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

Important information

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342

Edit this section for new requests

Momento at Prem Rawat (continued)

Less than a week ago Momento (talk · contribs) was warned on this page "that, if he continues to edit-war in order to resolve [...] issues [regarding the Prem Rawat article], instead of requesting appropriate intervention, he may also be sanctioned" [1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To add to the problems with this article, it would appear that some editors are logging out to make reverts.[2][3] (and from the other day [4]). Will Beback talk 21:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

We don't need any more evidence or another neutral review Durova, anyone can see that I made three edits in 24 hours as did Cla68, WilBeBack, Rumiton and Pongostick. What separates me from these other editors (and the 6 other people who have edited this article in the last 24 hours) is that FrancisSchonken and WillBeBack's claim that my last two edits equal an "edit war". Since one was to remove an undiscussed and inappropriate addition to the article, the only question is why are you and the other admins allowing this witch hunt to go on? No one complains that Cla68 was naughty to add material without discussion, no one complains that Cla68, Rumiton, Pongostic and WillBeBack made 3 edits in 24 hours, no one even cares that the first sentence now has a redundant comma! No, hold on a minute, I care. And I'm going to remove it [5]. Is this what you mean by "unlimited reverts"?Momento (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks just like a day's Rawat editing to me, with Momento on 2RR [6][7] Will on 2RR [8][9], Pongostick on 4RR [10][11][12][13], Surdas on 3RR [14][15][16], and two IP reverts. By all means run checkusers. Now of course you might ask, why is it that Momento is dragged here with his two reverts, rather than Surdas or Pongostick, or indeed Will? And if anyone still cares about writing an encyclopedia rather than counting reverts and hoping for the AE post that will finally get rid of the hated opponent: It's nonsense to say "Prem Rawat, also known as Balyogeshwar". Bal is Hindi for "baby" or "kid". It's a name Rawat had when he was six, and it meant "the kid master yogi". We've discussed that a number of times before as well. It's like saying "Bill Clinton, also known as Little Billy." If there's still people who don't get it, and insist on reverting that back in, it's not for lack of being told. I am tempted to say lock the article or topic-ban the lot of them for a week. Jayen466 02:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wehwalt

I'm astonished at what's been going on for months on Adam Shapiro's biography. Wehwalt, an admin with years of experience, has been attributing blood-curdling calls for genocide to this guy, using personal homepages of fringe activists as sources. From the looks of this he first started his vendetta in 2006! It's unbelievable. Please, somebody, look into this. <eleland/talkedits> 00:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the rules, try again. (Hint: link an arbcom case an make an actual clear complaint instead of a broadside attack)--Tznkai (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want, diffs? Well, here's the earliest problematic edit, adding his own personal belief that Shapiro likes killing babies. That's September 2006. Here is the first time he starts fighting efforts to enforce BLP, where he restores blisteringly negative material sourced to somebody's personal Comcast homepage. That's May 2007. And then here he undoes a BLP enforcement action by User:Sceptre, in May 2008. Here again he restores a long string of material, some of which is merely dubious and some of which is blatantly libelous. As you can see he's been consistently restoring the libelous language and characterizing its removal as "vandalism."

And the arbcom case isn't actually necessary, come to think of it, since this goes right to core Wikipedia content policies, but it would of course be Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Remedies. <eleland/talkedits> 01:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning which arbcom case you are referring to is actually necessary for admins to be able to enforce ArbCom decisions. Admins cannot guess that and that's why Tznkai asked you to read the rules: This page is for users to list breaches of an Arbitration Committee ruling. It is not part of dispute resolution.-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we even have policies to begin with? All you guys seem to care about is bureaucratic nuance, formatting, and punctillios. Meanwhile, an admin rewrites a biography of a living person to make him out as a genocidal maniac, and nobody seems to give a damn. <eleland/talkedits> 03:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to take your word for it Eleland - I'm not going to take anyone's word for it, and let me be blunt: abusing admins who respond to your complaints, combined with a sensationalist, overwritten and beligerant complaint makes me think the person causing the problem is the complainant - in this case you. I gave you a chance - albeit a strongly worded one - to do it right, and you decided to heap abuse on us for "not giving a damn."--Tznkai (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this thread on ANI might shed some light. Shell ^babelfish 02:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to start handing out blocks for abusing WP:AE--Tznkai (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My god, what is wrong with you? Are you capable of reading English at an adult level? Wehwalt has been re-writing Adam Shapiro to portray him as a genocidal maniac, based on a Comcast personal webpage which claims to reprint a Lebanese newspaper which no longer exists. That isn't a question of taking words or of language, it's a question of fact. Has he or hasn't he? Do my diffs document BLP violations or don't they? <eleland/talkedits> 05:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When someone posts a concern here on AE that properly belongs on another noticeboard, then unless the resolution of the concern is obvious in any event, the best response is probably to point the person to the right place rather than argue about why the person is abusing AE. Here, a response that the concern belongs better on the BLP noticeboard or ANI would probably suffice. (Not commenting on the merits of the underlying complaint.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in general boss, but in this case this appears to have been a case of forum shopping.--Tznkai (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that both the ANI thread noted above and the WQA were both started by other users. There are now diffs documenting quite serious BLP breaches by an admin (Wehwalt) and a link to a relevant arbcom decision. Note that the problem is not simply that there are BLP breaches (these are being more or less dealt with) but that these breaches were made by an admin, hence a possible need for 'higher level' resolution. Given that involved's on both ANI & WQA have agreed Wehwalt's edits are seriously problematic & discussion is ongoing, are you saying it is innapropriate here at the moment? And if not were should it be taken if discussion at ANI does not resolve the issues, ie is this remaining 'open' pending non-resolution there? Misarxist 09:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your point about who started the threads is granted freely. As to the problem being such and such was done by an administrator - that is a serious problem, but not one in my opinion that can be handled by AE. Aside from the genuine philosophical disagreements as to how big a deal the admin bit is, discretionary Arbitration remedies don't care whether or not someone is an admin: just whether or not they're causing a problem. Review of administrator conduct and any sanctions related to their bit (read: have their admin bit removed) falls within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration committee, not AE.

Part of the problem here is likely me: I dislike arbitration enforcement being used to further conflicts between users and tend to require complainants to do more leg work. In addition, going back two years to build a case at AE also tends to make me suspicious. I am reluctant to sanction someone for edits they did many years ago - recent actions are easier to judge. I will however, do my best now to address the complaint:

The most recent questionable edit is this, where Wehwalt's summary was rv:vandalism. Its worth noting that the complaint said Wehwalt has "been consistently restoring the libelous language and characterizing its removal as "vandalism." " which hardly squares with a view of the last 500 edits to that article where the word vandalism shows up 3 times - only once used by Wehwalt. This is a reversion of an IP editor who had been editing without useful summaries or discussion, which generally is given greater tolerance (should it? I'm not sure, depends how bad sockpuppeting has gotten).

This edit was in fact a legitimate reversion and reveals what the fight over the "personal comcast" page is: the site hosts a copy of an article. Does that make it appropriate? Maybe, maybe not - but its relevant information that the complainant neglected to add.

Wehwalt made a significant run of edits as seen here which adds significant amounts of negative material. Compared to the most recent version like so shows it has been removed and then comparing to Wehwalt's most recent string of edits (several months ago) Wehwalt's most recent version like so (this week) shows that Wehwalt tried to maintain the substance of his material. The talk page suggests however, that that content evolved out of civil and productive discussion with User:Carolmooredc.

The primary problem with Wehwalt's content seems to be one of balance - too much negative material, but I am not a sufficient expert in the subject matter nor the nuances of BLP. Most of the editorial comments complained about in early edits have been stripped out since.

A brief review of the edit summaries shows that Eleland was totally over the top and disruptive, flinging wild accusations - its no wonder that his concerns weren't taken seriously - despite that, talk page suggests that Wehwalt tried to discuss civilly with him anyway.

At the end of the day, someone being wrong is not sufficient reason to sanction them under AE provisions, because I have not been given, nor have I found evidence to suggest Wehwalt is using any undue influence to affect control over the article. While there may have in fact been problems of BLP violations (I leave this to experts on BLP to determine) nothing suggests to me that Wehwalt cannot be reasoned with and the article improved under normal means. In fact, evidence suggests that the most objectionable material is very old (in wiki time) and has been since dealt with - which suggests that the wiki-way has worked here.

I have

Declined to take action at this time, but do not object to another admin taking action.--Tznkai (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Risker has noted on WP:AN/I, "When a situation can be corrected using Wikipedia policies, it should be. Arbcom general and discretionary sanctions are extensions of our basic policies that lower the threshold at which an administrative action can be taken. The ARBPIA sanctions are not required in this case, because the editors involved have breeched ordinary, everyday Wikipedia standards." I suggest that any followup discussion of this issue should take place in the ongoing thread at WP:AN/I#User:Eleland. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Hyams and Israel-Palestine articles

While these are under general sanctions and a general source of WP:DRAMA etc, some of which I have been active in, this particular case is so multi-layered and apparently covered by multiple decisions that I am bringing it straight here.

On Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, User:John Hyams said among other things:

"You are clearly a Hamas operative on Wikipedia, and this has to be dealt with." [17]

Soapboxing - *yawn*

Using wikipedia as a battlefield - pretty much that is his post. Not a single encyclopedic fact, just aggresive opinion. Pretty much everyone is guity of this at one time or the other, but this was particulary bad faith and unproductive - and needs to be mentioned as part of what is wrong.

This is a personal attack - not the worse in the wikipedia sense, but pretty awful even by such lax criteria.

This is wanton uncivility that I have never seen on these articles or for that matter rarely in Wikipedia. And I have seen a lot. This is Godwin's Law elevated by orders of magnitude.

But much more seriously:

This is a legal threat - Hamas is designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the US Department of State. Being its operative is a federal crime. Acussing someone of being its operative is accusing someone of a federal crime. Saying that this has to be dealt with is a threat to follow up on this acussation - althought he sustains that it was meant to mean taking it up with Admins or Arbs - he only did so when confronted. This meets the duck test with straight As.

This is libel, in a legal, BLP sense, precisely because of the legal implications.

When confonted by one user in his talk page, he said:

"As I already said on the talk page, "has to be dealt with" is by the Wikipedia administrators or arbitrators. All the rest, regarding his endorsement of Hamas, stands. Stop harassing me."[18]

The user is clearly confrontational and unrepentant.

If this is not the forum, I apologize but I do feel rather strongly that this particular incident is very serious and requires ArbCom's attention, and since one single line create so many issues I was not sure where to go. I would have raised a new ArbCom straight up if it weren't for the fact that there are already discretionary sanctions and plenty of material on these articles.

I think a strong block from editing to show the community's reproach at such wanton behavior, along with oversight of the offending phrase is needed. This has to be punished. People shouldn't be allowed to casually put the security, safety and personal reputation of people at risk in Wikipedia. An in particular, you shouldn't put Wikipedia at risk of legal action, be it by force of copy-vio or legal threat.--Cerejota (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote this, some admin blocked him for one week, after he apparently self-reported[19]. I think this is reasonable, but leaves the oversight issue open. Please do not think I was forum shopping, I simply became aware of the issue after leaving a message for this user because of a tagging thing, and started to write the message, I was not aware of the ongoing discussion at WP:DRAMA --Cerejota (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myself, I don't think oversight needs to get involved (or that the comment should be interpreted as a legal threat). If you want an oversighter to evaluate the edit, send an e-mail with the diff to oversight-l at lists.wikimedia.org.
Separately, it would be nice to get one or two regular AE admins to take a look at the talkpage and article mentioned above. I've reproduced the IP sanctions notice on the talkpage because it seems like most editors were unaware that they applied (notice has been archived by now), but perhaps some individual logged notices are in order? Avruch^T 14:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you consider it a legal threat?
- As to Oversight, I knew how to request it - however, oversighting is also an arbcom issue and I am explicitly requesting via ArbCom enforcement, because this is a complex case. --Cerejota (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - BTW, the sanctions notice was posted multiple times before you last posted it (including by me), and there is an info box on the top of the talkpage with a link to the discretionary sanctions. If editors were not aware (and I do not know how you come to that conclusion) it is not for lack of telling them.--Cerejota (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the 1-week block was a good call, and I've logged the notification of sanctions. Admins, including those who deal with ArbCom enforcement, don't make decisions regarding oversight - have a look at WP:OVERSIGHT. That said, I gather oversight is mostly used for telephone numbers or addresses, instead of insults or threats. PhilKnight (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dicklyon and Eric Lerner (again)

I'm not sure what to do. The combativeness is back, and Dicklyon is simply not letting up.

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive33#Pseudoscience for background.

Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned for a week from the article and upon returning immediately went back to his old ways. He is combative, seems to refuse to discuss, and is now engaging in a white-washing campaign to remove sources and context from Eric Lerner that explain to the reader the current and past issues with Lerner's ideas. Despite exhortations from other editors to stop [20] and praise for the way the article was rewritten before he began systematically attacking it again: [21], it seems that Dicklyon has reasserted his ownership of what is and is not appropriate content. I'll note that he has added absolutely zero to the article since returning from being banned for a week.

[22] --> makes a personal accusation that I'm "mistreating" the subject.
[23] --> accuses sources written by PhD scientists of being "poor sources", misapplies and wikilawyers BLP concerns, and poisons the well with respect to me AGAIN.
[24] --> despite admitting that a mention later "might be okay", he unilaterally removes this mention no matter where it is placed in the article: [25]
[26] --> accuses me of "not helping with the problem" and then has the audacity to claim that his edit warring was in response to this! He claims I'm trying to "teach cosmology" and that I'm "debunking".

Then he goes on an edit-warring rampage that I've been trying to deal with:

[27] --> First removal of a sourced section of criticism claiming that it is "UNDUE WEIGHT" which orphans a reference: [28]. I revert with the edit summary "I'm sorry, but we need to let the reader know what the current state is. Reorganize, don't delete."
[29] --> Dicklyon replies with a high-handed edit summary that claims he is reverting per WP:BRD when in fact he's simply removing content that is not flattering to Lerner's ideas: "When I reverted a bit of your bold re-org, you should have worked to find a way around he objection, not just put it back."
[30] --> I try to reintroduce the text with sourcing to other physicists and astronomers who make the same critiques.
[31] --> He begins removing sources claiming they aren't "reliable" despite the people writing them having credentials, affiliations, and reputations that far exceed Lerner's in the relevant academic communities.
[32] --> Removing another source claiming it isn't "reliable".
[33] --> Removed a sourced statement claiming it was "unsupportable". I revert this pointing out that it is supported by the sources: [34]
[35] --> Removes a well-sourced contextual critique of Lerner's book that he had moved to a different location earlier [36].

In short, what's essentially happening is that Dicklyon has been systematically removing sourced critique and context and directly applicable, sourced text that deals with the exposition of Lerner's book while at the same time actively attacking me on the talk page and continuing his campaign to make the editing environment as hostile as possible. I thought he would settle down after a week-long Wikibreak, but he hasn't.

I can't even get a third opinion without having him come in and make vague accusations about the sources being a "pile-on": Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliable_source_for_a_critique_of_Eric_Lerner.27s_book.3F

Help.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph that got moved and removed is this one:

These critiques have been repudiated by mainstream cosmologists who have also directly criticized Lerner for making errors of fact and interpretation.(ref name=Wright)Wright, Edward L. "Errors in "The Big Bang Never Happened" For example, the size of superclusters is a feature that has been limited by subsequent observations to the end of greatness and explained in the astronomical journals as arising from a power spectrum of density fluctuations growing from the quantum fluctuations predicted in inflationary models. Additionally, the anisotropies were discovered in subsequent analysis of the both COBE and BOOMERanG experiments and were more fully characterized by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe.(ref name=Wright)

SA likes to have his "debunking" in there with the description of Lerner's book, to try to teach the reader some cosmology to help them understand what's wrong with Lerner's assertions about the state of cosmology in 1991. Wright and a bunch of other cosmologists are already cited for their negative reactions to the book in the next paragraph. This heavy-duty debunking paragraph is essentially off topic, being not about the book or reactions to it. He insisted on having it between Lerner's premises and the description of the new cosmology that the book argues for.

As usual, SA's single-minded SPOV approach to editing "fringe" or "pseudo" science ideas leads to bad articles. The edits that he complains about above by me were all very moderated reactions to his unbalanced approach. If I have come close to being "disruptive", I would appreciate some feedback from anyone who thinks so, besides him. Dicklyon (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: the sentence I removed as "unsupportable" was Professional cosmologists and physicists who have commented on Lerner's Big Bang critique have universally repudiated it. This kind of thing is inherently hard to support; I did check the two cited sources, and neither made a claim for the universality of their cricisms. There has been some discussions, even by Lerner himself, about how conventional cosmologists reject his work, but it's more a classifation tautology: anyone who doesn't reject his work can't be considered a conventional cosmologist. Putting this way is just a ruse for saying that only the conventional cosmologists have the right to an opinion; this is the SA's "mainstream" or scientific POV at work. It does damage to articles on non-mainstream topic to have them presented this way. Dicklyon (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please oh please, do not continue your content dispute here. We do not care. SA, since you filed this complaint, could you please link the appropriate Arbitration remedy? I would prefer another admin do the deciding here (I've made workshop proposals in the fringe science case) but I will help do some leg work.--Tznkai (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this remedy, specifically the log where Dick was warned by PhilKnight and subsequently banned for a week from Eric Lerner by Shell Kinney for continued disruption. Skinwalker (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate arbitration remedy to me looks like banning Dicklyon from the page for a period longer than one week, since that didn't seem to do the trick the last time. I leave it to an administrator to decide what the appropriate length would be. How do you get a person who refuses to collaborate to collaborate? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I request that if I have come close to being "disruptive", I would appreciate some feedback from anyone who thinks so, besides SA. I could have come here and complained about his side of the problem, but I didn't; and I didn't let it spill over into other articles; if this is disruptive, tell me. I'm trying to work toward a better article, but he doesn't let it budge much from the version he created. I'm open to suggestions. In the mean time, I will hold off editing anything to do with Eric Lerner (I did already add one more commment to the RS/N though, to note that SA had reported me here for my comment there). Dicklyon (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. I believe I stated that your poisoning the well against SA was uncalled for. Yes, yes I did. After you wrote "As for rewriting without quotes, I don't disagree that the approach could work. But it would have to be done by someone with a balanced view. If you attempt it yourself, it seems unlikely that it could come out as acceptable," I responded "Do you mind not poisoning the well? It's in incredibly bad taste. Weren't you just banned from this article for behavior exactly like that?" No comment or opinion on the current action/sanction/whatever. Just correcting the record. Hipocrite (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of feedback, I'm going to presume that I'm not close to crossing any line; so I'll go back to editing -- carefully. Dicklyon (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was overly personal. I guess another 1 week ban could possibly be justified. PhilKnight (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if that's too personal, I'll calibrate on that. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of feedback here since Dicklyon indicated that he thinks a lack of response indicates that he's acting properly. So to state it clearly: Dicklyon, SA's evidence above is a serious concern and you are crossing several lines. You appear to be, yet again, attempting to whitewash the article with a healthy dose of attacking other editors thrown in for spice. If you cannot put aside your personal feelings about the subject and abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you'll likely be asked to refrain from any editing on the article. Personal attacks are right out - try to remain cool even when disagreements arise. Shell ^babelfish 14:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, thanks; but it would really help to know more precisely what I've done wrong. Which of SA's linked complaints above indicate something of a sort that I should avoid? PhilKnight linked where I said "It is not really appropriate to just call it pseudoscience as an excuse to mistreat it, as ScienceApologist does, and as in the policies he proposes." I was referring to his well-known methods and his WP:MAINSTREAM proposal and proposed changes to WP:FRINGE (e.g this one) and such. Should I avoid referring to his POV when trying to prevent him pushing it? Or just let him push it? Or what? Did you even look at what he did there? Should I be reporting him here, too, like he's doing to me? And can you show me a diff that illustrates what you mean by "whitewash"? Or, never mind, as we seem to have converged peacefully, and it may be stable. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone could take a lot at the last day or two of edits and give me some feedback or advice, that would be appreciated. Do we really need to just let SA own the article and have it his way? Or is there a way to move it to be less of his dubunking/SPOV style without being "disruptive"? Dicklyon (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could stop personalizing the dispute. Attributing a "dubunking/SPOV style" (sic) and assuming bad faith towards another editor isn't going to get you very far. Comment on the content, not the contributor. Skinwalker (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure how I became aware of this issue, but I can tell you a couple of thing about Dicklyon: He might seem to have a way that honors his nickname (small joke, haha)... but don't be fooled by either. I, myself, have been in the position of arguing him, and he might be kind of cold, and might seem antagonistic, but once you meet his terms, you realize that a) you have been mentored by the best there is b) the article ended up with great quality.

Dicklyon is an expert on academic writing. When he erases something, the guy knows what he is doing and what is best for the article. He never censors anything, he just erases whatever doesn't work in an academic way. Actually, because it is verifiable and well sourced, I've seen him a lot of times respect a great deal of information I know he personally disagrees with. And that's because he is a very objective editor, as we should all be.

To me, it is also very shameful to have all this ranting about him in this page. I once wrote pretty mean stuff about him in a talk page, and he could have gotten me blocked for a while, but instead, he just erased it and reminded me to keep it cool. That’s what I call good faith.

In conclusion, let me give you my best advise: Don't waste any time confronting and ranting against him (it's just self-defeating), instead, follow his advises and ask him to teach and review you. After a while of doing so, you have my guarantee that you'll become a very skilled writer and editor. --20-dude (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

QuackGuru 2 week block

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.

QuackGuru (talk · contribs) blocked for 2 weeks by Ioeth. Risker (talk) 08:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been requested that I crosslist my recent 2 week block of QuackGuru (talk · contribs) here, for comment, since it was related to the Martinphi-ScienceApologist and Pseudoscience arbcom cases. The rationale, reasons for and notification of the block can be found here. The block was logged both on the Pseudoscience case here and the Martinphi-ScienceApologist case here. There is also a discussion going on at WP:ANI#Doctor of Chiropractic, which is how I initially became aware of the situation; since then, the block has been discussed, and the consensus seems to be that it was a good block. I open it up for discussion here as well. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 14:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked myself, and seeing QuackGuru's specific history with this article around the time of the AFD, I agree that his actions were problematic. He knew that when last widely tested by the community no consensus existed for merging or redirecting. Trying again was reasonable. Alhough discussion first would have been better than being bold, edit warring to redirect was not a reasonable act. QuackGuru's block log is ample evidence that he has a long standing behavior problem (and the reasons for the blocks show that his problem is specifically in this topic area) and that shorter blocks aren't adequately addressing his problematic behavior. The question was then whether to ramp up the block duration a notch or to do something more permanent. Increasing length from one week to two weeks is a reasonable increase in duration, and I'm not inclined to second guess your decision to step up only one notch. I also agree with your read that the consensus at ANI supports the block. GRBerry 17:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to add to my comments at WP:AN/I; I think this is a reasonable use of discretionary sanctions. MastCell ^Talk 18:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said at ANI, I too support the block. --El on ka 18:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same problems, same area, minor block escalation - I don't see any problems with how this was handled. If this pattern continues though, something other than escalating blocks might need to be tried. Shell ^babelfish 14:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Prem Rawat

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.

Nik Wright2 is banned from Prem Rawat and related articles for one month, and Momento (talk · contribs) is warned that, if he continues to edit-war in order to resolve such issues, instead of requesting appropriate intervention, he may also be sanctioned. Applied by Sandstein (talk · contribs) 22:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC). Closed by Risker (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Prem Rawat article has once again descended into petty edit warring. User:Momento appears in breach of multiple revert prohibition while refusing to engage in discussion of pertinent guidelines in respect of WP:EL ArbCom enforcement and uninvolved admin participation is needed if the problem is not once again to become chronic.

Diffs:

Undiscussed revert by User:Pongostick http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265060672

Restored previous version User:Nik Wright2 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265107530

Unjustified revert by User:Momento http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265143535

Restored previous version User: 41.223.60.60 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265151542

Unjustified revert by User:Momento http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265230299

Restored previous version User:Nik Wright2 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265236563

Unjustified revert by User:Momento http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265260427

Restored previous version User: 41.223.60.60 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265283956

Unjustified revert by User:Momento http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265433059

Talk page relevant to above http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=265237432

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes,

Momento was warned before his last revert
- Last revert by Momento from the list above 06:00, 21 January 2009
- 3RR warning on Momento's talk page less than 24 h. before that revert 10:36, 20 January 2009
Relevant ArbCom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat, in particular both remedies: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Remedies - at least Momento and Nik Wright "...have or may be perceived as having a conflict of interest", so the second remedy applies.
Suggested application of remedies:
- protect or semi-protect article until differences are settled at talk page;
- check the edit-warriors' block logs, and apply blocks at least doubling the last blocks these editors had with respect to this page.
All above edit-warriors, apart from the initiator of this thread on this noticeboard (Nik Wright), have been notified about this WP:AE thread on their talk page (that is, apart from Nik's general notification at the Prem Rawat talk page at the time of initiating this thread 13:58, 21 January 2009):
It might be wise to perform a CU on above involved edit-warriors (although past instances of edit-wars by SPA's, anons and the like never showed any CU linkage)
Time-span of the above 9 reverts: 17:15, 19 January 2009 → 06:00, 21 January 2009. Technically, none is a 3RR violation, not even the four reverts by Momento (time span: 33:03 h) - but edit-warring nonetheless I suppose.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There'd been a longstanding and (until recently, apparently) quite successful consensus on the talk page to list the official site and nowt else. The site editors sought to include/exclude in the above altercation contains quite a lot of non-BLP-savoury material: http://ex-premie.org/archives/archive.cgi?arch=20010720a#P_6231.1433185576579 etc. Jayen466 21:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that Momento (talk · contribs), Nik Wright2 (talk · contribs) and some IPs and SPAs have editwarred about the external link http://ex-premie.org in Prem Rawat. On the merits, I think that Momento is right. While I know nothing about Prem Rawat, the website http://ex-premie.org appears to be operated by private persons and dedicated to making allegations against him, including claims of criminal or immoral conduct. It thereby fails Wikipedia:EL#In biographies of living people, which states that "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP or that are not fully compliant with this guideline." However, editwarring is not the appropriate way to resolve such issues.

In view of this, as an uninvolved administrator in enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Article probation, I am:

topic banning Nik Wright2 from Prem Rawat and related articles for one month, and
warning Momento that, if he continues to edit-war in order to resolve such issues, instead of requesting appropriate intervention, he may also be sanctioned.

Sandstein 22:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quoted sentence from Wikipedia:EL#In biographies of living people was edited by admin jossi http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AExternal_links&diff=238171957&oldid=238098782 to protect "his" article Prem Rawat from critical links 89.247.62.105 (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you seem to be very familiar with the site. If you have an account please log in. It's a bit troubling to see that assertion about someone who's resigned and retired. Jossi had his shortcomings, but in every instance we should be careful to substantiate each negative assertion, or else refrain from making it. Durova^Charge! 06:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editing to WP:EL apparently done by Jossi only emphasised the requirements of WP:BLP. No other editor has seen fit to remove it, and indeed there is no reason for them to do so, as it adds nothing new, only draws timely attention to what has already been agreed. Your suggestion of article ownership by Jossi is grossly unfair and typical of the mudslinging that has become the modus operandi of one side of this dispute. Rumiton (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR has an exemption to cover deleting material which clearly and actually violates the WP:BLP policy. While the external link in question might not be consistent with WP:EL, its inclusion is not such a clear breach of BLP that violations of 3RR should be tolerated. Regarding exteranl links in Prem Rawat, there has been a consensus to limit them to a single official site since about February, and I encourage the maintenance of that consensus because otherweise there are edit wars like this one. As for Jossi's edit to WP:EL, I personally disagreed with the wording of it because it made no sense (it's absurd to require exteranl links to adhere to Wikipedia's BLP policy, for a number of reasons). Jossi worked out that version, which I still think is too vague and doesn't spell out what is actually prohibited. I don't think it should be relied on in this matter. As for how to handle the immediate situation, I think all parties should be warned to stop fighting over this, and anyone who continues should be topic banned for a significant period, per the ArbCom case. Will Beback talk 15:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems abundantly clear to me that the link in question is defamatory. If you believe WP:BLP or WP:EL need improving, the thing to do is hop in and improve them. In the meantime, the "immediate situation" has been handled pretty well, I think. Rumiton (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - this has been handled competently by Sandstein. PhilKnight (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the statement that "The site is not such a clear violation of BLP". It calls the BLP subject a f*ckhead (in "Best of the forum"), and much else besides. If that isn't a clear BLP violation, I don't know what is. Jayen466 20:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with ARBCOM member Sandstein's decision in this instance. How can anyone, ARBCOM member or not, make a judgment about a website (or anything else) when they admittedly state they know nothing about the subject, in this case, Prem Rawat? If members of ARBCOM cannot inform themselves about the issues about which they make judgments and decisions, then what good is the ARBCOM committee, or any other Wikipedia "Committee?" I recommend that Sandstein at the very least reconsider and retract this decision by give equal punishment to Momento as s/he gives to NikW2. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sylviecyn, I think you're confused, Sandstein isn't a member of the Arbitration Committee, he's an administrator who is enforcing the committee's decision. PhilKnight (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. For the purpose of the instant case, it is sufficient to know that Prem Rawat is a living person and that his biography is the subject of an Arbitration Committee remedy. What I meant to say is that I am uninvolved in the drama that seems to have surrounded his article. Sandstein 20:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue my strong disagreement with your decision anyway, specifically your unfair treatment of doling out punishment to NikW2, when he has never been blocked before for edit-warring, or anything else, so far as I can tell. I would stress to any administrator that they take steps to inform themselves well about a controversial subject and the parties involved before they lower their axes, whiling stating they are uninformed about a subject. Everything isn't black and white, even on Wikipedia. Btw, Ex-premie.org has been cited by academics, cult-awareness experts, and information about it has been published in news organs that are considered reputable sources by Wikipedia standards. I'd also like to note that it was (now retired) Jossi who left under a shadow, that altered the BLP and EL policies in order to disallow this particular link. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is still going I will inform you that this enforcement action was created from a completely dishonest complaint by Nik Wright2. Nik Wright2 provides an edit summary to justify his complaint that omits three previous insertions of the defamatory link by 3 Anon editors in the three days prior (two of whom have no previous edit history and one who has made unhelpful edits elsewhere) and three reverts of that link. Plus NikWright2 has omitted his own insertion of that link and then he starts his edit summary with Pongostick's revert of Nik Wright2's insert and calls Pongostick's edit "an undiscussed revert" ignoring Rumiton's earlier clear and appropriate talk page message where he explains why the link can't be included.[37] Despite the fact that this link has not appeared in the article for nearly a year and was inserted by a one edit editor Nik Wright2 characterizes its repeated insertion as "Restored previous version " and the reverts as "Unjustified reverts". This gross manipulation of the edit history should be unacceptable but it is no surprise to see Francis Schonken and WillBeback support Nik Wright's complaint. Both have left cautions on my talk page but none on Nik Wright's and, of course, no caution on the Anon editors pages. They make a point to complain about me as often as possible and if that doesn't work they make it up as this exchange shows [38].Momento (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not supporting Nik's complaint. I am saying that the Arbcom has specifically prohibited edit warring in this topic, due in part to conflicts like this one. A minor violation of BLP is not sufficient to permit edit warring among editors who have already been warned repeatedly to stop (albeit not recently). A mere link is not an egregious BLP violation. Adding "Smith is a fink" to an article is the type of edit that the 3RR exemption is meant to cover. Many suitable ELs contain editorial comments equivalent to calling the subjects "fuckheads". The clearer reason for excluding the link is that it contains significant amounts of copyright violatons in the form of reprinted articles about the subject. To summarize, both Nik and Momento, and any others involved in this, were wrong and should not have edit warred over this link. All involved parties should receive similar topic bans. Will Beback talk 23:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Momento has been blocked 4 times in the past year for edit warring on this same topic.[39] By comparion, NikWright2 has never been blocked. That's one reaosn why topic banning Nik while simply warning Momento (yet again) does not seem equitable. Lastly, I'd remind admins imposing remedies to note them in the log of blocks and bans in the ArbCom case. If Momento is simply getting a warning, which I believe is insufficient, then that should also be logged. Will Beback talk 03:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again we have an opportunity to see WillBeBack's bias. I have been blocked a total 6 days in 3 years with over 5,500 edits on one of the most volatile articles on Wiki. And a close look at the blocks will show the first was an appalling sock puppet miscarriage without a usercheck and evidence to the contrary and quickly unblocked [40], the second was for removing the same derogatory link from the Prem Rawat, the third was initiated by FrancisSchonken [41] and the fourth time was initiated by FrancisSchponken and supported by WillBeBack [42] and Francis was also blocked. Nick Wright2 has made less than 500 edits and been blocked for a month. This latest issue is typical. WillBeBack and Francis Schonken stand by while a clearly derogatory link is added by anon editors without discussion to the Prem Rawat article and then join in a clearly dishonest complaint about me when I revert it 5 times in 5 days. Something is very wrong here. I should be protected and Francis and Will should be warned to stoop harassing me. And for your info Will "A mere link (to a defamatory site) IS an egregious BLP violation" and should not be tolerated.If you don't want to support Wiki policy it's time you resigned as an Admin.Momento (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Adding a defamatory website link to a BLP seems highly egregious to me, way beyond mere incivility to another editor. There seems to be a double standard at work. Rumiton (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Momento's and Rumiton's inflammatory language about the ex-premie.org website is unwarranted and unhelpful. The website has been in existence for over ten years without a whisper of a libel complaint or action from Rawat himself. The revelatory information about Divine Light Mission/Elan Vital and its leader, Prem Rawat on that website has been made by people who have freely identified themselves at great expense to their personal and professional reputations, because of the severe backlash from members of this NRM/cult in Prem Rawat's defense. Therefore, please tone your rhetoric down. I understand the abundance of caution concerning BLPs, but please don't forget that something isn't libel or defamatory if it is true. Plus, the EPO website has been referenced by academics as well as reputable news organizations. Furthermore, for the record, I don't want to see the words "hate group" one more time ever on Wikipedia pages when adherents are referencing the EPO website and especially myself and other ex-premies. That's definitely defamatory libel against private persons who are also editors on Wikipedia. I can't state this more seriously or sternly. There's a big difference between what can be said about a public person (Prem Rawat) versus a private person (Wikipedia editors). Please learn those distinctions and heed them. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any such distinction (public v. private) on Wikipedia, all living persons are granted the right to be treated fairly. There are many reasons why legal action may not be taken against libelers. The fact that none aparently has been taken by Prem Rawat is not an indication that the libelous statements might be true. Can you imagine someone defending themself by saying, "It's the truth! He really is a f*ckhead!"? Information is one thing. Violent vituperation is quite another. Rumiton (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of which has anything to do with the topic. We're talking about former consumers of an inherently flawed product called "The Knowledge of Guru Maharaj Ji." This consists of four so-called meditation techniques taught in various ways by various teachers or "mahatmas" at various times. The primary issue is not the guru's past outrageous exploitation of his followers, which came through an organization he inherited from his family. We're talking about a flawed product. Some of these techniques would have some value to a very few people suffering from extreme mental illness, and in some cases, there has been benefit to certain drug addicts, but, among drug addicts I have met who have tried the guru's meditation, most have continued to be addicts, and I am aware of one individual who had to be restrained by mental health personnel as a direct result of the guru's teachings. Of course, I can't put personal knowledge in a Wikipedia article. It has to come from "reliable sources." The rules of Wikipedia have been manipulated and rewritten by Jossi in devious ways to prevent legitimate criticism of his guru. If someone visits EPO, (s)he will be exposed to valuable information which should be considered before attempting GMJ's "meditation" and Wikipedia owes that much to its readers. Rumiton and Momemento have been active, with jossi, in preventing an objective evaluation of their guru's "teachings." Wowest (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Momento thinks I am harassing him then he needs to provide some evidence of it rather then making empty claims. I have been on a break from Wikipedia for weeks. I resent being accused of things of which there is absolutely no evidence. All I've done here is point out that Momento is a repeat offender. That is not harassment, it's just background information. Will Beback talk 14:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be very active in the articles about Prem Rawat, and trying very hard to make these articles as titillating and provocative as possible. If I am right, then it's maybe you the repeat offender? Just background information... PongoStick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pongostick (talk • contribs) 04:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies before making accusations. One of our core policies is WP:AGF: assume good faith. I have never been blocked for violating even a single policy on Wikipedia, despite having made tens of thousands of edits over more than four years. Please do not make carefless accusations against editoprs in good standing, as it reflects poorly on you. Will Beback talk 04:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pongostick, earlier on this thread I asked someone who cast aspersions on Jossi to either substantiate the allegation or else withdraw it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Durova^Charge! 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]