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

closed per Moreschi...Rlevse

We have the Greek-Macedonian naming and symbols conflict spilling over again. Can somebody please apply WP:ARBMAC sanctions generously all round?

Situation currently focussing on Template:Ethnic Macedonians, a navbox. Conflict has been over whether the navbox should contain a flag or similar symbol, and if yes which. Macedonian editors favour the "Vergina sun" symbol, which is a matter of political contention with Greece (the Republic of Macedonia was forced not to use it as a state flag, after pressure by Greece, but Macedonian individuals and private organisations still unanimously use it as a popular ethnic symbol.) There was a straw poll, which was probably rigged by votestacking from (at least) the Macedonian side. Now the Macedonians are claiming numerical victory and have begun implementing their preferred solution; Greek users are predictably edit-warring against it. Most notable opponent among the Greeks is Avg (talk · contribs), who has made it clear that he regards the use of the symbol as "theft" and will use any means to prevent it. The whole situation is surrounded by a good deal of incivility, mostly by Raso mk (talk · contribs) [1] and MacedonianBoy (talk · contribs) [2] from the ethnic Macedonian side. Some parallel disruption is happening on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aegean Macedonians.

My personal view is that Avg needs to be topic-banned from Macedonia-related disputes for a good while, as he has made it more than clear his behaviour is overtly POV-driven; he just doesn't accept any use of names and symbols that is contrary to his POV [3], will use brute edit-warring force against it, and has repeatedly shown he is impenetrable to reasoned debate in these matters. Raso mk and MacedonianBoy need civility paroles at the very least. Makedonij (talk · contribs) is another factor that needs some looking into. Tsourkpk (talk · contribs), Avg, MacedonianBoy and Makedonij could all do with short blocks for sterile revert-warring over the template. Tsourkp [4], [5] and Raso mk [6] have done some votestacking on-wiki (though the most significant parts of that were probably off-wiki anyway).

Please note that this is going to be a flame-fest if the parties to this conflict become aware of this discussion. My recommendation is each of them should be allowed at most one brief statement. Any bickering between them on this page should be met with immediate blocks, or the page will very quickly become unusable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. There appears to be also some heavy revert-warring at Macedonian language. MacedonianBoy (talk · contribs) is claimed to have gone up to 6R, two Greek users (Tsourkpk (talk · contribs) and The Cat and the Owl (talk · contribs) have 3 each.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Please do not put everybody on the same basket as flamers Fut.) I'm very sensitive to the issue and I don't accept a lot of what comes from the ethnic Macedonian side. I have AfD'd the article Aegean Macedonians since I (and not only me) consider it a POV fork and I've reverted the Vergina Sun image from Template:ethnic Macedonians since it came from a poll where obvious canvassing and sockpuppeting took place. However, I'm always basing my objections to Wikipedia policies. I can limit myself to the 1RR if I'm asked to, since I consider this reasonable, however I consider topic banning an extreme and unfair measure, since I have been only responding to actions. I have never created a POV fork, not sockpuppeted, nor have I created a SPA, nor have I canvassed, on or off-Wiki, nor have I insulted anybody. I (and my view) have been on the receiving side of all of the above. I have been insulted by almost every Slavic Macedonian editor (latest one was "Gayreek" from Kobra) and, if I may add, Fut.Perf. has failed to act in order to protect me since he probably considers that I'm "not worth" it, since we have some history. I strongly want a wider enforcement of ARBMAC, which will be very tough against POV pushing from both sides. --   Avg    21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the administrators can see from the pages, the Macedonian users never, never ever used offensive words in the pages, not especially me on that pages for any user. I am trying, and all Macedonian users too, to make a neutrality for the desputive articles but it is not possible because each our edits are deleted or removed. Each line that we write is considered as POV (which is nonsence). Personally, I do not have bad thaoghts for the Greek users, but that 6 reverted edits are as consequence of defeating the page of vandalism, because there was a source for that number of Macedonian speakers but because some of the users do not like that number revertede the page. Also, since we are there I was removing that phrase Billingual speakers, because it is obvious that minority that live in another country must know authomaticly the foreign language, so they are becaming authomaticly bilingual, there was no need for such phrase. Thats why I have made 6 revertings as the users say. And for the navbox, it is sensible topic but the users on Wikipedia must know that the Star of Kutleš is our holly flag, we love it and it is our national symbol such as the eagle national symbol for Germany or Russia. But some users did not get it and the Macedonian users felt thretened. That was the problem. The freedom of using our own national symbol is limited. I wish to all the best and I hope everything would be in good order. Regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I got emails several times where I was called by the name Monkeydonian. :-( I have not said nothing desputive except the name baby related to one user. --Raso mk (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. It was not pushing POV it was just defeating the Macedonian ethnicity and nationality.--Raso mk (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a few notes on MacedonianBoy's reverts and I'm off (no lengthy speaches this time). MaceodnianBoy's reverts on Macedonian language were more than unjustified - he edit-warred to include an unsourced ridiculous number for Macedonian-speakers in Albania [7] [8] [9] with no reason provided for the reverts whatsoever (neither in the edit-summaries nor anywhere else). I had a similiar problem with his stubborn reverts a couple of days ago on where he insisted on a POV tag [10] [11] with no reasons provided again (see: Talk:Grigor_Parlichev#Reasons for the tag. Instead he tried to make a forum out of the talkpage where he and Raso could discuss my contribs. --Laveol ^T 23:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(un)Add user Polibiush's edit warring on Aegean Macedonians even after being told to start a new section on the talk page and voice his concerns. Broken 3RR already. 3rdAlcove (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not break 3RR rule, my edits are different. I see you are still learning Wikipedia guidelines, you did not know what a POV is, and also you told me to "fuck off" - completely unacceptable. Polibiush (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: I blocked Polibiush 48h for a pretty blatant 3RR violation here. A revert parole might be in order. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding my own behavior, I must say I did get carried away in the heat of the moment and did some things I probably shouldn't have. The two reverts I made to Template:ethnic Macedonians in particular were not such a good idea, and I regret performing them. I had become incensed when I observed massive vote-stacking in both Aegean Macedonians and Template:ethnic Macedonians, with brand new users such as Filipgd appearing out of the woodwork, and no action taken by any admins (one user even went so far as to vote twice [12] [13]). I find such efforts, in all likelyhood coordinated off-wiki, as particularly insidious and damaging to Wikipedia. While my attempts to contact two other users was probably not very intelligent, it was at least done on-wiki and out of frustration rather than part of an organized, premeditated plan. As for my edits to Macedonian language, these edits [14] [15] by MacedonianBoy constitute blatant vandalism IMO, considering the information is important and moreover sourced. In any case, under no circumstances did I break WP:3RR. As FP pointed out, the onlt reverts I performed were 2 on Template:ethnic Macedonians and 3 on Macedonian language. I would also like to point out that in the 10 months I've been on wikipedia, I have maintained a clean record, both with regards to WP:ARBMAC (not even a warning) and elsewhere. I have never broken WP:3RR (or even "gamed the system") and have striven hard to avoid edit warring, discuss things and build consensus. I understand my most recent behavior merits at the very least a warning, but I would like to point out that is the first such instance. I hope that the fact that I have a clean record so far is taken into account by the Arbitration Committee. As a final note, I would like to point that the incivility on the part of some users is far more extensive than indicated by Future Perfect, and particularly brazen and provocative: [16] [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. The use of irredentist terms such as "Star of Kutles" is also clearly intended to provoke and not helpful at all. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The whole thing is a big nonsense,if there is realy neutralety,administrators shoud understand Ethnic Macedonian,i mean how can Greek editors judge what is thruth about Ethnic Macedonians,when they dont recognize Ethnic Macedonians like a nation.Is there any Macedonian editor editing Greek articles???I put two links in discussion page about most respected ethnic Macedonian associations,i allso insert a link which describe the wholle situation about simbols.Nobody listen,i also inform neutral administrator ChrisO to judge about whole thing,no answer.My apollogise to all,but the thing is simple,let the Greeks use blue one and Macedonians red one.

I dont regrate nothing,everything was fine,the problem was that there was no judge to judge.Makedonij (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Something noteworthy: user:Filipgd is not a new user - he is just the same guy as user:Profesorot. NOT a sockpuppet however, since the Profesorot account has not been active (I guess he forgot his password). BalkanFever 07:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some examples of Avg's ranting about "monopolisation": [27] [28] [29] [30]

Some examples of incivility from Avg: [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]

Obviously, everything should be read in context, but Tsourkpk didn't bother to provide any with his diffs.... BalkanFever 07:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the edits at Macedonian language - Tsourkpk 3 + The Cat and the Owl 3 vs MacedonianBoy 6 - I can only point to WP:ARBMAC, where concern was expressed over tag-team edit warring. BalkanFever 07:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok[edit]

Thus far, 96 hours off for MacedonianBoy + civility supervision, formal civility supervision for Raso mk, and revert parole for Polibiush. I'll come back in another couple of hours and sort out the other half of this dispute (the Greeks). Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Avg has been blocked for 72 hours + topic-banned: Tsourkpk blocked for 48 hours + revert paroled. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Makedonij blocked for 48 hours and revert paroled. I think that's the lot as far as disciplinary action is concerned. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, and I've removed the image entirely and protected the template for 3 months, admin-only. It doesn't need a pic and it's silly for ethnic groups to have flags. Even if not, anything's better than more revert-warring by those left unblocked. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

152.131.10.133[edit]

152.131.10.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is another tendentious, povpushing account that is disrupting 9/11-related articles. Checkuser has indicated that this is a sockpuppet of a named editor.[42] I believe they are logging out intentionally to avoid scrutiny. I suggest the editor (whether editing via named account or IP) be topic banned per WP:ARB9/11. Jehochman ^Talk 11:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

For whatever it's worth, this isn't the first time this has come up: [43], never went anywhere last time...but it is ongoing. RxS (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

Followup: A couple of arbs basically said "yes, we don't need to decide because admins already can do that" and archived it.[44] Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

stale, another one that has descended into a mere debate...Rlevse

SalvNaut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a long history of tendentiously lobbying to insert unreliable information and promote fringe theories about 9/11.[45] [46] [47] [48] [49] I request an uninvolved administrator to review their edits and issue either a warning or topic ban as appropriate. Jehochman ^Talk 15:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To my knowldedge, I never insert unreliable information. I base my edits on secondary sources, and I am very well aware of the status of CDH in the engineering community, or 9/11 theories in the mainstream. I edit these topics because some time ago I've read a lot of official, unofficial, scientifc, pseud-scientifc documents and my curiosity has not been put to rest at all. I wait eagerly for the NIST WTC7 report, and any other publications. The last edit provided by Jehochman (who has a habit of putting everyone he does not agree with under AN) is very appropriate to the CDH article, because it is about a peer-reviewed article published in a third-party engineering journal. Very relevant and one of the reasons why the CDH still lives, imho. I would surely agree on a different wording, but see no reason why the info should be removed entirely. I don't have much time for editing, that's why I am WP:BOLD and put my edits in place, instead of putting them under discussion. I had, and have, no other intents, after first reactions to my edit, than to wait and see how discussion on the talk page evolves... and now this AN case, too, of course. salVNaut (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My previous complaints here about 9/11 disruptions were confirmed and the users were either blocked, topic banned or warned.[50] Therefore, I request you strike out the bit about "who has a habit of putting everyone he does not agree with under AN". Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm having a look. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• After some head-scratching, here are my thoughts. We seem to be dealing with a case of civil POV-pushing again. All this account, SalvNaut (talk · contribs) has ever really done is hammer away on 9/11 articles trying to promote the old idea that 9/11 was the result of a controlled demolition. There's a couple of 3RR blocks in his log, but for the most part I don't see any overt policy violations apart from WP:UNDUE and WP:TE - not good ones to violate, admittedly. Usually in these sort of circumstances I'm fairly liberal, because it's not a case of outright trolling, but the problem is that IMO 9/11 controlled-demolition hypotheses are not things we can really have genuine debates over. Academic consensus rejects them pretty much unequivocally, rather like homeopathy. Ergo, in this case, due to tedious continuation of pointless debates, I am inclined to issue an indefinite topic-ban from all 9/11 articles per WP:ARB9/11, but will wait for further opinions from my fellow administrators before acting. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The idea that it was a controlled demolition is preposterous. We have clear video footage of airplanes causing it. If this user has been pushing this for this long, causing this much drama, then I say a topic ban is in order. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The controlled demolition has its own article: Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center in which these conspiracy theories and hypotheses are presented. I see no need to ban an editor from editing these articles based on a POV that believes that these hypotheses are true. I would only support such a topic ban, if the user is violating policies in his editing endeavors. The question is: Is he? or is he not?≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, he is, by proposing the same edits over and over again that are rejected as contrary to policy. This is classic tendentious editing. Jehochman ^Talk 01:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not quite ready to impose sanctions here, though I'd not argue if another admin saw fit to do so. In the meantime it would be prudent for User:SalvNaut to press the CDH stuff only on that specific article and not on more general articles relating to 9/11 where it risks running afoul of WP:UNDUE. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, I've been editing only these articles since 6 months or so. It is true that there might be not enough secondary sources to present these views in other articles, for sure these views are not welcomed. salVNaut (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a clear misrepresentation by Jehochman. I propose edits when new secondary sources show up. They might be similar in spirit, but things are evolving. The last edit was about the first peer-reviewed (no doubt about it) article in an engineering journal (low to moderate impact) from proponents of CDH. I discussed it on the talk page before, but only recently an news article in a reliable newspaper was published, hence my bold edit. Those with superficial knowledge of the topic seem not to acknowledge that there is at least some science happening here. Please note, that Jehochman issued a controversial accusation[51] on Thomas Basboll when Thomas implemented a consensus reached on the talk page. salVNaut (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You took a very trivial reference and inserted it into the most prominent part of the article, the lead, to create the POV appearance that there is some sort of legitimacy to the controlled demolition hypothesis, when there isn't. You did this repeatedly, in opposition to multiple other editors who were supported by policy. Wikipedia is not the place to publicize Truther propaganda. Please find another website for that. Thanks. Thomas Basboll was banned from editing, and the Arbitration Committee has thus far upheld that decision. Your complaint on that basis is extremely tendentious. Jehochman ^Talk 11:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I actually agree with Jehochman here. If my editing violates the 9/11 decision then SalvNaut's most certainly does. (I'm not that kind of guy, but if I were I'd be a bit pissed if Salv were not banned.) Unlike me, SalvNaut is clearly here to defend the controlled demolition hypothesis. He wants to put it in as a good a light as possible (but he understands that what is possible is defined by WP's policies). In my opinion, WP benefits from such editors because they represent important aspects of the topic of the article. The article is in large part about believers in a fringe hypothesis, and SalvNaut appears to be such a believer. So long as he remains civil, surely it is a gift to hear his views on how the material is presented. Would we really want to chase, say, Jones or Griffin away if they took an interest in the page? Again, one can imagine it getting ugly, but neither Salv nor I have been ugly about it. We have suggested changes to the article, sometimes by making them, but always with an openness to their being reverted, discussed, modified, and ultimately winding up in some other part of the article. This new notion of "civil POV-pushing" as a bannable offense marks a new era for WP. It may be wise, I don't know. In any case, it may be prudent to wait to ban Salv until the precedent in mine case is clear. But in his defense: Salv's sensitiv[ity] to "good news" for the CDH often turns up perfectly informative stuff, like this journal article. It doesn't belong in the lead, but he's the reason it will have made it quickly into the article if does. (It should go in the article somewhere.)--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thomas, aren't you are topic banned from 9/11? Why are you involving yourself in this dispute, at risk of getting blocked? Jehochman ^Talk 13:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you cite the policy you are referring to which would allow a block of Thomas for this edit here.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to be clear: I probably would not have commented if my case wasn't being discussed here. I have been banned "from the September 11 attacks-related articles and talk page".--Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"..., when there isn't."-- and that's according to who? Yes, my view is that there is some sort of legitimacy to the controlled demolition hypothesis (however, I recognize that the hypothesis itself might be false), and apparently reviewers from Bentham Open do think so, too. The CDH article is the place to provide such information. Not in the lead? Ok. let's discuss it. (here, I admit "shoving" facts into articles instead of discussing them, myself). Jehochman is so 100% sure of his thoughts that he deleted from the article a completely valid information on the right place, and he apparently accuses me(?) of sockpuppetry. It's the second time I'm accused of it, while I don't do that. It sucks. salVNaut (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please present a diff to showing where I have accused you of sock puppetry. The IP editor below could be anybody. You are assuming bad faith. Your endless wikilawyering continues to prove my assertion that Wikipedia would be much better off if you stopped editing this particular set of articles, and instead focused on some of the other millions of articles available for editing. Jehochman ^Talk 13:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then, I am sorry, for assuming bad faith. As for, what I should edit - please let me be "the decider". salVNaut (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you carefully study my edits, you'll see that I also edited other topics of my interest. Still, it is no doubt true that 9/11 conspiracy articles spark my action most often. Is this unhealthy to the Wikipedia? Let's hear about it. salVNaut (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Enforcement of 911 Arbcom is getting out of hand if editors are using it in an attempt to get good faith editors banned because they do not agree with their own POV. salVNaut did not add anything that was not factual, and if relevant, it was in the wrong section and too detailed which is the worst that can be claimed. Instead of addressing his edit civily, salVNaut is reverted with comments assuming bad faith, accusations of promoting Truther propaganda and a request for a ban based on the edits being against policy (Truth is now against WP policy?). Good faith but misguided(?) editors may be annoying but they are essential for nuetrality as they counter the POV extremists who regard controlled demolition as impossible which is a position even most experts who support the OCT do not claim. When I first came to read the 911 articles I expected any problems would be conspiracy theorists adding rubbish but I was struck by the mass of false claims the articles included for no other reason than to discredit conspiracy theories. Possibly half of the articles current content was at one time vehemently opposed because, while factual, it was first proposed by conspiracy theorists. It is thanks to debates/arguments between editors supporting both sides that the articles are currently as good as they are. If salVNaut's edits do not have merit then they will be scrapped by consensus instead of on the say so of a few POV editors, but if he is condemned for proposing them in the first place rather than for any violations of policy the POV extremists have won control of the page. Wayne (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SalvNaut repeatedly added obscure content in support of the conspiracy theory to the lead of the article. This was reverted many times. Finally, when SalvNaut stopped, a sock puppet account appeared and continued adding the disputed material. Jehochman ^Talk 17:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using words like "obscure, unreliable information", etc. without any proof (any merit imho) does not help. The fact that you give something a bad name does not make it so. Not all of my edits shine, but most facts I added to the article stay there to this day (including the first diff provided as evidence in this case), albeit many edited and changed, and that's even better. What's most interesting in Wikipedia editing is to see how others with different POV's adjust facts to their worldview. I do not edit too often, thus, yours "Finally, when stopped" must regard my last two reverts (I know 3RR), both commented with reasonable arguments, after which I stopped and joined the discussion on the talkpage.... salVNaut (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You understand the situation here. 9/11 is a serious topic and we don't want any unreliable information, nor do we want to "stack the deck" by allowing a minority view or a fringe view to get more than it's fair share of coverage. I think you can consider yourself full informed of the possible consequences. As far as I am concerned, you are free to edit, but please follow WP:5P as closely as possible, especially when working on contentious articles. This is a collaborative project and we need to work together, even if we have different views. Jehochman ^Talk 22:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We agree on general matters, but apparently we disagree in details. The sourced information I proposed in the lead of the CDH article should stay in the article, possibly in another place than the lead (I won't argue on placement, no time). salVNaut (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have a problem with including relatively minor facts in their proper place. Jehochman ^Talk 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lets not be confused about the issue here...yes, civil POV pushing has become a forte of a core group of 9/11 CTers...and some are adept at being subtle in their proposed additions. My understanding is that if an editor is topic banned from 9/11 related articles, then they shouldn't be permitted to continue to comment regarding proposed topic bans on similarly inclined CT advocates. We need to stop wasting our time with these editors and put our foot down. Some of these editors have done little but promote CT in 9/11 articles and in the worst cases, have been terribly detrimental to any potential that these articles can be deemed relaible enough to become featured while they continue to try and undermine the encyclopedic integrity of them. Lest we find ourselves back at square one regarding this issue, the CT POV pushers should be simply topic banned. If they really care about Wikipedia, then surely there are millions of unrelated articles they could write or edit. If Griffin or Jones and other published CTers show up, I think it is pretty obvious that just because they have written and in some cases published a book or paper that their non-science si going to be any more acceptable than an unpublished editor. If they are here to promote non-science, then that is a detriment to this project.--MONGO 16:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diversity of (sourced, verifiable) opinions is what makes Wikipedia more interesting than, let's say, Britannica (not in your opinion, I guess). Let's not be confused here: the much over-exhaustive removal of "any other than mainstream POV on 9/11 events" from main articles, albeit also from any other article, hidden with WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE (which do not recommend complete removal), etc, has become a forte of a core group of "deletionists","defenders", who, very often, just promote their POV.

Every month there is an article published in European media, World media, which raises concerns about 9/11 events and truth, let me give a recent example. Those are from different perspectives, they raise mixed opinions; the point I bring it here is that people are concerned; only a scientific apporach addressing difficult questions can settle (most of) these voices down (and you won't have that effect with cutting the discussion short, framing questions as non-issues).

When comes to science: the core point of my last edit to CDH was that the authors, mentioned by you, do try to promote real science, which in this case is a publish in a peer-reviewed journal, which tries to stir up a scientific discussion within the community (about topics like these). salVNaut (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

These are not personal attacks, and they're certainly not actionable. MastCell ^Talk 23:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Below on this page (#Section break) jossi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) implies that I have not "sought to continue discussions that could move things forward during the time the Prem Rawat article was protected" - which is completely untrue.

I suggest to block jossi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for at least a week for this and similar PAs based on untruths in the same section.

I've notified Jossi here: User talk:Jossi#Please remove your PAs from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement

The remedies of the applicable concluded ArbCom can be found here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat#Remedies. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This complaint appears to be exaggerated. I recommend no action. Francis, please don't go looking for excuses to get people blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 19:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm an uninvolved editor, and I would tend to agree. I read the sections below and found no personal attacks. It might be possible that Jossi mis-interpreted your edits (and you did continue discussions to move the article forward), but stating what he thought was going on is not a personal attack. Instead of claiming you are being attacked, if you feel offended by what he wrote, perhaps calmly provide diffs and evidence of your involvment in discussion. If you were indeed involved, the record will show that, and you'll be shown to be in the right. Claiming you're being attacked when there is no attack is not a good step foward. Mahalo, Francis. --Ali'i 20:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see the personal attacks either. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem to provide the evidence. The problem is that jossi issued the statement without any evidence - and you all believed him, didn't even ask him to provide diffs. Sorry, but I do take offence.

Did you think that jossi implied that "I sought to continue discussions", but in a fashion "that could *not* move things forward during the time the Prem Rawat article was protected"? I don't think so. But if he does, let him say so. But as written jossi only seems to imply I was not active in the related discussions. Then he didn't comment on my *edits* since he contended this type of edits didn't exist. PA.

Here's some of the evidence (for reference - the Prem Rawat article was protected from 18:28, 16 March 2008 to 23:20, 12 May 2008, concurrently with the Prem Rawat arbcom case, where I was active too "continuing discussions that could move things forward during the time the Prem Rawat article was protected") - I present evidence jossi was aware of, because he took part in the same discussion on the same pages:

• I continued to take part in the discussions at Talk:Prem Rawat which is visible in its archives roughly from here: Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 34#Protection and RFAR
• After someone had suggested to improve the Criticism of Prem Rawat article (in an effort to see what could be merged to the Prem Rawat article), I moved there and took part in Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat:
  • dozens of edits to Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat#Improving article, leading to an update of the Schnabel material in Criticism of Prem Rawat ([52] [53])
  • This was followed by the Van der Lans discussion, where I actively participated: Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat#Van der Lans
• Then there was the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Prem Rawat discussion where I participated until a few hours before the Prem Rawart ArbCom case was closed and the Rawat page unprotected

Then there's the mails I received from participants in the Prem Rawat related discussions and which I replied to. I'm not going to reveal their contents here, but jossi had no right, pre-emptively, to conclude I have not "sought to continue discussions that could move things forward during the time the Prem Rawat article was protected". --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyway, asking a week's block to prevent jossi from further poisoning the atmosphere with PAs, which he evidently has no plan to step back from, is in no way exaggerated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Below on this page (#Section break) jossi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) implies that I have not "sought to continue discussions that could move things forward during the time the Prem Rawat article was protected" - which is completely untrue. I based my assessment of User:Francis Schonken participation during protection, in this evidence:

• March 18 - May 12 Page protected

• Page unprotected May 12
• First edit to Prem Rawat by User:Francis Schonken after the protection [54] with edit summary Undo sloppy editing

• Total edits to Talk:Prem Rawat during protection +- 900 comments
• Comments in talk page after protection by User:Francis Schonken

• • [55] March 28 - requesting to add ((editprotected))

• • [56] March 21
  • [57] April 14

That is three comments in talk during the time the page was protected, compare to close to 900 comments made by other editors in talk during that time. I hope I have not missed any edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And? So you continue to give non-evidence: you encountered me in several other places where I "sought to continue discussions that could move things forward during the time the Prem Rawat article was protected", as evidenced by me above. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look, I don't agree with Jossi on the course of the Prem Rawat article and we've had a few minor other disagreements, but I do not see an PA's in anything he wrote. My opinion is to just let this drop as there is nothing actionable. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, jossi knew very well that I had been active in several places where we met "seeking to continue discussions that could move things forward during the time the Prem Rawat article was protected." He didn't comment on my edits, he denied their existence while he knew they existed, which is a PA. This is actionable: he should stop poisoning the atmosphere regarding Prem rawat related discussions, and he has no intention to do so. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand why you are so upset, Francis. My comment was not ambiguous: during the protection, you did not engage as others did in Talk:Prem Rawat, which is the article about which you filed your previous AE against Momento. As said before, you have the right to disagree with me in my assessment. I invite you to join others in DR, which we are pursuing with the help of the MedCab. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So Jossi, perhaps in the section below, you could clarify that he did not engage in discussion on that specific talk page, but started editing the article again once the protection was lifted. Rather than say that "no discussion took place" (to paraphrase). Everyone should be happy. --Ali'i 21:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, but that makes it a bit irrelevant: we all participated in the Prem Rawat ArbCom case during the page protection, I was very active there: there's no point to make about any alleged inactivity on my part in Prem Rawat related issues during the page protection. It's an attempt at defamation of an active participant, aka PA, that's all. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I "sought to continue discussions that could move things forward during the time the Prem Rawat article was protected", and you knew it. Your hardened attempt to deny that is a PA.

I'm again asking to impose on jossi sanctions that are fully covered by the Prem Rawat arbcom case ruling. A week's block is not asked too much, until jossi sees this is not the way to treat fellow wikipedians, under no circumstances, but especially not in the sensitive Prem Rawat related context. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I odn't understand why Jossi felt it necessary to discuss Francis' month-long lack of edits to the Prem Rwat talk page in the middle of a discussion of Momento's editing. While it may not have been a personal attack, it was an ad hominem argument on the filer of the request that didn't concern the relevant issues. I urge Francis to drop this request and I urge Jossi to redact his off-topic postings about Francis. Let's address Momento's editing problems on their own. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's not mince words: an "ad hominem argument" is a PA: ad hominem translates as "(directed) at the person", aka a comment on the editor, the prototypical form of a PA.

Re. "Let's address Momento's editing problems on their own", of course, that's why I created a separate section to address jossi's editing problems on their own, separated from Momento's. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, as I said earlier, unless two wrongs make a right, this is irrelevant. If there is a problem with other editors, let jossi file a complaint. In the meantime, let us deal with the issue that brings us here, Momento's continual disruptive edits. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a problem with jossi, thus I filed a complaint. Did I miss something? --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No Francis, you didn't really miss anything, except that (imo) jossi is trying to deflect notice of Momento's actions by making accusations about other editors (as if that made Momento's behaviour acceptable!). I don't think jossi's intention was to create a personal attack against you, but merely to divert attention somewhere other than where it should be. jossi is usually quite cautious in his use of language, I think if he were really trying to attack you, it would not be quite so subtle. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 22:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second guessing, and contradicting yourself "jossi is usually quite cautious"..."if he were ... trying to attack ... it would not be quite so subtle" - If he's cautious, then I'd expect his attack to be subtle - that's exactly what happened. Did you ever see an unsubtle PA by jossi? I didn't!

Further, I really didn't miss that the scheme is jossi trying to deflect notice of Momento's actions, nor that he's making accusations about other editors to that ends (I could give you diffs showing that I was probably one of the first to remark how many times jossi has used this strategy before). In this case the accusations were false, and whether or not they were used in a strategy to deflect attention, the fact remains they were ad hominem, as has been demonstrated. I refuse to be the collateral victim of someone's attempt to deflect attention. It's the ad hominem that is the blockable offense in this case especially as he knew it was based on something that was not true and refuses to apologise (if he'd told an irrelevant joke to deflect attention there wouldn't have been a blockable offense - jossi was free to use whatever innocent stratagem to deflect attention, but he chose PA based on untruth). That's no way of behaving, and jossi doesn't have the first clue why that is so, I'm afraid I see no alternative than have him blocked for a period to make him realise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Messenger! Messenger! Don't shoot, don't shoot! :) I'm sure jossi would tell you I'm not here to defend his actions, I thought you had missed what I believe were the intentions of his comments, by all means proceed with your action if you feel the need. I am in no way trying to discourage (or encourage for that matter) you. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 23:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

tx. So, can we get consensus for a proper sanction applied to jossi? I'm afraid we might see the deflection-by-PA scheme recurring ad infinitum otherwise: jossi really doesn't comprehend thus far where he made it go wrong. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Moreschi is correct, we can't go back and block him for a rv that occurred before the block...Rlevse

User:Andranikpasha is currently under supervised editing parole per ArbCom remedy, which limits him to 1RR per week. He recently violated his parole at Urartu by two rv's within 6 days of each other:

• 17:41, 13 May 2008
• 11:42, 19 May 2008

The violation was committed within 3 days after the 72-hour block for prior violation. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These reverts are obviously different (I never repeated any revert-action during these 7 days). If I reverted something once, it never means I cant revert something else in a diferent time in a different part of the text. The Wiki rules says so. Andranikpasha (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not correct. According to WP:3RR: An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. It further says: An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted. In this case your limitation is 1RR, and you should not be making more than 1 revert on the same page within 1 week, regardless whether it is the same or different rv. Grandmaster (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, no, no. He's already been blocked for that 1st revert. We can't block him again for the same thing. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

?? If he got blocked for reverting, and then does it again, he should be blocked longer for repeating it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.44.143 (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moreschi, he was blocked for violation reported here [58], for the reverts on Hayasa-Azzi - [59] and [60]. The ones reported by me above are from Urartu article made after those. This is not about blocking or restrictions, but about the fact that the leniency towards disruptions by User:Andranikpasha do not contribute towards any improvement in situation, but rather the opposite - to fuel further edit warring. Atabek (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

inconclusive...Rlevse

• 65.11.23.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.9.8.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 72.151.55.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JohnEMcClure confirmed that Eyrian, who participated aggressively in AfDs and last edited in October 2007 and who was subsequently blocked per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian, made "numerous IP edits". Notice this IP's edit history that follows seems to focus on certain kinds of articles. Now today, notice this edit in which the IP writes, "It's been awhile since I've seen an ipc article nominated", but if you look again at the edit history of the IP, there are NO previous edits to any IPC articles, which thus makes that statement odd and as if it is from someone who either edits using different IPs or who is an old user. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• There are many editors who are AFD regulars (this IP certainly is if it is a stable IP) and care about IPC, fancruft, trivia, episodes, and the like. Any specific reason you think this is Eyrian as opposed to someone else? And do you really think the closing admins are going to pay any attention to IP comments that don't make new arguments? I don't think the admins will. GRBerry 18:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think Eyrian, because the IP's edits start around the time that Eyrian stopped editing from his Eyrian account (in October 2007) and started using different accounts and IPs. I suppose one of the arbitration committee checkusers could check the IP to see (I'm not sure if they could go back far enough to check if it's Eyrian, but if it is someone also using additional current accounts or IPs, those might show up). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Two possibilities. 1) This isn't Eyrian - obviously, we shouldn't do anything then, but it would be helpful to point out to the editor that commenting in an AFD using an IP results in minimal weight and the user might consider using an account. 2) This is Eyrian - then he can readily evade by going to a different IP (proxy, resetting a router, going to a different coffee shop, et cetera...). Either way, I don't see much to gain by blocking an IP. So far as I can see, since the case close identified or even suspected any puppets or IP addresses of Eyrian that were still in use at the time suspected, so I don't know what would happen if we tagged as a suspected puppet. Definitely try the user's talk page for a discussion. Consider tagging with ((sockpuppet)) and watching; if the IP editor vanishes then that will be confirmation of a sort, but indicate that an unending game of whack-a-mole is forthcoming. GRBerry 19:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I sent an email to Morven who was the checkuser on the Eyrian case just in case if the IPs identified at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JohnEMcClure, which were not listed there, were not tagged. Also, I see at top of this page that we should notify the user. Is there a template for this page similar to the ANI notification template that could be placed on the IPs talk page? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Not that I'm aware of. Write a message, with attention to the third paragraph of the "Enforcement" section above. "A discussion about you is underway at [[section link]] might suffice." GRBerry 20:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Another IP that looks somewhat similarly suspicious is this one. Also another IP in the 7 range has just posted a similar edit to that other one. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The IPs are unlikely to be related. They all originate from home internet providers. Two originate from the same provider, but different regions. The other originates from a different provider. Vassyana (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC) I am not a checkuser.Reply[reply]

Is it possible for a checkuser to see who the one IP is that claims to have not seen an IPC AfD in a while and yet the IP has no edits to IPC AfDs? Do the checkusers still have the information on Eyrian to see if it's likely or if in fact it is actually a current user possibly using IPs as socks? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

please move to WP:ANI...Rlevse

user:Diamonddannyboy has been repeatedly adding Darren M Jackson to the Bromley page. Even though the source on the Darren M Jackson is unreliable and also for the following reasons.:

• 1) The actual source on the Darren M Jackson page, seems to be unreliable as i can`t find this anywhere on the internet. **see below. As per WP:SPS
• 2) I pointed out to the user that Darren M Jackson page doesn`t mention he came from Bromley, so he just added ``lived in the Borough of Bromley`` to the Darren M Jackson page as per edit [61]
• 3) When i pointed out the fact being from the Borough of Bromley is actually totally different from the Bromley page, he changed the statement on the Darren M Jackson page to ``Live in Bromley, Kent``, again without changing a source or amending a source. As per edit [62]

In short the user has been repeatedly removing the citiation, (as per edits [63] [64] [65] [66]) , from the Bromley page without a reliable source, And the name should be struck from the Bromley page. **Please also consider the source is unreliable as it appears the source (which i still can`t find) is some sort of news letter as per the following website, which is definitely unreilable As per WP:SPS. http://website.lineone.net/~rtfhs/journal5.html --Rockybiggs (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What arb case does this fall under? See instructions above to include that. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry think i have put this on the wrong page, to confirm no Arb case exists--Rockybiggs (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You need to move this to WP:ANI. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Arbcom case: The Troubles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User Matthead has been listed on editing restriction due his e ethnic based attacks, personal attacks against editors and disruptive editing [67] on 3rd January 2008. However since then he returned to disruptive editing in my view.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

arb case still pending

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A lot of this is old and/weak. Eusebeus is strongly encouraged to be more civil.

— Rlevse • Talk • 11:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On April 19, Jac16888 initiated an AE thread concerning Eusebeus, saying Eusebeus "has begun blindly restoring redirects." That thread was closed April 23 by GRBerry with no action taken. Since then, Eusebeus has continued to edit war over Scrubs episode articles like My Best Friend's Mistake [72] [73] [74], My Mentor [75] [76] [77], and My Princess [78] [79] [80]. I believe that's a violation of the ArbCom remedy where "The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute." and the also the Principle that "Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited" and the Principle that "It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits." As far as I know, no other involved party of E&C2 has been edit-warring with Eusebeus on those articles, and restrictions were not imposed on Eusebeus in particular — so I could understand if no action is taken yet again. However, if that's the case, I think an amendment of the remedies of the E&C2 arbitration case may be in order. Any input would be appreciated. --Pixelface (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Over a week old
2. Already settled by discussion between Eusebeus and Jac16888 on their talk page
3. Already settled by a parallel discussion between me and Alaskan Assassin on my talk page? [81][82]

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

The parties were told to cease engaging in editorial conflict. That's why I filed the report. And frankly I was unaware of the discussion at User talk:Alaskan assassin or User talk:Kww. Alaskan assassin said "gotcha" and you say it's settled? And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't these two reverts[83] [84] occur after this was supposedly "settled"? --Pixelface (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

• Notice as well, assuming bad faith: [85], [86], [87], [88], [89]
• Incivility: [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97]
• Dramatizing: [98], [99], [100], [101], [102]
• Use of obscenity/curse/swear words in edit summary: [103], [104]
• Also, not signing post.
• Seeing AfD as a game: [105]
• Finally, I'm not sure if the calling me "Pumpkin" rather than LGRdC or Roi is mocking: [106], [107]

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

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

And so it goes on

• Eusebeus is continuing to edit-war over Scrubs episodes - this time at My Chopped Liver - see [108], where he reverts three times in less than a day. Catchpole (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I see from your talk page that you have a history of this kind of disruptive and tendentious editing practice. I have reported you to 3RR since you have now reverted me 3 times in a 24 hour period. Eusebeus (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • There was no 3RR violation. See [109]. Catchpole (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

There are obvious issues, like edit warring, still going on at Prem Rawat. I merged the Francis Schonken/3RR thread here as it's obviously closely related to this one. Since warnings ad nauseum have not worked all around, I'm blocking Momento 3 days and Francis Schonken 2 days. Hopefully they and other users will come to their senses and start editing in good wiki spirit.

— Rlevse • Talk • 13:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Francis has complained here that I employed edit warring at the Prem Rawat article over the "Criticism" section. He is wrong. The "Criticism" heading was added by Mukadderat without discussion the day before my edit. [110] NPOV policy says "Care must be taken to ensure the overall presentation (of an article) is broadly neutral". In this case, having a section called "Criticism" is a "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself" and "may require additional attention to protect neutrality and avoid problems like POV forks and undue weight".[111]

So in good faith I spent 20 minutes relocating the three paragraphs of the new "Criticism" section into the appropriate places. The substance of two paragraphs had already been covered in the article (Mishler in "Coming of Age" and Kent's view by others in "Teachings") so I added the cited sources to that existing material[112][113]. The third paragraph, a five sentence comparison of two charismatic religious leaders (Osho and Rawat) by Schnabel is too big and out of proportion to the rest of the article, so I relocated it to the "Teachings of Prem Rawat" article where it belongs.[114][115] I then removed the "Criticism" heading since the "criticism" was covered through the article.

This was reverted by WillBeback [116]. After reading Will's rationale in Talk I used my one-revert-per-day to return to my NPOV version [[117]]

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

On the other hand, since this article was unprotected Francis has reverted me four times. He reverted me three times claiming that the source I quoted (Fahlbusch E. et al.) didn't support my addition of "despite rival claims from his own family". [118][119][120]. As you see, I am right and Francis is wrong [121].

In a similar situation I spent an hour removing errors, finding new sources for "citation needed" material and improving readability of the "Teachings" section.[122] Within 11 minutes of completion Francis reverted and re-inserted the following errors.[123].

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

I used my one-revert-per-day to reinstate my much improved version.[124] During this period Francis has characterized my edit summaries as "lies" [125], criticized me in the "talk" pages and filled this complaint without informing me. How long can he get away with this behavior?Momento (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

Here is the Lipner quote from questia:

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

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

Jayen466 22:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

refactored evidence - see below

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

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

Refactored and added evidence, all from May:

• Claimed that numerous reliable and scholarly sources are wrong just because he knows they're wrong.
  • 21:57, May 1, 2008 (Chinese whispers)[126]
• Made sweeping (and false) assertion about what "all other sources claim".
  • 10:04, May 1, 2008 (sticking to the source)[127]
• Reverted to his version of intro, which didn't include the claim of notability, despite extensive discussion of newer version
  • 22:57, May 2, 2008 (merged info from the last two versions of the lead/removed cites to article)[128]
• Deleted fact reported by AP, replacing it with 2nd-hand reporting in a memoir which makes a derogatory assertion about a living person, claiming that that source, "trumps all". (In response to my assertion that the AP trumps a memoir).
  • 23:43, May 11, 2008 (hotel beds correct figure)[129]
  • 02:24, May 12, 2008 (Eye witness trumps all)[130]
• Deleted material claiming it's misquoted, while in fact it's almost a verbatim quote.[131]
  • 05:56, May 16, 2008 (Removed misquoted Galanter)[132]
• Deleted material sourced to Time magazine, asserting "excess weight"
  • 22:14, May 16, 2008 (relocated "teaching" material from "Leaving India" section to "Teachings" section. Remove Time quote and Collier quote as undue weight)[133]
• Twice deleted "criticism" section and sourced material that had been developed via extensive discussions on talk page.
  • See above
• Deleted all mention of organized opposition, gave inadequate explanation
  • 21:25, May 17, 2008 (REmoved extremists websites)[134][135]
• Repeatedly asserted that the New York Times is an unreliable source. (He'd previous asserted that the L.A. Times was an unreliable source.[136][137][138][139])
  • [140][141][142][143]
• There is an active mediation effort related to this topic but Momento has failed to participate. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission
  • He was also a party in at least one previous mediation effort: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat
• His talk page contains numerous complaints and warnings from a variety of editors, including those who share his POV.
  • User talk:Momento

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

So what was Admin Will Beback doing whilst Francis was characterizing my edit summaries as "lies" [144], criticizing me in the "talk" pages, making numerous inappropriate reverts and edits and filling this complaint without informing me? Certainly not warning or blocking Francis. Instead he supported Francis's unjustified claim that I "edit warred over the 'Criticism' section". I can't deal with all of Will's allegations but I'll make a start -

• Claimed that numerous reliable and scholarly sources are wrong just because he knows they're wrong.
  • 21:57, May 1, 2008 (Chinese whispers)[145]

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

• Made sweeping (and false) assertion about what "all other sources claim".
  • 10:04, May 1, 2008 (sticking to the source)[146]

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

• Reverted to his version of intro, which didn't include the claim of notability, despite extensive discussion of newer version
  • 22:57, May 2, 2008 (merged info from the last two versions of the lead/removed cites to article)[147]

Can't see the problem here. The lead has gone through many changes and the current version is much closer to my two week old merged version than any previous one.[148]

• Deleted fact reported by AP, replacing it with 2nd-hand reporting in a memoir which makes a derogatory assertion about a living person, claiming that that source, "trumps all". (In response to my assertion that the AP trumps a memoir).
  • 23:43, May 11, 2008 (hotel beds correct figure)[149]
  • 02:24, May 12, 2008 (Eye witness trumps all)[150]

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

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

False. There was no discussion about inserting the heading "Criticism" into the "Reception" section. The last discussion about "Criticism" section was in April when the discussion was about merging and no decision was made. Mukadderat's decision to insert a "Criticism" heading into this article was undiscussed and therefore not agreed.[151] All sources were kept and I properly removed the undiscussed and inappropriate edit.

• Deleted material claiming it's misquoted, while in fact it's almost a verbatim quote.[152]
  • 05:56, May 16, 2008 (Removed misquoted Galanter)[153]

False. A careful reading of Galanter will show that it wasn't "Rawat's early western discourses (that) were something of a polemic interspersed with parables" as the article incorrectly stated. It was "experienced members (who) presented the philosophy of the sect to the assembled group.[154]. It was the satsangs of the "experienced members" that " were something of a polemic interspersed with parables", not Rawat's. So I properly removed the misquoted material,

• Deleted material sourced to Time magazine, asserting "excess weight"
  • 22:14, May 16, 2008 (relocated "teaching" material from "Leaving India" section to "Teachings" section. Remove Time quote and Collier quote as undue weight)[155]

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

• Deleted all mention of organized opposition, gave inadequate explanation
  • 21:25, May 17, 2008 (REmoved extremists websites)[156][157]

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

• Keeps asserting that the New York Times is an unreliable source. (He'd previous asserted that the L.A. Times was an unreliable source.)
  • [158][159][160][161]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<--Replying to Momento's replies above:

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

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

Jossi, no offense but you are not a neutral party in this. You have argued on behalf of Momento on several previous enforcement requests, including a 3RR and a sockpuppet case.[162][163][164] Momento shows no contrition or proper understanding of the concept of NPOV as it applies to his teacher. He's willing to edit war to keep out properly source, neutrally-presented negative material. You appear to be condoning the POV pushing by Momento, disruptive behavior that treats Wikipedia like a fighting match. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Section break[edit]

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

We just came out of a long and exhaustive ArbCom case on this and related articles. During the time the case was open on March 18, and until the arbcom case closed on May 12, the article was protected due to edit-warring in which User:Momento (the user about which this AE posting was made) and User:Francis Schonken (the filer of this AE posting) and others were protagonists. (log [165]; diff evidence of edit warring is available in the evidence page).

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

• User:Francis Schonken has chosen so far not to participate in the mediation effort, despite being made aware of it via article talk pages as well as directly [166].
• During the time the article was protected, editors sought to continue discussions that could move things forward during that time. Francis did not.
• As soon as the protection was lifted, Francis springs to action and starts editing the article as if nothing has happened, making substantive changes to the article, without explanations or prior discussion.[167]. There are times in which being bold is warranted, and other times in which this is not a good idea. After a protracted ArbCom case, for example.
• Momento reacts with by undoing many of these edits, moving material to other articles, removing new material added by Francis, and re-instating previous versions of certain paragraphs [168]
• A series of reverts ensues in which User:Francis Schonken, User:Momento, and User:Will Beback participate. Common sense soon prevails and the article is brought back to the version pre-ArbCom case. (It begs the question, why do we need this AE report? What is the purpose of re-filing an AE case, when the source of the dispute has been removed?)
• During the last few days, personal attacks by User:PatW, which was blocked during the ArbCom case, re-occurred. [169], this time targeted at User:Momento, which he self-reverts a few hours later [170], although the damage was already done, unnecessarily escalating a content dispute into a personal dimension. (What is the point of making a personal attack, leaving it for a few hours, and then removing the attack without an apology, with a possible motive to escape the obvious consequences as established in the probation? At this point in the game, editors should know better that to push their luck.)

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

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

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

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

WP:NPOV is the cornerstone of the project. When an editor repeatedly edit wars to remove criticism of his guru, after numerous warnings to stop, that adds up to an egregious violation. There is no sign that Momento regrets any of his edits or think he's done anything wrong. Even you've had to warn him repeatedly about his editing behavior.[171][172][173] Your extensive posting above seems to deal more with other editors than with Momento. I suggest that if you think those editors are guilty of egregious that we file separate requests about them. This request concerns violations by Momento. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

These are not personal attacks, but comments on behavior. This user has been already asked not to refactor comments that are not personal attacks. See [[174]] You have the right to disagree with my assessment, but please do not refactor my comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request Decision/Closure

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

WP:BLP[edit]

Momento has on several occasions inserted WP:BLP infringing material on others than Prem Rawat in Rawat related articles:

• 04:33, 20 May 2008 in Criticism of Prem Rawat (before this article was merged to Prem Rawat) - Talk page discussion: Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat#"Extremist websites", e.g.: "Momento is now adding completely irrelevant information about one critic's drug record." (Merzbow)
• 10:44, 23 May 2008 - same as previous but in Rawat article. Talk page discussion: Talk:Prem Rawat#Ex-Premie.Org, later Talk:Prem Rawat#Use of Cagan's Book and Talk:Prem Rawat#Macgregor.
• 12:04, 23 May 2008 - similar, see same talk page discussion.
• 09:40, 25 May 2008 - same; by now there's no talk page consensus whether Cagan is an acceptable source for this (despite Momento's edit summary contending the contrary); the inclination of the talk page discussion is however not to use Cagan for such contentious material until the MedCab proceedings have come to a conclusion on this source (which didn't happen yet).

If others feel compelled to provide more context, feel free.

Could someone also inform Momento, please (OK, handled), that I've added this subsection. He's still not lifted the prohibition for me to write on his talk page afaik. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is not prohibition on Francis conforming with ArbCom rules and informing me of complaints, just a request to stop harassing me on my talk page.Momento (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for being cautious. How was I to know? A few days ago the question was asked you (User talk:Momento#Request from Francis - posted by Rlevse), you didn't reply afaik. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Momento, can you please respond to the substance of this complaint? Francis has documented have you've repeatedly added irrelevant derogatory information about living people to two articles despite the clear protests of several editors. The effect has been disruptive. Also disruptive has been your insertion of contentious claims from a dubious source, Cagan, who editors had agreed to use for only non-contentious assertions. Please show how you've tried to seek consensus for these edits, because I can't find any such attempts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User: Francis Schonken/3RR[edit]

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat#Article_probation

Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has reverted three different editors in less than 2 hours at the Prem Rawat article which is under probation [175][176][177] The material reverted did not contravene BLP policy. Momento (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

You need to cool it, Maelefique. It seems that you simple missed the subtlety of my comment. I just posted a reference to alert uninvolved admins to the fact that the user has been warned. If this report is "vindictive" or not, that is for uninvolved admins to assess. Also note that edit summaries such as this one are most unwelcome and unnecessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may have hoped I missed something, but I didn't, my edit summary is direct and to the point, if you have a problem with it's truthfulness, or don't understand it, lets talk about that somewhere relevant, not here. I do not need to cool it, as I am quite calm, but occasionally get surprised by how much POV pushing, and the wide array of techniques, you use. And as far as embarrassing myself, I'll just have to live with that. If you have a complaint about me, file it. In the meantime, stick to the topic, assuming you have something useful to add. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 14:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• In response to this, specifically in reference to this thread. The above user did not violate 3RR. I warned them that further reversions would put them in violation of 3RR. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 06:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm surprised Steve, I count three reverts.Momento (talk) 09:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Indeed, I counted 3 reverts too. However, 3RR states that An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. . They made 3 reverts, not four. Whether administrators believe they violated the spirit of 3RR is up to administrators, I'm just noting they didn't technically break 3RR. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 11:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A finding of edit warring does not require a 3RR violation. One has to consider the whole case. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

I have to agree with Giovanni33 here, the second "revert" is not a revert in any meaningful interpretation of the policy

— Rlevse • Talk • 13:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Giovanni33 is under a 1 revert a week parole according to this ruling. He has already been blocked a number of times under this ruling.Reply[reply]

William M. Connolley originally made a report on Giovanni33's latest violation of parole, though put it on the wrong page (3RR noticeboard). Thus I am rebuilding his original report, though if he wishes to he can always clarify matters further here.

The reverts have taken place on the Allegations of state terrorism by the United States article.

• 1st revert: 2008-05-21 08:29:55 revert of [178] (amongst many others, that section went in and out like a yo-yo)
• 2nd revert: 2008-05-25 18:27:16 (partial revert of [179])

John Smith's (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: I see I'm not even given a notice about this report, this time. The report is false as my second edit, about 6 days later was not a revert to any version. I simply added a new sentence to the stubbed section that was not there before, although it may have contained some words orginally there before, its a new construction, and thus not a revert by any meaningful standard. I also note that this is confirmed by admin reviewing the alleged 'revert" over at the 3RR board who says that not only is there no 3RR, but he can't see any revert at all:[180]Giovanni33 (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, didn't William tell you when he made his initial report? Anyway, you may need to ask him to comment further - I was only putting his report in the right place. John Smith's (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its a revert. It doesn't have to be to "any version" as long as it substantially replaces text. You're a seasoned reverter and know this full well William M. Connolley (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

William, when you say "partial revert of [2]" the link pointing to [2] is an edit by Olawe himself. When we say "revert" we should mean an undo of someone else's edit. Undoing one's own edit doesn't count as a revert.

Secondly, I can't see how Olawe reverted this edit (which is his own). Perhaps you should explain further.Bless sins (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you're getting mixed up. From what I can see, William was saying that Giovanni's second edit was a partial revert of Olawe's edit. John Smith's (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is not even a partial revert since I composed a completely different sentence in a completely different context from the previous situations. That is like arguing that it has the words "the, and 'and' in any previous sentence and hence is a "partial revert." That is an absurd standards; I can't be expected to follow everything that has happened before and make sure that my completely new edit I make doesn't have some elements of something that existed in some form in the prior seven days. As they say, it has been changing frequently. I was just trying to improve it by adding something new that has not been there before, I was not edit warring or reverting to anyone else's version--even in part. Thus it's not a revert.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Bring proof with your claims with diffs, so these don't always descend into debates. To pretty much quote Moreschi..."knock it off everyone, before my patience evaporates and I permaban the whole sorry pack of you EE flamewarriors. Any more misconduct in this little area of Polish-German conflict and my banhammer will come down faster than you can say "jackrabbit"...by that I mean those who are disruptive, not those who are legitimately trying to help

— Rlevse • Talk • 01:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/DigwurenReply[reply]

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

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

Ad hominem, Piotrus? Is having ANI and 3RR on my watchlist stalking, Piotrus? It was you who very early[181] used the new Digwuren list as a soapbox and a handy tool to get several users edit restricted, with about 3 dozen diffs collected over months apparently - without any stalking? In your own words in the "Off-topic discussion about user's right to collect evidence": "As that ArbCom proved, collecting evidence is expected." Anyway, thanks to you collecting evidence, I soon found myself restricted and immediately blocked for a minor issue, adding a remark to a closed 3RR case (in which you had introduced a totally unrelated West German city and then even editwarred about it), something which you had done before on request of the very admin that restricted/blocked me. You know about the edit restriction concept and should adhere to its spirit. Don't be surprised if it swings back to you. After all you had already been added to that list, but managed to get removed(!)[182], just like you found an admin who unblocked you recently. Piotrus, you are really stretching it in many ways, for about three years now. Is your remark above the way you interpret WP:AGF for yourself? -- Matthead  Discuß   00:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Matthead's recent comments like :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

user:Greg park avenue

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

• [183] violation of WP:LIVING.

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

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

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

• [184] violation of WP:LIVING

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

user:Poeticbent (Blocked for 3RR)

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

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

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

user: Boodlesthecat (Blocked for 3RR)

I am not very comfortable with these:

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

• [185]

user:Piotrus

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

user: 68.75.166.204

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

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

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

In the interest of fairness, since User:M.K included my name above while stressing also that he did not participate in this edit war, I’d like to mention that he himself is not impartial to Eastern European disputes and whether such fact would have any bearing on the outcome, his pro-Lithuanian POVs verging on revisionism with regards to Polish national heroes can be easily exemplified,[186] regardless of the remarkable scope of his other contributions. Please speedily close this thread since it did not originate in good faith and therefore it is counterproductive. --Poeticbent talk 20:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Provide diffs that user who started to vandalize, otherwise it may be seen as user harassment. If you speak about this as nothing wrong, well WP:BLP clearly states: Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. and particularly Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. Contributor clearly indicated why this material was removed, instead of supporting this action he/she faced threat of block and allusion to vandalism from sysop [187]. So actually it is a example of mischievous actions from sysop. M.K. (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Trying to distract, Molobo? You are scoring an own goal, as your behaviour on Talk:Karkonosze was appalling, I ask everybody to read it. In that request to move the article Karkonosze to Giant Mountains and even on WP:RM, Molobo repeatedly made the wrong statement Karkonosze/Krkonoše - as per naming of Encyclopædia Britannica [188] [189] even though the Encyclopædia Britannica online article at http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9036725/Giant-Mountains is clearly titled "Giant Mountains", and after [190] this was pointed out to him you keep saying something which simply is not true. He made several other statements like (1,280 Karkonosze hits on Google scholar compared to meager 50 for giant mountains) - They are 1,280 hits for Karkonosze right now on Google scholar compared to yours 50 hits for enigmatic giang mountains. Seems like EOT when in fact there are not only the first 50 ones, but 717 in total, and all of them in English, compared to 677 for Karkonosze +mountains. On that talk, Molobo was desperately trying to push his Polish POV, I urge everyone to read not only single diffs there. For example, according to him, Giant Mountains Is not a English word but translation of German term for Polish and Czech mountains. He puts my name in a section head line Unproductive edit warring by Matthead and even fulfills Godwins law Nazi listening station during WW2 ?. That is why I request "EndOfTrolling", and that he is added to the Digwuren list, too. -- Matthead  Discuß   20:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although I still think this thread did not originate in good faith and should be speedily closed, since disruptive behavior of user:Boodlesthecat was mentioned, I do think it is a good idea to add him to the Digwuren's warn list, due to his edits accusing other editors of antisemtism ([191] [192] [193]) or "Jew bashing trolling". His edits on Talk:Fear:_Anti-Semitism_in_Poland_after_Auschwitz were unconstructive and confrontational ([194]), and after being blocked for the second time in the space of few days for 3RR violation (including 10RR!), his unblock request don't show any remorse - instead, he is accusing other users of misconduct and cabalism ("I was right" argument), see [[195]].. If anybody's behavior in this discussion merits review under Digwuren's "creating a battleground", I believe it is that user's.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First user:Boodlesthecat was never blocked for 10RR (AFAIK), second quite many involved parties demonstrated counter productive and offensive behavior and plus another user was blocked for edit warring as well; so this not the problem of single user as implied here. I hope that Boodlesthecat will join as soon here and bring some insight about the situation. M.K. (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Section break[edit]

Investigated a bit implementation practice of WP:BLP in ArbCom cases, quite interesting ruling was delivered in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff case. Arbitress drew certain principles then dealing with BLP, obviously basic principles (like Basic human dignity) were not met in current incident, by both - regular and sysop users. However, case do not draw any conclusions about how to protect contributors, who actually reinforce WP:BLP, as we see from current incident, contributor who tried to implement WP:BLP was accused of vandalism, disruptive actions and even threatened with block. And I fear that this may be not isolated case, therefore perhaps ArcCom should clarify certain points in particular - should deletion practice also be extended and towards the comments, what responsibility bear those who restoring them etc. M.K. (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. In general, perhaps WP:WGR should be informed about this case, as it may be good case study.Reply[reply]

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

As Moreschi said, knock it off, work it out peaceably. We're tired of wikians that can't get along. This is your last chance. I suggest you use Polish names since that's what these places are in now, Poland, and make redirects to that from the German names.

— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC) User Matthead has been listed on editing restriction due his ethnic based attacks, personal attacks against editors and disruptive editing [196] on 3rd January 2008.Reply[reply]

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

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

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

Accusations based on ethnic background are continued : "desperately trying to push his Polish POV" See here[197]

Also here is something I consider rather disruptive: Changing names of Polish politicians who resisted Germanisation to German version and giving German names to locations in modern Poland: [198] I have nothing against giving German names in historical context and introductions but giving German names as alternative names to modern locations in Poland seems disruptive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anybody is entitled to his opinion. The term "Prussian militarism" is well known and used by scholars. Matthead cut of the important part of the quote:"Eberswalder-since 1945 Prussia no longer exists as a region. Nobody names any region today with that name, due to its abolishment as source of constant wars, militarism, symbol of racism and discrimination and ethnic cleansing by Germanic invaders against Baltic and Slavic people. While the reasons for abolishing that militaristic creation were numerous, the bottom line is that the world is now free from it. And so the location term also disappeared. No serious atlas today would use that name for any location of Poland or Russia, instead the modern location is used". As to Matthead's comment, i don't know what to actually say, the ethnic cleansing of Old Prussians, Poles in XIX century, enslavement of Baltic people during crusades and discrimination policies based on racism in Prussia are well described in both scholary sources and Wikipedia, as is the invasion of Teutonic Knights of the region that started the country. I can only recommend to read history articles and books extensively. Best regards. As to DP, I clearly stated that spokesman stated it was accident[199]. The fact it was explained by "unknown circumstances" is also a fact.--Molobo (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Btw can Matthead explain why it is important for him add German names to modern Polish cities in modern Poland outside historical context presenting them as alternative version of the city names and why Polish activists against Germanisation are being changed by him to Germanised names[200] under the tag

'cleanup'. I would like why it is important to delete information that certain scholars worked in Poland[201] Thank you and best regards. --Molobo (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Caesarjbsquitti is banned from all 9/11 articles, including talkpages.

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

This user has been continuously posting remarks about an unverified theory that the attacks on America were related to the Taliban's policy on opium trade. ([202]), ([203]), ([204]). I tried replying about the lack of sources to verify this([205]). Another user warned him not to use the talk page as a forum for general discussion. ([206]), but he continued. I gave him a warning on his talk page about the arbitration decision.([207]) He and I continued the discussion on his talk page (which is fine).([208]). In this discussion, I told him about the lack of sources and he mentioned a movie. Regardless, he continued his actions in a montage of edits that I reverted as they did not have anything to do with 9/11, but with the Taliban and opium.([209])

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

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

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

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

Hi Haemo, sorry to burden you with this but a user making soapboxing edits keeps popping up on watch list - I've been ignoring this for months but I think it's gone too far to be ignored this time. I believe you're aware of User:Caesarjbsquitti‎'s use of Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks and Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories as soapboxes for his theories on half-truths[210][211][212][213]. He seems to have written a book about "half truth" (The Jesus Christ Code. © The LIGHT: The Rainbow of Truth. to be released spring 2008 - self published) and he's been making posts about his opinions and research on half-truths on a number of pages for a long time - Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks is just the latest.

He was previously blocked for this behaviour in November 2007 after being warned and advised that wikipedia is not a soapbox.[214]

In January 2008 the sysop Lquilter warned him again for soapboxing[215].

And now he is at it again.

I made th original ANI posting in November 2007 after User:Caesarjbsquitti‎ made a series of trolling soapboxing comments to talk:feminism[216]. Since then he has not only repeated the same behaviour but replicated it on a number of articles. He refuses to heed the warnings given and considers them to be "wikistalking" by the political correct "gate-keeper" editors (which is quite an assumption of bad faith).[217]

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

2008

• Talk:Conspiracy_theory[218]
• Talk:Feminism[219]
• Talk:Domestic violence[220][221][222]
• Talk:Violence against women[223]
• Talk:Political correctness[224]
• Talk:Pro-life[225]
• Talk:discrimination[226]
• Talk:Democracy[227]

2007 and earlier

• Talk:Feminism[228][229][230][231][232][233][234]
• Talk:Nazism[235]
• Talk:Lucifer[236]

User page

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

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

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

A lot of those pages are not 9/11 related. Suggestions on a broader remedy than a 9/11 topic ban? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, right now he's really focused on 9/11-topics, because he's come up with a new theory (which he explains here) that the US government was involved in the opium trade and something about 9/11. I don't really understand it, but he readily admits there's no sources and everyone disagrees with including it. Maybe a 9/11 topic ban would inspire him to work elsewhere — but I'm honestly not convinced he'll be productive in other subject areas. I don't think admins have the discretionary power to generally topic ban people, but a 9/11 ban would be a segue into a full community ban on certain topics, and a wake-up call. --Haemo (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

I think a lot of this was due to him being new, but as he's retired, I'm closing this. If he returns, then we'll deal with this.

— Rlevse • Talk • 22:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC) I feel I need to apologise in advance for raising this most contentious of subjects again but I have genuine concerns. As a relatively new editor I was soon made aware of the problems which had gone before and resulted in an ArbCom decision on the Troubles and I can see why that was necessary. Although it isn't a subject of much interest to me I have noted far too much edit-warring and apparent "ownership" of articles being asserted to ensure that the modern history of Ireland (and particularly Northern Ireland) is kept with a particular slant. That bias is maintained with weasel words and an undue weight being applied to particular opinions. In my case this led to a baptism of fire because my first edits on Wikipedia were at the Ulster Defence Regiment article and as a complete novice I was bombarded with policy and convention notices, received two bans for edit-warring, which shocked me but very quickly taught me how to avoid it. To illustrate my concerns I have stepped outside my area of interest (which is military history) to edit an article at The Troubles and although I haven't added as many weasel captions as I feel I should because of the fear of totally vandalising the article, I've left enough there to show any reader why the article doesn't reflect the verifiable history of that period. There appears to be an unofficial cabal at work on Wikipedia whose motives are to keep ownership of articles related to the troubles. They apply various tactics which are in the guise of enforcing policies laid down by the site. This includes tag teaming to force the unwary into edit-wars, terrible incivility, policy pushing in the extreme (well beyond what is necessary), accusations of conflict of interest, outing and more. I've been subject to all of these and I'm now noting a number of other posters in the same genre getting the same. I do accept that as (still) a relative newcomer, there is much I don't know but I do have a certain pride in my intelligence and perception. My "unfairness" radar is working overtime. My work here is an excellent reflection of what's happening however. If any admin takes a look at what I have managed to achieve and note the one area where I've had problems I think it would be immediately apparent that there is an issue which needs to be addressed. I've sought advice and some admins and editors think this could be addressed by the existing ArbCom decision. I don't want to be a crusader. Nor do I want to spend my time on Wikipedia doing nothing except reporting violations of ArbCom. I want to be able to contribute sensibly and constructively. I've brought this matter to the attention of this board because of genuine concerns and I hope that something can be done to resolve it. IMO if it's not, then Wikipedia will not be able to achieve a high status rating as a true encyclopedic source of information on the internet.GDD1000 (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A very interesting picture has just been painted, however it fails to identify the real problem. Time after time policy has been explained to this editor, a previous ArbCom enforcement request about this editor was ignored on the grounds he is "new", yet the problems still continue. This is not a problem with Troubles related articles as such, this is a problem with this particular editor. To demonstrate this, let's take an article he's been working on that is nothing to do with the Troubles - 7th Queen's Own Hussars. First off let's look at this completely unsourced large addition, now doesn't wording like "There were countless acts of heroism by the 7th in the face of the inhumanity of the Japanese" jump out as problematic, even ignoring the lack of sources? Luckily, a source was added in the next edit, but the source only proves that the previous addition was a copy and paste copyright violation. There were subsequent token amendments made to the history (including the removal of the highly POV quote about the Japanese), but the entire addition is still a copyright violation. Then there's this addition where a self-published source is added, despite the editor being told countless times before that self-published sources are not acceptable. Similarly he has been working on 8th King's Royal Irish Hussars, and the problems there are the same. This is the use of an source of questionable reliability, and this is the use of a source which is clearly self-published. And with the second diff, (unless it is from a subpage I cannot find) the information doesn't come from that website anyway. "July 1941 found the 8th Hussars back as part of the 4th Armoured Brigade with which they then fought during Operation Crusader at the battle of Sidi Rezegh Airfield, suffering heavy casualties when attacked in the rear by the 15th Panzer Division, which left them with just eight Honey Tanks fit for battle, with 35 having been captured in this engagement." is a copyright violation from here (which states the author retains copyright over the information), the original text from there was "July 1941 found the 8th Hussars back as part of the 4th Armoured Brigade with which they then fought during Operation Crusader, suffering heavy casualties when attacked in the rear by the 15th Panzer Division, which left them with just eight Honey Tanks fit for battle, with 35 having been captured in this engagement", the only difference being the addition of "at the battle of Sidi Rezegh Airfield" which isn't in the BBC article. I could provide similar problems on other articles he has edited and will if really needed, but I hope my point is already quite clear.

Now if I was to follow him to those articles and start dealing with all these problems I'd almost certainly be accused of stalking, harassment, "attacks on his work" (a phrase used repeatedly by him, yet he has the audacity to claim other people have ownership problems) and so on, and the exact same problems we are having on Troubles related articles would spread to those articles too. But no "Troubles editors" are editing those articles, and there's still all sorts of problems with the edits he makes, and if the "Troubles editors" went there the same never-ending discussions where he just refuses to get it would ensue, and everyone's time would be wasted. So it's crystal clear who is actually causing the problems, regardless of what articles he edits the problems are the same, and once this is addressed (which admins failed to do before) any other problems (if they even exist) will be far easier to identify and deal with. How much longer do we need to waste our time banging our heads against a brick wall? Right now it looks like someone needs to go over all this editor's with a fine toothcomb to check for copyright violations, but given my previous interactions with him it is probably best if someone else deals with it. Domer48 (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I completly concur with what Domer has said above, and as I have been accused of attacking his work and vandalising it here when I removed copyright violations, so I too will stay well away and hope that an admin does what Domer has suggested. BigDunc^Talk 16:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's been brought to my attention that he's had issues with Copyvios.. I just removed one from a not-reliable site that turned the article into a Copyright Violation. His edit: [237] the source [238]. I will attempt to have a word with him, as has been said, he is a bit new and may not understand our policies on WP:COPYVIO andWP:RS, but he needs to understand before moving forward on this. *Signing properly* SirFozzie (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just another example of adding back unsourced POV commentary. After everyone explaining this a number of times. What should I do? Ignore it and explaine again. --Domer48 (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The user in question has chosen to think I was attacking him, and "is no longer active on wikipedia", according to his user talk page. SirFozzie (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

warned about proper editing, that he's likely an SPA and also subject to the Arb911 remedies

— Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC) This single purpose, probable sock needs to stop pushing conspiracy theories and citing non-reliable sources in the realm of 9/11 articles under probation. Check the edit history for Tony0937 (talk · contribs) and the problem will be very evident. Jehochman ^Talk 23:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are there any specific diffs that we should look into? Please make it easier on admins monitoring this noticeboard. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check the user's contributions. Just pick three or four diffs at random and you will immediately see a pattern. Jehochman ^Talk 08:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like a SPA to me. Thoughts? Did you notify the user? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just so. Thanks for the reminder, I have notified them now. [239]. We really do not need single purpose accounts adding to the 9/11 battles. I am requesting a review of this user's contributions, in total, and appropriate administrative action, such as formal notice and warning about WP:ARB9/11 sanctions. We should also consider the possibility that this account may be related to a topic banned user. Jehochman ^Talk 08:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no problem with anyone looking at my edits. I have endeavored to be polite and accurate and have not limited myself to only 9-11 although that is indeed my area of interest. I recognize that I am not perfect an I am open to logical criticism. If you have problems with my editing I would like to know what I can do to to be a better editor.Tony0937 (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

So warned

— Rlevse • Talk • 01:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've taken a heap of abuse from this individual and I think it's time to complain here. To give a bit of background on the issue: I happen to believe that Moldovans are in fact Romanians, and that Moldova should be a part of Romania. There are good reasons for this belief, but of course reasonable people may disagree. However, the way in which Xasha has expressed this disagreement is far from acceptable. I'll point out a series of remarks, culminating in the latest attack.

Here he said my ideas are "a clear clase of ethno-racist discrimination against the majority of Bessarabia's population...you have no right to deny the national rights of the Moldovans". When I complained, he asked, "I'm supposed not to accuse Hitler of anitsemitism either?...Your discourse here is heavily marked by ethno-racist overtones". When I complained again, he said of "Moldovans" that I "insult their nation and their country" - a risible accusation; my own grandfather is from there. Further arguments only brought more attacks (and Nazi comparisons): "I see you are more and more insulting towards my people. Now you imply Moldovans have no brain. ... your ethno-racists ideas are clear: you talk about Romania 50 years before it appeared on Europe's map and you talk about natural orbit (or the way your ideational predecessors called it, Lebensraum). I'm not going to speak to such kind of people. It's not the first time I hear Romanians talking about their different views(such as AdrianTM on Wikipedia), but it's the first time I hear one speaking in such insulting terms, excised from Europe 50 years ago".

In another thread, he began by baselessly accusing me of anti-Semitism and Russophobia: "Alexandru Graur. Or maybe, because he was Jewish, he "surely" was a Bolshevist who sold his soul to the Stalinist devil?...I'm sure Russia can't wait to steal Moldova's wines and food canning industry. Once they'll conquer Moldova, nothing would stand against their Imperial dream of ruling the Universe. This is outright russophobia". He then accused me of racism: "The majority of Moldova's population, that calls itself Moldovan, and refutes the name 'Romanian' applied by ethno-racists". And again: "It's not an ethno-racists job to impose a name on a people that doesn't want it". Then another Nazi comparison: "I'm not going to further discuss with a guy holding fringe opinions reminiscent of Nazi Germany. Your denial of Moldovan statality should exclude you from further debates about my country".

Today, he made another attack combining racism and Nazism charges: "No, it makes it easier for people to see who's the one living in the real world, where people have the freedom of thought and can freely say what they consider themselves, and who's living in an ethno-racist dream, where he thinks he can dictate on others his opinions based on hitlerite thought".

Throughout these episodes, I have treated this user with respect and courtesy, but my patience for these types of personal attacks is wearing thin. I believe the enforcers should act on this complaint, keeping in mind the Digwuren restriction and perhaps even the Digwuren warning. Biruitorul ^Talk 00:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Already blocked for a week by Scarian. Let's see if this helps.

— Rlevse • Talk • 01:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC) I'd like to request that Boodlesthecat (talk · contribs) is put on Digwuren's restriction list. This user seems to create battlegrounds with revert warring (he has been blocked twice in the past few days and is now on a third report), bad faith assumptions and personal attacks on talks and in edit summaries (in violation of Digwuren's remedies 8 and 9):Reply[reply]

• 07:09, May 28, 2008: "So you admit you are putting it in to prove a point... Again, it just a sad and offensive attempt by a coteries of biased editors who insist of defiling articles on Wikipedia by whitewashing the documented record of Polish antisemitism."
• 06:34, May 28, 2008: "This is fringe, Jew baiting, offensive original research designed to blame Polish antisemitism on a arbitrarily chosen, largely unknown Jewish figure. This violates WP:OR and is offensive POV pushing of the worst kind."
• 06:26, May 28, 2008: revert with edit summary "remove irrelevant, Jew baiting fringe original research"
• 02:06, May 28, 2008: "Please don't use talk pages as a soapbox for Jew baiting theories."
• 23:53, May 27, 2008: revert with edit summary "remove unsupported and wierd Jewish-baiting OR claim"
• 23:46, May 27, 2008: "You can't dance your way out of a simple historical fact. I'm not sure why you continue to attempt to rationalize this history of antisemitism, but you are not succeeding."
• 21:48, May 27, 2008: a clear PA: discussing editor, not the edit
• 01:45, May 26, 2008: "The notion ... shows basically the bias and ethnic baiting view of the editor"
• 00:14, May 22, 2008: Response to denial of unblock: "You have been notified about the bullying gang thuggery of this admin. Deal with it if you want. I am not going to waste time being battered by a gang of cyber thugs who have hijacked a string of article that they claim }owenership of, and who use outright lying and Jew baiting attacks to intimidate other editors with."
• 23:53, May 21, 2008: Unblock request after a 3RR violation: "The edit history clearly shows an orchestrated edit war being conducted, with no action taken against one side, while I have been blocked twice. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, who is deeply involved in this dispute, has been misusing admin powers in a dispute he is involved in by filing two 3RR's against me, while ignoring the violations (including 3RR) of those who support him. His 3RR complaints are faulty as well, pretty much randomly listing any edit I make to the article as part of an RR series. I request this block be lifted AND that admins give attention to the concerted gang edit warring that Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus is leading"
• 18:34, May 21, 2008: revert with an edit summary: "you are now simply vandalizing the article by removing well suorced material simply becuase you disapprove of it"
• Accusing editor of antisemitism few days ago: [240], [241], [242]; accusing him of trolling [243] and ranting [244]...

Given the above, I think it is quite clear that this user is heavily flaming and creating a disruptive, uncivil environment (and the series of 3RR blocks he is subject to shows his disruption reaches articles, too).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: I have just received am email from Boody (who has been blocked for a week for his third recent 3RR violation). The letter is highly offensive and uncivil, with threats, and makes it obvious (just as his most recent unblock request (denied)) does that he has no willingness to compromise. Due to privacy concerns I don't think I can copy his email here, but if any administrator or ArbCom member would like to look at it as part of the evidence, do let me know.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Boodles has edited in EE articles only in two articles, over a few days. Remedy 11 of Digwuren says "working on topics related to Eastern Europe." I strongly disagree that general-interest editors who happen to have stumbled across an EE article or two be made subject to the Digwuren restrictions arbitrarily. Those restrictions were set up to respond to large-scale civility problems across dozens of articles, and this would wind up being blatant misuse of those provisions to gain a leg-up over uninvolved editors (in effect, not in intent), which is precisely what we don't' want happening in this area. --Relata refero (disp.) 16:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• So in other words he can create a battlefield and make personal attacks in how many articles? 3? 10? 100? ArbCom did not assign any "quota" to any editor; if you enter a minefield - even a small part of it - you better be careful or you may get hurt. Further, if you look at his edits, you can see he edited many more CE/EE articles; so he is certainly an editor involved with those topics, not some random passerby.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'd say ArbCom had best look at percentages, keeping the concern in mind that we don't want to include, not exclude, general-interest editors. --Relata refero (disp.) 16:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• If I was an administrator I would take User:Newyorkbrad's approach. Check the suspected offender what he did wrong against what he did right going way back and then decide what to do with this case accordingly. I only know Boodles from his activity editing the article Fear and its talk page, not enough to form an opinion. The same approach should be applied I think to User:Ludvikus, whom I don't know at all, but he has emailed me asking if I could intervene on his behalf in a matter why for doing allegedly the same thing, Boodles has been slapped on a wrist only (96 hrs), while he has been banned for two years? Beats me anyway. greg park avenue (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

48 hours

This user, ideologically quite similar to User:Xasha, has a record of incivility toward me. I will not at this point dredge up his past attacks (including accusing me of insanity and drug addiction) or repeat what the controversy is about - a summary of that can be read in my recent report on Xasha. I will, however, highlight two of his recent personal attacks, made after Xasha was warned and then blocked for such attacks, something Moldopodo was well aware of (a message in which, incidentally, he expressed agreement with Xasha's personal attack on me). First: he attacked a very logical argument by User:Dahn thus: "...your Greater Romania crap propaganda style rhetorics. This is encyclopedia and not a forum for expression of your irredentist POV". Not only is such language inaccurate, it's quite inflammatory. In any event, his second attack, directed towards me, is highly inflammatory, false and offensive: "one does not need to be a rocket scientist to understand, that giving a user his/her just description has nothing to do with the dispute...If the user is ethno-racist, then the user is ethno-racist, it's impossible to call him/her "Red Rose", no, it's ethno-racist. Dispute or not, edits of the concerned users repeatedly prove negation of everything Moldavian and organising collective proaganda of Greater Romanian Balkan crap on the entire Wikpedia and all related projects" (bold mine). Essentially, what he is saying here is that he reserves the right to call me whatever he pleases if he thinks it's accurate, WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA notwithstanding. I hope and trust the enforcers will beg to differ, keeping in mind the Digwuren restriction and perhaps even the Digwuren warning, and certainly the fact that Moldopodo is already under an editing restriction. Biruitorul ^Talk 00:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe we should automatically put anyone that edits those pages on arb restrictions. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's quite possible to edit those pages without personal attacks - I have done it, User:Illythr has done it, User:Thedagomar has done it, and so forth. I should point out that after I notified Moldopodo of my report, he replied with further personal attacks: "You are what you are, for the negation of the simple fact that is recognized by the world's community, Romania as well. Instead of proving what a civilised Romanian you are, you prove the common stereotype of uncivilised gypsy related Romanian that exists all over in Europe" (bold mine). So he continues to stand by his "ethno-racist" comment, and furthermore calls me an "uncivlised gypsy" - an attack not only against me, but against the Roma people, by equating them with being uncivilised. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So it's OK to call 3 mil self-declared Moldovans a "fantasy", UN-memeber Moldova an "illegitimate" state that "should be absorbed by its rightful owners, Bucharest, without delay", and the EU "a dangerous neo-Stalinist creature", as you did, Mr. B? (Now, administrators, consider how would you feel if instead of Moldovans he would talk about your nationality, and instead of Moldova about your country.) No, he didn't call you an uncivilised gypsy. He just mentioned the stereotype existing in Europe, as proved by the recent antiRomanian (a lot of them gypsies, or at least this is how Romanian media presents them) actions in Italy, and noted your behaviour may further instill it. (This doesn't mean I share his opinions, I just wanted to show that you're ready to do anything, even deliberately changing the meaning of somebody else's comment, to get your view promoted. How could we trust you on your offline references, when you disgracefully distort a message viewable by everybody here?)Xasha (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I happen to respect WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and last I checked, lambasting the EU was not in violation of those. He said I "prove a stereotype". It'd be best if he abided by WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Biruitorul ^Talk 13:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Such an attack on EU shows your fringe opinions are not limited to Moldova. And I think anyone can easily see what fringe has such a view on the EU, and how harmful someone supporting it could be to Wikipedia.Xasha (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, this report is about Moldopodo, not about me. Second, I'd be happy to discuss the EU's perfidy with you, but not here. Third, I defy you to show how I've "harmed" Wikipedia, but again, not here - this is about Moldopodo. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you afraid you'll also be judged? I think you assumed that risk when you decided to complain here.Xasha (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, if you have a formal complaint to make it, please do so; however, I am not the subject of this complaint. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personal attacks, racism and uncivility are not the same thing as views about political bodies. bogdan (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Biruitorul, here you are again, making your ridiculous case strong by an old tactics proven on Wikipedia talk pages - filling another previously blank page with your imagination and even worse - perverse reading analysis. All I have to say to those who are going to consider the case, just go through the relevant talk pages and see yourself. I have nothing more to say, as I am afraid, this request will require a couple of archive pages with Biruitorul's traditional "feedback"... Biru, why are you called "Biruitorul"? (Winner in Moldavian) Who or what are you winning over? I am sorry, but I will always consider a user like you either a child, an unhealthy mature individual or a simple nuisance to Wikipedia. One thing for sure - the mere fact that you deny Moldavian nation, Moldavian language and Moldavian state makes further discussion with you useless until further treatment.--Moldopodo^talk 00:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note to enforcers: the user has made another personal attack on me, saying he will consider a user like me "either a child, an unhealthy mature individual or a simple nuisance to Wikipedia", and accusing me of mental illness, saying he will not discuss with me "until further treatment". Biruitorul ^Talk 00:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Note how he is again twisting the meaning of Moldopodo's words. Treatment means nothing but proper administrative action against Biruitorul (i.e. "the techniques or actions customarily applied in a specified situation" [245]). (This is what I tought the first time I read his message, and I think, unless Moldopodo denies it, this is the meaning we should consider per WP:AGF).It is really disturbing how this guy can misrepresent reality.Xasha (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Before this case closes, as I assume it is about to, let me just note that WP:CIV is not that hard to follow. I made an interpretation; I could have been wrong. Xasha could easily have said, "no, I actually see it this way...", and not make ominous (and frankly ludicrous) declarations like "it is really disturbing how this guy can misrepresent reality". Biruitorul ^Talk 15:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Moldopodo blocked for 48 hours. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

one week by Jossi

I come to this forum with great reluctance, but come I must, for I have no other recourse. Here's the background: on 1 June, I filed a similar report on this user, and he was blocked under the Digwuren ruling. However, he has persisted in making the same personal attacks that led to the block, and I sincerely wish for these to cease. At the same time, the last thing I want is to use up the community's patience with frivolous reports - but this is hardly a frivolous matter. I began by filing a Wikiquette Alert, which was closed because the dispute is more advanced than that. I then sought the advice of Rlevse, carefully noting my reluctance to pursue the matter here, but he advised me that AE or RfC were indeed the only avenues I had. That's why I've returned here so soon. Allow me to paste my WQA report below:

This user, recently taken before Arbitration Enforcement (see here) and consequently blocked for incivility, persists in making the same charges that brought about that block. It's this paragraph I'm referring to: "Racist comments... open ethno-racist remarks are made by User:Biruitorul". This is false, offensive, inflammatory and an attempt at character assassination. I will not stand to be called an "ethno-racist" by this user, and I have made it clear that every instance of this will be dealt with by a report to an official forum. This is just the latest. I'm not seeking for Moldopodo to be blocked or what have you - I merely want an apology and an assurance that such language will not be addressed to me in the future by him.

Update: Moldopodo has again attacked me as an "ethno-racist": "Like I said earlier, when I refer to your edits as ethno-racists it is because they are ethno-racist, and not because in fact the are 'red rose' edits". I would hope this uncompromising insistence on attacking me would cease.

And again, and again.

Like I've said, I'm not out to "get" Moldopodo - I merely want it impressed upon him, somehow, that this sort of language is unacceptable here. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update - more baseless attacks and assumptions of bad faith. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• User blocked for one week. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Pocox4's request declined, request not justified

— Rlevse • Talk • 23:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wish to appeal the warning posted to my talk page and to the arbitration enforcement log by user:Seraphimblade for edit warring at Sheylanli. I was not edit warring, I only made one revert. All my edits including the revert was made in good faith. I feel that I am unfairly being tarred by the same brush as a revert warrior who was reverting not just my edits but admin user:Golbez's edits in Nagorno-Karabakh and trying to insert the harshest of POVs. Seraphimblade's reasoning for believing that I was edit warring is here where he erroneously believes that four edits of mine were actually reverts. Only one of those four links is an actual revert and it was a good faith revert because I was reverted before without any explanation. To summarize:

[246] is not a revert. It's adding new material and accuracy

[247] is a revert because I was reverted without any discussion in talk.

[248] is not a revert. I was removing a propaganda site and I was never aware that it had ever been removed before. This is a new edit.

[249] I am adding tags that have never been added before. Not a revert.

They were all good faith edits and they were all discussed in talk. Just because someone reverted my edits shouldn't mean that I should be tarred by the same brush. I was not edit warring and my only intention was to come to a consensus on that article. If the same standards that have been applied to me were applied to all edits in wikipedia than every single edit that was not a clear addition of information only would be considered a revert. Please give this your consideration. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't really need to appeal warnings. They're just meant to inform possibly unaware editors that they could face sanctions; there is no hierarchy of "warning --> sanctions". Although it is true that editors should generally be warned before facing sanctions, this is only because it is unfair to sanction someone for behavior which they did not know was sanctionable. A general warning is very common, and does not imply wrongdoing or upcoming sanctions; the warning you recieved is similar, but points to specific behavior which could lead to sanctions. Whether or not you feel that behavior violated the restrictions isn't really important, since the warning is merely meant to inform you of it — if your behavior wasn't in violation, then you will not be sanctioned. Warnings aren't retracted, because they merely serve an informational purpose — the fact that you have been informed is irrevocable, so even someone saying "your edits were AOK" will really change anything with any real significance. --Haemo (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My talk page says it's a warning however the arbitration enforcement log says "Pocopocopocopoco (talk · contribs) notified of discretionary sanctions due to edit warring in the affected areas. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)" which seems like it's more than a warning. I believe that entry should be removed from the arbitration enforcement log. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree you weren't revert warring, however, while sanctions can be appealed, you can't appeal notifications. PhilKnight (talk) 10:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it's just a warning, then fine but I shouldn't be placed on a list called "List of users placed under supervision". Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you do constructive edits and don't edit warring with others, I think you shouldn't have any problem with all these warnings. For example, for me it doesn't matter whether or not my name is in the list so called "List of users placed under supervision." This is because I have gotten enough experience not to go into any propaganda as you had me do more than three reverts in order to report and get me blocked. While I and an admin Golbez, see Golbez's comment, was working on the article Nagorno-Karabakh to make the "proposed" fact clear, (see from this to this which was accepted to stay there by my 'opponent', administrator Golbez) you reported to the notice board to get me blocked with the fact that I had done more than three reverts. But at the same time you were edit warring on the article Sheylanli with me and you thought no-one would notice that but fortunately or unfortunately someone did and so you are appealing here. I hope you took your lesson and never do such things in the future. Cheers, Gülməmməd ^Talk 01:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just ignore it. It makes no mention of any sanctions, so it has no power; it's just a log that you were warned. I agree the title is a bit misleading, but this isn't a bureaucracy, so it doesn't hold any power over you. Just chill — nothing will happen unless you make it happen. --Haemo (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll take your word for it that it's not a big deal but I still take issue with the fact that I was tarred with the same brush as another user who was a revert warrior against multiple editors and articles. I did not revert war with him and yet got the same warning. If I get a warning about sanctions, he should get sanctions as he was already warned here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pocopocopocopoco: You shouldn't have forgotten your promise here when you was unblocked due to edit warring on disputed article in December 29, 2007. You have once involved in edit warring but kept doing edit war with me. In 1 hour 36 minutes, from 23:17, May 31, 2008 to 00:53, June 1, 2008, see, you reverted me 8 times! Isn't this edit warring? Gülməmməd ^Talk 01:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]