Revision as of 03:28, 10 February 2009

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

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Edit this section for new requests

On January 21, 2009, the Arbitration Committee opened a Request for Comment regarding arbitration enforcement, including a review of general and discretionary sanctions. The RfC is still open for comment and all editors are encouraged to comment and contribute. The RfC will close at 02:00 UTC on February 21, 2009.

User:Cerejota accusing editors of "taking marching orders" from CAMERA (redux)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Editors notified of the WP:ARBPIA restrictions, and warned that sanctions can be imposed for unacceptable talk page conduct. PhilKnight (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of working for CAMERA and then ignoring all subsequent protests violates WP:AGF and is a personal attack. Accusing any volunteer editor of working for any organization is extremely insulting, especially when it's CAMERA (everybody here knows why). Such accusations are a blatant violation of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision:

2) Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Editors making such accusations should not be allowed on Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything beyond this single diff provided here or some other pattern of incivility? Shell 02:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a a pattern of incivility going back to when he first opened his account actually, but I don't want to turn this into a RFC. If you would like one example I would point you to roof knocking, which I created. The day after he and I had a strong disagreement about an issue unrelated to that article, he nominated the article deletion. As the adf progressed towards a "keep", he plastered the article with a whole bunch of nonsensical irrelevant tags. He got himself blocked for 3rr when he kept on putting back the tags after they were removed by other editors.

In any case, Cerejota's accusation/attack on it's own is an egregious WP:CIVIL violation. His insult goes to the core of a Wikiepdian. The last thing any of us - who volunteer out precious time to publish knowledge - want to be accused of is that we are just "taking marching orders" from some corporate entity. Moreover, as all the admins that cruise this page are well aware about the "whole scandal" where editors were banned for being part of CAMERA scheme. I don't have to elaborate why accusing editors of being part of this scheme again is a WP:NPA violation.

Finally, I'm overly curious what would happen if one editor accused a whole bunch of editors of working for Hamas. Why do I have this nagging feeling that admins would be crawling over each other to see who can give the accuser the longest block?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Cerejota finally replied to the protests at the talkpage by announcing that his accusations are legitimate because there currently is meatpuppetry going on and he is merely calling a spade a spade . His further accusations were surely encouraged by the lack of one admin even asking him to stop. This is ridiculous.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I replied when I got back, and I didn't accuse you or anyone in the specific. I pointed out that there was an apparent relationship between items gaining the attention of CAMERA, and then appearing in the talk page. I specifically said that I had no evidence. I, however, did point out that I believed that you have a vendetta against me, based on previous encounters, including trying to get me blocked for 24 hours (for something the blocking admin called "lame" when doing it - after all 3RR is 3RR - and which he undid in less than 3 hours), the "Roof Knocking" AfD, and my request for sanctions against Tundrabuggy. You accuse others of incivility, but you are not exactly stellar yourself, with there being exactlly two recorded apologies on your part that I recall (one for accusing me of 100RR and another recent one to another editor for "whining").

Furthermore, after the 100RR fiasco, in your talk page you thretened me with taking me to ArbCom over content issues, and when I told you that ArbCom doesn't rule on content issues you said I was wrong - in spite of me providing you with the verbatim text from WP:ARBCOM. Not only that, when I approached you, you launched a series of unjustified attacks, using diffs that didn't prove your point, and dishonoring a good faith request you stop posting escalating comments on my talk page. I will provide diffs if requested.

You act like a bully, protecting your guys, like Tundrabuggy or Flippet, zealously and without regards of their behavior, and waiting for the right moment to strike those you oppose, misderecting, misrepresenting, and failing to assume any good faith whatsoever. Everyone you "protected" gets blocked for egregious disruption, and you dare call me "uncivil"? I mean, User:Doright outright called a number of editors antisemites (and then tried to obfuscate the matter), and I kept my mouth shut - because it had no consequence to the actual article, and I am not going to feed trolls. You should stop whining and own up to the fact that it takes two to tango and there is no way in hell that you can eliminate editors with whom you disagree simply on the basis of disagreement.

In spite of all of this, I am willing to move forward with you or any editor that shows a disposition to edit conforming to the encyclopedic goal. I know you understand sarcasm, humor, and so on. That shows intelligence. Do not insult our intelligence with unnecesary requests to silence productive editors working for consensus, rather than pushing POV - the record is there for all to see.

Of course, both this message and the previous closed one were done behind my back, with neither notification on my talk page, nor in the talk page of the article: this is not a good faith report but a revenge. --Cerejota (talk) 08:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Two huge misconceptions on your part. Firstly, I never claimed I was an angel that was never uncivil. The difference is, as you pointed out, I apologize after I realized that I acted like a jerk. You acted very egregiously, accusing other another and I for working for CAMERA. There was one thread where another and I were making basically the the same point. You float into that thread and announce that this very argument is being pushed by CAMERA and editors here are "taking marching orders from CAMERA". You were obviously referring to us. Plain and simple, these type of unsubstantiated, controversial, and insulting accusations should never be hurled at another editor. Yet, what happens? You play naive and cute, claiming you were not referring to any specific editor.

The second misconception is that you think I fancy myself as some neutral arbitrator over other editors behavior. You're wrong. I won't call out every single editor if they're behavior is illegitimate. I will never encourage or condone incivility, but no, I will never drag someone like Tundrabuggy or Fliplett, who are my friends, to an ANI (I'll probably tell them via email to calm down). If they get dragged to some noticeboard I will probably defend them to the extent I can under Misplaced Pages policies, just like other editors will try their darndest to bury them to the extent they can under WP policies. Which leads me to my final point - let those editors and admins that fancy themselves as uninvolved and neutral act like their neutral and let those pseudo-neutral editors and admins shed their colors. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't accuse any editor directly, and when asked directly by one editor, I replied I had no evidence. I will not retract a statement that is supported by an ArbCom desicion. Like your denial that ArbCom doesn't rule on content, you seem to misunderstand a key fact here: the problem is that there is a proven patern of organized meatpupettry directed by CAMERA, and I simply pointed out the similarity between the behavior then, and the behavior now. If I am not mistaken, this is not uncivil, but stating the obvious: water gets you wet, fire burns, the CAMERA walk amongst us. I am not saying this is the case with you, but in Spanish we have a phrase: el que se piqa es por que aji come roughly he who burns its because the peppers he eats. The extreme exception and offense taken at the mere suggestion of similarity among an avowed block of editors simply means it strikes a chord. I wish it didn't.

I do wear my true colors: I refuse to take sides, but I am by no means neutral: my side is fighting systemic bias and egregious soapbox/battlefield issues, for example, not accepting Al-Jazeera, which is viewed by more people than CNN, as reliable source for very bad reasons or trying to include material in the article that fits the CAMERA narrative but not that of any other source - or likewise, trying to pass off sources like the ISM or PNN as neutral or trying to flood the article with Al-Jazeera pictures. I am pretty much the only guy who as amatter of routine switches position during discussion - and definitely the only one that has reverted edits by editors on both sides of an edit war. I am a ronin, you (pro-X editors) are all samurai (and ninjas). Neutrality is not the issue, groupthink is the issue.

This has been apparently difficult for "us v them" warriors like you to process - and some in the other side two (RomaC can't stand me - because I defended Tundrabuggy from a bad atatck on his part!!!!). I take each argument, and process it, and spit out opinions, and sometimes compromise attempts. A lot of the good things this article has have been consensus reached to a large extent by frameworks I put in place. I also have a highly developed sense of gallows humor and don't-give-a-fuckism - with an oversized bullshit detector. Try to pick on someone else.

You are also making a misconception of your own: I am not interested in prosecuting anyone, nor do I drag people to noticeboards. I will defend myself. I will be patient to a very high limit. But you have taken me so many times to different noticeboards is beginning to sound like crying wolf. I will say, tho, that there is a significant difference between Contentious Editors and CAMERA/EI Rangers - ones are POV Pushers who disrupt certain articles (and accuse everyone else of being POV pushers) but make huge contributions to the encyclopedia in other respects and the others are POV Pushers who wish wikipedia didn't exist, because they wouldn't have to edit it. I do know we have a bunch of the first (to a certain extent excluding you - and others too -, you do not push POV, you simply disrupt - and then do very good things with baseball articles) and while I have suspects for the second, I can't prove anything, and I hope there are none. But shit, discussing if Gaza is a densely populated place as if it were the worse piece of OR? You call that productive?--Cerejota (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, I understand you have this continuing fantasy of being considered neutral but, I'm sorry, your past behavior and your comments on this very thread pretty much precludes that from ever happening. I mean your claim to neutrality is because you don't consider Al-Jazeera as reliable as CNN. That's just hilarious. ARBCOM found that at one point there was attempted meatpuppety in the past from CAMERA. So you're understanding that ARBCOM ruled that there will always be meatpuppetry is obviously ridiculous and the fact that you continue with these very libels during this very thread is despicable.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Not that it matters especially, however in my understanding 'I am by no means neutral' doesn't imply he was claiming to be neutral. PhilKnight (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Phil before you consider me an equal-level bickerer with Brewcrewer, please note that you are in fact realizing a basic issue in communicating with Brewcrewer: he selectively reads whatever one says. Somehow, in his mind, me saying "I am by no means neutral" became "I am neutral". How can one communicate productively with someone who makes such flexible interpretation of reality? I am being serious here: what is your recommendation as an admin that I use in face of this? Asking me to stop editing would mean that all someone has to do to disrupt is behave in such a fashion. I really want to be productive, but its hard to ignore egrerious misrepresentation and constant strawman arguments. So any help would be well recieved.--Cerejota (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Cerejota, your comment was a but unclear/ambiguous, but I thought your overall point was that you considered yourself neutral in the I-P conflict. I apologize if I misrepresented your views. So can you make this clear for us? Do you consider yourself generally neutral in the I-P conflict or do you find yourself leaning towards one side?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point: you are defining a complex situation as being made up of only two sides. Sorry, but life is more complex than that. And of course, around here, we do not have to be neutral, but we have to make neutral articles. One way of doing this is clashing two POVs into a war of attrition, scoring points, banning editors, etc. Another way is to be reasonable, engage in constructive debate, seek agreement, use sources, and only fight meatpuppetry and egregious disruption. I take the second, am afraid you prefer the first. --Cerejota (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by an editor not involved at this article and never (that I recall?) been in significant conflict or collaboration with either editor. Brewcrewer is a tendentious editor who refuses to deal with any kind of policy-based discussion (eg Attempted summary of arguments on all sides). This conduct wastes enormous amount of the time (and temper) of good-faith editors and can only result in long-term damage to articles and to the project. I will add that the accusations of antisemitism mentioned by Cerejota are becoming an increasingly frequent tactic for disruption. When even reminding people of the possible consequences (eg Jcom Radio) gets the objectors indef-blocked, it is of the first importance that administrators act against those who would smear other editors to article-damaging purpose. PR 13:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Brewcrewer, I don't see any kind of substance to this complaint - you need to ratchet the volume back a few notches; starting to make claims of libel is treading on thin ice. Cerejota is discussing how talk page discussions have resembled the organizations aims; at no time did he single out editors or direct anything that resembled incivility toward any party. If anything, Brewcrewer, your behavior here is more actionable. Shell 16:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Shell: He never said it straighout (he's smarter then that), but a perusal of the thread shows exactly who he had in mind. There was an assertion made by a few editors at Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Population density of Gaza that the density claims made by the article were incorrect and unsupported by reliable sources. Cerejota comes into the discussion and announces that CAMERA has made the same exact argument and there are editors here that are "taking marching orders from CAMERA. Whom he was referring to was obvious from the discussion. Indeed, right after he made this accusation, editors who knew who he was referring to responded in protest over these baseless and disruptive accusations. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I've notified Cerejota and Brewcrewer of the WP:ARBPIA restrictions. I think if they don't stop bickering, they should be temporarily banned from the article and talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I am late to town, but I too thought this an egregious violation of WP:CIVIL and poisons the atmosphere. As I have mentioned elsewhere, certainly if one kept up with the talking points of Electronic Intifada or International Solidarity Movement one might find similar talking points with the pro-Palestinian editors here, but we do not accuse them of being "Electronic Intifada Jihadists" ...as Cerejota called the pro-Israeli people "CAMERA rangers" in her initial comment above. In fact it is surely inevitable that there will be parallels in the thinking and writing of various advocacy groups for both sides in such a current event article. The accusation implies not only that we do not think for ourselves, but that we are doing something illegal (wiki-wise) and works as a kind of intimidation against putting our views on the talk page and trying to come to consensus. Cerejota's description of himself is self-serving, at the very least, and not accurate, and in fact he has taken me to noticeboards at least twice. This accusation was excused by other editors, and it appears it was an expansion of an earlier accusation by user:RomaC. If nothing is said/done about it, it will become quite acceptable to use such comments against pro-Israeli editors whenever an issue of contention comes up. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a serious violation of WP:CIVIL but outright accusations of antisemitism are just a little blowing off? I dont think all this is really necessary, but I dont think CAMERA needs to be brought up whenever there is a disagreement. But to the issue, I dont think Cerejota was accusing anybody, he in fact said quite clearly that he was not accusing any of the parties that took issue with the comment. Nableezy (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, something that is not very well understood in this neck of the woods, is that the issue of antisemitism in the area of I-P conflict desperately needs to be addressed. I agreed it was uncivil to call people that, but I do think that the issue (and its counterpoint - "No one can say anything bad about Israel without being accused of antisemitism" & "Anti-Zionism isn't antisemitism" ) should be addressed in the context of this area and arbcom sanctions etc. In the case you are talking about, the person who made the accusation had been engaged in dialogue and had been frustrated in trying to put forward his perspective. In this case, as Brewcrewer notes below, Cerejota had not been involved with this discussion at all, and these comments were gratuitious. Interestingly, when Cerejota put my name up for sanctions at this board (successfully I might add) I was not notified either nor did I have an opportunity to present a rebuttal. It was done "behind my back," as he puts it. According to PhilKnight there is no requirement for any kind of warning or notification. See: At any rate, it is rather a bit of chutzpah to demand for yourself what you don't do for others. He is luckier than I was, as he has been notified and had an opportunity to defend himself, as well. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Provided the argument between Cerejota and Brewcrewer has stopped, then no further action should be necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Phil: I'm perplexed by your proposal. You want to ban Cerejota and I from the Gaza conflict page because we're bickering at this page? Firstly, if you look through the threads at AE and ANI, pretty much all the goes on is "bickering". I've never heard of sanctions taken against an editor for bickering at an ANI page. Moreover, the bickering might come to an end if just one admin would just ask Cerejota "Hey, you're an amazing guy and all but can you please stop accusing editors of working for CAMERA?" I'm still amazed noone even bothered with this simple request.

Secondly, I'm not exactly sure what the benefit will be in banning us from the Gaza conflict page when there was no bickering going on over there. The thread that instigated this whole brouhaha is Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Population density of Gaza. If you look through the thread you will see that we were working towards some sort of compromise. I was part of the discussion, which over the most part was "bickerless". Cerejota who took no part in the discussion or at an attempt at compromise suddenly showed up and made his CAMERA announcements. When he joined the discussions with his accusations I never responded and just brought this issue here. I guess banning us both from the talkpage will lessen the chances of us bickering, but the ban isn't really related to the problem. For example, we "bickered" as well at Roof knocking.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It strikes me rereading Cerejota's comment that he acknowledges he has no evidence and claims he is not accusing any editor directly. Even so, he is now arguing that because some editors have taken offense, that this qualifies as "evidence" -- that it "strikes a chord." Thus anyone who is offended by this pejorative label (ie being told they are "taking marching orders" or are "CAMERA rangers") are the accused. So I would say that means that at least brewcrewer and I are targeted (and guilty) simply because we have taken offense. This would include other editor who might sign on to having been offended! For example . Notice how this editor is made to feel defensive about his position, though Cerejota asks him why he would think he was referring to him when he was the very one arguing the position most forcefully. Did Cerejota read the section in question, or what? If he was not accusing those who were arguing the point, who exactly was he accusing? All this despite the fact he acknowledges zero evidence. Without evidence, he should remove the characterisation and apologise. "I simply pointed out the similarity between the behavior then, and the behavior now." "the CAMERA walk amongst us" -- I can't believe this kind of battlefield mentality is conducive to good collaboration. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If I may weigh in. I have had disagreements with Cerejota but I regard him as a relatively non-biased editor, and the 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict talk page generally benefits from his input. Turning to the the editor who has initiated this complaint, I regard brewcrewer as an intelligent editor but I am concerned for example when he sympathizes with an editor who is being criticized (and was later blocked) for leveling accusations of "antisemitism" at Arab editors: "The swarm of nasty pov-pushers butchering the article in the name of a consensus are really out of control...Hopefully, one day the pov pushers will go back to their porn habit, leave Misplaced Pages alone, and we'll be able to get back to editing neutral articles instead of propaganda pieces." This sort of "us against them" rhetoric is not productive, in my opinion, especially on already-divisive articles. RomaC (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment on the "porn habit" comment. We all had a long long "discussion" about putting in a photograph of a totally burned and blackened baby (termed "Babyque" by Cerejota). Perhaps you remember? The photograph came from the International Solidarity Movement and Flickr and the title said the baby had been killed by Israel and then run over by an Israeli tank. I seem to recall that some of us referred to that photograph, as well as some others that you and others wanted to use to illustrate the article, as "obscene" and "pornographic." They were and they are. There is much in the article that is finally being neutralised, but putting words like "The Gaza Massacre" in the lead and pictures of burned babies run over by IDF tanks as illustration, and galleries of Palestinian casualties, also creates an "us against them" editing environment, much greater than a personal note on another editor's talk page which also made the point that he should remain civil and take a break from the article. This point was left out in your ellipse. Context is so important, don't you agree? Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Erm: "Babycue" ;). I hear your point, and to a certain extent I even agreed the picture situation. However, why not try a different approach? Think about it from a different perspective? Is encyclopedic quality really decreased because we tell our readers "The arabs call this the Gaza Massacre"? Really? Do a couple of pictures of wounded and killed really do that? They might be offensive to your point of view, or to your values as a person - but are your values better than mine? Spic is highly offensive to me, and I wish we deleted it, but I understand why it exists and why it is not a good idea to mess with it. Its not us (latinos) v them (racists), its us wikipedians collecting knowledge, among them the highly offensive slurs used in the real world. If I took your view (and Brewcrewer's) that anything not good for my narrative is propaganda, I would be all day decrying wikipedia's racism for allowing Spic to exist. How does that make wikipedia better?--Cerejota (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Momento at Prem Rawat (continued, again)

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

Francis, to be perfectly honest, I'm considering whether I should give you a short block for making so many reports against Momento that it approaches harassment. PhilKnight (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That was my first thought as well Phil. Francis, we get it, the two of you (and various others) have a dispute over the content - Work. It. Out.. Its either that or stop editing the darn article - this constant running here for every edit someone doesn't like is wearing on everyone's patience. Shell 16:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

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

• Please don't go telling people to "just work it out," or you're going to block them! That's ridiculous. This article is under ARBCOM probation. Francis is frustrated like everyone else over at the Rawat article, who has to deal with this nonsense. Besides, the problem isn't just between Francis and Momento. Momento has a long-standing editing behavior of discussing an issue (that usually has already been discussed in the near and distant past -- the archives are filled with the same old discussions about the same things, over and over and over), then Momento unilaterally declares that the subject "is closed and consensed" and he goes ahead and he makes an edit according to his own POV. Do something, instead of shooting the messenger! Sylviecyn (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Except Francis isn't just the messenger, - AE is not dispute resolution, there's no reason that this should come back here over one edit just days after another item was closed with no action. And I didn't suggest blocking anyone, I suggested that folks who can't resolve their differences amicably might want to consider editing something (anything) else on Misplaced Pages.

At this point, it sounds like Will's suggestion of mediation is appropriate but if this keeps coming back here we'll need to start thinking about who should be included in an article ban. Shell 18:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The general problem is that, by placing the article under probation, the ArbCom basically designated this noticeboard as the primary place to deal with disruptive edits. AE is the enforcement arm of the ArbCom. It has said that edit warring should result in actions. So if there is edit warring, this is the place to complain about it. I think it is very inappropriate to threaten editors who bring complaints here with banning. Posting a few threads isn't an abuse of process. Anyone who frequents this page knows that there are a handful of topics that keep re-appearing - Prem Rawat, the Troubles, Balkan politics, etc. It's natural for folks here to get tired of seeing the same editors and issues coming back again and again. But, at least in this case, the ArbCom chose not to settle any of the issues on their own and didn't give editors any other avenues for dealing with conflicts. Following the Prem Rawat RfAr, all of the editors engaged in a massive informal mediation with user:Steve Crossin. While largely successful it didn't resolve all conflicts (and some seemingly resolved disputes have come up again). Hopefully, formal mediation will succeed where tens of thousands of words of talk page discussion, informal mediation, and an RfC have failed. But if not then this board, or the ArbCom itself, are the only venues we have for enforcing the probation.   Will Beback  talk  20:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but Francis needs to grasp that continuously making unactionable reports about Momento isn't acceptable. At the moment, if I was going to enforce the probation, I would be applying more severe sanctions against Francis than Momento. PhilKnight (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the complaint is about something "unactionable" - making a contentious edit without consensus and in contradiction to an RfC is disruptive editing and an actionable violation of the probation. While the ArbCom also prohibited incivility, filing even an insufficient complaint isn't normally viewed as incivility. So far as I can tell, this is the fourth complaint that Francis has started here, including two in May 2008 and one in January 2009. Both of the May complaints resulted in blocks of Momento, so they weren't unactionable. Ignoring disruptive editing while blocking those who point to it doesn't seem consistent with the ArbCom's remedy in this case. If abuse of this noticebaord becomes a problem then the most appropriate remedy would be a temporary ban from posting here.   Will Beback  talk  21:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

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

That's an interesting dilemna. It's a single edit because no one wants to engage in an edit war to restore it. The last edit war started with a single edit by Momento to remove the same information. So if other editors do nothing then it's not actionable, but if they restore the deleted material then they are part of the problem. What's the solution? Do we allow a single-purpose editor with a conflict of interest to make whatever edits he likes despite Misplaced Pages' policies, guidelines, RfCs, and the ArbCom's probation?

As for a pattern of misbehavior regarding this particular bit of information, I'm searching for the previous deletions but de/wikiblame.php isn't working correctly. (I've put a note on the creator's talk page about it.) I'm checking "by hand" and so far I've found that this is the fifth time the editor has removed the material in the prior 12 months. The last time he deleted it he said in his edit summary "per talk", which generally means "by agreement" in my experience. If that's what he meant then it was misleading as there is no consensus for its removal and the outside editors on the recent RfC explicitly endorsed its retention. In addition, during the last edit warring over this information two new accounts appeared to delete it as well, leading to a possible conclusion that meat/sock puppets are involved.   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Couple of points here: Will, FrancisSchonken opened the last thread here over the same issue which was closed less than 24 hours when this one was opened. In my opinion, this was a bit much. Also, I wasn't in any way suggesting that reverting should be tolerated regardless of who's doing it, which is why I suggested discussion about which editors should be involved if article bans are needed. Sandstein, you seem to have been following this a bit more closely so while I know the history and can take a look at what's been going on at the article, I'd be inclined to follow your lead as far as where sanctions should head at this time. I think its becoming clear though that needs to either be some relief to help settle the atmosphere at the article or this needs to head back to ArbCom to give them another shot at fixing it. Shell 02:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Another way of looking at it is that only about 14 hours after one complaint about deleting a sourced piece of information was dismissed, the same user removed the same information again. As for Francis, I don't think that this AE posting was the ideal way of handling the situation, but I think we'd all agree that it's better than engaging in an edit war over the disputed material. There aren't that many steps left in DR to pursue.   Will Beback  talk  06:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As you can see FrancisSchonken and WillBeBack are relentless in their harassment. Today's complaint relates to me altering the lead to reflect an authoritative new source that has appeared and has been linked and discussed in PR Talk. It clearly states "In childhood, (Rawat) was affectionately known as Sant Ji by his father's followers, Balyogeshwar (born Lord of Yogis) by the Indian public on account of his young age and precocious spirituality, and later Guru Maharaj Ji by his students" Therefore Balyogeshwar is not a current name nor an "alternate name" taken and used by Rawat but a description/title created by others in his childhood and therefore has no right to be portrayed as a current or alternate name in the lead. Momento (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Momento, there are over a hundred reliable sources concerning this topic. They say all kinds of things about the subject many of which you won't permit us to add to the article, for better or worse. Finding one that agrees with your POV (and that was coincidentally written by a follower) does not give you permission to over-rule consensus, RfC, etc. The information has been in the article for over a year, except when you've deleted it. And to call my postings here "harassment" is just plain ridiculous. Your charges of harassment are, in themselves, becoming harassment.   Will Beback  talk  01:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, please do not import content disputes to this page. Momento, throwing around claims of harassment isn't doing anything to help the atmosphere and this isn't the proper place to defend your views on content. If you'd like to discuss your behavior versus what is expected of editors working on an article under probation, feel free, but leave the rest out. Shell 02:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not introducing content disputes, I'm explaining why the edit FrancisSchonken has complained about is correct in light of a new source. And as for my claims about harassment, I'll keep making them as long as they continue. Three fraudulent complaints in a week? I'll try to think of something else to call it.Momento (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

My assessment is that Francis's behavior is problematic, and is indeed approaching harassment. Your role appears to be that of unquestioningly supporting Francis. However, I also realize that Momento's conduct is cause for concern, so I'd support a 1-month topic ban on both Momento and Francis. PhilKnight (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I could agree with that Phil - I think Sandstein suggested something similar above (without a time suggestion). Shell 16:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with Francis often, but not unquestioningly. For example, when he posted this request I emailed him asking him to stop making more requests. To the best of my knowledge, there are only three editors active on the topic who aren't current or former members of the movement: Jayen466, Francis Schonken, and myself. Jayen is more symapthetic and Francis and I are more skeptical, but on the whole we occupy the midle ground. I'm not sure I see what problematic behavior PhilKnight sees on the part of Francis that merits a 1-month ban. There's nothing in this thread that shows disruption.   Will Beback  talk  19:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What a disgrace! NikWright files a bogus complaint which FrancisSchonken and WillBeBack vigorously support. Francis files two bogus complaints which WillBeBack vigorously supports. And your solution is to topic ban me for a month? I hope you're not basing your opinion on WillBeBack's evidence for my "pattern of misbehavior" above? Because if you look here you'll see WillBeBack deliberately omitted that hours before my first revert FrancisSchonken inserted "Balyogeshawar" into a lead that had been stable for over a year without discussion or consensus. And continued to insert it 3 times in 3 days. My removal was completely appropriate.Momento (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Momento, you and Francis are getting on so badly that it's getting to the stage where banning you and Francis from this topic for a month would be in the best interests of the encyclopedia. PhilKnight (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me? What happened to "I should give you (FrancisSchonken)a short block for making so many reports against Momento that it approaches harassment", "Francis needs to grasp that continuously making unactionable reports about Momento isn't acceptable. At the moment, if I was going to enforce the probation, I would be applying more severe sanctions against Francis than Momento.","The single revert complained about here is not really actionable","Francis's behavior is problematic, and is indeed approaching harassment". And what's my fault in this? Having the nerve to defend myself against Francis' torrent of misinformation. I came here expecting justice, and justice is in "the best interests of the encyclopedia".Momento (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Momento, for myself I don't see how you can say I've "vigorously supported" this filing. I've asked Francis to withdraw it, have privately asked him not to post more, and have said that I didn't think it was the ideal way of resolving the issue (as you know, I filed a mediation request probably at the same time Francis was preparing this). But it's here now. The behavior of the editors is on the table. The disruption that you've caused has been described. You haven't produced evidence of recent disruption by Francis or of harassment by me, the two charges you're making. If you have evidence then now is the time to present it. If you don't then you should stop making these attacks.   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Will, in case you haven't noticed, 3 uninvolved admins are ok with giving Francis (and Momento) a 1-month topic ban, so saying that Momento needs to present evidence isn't correct. PhilKnight (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Even 3 uninvolved admins shouldn't ban someone with no evidence. What is the disruption by Francis that we're concerned with?   Will Beback  talk  23:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• I wouldn't like to see Francis or Momento banned at this point. Momento and Will have just started mediation on the Balyogeshwar issue (which as far as I am concerned is an issue one can argue either way in good faith). I'd suggest giving that a go and let mediation run its course. If you wish, warn Francis that he has edit-warred without first seeking consensus himself, and that the complaints he filed here did not have a sufficient basis. Will's idea is pragmatic; ban Francis from filing complaints on this page for a month. And to all participants, I guess we have to treat each other with a little more respect. Jayen466 23:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Seems to me some behavioural changes are needed before that respect can occur without looking like a smarmy ploy. Maybe Momento needs to be a little less emotional in his approach (though I sympathise with him...we are dealing with an obstinate, trivialising, Wikirule-based pontificalism) and other editors need to look at the aforementioned obstinate, trivialising, Wikirule-based pontificalism. I, on the other hand, am of course unschuldig (innocent, free of blame, not guilty of anything). Rumiton (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Apart from civility-type issues, the diffs show that the first undiscussed insertion of what has been shown to be a childhood nickname (Balyogeshwa) into the lead of this BLP was done by User:Francis Schonken, and it was subsequently restored only by him. Seems to me that User:Momento was quite correct in removing it. I don't think there should be a problem with referring to this nickname in the Childhood section, but in the lead it is an anachronism. Rumiton (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That's an incorrect summary of events. The term has been added and deleted over the years. Francis added it a year ago. Following that addition Momento deleted it for spurious reasons. In the subsequent talk page discussion a consensus formed on how to include it. See Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_33#Balyogeshwar. The term was further discussed in last summer's mediation. Most recently, it was the subject of an RfC. So it is indeed disruptive for Momento to ignore last February's consensus, last June's mediation, and this month's RfC along with the simple fact that it's been in the article for a year now. Aside from the general article probation, Momento had recently been warned about edit warring and yet he went ahead and did this despite his previous edit having spawned an edit war and a specific warning to him not to engage in similar behavior again. Rather than continuing to discuss the matter on the talk page he went ahead and made the disputed edit again. The only reason it hasn't started a fresh edit war is that other editors are showing restraint. Justice? Justice would be a topic ban on the editor who is creating all of this drama.   Will Beback  talk  00:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right Rumiton. "Balogeshwar" had not been included in the lead since the article was created in May 2004 until FrancisSchonken inserted it without discussion, consensus or source on 17 February 2008. Jossi immediately started a discussion about in PR Talk objecting to its inclusion in the lead. Noting the objection and lack of discussion, consensus or source I removed it. While the discussion continued Francis reverted anyway still without a source. . Which was removed by another editor. Francis once again inserted it. So I removed it again. Francis, again inserted it a fourth time, this time with a source And again I removed it while discussion took place because it was still inserted without consensus and text that didn't match the source. When Francis inserted it a fifth time , we all gave up. So there you have it folks. Contrary to WillBeBack's latest claim, we have FrancisSchonken inserting "Balyogeshwar" 5 times into a lead sentence that had been stable for 4 years without discussion, consensus or source and being reverted 3 times by me and once by another editor until we all gave up. And, just in case you missed it, WillBeBack once again claims my "previous edit having spawned an edit war" when, as I hope we have all noted, it was Cla68 who started Will's "edit war" as we can clearly see here and Will's admission here. How many times can WillBeBack state I caused "an edit war" while admitting it isn't true? Are there any real admins out there? FrancisSchonken needs to be topic banned for three months and WillBeBack needs to be warned about harassing me by constantly fabricating events and actions.Momento (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Cerejota accusing editors of "taking marching orders" from CAMERA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Nothing actionable with respect to arbitration enforcement has been provided. Please see the section "Using this page", above, for how to submit useful reports. To request administrator action against misconduct unrelated to arbitration decisions, please use WP:ANI.  Sandstein  08:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of working for CAMERA and then ignoring all subsequent protests violates WP:AGF and is a personal attack. Accusing any volunteer editor of working for any organization is extremely insulting, especially when it's CAMERA (everybody here knows why). Editors making such accusations should not be allowed on Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is arbitration enforcement. Please specify the arbitration remedy or arbitration-based sanction that you think this is in violation of. The thread will otherwise be closed. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

They're pretty obvious. But if you think closing this thread is the most constructive action to take, then go ahead. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting formal notices for Israel-Palestine edit warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Historicist has been given editing advice by Elonka. PhilKnight (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Could a neutral administrator please take a look and please give a {{subst:Palestine-Israel enforcement}} notice if warranted to Historicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and another editor, who has just jumped into the fray, Mhym (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? I have never been on this board before so please bear with me here....

There has been edit warring, (claimed) BLP violations, AGF and NPA violations, etc., on at least five articles related to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, heating up in the past five days. Discussion on the talk page to WP:BLP/N and WP:AN/I have failed to resolve anything, one of the five pages is now indefinitely protected, and the edit war continues sporadically on another. For reference here is the edit war history of Historicist, who is the most active editor, copied from AN/I.

• Rashid Khalidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Edit warring here: leading to indefinite article protection.
• Henry Siegman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Edit warring here:
• Moshe Ya'alon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Edit warring here:
• Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A single edit by Historicist in what looks like an edit war by multiple parties but it is hard to tease out.
• Arnaud de Borchgrave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). One edit, no edit warring.
• Alleged Ya'alon quotation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Original location of this material, created by Historicist then turned into a redirect per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alleged Ya'alon quotation

The civility / behavior problems can be found on the article talk pages, for example, accusing long-term productive editors who object to BLP violations as only being on Misplaced Pages to promote "anti-Israel propaganda".

As an involved party I'm the first one to accept that I'm on notice of arbitration enforcement, and should not edit war or commit incivilities either. It is a little one-sided, though, because I'm trying to patrol articles, maintain sanity and stability, avoid BLP vios, and watch out for editing problems.Wikidemon (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wikidemon, the biographical articles probably aren't in the scope of the WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. PhilKnight (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

How so? These are articles about scholars, military figures, politicians, and partisans whose life work is the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the edit warring and the war of words (both off Wiki and in the edit warring and incivility over questionable BLP material) relate to these people calling each other liars, propagandists, academic frauds, murderers, etc. over the Israel / Gaza flare-up. The subject of the arbitration decision per So if not here, where? I'll let ChrisO know and maybe get some further guidance. Wikidemon (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but just so you know, Chris isn't one of the admins enforcing the arbitration decision. PhilKnight (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether or not warnings are necessary at this point, but the articles themselves do seem to be within the scope of WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict: "The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted." The "broadly interpreted" clause would allow the inclusion of biographies of individuals who are associated with the conflicts, the peace process, Arab/Israeli politicians, or other pro/anti-Israel debates. Another indicator can be seen by the names of the editors who are edit-warring at these articles: In multiple cases, it's the same group of editors who use the other Israel/Palestine articles as battlegrounds, some of which editors have already been placed under other ARBPIA restrictions. So if the dispute is overflowing to other articles, it would seem reasonable that the ARBPIA authorized sanctions would also be appropriate to use in these new articles as well. --Elonka 19:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me - I saw ChrisO's name all over the sanctions log and knew he(?) was an administrator so I made assumptions. I now see he was a sanctioner and a sanctionee as well. The case and the template are a little ambiguous as to whether the template is a "notice" or a "warning". On the community-imposed Obama article probation, which worked pretty well but applied to a fairly narrow range of articles and a somewhat less tendentious subject, we used a template as a neutral notice. That is to say it did not indicate that someone had done something wrong, just establishing for the record that they are on notice of general sanctions. The problem here is the threshold I have to overcome as a non-administrator to get any administrator to pay attention to this. There's been a 3+ month long push by one primary proponent and a few others stopping by of various pieces of disputed material trying to disparage scholars, one Palestinian-American professor in particular who was the subject of anti-Obama political attacks as an alleged "PLO spokesman" during the US election (which is how I came to notice this). That has lead to page protections (at least 3), a number of BLP reports, edit warring involving probably a dozen editors over the period, etc. This mini-meltdown continues, and seems to be beyond BLP/N, AN/I, and the article and editor talk pages to resolve.Wikidemon (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I think a reading of the diffs and Talk:Henry Siegman will show that Historicist was making a valid argument, and that he was actually trying to prevent a Misplaced Pages entry from libeling Moshe Ya’alon. I think furthermore that his critics on Talk:Henry Siegman were guilty of WP:BITE and dealing with him by confrontation rather than explaining how he could make his reasonable edits under WP policies. Any bad behavior on Historicist's part should be dealt with first by education rather than imposing blocks. I have disagreed with Historicist, and reverted his edits, but I think he's being unfairly accused here. Nbauman (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That cut-and-paste is an utter misreading. We have edit warring BLP violations into multiple articles simultaneously, accompanied by vexatious incivility, over a months-long period, with two blocks, 3+ page protections, multiple AN/I reports, etc. This is not a WP:BITE situation for a new editor's innocent mistake, it is long-term tendentious POV pushing on one of Misplaced Pages's most heated topics. I'm not making an accusation here, by the way. I'm asking for a notice that Israel-Palestine arbitration enforcement applies to future behavior. We are about to have a second article edit protected now. What is the alternative, that it is okay for this to continue? This is the last stop before a behavior RfC and a clarification or new case before ArbCom. The whole thing would be a lot simpler if a concerned administrator could put their foot down and say to Historicist (and to be fair and level to every editor on the page), no more accusations and edit warring. Wikidemon (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's my feeling that a formal notice of WP:ARBPIA is not necessary at this point. I did, however, put a note on Historicist's talkpage with some advice, which I hope will be helpful. Wikidemon, in terms of getting admin attention, I can sympathize that sometimes it is difficult. Do you ever use IMs? I can frequently be found on AIM and Gtalk, and you're welcome to bounce ideas off of me. You can point me at a developing situation, and I'll give you my honest opinion about whether or not administrator intervention might or might not be helpful or appropriate in that particular case. --Elonka 21:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Momento at Prem Rawat (continued)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This thread, now open for a week or so, has produced a great deal of unproductive content discussions and mutual accusations, but nothing currently actionable with respect to arbitration enforcement. As the admin who issued the warning to Momento to stop editwarring on Prem Rawat, it is not at all clear to me (or others here) that he is or has been editwarring currently, and at any rate the reporting editor seems to, well, have made a rather substantial number of reverts too. Everybody involved in the disputes surrounding this article needs to seriously calm down, or I can see general sanctions coming up for all concerned.  Sandstein  22:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I still have several problems.

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

This is what the mediator said in closing:

== Case closed ==

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

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

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

Good luck in your future attempts at discussing your differences.

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

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

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages remedies are preventitive, not punitive. Durova 21:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Since no one has been prepared to make a decision I've called on "Admins prepared to make difficult blocks" for help.Momento (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, firstly, I'm sorry there hasn't been much response from uninvolved admins. There is currently a request for comment on ArbCom Enforcement, which makes reference to this failing. I've read this discussion, and looked at the article history, and to be perfectly honest, I can't see anything block worthy. Yes, the assertion that you were edit warring is, at best, an exaggeration. However, beyond indicating that Francis's should avoid making spurious reports in future, I don't believe that I could justify any further action. PhilKnight (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, at "best" it is an "exaggeration". But this isn't an at "best" situation for FrancisSchonken. He is fresh out of another spurious claim by NickWight2, so he is completely familiar with the need for accuracy in these matters. And yet to make his complaint Francis had to ignore that Pongostick made 4 edits, WillBeBack made 3, Rumiton made 2, Jayen and Surdas 2 and Sylvie 1 all between my first edit and my second. It's harassment Phil, pure and simple. And the fact that the last five edits of the Rawat article show FrancisSchonken making one edit and reverting to it twice in 24 hours is ample evidence to conclude that FrancisSchonken still believes there is one rule for him and a hundred for me. The latest example in an ongoing campaign made possible by WillBeBack's vigorous support. WillBeBack constantly shouting "edit war" and even claiming that I "bear blame in this matter" because I "instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable", is a complete lie that he has not retracted or apologized for despite several explicit requests from me to address the issue. If you care to apply the rules/precedence then FrancisSchonken must be topic blocked for a period greater than NikWright2 was for a making a spurious complaint to this forum. If you're OK with admins harassing other editors and lying in Arbcom Enforcements then WillBeBack is just doing his job. But if harassing other editors and lying in Arbcom Enforcements is not part of the Admin brief then WillBeBack must be formally warned to cease and desist and under go a period of probation.Momento (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Any other comments?Momento (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America by Eugene V. Gallagher, W. Michael Ashcraft Contributor Eugene V. Gallagher Published by Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006 ISBN 0275987124, 9780275987121. page 64