Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive35

User talk:86.143.63.147 has been given notice of the 1RR and has too decided to ignore the advice offered. Suggestions welcome. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is somebody logging out, you need to gather evidence as to who it might be and file a

WP:SPI report. If it is just a transitory IP, it probably isn't worth much effort as they'll be on a new IP already. Jehochman ^Talk 02:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

They have in addition now started here also.--Domer48_'fenian' 11:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Was already looking at this. Jdorney blocked for 24 hours. I protected the article for a day in case anyone else was tempted to overstep 1RR. Black Kite 11:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to file a report on this editor until the ultimatum I read in this edit summary. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block noted here [4]. Yes, I saw the above link. Clearly this is an initial block; further problems will be met by longer ones. Black Kite 11:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have given a brief outline of some of the results of this editors blind reverts on the article talk page. I’m not asking Admin’s for comments on content just the continued breech of sanctions. They have clearly indicated that they continue to edit war and breech sanctions despite been blocked for this yesterday. They have carried this type of conduct to two additional articles now following the same pattern, refusing to use the talk pages and blind reverts as witnessed here and here. I have used the talk pages here and here but have just been ignored. Only today I fixed the incorrect page numbers and added text, only to have it all blindly reverted.--Domer48_'fenian' 13:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask that editors check out Domer's record, including his editing and his debating on

My record has been well checked out, and my editing on

Dunmanway Massacre and its talk page is also been viewed. I've also reviewed your editing and was struck by one thing, your complete lack of referencing. You just don't use them, and when you do, its internet sites. On Troubles related topics we insist on referencing and sourcing as anyone on AE can tell you. I can be a real ball breaker on referencing and it has been pointed to in the past. What I can't stand is POV editors full of opinions and short on supporting references. Editors who distort sources really get up my nose. Editors who use incivility to cover for there lack of references is also a pet hate of mine. But what really gets up my nose is editors who come here spout off and offer nothing to back up their accusations. Do you think Admin's will just take your or my comments a face value, they may in the past but not now. A bit of advice, if your caught here making unfound accusations you'll end up with your ass in a sling. On a positive note, thanks for reverting yourself, that will at least help. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I am quite aware of the past records of all of the regular editors of Troubles articles, but in this case that is irrelevant; 1RR is a clear bright line on this subject, and so unfortunately the 24h block had to be applied. Black Kite 16:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User talk:Black Kite for pointing out that my record is irrelevant in this case, editors having to raise my record as mitigation for their actions does shine a clear bright line on this subject. If I could ask just one thing of AE it would be to endorse Alison and her comments here. If editors get accused of stuff Admin’s want to see some evidence and, yeah, diff’s would help a lot. Editors need to get treated fairly in whatever's going on. I hope you agree that it sound reasonable. So for example, above I’m being accused of advocating that we cite rules in order to 'win the revert war’ on my talk page, that I’m unwilling to debate or achieve consensus and that I don’t do anything else other than push some sort of Irish republican viewpoint on wp. So just to illustrate my point I picked this short exchange here if you wish look. I address each point raised and support it with diff’s. I request the same, on two occasions and got the response “...no, I'm not going to prepare an idiot proof version of the talk page for you." So Admin’s have a choice, dismiss this as a content dispute or address the issues of editor’s conduct and accusations. Personally I couldn’t care less as I’ve a healthy disregard for AE and a block log to back it up, the last being the icing on the cake. Now having insured that I don’t endear myself to anyone here I’d really like the accusations to stop, or at least supported. Other than that, I'm happy to have this discussion closed. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

I don't think that the complaint is about something "unactionable" - making a contentious edit without consensus and in contradiction to an RfC is disruptive editing and an actionable violation of the probation. While the ArbCom also prohibited incivility, filing even an insufficient complaint isn't normally viewed as incivility. So far as I can tell, this is the fourth complaint that Francis has started here, including two in May 2008 [9][10] and one in January 2009.[11] Both of the May complaints resulted in blocks of Momento, so they weren't unactionable. Ignoring disruptive editing while blocking those who point to it doesn't seem consistent with the ArbCom's remedy in this case. If abuse of this noticebaord becomes a problem then the most appropriate remedy would be a temporary ban from posting here.   Will Beback  talk  21:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

As for a pattern of misbehavior regarding this particular bit of information, I'm searching for the previous deletions but de/wikiblame.php isn't working correctly. (I've put a note on the creator's talk page about it.) I'm checking "by hand" and so far I've found that this is the fifth time the editor has removed the material in the prior 12 months.[12][13][14][15][16] The last time he deleted it he said in his edit summary "per talk", which generally means "by agreement" in my experience. If that's what he meant then it was misleading as there is no consensus for its removal and the outside editors on the recent RfC explicitly endorsed its retention. In addition, during the last edit warring over this information two new accounts appeared to delete it as well,[17][18] leading to a possible conclusion that meat/sock puppets are involved.   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

As you can see FrancisSchonken and WillBeBack are relentless in their harassment. Today's complaint relates to me altering the lead to reflect an authoritative new source that has appeared and has been linked and discussed in PR Talk. It clearly states "In childhood, (Rawat) was affectionately known as Sant Ji by his father's followers, Balyogeshwar (born Lord of Yogis) by the Indian public on account of his young age and precocious spirituality, and later Guru Maharaj Ji by his students"^[1] Therefore Balyogeshwar is not a current name nor an "alternate name" taken and used by Rawat but a description/title created by others in his childhood and therefore has no right to be portrayed as a current or alternate name in the lead.[19] Momento (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

What a disgrace! NikWright files a bogus complaint which FrancisSchonken and WillBeBack vigorously support. Francis files two bogus complaints which WillBeBack vigorously supports. And your solution is to topic ban me for a month? I hope you're not basing your opinion on WillBeBack's evidence for my "pattern of misbehavior" above?[21] Because if you look here you'll see WillBeBack deliberately omitted that hours before my first revert FrancisSchonken inserted "Balyogeshawar" into a lead that had been stable for over a year without discussion or consensus.[22] And continued to insert it 3 times in 3 days. My removal was completely appropriate.Momento (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply

]

You are right Rumiton. "Balogeshwar" had not been included in the lead since the article was created in May 2004 [23] until FrancisSchonken inserted it without discussion, consensus or source on 17 February 2008. [24] Jossi immediately started a discussion about in PR Talk objecting to its inclusion in the lead. [25] Noting the objection and lack of discussion, consensus or source I removed it. [26] While the discussion continued Francis reverted anyway still without a source. [27]. Which was removed by another editor. [28] Francis once again inserted it. [29] So I removed it again. [30] Francis, again inserted it a fourth time, this time with a source [31] And again I removed it while discussion took place because it was still inserted without consensus and text that didn't match the source. [32] When Francis inserted it a fifth time [33], we all gave up. So there you have it folks. Contrary to WillBeBack's latest claim, we have FrancisSchonken inserting "Balyogeshwar" 5 times into a lead sentence that had been stable for 4 years without discussion, consensus or source and being reverted 3 times by me and once by another editor until we all gave up. And, just in case you missed it, WillBeBack once again claims my "previous edit having spawned an edit war" when, as I hope we have all noted, it was Cla68 who started Will's "edit war" as we can clearly see here [34] and Will's admission here.[35] How many times can WillBeBack state I caused "an edit war" while admitting it isn't true? Are there any real admins out there? FrancisSchonken needs to be topic banned for three months and WillBeBack needs to be warned about harassing me by constantly fabricating events and actions.Momento (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Momento, you do realize that you're recounting events from a year ago? I don't see Momento, or anyone else, presenting evidence of recent edit warring by Francis. I'm not sure why some admins here are endorsing a "pox on all their houses" approach, except that perhaps folks are bored of reading postings here. If so, then that's not to their credit.   Will Beback  talk  04:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will, if you look at the Prem Rawat edit history since 30 Jan, you'll find that Francis reverted an edit of mine on 30 January without discussion [36] with which you had voiced your express agreement here on this page [37] and which no one but Francis himself disagreed with then or later. [38] That is exactly the sort of thing you are accusing Momento of having done. On Feb 2nd, Francis reverted both me and Momento without discussion, taking out a scholarly source that explicitly stated that Rawat was only called Balyogeshwar in his youth (because it had the birthdate wrong), and he made another undiscussed (but sensible) edit to the lead. I can assure you that Francis' revert on Jan 30th was as annoying to me as Momento's advance on Balyogeshwar a few days later was to you. It took valuable hours out of my day, having to crank up yet another discussion on the talk page just to verify that really no one apart from Francis had any objection to adding "formerly known" in front of Baloygeshwar, etc. The people who subsequently expressed their agreement with "formerly known" or "previously known", apart from you, were Rumiton, Momento, Pedrero and Sylviecyn. But the point is, all this stuff, including Francis's, is small-fry, which we are putting under a magnifying glass here. Let's just note that editors should strive not to make edits that piss everyone off. I still remember the celebrated occasion last year when Francis decided unilaterally that the Prem Rawat article should be returned to the state it had been in 18 months or so earlier. But all of this is a waste of time. Let's just get on with it. Jayen466 11:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen, thanks for taking the time to actually provide evidence of at least a single contentious edit by Francis 10 days ago. Francis was technically correct - the source didn't say what was being asserted. Your edit was also made without prior discussion,[39], though war-weary editors subsequently endorsed it. (That's a problem with edit warring - we all get drawn in.) All of that was dealt with in the last AE filing. As it turns out, "in his youth" is probably incorrect, but that's a content issue we can resolve elsewhere. Let's remember that February 2008 is when the Register article came out which brought fresh attention to the topic. That attention has now resulted, many hundreds of edits and tens of thousands of talk page words later, in a far better article. As for getting on with it, it's hard to do that when contentious material that has been stable keeps getting revised without cause or consensus. If we can get commitments from Momento and Francis to stop making spurious BLP claims and to seek consensus for significant edits before making them then I'd agree that we could excuse this filing, as I'd earlier asked. But if they continue to assert that they're justified in edit warring then perhaps a temporary ban is called for.   Will Beback  talk  12:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that the current version is "far better" than the pre-Register version is debatable. It is certainly far bigger, but is it muscle or flab? And I doubt if the Register editor would approve of this any more than he did the last one, he wants to see "Wikipedia Ruled by Lord of the Universe", for him intelligent analysis is only there to be jeered at. Rumiton (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion isn't important for this page. We can talk about it on the article talk page, my user talk, or elsewhere.   Will Beback  talk  14:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't important, why raise it as an assertion? I wish you would stop doing that. Rumiton (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My main point was to remind editors here of what happened a year ago (you and Momento were discussing edits from back then), and of how it led to significant changes in the article. I think the article is better for including more of the well reported incidents from the subject's life. If you think it's worse then you're welcome to that opinion too.   Will Beback  talk  18:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One month page ban

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

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

Hey Shell, why don't you chill out? What's with your recent edit summary? If you can't keep your cool over an accidental indent, then you ought to recuse yourself from doing anything on this board. The way things are going on Wikipedia these days, with you losing your cool over nothing, and the chair of the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, User:Ryan Postlethwaite, having a "big Schlong Barnstar" (with an offensive, inappropriate, graphic photo of penises on his user page) it's no wonder Wikipedia gets bad press, has such a bad reputation, and isn't taken seriously anyone except Jimbo Wales and his sycophants. Are you all twelve year olds? Familiarize yourself with the specific issues and you won't get so flustered and frustrated. That means taking the time to read talk pages and getting some history of a situation and the people involved. That's what my 55 years have taught me. I strongly recommend that the powers that be here in Wikipedia close and archive this dispute with no action taken (none is warranted), tell Ryan to delete the very inappropriate penis pictures from his userpage, or fire his butt from the mediation committee, and get the ARBCOM to learn how to do actual, real arbitration, that has teeth. The Arbitration for this particular article was a joke and resolved nothing. Then things will be much, much better on Wikipedia. Cheers! Sylviecyn (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit summary was for two involved editors who can't even abide by a polite request (nothing to do with my indent incidentally); if that's the typical form of behavior on the article/dispute its rather unsurprising that this keeps coming back here. I assume you're unaware that I mentored a party to the original case making me probably a bit more aware than you've assumed. If you have an issue with other editors/committees/what have you, I'd suggest you probably want to take it up with them rather than take it out on bystanders. Shell ^babelfish 02:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I know. Who was the mentored editor?   Will Beback  talk  18:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answered below.   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then name the people you're pissed at and stop being so vague. Your edit summary was snotty. You've already displayed yout annoyance with all the folks involved with the Rawat articles, so you're approaching this with your own emotional baggage. Right off the bat. How can you achieve anything as an admin. or in dispute resolution if you make snotty remarks in your edit summaries -- worse, edit summaries that are not clear that you're trying to make excuses about now? That automatically excludes you from being a competent arbitrate, mediator, etc. And since you suggested mediation, I felt it necessary to point out that the chair of the mediation committee has an offensive photo on his user page, and no, I would refuse any mediation, based on that alone. I don't remember your name coming up in any of the article's disputes, but there have been many. My point is if you can't keep your emotions in check, then recuse yourself. Simple as that. Learn how to grow a thicker skin and take a chill pill. This is Wikipedia, not real life, after all. :) Sylviecyn (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re, "...if you are involved in this dispute - keep your comments above..." - no, thanks. Phil's suggestion was baseless, as is your approval of it. Above Will suggested that it would be necessary to show I did something wrong in order to have me topic banned, nothing of the sort has been demonstrated. So I do not approve of your concurring with baseless accusations, which is an emanation of prejudice, and thus a form of involvement too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I agree with Cla68; this should be a stable page. There are not a lot of new notable developments in the life of Prem Rawat, not least because he has apparently chosen to remove himself from the public eye quite deliberately. And his past has been examined in as minute detail as World War 2 has on the History Channel cable network in the U.S. If you read the history and talk pages, 80% or more of the activity is by, or in response to, Momento and Rumiton (and always 1 pro-Rawat ally at a time, currently pedrero) worrying the same picky details over and over. The most absurd spinning of wheels is over this Balyogeshwar issue. Whether to mention a well-documented alternate name for this public figure has consumed hundreds of edits and megabytes of discussion over years. It is beyond absurd. It is not surprising that after YEARS of this Francis got frustrated over yet another unilateral edit against consensus and RfC, though that does not justify edit-warring. Msalt (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true and that's no way to deal with a situation like this. For one thing, I don't edit the main articles, I only comment on the talk pages. The only exception to that was a couple of weeks ago when I fixed the lead that you had improperly edited. Second, if you're ready to declare the article "finished," then why did you feel compelled to edit the article's lead recently? Thirdly, I don't make comments on the talk pages to have a "slant" towards my POV. I make comments on the talk pages of the Rawat articles in order to ensure that the subject's history isn't turned into a hagiography, and that information is included according to sources. The current "battle" being waged by Momento is on the one issue of his insistence on removing the "also known as" name "Balyogeshwar" from the lead. It's as simple as that. I've done nothing to warrant a block. I don't edit war, because I don't edit! Sylviecyn (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want it to be a hagiography either, nor a slanderography. Cla68's approach is disappointing. Kind of reminds me of the old Vietnam war slogan, "Kill them all, let God sort out the guilty ones." Rumiton (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I agree with Msalt's assessment.   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I think you've gone quite far enough in your "tactical" comments. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Francis raises a fair question: how can I justify advocating month bans for both with my relative judgment of Momento vs. Francis? I am on record (in the Arbcom case) as advocating a lifetime page ban from Prem Rawat for Momento, and I continue to advocate that. He/she is incorrigible. However, that was not the decision rendered. In general, I think that problems come from too much emotion invested in a page, and a break is the best solution. A voluntary break is the best kind, and I apply them on myself too, as I did here. It is important not to give the impression that fighting fire with fire is OK, which is why I support a month cooling off for Francis as well. The month is not a punishment for a crime; it's time to take a breath and gain perspective, for the benefit of the editor as much or more than for the benefit of the rest of us. I suspect that Francis is much more likely to improve with some time off than Momento, but time will tell. Msalt (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I have to defend myself from unsubstantiated attacks. So is it too much to ask that a decision is made according to the three complaints made against me by NikWright2 and FranciSchonken in this forum. The truth is writ large in the edit history. It's already been established that my removal of the link NikWright2 inserted was correct and NikWright2 was topic banned for a month. Within days FrancisSchonken's made a complaint about which Sandstein summarized "As the admin who issued the warning to Momento to stop editwarring on Prem Rawat, it is not at all clear to me (or others here) that he is or has been editwarring currently, and at any rate the reporting editor seems to, well, have made a rather substantial number of reverts too. Everybody involved in the disputes surrounding this article needs to seriously calm down, or I can see general sanctions coming up for all concerned". Barely 4 hours after Sandstein's summary FrancisSchonken made another complaint to which PhilKnight wrote "Francis, to be perfectly honest, I'm considering whether I should give you a short block for making so many reports against Momento that it approaches harassment". And Shell babelfish wrote "That was my first thought as well Phil. Francis, we get it, the two of you (and various others) have a dispute over the content - Work. It. Out. It's either that or stop editing the darn article - this constant running here for every edit someone doesn't like is wearing on everyone's patience". So can anyone tell me why this thread has been allowed to become a vindictive, free for all against me instead of addressing the real problem, FrancisSchonken's second frivolous complaint in 24 hours?Momento (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm happy for article protection for a month. But this isn't a content dispute, it's about harassment. And it is more important to me and Wikipedia that each of the three complaints made against me in this forum must be properly investigated and anyone found making false complaints or providing false evidence be banned from editing PR and related articles.Momento (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding page protection, let's review the article's history. It was protected twice in 2007, both times for edit conflicts involving Momento. It was protected at least three times in 2008, in each case due to edit conflicts of which Momento was a part. One protection lasted from March 16 to May 12, and others lasted for weeks. It might have lasted longer but all of the editors participated in a massive mediation effort overseen by Steve Crossin and committed to not edit the article while it was going on. Since there isn't an active edit war, I don't see the prupose of protection.

Regarding Cla68's statement that the article should be stable, I can't really believe that any Wikipedia editor could say that. First, he said on another site that there don't appear to be reliable sources on the topic, while in fact there are at least 100 such sources. So I don't thiink he's actually knowledgeable about the topic, the sources, or what may be missing from the article. Second, even articles about dead people aren't necessarily stable. An article on a comparable subject, OSHO, has had 1200 edits in the past year. Third, Jayen just pointed out on the talk page yet another topic that isn't covered in the Prem Rawat article. That said, it should be more stable. It's very disruptive when the same disputes keep coming up again and again, regardless of how much they've been discussed before. This "Balyogeshwar" issue is such a case.

Regarding Momento's complaint about false complaints, he has accused me of harassment at least a dozen times without providing evidence. If he thinks that unsupported complaints are a problem then he should first look to his own behavior.   Will Beback  talk  07:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad WillBeBack has written above. It exemplifies the harassment I'm talking about. WillBeBack claims that the three protections in 2008 were "due to edit conflicts of which Momento was a part". As you will see, I was a minor part in one and absent for two. Before the first protection from 26 Feb to 4 March there were 34 edits in the previous two days - 12 by FrancisSchonken, 4 by Jayen, 3 each by Momento, Janice Rowe, NikWright2, Andries and 2 by WillBeBack and Cirt. Before the second protection from 16 March to 12 May there were 21 edits the previous day - 9 by FrancisSchonken, 8 by Janice Rowe, 3 by Msalt and 1 by Andries, I took no part. Before the third protection 27 May to 10 June there were 12 edits in the two previous days - 3 by WillBeBack, 3 by Mukadderat, 2 by Rumiton and Anons and 1 each for MaelNum and Jossi, I took no part. Add up the totals and you can see FrancisSchonken is way ahead with 21, followed by Janic Rowe with 11 and WillBerBack coming 3rd with 5. I come equal 5th with MSalt, Mukadderat, NikWright and Andries. But WillBeBack singles me out for blame, just as he blamed me for the previous complaint when he should have been blaming Cla68.Momento (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the number of edits, but the number of reverts that is important in judging an edit war. As for the matter of the earlier complaint about the "Balyogeshwar" edit warring, as I explained before Cla68 made an edit that did not have consensus and should have been reverted or modified. Instead, Momento used it as a pretext for deleting sourced text. Cla68 bears some responsibility for making an unhelpful edit, but his responsibility is mitigated by the fact that he isn't familiar with the article or the probation. Momento knows full-well that the "Balyogeshwar" material has been discussed at length, and that edit warring on the article is prohibited by a decision of the ArbCom. That is why the two situations are different, and why Momento should not blame Cla68 for his own diruption.   Will Beback  talk  20:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR?

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

It could be better to wait to see how the mediation case turns out. PhilKnight (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Phil here; this is not the time for arbitration on this case. Jayen466 02:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation about "Balyogeshwar" and the RFAR are irrelevant to the escalating harassment issue that is unfolding in this forum. Just glance up 5 paras to see where Admin WillBeBack writes "It was protected at least three times in 2008, in each case due to edit conflicts of which Momento was a part". And note that I was not involved in two of them and had a very minor part in one. So that's a lie isn't it. But look at Will's reply to this news. He completely slides over the fact that he is wrong and claims "It isn't the number of edits, but the number of reverts that is important in judging an edit war". Really? Well I added up the reverts in the week before each protection period and FrancisSchonken once again blitzes the field with 12, I come in with Cirt and Jayen on 2. Which ever way you cut it, FrancisSchonken is by far the most disruptive, reverting editor prior to these protections. And yet WillBeBack continues to ignore FrancisSchonken's appalling edit history in order to mount a one man crusade to discredit me with lies and fabrications. And, just to top it off, WillBeBack gives Cla68 a free pass because "his responsibility is mitigated by the fact that he isn't familiar with the article or the probation". But hold on! Is this the same Cla68 who contributed to an RFAR on Rawat in March 2008. Why yes it is![40] And contributed evidence to [41] And in April.[42] Look out everyone I think this whole incident is about to explode.Momento (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have gotten a raw deal here in having been named as the proximate cause of these past article protections; you weren't. Jayen466 02:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I ever said that Momento was the cause of the previous protections. My purpose in putting together that list wasn't even to accuse Momento, though I noted his participation in the edit wars leading up to them. I was mostly trying to point out the page protections haven't actually solved any problems. My posting also made the point that there is no active, "hot" edit war sao that protection is not an appropriate remedy. As for Durova's suggestion of taking this back to RfAr, if other DR including AE and mediation, isn't effective then that's a possibility. I think the issues may be clearer now then they were a year ago.   Will Beback  talk  03:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you said was "in each case due to edit conflicts of which Momento was a part". That isn't true is it? So why did you write it? And when I pointed that out why didn't you retract? Why didn't you note that "FrancisSchonken was by far the major part of the edit wars leading up to them"? The answer is because you are constantly trying to shift all blame onto me. Here's something else you said "Justice would be a topic ban on the editor who is creating all of this drama". And who is that editor WillBeBack? It is FrancisSchonken that has brought us to this forum twice in a week and it is FrancisSchonken who was by far the major part of the edit wars leading up to three periods of protection. So let's all agree to put a three month "topic ban on the editor who is creating all of this drama".Momento (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page was protected due to editors reverting each other. Obviously, there was more than one editor involved in those disputes because it's impossible to have a one-person edit war. If I made a mistake and if you had no involvement whatsoever in one or more of those conflicts then I apologize for the error. But there are countless other edit wars, many of which didn't lead to protections, of which you have been a part (along with others, of course). You've been blocked repeatedly for 3RR violations, and have come close of violations on other occasions. If you like, I can compile a list of all of your reverts in the past year on articles in the topic. I think that will clarify things.   Will Beback  talk  06:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

You got that right. I know I'm "being harassed personally" and I "won't budge" until you do something about it.Momento (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is Momento's attitude, long and clear - never done a thing wrong, all criticism are totally unfair (including the multiple blocks for 3RR). I can provide many additional diffs of policy violations by Momento if that would help. Look at the time stamps on Prem Rawat page and talk page edits; Momento appears to have been essentially editing this page as a full time job for some years now. To understate, s/he lacks perspective on his/her actions in connection with this page. Msalt (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at these two, Msalt and WillBeBack! Having given up on trying to defend FrancisSchonken's fraudulent complaints, it's time for a different approach. WillBeBack offers to "list of all of my reverts in the past year on articles in the topic", Msalt "can provide many additional diffs of policy violations by Momento if that would help". Honestly, I enjoy a witch-hunt as much as anybody but this isn't about me, it's about FrancisSchonken's complaints. Let's have a witch-hunt about FrancisSchonken.Momento (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still willing to participate in mediation?   Will Beback  talk  06:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given this keeps coming up again, and again, and again, in various forms, a new RFAR is probably what is needed. The stuff on

• I think Durova's earlier suggestion of protecting the article might have merit. The point would be, simply, to allow everyone to calm down and gain some distance and perspective. Of course, for that to work, you'd have to protect the other Rawat articles as well, for past experience has shown that the same editors, if they don't engage in conflicts in one article, will engage in the same sort of conflicts in another article. The locus of dispute just shifts from one article to another. I think 4 weeks away from any Wikipedia article that's anything to do with Rawat, and away from each other, might do the editors here some good. It would certainly be an unusual step to take, but I would still propose that we should have a look at this option. What I don't like about going to an RFAR now is that it would simply increase stress on everyone involved, and exacerbate the tension. You can't get muddy water clear by stirring it some more. That's just my view; if editors really want to "slug it out" in arbcom, fine too, but I have my doubts that resolution lies that way. Jayen466 14:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see any justification for topic-wide page protection covering 12 or 16 pages, or even just the Prem Rawat article alone. There isn't any edit war at present, and it'd be against policy to protect pages to prevent one from starting. I don't see how such a step would resolve the long term problem of chronic, low-level edit warring. In the past, page protection didn't stop talk page activity, so the idea of a month-long holiday from the topic wouldn't happen unless Jayen thinks that the talk pages should be protected too.   Will Beback  talk  18:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Commenting as an individual editor, this article would be best served by a few admins putting the house in order. There are are number of issues prominent here: Editors need to be disentangled from each other.
  just making things worse need to be removed from the topic area. The best solution for this is a few careful admins giving on-going attention to the area. Some comments here seem to indicate that AE is the only resort. Nothing about the topic area being under probation should impede filing normal reports! Sockpuppets, personal attacks, disruption, edit warring, and so on should all be reported normally to the usual channels. The AE noticeboard should really be for complex and difficult situations, not the edit war or personal attacks du jour. If those normal reports get bogged down by the usual personal conflicts and arguments about the topic area, admins should be bold in warning and sanctioning editors disrupting report threads in such a manner. (Get rid of the side sniping nonsense and reports will be a lot easier for people to review and handle.) RfAR is a very blunt instrument and this area needs a bit more precision than that. Before undertaking another arbitration case, consider whether or not other means may be better able to resolve the situation. Just some thoughts and opinions. You're welcome to some grains of salt with them. Vassyana (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The ARBCOM case for the Rawat articles proved to be useless. I think the ARBCOM on Wikipedia is essentially useless because the people who run it are ignorant of what real arbitration is in the world. The findings on the Rawat case were barely comprehensible, except for the one praising Jossi's restraint (hoho) and generally ARBCOM decisions are made by people who have no clue or knowledge of how things work in the world. They use idiotic templates that are essentially meaningless. I'd never undergo another ARBCOM on Wikipedia. The last one was such a failure of judgement and neutrality that I refuse to trust it. The decisions for the Rawat articles failed miserably to remedy problems that were extensively documented for the ARBCOM last year. I know you've advanced in the Wikipedia community, Vassyana, but you never did help the Rawat articles at all. You were biased to the hilt pro-Rawat and you accepted the fawning of the Rawat adherents while you were involved to the extent you accepted said fawning to become an administrator here. The reality of the situation is that 1) Too many admins. and other people in power on Wikipedia are teenagers who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground and enforce policy based on their very limited life experience; 2) Arbitration on Wikipedia isn't real arbitration; 3) Mediation isn't real mediation; 3) Wikipedians spend way too much time reinventing the wheel concerning things like rules, policy, and the actual real-world definition and procedures for things like mediation and arbitration; 4) Content and behavior should never be separated because everybody in the world absolutely does have a POV, people are never neutral (including you Vassyana) and therefore it's always impossible to make decisions based on the sterile policies that do separate content and editor behavior. If find it wildly ironic that you had to put your two cents in here Vassyana. From my seat, you benefitted from the pro-Rawat pov early on; and 5) Wikipedia really needs to remove teenager (and younger!) from any positions of power on Wikipedia. You can start with the mediator who has penis photos on his user page -- he's the chair of the Mediation Committee. What are you people thinking? I'm 55 years old and I'm no prude, but I do know what is appropriate and not appropriate. Think about how long it too Wikipedians to figure out is wasn't okay to have a CHILDLOVE article promoting sexual abuse of children and learn something!!!  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sylviecyn, I understand where you are coming from, but please note that what you saw on Ryan's user page was the result of vandalism, which has long been reverted. Jayen466 20:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still there, Jayen. It's been there since 5 January 2009. It's got one of those "hide or show" things on it. I don't care if it's a result of vandalism or if the user likes it there. The title is "Big Schlong Barnnstar." I'll keep bringing it up until someone does something about it. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. There was some recent vandalism which was reverted, but that one has indeed been there for ages. Jayen466 13:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I've lost faith in Wikipedia being able to regulate itself. Anybody who has read FrancisSchonken's complaints against me can see that they weren't made in the interests of Wikipedia but to harass me. After the quick and effective decision to topic ban NikWright2 for a month for the same stunt FrancisSchonken should have been topic banned immediately for two months after his first complaint and he wouldn't have made the second. I can only assume that admins have decided that ruling in my favor twice in a row may seem like favoritism. And you, Vassyana, know how any suggestion of not being anti-Rawat is held against you.Momento (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is apparent that neither the short term nor the long term disputes concerning the Prem Rawat articles can be resolved through the WP:AE mechanism. There have been six previous AE filings since the ArbCom case closed last May:
  6. This filing alone has swollen to 9600 words with no resoluion in sight. In addition, there have been countless postings to other noticeboards. Extensive informal mediation last summer did make some progress, but even the text agreed upon in that process has been changed. Due to the failure of other dispute resolution and enforcement steps, it appears that a return to arbitration is the only realistic hope for dealing with the conflicts on this topic.   Will Beback  talk  20:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This thread has grown much too long. This board is for handling violations of arbitration remedies. It is not a chatroom. If matters are so complex they cannot be explained or resolved in a reasonable amount of space, then the matter needs to go to
  arbitration. Please note that this page is not listed on the dispute dispute resolution menu. Jehochman ^Talk 02:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions Courtesy

"2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."

• As I am engaged in discussion regarding Wehrmacht and its war crimes in Central and Eastern Europe I would like to request and admin on intervention in what looks like increasing emotional outbursts that have started to include personal attacks by user Dapi89:
• Your behaving in an extremely dense way. This is why you cannot be trusted(...)Grow up and use your brain.

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

That's certainly a belittling statement. Are there other recent examples of snideness? Durova^Charge! 23:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified Dapi89 of the discretionary sanctions. PhilKnight (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cheek of this editor is unbelievable. He and user:Peterlewis have accussed me of biased editing, to my mind this is a personal attack is it not? He can't win an argument be arguing sensibly (as you can see his comments of the Wehrmacht talk page are far from that), he runs off and complains because the dubious sources he uses are rightly ridiculed. I can quite legitimately use language like "rubbish" when he makes unsubstantiated claims about me or any anon user. So I'll delete the "warning" as a nonsense. And if I don't trust him to edit appropriately, I am within my rights to say "I don't trust you". Dapi89 (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have no intention of communicating with this editor again. Naturally if he makes edits to an article which are questionable, or unsourced (and much of it is), then I will delete it or request citations as an when needed. But appart from that I will not waste any more of my time with him or this issue. However, I will not allow anyone to walk all over me. Dapi89 (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Molobo appears to have engaged in polite provocation with his prior remark. Dapi89 responded in apparent frustration.
  baiting. If there is a pattern of tendentious editing in East European articles, this is the correct page to report it. Jehochman ^Talk 14:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]