From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Breeching sanctions[edit]

The following discussion 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 talk: has been given notice of the 1RR and has too decided to ignore the advice offered. Suggestions welcome. --Domer48'fenian' 12:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If this is somebody logging out, you need to gather evidence as to who it might be and file a WP:SPI report. If it is just a transitory IP, it probably isn't worth much effort as they'll be on a new IP already. Jehochman Talk 02:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Breach of Sanctions[edit]

The following discussion 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.

The editor has been notified of the 1RR on Troubles related articles. Having been ask to self revert, to rectify breech they indicated they would not. I attempted further prompting but to no avail. It is clear they understood the actions they were taken, and removed the discussion. I declined to report on this occasion because of timely Admin intervention, hoping this would deescalate the situation.

Despite the above, they have continued to revert edits while at the same time ignoring talk page discussions, and when they do, ignore any and all points raised. While this is a problem, it can be overcome but canvassing and incivility should be checked. They have now indicated that they have no intension of abiding by AE, today and prompted this report.

I don’t think it is simply coincidence then that they showed up on this article, and continued in the same vain, [1], [2], [3], and ignoring all discussion and detailed rational.

They have in addition now started here also.--Domer48'fenian' 11:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Was already looking at this. Jdorney blocked for 24 hours. I protected the article for a day in case anyone else was tempted to overstep 1RR. Black Kite 11:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I was going to file a report on this editor until the ultimatum I read in this edit summary. --Domer48'fenian' 11:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Block noted here [4]. Yes, I saw the above link. Clearly this is an initial block; further problems will be met by longer ones. Black Kite 11:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have given a brief outline of some of the results of this editors blind reverts on the article talk page. I’m not asking Admin’s for comments on content just the continued breech of sanctions. They have clearly indicated that they continue to edit war and breech sanctions despite been blocked for this yesterday. They have carried this type of conduct to two additional articles now following the same pattern, refusing to use the talk pages and blind reverts as witnessed here and here. I have used the talk pages here and here but have just been ignored. Only today I fixed the incorrect page numbers and added text, only to have it all blindly reverted.--Domer48'fenian' 13:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Could I ask that editors check out Domer's record, including his editing and his debating on this page before they make any decisions? I have edited WP for almost four years and have never been banned before. But neither have I ever met an editor as unwilling to debate or achieve consensus before. If you look at my record you'll find I have always tried to get consensus and have not been engaging in edit warring. However with this particular user there has been no response whatsoever except to constantly cite rules at me in order to 'win the revert war' as he puts it on his talk page. This user does not seem to do anything else other than push some sort of Irish republican viewpoint on wp. I've reverted my revert for now. Pending the views of neutral editors. Thanks. Jdorney (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

My record has been well checked out, and my editing on Dunmanway Massacre and its talk page is also been viewed. I've also reviewed your editing and was struck by one thing, your complete lack of referencing. You just don't use them, and when you do, its internet sites. On Troubles related topics we insist on referencing and sourcing as anyone on AE can tell you. I can be a real ball breaker on referencing and it has been pointed to in the past. What I can't stand is POV editors full of opinions and short on supporting references. Editors who distort sources really get up my nose. Editors who use incivility to cover for there lack of references is also a pet hate of mine. But what really gets up my nose is editors who come here spout off and offer nothing to back up their accusations. Do you think Admin's will just take your or my comments a face value, they may in the past but not now. A bit of advice, if your caught here making unfound accusations you'll end up with your ass in a sling. On a positive note, thanks for reverting yourself, that will at least help. --Domer48'fenian' 21:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I am quite aware of the past records of all of the regular editors of Troubles articles, but in this case that is irrelevant; 1RR is a clear bright line on this subject, and so unfortunately the 24h block had to be applied. Black Kite 16:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks User talk:Black Kite for pointing out that my record is irrelevant in this case, editors having to raise my record as mitigation for their actions does shine a clear bright line on this subject. If I could ask just one thing of AE it would be to endorse Alison and her comments here. If editors get accused of stuff Admin’s want to see some evidence and, yeah, diff’s would help a lot. Editors need to get treated fairly in whatever's going on. I hope you agree that it sound reasonable. So for example, above I’m being accused of advocating that we cite rules in order to 'win the revert war’ on my talk page, that I’m unwilling to debate or achieve consensus and that I don’t do anything else other than push some sort of Irish republican viewpoint on wp. So just to illustrate my point I picked this short exchange here if you wish look. I address each point raised and support it with diff’s. I request the same, on two occasions and got the response “, I'm not going to prepare an idiot proof version of the talk page for you." So Admin’s have a choice, dismiss this as a content dispute or address the issues of editor’s conduct and accusations. Personally I couldn’t care less as I’ve a healthy disregard for AE and a block log to back it up, the last being the icing on the cake. Now having insured that I don’t endear myself to anyone here I’d really like the accusations to stop, or at least supported. Other than that, I'm happy to have this discussion closed. --Domer48'fenian' 20:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need for further action here. Jehochman Talk 02:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Momento at Prem Rawat (continued, again)[edit]

The following discussion 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.

  • (Momento removing Balyogeshwar from the lead again:) 01:27, 7 February 2009
  • With these reactions at the talk page:
    • (Msalt:) "The RfC process has been followed scrupulously, and the strong support is for keeping Balyogeshwar in the lead as an alternate name for Rawat. This endless rehashing by two editors with strong biases on the subject is not worth the time Will has been giving it. Balyogeshwar is a notable name of Rawat's. Consensus is not violated by the obsession of one or two editors. Move on." [5] (PS: "two editors" - Msalt probably intends Momento and Rumiton)
    • (Will Beback:) "Momento has once again deleted Balyogeshwar from the article, with the edit summary: Balyogeshwar removed to childhood section as per talk.[6] "Per talk" implies some kind of agreement. There's no agreement here to delete it from the lead. We had an RfC and the outside viewpoints endorsed keeping it. We referenced the guidelines that endorsed including it. This is really outrageous and contrary to Wikipedia editing practices. I strongly protest." [7]
    • (Momento:) "The RFC was dishonestly framed. "It (Balyogeshwar) was NOT primarily used at a time when he achieved great fame in the West as a child-guru". When he achieved great fame in the West as a child-guru", he was known exclusively as "Guru Mahara Ji". But since all that occurred we have an authoritative new source that gives a definitive view of Rawat's names and titles which supersedes previous ambiguous sources." [8]
    • (Sylviecyn:) "I object to the name Balyogeswar and Sant Ji being removed from he lead without consensus. This issue is not resolved. "Maharaji" isn't a name either, shall we discuss removing that too?"
  • As before, the relevant ArbCom remedies are Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Remedies from the Prem Rawat RfAr page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Francis, to be perfectly honest, I'm considering whether I should give you a short block for making so many reports against Momento that it approaches harassment. PhilKnight (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
That was my first thought as well Phil. Francis, we get it, the two of you (and various others) have a dispute over the content - Work. It. Out.. Its either that or stop editing the darn article - this constant running here for every edit someone doesn't like is wearing on everyone's patience. Shell babelfish 16:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

While Francis is correct that Momento's behavior is inappropriate, it is also true that this issue is facing WP:AE overload. I've asked Momento to participate in mediation over this issue and he's agreed. Therefore I ask Francis to withdraw this complaint in the hope that this can be settled another way. To Shell, I'd point out the that whole reason editors went to the ArbCom and why they placed the topic on probation is that the issues can't be worked out. I think that this remedy was a mistake and that the ArbCom just passed the buck, so to speak. Maybe the AE RfC will find a solution to that larger problem.   Will Beback  talk  17:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Please don't go telling people to "just work it out," or you're going to block them! That's ridiculous. This article is under ARBCOM probation. Francis is frustrated like everyone else over at the Rawat article, who has to deal with this nonsense. Besides, the problem isn't just between Francis and Momento. Momento has a long-standing editing behavior of discussing an issue (that usually has already been discussed in the near and distant past -- the archives are filled with the same old discussions about the same things, over and over and over), then Momento unilaterally declares that the subject "is closed and consensed" and he goes ahead and he makes an edit according to his own POV. Do something, instead of shooting the messenger! Sylviecyn (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Except Francis isn't just the messenger, - AE is not dispute resolution, there's no reason that this should come back here over one edit just days after another item was closed with no action. And I didn't suggest blocking anyone, I suggested that folks who can't resolve their differences amicably might want to consider editing something (anything) else on Wikipedia.
At this point, it sounds like Will's suggestion of mediation is appropriate but if this keeps coming back here we'll need to start thinking about who should be included in an article ban. Shell babelfish 18:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The general problem is that, by placing the article under probation, the ArbCom basically designated this noticeboard as the primary place to deal with disruptive edits. AE is the enforcement arm of the ArbCom. It has said that edit warring should result in actions. So if there is edit warring, this is the place to complain about it. I think it is very inappropriate to threaten editors who bring complaints here with banning. Posting a few threads isn't an abuse of process. Anyone who frequents this page knows that there are a handful of topics that keep re-appearing - Prem Rawat, the Troubles, Balkan politics, etc. It's natural for folks here to get tired of seeing the same editors and issues coming back again and again. But, at least in this case, the ArbCom chose not to settle any of the issues on their own and didn't give editors any other avenues for dealing with conflicts. Following the Prem Rawat RfAr, all of the editors engaged in a massive informal mediation with user:Steve Crossin. While largely successful it didn't resolve all conflicts (and some seemingly resolved disputes have come up again). Hopefully, formal mediation will succeed where tens of thousands of words of talk page discussion, informal mediation, and an RfC have failed. But if not then this board, or the ArbCom itself, are the only venues we have for enforcing the probation.   Will Beback  talk  20:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but Francis needs to grasp that continuously making unactionable reports about Momento isn't acceptable. At the moment, if I was going to enforce the probation, I would be applying more severe sanctions against Francis than Momento. PhilKnight (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that the complaint is about something "unactionable" - making a contentious edit without consensus and in contradiction to an RfC is disruptive editing and an actionable violation of the probation. While the ArbCom also prohibited incivility, filing even an insufficient complaint isn't normally viewed as incivility. So far as I can tell, this is the fourth complaint that Francis has started here, including two in May 2008 [9][10] and one in January 2009.[11] Both of the May complaints resulted in blocks of Momento, so they weren't unactionable. Ignoring disruptive editing while blocking those who point to it doesn't seem consistent with the ArbCom's remedy in this case. If abuse of this noticebaord becomes a problem then the most appropriate remedy would be a temporary ban from posting here.   Will Beback  talk  21:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The single revert complained about here is not really actionable, IMHO, but if it can be shown (as has not been the case here so far) that this revert is part of a longterm pattern of misconduct, it certainly is actionable. But, frankly, I think that a one-month topic ban on both Momento and Francis Schonken (himself apparently no stranger to reverts on that page) might be a more expedient way to cool the issue down.  Sandstein  21:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting dilemna. It's a single edit because no one wants to engage in an edit war to restore it. The last edit war started with a single edit by Momento to remove the same information. So if other editors do nothing then it's not actionable, but if they restore the deleted material then they are part of the problem. What's the solution? Do we allow a single-purpose editor with a conflict of interest to make whatever edits he likes despite Wikipedia' policies, guidelines, RfCs, and the ArbCom's probation?
As for a pattern of misbehavior regarding this particular bit of information, I'm searching for the previous deletions but de/wikiblame.php isn't working correctly. (I've put a note on the creator's talk page about it.) I'm checking "by hand" and so far I've found that this is the fifth time the editor has removed the material in the prior 12 months.[12][13][14][15][16] The last time he deleted it he said in his edit summary "per talk", which generally means "by agreement" in my experience. If that's what he meant then it was misleading as there is no consensus for its removal and the outside editors on the recent RfC explicitly endorsed its retention. In addition, during the last edit warring over this information two new accounts appeared to delete it as well,[17][18] leading to a possible conclusion that meat/sock puppets are involved.   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Couple of points here: Will, FrancisSchonken opened the last thread here over the same issue which was closed less than 24 hours when this one was opened. In my opinion, this was a bit much. Also, I wasn't in any way suggesting that reverting should be tolerated regardless of who's doing it, which is why I suggested discussion about which editors should be involved if article bans are needed. Sandstein, you seem to have been following this a bit more closely so while I know the history and can take a look at what's been going on at the article, I'd be inclined to follow your lead as far as where sanctions should head at this time. I think its becoming clear though that needs to either be some relief to help settle the atmosphere at the article or this needs to head back to ArbCom to give them another shot at fixing it. Shell babelfish 02:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Another way of looking at it is that only about 14 hours after one complaint about deleting a sourced piece of information was dismissed, the same user removed the same information again. As for Francis, I don't think that this AE posting was the ideal way of handling the situation, but I think we'd all agree that it's better than engaging in an edit war over the disputed material. There aren't that many steps left in DR to pursue.   Will Beback  talk  06:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
As you can see FrancisSchonken and WillBeBack are relentless in their harassment. Today's complaint relates to me altering the lead to reflect an authoritative new source that has appeared and has been linked and discussed in PR Talk. It clearly states "In childhood, (Rawat) was affectionately known as Sant Ji by his father's followers, Balyogeshwar (born Lord of Yogis) by the Indian public on account of his young age and precocious spirituality, and later Guru Maharaj Ji by his students"[1] Therefore Balyogeshwar is not a current name nor an "alternate name" taken and used by Rawat but a description/title created by others in his childhood and therefore has no right to be portrayed as a current or alternate name in the lead.[19] Momento (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Momento, there are over a hundred reliable sources concerning this topic. They say all kinds of things about the subject many of which you won't permit us to add to the article, for better or worse. Finding one that agrees with your POV (and that was coincidentally written by a follower) does not give you permission to over-rule consensus, RfC, etc. The information has been in the article for over a year, except when you've deleted it. And to call my postings here "harassment" is just plain ridiculous. Your charges of harassment are, in themselves, becoming harassment.   Will Beback  talk  01:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Please, please do not import content disputes to this page. Momento, throwing around claims of harassment isn't doing anything to help the atmosphere and this isn't the proper place to defend your views on content. If you'd like to discuss your behavior versus what is expected of editors working on an article under probation, feel free, but leave the rest out. Shell babelfish 02:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not introducing content disputes, I'm explaining why the edit FrancisSchonken has complained about is correct in light of a new source. And as for my claims about harassment, I'll keep making them as long as they continue. Three fraudulent complaints in a week? I'll try to think of something else to call it.Momento (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Momento, your posting above is at least the 12th time since October that you've accused me of harassment :

This kind of sniping is a form of harassment itself. In addition to those, you've asked at Wikipedia talk:Admins willing to make difficult blocks to have me blocked.[20] WP:FORUMSHOP. Let's stick to dealing with evidence in an open manner and to trying to resolve demonstrable problems.   Will Beback  talk  06:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My assessment is that Francis's behavior is problematic, and is indeed approaching harassment. Your role appears to be that of unquestioningly supporting Francis. However, I also realize that Momento's conduct is cause for concern, so I'd support a 1-month topic ban on both Momento and Francis. PhilKnight (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I could agree with that Phil - I think Sandstein suggested something similar above (without a time suggestion). Shell babelfish 16:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I do agree with Francis often, but not unquestioningly. For example, when he posted this request I emailed him asking him to stop making more requests. To the best of my knowledge, there are only three editors active on the topic who aren't current or former members of the movement: Jayen466, Francis Schonken, and myself. Jayen is more symapthetic and Francis and I are more skeptical, but on the whole we occupy the midle ground. I'm not sure I see what problematic behavior PhilKnight sees on the part of Francis that merits a 1-month ban. There's nothing in this thread that shows disruption.   Will Beback  talk  19:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
What a disgrace! NikWright files a bogus complaint which FrancisSchonken and WillBeBack vigorously support. Francis files two bogus complaints which WillBeBack vigorously supports. And your solution is to topic ban me for a month? I hope you're not basing your opinion on WillBeBack's evidence for my "pattern of misbehavior" above?[21] Because if you look here you'll see WillBeBack deliberately omitted that hours before my first revert FrancisSchonken inserted "Balyogeshawar" into a lead that had been stable for over a year without discussion or consensus.[22] And continued to insert it 3 times in 3 days. My removal was completely appropriate.Momento (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Momento, you and Francis are getting on so badly that it's getting to the stage where banning you and Francis from this topic for a month would be in the best interests of the encyclopedia. PhilKnight (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Pardon me? What happened to "I should give you (FrancisSchonken)a short block for making so many reports against Momento that it approaches harassment", "Francis needs to grasp that continuously making unactionable reports about Momento isn't acceptable. At the moment, if I was going to enforce the probation, I would be applying more severe sanctions against Francis than Momento.","The single revert complained about here is not really actionable","Francis's behavior is problematic, and is indeed approaching harassment". And what's my fault in this? Having the nerve to defend myself against Francis' torrent of misinformation. I came here expecting justice, and justice is in "the best interests of the encyclopedia".Momento (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Momento, for myself I don't see how you can say I've "vigorously supported" this filing. I've asked Francis to withdraw it, have privately asked him not to post more, and have said that I didn't think it was the ideal way of resolving the issue (as you know, I filed a mediation request probably at the same time Francis was preparing this). But it's here now. The behavior of the editors is on the table. The disruption that you've caused has been described. You haven't produced evidence of recent disruption by Francis or of harassment by me, the two charges you're making. If you have evidence then now is the time to present it. If you don't then you should stop making these attacks.   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Will, in case you haven't noticed, 3 uninvolved admins are ok with giving Francis (and Momento) a 1-month topic ban, so saying that Momento needs to present evidence isn't correct. PhilKnight (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Even 3 uninvolved admins shouldn't ban someone with no evidence. What is the disruption by Francis that we're concerned with?   Will Beback  talk  23:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't like to see Francis or Momento banned at this point. Momento and Will have just started mediation on the Balyogeshwar issue (which as far as I am concerned is an issue one can argue either way in good faith). I'd suggest giving that a go and let mediation run its course. If you wish, warn Francis that he has edit-warred without first seeking consensus himself, and that the complaints he filed here did not have a sufficient basis. Will's idea is pragmatic; ban Francis from filing complaints on this page for a month. And to all participants, I guess we have to treat each other with a little more respect. Jayen466 23:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems to me some behavioural changes are needed before that respect can occur without looking like a smarmy ploy. Maybe Momento needs to be a little less emotional in his approach (though I sympathise with him...we are dealing with an obstinate, trivialising, Wikirule-based pontificalism) and other editors need to look at the aforementioned obstinate, trivialising, Wikirule-based pontificalism. I, on the other hand, am of course unschuldig (innocent, free of blame, not guilty of anything). Rumiton (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Apart from civility-type issues, the diffs show that the first undiscussed insertion of what has been shown to be a childhood nickname (Balyogeshwa) into the lead of this BLP was done by User:Francis Schonken, and it was subsequently restored only by him. Seems to me that User:Momento was quite correct in removing it. I don't think there should be a problem with referring to this nickname in the Childhood section, but in the lead it is an anachronism. Rumiton (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
That's an incorrect summary of events. The term has been added and deleted over the years. Francis added it a year ago. Following that addition Momento deleted it for spurious reasons. In the subsequent talk page discussion a consensus formed on how to include it. See Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_33#Balyogeshwar. The term was further discussed in last summer's mediation. Most recently, it was the subject of an RfC. So it is indeed disruptive for Momento to ignore last February's consensus, last June's mediation, and this month's RfC along with the simple fact that it's been in the article for a year now. Aside from the general article probation, Momento had recently been warned about edit warring and yet he went ahead and did this despite his previous edit having spawned an edit war and a specific warning to him not to engage in similar behavior again. Rather than continuing to discuss the matter on the talk page he went ahead and made the disputed edit again. The only reason it hasn't started a fresh edit war is that other editors are showing restraint. Justice? Justice would be a topic ban on the editor who is creating all of this drama.   Will Beback  talk  00:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
You are right Rumiton. "Balogeshwar" had not been included in the lead since the article was created in May 2004 [23] until FrancisSchonken inserted it without discussion, consensus or source on 17 February 2008. [24] Jossi immediately started a discussion about in PR Talk objecting to its inclusion in the lead. [25] Noting the objection and lack of discussion, consensus or source I removed it. [26] While the discussion continued Francis reverted anyway still without a source. [27]. Which was removed by another editor. [28] Francis once again inserted it. [29] So I removed it again. [30] Francis, again inserted it a fourth time, this time with a source [31] And again I removed it while discussion took place because it was still inserted without consensus and text that didn't match the source. [32] When Francis inserted it a fifth time [33], we all gave up. So there you have it folks. Contrary to WillBeBack's latest claim, we have FrancisSchonken inserting "Balyogeshwar" 5 times into a lead sentence that had been stable for 4 years without discussion, consensus or source and being reverted 3 times by me and once by another editor until we all gave up. And, just in case you missed it, WillBeBack once again claims my "previous edit having spawned an edit war" when, as I hope we have all noted, it was Cla68 who started Will's "edit war" as we can clearly see here [34] and Will's admission here.[35] How many times can WillBeBack state I caused "an edit war" while admitting it isn't true? Are there any real admins out there? FrancisSchonken needs to be topic banned for three months and WillBeBack needs to be warned about harassing me by constantly fabricating events and actions.Momento (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Momento, you do realize that you're recounting events from a year ago? I don't see Momento, or anyone else, presenting evidence of recent edit warring by Francis. I'm not sure why some admins here are endorsing a "pox on all their houses" approach, except that perhaps folks are bored of reading postings here. If so, then that's not to their credit.   Will Beback  talk  04:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Will, if you look at the Prem Rawat edit history since 30 Jan, you'll find that Francis reverted an edit of mine on 30 January without discussion [36] with which you had voiced your express agreement here on this page [37] and which no one but Francis himself disagreed with then or later. [38] That is exactly the sort of thing you are accusing Momento of having done. On Feb 2nd, Francis reverted both me and Momento without discussion, taking out a scholarly source that explicitly stated that Rawat was only called Balyogeshwar in his youth (because it had the birthdate wrong), and he made another undiscussed (but sensible) edit to the lead. I can assure you that Francis' revert on Jan 30th was as annoying to me as Momento's advance on Balyogeshwar a few days later was to you. It took valuable hours out of my day, having to crank up yet another discussion on the talk page just to verify that really no one apart from Francis had any objection to adding "formerly known" in front of Baloygeshwar, etc. The people who subsequently expressed their agreement with "formerly known" or "previously known", apart from you, were Rumiton, Momento, Pedrero and Sylviecyn. But the point is, all this stuff, including Francis's, is small-fry, which we are putting under a magnifying glass here. Let's just note that editors should strive not to make edits that piss everyone off. I still remember the celebrated occasion last year when Francis decided unilaterally that the Prem Rawat article should be returned to the state it had been in 18 months or so earlier. But all of this is a waste of time. Let's just get on with it. Jayen466 11:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Jayen, thanks for taking the time to actually provide evidence of at least a single contentious edit by Francis 10 days ago. Francis was technically correct - the source didn't say what was being asserted. Your edit was also made without prior discussion,[39], though war-weary editors subsequently endorsed it. (That's a problem with edit warring - we all get drawn in.) All of that was dealt with in the last AE filing. As it turns out, "in his youth" is probably incorrect, but that's a content issue we can resolve elsewhere. Let's remember that February 2008 is when the Register article came out which brought fresh attention to the topic. That attention has now resulted, many hundreds of edits and tens of thousands of talk page words later, in a far better article. As for getting on with it, it's hard to do that when contentious material that has been stable keeps getting revised without cause or consensus. If we can get commitments from Momento and Francis to stop making spurious BLP claims and to seek consensus for significant edits before making them then I'd agree that we could excuse this filing, as I'd earlier asked. But if they continue to assert that they're justified in edit warring then perhaps a temporary ban is called for.   Will Beback  talk  12:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Your assertion that the current version is "far better" than the pre-Register version is debatable. It is certainly far bigger, but is it muscle or flab? And I doubt if the Register editor would approve of this any more than he did the last one, he wants to see "Wikipedia Ruled by Lord of the Universe", for him intelligent analysis is only there to be jeered at. Rumiton (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
That discussion isn't important for this page. We can talk about it on the article talk page, my user talk, or elsewhere.   Will Beback  talk  14:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
If it isn't important, why raise it as an assertion? I wish you would stop doing that. Rumiton (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
My main point was to remind editors here of what happened a year ago (you and Momento were discussing edits from back then), and of how it led to significant changes in the article. I think the article is better for including more of the well reported incidents from the subject's life. If you think it's worse then you're welcome to that opinion too.   Will Beback  talk  18:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

One month page ban[edit]

Is this where you meant by "above"? Please move it, if not. I object to this scattergun approach. I understand it is tedious to have to look back through so many diffs, but to me the record shows Momento has been by far the more responsible Wikipedian. This suggestion feels like a schoolteacher who says, "I don't care who misbehaved. I am keeping the whole class in." Please reconsider. Rumiton (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Phil suggested one month for both Momento and Francis Schonken, which I supported. Since this seems to have gotten lost in the later discussion by involved editors, I wanted to see if there were any further outside opinions on whether or not this was appropriate. Please - if you are involved in this dispute - keep your comments above so this doesn't get buried again. Thanks bunches. Shell babelfish 03:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Shell, why don't you chill out? What's with your recent edit summary? If you can't keep your cool over an accidental indent, then you ought to recuse yourself from doing anything on this board. The way things are going on Wikipedia these days, with you losing your cool over nothing, and the chair of the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, User:Ryan Postlethwaite, having a "big Schlong Barnstar" (with an offensive, inappropriate, graphic photo of penises on his user page) it's no wonder Wikipedia gets bad press, has such a bad reputation, and isn't taken seriously anyone except Jimbo Wales and his sycophants. Are you all twelve year olds? Familiarize yourself with the specific issues and you won't get so flustered and frustrated. That means taking the time to read talk pages and getting some history of a situation and the people involved. That's what my 55 years have taught me. I strongly recommend that the powers that be here in Wikipedia close and archive this dispute with no action taken (none is warranted), tell Ryan to delete the very inappropriate penis pictures from his userpage, or fire his butt from the mediation committee, and get the ARBCOM to learn how to do actual, real arbitration, that has teeth. The Arbitration for this particular article was a joke and resolved nothing. Then things will be much, much better on Wikipedia. Cheers! Sylviecyn (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The recent edit summary was for two involved editors who can't even abide by a polite request (nothing to do with my indent incidentally); if that's the typical form of behavior on the article/dispute its rather unsurprising that this keeps coming back here. I assume you're unaware that I mentored a party to the original case making me probably a bit more aware than you've assumed. If you have an issue with other editors/committees/what have you, I'd suggest you probably want to take it up with them rather than take it out on bystanders. Shell babelfish 02:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I know. Who was the mentored editor?   Will Beback  talk  18:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Answered below.   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Then name the people you're pissed at and stop being so vague. Your edit summary was snotty. You've already displayed yout annoyance with all the folks involved with the Rawat articles, so you're approaching this with your own emotional baggage. Right off the bat. How can you achieve anything as an admin. or in dispute resolution if you make snotty remarks in your edit summaries -- worse, edit summaries that are not clear that you're trying to make excuses about now? That automatically excludes you from being a competent arbitrate, mediator, etc. And since you suggested mediation, I felt it necessary to point out that the chair of the mediation committee has an offensive photo on his user page, and no, I would refuse any mediation, based on that alone. I don't remember your name coming up in any of the article's disputes, but there have been many. My point is if you can't keep your emotions in check, then recuse yourself. Simple as that. Learn how to grow a thicker skin and take a chill pill. This is Wikipedia, not real life, after all. :) Sylviecyn (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Re, "...if you are involved in this dispute - keep your comments above..." - no, thanks. Phil's suggestion was baseless, as is your approval of it. Above Will suggested that it would be necessary to show I did something wrong in order to have me topic banned, nothing of the sort has been demonstrated. So I do not approve of your concurring with baseless accusations, which is an emanation of prejudice, and thus a form of involvement too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, the article is complete as is. There is little to no more additional, reliably sourced information out there that can be added. The only thing happening on it right now is that the pro- and anti- Rawat editors are battling to make the article slant more towards their POV. I think a one-month topic ban for all of them, identified in the list further up on this page, would resolve this for now. At a minimum, please topic ban the most obviously pro- and anti- editor from the topic. If that's Momento and Francis, then so be it. Cla68 (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cla68; this should be a stable page. There are not a lot of new notable developments in the life of Prem Rawat, not least because he has apparently chosen to remove himself from the public eye quite deliberately. And his past has been examined in as minute detail as World War 2 has on the History Channel cable network in the U.S. If you read the history and talk pages, 80% or more of the activity is by, or in response to, Momento and Rumiton (and always 1 pro-Rawat ally at a time, currently pedrero) worrying the same picky details over and over. The most absurd spinning of wheels is over this Balyogeshwar issue. Whether to mention a well-documented alternate name for this public figure has consumed hundreds of edits and megabytes of discussion over years. It is beyond absurd. It is not surprising that after YEARS of this Francis got frustrated over yet another unilateral edit against consensus and RfC, though that does not justify edit-warring. Msalt (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
That's simply not true and that's no way to deal with a situation like this. For one thing, I don't edit the main articles, I only comment on the talk pages. The only exception to that was a couple of weeks ago when I fixed the lead that you had improperly edited. Second, if you're ready to declare the article "finished," then why did you feel compelled to edit the article's lead recently? Thirdly, I don't make comments on the talk pages to have a "slant" towards my POV. I make comments on the talk pages of the Rawat articles in order to ensure that the subject's history isn't turned into a hagiography, and that information is included according to sources. The current "battle" being waged by Momento is on the one issue of his insistence on removing the "also known as" name "Balyogeshwar" from the lead. It's as simple as that. I've done nothing to warrant a block. I don't edit war, because I don't edit! Sylviecyn (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't want it to be a hagiography either, nor a slanderography. Cla68's approach is disappointing. Kind of reminds me of the old Vietnam war slogan, "Kill them all, let God sort out the guilty ones." Rumiton (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I count as an outside or inside editor here. I do know that I'm the editor Shell mentored. For the record, I dove into the Prem Rawat mess a year or so ago when it was "on fire" hoping to help out. After the ArbCom case I ran out of time and energy and hope, but pop in from time to time to try to help. My impressions: Francis is a bit of a hot-head and seems to have appointed himself as the defender against Momento and Rumiton, which is rarely good. He usually plays by the rules but seems to lose it from time to time and overreach. Momento is an incredibly contentious editor, repeating identical edits and slightly varied edits repeatedly over years (not an exaggeration) despite consensus against him, filling up acres of talk pages with tendentious arguments and personal attacks, and IMHO operating in general bad faith. I submitted a large number of diffs in the ArbCom proceeding if you'd like documentation. He is also a devotee of the subject; I can't understand how his behavior is tolerated in any case, and certainly not with his strong POV and personal stake in the subject. Rumiton spends less time on the article but supports Momento 99% of the time with talk and edits.

Will and Jayen466 are very patient, very fair editors with the patience of saints. Will tends to be bit more Rawat-skeptical and Jayen466 a bit more Rawat-friendly, but I would not for one second associate either with the bad behavior that is the problem on this page (and related ones), even as allies. It's hard to express how exasperating these pages are to actively edit, and those two both do great work. Banning both Francis and Momento for a month is probably the best move, but it's a false equivalency to equate Francis' actions and Momento's far more tendentious ones. Msalt (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Msalt's assessment.   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Will, I think you've gone quite far enough in your "tactical" comments. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Msalt, " a bit of a hot-head and seems to have appointed himself as the defender against Momento and Rumiton, which is rarely good" rather applies to you than to me. But then, I rarely give that sort of ad hominem trash about anybody in Wikipedia.

So, no, "Banning both Francis and Momento for a month" is not by near "probably the best move". I don't even get how you can reconcile such remedies with your conviction my and Momento's edits can't be put on the same par.

Anyway, thank you for the clarification that Shell wasn't all that uninvolved as s/he pretended, I reject his/her stance more profoundly now: s/he should have been honest about this all along, and not come out with it after pretending to be uninvolved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Francis raises a fair question: how can I justify advocating month bans for both with my relative judgment of Momento vs. Francis? I am on record (in the Arbcom case) as advocating a lifetime page ban from Prem Rawat for Momento, and I continue to advocate that. He/she is incorrigible. However, that was not the decision rendered. In general, I think that problems come from too much emotion invested in a page, and a break is the best solution. A voluntary break is the best kind, and I apply them on myself too, as I did here. It is important not to give the impression that fighting fire with fire is OK, which is why I support a month cooling off for Francis as well. The month is not a punishment for a crime; it's time to take a breath and gain perspective, for the benefit of the editor as much or more than for the benefit of the rest of us. I suspect that Francis is much more likely to improve with some time off than Momento, but time will tell. Msalt (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Once again I have to defend myself from unsubstantiated attacks. So is it too much to ask that a decision is made according to the three complaints made against me by NikWright2 and FranciSchonken in this forum. The truth is writ large in the edit history. It's already been established that my removal of the link NikWright2 inserted was correct and NikWright2 was topic banned for a month. Within days FrancisSchonken's made a complaint about which Sandstein summarized "As the admin who issued the warning to Momento to stop editwarring on Prem Rawat, it is not at all clear to me (or others here) that he is or has been editwarring currently, and at any rate the reporting editor seems to, well, have made a rather substantial number of reverts too. Everybody involved in the disputes surrounding this article needs to seriously calm down, or I can see general sanctions coming up for all concerned". Barely 4 hours after Sandstein's summary FrancisSchonken made another complaint to which PhilKnight wrote "Francis, to be perfectly honest, I'm considering whether I should give you a short block for making so many reports against Momento that it approaches harassment". And Shell babelfish wrote "That was my first thought as well Phil. Francis, we get it, the two of you (and various others) have a dispute over the content - Work. It. Out. It's either that or stop editing the darn article - this constant running here for every edit someone doesn't like is wearing on everyone's patience". So can anyone tell me why this thread has been allowed to become a vindictive, free for all against me instead of addressing the real problem, FrancisSchonken's second frivolous complaint in 24 hours?Momento (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

How's this for a neutral solution? Cla68 suggests the article is basically complete and the current problem is the proper NPOV balance. Other than edit warring, that basically amounts to a content dispute. So rather than page ban everybody (Cla68's idea) how about applying full protection for a few weeks? Long enough that tempers cool and they seek a solution to the content dispute. DurovaCharge! 04:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy for article protection for a month. But this isn't a content dispute, it's about harassment. And it is more important to me and Wikipedia that each of the three complaints made against me in this forum must be properly investigated and anyone found making false complaints or providing false evidence be banned from editing PR and related articles.Momento (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Regarding page protection, let's review the article's history. It was protected twice in 2007, both times for edit conflicts involving Momento. It was protected at least three times in 2008, in each case due to edit conflicts of which Momento was a part. One protection lasted from March 16 to May 12, and others lasted for weeks. It might have lasted longer but all of the editors participated in a massive mediation effort overseen by Steve Crossin and committed to not edit the article while it was going on. Since there isn't an active edit war, I don't see the prupose of protection.
Regarding Cla68's statement that the article should be stable, I can't really believe that any Wikipedia editor could say that. First, he said on another site that there don't appear to be reliable sources on the topic, while in fact there are at least 100 such sources. So I don't thiink he's actually knowledgeable about the topic, the sources, or what may be missing from the article. Second, even articles about dead people aren't necessarily stable. An article on a comparable subject, OSHO, has had 1200 edits in the past year. Third, Jayen just pointed out on the talk page yet another topic that isn't covered in the Prem Rawat article. That said, it should be more stable. It's very disruptive when the same disputes keep coming up again and again, regardless of how much they've been discussed before. This "Balyogeshwar" issue is such a case.
Regarding Momento's complaint about false complaints, he has accused me of harassment at least a dozen times without providing evidence. If he thinks that unsupported complaints are a problem then he should first look to his own behavior.   Will Beback  talk  07:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad WillBeBack has written above. It exemplifies the harassment I'm talking about. WillBeBack claims that the three protections in 2008 were "due to edit conflicts of which Momento was a part". As you will see, I was a minor part in one and absent for two. Before the first protection from 26 Feb to 4 March there were 34 edits in the previous two days - 12 by FrancisSchonken, 4 by Jayen, 3 each by Momento, Janice Rowe, NikWright2, Andries and 2 by WillBeBack and Cirt. Before the second protection from 16 March to 12 May there were 21 edits the previous day - 9 by FrancisSchonken, 8 by Janice Rowe, 3 by Msalt and 1 by Andries, I took no part. Before the third protection 27 May to 10 June there were 12 edits in the two previous days - 3 by WillBeBack, 3 by Mukadderat, 2 by Rumiton and Anons and 1 each for MaelNum and Jossi, I took no part. Add up the totals and you can see FrancisSchonken is way ahead with 21, followed by Janic Rowe with 11 and WillBerBack coming 3rd with 5. I come equal 5th with MSalt, Mukadderat, NikWright and Andries. But WillBeBack singles me out for blame, just as he blamed me for the previous complaint when he should have been blaming Cla68.Momento (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It isn't the number of edits, but the number of reverts that is important in judging an edit war. As for the matter of the earlier complaint about the "Balyogeshwar" edit warring, as I explained before Cla68 made an edit that did not have consensus and should have been reverted or modified. Instead, Momento used it as a pretext for deleting sourced text. Cla68 bears some responsibility for making an unhelpful edit, but his responsibility is mitigated by the fact that he isn't familiar with the article or the probation. Momento knows full-well that the "Balyogeshwar" material has been discussed at length, and that edit warring on the article is prohibited by a decision of the ArbCom. That is why the two situations are different, and why Momento should not blame Cla68 for his own diruption.   Will Beback  talk  20:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


Three AE threads in one month is not a good thing. So far, only one warning has resulted. Noticeboard format is not well suited to handle the complex arguments that both sides are bringing forth. I have recommended dispute resolution, and thank Will Beback for starting one form of it. Yet that is not proving sufficient to contain this dispute. Two months ago when simultaneous AE threads were open about another dispute, I requested arbitration and a case opened where both sides could present their arguments in a more structured fashion. Is there a reason I should not request arbitration now? DurovaCharge! 21:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It could be better to wait to see how the mediation case turns out. PhilKnight (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Phil here; this is not the time for arbitration on this case. Jayen466 02:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The mediation about "Balyogeshwar" and the RFAR are irrelevant to the escalating harassment issue that is unfolding in this forum. Just glance up 5 paras to see where Admin WillBeBack writes "It was protected at least three times in 2008, in each case due to edit conflicts of which Momento was a part". And note that I was not involved in two of them and had a very minor part in one. So that's a lie isn't it. But look at Will's reply to this news. He completely slides over the fact that he is wrong and claims "It isn't the number of edits, but the number of reverts that is important in judging an edit war". Really? Well I added up the reverts in the week before each protection period and FrancisSchonken once again blitzes the field with 12, I come in with Cirt and Jayen on 2. Which ever way you cut it, FrancisSchonken is by far the most disruptive, reverting editor prior to these protections. And yet WillBeBack continues to ignore FrancisSchonken's appalling edit history in order to mount a one man crusade to discredit me with lies and fabrications. And, just to top it off, WillBeBack gives Cla68 a free pass because "his responsibility is mitigated by the fact that he isn't familiar with the article or the probation". But hold on! Is this the same Cla68 who contributed to an RFAR on Rawat in March 2008. Why yes it is![40] And contributed evidence to [41] And in April.[42] Look out everyone I think this whole incident is about to explode.Momento (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I think you may have gotten a raw deal here in having been named as the proximate cause of these past article protections; you weren't. Jayen466 02:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I ever said that Momento was the cause of the previous protections. My purpose in putting together that list wasn't even to accuse Momento, though I noted his participation in the edit wars leading up to them. I was mostly trying to point out the page protections haven't actually solved any problems. My posting also made the point that there is no active, "hot" edit war sao that protection is not an appropriate remedy. As for Durova's suggestion of taking this back to RfAr, if other DR including AE and mediation, isn't effective then that's a possibility. I think the issues may be clearer now then they were a year ago.   Will Beback  talk  03:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
What you said was "in each case due to edit conflicts of which Momento was a part". That isn't true is it? So why did you write it? And when I pointed that out why didn't you retract? Why didn't you note that "FrancisSchonken was by far the major part of the edit wars leading up to them"? The answer is because you are constantly trying to shift all blame onto me. Here's something else you said "Justice would be a topic ban on the editor who is creating all of this drama". And who is that editor WillBeBack? It is FrancisSchonken that has brought us to this forum twice in a week and it is FrancisSchonken who was by far the major part of the edit wars leading up to three periods of protection. So let's all agree to put a three month "topic ban on the editor who is creating all of this drama".Momento (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The page was protected due to editors reverting each other. Obviously, there was more than one editor involved in those disputes because it's impossible to have a one-person edit war. If I made a mistake and if you had no involvement whatsoever in one or more of those conflicts then I apologize for the error. But there are countless other edit wars, many of which didn't lead to protections, of which you have been a part (along with others, of course). You've been blocked repeatedly for 3RR violations, and have come close of violations on other occasions. If you like, I can compile a list of all of your reverts in the past year on articles in the topic. I think that will clarify things.   Will Beback  talk  06:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The real question is whether there's enough basic agreement for regular dispute resolution to work. If the present mediation has a fair chance of resolving the dispute then okay, let's give it the chance to work. But if people walk up to the table believing on one side they're being harassed personally, and on the other side that they're dealing with someone who won't budge (whether or not either characterization is really correct, that seems to be what each side is saying about the other)--well then the better option is an independent panel of experienced Wikipedians to sort things out. DurovaCharge! 03:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You got that right. I know I'm "being harassed personally" and I "won't budge" until you do something about it.Momento (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
There is Momento's attitude, long and clear - never done a thing wrong, all criticism are totally unfair (including the multiple blocks for 3RR). I can provide many additional diffs of policy violations by Momento if that would help. Look at the time stamps on Prem Rawat page and talk page edits; Momento appears to have been essentially editing this page as a full time job for some years now. To understate, s/he lacks perspective on his/her actions in connection with this page. Msalt (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Look at these two, Msalt and WillBeBack! Having given up on trying to defend FrancisSchonken's fraudulent complaints, it's time for a different approach. WillBeBack offers to "list of all of my reverts in the past year on articles in the topic", Msalt "can provide many additional diffs of policy violations by Momento if that would help". Honestly, I enjoy a witch-hunt as much as anybody but this isn't about me, it's about FrancisSchonken's complaints. Let's have a witch-hunt about FrancisSchonken.Momento (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you still willing to participate in mediation?   Will Beback  talk  06:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Given this keeps coming up again, and again, and again, in various forms, a new RFAR is probably what is needed. The stuff on WP:AE is all the DR history you'd even need. rootology (C)(T) 06:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I think Durova's earlier suggestion of protecting the article might have merit. The point would be, simply, to allow everyone to calm down and gain some distance and perspective. Of course, for that to work, you'd have to protect the other Rawat articles as well, for past experience has shown that the same editors, if they don't engage in conflicts in one article, will engage in the same sort of conflicts in another article. The locus of dispute just shifts from one article to another. I think 4 weeks away from any Wikipedia article that's anything to do with Rawat, and away from each other, might do the editors here some good. It would certainly be an unusual step to take, but I would still propose that we should have a look at this option. What I don't like about going to an RFAR now is that it would simply increase stress on everyone involved, and exacerbate the tension. You can't get muddy water clear by stirring it some more. That's just my view; if editors really want to "slug it out" in arbcom, fine too, but I have my doubts that resolution lies that way. Jayen466 14:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I can't see any justification for topic-wide page protection covering 12 or 16 pages, or even just the Prem Rawat article alone. There isn't any edit war at present, and it'd be against policy to protect pages to prevent one from starting. I don't see how such a step would resolve the long term problem of chronic, low-level edit warring. In the past, page protection didn't stop talk page activity, so the idea of a month-long holiday from the topic wouldn't happen unless Jayen thinks that the talk pages should be protected too.   Will Beback  talk  18:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Commenting as an individual editor, this article would be best served by a few admins putting the house in order. There are are number of issues prominent here: Editors need to be disentangled from each other. Dead horses need to be buried. Soapboxing needs to be nipped in the bud. People who find themselves unable to resist blurting out insults or refrain from just making things worse need to be removed from the topic area. The best solution for this is a few careful admins giving on-going attention to the area. Some comments here seem to indicate that AE is the only resort. Nothing about the topic area being under probation should impede filing normal reports! Sockpuppets, personal attacks, disruption, edit warring, and so on should all be reported normally to the usual channels. The AE noticeboard should really be for complex and difficult situations, not the edit war or personal attacks du jour. If those normal reports get bogged down by the usual personal conflicts and arguments about the topic area, admins should be bold in warning and sanctioning editors disrupting report threads in such a manner. (Get rid of the side sniping nonsense and reports will be a lot easier for people to review and handle.) RfAR is a very blunt instrument and this area needs a bit more precision than that. Before undertaking another arbitration case, consider whether or not other means may be better able to resolve the situation. Just some thoughts and opinions. You're welcome to some grains of salt with them. Vassyana (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The ARBCOM case for the Rawat articles proved to be useless. I think the ARBCOM on Wikipedia is essentially useless because the people who run it are ignorant of what real arbitration is in the world. The findings on the Rawat case were barely comprehensible, except for the one praising Jossi's restraint (hoho) and generally ARBCOM decisions are made by people who have no clue or knowledge of how things work in the world. They use idiotic templates that are essentially meaningless. I'd never undergo another ARBCOM on Wikipedia. The last one was such a failure of judgement and neutrality that I refuse to trust it. The decisions for the Rawat articles failed miserably to remedy problems that were extensively documented for the ARBCOM last year. I know you've advanced in the Wikipedia community, Vassyana, but you never did help the Rawat articles at all. You were biased to the hilt pro-Rawat and you accepted the fawning of the Rawat adherents while you were involved to the extent you accepted said fawning to become an administrator here. The reality of the situation is that 1) Too many admins. and other people in power on Wikipedia are teenagers who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground and enforce policy based on their very limited life experience; 2) Arbitration on Wikipedia isn't real arbitration; 3) Mediation isn't real mediation; 3) Wikipedians spend way too much time reinventing the wheel concerning things like rules, policy, and the actual real-world definition and procedures for things like mediation and arbitration; 4) Content and behavior should never be separated because everybody in the world absolutely does have a POV, people are never neutral (including you Vassyana) and therefore it's always impossible to make decisions based on the sterile policies that do separate content and editor behavior. If find it wildly ironic that you had to put your two cents in here Vassyana. From my seat, you benefitted from the pro-Rawat pov early on; and 5) Wikipedia really needs to remove teenager (and younger!) from any positions of power on Wikipedia. You can start with the mediator who has penis photos on his user page -- he's the chair of the Mediation Committee. What are you people thinking? I'm 55 years old and I'm no prude, but I do know what is appropriate and not appropriate. Think about how long it too Wikipedians to figure out is wasn't okay to have a CHILDLOVE article promoting sexual abuse of children and learn something!!! :) Sylviecyn (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Sylviecyn, I understand where you are coming from, but please note that what you saw on Ryan's user page was the result of vandalism, which has long been reverted. Jayen466 20:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
It's still there, Jayen. It's been there since 5 January 2009. It's got one of those "hide or show" things on it. I don't care if it's a result of vandalism or if the user likes it there. The title is "Big Schlong Barnnstar." I'll keep bringing it up until someone does something about it. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
My apologies. There was some recent vandalism which was reverted, but that one has indeed been there for ages. Jayen466 13:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've lost faith in Wikipedia being able to regulate itself. Anybody who has read FrancisSchonken's complaints against me can see that they weren't made in the interests of Wikipedia but to harass me. After the quick and effective decision to topic ban NikWright2 for a month for the same stunt FrancisSchonken should have been topic banned immediately for two months after his first complaint and he wouldn't have made the second. I can only assume that admins have decided that ruling in my favor twice in a row may seem like favoritism. And you, Vassyana, know how any suggestion of not being anti-Rawat is held against you.Momento (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It is apparent that neither the short term nor the long term disputes concerning the Prem Rawat articles can be resolved through the WP:AE mechanism. There have been six previous AE filings since the ArbCom case closed last May: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. This filing alone has swollen to 9600 words with no resoluion in sight. In addition, there have been countless postings to other noticeboards. Extensive informal mediation last summer did make some progress, but even the text agreed upon in that process has been changed. Due to the failure of other dispute resolution and enforcement steps, it appears that a return to arbitration is the only realistic hope for dealing with the conflicts on this topic.   Will Beback  talk  20:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • This thread has grown much too long. This board is for handling violations of arbitration remedies. It is not a chatroom. If matters are so complex they cannot be explained or resolved in a reasonable amount of space, then the matter needs to go to dispute resolution, namely arbitration. Please note that this page is not listed on the dispute dispute resolution menu. Jehochman Talk 02:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Digwuren request[edit]

The following discussion 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.

Per Arbcom ruling in Digwuren: Courtesy

"2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable." "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."

I would request and admin warning in accordance with Arbcom ruling so that the discussion can focus on essential topics and be clear of personal attacks and insults. Thank you. --Molobo (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly a belittling statement. Are there other recent examples of snideness? DurovaCharge! 23:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I've notified Dapi89 of the discretionary sanctions. PhilKnight (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The cheek of this editor is unbelievable. He and user:Peterlewis have accussed me of biased editing, to my mind this is a personal attack is it not? He can't win an argument be arguing sensibly (as you can see his comments of the Wehrmacht talk page are far from that), he runs off and complains because the dubious sources he uses are rightly ridiculed. I can quite legitimately use language like "rubbish" when he makes unsubstantiated claims about me or any anon user. So I'll delete the "warning" as a nonsense. And if I don't trust him to edit appropriately, I am within my rights to say "I don't trust you". Dapi89 (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I have no intention of communicating with this editor again. Naturally if he makes edits to an article which are questionable, or unsourced (and much of it is), then I will delete it or request citations as an when needed. But appart from that I will not waste any more of my time with him or this issue. However, I will not allow anyone to walk all over me. Dapi89 (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Molobo appears to have engaged in polite provocation with his prior remark. Dapi89 responded in apparent frustration. WP:WQA is the best place to resolve civility concerns, and obviously civility complaints are not going to be taken seriously if the complainer has engaged in baiting. If there is a pattern of tendentious editing in East European articles, this is the correct page to report it. Jehochman Talk 14:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Notice of BLP Special Enforcement Deletion[edit]

Hello all, as a note of general interest I am letting you all know that I have just deleted the article Dudley O'Neill under CSD G3 and WP:BLPSE as a blatant hoax containing unreferenced and potentially libelous information about a living person. This article was listed at Articles for Deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dudley O'Neill. As you can see in that discussion, several editors noted the poor referencing and extreme difficulty in being able to find references; a Google search conducted by me for "Dudley O'Neill" -wikipedia turns up less than 100 hits (the exact number keeps fluctuating for some reason), and most of the links provided in the article had nothing to do with the subject, either referring to another NFL player in the most relevant case, to in the least. This is open to review, but per WP:BLPSE I would ask that administrators not overturn this deletion unless there is a clear consensus here to do so. Thank you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are conducting the delete under WP:BLPSE then you need to log it at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log. I have to ask though why it was necessary to use WP:BLPSE, it looks like a very clear delete decision in the AFD and a blatant hoax (that was speediable under G3 anyway) that I cannot see any reason or chance that any admin would reverse the decision. Davewild (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
It seemed as though this was a little more severe than the average thing we get at AfD, partially because it appeared referenced at first glance. If you feel BLPSE doesn't really apply, I can leave a note in the deletion log (without actually restoring the article) to note that it was mainly a G3 deletion and not Special Enforcement. I'll hold off on the logging until later this evening to give someone a chance to reply. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the note in the deletion log referencing the AFD is fine personally as the discussion there is clear why the article was deleted so personally would not bother adding any other notes there. Again personally I would leave it as is, don't log at BLPSE but perhaps adding an extra note to your closing statement on the AFD, deletion mainly as a G3 blatant hoax referenced by the discussion on the AFD which established the grounds for the deletion without needing to refer to BLPSE. (however I admit I could be biased here as I am not a fan of BLPSE anyway) Davewild (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I realize it's probably more fun to swing a bigger hammer but if the article appears to be a blatant hoax about a fictitious person—well you can never be too sure, so let's say if you have no evidence that anyone named Dudley O'Neill matches even the most basic description and plenty against it, and that you can't establish that it is anything other than a randomly chosen name to accompany the bogus information—there is no need to drop the BLPBOMB. Anyone interested in undeleting the article (probably nobody) already has a significant burden of proving they know something everyone else has missed. — CharlotteWebb 03:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

ARBMAC and User:Jingiby[edit]

I need a re-instatement of the revert parole under WP:ARBMAC currently still in force (since August) for Jingiby (talk · contribs), which he has been systematically ignoring despite warnings (here and here). Latest reversion spree on Military history of Bulgaria during World War II. I've made the mistake of closing an eye on his infractions from time to time recently, which has evidently emboldened him, and right now I'm involved in the dispute with him, so I'd be grateful if somebody else could take action. Fut.Perf. 11:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked for a week. That will expire close to the end of the revert parole, at which point it should be reviewed, given the lack of success of the sanctions applied so far. Kevin (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

User:NoCal100 WP:WARing and WP:HOUNDing over several articles[edit]

Admin note: This report is not signed. Please sign it and remove this note. If the report remains unsigned, it may be closed without action.  Sandstein  23:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Background: A while ago, a discussion started on Talk:Israeli settlement regarding the use of "Judea" and "Samaria" to describe the northern and southern West Bank. Without getting into the specifics, proponents of the terms, to whom User:NoCal100 belongs, have produced several sources using the term whereas the opponents, to which I belong, have produced several sources stating that the terms are politically motivated and used only inside Israel. The discussion at Talk:Israeli settlement ended with the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" being moved to a separate section labeled "Terminology" where they are presented as terms preferred by annexationists.

What's going on now: Yesterday I did a search for articles using "Samaria" as a gographical toponym and replaced several instances with the term "northern West Bank" (I left all instances of "Samaria hills" and "Samaria mountains" as the hills and mountains are indeed known only by those names). Today, User:NoCal100 shows up on three of these articles, Aryeh Eldad, Ya'akov Katz and Elkana, to revert me.

Why do I have a problem with this: There are several reasons why I am absolutely not OK with this:

  • User:NoCal100 has been accused and warned of WP:HOUNDing and WP:WARing before. The three above-mentioned articles had never been touched by him and I'm guessing he would be hard-pressed to show how he got there if not by following my contributions.
  • User:NoCal100 argues as if there had never been a larger discussion on the subject, or just doesn't argue at all (e.g. the edit summary "more precise"). This argument had already been lost and User:NoCal100 is trying to start it up elsewhere.
  • The same behavious by User:NoCal100 on exactly the same subject recently caused User:Nickhh to blow his top, subsequently getting him blocked. This kind of WP:WARing is not helping the project in generally and not helping the state of the IP-articles specifically.

Suggested measures: User:NoCal100 should get at least a stern and final warning not to follow other editors around and WP:WAR against them or preferably a ban on edits regarding the use of "Judea" or "Samaria".

I'm pretty sympathetic to victims of wikihounding -- funny you should mention Nickhh in that regard, as he certainly did that to me, and I can think of about 4 or 5 other editors who had similar problems with him. Nothing was done about it -- and it'd be pretty amazing if Nick could complain he was driven off the project (and forced to emit a stream of filthy abuse), by the same tactics he himself employed. I wish the culture were different on this point, but it isn't. As for edit-warring, I took a look at some of those articles, and it seems as though you're edit-warring as well, no? IronDuke 16:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Me? No. When I went through the list of Samaria-using articles I explicitly avoided those on which discussions/WP:WARs were under way. I re-reverted on one of them and started a thread on the talk-page. Is that the WP:WAR you are referring to? If not, you're going to have to be a bit more specific.
Oh, and this is not about User:Nickhh, I only used him as an example of User:NoCal100 WP:HOUNDing somebody else too.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 18.02.2009 16:14
You're quite right, this isn't about Nick -- I was merely pointing out a small irony there (and word to the wise, he might not be the best example to use). As for edit-warring, perhaps I made a mistake. Here I see NoCal making two reverts and you making two reverts. Here I see you making two reverts again, and NoCal making only one (is one revert an edit-war?). Here I see one revert apiece. Do I have that right? Cheers. IronDuke 16:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Yup. What you see is User:NoCal100 running to three pages he's never edited before to pick an edit-war he's already lost elsewhere. That's what this is about.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 18.02.2009 16:37
Which brings me back to my initial point: it taks two to edit-war, and by my count you've done it (slightly) more than NoCal in the articles you link to. Did you want some sort of remedy for the both of you? IronDuke 16:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking for a remedy for the WP:HOUNDing and the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which is what I suggested farther up (see Suggested measures:). What you left out was the chronology of User:NoCal100 reverting me first, but that's not a WP:WAR quite yet, but User:NoCal100 looking for one, yet again.
Cheers and hope that cleared it up, pedrito - talk - 18.02.2009 16:44
Your above statement does not appear to be factually correct. Looking at this diff, it appears that the first action in this series of reverts and counter-reverts was YOU reverting NoCal100, on an article you had never before edited, which would seem to me like you stalked him there. So, if you are looking for a remedy for the WP:HOUNDing, I assume you would accept that any remedy applied to NoCal100 would apply equally to you? Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "cleared it up." I addressed the hound allegations already (the sad reality of no one caring). And you really think action is going to be taken on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Can I bet you five bucks it won't, now or on any issue? IronDuke 22:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hearty cheers to everyone, but this is really a much ado about nothing. WP:HOUND is not intended for situations in which the same exact fundamental disagreement applies to multiple articles. There's nothing to indicate that NoCal is intending to "creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor", per WP:HOUND. Indeed, such allegations would not be in good faith. It's merely the same disagreement that extends to other articles. If we're going to worry about "following", we might want to look into a number of editros who seem to have an unhealthy obsession with the edits of User:Jayjg.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to second this. I think a lot of people on all sides of the IP issues get... followed... to some extent by others, but Jay seems to have the biggest fan club of stalkers. I wonder if people who are, or can be reasonably characterized as, pro-Palestinian would "police their own" and tell their fellow editors to stop? IronDuke 22:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Pretty much all those described as "pro-Israel" have atleast one stalker. Which leads to my complaint - why am I the only one without a stalker? I want a stalker! Face-crying.svg --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Dude, jeez... I'll stalk you, if you really want. What edit of yours should I revert first? ;) IronDuke 23:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's my advice Brewcrewer. Become an extremely prolific and influential editor; get admin and checkuser powers; keep your edits fiercely nationalistic; keep your policy rationales variable, specious, ad hoc, and contradictory; work on developing a more peremptory, imperious, and papal tone toward editors who disagree with you; make hair-trigger edit-warring as basic to your idiom of self-expression as iambic pentameter was to Alexander Pope's; and most importantly, make a 100+ edits a day to dozens of articles on all aspects of the Middle East conflict. Make yourself ubiquitous in that area, and take up any partisan angle you can find within it, no matter how silly. Then, if in your ceaseless, vigilantly ideological patrol of that extensive beat, you find yourself having a number of arguments with the same editors, you'll be in a position to accuse those editors of "stalking" you; with any luck, a fool or two might even believe it.--G-Dett (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
It should be WP policy - all diatribes/rants must be funny. I made the mistake of eating ices while reading your comment and parts of the ices went up into my nose. Disgusting. But getting serious for a second - are you really suggesting that anyone who believes User:Pedrito's stalking claim is a "fool"? That's a bit much I think.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about your nose! Is NoCal100 accused of stalking an extremely prolific and influential admin making hundreds of edits daily across dozens of Middle-East-related articles?--G-Dett (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
No, but it sounds like you think you're being accused.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes.--G-Dett (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it your posiiton, then, that Jayjg has never been stalked by any IP editor? IronDuke 00:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, no, that's not my position at all. I haven't seen enough to say, but I'm sure he has been stalked by IPs. He's accused me of stalking him, and others (including admins) have implied that they take it seriously. If you were talking about random IPs, please forgive me, I misunderstood.--G-Dett (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I guess my point is, if even Jay can't get the behavior to stop when it's serious, there's not much hope for, say, Pedrito, complaining about a much less serious issue (about which he appears to be guilty as well). IronDuke 01:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
That's a fair point, IronDuke; sorry if I was unduly defensive.--G-Dett (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
No, not all, no worries. And BC is correct, your posts are often funny, though it's just possible you might be being a teensy weensy little bit hard on Jay. IronDuke 01:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
What's more troubling is the fact that editors who can't get their hip cool neologisms shoved into Judea and Samaria, Israeli Settlement, etc., go to these little stubs and bios and try to do the very same consensus-violative edits that they were unable to do at the parent article. If there's a consensus or lack of consensus at one article it should clearly apply to other sub-articles with the same exact issues. Editors should not edit violate a consensus or non-consensus and then cry WP:HOUND when they are reverted. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The "hip cool neologism" Brewcrewer is referring to is the term "West Bank," when accompanied by the adjective "northern." When the New York Times, Haaretz, CNN, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and scores of other sources say that "Samaria is the biblical name for the northern West Bank," he thinks they are introducing a hip cool neologism; and when editors rely on the overwhelming terminological consensus among top-notch mainstream reliable sources, they too are employing a hip cool neologism.
And Brewcrewer's screwball misunderstanding of the term "neologism" isn't even the most desperate or bankrupt piece of wikilawyering being peddled by teamplayers in the current Judea-and-Samaria-are-standard-accepted-current-geographic-terms hoax. For connoisseurs of BS, really, this hoax is not to be missed.--G-Dett (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
D-Gett: This is not the forum for you to call my points a "bankrupt piece of wikilawyering" or "screwbally" and for me to point out that the reliable sources don't really support your POV and that your psuedo-complex grammar antilogarithms can't change the plain meaning of a daily newspaper article. What has to be figured out at this forum is who should be sanctioned? The editor that unilaterally changes articles knowing that there is no consensus for these changes or the editor that reverts to the original version.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The Judea-and-Samaria-are-standard-accepted-current-geographic-terms hoax has reached such proportions that the AN/I board is indeed an appropriate place to address it.
Your endlessly repeated mischaracterization of "northern West Bank" as a "neologism" is a good example of the sort of systematic, Orwellian abuse of ordinary language that is at the very heart of the hoax.--G-Dett (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
This isn't the AN/I board. IronDuke 22:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Unfortunately, this same stalking/hounding by the same user came up less than a month ago. We're beginning to see a pattern here. Tarc (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The phrase User:Pedrito is looking for is Chutzpah. Having hounded me to an article which kicked off his recent spree of edits - [46], and to several others ([47], [48]), having edit warred with numerous other editor over his recent changes [49], [50] - he somehow finds it possible to come here and complain about edit warring and hounding. Anyway: WP:HOUND is pretty explicit on this matter: 'Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles' - which is exactly what I have been doing. NoCal100 (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

  • What "errors or violations of Wikipedia policy" have you been correcting? Because, as a completely uninvolved admin, all I see is you changing commonly-used geographical names to little-used ones - which would, ironically, be against Wikipedia policy... Black Kite 21:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The policy violation is WP:CONSENSUS. See Talk:Israeli settlement. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
....where there is clearly no consensus whatsoever. Black Kite 21:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Pedrito changed the articles despite the lack of consensus for the changes. Nocal reverted to the original version.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Why would one need consensus to alter geographical place names to their most commonly known forms? (Yeah, sounds like a naive question on an IP article I know, but ...). Alternatively, why not use "Northern West Bank/Samaria" or suchlike? Black Kite 22:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
That is quite a reasonable suggestion, but please note that it is exactly this "Northern West Bank/Samaria" terminology that Pedrito has been removing from multiple articles: [51], [52],[53] Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
While "Westbank" is quite commonly used, "northern West Bank" is not as commonly used as "Samaria" and "southern West Bank" is not as commonly used as "Judea." I don't know where you're from so forgive me for using New York as an analogy, but it's like calling the area of northeast Manhattan "northeast Manhattan" instead of Harlem. As for your suggestion, I actually did make such a proposal at the Israeli Settlement talk page but it was shot down with the same insults I got here at this talkpage.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
If the term Harlem were (a) an intensely controversial designation, with strong religious-nationalist overtones, for northeast Manhattan, hence a term (b) almost entirely avoided by mainstream reliable sources, who for their part (c) tended to accompany even their very rare uses of the term with an explanation that "Harlem is a [insert hypothetical religious/nationalist adjective] name for northeast Manhattan," then Brewcrewer would have a relevant and serious point here. But it's not, and he doesn't.--G-Dett (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Though the main policy-related points have already been covered by previous editors, it is worthwhile to review them:

  • Pedrito claims to be a victim of hounding. However, WP:HOUND states that it is quite appropriate to track a user’s contribution history in order to correct related problems on multiple articles. Specifically, it says “Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended". As Pedrito’s edit history clearly shows, as well as by his own admission here, he has been systematically removing the term “Samaria” from multiple articles. Thus, to use his contribution history in order to restore the term “Samaria” to those articles is perfectly acceptable under WP:HOUND. There is no policy issue here whatsoever.
  • Pedrito himself appears to have WP:HOUNDed NoCal100 to several articles he had never edited before [54], [55], [56]), and reverted him or otherwise opposed him on Talk pages. So, to the extent that NoCall100’s behavior runs afoul of WP:HOUND, so does Pedrito’s.
  • Pedrito further complains of edit warring, but even a cursory glance at the relevant edit histories shows he has been a far more active edit warrior than NoCal – At Elkana, he reverted 3 times, against 2 different editors, while NoCal reverted once. At [Ya'akov Katz]], he reverted twice to Nocal’s one revert, and at Aryeh Eldad they both reverted twice. None of these mini edit wars seems to be worthy of any sanction, but to the extent that NoCal is edit warring there, clearly Pedrito is as well, and to a broader extent.
  • At least one of the participants in this discussion, User:G-Dett, has made a wikipedia editing career out of compulsive and habitual WP:HOUNDing of User:Jayjg. One would be hard pressed to find even a dozen article she has edited which were NOT articles that she had followed Jayjg to, in order to revert him. It takes some gall for her to complain of someone else’s alleged hounding, as it does for Pedrito. It is also more than a tad ironic for Pedrito to bring up the case of User:Nickhh in this context – a WP:HOUNDer whose own hounding has been discussed (and casually dismissed) on WP:ANI not too long ago

In summary: Perhaps a reminder to ALL involved to attempt dispute resolution before running to WP:AE with ill-founded accusations of misbehavior, but seriously, nothing to see here. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Any long-running I-P editor chanting "nothing to see here" really shouldn't be a part of this discussion, as their objectivity in the matter is, shall we say, suspect. Pedrito brought a matter to AE, Nocal certainly has a right to defend himself, but most of the rest of this is just continuations of grudges from elsewhere. Let the matter be looked into by the appropriate powers, and let's cut the rest of the eDrama, eh? Tarc (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that process involve deleting your own posts? IronDuke 00:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Since I was adding valid evidence of similar past actions by this same user, um, no, it would not. Nice try though. Tarc (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah. So you are in the category of editors whose "objectivity" is above suspicion then? (I'll give you a barnstar if you can say "yes" with a straight face). IronDuke 00:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Doesn't look like there's anything actionable here - there's a content dispute over naming that's now apparently spreading rapidly through a number of articles. Both of you were (kind of) edit warring and it looks like the appearing at articles together is more about the naming dispute than someone being followed. This particular dispute could really use some dispute resolution like RfCs or even an informal mediation - these two aren't the only ones edit warring over it. Shell babelfish 04:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Just got in this morning to read all this, and it looks like there are some things that need clearing up. First and foremost, User:NoCal100's (and User:Canadian Monkey's) accusation that I stalked him. The three edits in question are
  • 12:28, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Barkan ‎ (Undid revision 271261947 by NoCal100 (talk) why take this fight here? get a grip...)
  • 15:03, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Rimonim ‎ (→"West Bank region of Samaria"?: nope)
  • 16:27, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Ma'ale Shomron ‎ (→Terminology: reply)
The first edit was the first instance of "Samaria" I had found using Wikipedia's own search engine and is closely followed by a series of similar edits. These edits all occur in the order in which the results showed up in the search. The fact that the first edit landed on User:NoCal100 is a coincidence, yet not such a surprising one since he seems somewhat obsessed with all things Samarian.
The other two accusations are laughable considering
  • 12:43, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Rimonim ‎ (remove uncommon geographical location) (top)
i.e. I had edited the page myself a few hours ago and put it on my Watchlist. Ma'ale Shomron was added to my Watchlist after I saw that User:Nickhh got blocked. I had followed the link from his talk page. I answered on both pages after, apparently, User:NoCal100 had followed User:MeteorMaker there (and to about 20 other pages), to engage him. Here's a short excerpt from his Contributions:
  • 15:08, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mevo Dotan ‎ (→"The northern Samarian part of the West Bank")
  • 15:07, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Ma'ale Shomron ‎ (→Terminology)
  • 15:05, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Barkan ‎ (→"West Bank region of Samaria"?)
  • 15:04, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Karnei Shomron ‎ (→"Western Samaria region of the West Bank"?)
  • 15:04, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Kiryat Netafim ‎ (top)
  • 15:04, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Alfei Menashe ‎
  • 15:03, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Immanuel (town) ‎
  • 15:03, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Alon, Mateh Binyamin ‎
  • 15:03, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Nofim ‎
  • 15:02, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Einav ‎
  • 15:02, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Hinanit ‎
  • 15:01, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Rechelim ‎
  • 15:01, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Peduel ‎
  • 15:01, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Sahl Arraba ‎
  • 15:00, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Rimonim ‎
  • 15:00, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Givat Harel ‎
  • 15:00, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Pisgat Ya'acov ‎
  • 14:59, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Migdalim ‎
Compare these to User:MeteorMaker's Contributions
  • 10:19, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Migdalim ‎ (→"Samarian part of the West Bank"?: new section)
  • 10:18, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Pisgat Ya'acov ‎ (→"Samaria"?: new section)
  • 10:17, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Givat Harel ‎ (→"The Samarian part of the West Bank"?: new section)
  • 10:17, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) N Talk:Rimonim ‎ ("West Bank region of Samaria"?)
  • 10:16, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Sahl Arraba ‎ (→"Northern Samaria"?: new section)
  • 10:15, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Peduel ‎ (→"Samarian region of the West Bank"?: new section)
  • 10:15, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Rechelim ‎ (→"Samarian part of the West Bank"?: new section)
  • 10:14, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Hinanit ‎ (→"Northern Samaria"?: new section)
  • 10:14, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Einav ‎ (→"Samarian region of the West Bank"?: new section)
  • 10:13, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) N Talk:Nofim ‎ ("Samaria"?)
  • 10:12, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Alon, Mateh Binyamin ‎ (→"Samaria"?: new section)
  • 10:11, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Immanuel (town) ‎ (→"Samaria, West Bank"?: new section)
  • 10:10, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Alfei Menashe ‎ (→"Samaria in the central West Bank"?: new section)
  • 10:10, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Kiryat Netafim ‎ (→"West Bank region of Samaria"?: new section)
  • 10:09, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Karnei Shomron ‎ (→"Western Samaria region of the West Bank"?: new section)
  • 10:04, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Barkan ‎ (→"West Bank region of Samaria"?: new section)
  • 10:01, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Ma'ale Shomron ‎ (→Terminology)
  • 09:59, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mevo Dotan ‎ (→"The northern Samarian part of the West Bank": new section)
Notice the exact reverse order? That's User:NoCal100 clicking himself through User:MeteorMaker's contributions list.
In summary, while User:NoCal100 was WP:HOUNDing User:MeteorMaker, he popped up on my Watchlist, amongst others on pages I had recently edited. Sorry, no stalking on my part, but more proof of User:NoCal100 doing so.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 19.02.2009 07:59
Point 1 - there is no doubt that NoCal100 followed Meteormaker to all those talk pages, to reply to a comment which he had made. Now, if (for example) NoCal100 had followed round Meteormaker to 20 article pages to revert a good-faith change he made, that would fairly clearly be against WP:HOUND and would probably be block-worthy. However, replying to talk page comments probably isn't, regardless of the (shaky in my opinion - there must be more than one map or RS available) rationale that NoCal100 uses to justify the use of the term "Samaria". This isn't blockable.
Point 2, made above - As Pedrito’s edit history clearly shows ... he has been systematically removing the term “Samaria” from multiple articles. Thus, to use his contribution history in order to restore the term “Samaria” to those articles is perfectly acceptable under WP:HOUND. No - no, it isn't. That part of WP:HOUND exists to allow editors to use contrib histories to revert clear breaches of policy on multiple articles - it does not exist to allow people to edit-war, which is what is happening here. If evidence is shown here of that type of edit-history re-occurring, regardless of which "side" is doing it, I would certainly be inclined to issue block(s) for it, as I know many other admins would. Black Kite 13:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
You are not quoting what WP:HOUND actually says, which is simply: "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles" - There is nothing there about clear breaches of policy. You may think my rational is "shaky", but that is a content dispute, and WP:HOUND explicitly allows to do this. NoCal100 (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
You are wrong. "Fixing errors" means fixing obvious errors, such as spelling, hoaxes, or obvious misinformation, not information that is contentious. In other words, if you think it's an error, but others don't, then it isn't an "obvious error". It's edit-warring. Don't do it. (And that applies to all "sides", clearly). Yes, the rationale is a content dispute, and irrelevant here. Black Kite 15:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I'm wrong, and I note that your personal interpretation - that we're talking about 'obvious' errors such a spelling errors is not actually found in the the text. Perhaps the powers that be should clarify what is meant, for future reference. I agree with you that this is edit warring, on a small scale, - edit warring that Pedrito is just as guilty of. NoCal100 (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
If it's not an obvious error, then clearly it must be edit-warring, and yes, more than one person has been guilty of this. I am saying to everyone - don't do this. Black Kite 15:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
with this I agree. I have disengaged from the related content dispute. NoCal100 (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, my complaint is the re-occurrence. As User:Tarc pointed out, this already happened before (see here).
Even just recently, User:NoCal100 chased User:Nickhh and User:MeteorMaker to Ma'ale Shomron, Mevo Dotan and Barkan (as the edit histories show, those were his first edits there, in rapid sequence, after User:Nickhh's reverts).
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 19.02.2009 14:03
Yes, and I'm saying that the following round to talkpages to leave a reply to someone else's similar comments isn't disruptive. A repetition of the behaviour you mention above would be, but this isn't it. Black Kite 15:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I probably wasn't clear enough in my last post -- in the above recent examples, User:NoCal100 followed User:Tarc, User:MeteorMaker and User:Nickhh to article pages and reverted them. I had gotten you point that following people to talk pages is in no way evil, but this was never about talk pages, the longer list above was just demonstrative.
Cheers and sorry for the confusion, pedrito - talk - 19.02.2009 15:07
Yes - see my point to NoCal100 above. I think this conversation is enough to establish to everyone here that if any further edit warring and/or disruption occurs which can be linked to following contrib histories, then we can safely assume that such behaviour will be blockable. If other admins believe that the above is blockable now then so be it, but personally I am happy to draw a line here and say that any further issues of the same sort will be sanctionable. Black Kite 15:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, although I don't really believe that this will be the final "final" warning, I guess I'll have to live with it. Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 19.02.2009 15:24
I'm late to the discussion here, but I'd just like to add further evidence against User:NoCal100: Less than two minutes after my edit here, NoCal reverted a page he never before edited. This is only the most blatant of the many examples I could dig up of him following me around, in addition to the 18 counts of rapid-fire reverts Pedrito lists above. NoCal is clearly aware of the rules: he flung this accusation my way because I happened to post on a talk page that we both have on our watchlists. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Sarah777 and myself on Talk:Dunmanway Massacre - Troubles related article[edit]

Background: Sarah777 objects to the Mid rating of the article on the Wikiproject Ireland scale and set it to low without consensus. Since then we (and others) have been setting it back and forth and back and forth. Sarah has now used what I perceive as the threat of an ArbCom ruling to keep the rating at her preferred choice. She says there is no consensus to change it back to mid, however there is no consensus to put it to low either, and there has been no discussion on the WikiProject Ireland talk page to get one either.

This is both for a request from myself for clarity (are project ratings covered by the Troubles 1RR rating?) and as a good example of why 1RR doesn't work well when it can be used to stop edits by timing rather than consensus. --Blowdart | talk 22:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to understand how threat of an ArbCom ruling relates in any way to my actions. I'm also puzzled how and article about Dunmanway in 1921 can be considered "Troubles (1968 - 1997) related". Just get Blowdart to stop edit warring. Sarah777 (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: This report does not provide all the information required per the "Using this page" section above. If the information is not added soon, the report may be closed without action.  Sandstein  23:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I reported what I regarded as his edit warring to an Admin, BrownHairedGirl; Blowdart appears to have thought I was threatening him with an Arbcom ruling (as if I could!) Sarah777 (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The article itself is within the purview of The Troubles. However, edit-warring - even on a talk page about something as trivial as a project rating - falls under WP:EW anyway. To answer the question - yes, 1RR should also apply to talk pages. However, frankly this one also falls under WP:LAME. Just give it a rest, please. Black Kite 00:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Kite; facts - I didn't refer this to Arbcom; I didn't invoke 1RR - I complained to an Admin to warn an editor against what I reckoned was common non-Arb related edit warring. I'm not making any case here. I made a complaint to the police that Blowdart mistook for a Criminal Prosecution. Sarah777 (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

White_Adept and rulings[edit]

Article:Sathya Sai Baba
Who: User:White_adept
What: Violated rulings, Malicious editing based on Unreliable sources Case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2
Notifications: :
  • User:White_adept made 190 edits between Jan 8th 2009 - Jan 17th 2009 in a matter of 10 days.
User:White_adept edit history from Jan 8th 2009 - Jan 17th 2009
  • Comparison of the article before and after User:WhiteAdepts changes.
Article as of 5th January 2009 before User:White_adept edits - See the contents of the article below:
Article as of Jan 23rd 2009 after User:White_adept major edits:


Sathya Sai Baba has been very controversial article which went through 2 arbitrations. During which several rulings were passed and editors were warned against using unreliable sources. Editors who were either strong pro or critic of Sathya Sai Baba were banned from editing this article. User:WhiteAdept has disrupted this article breaking many of the first and second arbitration rulings.

Arbitration rulings and violations by User:White_adept

1) Second passed ruling on NPOV sources: Second greatly stressed on using NPOV sources.
Unreliable sources used by User:WhiteAdept:
  • User:White_adept's main sources for major restructuring the article were Robert Priddy, "The Findings by Bailey" and Basava Premananda.
  • All these sources contain lot of POV views, personal experiences and are largely unverifiable and they violate the above ruling.
2) Second Arbitration Robert Priddy: Second passed a decision saying Robert Priddy cannot be used. Please see arbitration ruling on using Priddy as a reference.
3) Second Arbitration ruling on adding poorly sourced information:
Second ruling says "The remedies in the prior decision regarding poorly sourced information remain in force and apply to all editors working on Sathya Sai Baba and related articles".
  • Sources used by User:White_adept:
The Problem:
  • Second Arbitration's Finding of Fact:
Second arbitration passed a ruling saying Sathya Sai Baba is weakly sourced.
  • User:White_adept has made it more weakly sourced by adding more POV sections based on unverifiable sources and unreliable stories.
  • Remedies from Second Arbitration: One of the remedies was to ban editors who were strong Pro / Critic of Baba and also other were warned about using poor negative sources. It says as follows "The remedies at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba regarding poorly sourced information remain in force and apply to all editors working on Sathya Sai Baba and related articles".
  • Inspite of this ruling User:White_adept has used the following unreliable sources - Priddy, The Findings and Basava Premananda for his major edits to the article. Inspite of being reminding about his arbitration violations here He did not make any effort in removing any of the priddy reference which directly violated ruling.
  • When I notified User:White_adept his ruling violations on Priddy and his other sources this was his response - "Robert Priddy is a respected professor of philosophy and sociologist and his writings have been used as such in leading Indian skeptical journals such as Premanand's. Anyway - if you look at things from that perspective Narasimha biography etc are all violate WP:RS. But the sources such as "the findings" are being used to identify the perspective of the source on the topic - which indeed is of relevance and well within what wikipedia policies allow us to use. It is more acceptable because it is completely consistent with the mainstream perspective. White adept (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)". He is not only a POV pusher but also a very strong critic of Sai Baba. His views on the talk page praising Robert Priddy, Basava Premananda - well known critic of Baba, his one sided biased editing rewriting the article in critics perspective and removing positive views on Sai Baba only proves his strong critical views of Sai Baba.
Current State of the article.
  • As a result of User:WhiteAdept major edits this article has major sections based on unreliable sources and filled with unverifiable stories.
  • The article is totally imbalanced rewritten in a critics perspective with 90% undue weightage to criticism of Sathya Sai Baba.
  • To remove these unreliance sources and bring some balance to the article is going to take a long time and effort due to the enormous baised editing by User:White_Adept.
Steps towards improving the article:
  • I have spent quite a lot of time familiarising with the earlier discussions and rulings. I sincerely believe that this article can be improved by implemeting Jossi proposals which arbitration commitee recommended.
  • But unless the unreliable sources are weeded out there can be no improvements to this article.
  • User:White_adept massive edits have clearly violated many of the arbitration rulings and WP:BLP policies and also caused serious disruption to this very controversial article.
  • I tried to remove Priddy references which was direct violation of ruling I was faced with repeated editwarring from User:White_adept. He added back priddy references with other edits. With this user's editwarring, constant POV pushing I don't think any improvements can be made in the article. I request either a complete Sathya Sai Baba topic ban on User:White_adept inorder to remove the unreliable sources and move toward improving this article as per the arbitration commitee recommendations.
I have notified User:White_Adept here Radiantenergy (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius has resumed date delinking in violation of the injunction[edit]

The following discussion 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.

See these edits to the Edger Christopher Cookson article and these edits to the William Harold Coltman article. This is not the first time he has violated the injunction. Tennis expert (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be limited to a handful of articles, usually in combination with edits that make other changes. These actions seem clearly outside of the injunction against mass/automated (de)linking. Vassyana (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Other articles that he has date delinked in the last couple of days: Joseph Henry Collin, John Stanhope Collings-Wells, George William Burdett Clare, William Clamp, Geoffrey Cather, George Edward Cates, List of cabinets of Iceland, and Nelson Victor Carter. Tennis expert (talk) 07:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC) He was blocked for 48 hours earlier this month for violating the injunction in precisely this way. And see this apology from him, where he explicitly acknowledged that manual delinking was covered by the injunction. Tennis expert (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I will alert other arbs to this evidence and solicit their opinions. Vassyana (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Two more: John Henry Carless and Marjorie Yang. Tennis expert (talk) 07:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Two more: Frederick William Campbell and John Fitzhardinge Paul Butler. Tennis expert (talk) 07:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Just a few more (I've looked back to his edits of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising article but no further): John Crawford Buchan, William Buckingham, Walter Ernest Brown, Harry Brown (VC), Jean Brillant, Roland Boys Bradford, George Nicholson Bradford, and Stanley Henry Parry Boughey. Tennis expert (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC) And another he just did: Gabriel Coury. Tennis expert (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC) It appears he started the date delinking only a few days after his previous blocked ended: David McAllister (politician). Tennis expert (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius has advised me that he audits dates in not more than one article a day. Please note that it has been established (?here) that it is only mass delinking that is covered by the injunction. FA and FL nominees, who regularly delink, would rebel if suddenly they were not allowed to use a script to adhere to the guideline. Ah, those editors, BTW, who are among our most serious and professional contributors to articles, seem to be very happy with the guide lines in this respect. Tony (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Another article he just date delinked: John Bernard Croak. By my count, that's at least 10 articles in the last 24 hours. Tennis expert (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Make that 11: Victor Crutchley. Tennis expert (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

His alternative account, Date delinker, also has been blocked for violating the injunction since January 30, 2009. Tennis expert (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC) See this on the arbitration workshop subpage and this on the arbitration enforcement page. Tennis expert (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Before the usual vultures start to descend, it would be as well to look closely at the articles TE has identified, not just take his word for it. If you do, you'll find (from the sample I've looked at) that the small number of dates in each article were delinked there as part of an extensive revision and expansion of those articles, which has improved them immeasurably. We should thank OC for continung to do such fine work in the face of such implacable hostility. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, then, I wonder how you would rationalize these edits. Tennis expert (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at the last several edits Ohconfucius has made to article space. He seems to be significantly improving and revising articles, and not linking the dates when he rewrites. That is not in violation of the date delinking injunction. Colonies Chris is correct. He has not edited frequently enough to be considered carrying out mass delinking. Risker (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

  • It appears that the plaintiff has not heard what Vassyana has said, and keeps hammering on about it as if shouting louder will get his voice heard and get me blocked once again. I would take the opportunity to remind ARBCOM that this climbing of the Reichstag is EXACTLY the kind of sorry and pedantic behaviour that I (and many other) have been subjected to since the beginning of this saga in August. Just because I previously violated the injunction does not mean I am doing it again now - I have learned my lesson, and have no wish to waste any more time on this case (did I ever mention that I have lost all confidence in it?). I am doing some serious editing by expanding articles, and delinking articles in compliance with WP:MOSNUM, and it would appear that the plaintiff is attempting to stop me working on WP altogether. I am just sick and tired of his endless stalking and harassment. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Risker, just to clarify the extent of the injunction, you're saying it's OK to mass delink one article like Ohconfucius did here so long as you're not doing, say, two articles? It appears that you're saying the scope of the injunction has changed since Ohconfucius and Date delinker were last blocked even though the wording of the injunction itself has not. Notice that Ohconfucius has just admitted that one of his goals is to delink articles in accordance with the Manual of Style even though this arbitration is still pending. Tennis expert (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Why don't you just give it a break?? Have you no life to get on with? Ohconfucius (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example barely 10 minutes old of Ohconfucius's date delinking an article for no significant purpose other than the delinking. Tennis expert (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh... the purpose was to use Australian date styles. --NE2 10:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
That was what his misleading edit summary said. Notice, for example, in his edit the delinking of "November 2008" without changing anything else. And he was certainly capable of adjusting the dates to Australian order without delinking them. Tennis expert (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Delinking is fine if other constructive edits are made, you know... --NE2 10:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't know that. What is your source? I suppose date linking would be fine, too, if "other constructive edits are made", whatever that means. Tennis expert (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Will Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Question about date delinking injunction do? --NE2 10:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment For the benefits of those who may not realise, this discussion thread was moved from WT:ARBCOM, so it has been underneath their noses and around all the houses. Vassyana and Risker are both members of ARBCOM. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's take a look at this edit made to List of cabinets of Iceland by Ohconfucius on February 17, 2009. I counted 93 dates that he delinked without making even one other kind of edit. No date order change. No other "constructive" or unconstructive edit of any kind. How does that not violate the injunction? How is that any different than the edits made earlier this year that earned blocks for both of his accounts, one of which is continuing until the end of the arbitration? Tennis expert (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Any reason this hasn't been closed, please? Tony (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucious violating date delinking injunction (again)[edit]

Ohconfucius has continued to make edits delinking dates using his main account, Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (see contribution history; a random example is provided at the Arbitration talk page), in contravention of the temporary injunction issued against such activities by the arbitrators. Ohconfucious' alternative account Date delinker is indefinitely blocked for this activity and his main account was also recently blocked for this activity. AKAF (talk) 07:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be an on-going discussion on this issue already: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Ohconfucius_has_resumed_date_delinking_in_violation_of_the_injunction Shell babelfish 09:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

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

User:MeteorMaker violating terms of ban placed by User:Elonka pursuant to ARBPIA[edit]

The following discussion 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.

Enforcement required pursuant to Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles.

On or about April of last year, User:MeteorMaker began a campaign to remove any mention of the terms "Judea" and/or "Samaria" from any article on Wikipedia. This behavior was found objectionable from the get-go, and several editors and administrators have repeatedly asked him to stop (see this as one very early request).

User:MeteorMaker did not cease the behavior, but rather escalated it and expanded it to multiple articles, edit warring on many of them. This resulted first in his being formally notified of the editing restrictions authorized by the aforementioned ArbComm case here, and then subsequently with a short block for violating 3RR with those same reverts.

The behavior did not stop even after this, and after several additional warnings ([57], [58]) he was placed by User:Elonka on a formal ban, that prohibits him from "Making Samaria-related reverts to any article in the Israel/Palestine topic area", as well as from 'Removing reliable citations from any article in the topic area'.

Immediately after the ban was invoked, he violated it by removing a reliably sourced quote from Zionist entity, and then proceeded to wikilawyer over the specifics of the ban, claiming that because the restriction was on "Removing reliable citations", it is ok for him to remove the material for which the citations are given, as long as the citations themselves (which now do not refer to anything) are left in the article.

Apparently emboldened by the lack of action taken after that violation, he has today proceed to violate the letter of the first restriction, with this edit, which removes 'Samaria' and replaced it with "west bank" - precisely the edit that was explicitly prohibited by the ban placed by Elonka. As Elonka is apparently on a wikibreak, another administrator should act to enforce the ban using some stricter measures. Given the duration and scope of this disruption, a topic ban from I-P articles is probably in order. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this dispute, but would it not be more sensible for editors to work out where and how the alternative names "Samaria" and "West Bank" should be used? This reminds me of the trouble we have had in the past with Balkans editors disputing placenames in Kosovo, Macedonia, Greece and other countries - a problem for which Wikipedia:Naming conflict (which I largely wrote) was devised to solve. Rather than fighting over terminology in individual articles, I'd suggest that you seek a global solution, perhaps something along the lines of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles). I'm happy to offer my assistance, if needed. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. MeteorMaker has rejected 'Samaria' related sources as well as fellow editorial input, refusing attampts at compromise and consensus building.
  2. There's no difference here between a topic ban and an actual block. MeteorMaker is a single purpose account for I-P articles.
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 02:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if ChrisO's offer were taken at face value (which it shouldn't be, for reasons I won't get into, lest all his admin cronies start showing up on my talk page bearing warnings), it is beside the point in this discussion. The dispute presented here is expressly not about a particular article, but it does not necessarily require an immediate "global" solution. It is about one user's conduct. Meteor Maker acted in a disruptive manner, an admin imposed a ban, no other admin (as far as I can see) has objected to the ban, and now MM has violated the ban. This should be simple. It doesn't require a manual of style which could take months or years to achieve consensus on. It takes the enforcement of an appropriate ban, which requires one admin taking appropriate enforcement action. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I am not sure if this is the right place, but I noticed that user:Pedrito has been doing a similar thing in Alon Shvut [59], Beth-zur [60], Nadia Matar [61], Baraka [62], Ma'on [63], Gush Etzion [64], Beit Horon [65], and the list continues. I tried to revert him, or at least to mention both terminologies, but to no avail. Can some administrator please step in and stop this behavior? I do not think edit warring is the right way to go. My personal view is that both terminologies can be mentioned as both are used (sometimes by the same people). Best. Tkalisky (talk) 07:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This is indeed an ongoing issue. The battle was fought principally on Talk:Israeli settlement (see also archives thereof) and in that article the proponents of "Judea" and "Samaria" lost -- the biblical terminology is no longer in the lead and only used in a section labelled "Terminology" and is refered to as annexationist language and in the section "Historical timeline", buried in a statement on the 2005 withdrawal.
I don't see how User:Canadian Monkey and User:Jaakobou manage to interpret this as an acceptance of the biblical terminology.
I have pondered many times over taking this issue to WP:RfArb, but previous experiences on that page lead me to believe that it will be lost time and bits, leading to no decision in neither direction. However, if anybody believes otherwise and is willing to take up the issue, I will participate and, most importantly, abide by any binding decision.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 24.02.2009 07:56
P.S.: Oh, and per this edit, User:Tkalisky is wrong and should do his homework (and notify whoever he's complaining about) before posting here. pedrito - talk - 24.02.2009 07:56
Thanks indeed my friend - in your second reversion you changed Nadia Matar to include both terminologies. Surely you will not have any objection to do so for all the other articles. Love. Tkalisky (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I object. I used the compromise terminology when I saw that too many editors were getting involved and that it would lead to an edit-war, which would not be helpful to the encyclopaedia. Adding "Judea" and "Samaria" to every mention of the West Bank would be like adding "Palestine" or "Zionist Entity" to every mention of "Israel", something which I'm sure you would find offensive.
This is a problem of perception and perspective and what may seem like a good terminology to one person may be offensive to another. West Bank is not only what is used by 99% of the world, it is also non-offensive.
Hope that clears it up, pedrito - talk - 24.02.2009 09:07
Sensitive indeed. Back to square one. Love. Tkalisky (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I see this discussion has escalated to AE now. In order to not waste everybody's time even more, I'll keep this short:
1) The ban User:Canadian Monkey is talking about was based on what has been confirmed by the admin to be a misunderstanding. She promised to lift it, but forgot to do so before she went on vacation.
2) That ban (that explicitly, if somewhat arbitrarily, says I'm not allowed to remove citations) does not apply to non-citations.
3) The ban further says I'm temporarily banned from: "Making Samaria-related reverts to any article in the Israel/Palestine topic area". I'm still allowed to make Samaria-related edits and non-Samaria-related reverts.
4) The edits I and other editors have made, while "objectionable" to USER:Canadian Monkey, are entirely in accordance with every policy and guideline, and nobody disputes the validity of the dozens of excellent sources they are based on. The version USER:Canadian Monkey and a few other pro-Israeli editors have tried to promote through edit warring, wikilawyering and stonewalling has issues with multiple policies, notably WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:NCGN [66], and not one single source has been presented that supports it. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: If a diff where Elonka notes that the ban is indeed lifted exists, it should be added to MeteorMaker's statement. 6SJ7 makes a clear point about the issue most relevant for this forum.
p.s. a number of sources that support it have been presented (see my first comment). JaakobouChalk Talk 11:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC) clarify 11:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Let me qualify User:Jaakobou's last statement a bit for those unfamiliar with the debate: a number of sources were given that use the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" (along with "West Bank"), yet no sources were given stating that these were indeed commonly used terms. On the other hand, a number of sources were given stating explicitly that "Judea" and "Samaria" are non-standard, politicised and annexationist terms. The sources are all here.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 24.02.2009 12:18
What matters is if MeteorMaker was recused of his sanction or not. My personal review of Elonka's recent User talk page contributions relevant to MeteorMaker[67][68][69] suggest that not only was the ban not withdrawn but that it was seen as "extremely lenient".
p.s. The sources are not all there. Checking the history, it's Ashley kennedy3's list as copied by Elonka into a sub-page and discussed sources are missing from it. Anyways, content discussions are not germane to the purpose of this forum.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 14:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The sources are all there, Jaakobou, but you need to scroll down.
Regarding the issue at hand, this is what Elonka wrote on 15 February:

"You are correct about the citation thing. I saw the edit summary, and that citations had been removed, but missed the part about you moving the citations to a different part of the article. I am amending my statement accordingly, and apologize for my error.[...] In terms of the ban, I'm open to reducing it, but let's see how things go for a week, and then we can re-examine the situation and see about reducing (or even lifting) the ban."

That was 9 days ago, and yesterday she announced she's taking a wikibreak [70].
Interestingly, the infraction cited in the topic ban was not the one in Jayjg's original request to Elonka [71], nor the one Elonka stated before she became aware of her error [72], but one I had never received one single warning about beforehand (my "recent pattern of reverts"), which seems to be somewhat shaky grounds to base a 90-day topic ban on, especially since that "pattern of reverts" was never specified.

To summarize: Elonka imposed a topic ban ("no removal of citations, no Samaria-related reverts") on 14 February. The justification for the ban changed on 15 February after it was shown that the original infraction was non-existent, which Elonka confirmed. She promised to review the ban not later than 22 February, then apparently forgot about the whole thing and went on a wikibreak on 23 February. The next day, Canadian Monkey starts this section and accuses me of having breached the ban. None of his (pretty lame) accusations hold any water, as nothing I've done violates the two conditions above by any stretch of the imagination. This whole affair appears to be a continuation of the lost "Samaria" debate with other means. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, let me put on my admin hat and review the situation:

  • Elonka has placed MeteorMaker on a 90-day ban from "Making Samaria-related reverts to any article in the Israel/Palestine topic area." It is not a total ban on editing Samaria-related articles: "You are not banned from editing the articles, and you are still welcome to change information to try and find a compromise wording, as long as you are not engaging in reverts" (emphasis added). [73]
  • Canadian Monkey charges that MeteorMaker violated the ban with this edit. A review of the article history indicates that no reversion was performed - MeteorMaker's edits were the first since the article was created April 2008. He made a change to the article, replacing one name with another, but did not revert to a previous version of the text. MeteorMaker was thus not in violation of Elonka's ban.
  • There is therefore nothing actionable here in terms of arbitration enforcement.
  • Subject to a review of these findings by an uninvolved administrator, I recommend closing this discussion without further action. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
At the moment Elonka is on wikibreak, otherwise I would be inclined to wait for her interpretation of events. Although this edit was Samaria-related, it wasn't a revert, so technically there wasn't a violation. Obviously, if these sort of edits become a problem than MeteorMaker's ban could be extended and modified, but at the moment, I agree with Chris that we can probably close this report without further action. PhilKnight (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Contrivance, BLP, and 9/11 conspiracy theories[edit]

The following discussion 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:Contrivance's editing of the William Rodriguez article, along with the Kevin Barrett and others BLP articles relating to 9/11 conspiracy theories, has been problematic for quite some time. His edits are tendentious, along with extensive edit warring (with User:Wtcsurvivor and socks) and BLP violations. Note that Wtcsurvivor has already been banned for sockpuppetry and other abusive editing, though he keeps coming back as long as Contrivance is still editing. Dealing with only Wtcsuvivor does not completely resolve the problems with the William Rodriguez article, but rather any solution also needs to look at Contrivance's editing.

Contrivance's userpage even alludes to the fact that he is not here to improve the encyclopedia, but rather has another agenda and is fixated on the William Rodriguez article.

From the time he started editing in May 2008 to December 2008, he edited pretty much solely the William Rodriguez, Kevin Barrett, and Carol Brouillet articles. Recently (since early January) Contrivance, has started editing various other pages. I have evidence (though it contains personal information) that Contrivance is doing these other minor edits on other topics to increase his credibility on Wikipedia, but his purpose remains to influence these 9/11 BLP pages. Because the evidence contains personal information, I can't divulge it onwiki, but could provide more details via e-mail with an admin handling this case.

I have additional evidence that Contrivance (along with Wtcsurvivor) is using Wikipedia as a battleground (see WP:NOT) for an offwiki dispute. (I am willing to discuss this further via e-mail)

  • [74] (example BLP problem on the Kevin Barrett article, adding assertion that Kevin Barrett is a Holocaust denier with no source)

After that edit, I explicitly warned him about BLP. [75] So, anything after that point (in mid-September), he was informed of the policies and disregarding them.

From late September - October
  • [76] - repeatedly inserted, sourced to video, about Willie's story becoming "more dramatic"
  • [77] - inserts "After a self-styled internet "debunker" wrote a point by point analysis of Rodriguez' show, Truth movement forums such as 911blogger and DemocraticUnderground and TruthAction saw discussion of Rodriguez' failure to provide corroborating detail for his claims and the implausibility of many of his claims." - no source
  • [78] - reinserts unsourced
  • [79] - makes null edit, to use edit summary to continue edit warring with Wtcsurvivor - "You're missing the point. The Herald raised the question. It was discussed in the Truth movement, WR felt attacked, and he quit" - both editors have used null edits numerous times to edit war and argue with the edit summaries.
  • [80] - added " This fact was also noticed by Truth movement "debunkers" and among Truthers as well." - unsourced
  • [81] - Willie's account became much more dramatic - source: YouTube
  • [82] - added "Rodriguez' website had featured language from the lawsuit stating his claim that he had single-handedly rescued fifteen (15) persons. In the fall of 2008, Rodriguez changed this language say that it said he helped fifteen persons from the building, thus in effect admitting after four years that the rescue claim was not true." - no source
More recent, from January
  • [83] - added "in close proximity to a PayPal donations button", "These claims have never been corroborated." , "Neither the alleged CNN tape nor the Spanish media tapes have ever been provided by Rodriguez or anyone else." - unsourced, not relevant
  • [84] - added "an introspective essay inspired by William's presentation--and a view much different from the analysis in "; also added "See the wiki article charismatic authority." to the William Rodriguez article.

I'm stopping here with the diffs, but almost any examination of Contrivance's edits show he's editing contrary to the BLP and other policies, even though he has been informed about them.

Arbcom notice and enforcement request

In October, I added the arbcom notice to the article talk page. [85] I know that Contrivance saw the notice, but given my involvement in 9/11 articles and as a party to the arbcom case, I cannot carry out any arbcom enforcement in this case. Yet, I have had enough of his editing, which constantly violates Wikipedia policies. I am seeking another admin to consider this case and request either (1) a 9/11 topic ban under scope of WP:ARB911 and/or (2) a BLP ban or (3) complete ban for Contrivance. --Aude (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have notified User:Contrivance of this thread. Kevin (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I started editing at Wikipedia because I was fascinated by Willie Rodriguez's larger-than-life story. I immediately ran into opposition from people who were obviously dead set on keeping certain important information out, including the testimony of John Schroeder, the story of Kenny Johanneman, Mr. Rodriguez's grandiose claims, Mr. Rodriguez' ties to Jimmy Walter and Christopher Bollyn. The other editors tried to intimidate by pretending they know who I am. They don't. They successfully intimidated the editor Jazz2006 and he no longer edits the William Rodriguez page.

It seems that new ref inserts upset the number scheme. Add four to the numbers below for the appropriate ref.

Re: 16--The charge that Barrett showed support for holocaust denial was not unsourced. It was sourced three times in refs 19, 20, and 10 (as of 06:30, 15 September 2008).
It's not fair to complain of minor tone mis-steps I made during a time when wiki was tolerating edit warring and attempted intimidation by outing being done by someone who is suspected of being the subject of the article. Please note I have done exactly one very minor edit on the William Rodriguez page in the last month.
Re: 18--The video I sourced came from C-Span itself. How much more authoritative can you get? What is wrong with a transition sentence that described the 8-17-07 "BOOM!" story as more dramatic than the 9-11-01 "we hear a rumble" story?
Re: 19--Those unsourced claims can be easily sourced. I imagine I was out getting the sources when the paragraph was speedily deleted by the ever-vigilant Combatant.
Re: 21--I used the edit summary as a comment field in an attempt to start a dialog because the sock editors' ongoing efforts to keep out the Glasgow Herald article was very frustrating, and the socks were refusing to engage in discussion about it. The Herald article was important because it was from a prestigious source, and it made the important point that William provides no evidence for his claims outside of his own testimony. The socks were frantic to keep that article out, and when they couldn't, they arranged to bury it by linking every puff piece published in the UK. That's why the "Press Coverage" section is such a mess, too. Because they wanted to hide that article.
Re:25--"In close proximity to a PayPal button" was important because it suggested a motivation for removing the claim to the 15 single-handed rescues. It seems to me that when Mr. Rodriguez claims that media tapes show he has been telling the same story all along since 9/11, the fact that these tapes have never been produced is significant. I was hoping I might inspire some of his friends to produce the tapes.
Re:26--I thought the descriptor "an introspective essay" was objective. The socks had introduced that article in an attempt to "balance" the Glasgow Herald article. I thought it was worth pointing out the great contrast between the two articles--one of them commenting on logical failings of Mr. Rodriguez's story, and the other an impressionistic tale of how inspired the writer felt.

Contrivance (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't need activists using Wikipedia as a publishing platform. We don't need single purpose accounts editing in the 9/11 articles. I propose a one year topic ban from all 9/11-related articles. Jehochman Talk 21:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree. WP:BLP issues, coatracking etc. Let's see if Contrivance can contribute usefully elsewhere. Kevin (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree too. Never mind the conspiracy theory angle, this user does not seem to understand - or want to understand - WP:BLP and its sourcing requirements.  Sandstein  22:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Naturally I disagree. I started with William Rodriguez because his was a colorful, larger-than-life, and ultimately tragic story. Certainly I overstepped the limitations of BLP policies--in the interests of making a better, more truthful article, and because it seemed that pretty much all rules were off on the William Rodriguez page. It was the wild west! We had multiple sockpuppets of previously banned sockpuppets suspected of being the subject of the article being permitted to engage in intimidation by attempted outing--successfully intimidating the editor Jazz2006. Note these socks were narrowly focused. Unfortunately, much of the information about William is available only on the internet. I branched out into Barrett because he has been intimately connected to William--they toured together twice. Barrett led me to his buddy Fetzer, also a very colorful guy. I'd like to do some clarification of his five levels of disinformation when I get time. And then when Barrett got the endorsement of Griffin, Brouillet, and Bowman I found that interesting (and baffling) enough that I thought to note that in their articles. Combatant's blatant wikilawyering was hurting the article. It was pretty obvious that Rodriguez was trying to reinvent himself as a disaster management consultant after having washed out of the Truth movement, and that he was trying to make the page an advertising brochure for his new career. When he wasn't able to keep the truth out (like when I found the C-Span tape of his program at the C-Span archives) he had to try to obfuscate. And that's why the article now looks like a wall with a couple of pounds of spaghetti on it. Contrivance (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of your disagreement, the consensus here is clear, and so you are banned from 9/11 articles and talk pages for a period of 1 year. Noted here and here. Kevin (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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


The following discussion 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.

VartanM (talk · contribs) has been placed on editing restriction back in December 2007: [86], which limited him to 1rv per week. That restriction was indefinite, as per comment of Seraphimblade here: [87] If there's no time limit set for such a restriction, then it is indefinite. In case of VartanM, he was on unlimited restriction. Recently he was blocked for violation of 1 rv per week restriction, [88], and also placed again on indefinite 1RR: [89] But he continues to violate his parole, this time on the article Lingua franca, where he made 3 rvs withing the last week, of them 2 yesterday: [90] [91] [92] Also note that while civility supervision was part of his original parole, the first 2 reverts have extremely incivil edit summaries. Grandmaster 06:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Here he goes again with another incivil comment [93]. Parishan (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
So, you don't have any balls. Thanks for the confirmation. VartanM (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I always knew you were a chick. VartanM (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Recurring 'vandalism' and 'puppet' labels are not the best ways as well. Brandспойт 11:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
One should stop acting like a puppet, if one doesn't want to be called a puppet. You want to try moving the article again puppet boy? VartanM (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to spare you I will not write much, but you failed to address my last post on talk. Hope you know where the edit war leads. Brandспойт 11:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
You wanted a reply, you got one. I wouldn't speak of edit wars if I were you. History of Nakhichevan shows that it was you who started the current edit war. VartanM (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And yet another revert by VartanM on Nakhchivan: [94] This needs urgent attention of the admins. Grandmaster 12:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 72 hours for multiple violations of the 1RR and civility parole. Shell babelfish 14:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


Parishan (talk · contribs)

How many reverts did Parishan make? Lets count those. VartanM (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
And another 2 rvs by VartanM in the article Nakhchivan: [95] [96], second one after VartanM responded to this report above. Please check his recent contribs, plenty of edit warring on various articles. Grandmaster 08:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
You don't have to be an idiot to see, that Brandmaister was baiting me, and I gladly took that bait. Intelligent admins are required to see whats going on. VartanM (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is more...One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight reverts in the same article starting from January by Parishan, against three different established users. That's a lot of revert's don't you think? VartanM (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It was not "different established users", it was you and your meatpuppets, MarshallBagramyan and Fedayee, who did not contribute a word to the article or to the discussion regarding the said revert, but began reverting it right after you got considered for an indefinite one-revert restriction. The issue was raised here. Parishan (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Parishan is just about edit-warring, but he is not on restriction as far as I can see. Vartan is on restriction, and has violated the restriction several times since his last block, with added incivility — as when he told Parishan to Stop acting retarded. I think we're looking at a 48 to 72 hour block for Vartan (standard 48 + more for incivility, multiple violations, and recentness of re-offending). We can considered whether or not to add Parishan to the restriction. After a quick review I haven't see anything he's done recently that would necessitate adding him, though as there is a clear pattern of conflict here it might only be considered fair and thus the best thing. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to note that after the first four reverts, I did try to draw the administrators' attention to the edit war taking place in the article but no measure was taken. In my edit summaries, I constantly urged VartanM to leave a comment on the long-awaiting information from a number of academic sources I had provided on the talkpage. However he largely ceased all his activity on the discussion page on December 24 and since then kept reverting the page under dubious and insulting pretexts, which qualifies as disruptive editing. In addition, the instances of meatpuppetry on VartanM's part were addressed in my earlier comment. Parishan (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I stopped talking to you, because discussions with you are are like talking with a wall. As you know walls are made of rock who have no intelligence nor ears. VartanM (talk) 10:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, you cannot come on Wikipedia and expect everyone to agree with you 100%. Parishan (talk) 10:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
You couldn't even produce one reliable source to back up your claim. You misquted, mislead and twisted authors words to fit your POV. And you want others to agree with you? VartanM (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S since you bastards aren't doing anything about clear vandalism and organized POV pushing, I decided that I'm going to Ignore all rules. So go ahead and block me, it won't be the first time a blocked user evaded his block[97]. This kangaroo court of yours, didn't do anything about it. VartanM (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a big question who is baiting who here. You revert the pages without discussion, with incivil and insulting edit summaries, claim that by undoing edits of other established users you revert vandalism, etc. Why do you think that you are not the one who baits, but the one who is being baited? Grandmaster 10:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Note another 2 page move reverts by VartanM with incivil summaries here: [98] Grandmaster 10:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that Brand's pagemove timing was coincidence? Do you think we eat grass here? VartanM (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Brand's pagemove was the result of your blind-and-deaf attempts. But we don't discuss content disputes here, so this thread ends. Brandспойт 11:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Again you should read the entire talkpage before you decide to move the page again. Anybody with half a brain can tell you that Roman is not equal to Italian, just like Tatar is not equal to Azerbaijani. VartanM (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Now who's being incivil? Referring to me and Fedayee as meatpuppets somehow justifies your edits? Parishan has had a long history of ignoring what others write, the article on the Church of Caucasian Albania being clear evidence of that. When it becomes a waste of time, he will ignore it. But in the case where he calls me a meatpuppet, no explanation is needed. He obviously manipulated the sources.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And what's wrong with the Church of Caucasian Albania? It is a nicely written article, featured in DYK. Your argumentation was rejected by the third party users as well. If no one agrees with you, it does not mean that all those people are wrong, and you are right. I really see no point in you constantly bringing up that particular article as an example of some sort of a disruption. Btw, this thread needs to be archived, otherwise it will grow longer and longer. Grandmaster 13:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
This, for a lack of better word, is a lie. What third party user, the only third party user there, and who disagreed with anything, was that the History of Caucasian Albania was a primary source. But the reality is that it actually qualifies as a primary source. The Church of Caucasian Albania article is the pushing of a fringe theory maintained and cooked by the Azeri government in Baku. The theory sustained by Parishan was debunked by Shnirelman. Most of the sources Parishan provides are Movses work (which Shnirelman calls very doubtful and expose propagandizes of basing themselves exclusively on Movses, just as Parishan does), the rest have used Movses as a source. Then to finish it all, two out of the three pictures are documented Armenian AND Russian Church, the third has been vandalized by the Azeri government. That 'particular' article, if coming to the scrutiny of uninvolved users will get Parishan in a lot of trouble. This criticism and this one have never been addressed by Parishan, the only reply Parishan gave in the talkpage was this showing that he did not even read the criticism before removing the tag. Parishan like I mentioned above, has no use of what others say. - Fedayee (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
This is very simple. Parishan wrote a very nice article, if you do not like it, there's nothing anyone on this board can do about it. There are ways for resolving content disputes. VartanM was on parole, he violated it, and got blocked. He was also extremely incivil, and civility supervision is also a part of his limitations. This is all there's to it. Grandmaster 08:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't lie next time claiming that third party users addressed it. The diff shows Parishan not even answering or bothering reading the concerns about the article. Also interesting is that everything Shnirelman considers fabrication originating from Baku is exactly what Parishan has incorporated there (so much for the 'nice' article, which is a near replica of the kind of material published in Baku). But do continue with blind ears, you have in the last days proven that you do not care about accuracy and more interested in pushing propaganda when you voted to keep a map, which you have not provided a single source to substantiate, and even going as far as admitting the map was inaccurate but yet wanting to keep it. Vartan's incivility was minimum compared to the level of disruption going on those articles. But you Grandmaster have only accusations of incivility to stand on, and bogus 1RR restrictions. It is futile to expect anything more from administrators, history has shown. Moreschi-types who care about content are the exceptions rather than the rule. Had his type been the rule here, you know that most of you would have ended with topic bans. - Fedayee (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, third party users did address it, see the comments by User:Johnbod, who removed the POV tag you tried to attach to the article. I see no point in further discussion on this thread. It needs to be archived. Grandmaster 13:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America by Eugene V. Gallagher, W. Michael Ashcraft Contributor Eugene V. Gallagher Published by Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006 ISBN 0275987124, 9780275987121. page 64