Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:24, 5 April 2011

WP:AE

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

Shortcuts

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

Hangakiran

Hangakiran is topic-banned from Janos Boros. Sandstein 22:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Hangakiran

User requesting enforcement: Biruitorul ^Talk 22:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Hangakiran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

[1] The editor continues to refer to his opponents' ethnicity in a content dispute, thereby creating a battleground atmosphere. Saying "all the Hungarian editors have been banned. The discussion is now entirely one where I am left to defend against many Romanian editors who have started hounding the discussion" is not acceptable.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Warning by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [2] Hangakiran was specifically warned: "I consider using the nationality of editors as an argument prima facie evidence of sanctionable misconduct under WP:DIGWUREN".

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): I request that action be taken to stop Hangakiran from referring to content opponents' ethnicity.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This comment by Hangakiran, made 17 minutes after T. Canens's warning, strikes me as evidence that he did read it. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC) (Moved from admin section)[reply]
Hangakiran, you just don't get it, do you? You are not to refer to editors' ethnicity, actual or perceived, because it creates a battleground mentality and assumes, absurdly, that editors of a particular ethnicity will all think the same way. You were warned for this by an administrator and brought here for the same reason. Now you go on to defend your canvassing of "Hungarian Editors", cry about "being hounded by Romanian editors", and raise a claim about "Hungarian editors being banned from contributing". You're incorrigible, it seems, and I really am not sure what good your single-purpose account is doing at this point. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Hangakiran notified here.

Discussion concerning Hangakiran

Statement by Hangakiran

I would like to bring to notice here that the Diff Biruitorul is referring to was posted against Dahn. If you see what has been posted, Dahn persistently used instigating, rude statements like "I'm not going to waste the day bickering about this with you," and later in the same post "Carry on "answering" if you will, but expect to lose all your remaining credibility when you're manipulating info with sophistry.". This I do consider as rude. Since my requests for contribution from Hungarian Editors to the discussion was declared as canvassing, it so happened that all my posts started having counter-posts form either Biruitorul or Dahn. That is when Dahn started being rude and I warned him. In spite of my warnings, he continued even suggesting I stop, which is not in his right to do so. If one looks at the discussion, Biruitorul replies to my replies to Dahn and Dahn replies to my rebuttals to Biruitorul. If the discussion and their involvement is impartial, why do they keep replying for each other? Lastly, when I pointed out that in the discussion I am being hounded by Romanian editors, I would like to clarify I meant that the Hungarian editors being banned from contributing because of alleged canvassing, I was left to defend against these two editors who constantly hounded me by the tone and tenor of their posts. It meant nothing more. Hangakiran (talk) 09:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Hangakiran

Hangakiran's editing pattern is seemingly problematic in that up to this date he only has a single edit that is not related to Janos Boros somehow. Everyone who is on wikipedia for some time is familiar with this practice, of a user showing strong involvement with a single topic (usually a biography). However referring to ethnic issues was unhelpful in this case as the issue was clearly not about that. Hangakiran could be a good editor if he decides to get involved with wikipedia other than trying to maximize the wikipedia coverage of a single person. Hobartimus (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Hangakiran

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

I agree with T. Canens's warning that "using the nationality of editors as an argument [is] prima facie evidence of sanctionable misconduct", and as such am open to enacting a short topic ban. But I'm not sure whether a warning left on another user's talk page is enough to satisfy the notification requirement, given that there is no evidence that Hangakiran has read it. What do others think? Sandstein 16:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biruitorul, yes, I agree that the diff indicates that the warning was read. Sandstein 17:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a topic ban is appropriate, for reasons quoted by Sandstein above. Grouping editors by nationality or ethnicity is like the textbook example of battleground behavior. T. Canens (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I am also taking into consideration that Hangakiran's editing is focused entirely on Janos Boros. The sanction should therefore give Hangakiran an opportunity to demonstrate an improved understanding of Wikipedia community norms in other areas. For these reasons, in application and enforcement of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, Hangakiran is indefinitely topic-banned (as defined at WP:TBAN) from the subject of Janos Boros (notably, from the article, its talk page and any related discussions). Any uninvolved administrator may lift this topic ban, on the request of Hangakiran, after no less than four months if Hangakiran has made substantial useful contributions to other articles and has engaged in no further objectionable conduct in the meantime. Sandstein 22:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leidseplein

Leidseplein warned of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 07:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Leidseplein

User requesting enforcement: Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Leidseplein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

[3] Accusation of trying to impose your POV on the world, which violates WP:AGF
[4] Unnecessarily inflammatory language about "Polish hypocrisy", "Polish complicity with Hitler" which violate WP:BATTLE, more bad faith accusations like "editors so strongly oriented towards a pro-Polish POV prove"
[5] Another charge of "hypocrisy", this time directed at me personally, which violates WP:NPA. Also some false accusations and insistence on discussing editors rather than content.
[6] More personal accusations of "an attempt to advance a pro-Polish/anti-Western POV". Unnecessary inflammatory language: "Attempts to deny printing in this articlethe FACT" (as an aside, anytime someone writes "FACT" in capital letters in a talk page discussion and says people are trying to "deny" this "FACT", well, it pretty much means you've got trouble). More WP:BATTLE violations along those lines: "'It is exceptionally INCONVENIENT...", which ascribes motives to editors
[7] More of the same: "it is, instead, merely embarassing, embarassing to those who so passionately believe..." - the "embarassing" part is pretty much a personal attack (though not a particularly extreme one). The "passionately" adjective again discusses editors not content, constitutes WP:BATTLEGROUND language and ascribes states of mind to editors which they may or may not posses. Certainly, I don't think I wrote anything on that talk page while in throes of passion.
[8] false and baseless accusation that I ("as advocated by another editor") am trying to ensure that there's "ONE interpretation of history allowed on Wikipedia", i.e. more WP:BATTLEGROUND language. Goodwin's Law violation by comparing my statements to Communist Party propaganda.
[9] another baseless accusation of editing "passionately" (which in this context seems to imply "emotionally rather than rationally, hence wrongly"), this time in a section heading.
[10] - question mark abuse. Not really a violation of anything specific but perhaps relevant to this whole "passionately" thing.
[11] - Assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks: "I do not try to hide my POV by attacking sources, citing wikispeak and using false claims to guidelines that you learned when you felt disciplined by other wikipedians". Even more personal attacks: "That's a laugh and actually explains everything - one thing about becoming an adult is..."

There's a couple more in the same vein but that I think is more than enough.

There are also a couple strange statements which aren't really any violations but are worth pointing out

[12] In this edit Leidseplein states that this matter was "already referred to a board other than 3O early on" - I have no idea what this is referring to or what it's supposed to mean.
[13] - "I was asked by a third party to point out..." This is a strange statement as it appears to indicate that Leidseplein was asked to make edits and comments on the article by someone else, as potentially a WP:MEATPUPPET. It looks (I don't know if it actually is) sketchy especially in the context of the battleground nature of this area, the large number of sanctioned and topic banned editors, and editors under interaction bans. Who was this third party? When I asked this question it was repeatedly ignored or evaded by Leidseplein.
Similarly, here [14] Leidseplein begins to refer to their edits in the first person plural, "since we, w followed your explicit, not-to-be-contradicted instructions", which again seems to suggest some kind of meatpuppetry or co-editing with another unknown editor is going on. Of course it could've just been a verbal slip up - but then when I asked "who's this "we"" you're referring to, why not just say "hey, it was just a verbal slip up"? Why evade the question?

Like I said the above three are not obviously any kind of violations of Wikipedia policy but they do seem strange to me.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

[15] - after Liedsplein's initial revert with an accusatory edit summary I posted a comment on the talk page in which I asked him to focus on content rather than on editors: an edit summary that uses phrases such as trying to impose your POV on the world is unnecessarily combative and fails to assume good faith. Contrast that with my edit summary (but 1) this isnt considered to be part of WB 2) different circumstances than German occupation of Sudetenland) which directly focused on content rather than accusing any editor of wrong doing.
I asked Liedsplein several times during the discussion to stop making statements which refer to me or my supposed motives personally and focus on discussing content instead.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Notification of DIGWUREN sanctions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: At this point I'm not asking for a sanction, block or ban. As far as I know, the editor has not been previously made aware of the WP:DIGWUREN restrictions, warned of the discretionary sanctions in this area, or of the especially strong need to avoid making this area more of a battleground than it already is.

Another mitigating factor is that Liedsplein, after he reverted me did ask for a third opinion (though his phrasing of the dispute was non-neutral and had to be corrected [16]) - that in itself was commendable. The way he/she/we carried out the subsequent conversation was not.

Response to Leidseplein's accusations

Leidseplein says: The editor complaining against me is IMO trying to retaliate for a 3rd Opinion I provided in Talk:Siege of Kolberg (1807).

My response: This is completely and utterly false. In fact, I agreed with and appreciated Leidseplein's third opinion he provided at Talk:Siege of Kolberg (1807). Please note that Leidseplein provides no diffs to back up his accusation. Here are the diffs which show exactly the opposite:

[17] "Thanks for the third opinion, it's much appreciated."

[18] "I think that's fine" (agreeing with Leidseplein's suggestion).

In fact, I'm pretty sure Leidseplein knew that the third opinion he provided was in fact appreciated by me, as soon afterward, he came to my talk page and asked me to look over an article he had recently written [19]. If there had been some "bad blood" due to the 3O, or he had some kind of problem with me (or I with him) at that point, why come and ask me to review his article? My response to him, btw, was that it was a "a very nice article" and I suggested he should submit it to DYK (though I did note one very minor point which could be clarified). He replied that he was going to ask me for opinions on other Poland-related articles he planned to write. Does this sound like someone I would want to "harass" or "retaliate" against?

Leidseplein says: He suddenly started shadowing me, harassing me and disrupting everything I do on wikipedia after the opinion I provided.

My answer: Ok, I'm getting really tired of having to come up with suitable euphemisms for the phrase "bold faced lie" so here I'm going to come out and say it - this is a bold faced lie. Note again, that there is absolutely no diffs provided to support the claim. Where have I shadowed him? At Siege of Kolberg, where he he came as a response to my 3O request? At my talk page, where he came asking me to look at his article? These were - AFAIK - my only interactions with these users prior to our interaction at Western Betrayal.

How have I "harassed" him? By telling him that his 3O was appreciated and that I agreed with it? By telling him that his article on St. Florian's Cathedral was very good? I guess it was because I disagreed with him in a single particular instance.

Leidseplein says: After numerous false accusations (like accusing me of double reverts)...

Also false. I made one mistaken statement - he did revert me only once. That's not "numerous" and it's not a "accusation", it was a mistake. A mistake which I immediately corrected when he pointed it out.

Leidseplein says: "...threats, hypocritical accusations of personal attacks, inapplicable appeals to wiki policy and an overall inability to accept cited facts contrary to his POV at Talk:Western betrayal, he has resorted to this overblown (Question mark abuse?) and excessively verbose attempt to quash facts he doesn't like...all in service of promoting his version of history (only)"

My response: I think Leidseplein's words here speak for themselves.

Leidseplein also says: "Volunteer Marek was the subject of a complaint made to me by two other editors for disrupting their work."

My response: This means that my suspicions based on his talk of "third parties" and "we", described above, were not unjustified. So what we have here is meatpuppetry. Who are these two other editors whose work I've supposedly disrupted, that asked Leidseplein to edit an Eastern-European related article for them? Are they editors under bans or restrictions on Eastern European topics? Are they one of my regular friends who've been warned about their battleground behavior in regard to myself by ArbCom and at this board? Are they individuals who are currently under an interaction ban with regard to me? This whole thing stinks to high heaven.

More general comment: I think I can see what happened here. I first "met" Leidseplein at Siege of Kolberg where he provided a third opinion. Our interaction was positive. He came to my talk page and asked me to review his article. So far so good, very nice interaction and at that point I was happy to have run into him (always could use more people writing articles about Poland). Then all of sudden he just blew up at me at Western Betrayal. I was extremely puzzled by this 180-degree change in his attitude; friendly and reasonable before, going straight for the personal attacks and accusations all of sudden. I think the key to the mystery lies in the presence of these "two sekrit" editors, who apparantly, are unwilling to say anything to me personally. Sometime between me reviewing Leidseplein's article for him and the situation at Western Betrayal, he was contacted by these individuals who egged him on and ... well, got him into trouble.

Leidseplein says: Since Volunteer Marek is asking for nothing except to have me notified that sanctions exist on Wikipedia, consider me notified.

My response: After this latest batch, I'm very much inclined to ask for a more serious block/sanction on civility grounds alone - making unsubstantiated and false accusations against others is not something that is usually tolerated. However, I do think that Leidseplein allowed himself to be unduly influenced by others. I do think that he should tell us who these individuals are.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [20]

Discussion concerning Leidseplein

Statement by Leidseplein

The editor complaining against me is IMO trying to retaliate for a 3rd Opinion I provided in Talk:Siege of Kolberg (1807). He suddenly started shadowing me, harassing me and disrupting everything I do on wikipedia after the opinion I provided. After numerous false accusations (like accusing me of double reverts), threats, hypocritical accusations of personal attacks, inapplicable appeals to wiki policy and an overall inability to accept cited facts contrary to his POV at Talk:Western betrayal, he has resorted to this overblown and excessively verbose attempt to quash facts he doesn't like...all in service of promoting his version of history (only) and without offering any form of compromise and wihout accepting or countering any of several offered compromise solutions I offered on the talk pages.

Volunteer Marek was the subject of a complaint made to me by two other editors for disrupting their work. Their main complaint, which I endorse, is that this editor tries to impose his POV and version of history onto articles without readily accepting compromise or offering agreeeable solutions. It also seems this complaint made by Marek here today is a reaction to Volunteer Marek's sanctions earned earlier this week, seen here...which is taking yet another form both through this complaint and his arguments at Talk:Siege of Kolberg (1807) and Talk:Western betrayal.

The statement of my position about the article in question and the full record are available on the Western Betrayal talk pages. This, along with my 3rd opinion on Talk:Siege of Kolberg (1807) is where the main explanation for this complaint by Volunteer Marek can be found, and my contributions there speak for themselves, both good and bad.

One more thing, I plead guilty to Marek's accusation number 8 = I AM guilty of 'question mark abuse'.

Since Volunteer Marek is asking for nothing except to have me notified that sanctions exist on Wikipedia, consider me notified. Best wishes.Leidseplein (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS someone is editing and deleting comments I make here, if I had hours to argue over trivial details I'd figure it out, but kindly leave my own commments here unedited

Comments by others about the request concerning Leidseplein

Aim was a Digwuren notification. Which has been implicitly acknowledged by Leidseplein as being understood. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. Close this. Collect (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC) (apparently inadvertently removed) Collect (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leidesplein, could you please provide differences (i.e, direct quotes with links to specific postings to the talk pages) in order to support your statement. TFD (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Leidesplein has never been warned and therefore the request should have been presented to ANI instead. I suggest that the request be moved there where there will be greater input from the community. TFD (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Leidseplein

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Most of the diffs submitted as evidence are not really problematic, but on the whole they do paint a picture of rather passionate argumentativeness, so I am warning Leidseplein to abide by the following principles enunciated by the Arbitration Committee. They apply, of course, to Volunteer Marek and others as well, and this warning is not to be construed as an endorsement of any inappropriate conduct by Volunteer Marek or others.

"The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited." (from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli 2#Purpose of Wikipedia, my underlining)
"Editors are expected to keep their cool when editing. Uncivil behavior by others should not be returned in kind. Casual allegations of poor wikiquette are considered harmful; such concerns should be brought up in appropriate forums, if at all." (from WP:DIGWUREN#Principles)
"Editors with a national background are encouraged to edit from a Neutral Point of View, presenting the point of view they have knowledge of through their experience and culture without aggressively pushing their particular nationalist point of view by emphasizing it or minimizing or excluding other points of view."
"Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy, and must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked. Personal attacks are not excused or justified by offers of demonstration of their truth." (from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles)

Noncompliance with these principles and other rules of conduct may result in sanctions as provided for in WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 07:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BenJonson

BenJonson (talk · contribs) is topic-banned indefinitely from Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, and Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. T. Canens (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning BenJonson

User against whom enforcement is requested = User:BenJonson

Note: He also edits under IPs 68.55.45.214, 76.69.101.88, and 131.118.144.253.

Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Conduct_and_decorum

[21] Impugns Paul B and accuses him of calling him and others holocaust deniers (later changed to "Nazis").
(2nd and 3rd edits down) Impugns honesty of James S. Shapiro and claims he’s my "hero".
[22] Again accuses Paul of calling him and others Nazis.
[23] Strongly implies that I colluded with Shapiro to edit the SAQ page to his specifications.
[24] More along that line (see entire discussion for subsequent edits and half-denials, thereby having it both ways).
[25] More personal attacks.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Tendentious_editing

[26] Adding a clearly non-WP:RS reference to SAQ page from an Oxfordian journal that he edits (which he almost always refers to as "leading", "prestigious", or "peer reviewed").
[27] Does so again from same journal with no discussion after being reverted.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Talk_pages

[28] Using the FAC talk page as a platform for his personal views and haranguing other editors.

Also most of the examples given here are from talk pages.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Casting_aspersions

[29] Continuing to make aspersions of collusion after being asked to retract his remarks.
[30] Same again, plus accusation that Nishidani threatened him and that Paul, Nishidani, and I had taken "ownership" of the SAQ page.
[31] Denies specifically saying I acted to promote Shapiro’s book while at the same time intimating that I did so (and spamming the page with an external link for his blog).
[32] Accuses administrators of colluding with editors to suppress "open discourse".
[33] Accuses Paul, Nishidani and I of acting "with impunity and the apparent sanction of Wikipedia admins".

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Revealing_personal_information

[34] Refers to my RL employment (although mistakenly; sheriff’s office’s don’t have public relations departments.)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Disruptive_influence

[35] Encouraging the continued flouting of community norms by banned SPA editor AdamBerg (as well as spamming his page with external links of Knitwitted’s blog)
[36] Encouraging the continued flouting of community norms by banned SPA editor Zwiegenbaum
[37] Encouraging the continued flouting of community norms by banned SPA editor Smcamilc

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to

[38] Warning by User:Bishonen
[39] Warning by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise
[40] Warning by User:EdJohnston
[41] Asked to remain civil by User:Nikkimaria
[42] Another warning by Nikkimaria.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) I will leave that to the administrators, although I do think he has been warned more than enough about his bullying and supercilious behaviour. My wish is that the personally offensive remarks be withdrawn and that he apologise to each editor. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments: Please reformat where needed. I found this to be a very difficult template to use and the instructions impenetrable. IMO it should be replaced by a simpler template.

I've done the necessary reformatting (adding the standard headers) and am here noting your notification of BenJonson. Sandstein 20:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BenJonson, please don't edit this section. Your comments are not part of Tom's request for enforcement against you. I have moved your link to John Stuart Mill to the section for your own statement. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC). [reply]

Discussion concerning BenJonson

Statement by BenJonson

A reading that may be of service: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty http://www.bartleby.com/130/ --BenJonson (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning BenJonson

Result concerning BenJonson

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Preliminary question: is it certain the IPs are all him? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulating others for getting topic banned, and making references to editors' RL situations? This is about as bad as it gets. IMO it doesn't really matter if the IPs are him or not. I'm minded to indef him under the general admin power to prevent disruption, and we can add an indef topic ban per the discretionary sanctions on top of that. T. Canens (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the overall picture is pretty clear, isn't it. Not sure the double measure is needed – a topic ban alone would boil down to pretty much the same effect, I guess. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I think the RL situation part warrants a block, due to its chilling effect. Besides, if this is his approach to editing, then I don't see much hope for him anywhere on this project. T. Canens (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is awful conduct by by BenJonson, and his statement is not encouraging either, to put it mildly. I agree that an indefinite topic ban is appropriate. No opinion whether an indefinite block is also needed on top of that to prevent continued disruption, since the disruption here is all topic-related. Sandstein 21:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I suppose we can give him some more rope and stick with topic ban for now. T. Canens (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I count 3 admins, which is more than sufficient to take AE action. Under the authority of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, as incorporated by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Discretionary sanctions, BenJonson (talk · contribs) is hereby banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, broadly construed across all namespaces. T. Canens (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HantersSpade

HantersSpade (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter/Archive#02 March 2011. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning HantersSpade

User requesting enforcement: O Fenian (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: HantersSpade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Further remedies

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

[43] First revert
[44] Second revert, within an hour of the first never mind the 24 hour limit
[45] Third revert, within an hour of the first never mind the 24 hour limit

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Not applicable, 1RR notice is visible in the page notice

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Indefinite block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: The IP and HanterSpade are the same editor. For example look at the editing history of 92.20.46.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which includes edits to Richard Burton (same as HantersSpade), and you will also see similar edit by the IP and HantersSpade to Éamon de Valera. Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter/Archive#02 March 2011 the account was apparently well behaved (which I would dispute anyway due to the history of point-of-view editing, edit warring and gross personal attacks. However due to breaches of 1RR due edit warring in the I/P area and Troubles area in the past week alone, it is clear the account is demonstrably not well behaved. O Fenian (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is now not necessary for it to be established to the satisfaction of anyone that the IP and HantersSpade are one and the same, a third revert has been added making two distinct reverts by HantersSpade. O Fenian (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [46]

Discussion concerning HantersSpade

Statement by HantersSpade

Comments by others about the request concerning HantersSpade

Result concerning HantersSpade

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter/Archive#02 March 2011 indicates that this is a block-evading sockpuppet of HarveyCarter (talk · contribs), so I am blocking it indefinitely on that basis. Sandstein 10:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz1

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Mbz1

User requesting enforcement: Passionless -Talk 00:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mbz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles - Decorum

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Hounding

[47] Mbz1 has never commented at ITN/C before this edit which is clearly a hound of me and even a personal attack-calling me a liar. Mbz1 did remove the personal attack when warned.
Personal attacks
[48] "Rant, rant, rant. The users as you are only good to drive content contributes away."
scroll down to the bottom of the page and read the last two sections to find:
"I have never hounded anyone, but have been hounded myself" 23:24, 9 January 2011

"The question is, if you are capable of writing anything but trolling. Are you?" 19:23, 11 January 2011

"No bulldog's arguments are not strong, they look more like trolling." 02:30, 10 January 2011

"I personally gave up on trying to understand trolling" 04:16, 11 January 2011

"trolling, trolling trolling" 20:37, 11 January 2011
[49] "You are lying and trolling as usually"
[50] "trolls and wikihounds, [ ] and, who are spreading lies about me"
[51] edit line:"responding to the troll"
[52] "I hoped that an admin with your experience is able to exercise some common sense." .... "Poor, poor wikipedia that has administrators as you are."
[53] "Please feel free to re-block me to satisfy the trolls, the hounds and the socks" It is clear she is referring to actual editors here, me being the hound maybe even troll too.
[54] "User:Passionless is a wikihound...wikihounding is the worse, the dirtiest kind of behavior one could exhibit."
[55] calls an IP a vandal for adding a tag to an article... see also User talk:82.205.34.232 for another message left on their talk page.
[56]- again, calls the IP a vandal (clearly is not a vandal) and says that Roscelese "clearly has not a slightest idea what she was doing". So two personal attacks in one.
[57] edit summary of "reverted trolling".
[58] "I hoped that an admin with your experience is able to exercise, no not fairness, but just a common sense."
Incivility
[59] "To tell you the truth I wish you have never started with me" Said to the admin who just released her earlier from sanctions, though Gwen did take it quite well.
[60] "he demonstrated not only his complete inability to perform his administrative duties, but also his strong POV." Again insulting an admin who disagree with her edits.
[61] "About your attacking...me" and "If you have a problem with me using particular sources, you're welcome to take me to ae and try to make me topic banned. Otherwise I am done with you here."
[62] Adds links which show number of articles created for the purpose of discrediting another editor as inexperienced.
[63] "Of course some people have common sense while others do not."
[64] Claiming others are attacking her/witch hunt.
Saying disturbing/racist things
[65] She says "besides who else could deep their hand in the victims blood and smear it around" and links the entire sentence to an image of a Palestinian.
[66] Discredits a Palestinian journalist and appears to attach Palestinian rocket attacks and anti-semitism in Sweden to the journalist. -noted by three editors as an "unjustified attack"/"racist".
Inability to work co-operatively
[67] "All feature messages from you will be removed with no reading." - Assuming this means "future messages", it appears a clear statement of intent to reject, unread, even constructive and collegial comments from another editor.
[68] adding highly opinionated comments such as "Hamas and other terror groups do kill innocent Israeli civilian and children in purpose." to an ITN/C. The comment is removed by an admin as being unhelpful, and Mbz1 instantly re-adds [69] the comments.
[70] -unilateral move of an article at an AfD to add “(antisemetic and conspiracy theories)” to the title *article has been deleted since her edit*
User talk:82.205.53.148, Mbz is giving out notifications as if she was an admin/BITE.
[71] "I did ask you to stay off my talk page, din't I" She refuses to let others talk to her, even when she calls their edits disruptive and continues to repeat information she knows is false.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

[72] Warning by Gwen Gale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
[73] Warning by Ohiostandard (talk · contribs)
[74] Warning byRoscelese (talk · contribs)
No doubt many more that I have not listed (hard to find)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Indefinite I-P topic ban, ban from using the words vandal, hound, and troll ever.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: I am greatly cutting short the list of diffs as I believe these alone are enough, and going into other areas like often using bad sources, causing needless drama, and making statements she knows to be false would be overkill. Mbz1 has a long history of incivility with a great number of editors, as one will realize by going through the diffs and block log. I really wish the other editors involved in the diffs could be notified of this AE, but I guess that is not possible. Thanks, Passionless -Talk 00:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]; Also, I did contacted admins off-wiki who are aware of the situation, who today suggested I take Mbz1 to either RFC or AE. Passionless -Talk 04:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [75]

Discussion concerning Mbz1

Statement by Mbz1

For convenience I will repeat user:Passionless accusations and provide my responses below each of them in green color, with the links being in blue color. IMO this will make it easier to read:

Hounding

[76] Mbz1 has never commented at ITN/C before this edit which is clearly a hound of me and even a personal attack-calling me a liar. Mbz1 did remove the personal attack when warned.
- I have already explained at a few user's pages how I got to ITN/C. In case Passionless did not notice this User:Elen of the Roads explained to Passionless saying about the accusation "There is absolutely no way she is following you - she would have got there all on her own, I can vouch for that." Bringing this accusation again demonstrates battle ground behavior of the user.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

[77] "Rant, rant, rant. The users as you are only good to drive content contributes away."
- Is not related to I/P topic As it is seen from the difference provided by passionless I made this post in response to the user post " Still plagiarizing?" Besides this comment was posted more than 3 months ago. It has absolutely nothing to do with Palestine-Israel articles, and bringing this here is disruptive INO --Mbz1 (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
scroll down to the bottom of the page and read the last two sections to find:
- Is not related to I/P topic If you are to scroll down to the end of the page as passionless, you advised you will read the following written by me: "BTW I have to admit that my opinion about you became just a little bit better, when you did not get angry with me because of my poem. I simply tried to be funny, and not offensive in any way. Of course I realize that the culture I came from, and my sense of humor could be very different from yours, but anyway..." After that me and user Bulldog123 decided to stay away from each other and it worked perfectly well for both of us. Once again the post in question is from 3 months ago, and has absolutely nothing to do with Palestine-Israel articles--Mbz1 (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I have never hounded anyone, but have been hounded myself" 23:24, 9 January 2011

"The question is, if you are capable of writing anything but trolling. Are you?" 19:23, 11 January 2011

"No bulldog's arguments are not strong, they look more like trolling." 02:30, 10 January 2011

"I personally gave up on trying to understand trolling" 04:16, 11 January 2011

"trolling, trolling trolling" 20:37, 11 January 2011

- Are not related to I/P topic All the differences provided above are 3 months old and has absolutely nothing to do with Palestine-Israel articles. Bringing those here is disruptive, if for nothing else because it is taking time to read over and to respond--Mbz1 (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[78] "You are lying and trolling as usually"
- User:Unomi used to hound me a lot. It was noted by a few other users.The comment in question was made after User:Unomi said Almost all the articles you create crawl through AfD with a large number of issues raised by a variety of editors and invariably they have to be fixed by others. When I explained to the user that its statement is false because from 63 articles I created only 5 or 6 were nominated on deletion and most of those were kept, the user changed its language a little bit, but still continued with a false accusations. The edit in question was made more than 2 months ago.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[79] "after that trolling of yours"
- Is not related to I/P topic
[80] "trolls and wikihounds, [ ] and, who are spreading lies about me"
- Is not related to I/P topic a general comment with no users named made at my talk page 3 months ago--Mbz1 (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[81] edit line:"responding to the troll"
- <xt|Is not related to I/P topic}} User:Demiurge1000 after being politely asked to keep off my page and stop templating regulars keeps coming to my page over, and over, and over again with a new templates, if that very user contacts now indefinitely banned User:Sol Goldstone in order to obtain what the user believed were my private emails hacked from my hacked email account, how that user should be called? The edit in question was made 2 months ago.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[82] "I hoped that an admin with your experience is able to exercise some common sense." .... "Poor, poor wikipedia that has administrators as you are."
- Is not related to I/P topic Well, yes, if an admin is getting involved in edit warring and not because he knows what he 's doing, but to make a point, I said what I said and stay behind my words, but here I'd like to stop at user:Passionless's conduct. The user "forgot" to say that I removed my message myself.The edit in question was made a month ago and is not related to Palestine-Israel articles--Mbz1 (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[83] "Please feel free to re-block me to satisfy the trolls, the hounds and the socks" It is clear she is referring to actual editors here, me being the hound maybe even troll too.
- Is not related to I/P topic I actually was referring to a sock of a banned user, my personal wikihound now indefinitely blocked user:RalphofPolo--Mbz1 (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[84] "User:Passionless is a wikihound...wikihounding is the worse, the dirtiest kind of behavior one could exhibit."
- Well, yes, it is what I said, and could repeat it.Here are 2 examples: 1 2 There are many more that could be provided, if requested. Here I'd like to stop more at how those accusations were collected. passionless used now deleted attack page that was started by user:Huldra. As it is seen from this dif user:passionless did not even bother to check the differences berfore submitting them here --Mbz1 (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[85] calls an IP a vandal for adding a tag to an article... see also User talk:82.205.34.232 for another message left on their talk page.
- Please see my response below in the sub-section "Side note #1 why I call an IP tagging the article "vandalism"--Mbz1 (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[86]- again, calls the IP a vandal (clearly is not a vandal) and says that Roscelese "clearly has not a slightest idea what she was doing". So two personal attacks in one.
- - - Please see my response below in the sub-section "Side note #1 why I call an IP tagging the article "vandalism"--Mbz1 (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[87] edit summary of "reverted trolling".
- The thing is that as you probably noticed English is not my first language. When I translate some words in my native tongue those really do not sound so bad, but still before I am using any of those words I'm usually trying to see how other editors, that are known to be polite using those words. So, with the word "trolling" , for example, I looked at this diff. I could provide quite a few other examples of using this word by highly respected editors/administrators--Mbz1 (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[88] "I hoped that an admin with your experience is able to exercise, no not fairness, but just a common sense."
- Is not related to I/P topic Is this a PA?In any case the edit was made a month ago and is not related to I/P articles.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[89] "To tell you the truth I wish you have never started with me" Said to the admin who just released her earlier from sanctions, though Gwen did take it quite well.
- Is not related to I/P topic Yes, guilty as charged I said it to Gwen Gale after she told me she's done with me, but what user:passionless did not provide my quote right. Here's what I really said: To tell you the truth I wish you have never started with me :-) Sorry, I am in funny mood today. Please don't get angry with me. Let's laugh together. Good luck to you too! Gwen Gale understood a joke, and I gave her a barnstar for her sense of humor. On the other hand looks like user:passionless is not only a master of saying half truths, but is also completely lacking any sense of humor, a very bad combination indeed! Once again the edit in question has nothing to do with I/P related topic--Mbz1 (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[90] "he demonstrated not only his complete inability to perform his administrative duties, but also his strong POV." Again insulting an admin who disagree with her edits.
- Yes, I said it, but after the user explained to me his motives although I am disagree with him I did toned my comments down. Once again user:passionless used a tactic of saying half truth.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[91] "About your attacking...me" and "If you have a problem with me using particular sources, you're welcome to take me to ae and try to make me topic banned. Otherwise I am done with you here."
- This comment was made in response to user:Ohiostandard repeatedly using the article's talk page to comment on me personally. For example: "if you can't do that for some reason then you have no business editing here". this pattern was noticed by another editor,but Ohiostandard has continued up to now using the article talk page to comment on me personally. Here is interesting to note that passionless asked Ohiostandard on their talk page to tag the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[92] Adds links which show number of articles created for the purpose of discrediting another editor as inexperienced.
[93] "Of course some people have common sense while others do not."
- Is not related to I/P topic This is the same diff as passionless discussed in #87 (please see my response section above.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[94] Claiming others are attacking her/witch hunt.
- Yes, I did say it, and this AE request is a confirmation of what I meant.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[95] She says "besides who else could deep their hand in the victims blood and smear it around" and links the entire sentence to an image of a Palestinian.
- In my bad dream I would have never ever said "besides who else could deep their hand in the victims blood and smear it around" and linked it "to an image of a Palestinian". I do not divide people by race, I do not divide people by religion, and I do not divide people by ethnicity. I did not link "the entire sentence to an image of a Palestinian", I linked it to the image of a lyncher and a murderer,I linked it to this image. It is highly disturbing to me that user:passionless calls this image an image of a Palestinian. Is this image represents a Palestinian? No, it is not an image of a Palestinian. It is an image of a murderer and a lyncher, and it is what I meant when I linked the above sentence to the image. Because no Palestinian could have stoned 2 boys to death and then using their blood write an antisemitic slogans and leave a bloody hand prints at the cave's wall. This murder were done by a terrorist, who lost his right to be called a Palestinian at the moment he did it. I have not a single even small animosity towards Arabs. Here are only a few articles I wrote The Mountain of Israeli-Palestinian Friendship;Sayyida al Hurra;Liar paradox in early Islamic tradition;Comedians of Middle East conflict;Arab rescue efforts during the Holocaust. Please also see this edit in which I said:"I'd like to use the opportunity and to say that my heart is going out to peoples of Japan and Syria one of whom is fighting a horrible disaster and another is fighting an oppressive regime". I despise all kind of racism including antisemitism. I guess user:passionless who accuses me of making a "racist" statement is still to demonstrate any good word he wrote about Jews and or Judaism.
[96] "All feature messages from you will be removed with no reading." - Assuming this means "future messages", it appears a clear statement of intent to reject, unread, even constructive and collegial comments from another editor.
- Is not related to I/P topic

[97] adding highly opinionated comments such as *Hamas and other terror groups do kill innocent Israeli civilian and children in purpose." to an ITN/C. The comment is removed by an admin as being unhelpful, and Mbz1 instantly re-adds [98] the comments.

- This comment was made in response to two other comments that you could see in the diff provided above. I will quote them here: "Note 8-9times as many Palestinians died in Israeli attacks yesterday with a similar number injured. To highlight an attack on Israelis while ignoring the huge number of attacks on Palestinians would of course be ridiculous." by passionless and "It might sound hard and cold. But the death of palestinians by Israeli rockets etc etc.. happens almost weekly. While a bombing of this kind is rare (not since 2004) in Israel. That is why this stroy trumps the Palestinian story mentioned. Sad but very true" by user BabbaQ--Mbz1 (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[99] -unilateral move of an article at an AfD to add “(antisemetic and conspiracy theories)” to the title *article has been deleted since her edit.
- Is not related to I/P topic guilty as charged. I did move the article Jews and money because, well because it was antisemitic and representing conspiracy theories article. That's why it was deleted. Once again the edit has nothing to do wit I/P topics--Mbz1 (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:82.205.53.148, Mbz is giving out notifications as if she was an admin/BITE.
- Of course has nothing to do with BITE. I was told many times any editor could notify another user--Mbz1 (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Side note #1 why I call an IP tagging the article "vandalism"

Below is the copy of IP post with my responses in green.

This article as it is now is completely unbalanced, as it does not mention the consequences for the Palestinian villages in the vicinity.

As a direct consequence of the murder, the nearby village of Tuqu', a village of 8000 people, were in effect collectively punished, even if collective punishment of this kind is against the Geneva convention.
- No source--Mbz1 (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were also reports of stones thrown on the villagers by nearby settlers.
- No source--Mbz1 (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15 Palestinaians were arrested, all eventually released without being charged.
- No source--Mbz1 (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And, most importantly: new land was stolen from the Palestinian village of Tuqu' during the "investigation" after the murder.
- No source--Mbz1 (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Exactly the same thing happened to the villages nearby the Itamar-settlement 2 weeks ago, after the Itamar killings: a whole village was under house-arrest by the Israeli army, while settlers from Itamar simply stole another 20-25 dunum of privately owned Palestinian olive groves. There is a reason why Israelis call the occupied West Bank for the "Wild West Bank"!)

- No source, unrelated--Mbz1 (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worst of all: nowhere in this article does it mention that the Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, and built on illegally confiscated (read: stolen) Palestinian land.
- soapboxing--Mbz1 (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After the above post at the talk page IP tagged the article that was at Main page at the moment. IP edited the talk page before, but never tagged the article. Tagging the article that is at the Main page is damaging Wikipedia's reputation. Yes, I used "vandalism" in my edit summary. Maybe it was not vandalism per say, but it was a bad faith edit, and wp:gaming

user:Roscelese, who re-installed the tag made it to to make a point without commenting at the talk page of the article. She did comment today 5 days later.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Side note#2 conduct of user:passionless

"Evidences" presented for this AE

As it is seen from my comments above, lot's of "evidences" either old,either have nothing to do with I/P topics, either were collected by other users, who hounded my contributions all over, while User:passionless never bothered to check them out when he filed this AE

WP:BATTLEGROUND

I have shown already why this AE is disruptive. May I please ask you to note that the user filed this AE after the user was specifically advised against doing so by two administrators one and two. There were also other online and offline warnings. Filing this AE after all of those demonstrates WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour.
Filing an not actionable AE on user:B demonstrates a behavioral pattern.

Bad faith AfD for the article Murder of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran

nominated the article on deletion. The user claimed it to be WP:Event and told me at my talk page that "Really, hundreds of people are murdered everyday, with most of them getting some air time in their nation's newspapers". IN AFD the user calls this "merely a non significant double murder". This was said about two 13 and 14 years old boys, who were stoned to death. It was said about the boy, whose story prompted US Congress to adopt the Act of Koby Mandell. (page 184)

In this comment the user calls Jerusalem Post "a local paper", and claims that "US congress which many of the keep voters mentioned was never passed". I understand that the latest claim was brought up by confusion expressed by another user, but when the confusion was cleared up, that claim should have been stricken out, but it never have.

Edit warring on the same article

Please see the report. The user was only warned for it, but as user:CIreland said: "I would have blocked if I had seen this first"

BLP violation on the same article

The user made this comment at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. There are many problems with the user claims, but one of the biggest problem is a violation of BLP. "I believe these books are spouting lies and cannot be used as sources for facts". In other words passionless is claiming that Barry Rubin, who is the author of one of the books, a professor at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) in Herzliya, Israel, the "director of the Israel-based Global Research in International Affairs Center" is "spouting lies".

Strange

This admission made by user:passionless is strange IMO. Who was that mysterious admin who advised passionless to file AE with such "evidences"? I'd like to request a full disclosure of this incident please.

Topic banned

On February 20 user:passionless was topic banned on I/P related topics. Almost at once the ban was lifted by user:Timotheus Canens. I believe now user:Timotheus Canens is ready to re-install the ban. I'd say it is about time.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion by Mbz1

I believe I covered everything, but I am more than tired responding all of those. So, if I missed on something please ask me specific questions, which I'll be happy to address them.

I'd like to point out that I hardly edit in the topic area, except the articles I started, and from 80 articles I've written not more than 12.5% are connected to I/P conflict. Only for the last weeks I wrote a few articles that have nothing to do with the conflict at all. On April 1, 2011 (April Fools' Day) 4 articles I wrote La Pelegrina pearl; Clubfoot George;Jafr alien invasion and Sayyida al Hurra were used at the DYK section of the Main page. Together they were viewed 64,900 times. Besides those I also wrote Devastation Trail;Mollie's Nipple; Dead Women Crossing, Oklahoma and Paloma Picasso's red period none of which is even remotely related to the I/P area.

Responses

response to T. Canens I have asked for an interaction ban with passionless many times, and this is yet another prove who is the victim of wikihounding here. --Mbz1 (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What for? What policies in this topic I violated? So far only Sandstein came up with a single difference that I responded to.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

response to HJ

You said "since the diffs both have presented go beyond their own feud". May I please ask you be more specific, what difference that user:passionless presented demonstrates merits to topic ban me on I/P conflict.
To respond your question, the topic will benefit from my presence because as much as I am aware I am the only one, who writes the articles that saying something good about the opposite side of the conflict, the articles that promote peace and understanding. Here are a few examples: The Mountain of Israeli-Palestinian Friendship;Comedians of Middle East conflict;Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib;Everest Peace Project. I am not even sure,if Arab rescue efforts during the Holocaust would not have been covered under topic ban for I/P conflict. None of those article could have been written, if I were topic-banned.

HJ,and other uninvolved administrators, I do not believe that it is necessary to comment on user:passionless and me at the same breath. It would be much more helpful for me and I am sure for user:passionless, if you are to comment more on specific differences.

To respond your comment, HJ, there are differences between me requesting a topic ban for passionless and her requesting one for me.Here are the differences:

It was not me, who filed this AE. I am a responding party.
IMO the differences presented by user:passionless do not demonstrate me violating any policy in the topic area. If in your opinion any of those do, may I please ask you to point this (these) specific ones out to me?
IMO the differences presented by me demonstrate user:passionless tendentious editing, battleground behavior, violation of wp:BLP and edit warring in the topic area. IMO filing this AE alone with half of the differences that have absolutely nothing to do with I/P conflict should be a good reason to topic ban user:passionless for a two,three months.

Response to EdJohnston. I believe you missed on that comment of mine, so here it is one more tine: administrator AGK found neither the block nor the agreed bans to be warranted. administrator AGK believed my initial post at AN/I was warranted. Here's what h wrote: "Your input as an editor who had had negative interactions with Daedalus was of value. Daedalus' complaint about your comment, presuming that my assumption in point #4 is correct, was therefore without merit." Gwen Gale lifted all my restrictions

So, if you could please come up with a different reason to topic ban me, it will be greatly appreciated because IMO one unfairness that was done against me should not result in the other.

Also may I please ask you to be more specific in regards of what comments of mine you find "troubling" enough to topic ban me? Thanks.

--Mbz1 (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I said my restrictions were lifted, it is what I meant. They were lifted as of March 27,2011. According administrator AGK they were unwarranted to begin with. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW while we are at Gwen Gale banning me may I please ask you to see here: I didn't see anything straightforwardly linked to IP topic warring as such.

Response to Sandstein.I explained in details the comment you are referring to. I will repeat it one more time here:
In my bad dream I would have never ever said "besides who else could deep their hand in the victims blood and smear it around" and linked it "to an image of a Palestinian". I do not divide people by race, I do not divide people by religion, and I do not divide people by ethnicity. I did not link "the entire sentence to an image of a Palestinian", I linked it to the image of a lyncher and a murderer,I linked it to this image. It is highly disturbing to me that user:passionless calls this image an image of a Palestinian. Is this image represents a Palestinian? No, it is not an image of a Palestinian. It is an image of a murderer and a lyncher, and it is what I meant when I linked the above sentence to the image. Because no Palestinian could have stoned 2 boys to death and then using their blood write an antisemitic slogans and leave a bloody hand prints at the cave's wall. This murder were done by a terrorist, who lost his right to be called a Palestinian at the moment he did it. I have not a single even small animosity towards Arabs. Here are only a few articles I wrote The Mountain of Israeli-Palestinian Friendship;Sayyida al Hurra;Liar paradox in early Islamic tradition;Comedians of Middle East conflict;Arab rescue efforts during the Holocaust. I despise all kind of racism including antisemitism. There might have been a poor selection of language on my part in making that comment, but it was not a racist comment. This would be extremely unfair to topic ban over this single poorly formatted statement completely disregarding all the articles listed above I wrote on the topic, the articles that nobody, but me writes.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point you made about user:passionless that "the limited evidence of misconduct in this thread warrants this measure" You might be interested to look at this AE. It was closed almost at once because user:passionless got indefinitely blocked, but this AE does demonstrate the problems with the user editing pattern. This is not directly related to I/P conflict area, but so are not most of the diffs presented by user:passionless against me.

How it works (repeating the same mistake)

A few months ago admin Timotheus Canens suggested an indefinite ARBPIA topic ban for me. My blocking administrator Gwen Gale examined my contributions and came to this conclusion: "I didn't see anything straightforwardly linked to IP topic warring as such".Then administrator AGK reviewed my block per my request and came to conclusion my block was unwarranted to begin with.

Now two moths later you are about to repeat the same mistake. You suggesting topic-ban me over a few words "trolls" I used, and most of which have nothing to do with I/P topic. Where are real disruptions that merit topic ban of an editor, who wrote such articles as The Mountain of Israeli-Palestinian Friendship;Sayyida al Hurra;Liar paradox in early Islamic tradition;Comedians of Middle East conflict;Arab rescue efforts during the Holocaust;Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib;Everest Peace Project. Who else from the both sides of the conflict wrote anything like that? In a worst case scenario ban me on using the word "trolls" and "hounds" as passionless suggested, but there is no merit to ban me on I/P related topic. Topic ban me on such "evidences" without even specifying the particular differences for such a severe punishment would be more than unfair.

Bellow I provided the differences that are related to I/P conflict. May I please ask you to tell me which ones deserve an indefinite, a year long or any topic ban for the matter:

[100] Mbz1 has never commented at ITN/C before this edit which is clearly a hound of me and even a personal attack-calling me a liar. Mbz1 did remove the personal attack when warned.
- I have already explained at a few user's pages how I got to ITN/C. In case Passionless did not notice this User:Elen of the Roads explained to Passionless saying about the accusation "There is absolutely no way she is following you - she would have got there all on her own, I can vouch for that." Bringing this accusation again demonstrates battle ground behavior of the user.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[101] "You are lying and trolling as usually"
- User:Unomi used to hound me a lot. It was noted by a few other users.The comment in question was made after User:Unomi said Almost all the articles you create crawl through AfD with a large number of issues raised by a variety of editors and invariably they have to be fixed by others. When I explained to the user that its statement is false because from 63 articles I created only 5 or 6 were nominated on deletion and most of those were kept, the user changed its language a little bit, but still continued with a false accusations. The edit in question was made more than 2 months ago.

[102] "User:Passionless is a wikihound...wikihounding is the worse, the dirtiest kind of behavior one could exhibit."
- Well, yes, it is what I said, and could repeat it.Here are 2 examples: 1 2 There are many more that could be provided, if requested. Here I'd like to stop more at how those accusations were collected. passionless used now deleted attack page that was started by user:Huldra. As it is seen from this dif user:passionless did not even bother to check the differences berfore submitting them here

[103] calls an IP a vandal for adding a tag to an article... see also User talk:82.205.34.232 for another message left on their talk page.
- Please see my response below in the sub-section "Side note #1 why I call an IP tagging the article "vandalism"--Mbz1 (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[104]- again, calls the IP a vandal (clearly is not a vandal) and says that Roscelese "clearly has not a slightest idea what she was doing". So two personal attacks in one.
- Please see my response below in the sub-section "Side note #1 why I call an IP tagging the article "vandalism"--Mbz1 (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[105] "he demonstrated not only his complete inability to perform his administrative duties, but also his strong POV." Again insulting an admin who disagree with her edits.
- Yes, I said it, but after the user explained to me his motives although I am disagree with him I did toned my comments down. Once again user:passionless used a tactic of saying half truth.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[106] "About your attacking...me" and "If you have a problem with me using particular sources, you're welcome to take me to ae and try to make me topic banned. Otherwise I am done with you here."
- This comment was made in response to user:Ohiostandard repeatedly using the article's talk page to comment on me personally. For example: "if you can't do that for some reason then you have no business editing here". this pattern was noticed by another editor,but Ohiostandard has continued up to now using the article talk page to comment on me personally. Here is interesting to note that passionless asked Ohiostandard on their talk page to tag the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[107] She says "besides who else could deep their hand in the victims blood and smear it around" and links the entire sentence to an image of a Palestinian.
- In my bad dream I would have never ever said "besides who else could deep their hand in the victims blood and smear it around" and linked it "to an image of a Palestinian". I do not divide people by race, I do not divide people by religion, and I do not divide people by ethnicity. I did not link "the entire sentence to an image of a Palestinian", I linked it to the image of a lyncher and a murderer,I linked it to this image. It is highly disturbing to me that user:passionless calls this image an image of a Palestinian. Is this image represents a Palestinian? No, it is not an image of a Palestinian. It is an image of a murderer and a lyncher, and it is what I meant when I linked the above sentence to the image. Because no Palestinian could have stoned 2 boys to death and then using their blood write an antisemitic slogans and leave a bloody hand prints at the cave's wall. This murder were done by a terrorist, who lost his right to be called a Palestinian at the moment he did it. I have not a single even small animosity towards Arabs. Here are only a few articles I wrote The Mountain of Israeli-Palestinian Friendship;Sayyida al Hurra;Liar paradox in early Islamic tradition;Comedians of Middle East conflict;Arab rescue efforts during the Holocaust. Please also see this edit in which I said:"I'd like to use the opportunity and to say that my heart is going out to peoples of Japan and Syria one of whom is fighting a horrible disaster and another is fighting an oppressive regime". I despise all kind of racism including antisemitism. I guess user:passionless who accuses me of making a "racist" statement is still to demonstrate any good word he wrote about Jews and or Judaism.
Hamas and other terror groups do kill innocent Israeli civilian and children in purpose." to an ITN/C. The comment is removed by an admin as being unhelpful, and Mbz1 instantly re-adds [108] the comments.
- This comment was made in response to two other comments that you could see in the diff provided above. I will quote them here: "Note 8-9times as many Palestinians died in Israeli attacks yesterday with a similar number injured. To highlight an attack on Israelis while ignoring the huge number of attacks on Palestinians would of course be ridiculous." by passionless and "It might sound hard and cold. But the death of palestinians by Israeli rockets etc etc.. happens almost weekly. While a bombing of this kind is rare (not since 2004) in Israel. That is why this stroy trumps the Palestinian story mentioned. Sad but very true" by user BabbaQ--Mbz1 (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:82.205.53.148, Mbz is giving out notifications as if she was an admin/BITE.
- Of course has nothing to do with BITE. I was told many times any editor could notify another user--Mbz1 (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Mbz1

User:Mbz1 mentions me in her comments above. I will mention that Mbz1 has emailed me twice through the Wikipedia email interface. In both cases, these emails were sent from Mbz1 to me after Mbz1 had already "banned" me from her talk page. Of course, I didn't reply at all. In addition, Mbz1 also posted on my talk page after she had already "banned" me from her talk page.

Right now I am just amazed by the gall of making such a reference, under the circumstances of all that's gone on. I am resisting saying what I think for now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did emailed you after your posts concerning me at other users talk pages. My emails were explanations. I needed no responses from you. I did post to your talk, but I have never templated you, and you have never asked me do not post to your talk page. I assure you, if you did, I would have never ever posted again to your talk page.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and banning someone from using the word "vandal" is just silly, so let's drop that. It's ridiculous. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but I thought sanctioning against those three words was a do-able way to lower the chance of personal attacks. Passionless -Talk 02:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What did I say "at other users talk pages" that required you to email me twice, Mbz1, after I chose not to give away my private email address by replying to you the first time? I'm not permitted to even post on your talk page, but you repeatedly email me privately? It seems like you expect to be able to lay down rules for other editors, but you don't want the same rules to apply to you. Would a break from the Israel-Palestine dispute area really cause you so much heartache? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It really does not matter what you said. I do not care about your email address. If after my first email you asked me not to email to you anymore, I would have not.

To admins my emails to User:Demiurge1000 were concerning the hacking of my Gmail account, and community banning of user:Sol Goldstone. I do not mind them to be published online. Anyway my emails to User:Demiurge1000 are not related to I/P conflict articles. I promise never again contact User:Demiurge1000 neither via email nor on the user's talk page, and if User:Demiurge1000 has nothing else to add to this particular AE, I hope this matter could be closed. --Mbz1 (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, your second email to me was to tell me that it was only a "game" that you edited the article Egypt with copy-and-pasted text suggested by banned user User:NoCal100. (Since you agree to the email being published, I've put it at http://pastebin.com/eiGsjKSR with your email address redacted). I think this is a good example of how your behaviour in topic areas covered by ARBPIA is inappropriate. It is not acceptable to make edits for a banned user, whether it's part of a "game" to try to entrap another editor that you suspect of being a hacker (as you claimed in the email), or whether it's to get extra support in WP:BATTLEGROUND edit wars. Personally I suspect it's the latter, because the Nocal100 "game" and your accusations about Nableezy, doesn't explain the edits made by other editors to support you in disagreements about DYK hooks (again related to ARBPIA) after you had emailed them giving them the exact text they should use. I suppose you're going to say that was part of the "game" as well, but I'm finding it very hard to AGF on that - and it's not acceptable even if true.

Then there are comments like this new section you started on my talk page - these sorts of accusations are not acceptable.

Then there's comments like this ":user:Demiurge1000 is a troll, who has been wikihounding me for quite some time" - a less than justifiable comment given that less than two months before that Mbz1 said she'd never heard of me before. I object to being called a troll, something Mbz1 does numerous times in the diffs already provided by Passionless.

Then this - I post a polite template to Mbz1 informing her that I replied to her at Jimbo's talk page, so how does she respond? She again calls me a troll and expresses a hope that I quit editing.

When administrators express concerns about this sort of behaviour and give Mbz1 polite advice about not edit warring, she responds with edit summaries like 'What this "Grow up" is for? To prove that my initial assessment of your administrative conduct was correct?'

The problem is that Mbz1 has an endlessly repeating pattern of behaviour issues like this, always related to ARBPIA topics. It's not just a personal dispute between Mbz1 and Passionless, or Mbz1 and Roscelese, or Mbz1 and whichever previous editor - it's a recurring issue caused by inability to maintain a neutral viewpoint and collaborate constructively in discussions in that topic area. A topic ban would allow Mbz1 to continue making excellent contributions to the encyclopedia, in topic areas where this inability is not an issue. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's only one prove that User:Demiurge1000 came here with not clean hands. The user is quoting me: ""What this "grow up" is for? To prove that my initial assessment of your administrative conduct was correct? I assure you I've got all proves I needed already. Please have a nice day."", but "forgets" to say that this post was made in response to this post, in which I was advised "to grow up". Not to say that "grow up" diff was not related to I/P conflict.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, we can go through every last detail of what happened. An administrator came to your talk page and politely expressed concerns and advised you not to edit war; you reacted by accusing them of threatening to block you. They replied that they never said anything about blocking you, and suggested you grow up. You then make that comment about the impression you'd formed (previously) about their "administrative conduct". As for its relevance to the sanctions area, the article concerned a country which many would describe as an Arab country, and one which has previously been at war with the state of Israel. Falls under "Arab-Israeli conflict" "broadly interpreted"? Near enough. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how most of the diffs are related to Palestine-Israel conflict, the subject of discretionary sanctions. Some statements by Mbz1 are indeed related to the conflict, but they sound more like statements of opinion or fact at various talk pages, rather than incivility or violation of policy. For example, "terror groups do kill innocent Israeli civilian and children in purpose". So what? Everyone knows that. However, these users do appear to be involved in heated conversations (e.g. Mbz1 voted and Passionless responded [109], [110], [111]). Perhaps this statement by Passionless needs a clarification. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you characterizing my edits (the last two diffs you posted) as if they happened before Mbz1, when they took place before Mbz1's edit to ITN/C? This mistake of yours shows me in a poor light, please rectify. Passionless -Talk 05:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, the are covered by the sanctions is "the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted" (not just "Palestine-Israel") and the diffs almost all seem to relate to disputes about that topic area. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Sure. I said "Passionless responded" (please see above). Yes, there is a problem with your response. That was a vote about placing to news an article about a terrorist attack in Israel. Mbz1 simply voted and noted that it was a first such terrorist attack in Israel during last four years [112]. This is a legitimate argument, and she acted within the policy. In response, you started firing personal accusations that she attacks you and stalks you [113]. Hence you promoted a development of the conflict. It's not a good idea to demand sanctions at AE if you are a part of the problem. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the users named above as a target of Mbz1's personal attacks, I wholeheartedly support the proposal. The user's conduct, as demonstrated by the diffs, is so far beyond the bounds of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. As her lengthy block log shows, Mbz1 has a history of extremely disruptive conduct in this topic area, and whatever promises of reform she may or may not have made in order to have her blocks and topic bans lifted have clearly not been kept.

To Passionless's personal-conduct-related diffs I would add the persistent violation of point 1 of the general sanctions on Israel-Palestine articles, namely "Purpose of Wikipedia." I'm not even talking about the POV-pushing articles that have been deleted or that have required substantial work from other users to bring them anywhere near an appropriate standard; I'm referring to things like this, where a completely ridiculous partisan source had to be taken to noticeboard because the user refused to remove it after having its non-RS status pointed out. This, where the user threatened to withdraw an article from DYK if her preferred quote about Palestinians blowing up children wasn't retained. The aforementioned removal of a POV tag without correcting the issue, which seems to show an active desire to keep the page non-neutral when problems are pointed out by other users.

I realize that creating articles about controversial topics is difficult, but Mbz isn't a n00b and she's had plenty of users along the way give her advice about how to better her behavior. If she won't take that advice, and stop with the POV-pushing and personal attacks, I/P articles are not the place for this user. There are many other places where she could contribute. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not name User:Roscelese, user:Passionless did. I only responded the claim, and is not going to repeat it again here. I only say that this user was the one, who twice already tagged the article for NPOV with the only reason to make a point one and two. If I am not mistaking the user added POV tags without a single post on this particular matter to the article's talk page although we did have some discussion on the matter on the user's talk page, in which I IMO not only proved adding the article was wrong, but also demonstrated how the user assumed a bad faith towards my intentions.

About my blocks, here's the info about the latest one: administrator AGK found neither the block nor the agreed bans to be warranted. Otherwise none of my blocks was for PA, and none was for "extremely disruptive conduct in this topic area". I am more than willing to discuss any of them by request.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am not very good on seeing what is and what is not RS. Is this a good reason for a topic ban?

In regards to my so called POV pushing, as soon as I wrote this latest article I made this post at user:Gatoclass's talk page. If I really wanted to "push POV" would I asked user:Gatoclass to look at the article as soon as it was created?

Overall I see in very much involved user:Roscelese's post much more anger toward me personally than the differences that would support her claim to topic ban me.

--Mbz1 (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BorisG

I advocate an approach where any acquisitions made against an editor are weighed against their useful contributions. From this perspective, the AE case against Mbz1 has very little merit. While contributions on this topic are but a small fraction of her overall contributions, they are significant. Thus no sanction againts Mbz1 is warranted, beyond maybe some interaction restrictions. I have not examined Passionless's contributions from this perspective, but this AE request is a clear manisfestation of a battleground approach. - BorisG (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize Mbz1 is useful in areas outside of the I-P conflict which is why I brought her here under ARBPIA only instead of ANI or RFC where she would/could have been blocked from making any contributions. I feel what is important here is, is Mbz1 a positive force when looking solely at I-P articles or not, and I feel not as she causes so much disruption and attacks many of the editors who disagree with her. Passionless -Talk 17:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No offense Boris, but it has been a few years since that way of thinking was in vogue around here. Prolific content contribution is not an acceptable excuse for bad behavior. For a shining example, see the last ArbCom and subsequent blocks for Betacommand Tarc (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My approach is based on the goal of building the best encyclopedia. Cetral to this goal is content contribution; everything else is secondary, including civility. Yes, civility is important as it creates good climate for editors to work collaboratively. However it is still a secondary condition to content contribution. If the ArbCom bans producitve editors (I haven't checked but I trust you), then we have elected the wrong people. - BorisG (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re to HJ Mitchell

@HJ Mitchell ("I would be intrigued to hear how they think their presence is beneficial to the the topic area"). Mbz1 has 20,000+ contributions and created 80 new pages. Maybe a half of them was related to Israel, but not necessarily to the "conflict". A lot of them are significant additions/improvement of content, including beautiful illustrations. Passionless has 3,000+ contributions (1,000+ in article space), and he created 2 new pages, specifically about the conflict. This is also good contribution. Thinking logically, banning both contributors from the area would be the most damaging solution for content production, as I also argued in more general terms in arbitration page [114] [115]. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created 80 pages, and only 10 of them are related to Israel.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't get this Hodja, I do not know you, but you have mischaracterized my history twice now, putting me in a bad light. While the article is not significant, why did you not say "he created three new pages, two specifically about the conflict"? Passionless -Talk 18:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passionless's responses to admins/latest comments

@Ed Johnston, Uh, well you might want to clarify that I have been editing since February 19th 2010, as most would msitake it for February 19th, 2011. And when you say 4 blocks that sounds so much worse than it is, I mean how can Courcelles' 33 minute block of me for edit warring with a banned user actually be used as evidence of a bad history? Third, I have provided 20+ diffs limited to Mbz1's civility to others, and yet you ask that I be punished the same as Mbz1 while I have no history of making personal attacks. What would be the reason for my banning? Passionless -Talk 17:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ T. Canens, I have interacted with her because she writes highly POV articles on the I-P conflict.(Read the intro paragraph in Mbz1's version and todays version. If this stopped there would be no problem with an interaction block, BUT, if you look at the diffs I provided in the AE, and the comments left by others above, you will see that Mbz1 gets into trouble with many many editors -practically anyone who disagrees with her- not just me. Passionless -Talk 18:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's one example of my communication with an editor I have been in a big disagreement and here is another, and yet one more Those two are only recent examples that came to mind. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While you may have smiled afterwards it still remains that "You did hurt me when you were angry" and this should never have happened in the first place. I too do not want to see you blocked, only topic banned. Passionless -Talk 18:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you said half-truth, that is worse than a lie. Here's what the user said:You did hurt me when you were angry but I believe my words hurt you first" highlighted by me.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant to what I was saying, so do not call me worse than a liar, I was saying that your interactions with others lead to people getting hurt. Passionless -Talk 18:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ HJ Mitchell, I ask you to please take a look at Hodja's comments above. I ask you because I know you had commented on the event when it happened so are aware of the true situation. Thanks, Passionless -Talk 18:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ HJ Mitchell, About my contributes to I-P articles, besides the articles List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011 and Palestinian Security Council Resolution, 2011(wrote for an ITN), I really do not write a lot on I-P articles. I do watch the talk pages and revert vandalism on those pages, but I never write new paragraphs on I-P articles. I watch for POV pushing and for non RSs, like I recently did for Muslim World Today and Scottish Friends of Israel. My role in I-P articles - I let others write (I suck at writing) and I make sure it doesn't violate policy. Passionless -Talk 18:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@All admins, Mbz has brought many complaints against me above, while much of it is not worthy of response, I will respond to any particular questions about my actions if you ask me to. Passionless -Talk 22:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@All Some may believe that I have a battle mentality and something personal against Mbz, and that is why I started this AE. But, I want to make sure you all understand that that is not true, and I do so by pointing out that three other editors have all suggested either taking Mbz1 to Arbcom, ANI, or immediately blocking all due to seperate incidents and all within the last two weeks. Also a further three other editors helped me collect diffs showing Mbz's poor behaviour and that another admin had advised me to take Mbz1 here. Passionless -Talk 06:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Malik Shabazz

I think an indefinite topic ban may be too much for Mbz1. May I suggest a one-year topic-ban followed by a probationary period? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jaakobou

Regarding Sandstein's comment: The provided diff of special concern leads me to believe -- per "even Sharon himself could have made that call" -- that at the very least Passionless, who first joined the page suggesting it should be deleted, lacks the sensitivity of participating in articles about victims of terrorist attacks. I haven't went much deeper into diffs, but I would find serious offense in the above mentioned provocation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass

In relation to Passionless, I would just say that I think at least a couple of his recent blocks were questionable and probably should have been overturned. I'm not persuaded at this point that he has caused enough disruption to warrant an extended topic ban. Gatoclass (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Mbz1

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

I invite both Mbz1 and Passionless to explain, in 300 words or less, why they should not be banned from interacting with or commenting on each other. T. Canens (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to stay out of the decision making here, but I would be intrigued to hear how they think their presence is beneficial to the the topic area, since the diffs both have presented go beyond their own feud. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Mbz: I'm not necessarily advocating a topic ban for either of you, but given that you request one for Passionless and Pasionless requests the same for you, it's one of several things worth considering and shouldn't be ruled out without due consideration. Exactly what sanctions, if any, are to be made, is something I will leave up to others. The reason I phrased the above question the way I did is because it's easy for admins (never mind the parties) to look at the negative and not consider the good that you've both done on Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the userlinks templates for both editors:

Passionless (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mbz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both Passionless and Mbz1 have scary-looking block logs. Passionless had an indefinite block lifted only in March. Mbz1 makes good contributions, but as she says, only 5% of her contributions are in the I/P area. Sanctions should be actively considered when a problem has continued for a long time. Passionless has ~~only been on Wikipedia since February 19~~ been on Wikipedia since February, 2010 but has been in the thick of the fight on I/P topics. He has already had four blocks. The most recent one, an indef block, was only lifted on March 17. My suggestions are:

Interaction ban between Passionless and Mbz1 per T. Canens' suggestion.
One year topic ban from I/P for both Passionless and Mbz1

The long listing of Mbz1's intemperate comments above suggests that her battleground thinking has not abated since the discussion of her behavior last December at ANI. She has mostly complied with her unblocking agreement with Gwen Gale last December, except that she makes complaints about Passionless' behavior directly on his talk page which I think is contrary to her agreement with Gwen: here. I think the language requires going through an intermediary to complain about Passionless: "You've agreed to stay away from ANI, AN, SPIs and AEs for six months, along with going to only one experienced editor or admin if you have worries about the behaviour of another editor." Mbz1 is unhappy with the Gwen Gale agreement. I think if Mbz1 is banned from I/P topics it might reduce the need for Gwen Gale's restrictions, since most of the troubling comments by Mbz1 quoted above were made in the course of I/P disputes. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Mbz1's statement about the Gwen Gale agreement: The restrictions which Gwen Gale said you agreed to in December, 2010 have never been discussed, much less overturned, at any noticeboard. We must assume they are still in effect. The AE board has the ability to re-impose them under the Arbcom decision if necessary. You should present arguments showing that your behavior makes them no longer necessary, if you can. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Per Gwen Gale's talk, it appears that she lifted her restrictions as of 27 March. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the mutual interaction ban and with the topic ban for Mbz1, although I would impose it for an indefinite duration. Mbz1's conduct, as is apparent from the evidence, continues to be poor in this topic area despite years of topic bans and blocks, including an indefinite block. Edits like [116] are of particular concern. I am not necessarily opposed to a topic ban for Passionless also, but I am not sure that the limited evidence of misconduct in this thread warrants this measure. Sandstein 17:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with EdJohnston's proposed sanctions. Either indef or 1 year is fine with me for Mbz1. T. Canens (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miradre 2

Request concerning Miradre

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Miradre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

[117] Misrepresents material in the main article to suit POV
[118] Original Synthesis of Material
[119] Mis-use of statistics to to suggest Race is causation factor rather than simply on of the data sets.

This is a continued behavior from previous AE which was not actionable because of of insufficient Notification of Sanctions

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Warned on March 11 by 2over0 (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested

Topic ban from Race Related articles broadly construed

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I came across this discussion on WP:FTN#Race and crime and was horrified to find one the most POV articles I have ever seen. ITs at AFD now. Review of the talk page reveled alot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I have checked several thousand edits back and cannot find something that was not Race or Intelligence related.The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Miradre, I am addressing observable behaviors with evidence. Please state my POV that you accuse me of trying to push? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Miradre

Statement by Miradre

Race and crime is not even marked as being under any editing restrictions or active arbitration remedies. The 3 diffs does not show any violation of policy. The first diff is a summarization of material after I had moved the material to the main article. The two others are supported by the given sources. If anything, the nominating editor should be censured for this attempt to ban me. He is also trying to delete the article itself, certainly a notable and much discussed topic: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and crime (3rd nomination)‎. This is just another attempt to push his own POV.Miradre (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to AndyTheGrump: I am not clear exactly far the arbitration remedies apply. Does it applies to only the main topics about race and intelligence? Or every topic where IQ is one of many different theories for explaining racial differences? Maybe it does. But it is hard for me to know where the line goes. I only know that the article was not marked as all other main articles about race and intelligence have been. Anyhow, this does not matter because none of the given diffs is even remotely close to any policy violation.
Reply to Jagiello: That is incorrect. If I wanted to include only the views of one side, then, for example, when I cited the Handbook of Crime Correlates, a literature review of 5200 studies and certainly not a racist source, I should only have mentioned official crime rates which all shows racial differences. But instead I also included the opposing views from self-reported offending. This occurred before the current dispute started and no one except me was interested in the article. On the other hand, some of those now disliking unpleasant views have simply mass deleted sourced information they dislike, not even added by me, or deleted links to entire subarticles on this topic.[120][121] If anyone should be censured, it is such editors.Miradre (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Aprock: Aprock again takes up the many months old SPI, as he did during the last AE. I deny Aprock's highly misleading descriptions of by now old editing that has already been discussed in an earlier AE. Aprock again implies I am banned user. The truth is far more simpler. Yes, I have edited under another username before. But I did not change the name because I was banned. Obviously when editing such a highly controversial topic I want to remain anonymous. I only edit under the current name now. I find it somehow strange that Aprock should accuse me of POV editing since he has consistently pushed his own POV and argued for social theories and against biological theories in his own editing. I include views from both sides if they are in the sources. See my earlier comments above on me including material from both sides. Regarding this situation at Race and Sports I note for example this diff showing that I have reached a mutual beneficial understanding with current main editor there.[122]Miradre (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to note that I have received much praise for my editing to articles such as IQ as can be seen on my talk page.[123] Including by academic researchers in the field as can be seen if looking who have added the remarks.[124] I have spent considerable effort and time in order to improve Wikipedia on these topics. The facts and proposed explanations may not always be as everyone would like the world to be. But I hope that Wikipedia is not censored also when the results may be unpleasant.Miradre (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My motivation for editing these controversial topics

Because the topic of biological differences between groups may be automatically automatically unpleasant and thus may be simply rejected because of this, I feel I must add why researchers on this think their research is important and not harmful to society. It will explain my motivation for editing in order to include these views, along opposing ones according to policy.

Researchers investing racial differences and arguing that they are biological are often accused of racism and that their research may harm society. In defense, Steven Pinker has stated that it is "a conventional wisdom among left-leaning academics that genes imply genocide." He has responded to this "conventional wisdom" by comparing the history of Marxism, which had the opposite position on genes to that of Nazism:

But the 20th century suffered "two" ideologies that led to genocides. The other one, Marxism, had no use for race, didn't believe in genes and denied that human nature was a meaningful concept. Clearly, it's not an emphasis on genes or evolution that is dangerous. It's the desire to remake humanity by coercive means (eugenics or social engineering) and the belief that humanity advances through a struggle in which superior groups (race or classes) triumph over inferior ones.^[1]

Jensen and Rushton point out that research has shown that also in a group with a lower average some individuals will be above the average of other groups. They also argue that when society is blamed for disparities in average group achievements that instead result from biological differences, the result is demands for compensation from the less successful group which the more successful group feel is unjustified, causing mutual resentment.^[2] Linda Gottfredson similarly argues that denying real biological differences instead cause people to seek something to blame causing hostility between groups. In the US, examples being the views that whites are racist or blacks are lazy. She furthermore argues that "virtually all the victim groups of genocide in the Twentieth Century had relatively high average levels of achievement (e.g., German Jews, educated Cambodians, Russian Kulaks, Armenians in Turkey, Ibos in Nigeria; Gordon, 1980)."^[3] Gottfredson has also disputed that a lower achieving group gains from denying or concealing real biological differences. An increasingly complex society built on the assumption than everyone can do equally well means that they who do not have this ability have increasing trouble functioning in most areas of life. They need various forms of special assistance which is not possible as long as the need is denied to exist.^[3]^[4]

^ "United Press International: Q&A: Steven Pinker of 'Blank Slate".(2002)
^ Jensen, A.R.; Rushton, J.P. (2005). "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability". Psychology, Public Policy and Law. 11: 246 248. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235.http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
^ ^a ^b Linda Gottfredson (2005), What if the Hereditarian Hypothesis Is True?, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law Volume 11, Issue 2, June 2005, Pages 311-319, http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Gottfredson.pdf
^ Linda Gottfredson (2007), Flynn, Ceci, and Turkheimer on Race and Intelligence: Opening Moves, http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/11/26/linda-s-gottfredson/flynn-ceci-and-turkheimer-on-race-and-intelligence-opening-moves

Comments by others about the request concerning Miradre

Can I point out that Miradre's comment that "race and crime is not even marked as being under any editing restrictions or active arbitration remedies" is rather disingenuous, given his contributions to an article that expressly refers to a (supposed) "relationship between IQ and crime" as one of the explanations. Indeed, in this diff [125] Miradre explicitly refers to the linkage. I cannot see how he can reasonably claim not to see that this came within the arbitration remidies remit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miradre uses remarkably elaborate tactics of discussion and editing to protect his/her white-supremacist POV. See the synchronic evolution of race and crime, discussion page, and admin reporting. Miardre resists any inclusion of non-racist (i.e. mainstream science) POV by covert agressive discussion tactics, making concessions to mainstream views only when faced with deletion procedure. Miardre has absolutely no interest for non-racist POV science unless it can be strategically used to protect his/her own POV-pushing. I assumed good faith at the beginning of the discussion but soon found it impossible. Jagiello (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Boothello

This thread needs to be examined by someone who's familiar enough with the source material to gauge whether Miradre's edits have actually violated any policies. I see a lot of indignation that Miradre would dare to include material about such an offensive viewpoint, and very little discussion about whether his edits are actually supported by the sources. I'll go through the diffs one by one:

In the first edit, Miradre said "There are large disparities in crime rates for the different racial/ethnic groups in the United States. A number of theories have been proposed as explanations." According to The Resident Anthropologist, this edit "Misrepresents material in the main article to suit POV." The lead section of the article that Miradre is summarizing, Race and crime in the United States, says "Since the 1980s, the debate has centered around the causes of and contributing factors to the disproportional representation of racial minorities (particularly African Americans, hence "Black crime") at all stages of the criminal justice system, including arrests, prosecutions and incarcerations." This statement has been in the article for over a year, and is cited to four different sources. Did Miradre misrepresent this article? It doesn't look like he did.

In the second edit, Miradre added the text "as well as an analysis showing that 52% of the variance of these as well as other factor (birth rate and infant mortality) could be explained by a single factor", which Resident Anthropologist says is original synthesis. The source being cited says "Violent crime was found to be lower in countries with higher IQs, higher life expectancies, lighter skin color, and lower rates of HIV/AIDS, although not with higher national incomes or higher rates of infant mortality. A principal components analysis found the first general factor accounted for 52% of the variance." Is it original synthesis to add an exact paraphrase of what's said by the source being used? I don't think so.

In the third edit, Miradre added some additional details from the Handbook of Crime Correlates. All of the material that he added is in this source, so it's difficult to tell what's the problem here. Most of chapter 2 ("Demographic correlates") in this book is devoted to discussing crime rates by race, and "crime rates" is both the term that Miradre used and the term used in this source. Anyone can verify this for themselves at Google books.

I notice that Resident Anthropologist has engaged in WP:CANVASSING to attract people likely to agree with him to this AE thread. [126] [127] [128] This is a fairly transparent attempt at using AE to keep information that he finds offensive off of Wikipedia, even though in all three of the diffs provided Miradre's edits are correctly summarizing what the sources say. If the information added by Miradre is supported by the sources used, he is not doing anything wrong by adding it. On the other hand, if Resident Anthropologist succeeds at censoring the viewpoint he doesn't like by means of canvassing and baseless accusations of source misrepresentation, that will be bad for Wikipedia.Boothello (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by aprock

Miradre is a returning user, who's original identity was not found during a sock puppet investigation last October. He has not responded to requests for information about what previous account(s) he has edited under, nor explained why he has opened a new account to pursue his current editing. Given the disruptive editing behavior detailed then, previous to the prior AE request, and now, it is quite possible that he is a santioned user returning to edit in a manner consistent with WP:CPUSH. A concurrent demonstration of his disruptive editing can be found at the AfD for Race and Crime, an article created by a user banned for racist edits, and now championed by Miradre. Another recent example of his disruptive editing can be found on the [talk page of Race and sports]. Because this is a case of civil pov pushing, simple diffs are unlikely to shed light on the full level of disruption, I strongly urge administrators to review the AfD discussion and the talk page discussion linked to above. Diffs of specific disruptive behavior from last October which match those supplied above can be found on the SPI page. aprock (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note to Sandstein: From [129]: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles. I guess it is an open question as to whether or not Race and crime, (and Race and sports), constitute "closely related articles", but as AndyTheGrump noted above, even Miradre seems to think that they are related in some way. aprock (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Miradre

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

I have not examined the edits in question, but the case defines the topic covered by discretionary sanctions as "articles within the Category:Race and intelligence controversy". Because Race and crime is not in that category, this makes the request not actionable, unless the article is shown to have been in the category during the time of the allegedly disruptive conduct. Sandstein 05:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anonimu

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Anonimu

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Codrin.B (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu, Conditions to provisionally suspend Anonimu's ban

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

[130], [131], [132] Blalant vandalism, removal of properly sourced content and attempt to push a radically different version, against scientifical consensus, in the Capidava article. A well known Dacian town, with a proper Dacian name and history, who he wants to represent at all cost as non-Dacian despite all content from reputable archaeologists and historians. More specifically, he repeateadly violated the 1RR revert parole that he is subject to after his ban was provisionally suspended.
[133] Blanking of Dacian Script without any attempt to talk. Later, managed to gain enough votes to delete the article. The topic of the article was about controversial archeological finds. The article itself was well sourced and not controversial at all.
[134] Blatant removal of WikiProject Dacia tag from Talk:Constanţa although it is clearly known as an important ancient city for the Geto-Dacian history, therefore important for the project
[135] Blanking the Crobidae and redirecting it to Krobyzoi, without any attempt to merge the different content in the two articles.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

I don't know what can be done. To me it seems a case impossible to fix. However, I'll let those in charge to decide. All I am looking for is a collaborative, friendly environment. When I joined Wikipedia and started WP:DACIA in good faith and out of interest for history, I didn't imagine I would spend my time writing such a report, instead of creating articles...

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Based on these edits and many other aggressive edits of Dacia-related articles (and not only), while refusing to collaborate, be a team-player, be civil, join WP:DACIA if he has a genuine interest in it, one can obviously see that he is hounding and stalking the project, the articles, me personally and other collaborators. He seems to have a xenophobic obsession to minimize or plainly remove any references to Dacians and/or Getae from historical articles, using sophistry, gaming the system and being generally engaged in disruptive editing.

Additionally, if you check his edit history, many of his edits are in highly controversial articles, trying to push marginal POVs by force, actively seeking conflict. A high majority of his edit comments are ironical, hostile, far from civility, full of reverts everywhere.

To me these are blatant breaches of these conditions imposed into him when his ban was provisionally suspended:

that you are subject to civility parole
and you behave at all times impeccably.

I personally made countless attempts to invite him to collaboration, team work, and to created an enjoyable environment around the articles of shared interest, within WP:DACIA scope or elsewhere. It seems hopeless and impossible, and a lot of time is spent trying to recover articles from his disruptive edits instead of working on quality content and something enjoyable.

And above all, I fail to see how he respects ANY of the conditions imposed after his ban was suspended. Because of all this, I am sadly forced to request a thorough review of his case.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User notified here.

Discussion concerning Anonimu

Statement by Anonimu

Comments by others about the request concerning Anonimu

Result concerning Anonimu

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

I don't think that this is actionable in terms of arbitration enforcement, because the sanction that you ask us to enforce has been vacated by the Committee itself. The cited unblock message by Roger Davies says that: "This suspension may be rescinded at any time and the community ban reinstated by majority vote of ArbCom if you are in breach of any of the above conditions." This means that only the Committee may reinstate the ban, and any request to that effect should be directed to the Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. An independent request for enforcement could conceivably be based on WP:DIGWUREN, but would require a prior notification of that case. Even then, the only obviously problematic conduct reported in the request is the edit-warring on Capidava, the other matters look like content disputes. Sandstein 05:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[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.

[3] "United Press International: Q&A: Steven Pinker of 'Blank Slate".(2002)

[Rushton_2005-4] Jensen, A.R.; Rushton, J.P. (2005). "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability". Psychology, Public Policy and Law. 11: 246 248. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235.http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

[G2005-5] Linda Gottfredson (2005), What if the Hereditarian Hypothesis Is True?, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law Volume 11, Issue 2, June 2005, Pages 311-319, http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Gottfredson.pdf

[6] Linda Gottfredson (2007), Flynn, Ceci, and Turkheimer on Race and Intelligence: Opening Moves, http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/11/26/linda-s-gottfredson/flynn-ceci-and-turkheimer-on-race-and-intelligence-opening-moves

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 655: / Line 655: @@
 *Reply to AndyTheGrump: I am not clear exactly far the arbitration remedies apply. Does it applies to only the main topics about race and intelligence? Or every topic where IQ is one of many different theories for explaining racial differences? Maybe it does. But it is hard for me to know where the line goes. I only know that the article was not marked as all other main articles about race and intelligence have been. Anyhow, this does not matter because none of the given diffs is even remotely close to any policy violation.
 *Reply to Jagiello: That is incorrect. If I wanted to include only the views of one side, then, for example, when I cited the ''Handbook of Crime Correlates'', a literature review of 5200 studies and certainly not a racist source, I should only have mentioned official crime rates which all shows racial differences. But instead I also included the opposing views from self-reported offending. This occurred before the current dispute started and no one except me was interested in the article. On the other hand, some of those now disliking unpleasant views have simply mass deleted sourced information they dislike, not even added by me, or deleted links to entire subarticles on this topic.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&diff=422403214&oldid=422401097][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&diff=422401097&oldid=422399652] If anyone should be censured, it is such editors.[[User:Miradre|Miradre]] ([[User talk:Miradre|talk]]) 02:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
+*Reply to Aprock:  Aprock again takes up the many months old SPI, as he did during the last AE. I deny Aprock's highly misleading descriptions of by now old editing that has already been discussed in an earlier AE. Aprock again implies I am banned user. The truth is far more simpler. Yes, I have edited under another username before. But I did not change the name because I was banned. Obviously when editing such a highly controversial topic I want to remain anonymous. I only edit under the current name now. I find it somehow strange that Aprock should accuse me of POV editing since he has consistently pushed his own POV and argued for social theories and against biological theories in his own editing. I include views from both sides if they are in the sources. See my earlier comments above on me including material from both sides. Regarding this situation at Race and Sports I note for example this diff showing that I have reached a mutual beneficial understanding with current main editor there.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_sports&diff=422282805&oldid=422282402][[User:Miradre|Miradre]] ([[User talk:Miradre|talk]]) 07:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 *I would also like to note that I have received much praise for my editing to articles such as IQ as can be seen on my talk page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Miradre#Well_Done.21] Including by academic researchers in the field as can be seen if looking who have added the remarks.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tim_bates] I have spent considerable effort and time in order to improve Wikipedia on these topics. The facts and proposed explanations may not always be as everyone would like the world to be. But I hope that Wikipedia is not censored also when the results may be unpleasant.[[User:Miradre|Miradre]] ([[User talk:Miradre|talk]]) 01:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards