talk | contribs) (141,090 bytes) (?Gaza strip: Removed pics of dead girl) (undo)

[77] 17:47, 26 January 2009 Cdogsimmons (Talk | contribs) (141,046 bytes) (Undid revision 266646493 by Tomtom (talk) Please see the talk page. There is consensus for keeping this picture.) (undo)

For an earlier list see [78]

Perhaps PhilKnight and those who chose to ban me for a month will explain a bit more clearly what it was about my revert that they found so egregious? Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to edit warring over the images of fatalities, you have also edit warred over the white phosphorus issue. You aren't banned from the talk page, and I suggest you help to build consensus on these and other contentious issues. PhilKnight (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2009 (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:O Fenian

O Fenian (talk · contribs) is removing sourced material from Chronology of Continuity IRA actions. This article comes under the The Troubles Arbcom ruling. All of the material is sourced. O Fenian maintains that because some of the sources do not state dates, all of the material for each entry should be removed - rather than letting a fact or cn or even a refimprove template stand for a while so that better sources can be found. Note that many of the current sources are eminently reliable, such as the BBC and the Independent Monitoring Commission. Similarly, rather than amend an entry that had said someone was arrested and charged, he is removing it rather than correcting it to match the source (the Irish Times newspaper), which states the person was sentenced. I warned him about breaching 3rr, sought an administrator's input then remembered this Arbcom and posted about it, saying the article was actually under 1RR - and O Fenian reverted again. I concede his point about some of the sources where material has been removed (dead link, internet forum), but the BBC, Irish Times and Independent Monitoring Commission are pretty reliable. I do suggest that the material be restored with appropriate tags where necessary so interested editors can at least see there is a challenge to the dates and can see if there are additional sources. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 02:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am removing unsourced or improperly sourced information from the article. Bastun points out the BBC are reliable, well yes they are. However the only time the BBC are cited in the information I removed is in this addition;

"9 January 2009 The CIRA issued a statement threatening to shoot drug dealers who were using their groups name as a cover for criminal activity. In the statement they said "Following investigations into drug dealing and allegations of CIRA involvement into activities in Belfast it has come to our attention that some individuals are using the name CIRA to engage in drug dealing activities". Five days later a man was shot in a paramilitary style attack in west Belfast." It is sourced by the BBC and undated link.

I have asked multiple times on the talk page for Bastun to reply to my questions, one of which includes "The BBC article says nothing about the CIRA, so who says it is connected to their statement?" and have received no reply other than the false assertion he has answered the question. Check the BBC article for yourself, it does not mention the Continuity IRA, it does not mention drug dealing, and tellingly it says "They added that a motive for the shooting had yet to be established and that there were no further details at present". So why is Bastun so intent on adding it back to the article to imply a connection between that and the CIRA's statement? That is just one of a number of problems with the material. I have attempted repeatedly to discuss the problems with his edits with him, and received nothing but evasion in response. O Fenian (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bastun, you really didn't explain why the Trouble's ruling would be applicable here. This seems like a content dispute that should be handled through dispute resolution. Shell ^babelfish 03:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The remedy applies to: "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related." The Continuity IRA is a splinter group of the Provisional IRA, one of the main protagonists in the Troubles.

What's the guideline for content disputes - revert then discuss? I tried that, and got accused of making a "disgusting revert" and was told never to revert him again. I have answered O Fenian's questions, but even accepting that the references need improvement and including a "refimprove" tag, I get reverted. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I have answered O Fenian's questions". Can anyone see where on the talk page or here Bastun has answered questions 2, 3, 4 and 7? This constant evasion and false assertions about having answered the questions are very tedious. O Fenian (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside you're both over the 1RR rule for Toubles related articles. --Blowdart | ^talk 12:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I'd completely forgotten about the 1RR, and when reminded of it, [it out on the talk page]. O Fenian then went ahead and reverted anyway, ignoring my suggestion of getting a third opinion. Thanks for your participation in the talk page. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh on all counts. Bastun, O Fenian: WP:3. Looking deeper into it, but this is getting irritating.--Tznkai (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quickly running out of good ideas here, so this is what I'm proposing: Bastun and O Fenian are topic banned from anything related to Ireland until they've made fifty edits doing something else.--Tznkai (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, after I've spent 10 mins on 'recent changes patrol', I'm good to go... (By the way, is that Ireland or Ireland? ;-) ) Blowdart has acted as WP:3, his suggestions seem to work for both O Fenian and me. Think this can be closed. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Momento at Prem Rawat (continued)

Less than a week ago Momento (talk · contribs) was warned on this page "that, if he continues to edit-war in order to resolve [...] issues [regarding the Prem Rawat article], instead of requesting appropriate intervention, he may also be sanctioned" [79]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To add to the problems with this article, it would appear that some editors are logging out to make reverts.[80][81] (and from the other day [82]). Will Beback talk 21:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

We don't need any more evidence or another neutral review Durova, anyone can see that I made three edits in 24 hours as did Cla68, WilBeBack, Rumiton and Pongostick. What separates me from these other editors (and the 6 other people who have edited this article in the last 24 hours) is that FrancisSchonken and WillBeBack's claim that my last two edits equal an "edit war". Since one was to remove an undiscussed and inappropriate addition to the article, the only question is why are you and the other admins allowing this witch hunt to go on? No one complains that Cla68 was naughty to add material without discussion, no one complains that Cla68, Rumiton, Pongostic and WillBeBack made 3 edits in 24 hours, no one even cares that the first sentence now has a redundant comma! No, hold on a minute, I care. And I'm going to remove it [83]. Is this what you mean by "unlimited reverts"?Momento (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks just like a day's Rawat editing to me, with Momento on 2RR [84][85] Will on 2RR [86][87], Pongostick on 4RR [88][89][90][91], Surdas on 3RR [92][93][94], and two IP reverts. By all means run checkusers. Now of course you might ask, why is it that Momento is dragged here with his two reverts, rather than Surdas or Pongostick, or indeed Will? And if anyone still cares about writing an encyclopedia rather than counting reverts and hoping for the AE post that will finally get rid of the hated opponent: It's nonsense to say "Prem Rawat, also known as Balyogeshwar". Bal is Hindi for "baby" or "kid". It's a name Rawat had when he was six, and it meant "the kid master yogi". We've discussed that a number of times before as well. It's like saying "Bill Clinton, also known as Little Billy." If there's still people who don't get it, and insist on reverting that back in, it's not for lack of being told. I am tempted to say lock the article or topic-ban the lot of them for a week. Jayen466 02:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WillBeBack's comment above is a complete lie. Cla68 is the editor who "instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable" when he changed the lead that had been stable for months to put it in the present tense.[95]. By changing the tense, which I agree with, he wrote that PR is a guru, which is not true. The article and every scholar on the subject says PR dropped the tiitle "Guru" and almost divine status in the early 80s. Rumiton reverted the error [96]. Cla68 then made an edit to say PR is a "spiritual leader", which is not great [97]. And then added "Lord of the Universe" as a current name for PR, without discussion, which is completely untrue [98]. I then made my first edit of the day, removing the "LOTU" and "Balyogeshwar" titles that are not current names.[99]. Then followed a dozen edits whilst people tried to get the best wording for who PR is - "philanthropist, teacher, teacher of meditation" etc but not "guru, LOTU or Balyogeshwar". During this WillBeBack reverted once, claiming to "restore names that have been discussed extensively", which is a complete lie since "LOTU" was a new addition less than 24 hours old, had not be discussed extensively and is not a title by which Rawat is currently known. [100] The "LOTU" inclusion was removed by Rumiton [101]. And then reinserted by a new editor Surdas. [102]. Removed by Pongostick [103] and then reverted by WillBeBack to include "LOTU" with the dishonest edit summary "undiscussed deletion of sourced, discussed material" since the "LOTU" title was not discussed. Pongstick reverted, Surdas reinserted "LOTU". [104] I made my second edit of the day and removed "LOTU" [105] and then another edit to remove "Balyogeshwar" because the sentence, now in the present tense for the last dozen edits, required that an old title from the 70s wasn't appropriate for the present.[106] My editing in the 24 hour was based purely on Cla68's correct suggestion that the first sentence of the lead should state who PR is not what PR was. That suggestion has been accepted and still holds 20 edits later, the "LOTU" title has also been dropped and "Balyogeshwar" remains even though the source for it was written more than 30 years ago. It is a complete disgrace that admins who have read this complaint and followed the diffs haven't thrown this "complaint" back to FraqncisSchonken with a warning to stop harassing me. [WP:HA] WillBeBack should also be warned, his gross distortion of the facts above to try to paint me as the person who "instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable", demand it.Momento (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

- - Will, as far as I can see, Momento's first removal of the Balyogeshwar name at 10:44, 26 January 2009, as diffed in the filing above, was not even a revert. The name had been there for months. Its removal became necessary because of Cla68's sensible edit changing the first sentence to present tense: [107]. The old wording, "Prem Rawat, also known as Balyogeshwar ... became guru at age 8 ..." had long enjoyed broad acceptance by all, including Momento, because Rawat was called Balyogeshwar at the time he became guru. Once Cla68 changed it to present tense, "Prem Rawat, also known as Balyogeshwar ... is a spiritual leader based in California" [108], the childhood name no longer fitted. Rawat is no longer known as Balyogeshwar, and has not been for decades. That's what Momento fixed. So now Momento's two reverts, inasmuch as they relate to the Balyogeshwar name, are actually one. That gives you one more revert than Momento [109][110] – and they are proper reverts, making the same change twice and undoing, rather than building on what another editor had just done – and you are just as aware of the strictures against edit-warring, just having reminded Momento of them. ;-) So let's remember WP:KETTLE and stop this. I suggest we return the article to strict 1RR rules; I seem to remember that worked quite well last year (once we had defined exactly what it meant). Jayen466 19:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't recall anyone discussing these deletions before making them. The fact that an uninvolved editor drops in and changes the tense of a single word doesn't mean that we should re-write stable, relevant, sourced text to accomodate his change. The names could have just as easily be kept by splitting the sentence or other minor changes. For reasons that I don't entirely understand, Momento and other pro-Rawat editors have objected to including his alternate names, and it's pretty clear that Cla68's minor change was used as a pretext for deleting them. This issue does not involve any violation of BLP or other extenuating circumstances to excuse the edit warring that did occur. Momento knew he was making a controversial edit. He didn't discuss it and then he restored it, still without discussion. On a topic like this, already under probation, editors should seek consensus or at least give a thorough discussion before upsetting the apple cart. Constantly re-fighting settled issues is tendentious editing. 1RR can't work in an environment where brand new accounts and IPs appear out of nowhere to further edit wars started by established editors. I don't see any admins stepping up to handle the violations by Pongostick, so perhaps this case needs to go back to the ArbCom to get enforceable remedies. Will Beback talk 19:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Taking a more charitable view, one could also concede that the appellation "boy yogi" (which is what balyogeshwar means) is not very appropriate for someone in his fifties, especially when the text has been changed to imply that that is what he is called today. As for your point about 1RR, I'd suggest it is still worth giving a try. At any rate, my impression is that new editors are popping up on both sides of the debate, and 1RR would force people to talk and work out agreements. (Here's hoping!) Jayen466 19:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I don't concede that we should delete things from biographies just because they happened decades ago. The text that implied he was being called that today should have been changed rather than deleting the relevant, sourced text. If a random editor visited Jimmy Carter and changed "is a former U.S. President and peacemaker" to "is a U.S. President and peacemaker" then we wouldn't delete the presidency even though it was almost 30 years ago. We'd adjust the grammar instead. As for 1RR, it didn't work before so I don't know why you think it would work now. 3RR isn't even being enforced, despite the ArbCom probation. What would work is if editors treat this as a controversial topic and use the talk page to seek consensus before making significant changes. Do you object to that? Will Beback talk 20:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        [111] Hope that will do it for anyone. If not, then let's have any further discussion on where and how to mention the Balyogeshwar name on Talk:Prem_Rawat, please. Jayen466 00:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Anyone who wants to make any significant change to the article, especially to material that has already been discussed, should first discuss it on the article talk page. There's no excuse for starting these edit conflicts. Will Beback talk 01:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        PS: Jayen, thanks for drafting that version, which is close to the status quo ante. It's fine with me. Will Beback talk 08:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Can't agree with Jayen's edits shown in the diff above ([112]). It is just continuing the edit-warring. Sorry, Will, can't agree with you, these edits are not "fine with me", neither are they close enough to the status quo ante to be even near to acceptable. They are just Jayen showing off disruptive behaviour. The talk page discussion I linked to above (TWICE already, and here for the third time shows external links, AS SAID ABOVE to "readily available sources, including new publications, from US university presses", in other words scholarly publications, from English-speaking countries, published when Rawat was about 40 years old, *still* preferring Balyogeshwar as name for the subject. It shows Jayen (as well as Will, as other participants for that matter) ignoring what others have to say, and certainly not finding any time to look at a previous discussion or external links contained therein before feverishly proposing and implementing new solutions.
        Really, this has to stop. I reiterate: Jayen has been disruptive while (1) being tendentious and incorrect on the level of content preferring a quick original research over careful perusal of sources, and (2) tendentious and showing favouritism on the level of behaviour. His way of ignoring other peoples comments and links is taking near proverbial dimensions. (as he recently did in the WT:NPOV discussion finally admitting "Having now read [XYZ] – which I failed to do at the time). Seems like for Jayen it's WP:TLDR too often, typing faster than reading previous discussion and external references. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Francis, this revert, while you clearly believe it to be right, is against the consensus expressed here and on the talk page, which is that this version is not good. Concerning the question whether Balyogeshwar is a honorific, see [113]. It is from the Encyclopaedia Indica, it is written by an Indian, and it states that he received the appellations "Balyogeshwar" and "Guru Maharaj Ji" when he took over as guru from his father. It was not a name given at birth, and was not bestowed for any other reason. As for recent books using Balyogeshwar, your 1992 source is a revised version of a book first published in 1977, as has been pointed out before. It uses seventies' language throughout. I'd also like to add that American scholars are not the most reliable sources when it comes to telling apart Indian names and honorifics. David G. Bromley and Anson Shupe, bless them, writing in 1981 (Strange Gods, pp. 44–45), apparently thought that "Ji" was Rawat's surname, and wrote things like, "Since Ji had earler ...", "At one point, Ji was ..." "Ji" means "Mr." or "Dear Sir". So much for the reliability of world-class US scholars on Indian names. Jayen466 12:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Jayen, you provide diffs and external links: none bear out the claims you make, unless with an unacceptable dose of OR. Here's the catch: for everyone else you want to make the NOR policy more stringent, and you often enough point out that for BLPs core content policies (...like WP:NOR) need to be interpreted stricter than on average... That's what I call your profound ambiguity.
        This is an ownership thing maybe: using all available means to have "pro" people take ownership of Rawat-related articles (comparable to what is being discussed re. Scientology articles), and then incoherences in interpretation and pushing of policy don't matter.
        Like I've said before: my recommendation to you is that you continue to engage yourself in the Scientology RfAr (you're deeply involved anyway) until it has come to its conclusion, before taking unilateral action in the sense of pushing policy change or change encyclopedia content contrary to current policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It is correct that I am arguing in the direction of ownership by "pro" people in the case of Scientology articles, because they have long been firmly in the hands of passionate and committed opponents of Scientology, to the detriment of article quality and sourcing standards (read the evidence page if you haven't done so already). I am also resisting attempts to eliminate pro people from the Rawat articles like this present effort, based on ganging up on them and hauling them to AE when they sneeze, while other people do the same and worse and no one comments. This is not quite the same as arguing for ownership by pro people.
        As for your other points, I am not aware of trying to "change content contrary to current policy." If you have a problem with a specific edit of mine, kindly let me know on my talk page, or the article talk page. Lastly, the Scientology RfAR has been quiet for most of this month, and it may take months to come to any conclusion. I believe I am quite within my rights to voice my opinion on policy talk pages in the meantime. If there is a policy or guideline that says that people involved in arbitration should not initiate or participate in any such discussions, then please point me to it; if it is only your opinion that I should not comment, then it is noted as such. Cheers, Jayen466 13:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        If all Momento did was 1 revert, then I'm not sure if it's serious enough for a block, in spite of the previous warning. I did, in fact, add Lord of the Universe to the lead without discussion (it was based on the Register article which stated that Rawat is also known by this title), so I don't think it necessarily improper for someone to remove that and ask for further discussion first. Cla68 (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No offense, but I think you're right that you "started" this, so to speak, even if with the best of intentions. Technically, the article probation applies to all editors but new or occasional editors can't be expected to know that. This topic has so many contentious issues that it is like a minefield. As my high school physics teacher liked to say in similar circumstances, "your punishment is 50 lashes with a wet noodle." Just don't do it again. ;) Will Beback talk 08:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, after searching the web, it doesn't look like there's too much out there in reliable sources to use to improve the article, so we're left with making sure what's there is as encyclopedic as possible. The omission of what Rawat currently is from the intro was glaring, and hopefully now has been fixed. It seems that what the current editors of that and related articles, besides yourself, are working on right now is trying to message the wording as much as possible to their POV. In my opinion, all of this fighting over articles that probably contain as much information as is already available until something else gets published in the future is a waste of time for everyone involved. I would suggest topic banning all of the clearly pro and anti- Rawat editors from all these articles and calling it a day. Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense!!!! This is hilarious. It's taken you days to figure out what every conscious editor knew from the start. I spelled it out for you 30 edits ago.[114] "Wet noodle"? You should resign as an admin and FrancisSchonken should be topic banned 6 months.Momento (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi sent me an odd email last night (quite surprising) in which he both admitted that I was the proximate cause of his retirement, and acted offended. So setting the record straight. On 22 January at AE I defended Jossi against an unsubstantiated attack on his character,[115] then did likewise when someone posted a corresponding attack from the other side.[116] In the current dispute, going to mediation or a content request for comment would be a very good idea on all sides. Yet one specific party was warned for edit warring very recently. So particular attention there may be appropriate. Any Wikipedian whose neutrality may be challenged ought to disclose it proactively when weighing in at AE. Walking the walk there, and anyone who may have been contacted via backchannels about it is welcome to get both sides of the story. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Durova^Charge! 17:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Perhaps we should have a look through Durova's evidence to see how well it stands up to scrutiny. I have not clicked through all the diffs. But edits like this [117], given as examples of Jossi's wrongdoings, or Durova's entire argumentation in this section, don't convince me at all. Jayen466 14:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

I don't believe Rumiton is erring, nor do I think he has attacked you. [118] Jayen466 12:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The only problem is some Admins are reluctant to apply the remedies. Last week Nik Wright2 made a dishonest complaint against me and FrancisSchonken and WillBeBack vigorously supported it. The remedy applied by Sandstein and backed by PhilNight was that Nik Wright2 was topic banned for one month and I was warned not to edit war to solve similar problems. [119] A few days passed and FrancisSchonken made this complaint about me and WillBeBack has supported it to the extent of falsifying the editing. He has said I deserve "blame in this matter in that Momento instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable. And then Momento proceeded to edit war over it". [120] In fact, it was Cla68 who "instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable".[121][122] And Cla68 belatedly confirms it here. [123] And it was WillBeBack who indulged in the "edit war". [124][125] WillBeBack's response to Cla68's belated admission is that he should be "lashed with a wet noodle". "Wet noodle" for Cla68 for "instigating changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable"? An Arbcom complaint for me for, and I'll let Cla68 say it, "If all Momento did was 1 revert, then I'm not sure if it's serious enough for a block, in spite of the previous warning". You're right Cla68, the revert isn't serious. What is very serious is the long term and persistent harassment of another editor (me) by FrancisSchonken [126] and WillBeBack. FrancisSchonken needs to be topic banned from Prem Rawat and associated articles for six months (he made this absurd complaint after Nik Wright received a one month ban for the same behaviour). In May last year after another FrancisSchonken/ WillBeBack harassment I wrote "I don't deserve to be blocked, I deserve to be protected". [127] WillBeBack needs to be stripped of his admin status. If a Wikipedia admin is allowed to indulge in this sort of behaviour despite previous complaints and appeals for help, heaven help Wikipedia.Momento (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It is true that you deleted the sourced name "Balyogeshwar" and inserted the unsourced occupation "philanthropist" without ever discussing those changes.[128] It is also true that you deleted the name a second time after it was restored. Will Beback talk 23:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Here's where you added it. [129] Here's what WP:CS says "Sources should be cited when adding material to the biography of a living person". Do you see a cite for your addition? I don't. And here's what WP:RS says "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page".Momento (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I still have several problems.

The Register is not just a questionable reliability source, it is a source whose aims are directly opposed to those of Wikipedia. It is an act of gross disrespect by one editor to have included a quote from it in the first place, and of disingenuous partisanship on the part of others when they did not immediately revert it.
Momento has been treated in a most discriminatory way here, and so far no one has acknowledged it. He did not edit war initially, as removing a defamatory link from a BLP is to be recommended. He was chastised for doing it himself, rather than asking for wider community assistance. I believe he accepts that.
We tried for mediation last August, but contrary to Francis Schonken's recollection above, the attempt was torpedoed by him. See [130]

This is what the mediator said in closing:

== Case closed ==

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

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

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

Good luck in your future attempts at discussing your differences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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 14: / Line 14: @@
 Ferrylodge has been giving me a headache on [[Talk:Abortion]], so I'm too close to this to have anything resembling a reasonable perspective. Could someone review Ferrylodge's (and my) edits on [[Talk:Abortion]] to see if he's out of line in a way that would trigger restrictions?--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 20:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
+::There was a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FFerrylodge_.28April_2008.29 Request to Amend] the restrictions to extend them from article space to talk space.  The request was rejected.  Even if the request had not been rejected, I would not think anything I said at the pertinent talk page today was disruptive, unless you consider opposing blatant and politically motivated cesnorship disruptive.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 21:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 == Ohconfucius/Date delinker ==