Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:03, 9 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

Mbz1

Mbz1 and Passionless are topic banned from all articles and pages covered by WP:ARBPIA for a period of one year. Each editor is further indefinitely interaction banned from the other across all pages.

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

[1] 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
[2] "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
[3] "You are lying and trolling as usually"
[4] "trolls and wikihounds, [ ] and, who are spreading lies about me"
[5] edit line:"responding to the troll"
[6] "I hoped that an admin with your experience is able to exercise some common sense." .... "Poor, poor wikipedia that has administrators as you are."
[7] "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.
[8] "User:Passionless is a wikihound...wikihounding is the worse, the dirtiest kind of behavior one could exhibit."
[9] 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.
[10]- 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.
[11] edit summary of "reverted trolling".
[12] "I hoped that an admin with your experience is able to exercise, no not fairness, but just a common sense."
Incivility
[13] "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.
[14] "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.
[15] "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."
[16] Adds links which show number of articles created for the purpose of discrediting another editor as inexperienced.
[17] "Of course some people have common sense while others do not."
[18] Claiming others are attacking her/witch hunt.
Saying disturbing/racist things
[19] 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.
[20] 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
[21] "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.
[22] 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 [23] the comments.
[24] -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.
[25] "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)

[26] Warning by Gwen Gale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
[27] Warning by Ohiostandard (talk · contribs)
[28] 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: [29]

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. I will only stop at the differences that are connected to I/P conflict, but by request could provide an explanation for other differences.

[30] 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]
[31] "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.

[32] "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

[33] 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]
[34]- 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]
[35] "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]
[36] "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]
[37] 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 [38] 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]

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. --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]

user:passionless does not appear to be interested in writing articles I let others write (I suck at writing), which is fine.
- Instead user:passionless sees himself as a watcher for POV pushing "I watch for POV pushing and for non RSs, like I recently...
- In reality user:passionless is a POV pusher. After that user used unreliable source to add to an article about adoption of disabled Iraqi boy an information of Americans sexually exploiting children User:Jimbo Wales called this an "outrageous conduct."
- Another example passionless calls Israeli towns, that have been in Israel territory ever since the creation of Israel "settlements" trying to justify firing rockets on civilian population of those towns
- Looks like user:passionless, who is "suck at writing" articles is going at least to make a great watcher for POV violations :-)

Below is a copy from this AE request
- Passionless (talk · contribs) has engaged in sustained edit warring, misused the rollback tool on edits that are not clearly vandalism ([39][40][41]), and attempted to game the topic-area 1RR ([42][43][44]).

user:passionless accuses me in using a word "hound".
- In reality here are some quotes from user:passionless "Oh and Shrike, please see WP:HOUND, if I find you following me again I will report you."; "what do you think about taking user:Rym Torch to ANI for hounding me after I warned him to stop.";"Also following my edits is considered hounding and of course is not appreciated either"

I ask you to ban user:passionless and me on interaction and give it a try. Let's see what happens in a month or two. --Mbz1 (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 [45], [46], [47]). 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]
- 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 [48]. 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 [49]. 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]

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]

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]

Another recent example was User:Brews ohare, a professional educator with many high quality contributions, who was banned soon after having a dispute about presentation of Pythagorean theorem [50]. Yes, I strongly agree that prolific content contribution is not an acceptable excuse for bad behavior. However, productive editors with problems should only receive brief blocks, 1RR restrictions or may be even topic bans, but only for a short period of time. Why? Because we already have a significantly less manpower than needed for the good of the project. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 21:14, 5 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 [51] [52]. 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]
- You have been recently involved in active conflict with Mbz1 and contributed in development of the conflict [53]. Your failure to admit it is not an argument in your favor. Yes, you contacted administrators by email to make sure that it is her, but not you who will be sanctioned. Will it work? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Bwilkins, You say you want to topic ban me, I must ask for what reasons, what have I done since my last block that would allow such an action? I hope you realize many of the diffs provided by Mbz about me are from or have been handled in previous cases. Like mentioned by others here, there is a lack of evidence to really topic ban me. Passionless -Talk 18:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you made mistake by contacting admins and other users off-wiki and listening to them [54]. Here is my advice: do not contact anyone off-wiki or on-wiki to sanction other editors, do not complain, and do not contribute to development of conflicts by reverting or talking. Then you will be safe.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 21:25, 6 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 ZScarpia

Since it looks to me as though, to a large extent, Mbz1 was provoked, and since her comments don't appear to me to be particularly heinous (compared to the general level in the IP area), I think that a long-term topic ban would be unjust. Unfortunately, because of her history, Mbz1 has become a bit of an easy mark. I do, though, think that it would be useful to continue the restriction on raising cases on noticeboards. ← ZScarpia 17:11, 5 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]

The point was that nobody knew for sure that it was a terrorist attack. Despite having no firm evidence, Sharon was very quick to pin the blame on the Palestinian authority. There was a phonecall claiming responsibility, but, the feeling seems to be, there was a reasonable probability of its having been a hoax.

A feature of the IP area which is not going to go away is that groups of editors who find each other's attitudes mutually vile have to interact in a reasonably civil manner. A requirement for doing that is that a reasonably robust attitude is taken, which, for one thing, means choosing to overlook things which are found offensive. I suspect that those who complain about a lack of sensitivity in others are probably the most insensitive about offence that they may be causing.

← ZScarpia 17:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant nothing by it, Sharon was the PM of Israel at the time of the murders, so I picked him as an outlandish example that anyone could have made that call, and also to show that there is a motive for a false anonymous phone call at the same time. Passionless -Talk 18:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing rocks on the article and the people involved caused Mbz1 to threw one back. It's akin to citing George W. Bush could have perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.

p.s. ZScarpia, I don't like comments which suggests Passionless (or anyone else, for that matter) is "the most insensitive" editor. An editor should be judged by his participation and contributions and not by emotive and personal exaggerations. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting Mbz1 is not responsible for her actions and thus unaccountable? And your comparison made little sense. Passionless -Talk 22:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the diff of special concern, and you should be more focused on how you created that escalation. I'm not here to condone or attack anyone, but that exchange does illustrate lack of sensitivity when working on an article of terrorism victims. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The point was that nobody knew for sure that it was a terrorist attack." ← ZScarpia 17:07, 6 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]

Comment by Soosim

Seems to me to be a battle of egos and personalities. i can attest that passionless frequently reverts my edits, claiming POV, but his/her POV is quite selective. not convinced anyone needs a ban here, but maybe just need to learn to be more civil. i get involved in lots of 'wars' but always civily (go ahead, ask around....). i read though the entire exchange above. nothing warrants banning, but rather 'supervision'... Soosim (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

one example of passionless's npov=pov is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2011&diff=prev&oldid=419897395] where s/he calls israeli towns 'settlements' in an area of the country where there is no dispute about them being towns. i know the rationale was 'but that is what the original french article said' - yes, but that is still a bit over the top. Soosim (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw an account named "IsraeliUpdater" with less than 10 edits change settlement to town, I read the French source, it said "agglomérations israéliennes" which means Israeli settlements, not "ville israéliennes" which would be Israeli town, so I reverted the edit and left. I should have looked into it more, but I did not know that the French do not follow the standard in English of refusing to call a small Israeli village a settlement for fear of the connection to the illegal Israeli settlements. Small honest mistake which was quickly corrected with no squable, and now I know.

"i can attest that passionless frequently reverts my edits, claiming POV" Please do attest to this, I do not remember ever speaking with you, or reverting your edits, I really hope you didn't just think you could spit out libel without any proof? If you cannot prove that 'I frequently revert your edits' than I ask you to strike out your comments and apologize. Passionless -Talk 18:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tzu Zha Men

What I see here is nothing more than a couple of editors with an on-going personal feud. The best solution here is an interaction ban.
But if topic bans are to be handed out, they need to be meted out in an even-handed way. While Mbz1's conduct is far from perfect as the diffs above and her block history illustrate, Passionless's behavior is not any better, and he seems to have come here with unclean hands. Recall if you will that Passionless was just very recently indef blocked for 'treating Wikipedia as a battleground; obviously incapable of editing in a collaborative editing environment or in compliance with core policies like NPOV and BLP'. That block was lifted just 2 weeks ago, with the unblocking admin noting he was unblocking only after receiving assurances from Passionless "that in future he will ensure that his editing is scrupulously in accordance with policy. " (emphasis is mine). A mere two days after that promise, Passionless was edit-warring, breaking 1RR on an article subject to that restriction, and being warned by an administrator that "you breached 1rr. Now you know. Given the background on this, you shouldn't be reverting GF content at all in IP topics".[55] Five days later, another admin provided yet another warning, after the conflict spilled into ITN. A day later, he announced his plans to bring Mbz1 to AE,and was advised against that by two admins, Gatoclass and Malik Shabazz. Gatoclass told him "filing a report on another user is only likely to reinforce the impression of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, so I think you should just drop this", and that "since getting unblocked you appear to have taken up where you left off. " [56] - truer words have not been spoken.
Finally, Passionless has stated that "I really do not write a lot on I-P articles" - in which case an I/P topic ban should really not be much of a hardship on him. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nsaum75

Either you are going to be fair here and call a spade a spade and take decisive action, or once again a band-aid approach will be taken that will only draw out the situation and lead to further disruption. The inability (or unwillingness) of administrators to take decisive action and the concern over "maintaining balance" only serves to discredit Wikipedia, while maintaining a hostile environment. By allowing the IP area to remain a battlefield (with editors one-upping each other) you are running off good editors and potential new contributors. Wikipedia in general has been suffering from fall in the number of new contributors for a while, and by maintaining the "status quo" administrators here are contributing to the problem. The good of the entire project outweighs the "rights" of individual editors whose primary actions on WP create a battlefield, contribute to animosity and in general run off people who wish to be constructive; Honestly, if you cannot see that, then you don't belong making "decisions" here in this case or any other. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 03:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Betsythedevine

Mbz1 is a prolific and valued contributor in many areas. But ...

Rather than take any of her particular remarks out of context, I would urge you to read through Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blame_Israel_first. This is the AfD of an article created by Mbz1, which was deleted only after a large number of uninvolved editors showed up in response to an ANI post. Until those new people chimed in, it was clear that Mbz1 and her supporters were once again having it all their own way, in happy agreement that the article had no problems with WP:SYNTH or POV, while just a few tried to get the sure-to-be-kept-and-front-paged-via-DYK article made a bit better. Those of us who opposed Mbz1 came in for harsh public criticism, and I myself have refrained from even participating in the discussions of two of her more recent front-paged articles w:User_talk:Mbz1/Archive_3#DYK_for_Murder_of_Koby_Mandell_and_Yosef_Ishran and While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within.

If Mbz1 is volunteering to abide by some civility restrictions, I would urge you to create something very specific and clear, as were Gwen Gale's restrictions on Mbz1's posting to ANI and AE. It was truly upsetting to see a concern I expressed linked to by Mbz1 as a prime example of "trolls and wikihounds, who hardly wrote an article themselves,who hardly uploaded a picture, and, who are spreading lies about me, like that one for instance, the lies that fools would listen." betsythedevine (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last appeal by Mbz1

At closing administrator:

I wrote such articles as

Banning me on the topic would mean removing from the topic a unique contributor. I am an unique contributor nobody, but me wrote an article about culture or history of people from the opposite side of conflict.

Yes, AfD, could get heated sometimes, but I realize that calling users "trolls" is unacceptable. I could be banned on using this word. I could be placed on zero tolerance civility alert, but there's absolutely nothing in the presented, taken out of content differences, none of which was made in the main space to topic-ban me on I/P conflict. Please allow me to contribute to wikipedia. Please do not make your decision on totality of evidences, make your decision on their quality. Thanks

As you have noted already, none of the diffs are about content, that is because this AE is about your behaviour towards other editors. While parts of your content creation may be fine, that does not excuse your poor behaviour. Passionless -Talk 19:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this statement is my best defense! Thank you for this.It proves my point perfectly well. I have no problems with content in the I/P related area. My behavior problems could be easily solved by placing me on special civility restrictions.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not, what I meant was I thought your behaviour alone was alone enough for a topic ban so I did not need to bring up your I-P content problems. Passionless -Talk 23:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Broccolo

user:mbz1 is a great content contributor. She has been singled out, and constantly provoked by a few users for many months.
On the other hand user:passionless who from his own words is good only to "watch for POV pushing and for non RSs is a greatest POV pusher. Besides it will be more than ridiculous to ban user:mbz1 for using the word "trolling" on the evidences submitted by user:passionless who uses such language as "Fuck life" or ":Fuck, looks like you admins leave me no choice and are trying to force my hand." just to give you two examples.

While user:Mbz1 behavior could be easily fixed by placing her on some civility restrictions, user:passionless problematic editing pattern could be addressed only by topic ban.--Broccolo (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"So what fucking rule did I break now?"--Mbz1 (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"So next time I'm harassed by an admin I need to be act like their bitch to get unblocked?"--Mbz1 (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cptnono

See the above. I also agree that civility restrictions on Mbz1 could do the trick. I also agree that Passionless is an infuriating editor. However, the block log is going to be the deciding factor as is made clear by the comments by admins below. Mbz1 will be blocked. So this is a message of support. I have no doubt that Mbz1 can return to the topic area and contribute the quality shown throughout the project. I cannot tell you how impressed I am with her images and the fact that she is nowhere near an SPA. So Bwilkins wants to make sure indef means at least 1 year. 1 year is a pretty long time considering the rate of retirement here. A stiff block (3 month, 6 months, 1 year, 5 years, 20 years) will all serve the same purpose.

Of course, anything I say means nothing since I have been pretty uncivil. But Mbz1 is actually one of the editors who consistently contributes decent (if not fantastic) content. Although we are not supposed to be biased in regards to length of service, adminship, and so on... we are. Mbz1 deserves the respect that editors who actually contribute should recieve. If it takes a year for her to come back then so be it. It doesn't look like anyone is willing to give "another chance" but keep in mind while deciding, admins, that Pasionless's report is flawed for the most part. Yes, there was some wrongdoing on Mbz1's part but nowhere near the level asserted with that bombardment.

Good luck and thank you Mbz1.Cptnono (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's an important clarification about my block log. My latest block for December was posted by a canvased administrator Gwen Gale. I was not sure about the policies, and if such practices was OK, but now I was given clarifications by administrator EdJohnston "Admins ought to be uncanvassable. Any admin who gets an improper request on their talk page should not take the proposed action. If they do, a question may be raised as to their fitness to be an admin.." This block generated 5 lines in my block record including changing my block's settings to indefinite, and then removing my talk page access that was done by a canvassed administrator. So, I was unfairly blocked in December, and to ban me now because of my block log is make the injustice that was done against me even worse.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:19, 7 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 [57] 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]

I think this may be the time for some kind of topic ban, handled by an admin other than myself, following arbcom's topic area sanctions, as above. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent interaction ban between the two editors. Indefinite Topic Ban, broadly construed for both editors, with an ability to appeal to ArbComm after no less than 1 yr time from the time the ban is put in force. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can't limit appeals to arbcom. T. Canens (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An argument could be made for dismissing this report with prejudice given the weak and highly inappropriate nature of the filing statement, but this looks like consensus for an interaction ban and topic bans all around, so that is what I am imposing. I set the request for modifications date at three months, with the usual proviso that productive contributions elsewhere will be weighed in any discussion of lifting the sanctions. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:24, 7 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

[58] Misrepresents material in the main article to suit POV
[59] Original Synthesis of Material
[60] 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]
@Sandstein since Miradre brought in the bag and let the cat out this indeed within the topic area. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage people to read WP:REDFLAG part of the policy of WP:V
- Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community Y No one claim in Criminology, Anthropology, Biology, Criminal Justice, or Sociology would claim Race is tied propensity to commit crimes other than as point of correlation but certainly not as causation as the aritcle as put together by Miradre advances.
- or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. Y again. Look at Magnus comments and Miradre
- This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. Y Read this AE discussion here and examine the arugments about material and subject matter here that Miradre is bringing to the table.

@SandStein you are correct Race and crime scope is not intuitivley with within WP:ARBR&I. However If a individual makes add material from the WP:ARBR&I topic area into the article See the sections Traits and Biological theories. No rationale person would insert that into an article like this! If we cant protect the spill over of this garbage into other a topic areas to protect the integrity of the encylopedia from WP:FRINGE crap then what needs to change? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Miradre

Statement by Miradre

Reply to The Resident Anthropologist: 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]
- Further reply: Your POV? You expressed it quite eloquently in the AfD discussion linked to above: "linking race and crime is bullshit and ingoring the issue in favor of POV pushing.... It Needs to be cleansed with fire". Not sure what your point regarding the rK-theory study is. I corrected some errors and explained it better here: [61] Regarding your misunderstanding that crime rates are somehow correlations or causes. I have already tried to explain this in the AfD discussion. Not sure how it can be explained better to you. Crime rates are, for example: number of crimes/year/100,000 people. That is neither a correlation or a cause.Miradre (talk) 16:31, 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 regarding Pinker on race: From The Blank Slate (p. 144): "Nowadays it is popular to say that races do not exist but are purely social constructions. Though that is certainly true of bureaucratic pigeonholes such as "colored," "Hispanic," "Asian/Pacific Islander," and the one-drop rule for being "black," it is an overstatement when it comes to human differences in general. The biological anthropologist Vincent Sarich points out that a race is just a very large and partly inbred family. Some racial distinctions thus may have a degree of biological reality, even though they are not exact boundaries between fixed categories. Humans, having recently evolved from a single founder population, are all related, but Europeans, having mostly bred with other Europeans for millennia, are on average more closely related to other Europeans than they are to Africans or Asians, and vice versa. Because oceans, deserts, and mountain ranges have prevented people from choosing mates at random in the past, the large inbred families we call races are still discernible, each with a somewhat different distribution of gene frequencies. In theory, some of the varying genes could affect personality or intelligence (though any such differences would at most apply to averages, with vast overlap between the group members). This is not to say that such genetic differences are expected or that we have evidence for them, only that they are biologically possible."Miradre (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply again: Pinker does not say that the differences must be minor. Nor does he state anything specific, denial or confirmation, regarding any specific mental factor. He carefully avoids that. Here he makes a very general defense of biological race and in the other quote defends very generally the idea that genes are important and that this does not have to lead to genocide. Am I a single-purpose account? Not sure. WP:SPA states "When identifying SPAs, it is important to consider what counts as a diverse group of edits. For example, subjects like spiders, nutrition, baseball, and geometry are diversified topics within themselves. If a user only edits within a broad topic, this does not mean the user is an SPA." While I have a focus it is quite broad. I have edited, for example, on how Malaria affects intelligence, Human Accomplishment, Evolutionary psychology, Race and sports, Intelligence and health, Theory of multiple intelligences, and Race and crime. Certainly a focus but according to the quote above it may be to broad for a SPA. Regardless, I agree with "If you wish to continue working as a SPA, capitalize on the strengths of that role, particularly as regards sources. Be willing to buy or borrow books and articles on your chosen subject. Search thoroughly for information on-line. Make notes reminding you from where your information comes, carefully check its reliability and neutrality. Reproduce it in the form of citations." That I have done and as noted below received praise for my improvements by experts on the subjects. I have made a lot of edits. Most of them are just simple, boring housecleaning edits in order to improve the articles. I do not see any of those wanting to ban me from the area making any large attempts to improve the articles there themselves.Miradre (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.[62][63] 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 a banned user. The truth is far 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 comment above on this. 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.[64] Regarding my editing there causing disruption, I argue that even if the topic is controversial, there is now a rapidly improving and interesting article on Race and sports.Miradre (talk) 07:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Mathsci: Apart from the sockpuppet allegations, the many months old SPI, and general allegations of POV editing I discuss elsewhere, the main complaint at the previous AE was regarding talk page disputes between me and others regarding the existence of POV tags on articles. Link: [65] I have since avoided any similar protracted discussions regarding the existence of POV tags on the articles and have accepted their existence even when I personally have felt they have not been adequately explained. Still, I personally do not think that having long talk page discussions regarding the existence of POV tags was a very serious offense that should unduly affect future decisions. Regarding the other allegations made there by Aprock and repeated here again by Aprock see my reply to him as well as my reply here in general regarding the allegations of POV editing.Miradre (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Maunus: Regarding the r/K theory I changed to what the source states which anyone having the source can check for themselves. I changed an incorrect negative description to the neutral one which is in the source. Regarding the second diff, my edit summary explains it. Unsourced and a straw man. Regarding the content dispute, I note that no one has argued that the average IQ of US blacks can be applied to any group in the world with more or less African ancestry regardless of local environmental factors. Regarding the last diff, Maunus may think the r/K theory has been completely discredited, but this is not the case which the source in his first diff proves. An article mainly on crime is not the place to explain all the many arguments in support and all the many arguments against this rather complex theory. Indeed, if I did so I would instead be accused of undue weight on this theory. So I omitted explaining almost everything regarding the theory and mentioned none of the general evidence in its favor. I simply mentioned the crime aspect and a study specifically on the crime aspect and noted that there are general criticisms against the theory in the main article about it. Furthermore, Maunus is hardly the person to accuse others of not including opposing views. See this edit where he deletes all the sourced opposing views regarding the existence of biological races and leaves only the argument that it is a social construct: [66] Miradre (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, there were no "uninvolved user" who agreed with Maunus that there should be no opposing views. The only users who have edited the article after that time is Maunus and myself. Neither did I reinsert the material but instead voiced my opposition on the talk page. Maunus seems to argue below that the article should remain mostly a POV fork for his views because it is being considered for a merger with another article. That is of course not a good justification. Furthermore, no proper merger proposal have been done with only one template added and no talk page section for discussion of a merger. So it looks like the article will remain Maunus's POV fork for an indefinite time.Miradre (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another example of inappropriate POV pushing by Maunus. He changes the lead of the article to a straw man and inappropriate summary of current evidence and theories by introducing a long description on an ancient, easily rejected theory.[67] Miradre (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maunus continues with large scale POV pushing. Here he deletes opposing views from scholarly studies and books: [68][69] Miradre (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even more: A complete blanking of a section: [70] and more deletions of opposing, sourced views [71]Miradre (talk) 16:06, 9 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.[72] Including by academic researchers in the field as can be seen if looking who have added the remarks.[73] 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]
Another point is that I am pushing fringe views. But when asked anonymously, the only poll ever done on the views of IQ researchers showed that the partial genetic explanation was the most common explanation for the racial IQ gaps.^[1] Now this obviously does not mean that this view is the correct one or that there are not other significant views. But I do argue that this shows that this view is not a fringe one among the experts on the subject, when they are allowed to express their views anonymously.Miradre (talk) 08:46, 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.^[2]

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.^[3] 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)."^[4] 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.^[4]^[5]

^ Snyderman, Mark; Rothman, Stanley (1990). The IQ Controversy, the Media, and Public Policy. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. ISBN 0-88738-151-0.
^ "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

Comment by AndyTheGrump

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 [74] 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]

Once again, Miradre's use of the Stephen Pinker quote above illustrates his selective POV-pushing attitude to sources. In the previous paragraph of the same article Pinker responds to a question about genetic determinism:

Q: A common fear seems to be: "But if genetic determinism is actually true, doesn't that mean the Nazis were right?"

A: Genetic determinism is not true. Except for a few neurological disorders, no behavioral trait is determined with 100 percent probability by the genome, or anything else (we know this because identical twins are only similar, not indistinguishable, in their personality and intellect). Of course, even a statistical influence of the genes does not mean that the Nazis were right. Factually, they were wrong in believing that races and ethnic groups are qualitatively distinct in their biology, that they occupy different rungs on an evolutionary ladder, that they differ in morally worthy traits like courage and honesty, and that "superior" groups were endangered by interbreeding with "inferior" ones. Morally, they were wrong in causing the deaths of some 35 million innocent people and horrific suffering to countless others.

Miradre somehow manages to take this article as indicating Pinker's support for the study of 'racial differences' and crime as a legitimate subject, rather than as a commentary on the degree to which universals within human behaviour are subject to genetic influence. Pinker explicitly states that the Nazis "....were wrong in believing that races and ethnic groups are qualitatively distinct in their biology, that... they differ in morally worthy traits like courage and honesty". Can one assume that Miradre sees crime as other than "morally worthy"? I'd assume so. And yet he ignores Pinker's explicit statements... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now Miradre responds to the above Pinker quote by quoting Pinker again. Remember, Miradre first raised Pinker when he wrote "Researchers investing [sic] racial differences and arguing that they are biological are often accused of racism and that their research may harm society". But is Pinker researching 'racial differences'? In Miradre's latest quote, Pinker states "In theory, some of the [racially] varying genes could affect personality or intelligence (though any such differences would at most apply to averages, with vast overlap between the group members). This is not to say that such genetic differences are expected or that we have evidence for them, only that they are biologically possible". Pinker is arguing that minor, average 'racial' differences are possible - not that there is any evidence for them. He is not arguing that such minor differences could possibly explain the dramatic differences in crime rates cited in the Race and crime article. This is once again a misuse of a source to back up an assertion that Miradre wishes to make. Blatant POV-pushing, and totally at odds with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Single purpose accounts: "Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project". I assume that Miradre will not contest an assertion that his is a 'single purpose account'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. Miradre responds to the above with this: "Pinker does not say that the differences must be minor. Nor does he state anything specific, denial or confirmation, regarding any specific mental factor. He carefully avoids that". Is there any evidence that Pinker is 'carefully avoiding' anything? No. Miradre is claiming to be able to determine what Pinker's intentions are, without evidence. Or he is claiming to be telepathic. Nonsense of the highest order. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Sandstein: Whether the article necessarily falls under the arb case remit may perhaps be questionable, but the fact that Miradre's edits have expressly concerned a supposed link between 'race' and IQ isn't. He knew full well what he was doing - indeed, he continues to argue the same points in his response here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jagiello

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. [75] [76] [77] 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~~. I think it is telling that his explanation for creating a new account is that he wanted to edit in this controversial topic area anonymously. He appears to have understood that his edits would be perceived as problematic even before he made his first edit under his new account.

Given the disruptive editing behavior detailed then, previous to the prior AE request, and now, it is quite possible that he is a sanctioned 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 R/I Arbitration Remedies: 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. I posit that using J. Philippe Rushton ("a psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario, Canada, most widely known for his work on intelligence and racial differences") as a source may well qualify as "closely related" regardless of article. aprock (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

second note to Sandstein: What you seem to be saying is that what an article should be about determines whether it is "closely related", and not the actual content of the article or edits. In such a sense, if an editor comes into the article Giraffe, and begins adding content related to the race and intelligence debate, then those edits are not covered by AE here. Is that correct? aprock (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mathsci

Miradre had received a warning about Race and intelligence as a result of a previous enforcement request here. 2over0's warning on 11 March 2010 stated:

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Race and intelligence if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Final decision. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It did not as Sandstein claims refer to articles in the category Race and intelligence, but on pages broadly related to Race and intelligence. The material added by Miradre in Race and crime in the two sections Trait theories and Biological theories refers to three different books on Race and intelligence for its argument. These books are Race Differences in Intelligence, The Global Bell Curve and Race, Evolution, and Behavior. The topic Race and intelligence, broadly construed, is discussed extensively in those sections. That extensive material on Race and intelligence was added only days after the explicit warning above, so the warning would have been fresh in Miradre's mind.

Administrators should look at the terms of 2over0's notification when evaluating this request. Mathsci (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since Sandstein seems not to have shown a very clear sense of what the notification entailed and has not sought clarification from 2over0, it might be advisable for him to leave the decision about closing this request to another administrator, His own conduct regarding WP:AE is under scrutiny at present, another reason possibly for a more flexible touchy-feely approach. Mathsci (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notification, which refers to "pages broadly related to ..." is misleading, since it is based on {{uw-sanctions}}, a template that uses the broader wording employed in most other discretionary sanctions remedies. What matters is not the wording of the notification, but the wording of the actual remedy that is to be enforced, and that remedy applies only to "articles closely related to ..." This wording is binding on administrators, even if it may be too narrow to adequately deal with this issue. But in that case you may make a request to the Committee to broaden the remedy. Sandstein 19:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If any of the editors currently topic-banned under WP:ARBR&I, but not site banned, had made edits of the kind Miradre has made to Race and crime, they would have been site-banned, probably for a prolonged period. I agree that there is a difficulty here as to how administrators can act; that has been discussed at length in the current ArbCom case, and the conclusion is far from clear. In this case, for example, can topic bans only be imposed by ArbCom if the editing technically falls slightly outside the category? If there are these grey areas, the person making the request, or others, can always seek clarification from ArbCom directly. If I understand you correctly, that is more or less what you have explained on your talk page; and I think I am in agreement with that. Mathsci (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Newyorkbrad has said on the Requests for clarification page, input there from administrators involved in AE here, like Timotheus Canens, EdJohnston and 2over0, would be particularly helpful. This direct interaction with arbitrators, even if they do not necessarily agree amongst themselves, seems like the proper way to resolve ambiguities and grey areas that have been brought up in the current AE ArbCom case. Mathsci (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein is correct above: my notification of discretionary sanctions followed this previous AE report. The text is drawn entirely from the recommended template, and the wording of the case itself must take precedence (I will have no opinion until I read further whether this report is actionable under that case). - 2/0 (cont.) 05:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave a comment on the Requests for clarification page as NYB suggested. At the AE ArbCom case, some administrators have stated that sometimes they are not given sufficient guidance by ArbCom. In this case that guidance is being offered live and apparently, for the moment, not being taken advantage of. Mathsci (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the most recent users to accuse Maunus of having a POV at variance with wikipedia policies was ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a sockpuppet account of a banned user (Polgraf = Satt 2). Mathsci (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Maunus

Miradre's editing is definitely covered by the R&I provisions. Whether or not the article is in the particular category, Miradre's edits certainly are: As can be seen in edits such as these, where Miradre changes a neutral wording to a positive one regarding J. Phillippe Rushton's r/K selection theory which has been almost unanimously rejected by specialists and which holds that Blacks are more criminal and less intelligent because the ancestral African environement made that the best evolutionary strategy : [78]. And here where he removes material describing one of the main arguments from a psychologist who argues against the validity of Race as a psychological variable: [79]. The R&I provisions of course do not mean that editors are free to push POV's regarding race and intelligence as long as they do so in articles that are not currently in the R & I controversy category. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another example of Miradre's editing style [80]. After having given an entire paragraph to Rushton's completely discredited theory he inserts a single sentence alluding to criticism's as a token neutralization. In fact it is obvious that the paragraph in its entirity gives undue weight to a fringe view as the "various criticisms" have in fact completely rejected the validity of Rushton's theory.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@The diff provided by Miradre that allegedly shows me removing opposing views in fact shows me removing material about the biological view of race inserted by Miradre even in a context that is explicitly dealing with "social interpretations of race". The removed material was reinserted by Miradre and later removed again by an uninvolved user who agreed with my reasoning. Miradre accuses me of not including opposing views but the fact is that in fact the only reason I am even editing race related articles is to balance out the completely racialist biased influence that he is introducing - that is what can be seen in that edit where I have o remove undue weight to racialist speculations from an article that is describing a topic that has no reason to include that information at all. (the article is btw being now considered for merger because it is a POV fork trying to separate out the predominant social view of race from the main race article) ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miradre is now again parading the Snyderman Rothman study which allegedly shows that there is a silent majority among psychologist who believe in the hereditarian POV (even thought psychologists have no special expertise regarding race in its biological or social senses). (in fact I think the fact that people will apparently only express this view anonymously is a good indicator that it does belong on the scientific fringe - otherwise they should not have any difficulties expressing it in public and in scientific works - just like presumably biologists would be reluctant to express favorable opinions of creationism in public) This widely criticized study by Rothman and Snyderman is used by Miradre to overshadow the fact that successive statements by the UNESCO from 1949 to 1978, statements by the American Anthropological Association and the American Association of Physical Anthropologists have repeatedly rejected the possibility of any relation between race and differences mental faculties. If this is not pushing a fringe view I don't know what is.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miradre is now getting desparate it seems and he is harping on the idea that I am somehow a POV pusher regardless of the fact that the POV I am pushing is shared both by reliable sources and a rather siezeable group of editors who are noticing serious POV problems with most of Miradre's contributions. My recent edits at Race and Crime have been aimed at balæancing the extreme racialist POV that have characterized the articles written by Miradre, including making sources say the opposite of what they mean, making "token" mentions of very substantioal criticisms without mentioning the substance or the actual status of theories etc. If Miradre is cotinued to allow to edit these topics me and many other editors will have a lot of work with keeping wikipedia from turning into Stormfront.org. The uninvolved editor that he says doesn't excist is Itsmejudith, who agree with me that ther was no reason to summarise all of the biological arguments in the article on "Social interpretations of race". And I agree with her that the article should be merged. It is of course not my POV fork, I would rather see the social constructionist mainstream view well treated in the main article on race. The article was created by User:Aucaman for god knows which reason. ·Maunus·ƛ· 03:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following Miradre I will also mention that I have received much praise for my particularly neutral stance in my past editing or R&I related articles, even by those editors who are now topic banned and who edited from similar pov's to Miradre.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Boothello. You apparently don't know what canvassing means. ResidentAnthropologist was discussing the issue with Andy and Jagiello because of they were both involved in the AFD that sparked this request for enforcement. I am watching Andy's talkpage and expressed my support uninvitedly, whereupon Resident anthropologist gave me a notice that the AE request was live. That is not canvassing.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage ARBCOM to look into my conduct regarding the allegations of "Large scale POV pushing" by Miradre. What I am currently doing is weeding out a long standing bias towards the racialist POV which has been inserted by Miradre and his racialist predecessors into the entire scope of articles touching on race. The main way this bias has been achieved is by ignoring the large body of race critical literature and only mentioniing it accompanied by racialist "refutations" which get ide coverage in all articles on race no matter how little influence or impact these "critiques" have had in the scientific community. An example of this is Lewontin's argument which has been criticised by a few racialists who have failed to understand the argument, but which noenetheless gets devoted full sections instead of the actual argument and the ways in which it has been met with general acceptance by non-racialists mainstream scholars. Miradre is currently lobbying for the inclusion of data found in reports about "[[race and crime]" published by the White Nationalist organization New Century Foundation (the report was used in Moiradre's article as a neutral source untill someone noticed and removed it), and he is lobbying for the inclusion of a critique of noted geneticist Alan R Templeton's argument against the existence of subspecies in the Human race published by "John Goodrum" on a personal website that is linked from amply from the stormfront website, but is not mentioned anywhere else on the web. Who is doing large scale pov pushing here? What does someone have to do to get a sanction for being a CPUSHing SPA? Wikipedia's coverage of race related issues is degrading by the hour as long as Miradre is allowed to edit the topic area - soon we can replace our coverage with a link to David Duke's website.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:21, 9 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]

Actually, while the reminder is addressed to editors working in pages in that category, the discretionary sanctions are authorized for "'race and intelligence' and all closely related articles". T. Canens (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Still, Race and crime may be related, but is probably not "closely related" to Race and intelligence, and so I propose to close this request as not actionable unless another administrator disagrees. Sandstein 18:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note this edit by Miradre at Race and crime. He is adding a discussion of the views of J. Philippe Rushton, an author whose page is included in Category:Race and intelligence controversy. I don't see Arbcom choosing a narrow scope for WP:ARBR&I if an editor seems to be adding the kind of material covered in other articles in the R&I category. Besides, there could be an argument based on the article content that Race and crime *should* be included in Category:Race and intelligence controversy. See for instance the whole section called 'Trait theories' in the same article. The relationship of Race and crime article to the Race and intelligence topic is further underlined by the 'See also' link connecting the two. EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reasonable argument, but in view of how unclear even some arbitrators appear to be about the scope and the operation of their own remedies ([81], [82]), I prefer to err on the side of caution when interpreting the wording of an arbitration remedy, so as not to be yelled at again. You remain, of course, free to take any action you consider appropriate, but you may want to wait until the recently opened Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Race and Intelligence concludes. Sandstein 21:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't see those diffs as shedding much light. (That case, I'm sorry, is like the Twilight Zone). It is my impression that the I/P case is now broadly interpreted to cover abusive editing on I/P material anywhere. It is possible that the decision reached in the present AE thread will itself set a trend for where the limits of ARBR&I ought to be set. That's a reason for us to do as good a job as possible here. If the Clarification elicits an answer from the committee about the limits of R&I, that's a benefit, but those requests sometimes take a long time, and the answer may turn out to be 'use your best judgment.' Any decision we make here can be appealed to the committee anyway, so they can overrule us on scope if they wish. A topic ban can easily be undone, if it gets overturned on scope. EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict says "broadly construed" while WP:ARBR&I says "closely related". A bit different. The problem is, sort of like Congress, I'm not sure arbcom thought long and hard about the little details like exactly how far the discretionary sanctions are supposed to go when they passed the remedy, so we are left to trying to guess what they intended when we are not sure that they intended anything in the first place... T. Canens (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the doctrine of parliamentary intention. Perhaps, where things aren't clear, we ought to take a common-sensical approach and just try to sanction those whose approach is the most unhelpful. That is, of course, easier said than done :). AGK [•] 15:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anonimu

No block. Anonimu is warned not to edit war, and that 1RR and ARBMAC apply to his edits. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[83], [84], [85] 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.
[86] 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.
[87] 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
[88] 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

As it can clearly be seen from CodrinB's links, this is just a content dispute, and moreover a personal grudge against me because I don't support a revisionist theory discredited in Romania long time ago (i.e. Protochronism). Otherwise why would an AfD that I've initiated and was deleted by the community on policy grounds be considered by him a violation of policy? Why would a merging of two articles about the same topic and a removal of a tag from a talk page be considered violation? Why is the restoration of sources he deleted because they didn't fit his theory called vandalism? Also, please check the "high majority" of my edit summaries.. all are just (admittedly subjective) descriptions of the edits, yet they are regarded as "ironical, hostile, far from civility" !?!

Accusations of this kind are a common tactic used by CodrinB in his attempt to monopolise articles with minority views and drive editors away from them (see similar accusations thrown at User:Daizus here that ultimately made him leave in disgust). The editor has a serious problem with the personal attacks he keeps throwing at people who disagree with his peculiar interpretation of sources (see blatant examples above, such as me having a "xenophobic obsession"), and, after this is finished, I'm thinking about starting a RfC about his conduct.Anonimu (talk) 08:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 1RR: I was under the impression that I wasn't bound by this restriction anymore. I can't produce evidence at the time, but I think I got a confirmation of this about 6 months ago, and since I may have occasionally made more than 1 rv per day. Generally I did my best to respect 1RR, but again, I didn't see it as condition for editing WP in the last couple of months. I may have been wrong, of course.Anonimu (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of good faith of CodrinB and the sterility of this report is once more proven by the fact that CodrinB is continuing to edit war at Capidava, engaging in personal attacks against my persona through his edit summaries: [89]. What more is needed to prove that this report is just a tool used to gain upper hand in a content dispute?Anonimu (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the CodrinB's personal attacks go on unhampered: [90].Anonimu (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:DACIA: while I agree that it would better for me to stay away from it, there are some problems: 1.Hundreds of unrelated articles were tagged as part of it, covering almost a third of all Europe (just see Skopie, for one of the many outlandish tags, all put there by the same user, CodrinB). 2.Considering the reduced user participation and CodrinB's tactics to drive interested users away (see Daizus' case above), is not unreasonable to assume this project will slowly become some sort of metapedic enclave inside Wikipedia. As an independent content supervising system is not available (or at least ArbCom didn't come with one untill now), I sincerely can't adhere to a voluntary topic ban on Wikiproject Dacia articles.Anonimu (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others concerning Anonimu

Anonimu was unbanned quite some time ago by the ban appeals subcommittee, and his behaviour since then has not been a problem. I consider the mentorship arrangement to have expired, as Anonimu became quite capable of editing independently and in a constructive way. The assessment of Anonimu presented by the complainant is not reasonable; I disagree, both generally and in relation to the diffs cited, that Anonimu is a lost cause. If there is a wider problem with the topic area in question here or with Anonimu's contributions generally, then a topic ban might be in order, but I hesitate to say that that would be sensible at this point. I am recusing from administrative action on this complaint, but my opinion is that there is little cause for action here. It may be, of course, that others disagree. AGK [•] 16:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am of course about to undermine my own position here, but I must point out that Anonimu has violated[91][92][93] the 1RR restriction placed on him at his unblock. But my view is that those conditions are no longer relevant, because they are so stale: since Anonimu was unbanned (and I was assigned as his mentor), the 1RR and civility parole has never been enforced. To dust them off and begin to use them now would be unusual and draconian, and not something I think we ought to be looking at. We could, because the restrictions were imposed by ArbCom and thus are relevant to AE, but we shouldn't as a matter of common sense. On balance, IMV, to place Anonimu on notice of the Digwuren discretionary sanctions would be the best course of action here. AGK [•] 16:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from admin section) I might be relatively new here and I am not aware of all the committees. If necessary, I will report this to the forum suggested, but can you please help me understand how 3 reverts in barely over 24 hours like these 3 [94], [95], [96] do not violate the 1RR parole that you can enforce? Thanks --Codrin.B (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to give you an example about Anonimu manner of changing the texts, and the needs for reverts. On the article’s section was a properly referenced text “..Peter, (the specifically Romanian form of Peter) {sfn Barnea & Bantas |1979|p=13} “ I cite from memory, what Anonimu changed to “..Peter, (the Bulgarian and Greek vocative …) {sfn Barnea & Bantas |1979|p=13} “ Obviously, his new adding to the text didn’t reflect the opinion of the ref’ed source of the original text

In other words, I concur with Codrin. Yours trulyBoldwin (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that just seven months ago, Anonimu was blocked for a month for edit-warring. He was initially banned from WP:ARBMAC-related topics before getting off on a technicality, that he had not received an ARBMAC warning. That warning was duly issued. Over the course of his 2041-day Wikipedia career, this user has been banned for a year concurrently with an indefinite block, unblocked with strict restrictions still in place and explicitly found to have been violated seven months ago, warned under ARBMAC, and given a plethora of shorter blocks. And now there's talk of not penalizing his revert-warring because he wasn't warned under WP:DIGWUREN? He does have an ARBMAC warning, he knows he's operating under close watch, and shouldn't be allowed to act with impunity by gaming the system. I say the community's patience has been exhausted, and corresponding measures should be taken. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[P]lethora of shorter blocks is inaccurate, and, in any case, where a user has been unbanned and given a 'second chance', we mainly only take into account his actions since the unban. Moreover, whereas Anonimu has not proven to be especially disruptive, and certainly has received almost no negative attention since his unban until now, it is also simply untrue to say that he has exhausted the community's patience. I have opined above that Anonimu has erred here and that he ought to be sanctioned, but I still think that your comment is untrue and I suggest that you redact it. AGK [•] 18:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think anyone speaking in the name of the "Wikipedia community" (some 14 million registered users) is being a bit fanciful, and I don't think his half-dozen blocks in 2006-07 should be ignored (they form part of a pattern of unreformed trouble-making that has persisted), but I take your point.
In any case, however, what we really should not ignore is that he was given an official ARBMAC warning just seven months ago, after narrowly avoiding a topic ban from the area. Given that Anonimu was (we agree) edit-warring on Capidava, located in Dobruja, the only part of Romania unambiguously located in the Balkans, and thus subject to sanctions under WP:ARBMAC, a case under which he has already received an official warning, isn't action justified this time around? - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]

We can enforce the 1RR parole and the civility parole (whose usual formulations allow any uninvolved administrator to enforce them by blocks), but that's it. We can't enforce a vague requirement that a user "behave at all times impeccably", and the edits at issue, whatever their merits, do not appear to be covered by either the 1RR or the civility parole. So I agree with Sandstein that this is outside AE's jurisdiction. T. Canens (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, we can enforce 1RR in this case, and per AGK and Codrin.B above, it does look like 1RR was violated. I see no reason not to enforce an active arbitration restriction (if it is no longer needed, he should have appealed it before engaging in multiple reverts), and in view of his block log, a one week block appears appropriate. Sandstein 18:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I missed that 1RR vio. Sorry. In view of the passage of time, however, I don't think it's prudent to block someone for violation of a restriction that was imposed almost two years ago and had never been enforced since. I propose closing this with a warning that the 1RR and civility parole remain in effect until and unless lifted by the arbitration committee. The next time the user violates either, we can proceed to a block, but I don't think a block is prudent under the peculiar circumstances here. T. Canens (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Codrin.B and Anonimu seem to find themselves on opposite sides of a debate about Protochronism. Codrin.B specifically brings up Anonimu's conduct regarding Dacian script, an article that wound up getting redirected per WP:Articles for deletion/Dacian script. I do not see any bad behavior by Anonimu during the AfD, and the decision of the AfD closer appears to correctly summarize the discussion. It was argued by some of the AfD participants that belief in a Dacian script is a WP:FRINGE theory. Such debates can occasionally lead to overheated remarks. I note that Anonimu is still under a 1RR restriction due to the decision of the Ban Appeal Subcommittee in 2007. He should continue to observe that 1RR, until such time as he can get it lifted, perhaps via WP:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment or by sending email to the Ban Appeal Subcommittee. I would caution Anonimu not to repeat the kind of edit-warring that was seen at Capidava, but don't see any need for a sanction at this time. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that arbitral decisions can fall into desuetude. Even real courts, as the article tells us, accept desuetude only in cases where "there has been open, notorious and pervasive violation of the statute for a long period; and a conspicuous policy of nonenforcement of the statute." I don't think that this has been demonstrated here. Arbitrarily accepting desuetude of sanctions would set a problematic precedent and undermine the binding nature of the arbitration process. For this reason, I believe that my colleagues who would not enforce the 1RR restriction with a block are mistaken, although I myself will not make a block against consensus in this case. Sandstein 19:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now checked out the history of an edit war on Moldovans in August, 2010. Based on that data, plus the new edit warring I suggest that we block Anonimu 48 hours for the 1RR violation reported here. If problems continue Anonimu is eligible for a topic ban under WP:ARBMAC if one turns out to be needed. It appears that WP:DACIA is a colorful if marginal topic and Anonimu should consider totally avoiding those articles just for his peace of mind. He remains under a 1RR restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sandstein 20:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must be missing something. What has an edit war back in August 2010 to do with a need for a block now? – On the other hand, what we indeed should consider is to hit the reporting party with a silver carp, for falsely accusing his opponent of "vandalism" in his complaint above, and of the bad-faith move of citing Anonimu's actions in the "Dacian script" case as an instance of disruption, when he knows full well that consensus was on Anonimu's side, not his. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When desuetude happens, the law becomes void permanently. Even if we close this with nothing more than a warning that the 1RR is still in effect, the 1RR does not become void and will be enforced with blocks on the next violation, so I don't think desuetude is the right analogy. There are more than one way to enforce an arbitration remedy: blocks are one, warnings are another. By closing with a warning that the 1RR is in effect, we are not declining to enforce the 1RR. In the end, the enforcement measure to take is committed to our discretion. A proper exercise of that discretion, I believe, does not involve handing out blocks for the first violation of a long-dormant sanction which the editor claims that they thought, apparently mistakenly, to have been lifted. To use the court analogy, sentencing someone to time-served on a first, relatively minor, offense does not somehow nullify the relevant criminal statute. If he commit the same crime again, I doubt that the court would still be as lenient. T. Canens (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is still a difference of views. Any admin who wants to close with either no action or a short block would have my support. Anonimu should still be warned that he is under WP:ARBMAC and still has a 1RR restriction. The point of looking at past edits was to see if he has been in any recent trouble with edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. 1RR was violated, but no block is being issued. Anonimu is warned not to edit war. Opinions may differ as to whether WP:DACIA is nonsense, but he should not try to rebut it simply by warring. Ask for advice from experienced editors. Anonimu is still under WP:1RR directly from Arbcom, and this topic area is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verman1

Consensus is that Verman1 (talk · contribs) is topic banned for six months. If problems continue after six months, the topic ban can easily be re-applied. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Verman1

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Verman1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAA2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement

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

Feb. 19, 2011 Revert on Tsitsernavank Monastery article
Feb. 22 Another revert on Tsitsernavank Monastery article
Mar. 26 Revert on Tsitsernavank Monastery article
Mar. 28 Revert on Tsitsernavank Monastery article
Mar. 28 Revert on Tsitsernavank Monastery article
Mar. 30 Revert on Tsitsernavank Monastery article
Mar. 31 Revert on Tsitsernavank Monastery article
April 5 Revert on Tsitsernavank Monastery article
April 4 Revert on Gandzasar monastery article
April 4 Revert on Gandzasar monastery article
April 4 Revert on Gandzasar monastery article
April 5 Revert on Gandzasar monastery article
Mar. 29 Needlessly invoking the ethnic identity in what can arguably be considered "ethnic battleground mentality", Tsitsernavank monastery talk page

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

Warned on 28 March 2011 by Golbez (talk · contribs)
Warned on 29 March 2011 by Sandstein (talk · contribs)

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

Topic ban or block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The evidence which I have presented above represents only a small fraction of the numerous reverts and blatant violations of Wikipedia's policies that Verman1 has committed. The articles which he has edited are related in one way or another to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and I honestly do not know where to begin.

Verman1's most problematic edits have taken place on two church articles. Currently, in the Republic of Azerbaijan, as a result of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, all the Armenian churches have been rechristened as "Caucasian Albanian" as part of a systematic process to deny the Armenians any connection to the history of the region. However, virtually all historians agree that these medieval-era churches, Tsitsernavank and Gandzasar, were built and maintained by Armenians living in the region and this is reflected in the sources used in these articles. Many of them have, in fact, condemned the historical revisionism that the government of Azerbaijan publishes and disseminates and, by all appearances, it seems that Verman1 has been aggressively pushing these points of view despite the fact that scholars attach no credence to them. Accordingly, beginning with his very first edits to these two articles, Verman1 has deliberately removed any mention of the Armenian origin of these churches and replaced them with Caucasian Albanian; deleted their sources, which are written by Western, peer-reviewed scholars, and replaced them with partisan, unreliable websites which are not considered scholarly by anyone's stretch of the imagination. This is the reason why most editors considered his edits as ill-faith and refused to categorize them as legitimate content disputes.

Thus, numerous editors reverted his edits, since they were considered to be written in such a one-sided and blatantly misleading manner that they could not be construed as being done out of good-faith. But Verman simply labeled those editors who reverted him as individuals engaging in vandalism, and this term has been used excessively in almost every edit he has reverted because they apparently do not conform to his point of view and are thus considered "wrong". The discussions on these two pages never really went anywhere either because when Verman1 was invited to provide reliable, third party sources to support his edits, he was unable to produce anything of the like and, at most, gave indirect and otherwise circumstantial evidence. What is more, he dismissed sources written by reliable authors immediately when they were used to refute his claims. Despite all this, he never made any compromises and never showed any inclination that he was ready to achieve a consensus, instead essentially telling other users, in stark black and white terms, that only their edits were "wrong" and his were "right".

The bewildering number of edit wars aside, Verman1 also engaged in turning Wikipedia into an ethnic battleground when he dismissed a source because of the fact that its author was Armenian (see here) and was warned by an administrator on that page to desist from such comments. The scope of his edits is also troubling: Verman1 never did try to limit himself to resolving disputes on one or two articles but began expanding his activities, along with a suspicious user, Dighapet to perhaps a dozen related articles, ensnaring other editors to revert the controversial changes. In almost none of these articles did he ever list his grievances on the talk page and never presented convincing reasons as to why his edits bore weight for inclusion.

There is also a little concern for why such activity spiked now: Verman1 created his account on Oct. 1 2010 but only began to really edit on Feb. 14, 2011. Note that another controversial user who edits in this area, Ehud Lesar, after a seven month absence, started editing again on February 15, 2011 and making controversial edits, which included warring with Dighapet here. Note that it is not the first time something really fishy happens involving Ehud Lesar, since there was one arbitration about him here. As for Dighapet, this was already provided during the previous case, account created on Febuary 22, 2011 and his English is very much similar to Verman1 and they nearly always act together (see their history of contribution). All of these edits involving multiple articles happened after another editor, Tuscumbia was topic banned. The action by Verman1 and Dighapet appears to be geared at involving the most users possible which obviously would result in having them either blocked or placed under greater restrictions.

Even after Verman1 was warned by two administrators to edit constructively and try to discuss and achieve consensus, he has shown no inclination to do so and has carried on as usual. There is much more that can be said but I think the evidence that has been presented thus far would warrant some action.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use the term sockpuppeting lightly. A case that I filed some time ago against Dighapet because I believed he was a sock puppet of Tuscumbia admittedly turned inconclusive, but even the administrators who investigated the matter admitted that there was something suspicious about an editor who suddenly appeared and began editing articles like a pro. And there has been at least one heavily documented case of off-Wiki coordination – on Russian Wikipedia last year, which resulted in the banning and/or blocking of 26 editors (see here).--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[97]

Discussion concerning Verman1

Statement by Verman1

I put references when I did edits. These can not be taken as vandalism. I totally reject this accusation that I work with Dighapet. It is absurd to claim that. Especially "Their English is very similiar" is very ridiculous claiming. I have tried to edit falsified armenian names in Azerbaijan territory (What if some American city names will be changed to the Mexican names? That would be the same nonsense as to put armenian namings to Azerbaijani city and villages). Regarding churches, there are plenty of evidence supporting my edits. I put all of these evidence both in discussion page and in article itself. I showed good will and tried not to engage in edit-war, but all my efforts gone vain, just because some users like Ashot Arzumanyan, Marshal Bagramyan or Moosh88 always tried to engage into edit war, without bringing any argument to do so. I want relevant admins to pay attention to articles [Tsitsernavank Monastery] and [Gandzasar Monastery] and find out everything by themselves, as it is clear that people accusing me in edit-war engaged in this by themselves first. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vidovler

Verman1 believes Armenians being inferior, he wrote in his comment twice the word Armenian without capitilizing it, while he capitilized the words English and Azerbaijani. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gandzasar_monastery Dighapet writes: Yes, I give consensus to Verman's edits. Dighapet dismissed all of his opponents as people even not worth consideration, as if only him and Verman1 are worth consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidovler (talk • contribs) 14:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Verman1

Note: Verman1 is an editor who makes this kind of edits during an ongoing discussion, and who makes this kind of statements when asked for references. To further reveal the character of Verman1, I would draw your attention to what was his reply to an advice from admin. -- Ashot ^(talk) 06:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Verman1

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

Verman1's decided propensity for edit warring and combativeness on talkpages argue for a topic ban in the 3–6 months range. Does anyone object?
While not all of the other comments from other editors at those talkpages are ideal, I have not found anything else that really needs admin intervention.
I do not think that Verman1 and Dighapet are the same person. Try Sock puppet investigations if there is evidence that I have missed. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sock-puppetry is a whole other ball game from arbitration enforcement and should be handled at WP:SPI, not here, so as to not muddy the waters. Threads here already become complex quite easily without throwing accusations of multiple account abuse into the equation! AGK [•] 14:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, people continue to accuse each other of being sockpuppets with about as much regularity as they show in following the actual submission guidelines. I like to run a quick check against the possibility of a WP:DUCK block, but I agree - please keep any sockpuppet suspicions at the dedicated page where they can be dealt with expeditiously and efficiently. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, another editor has pointed out that Verman1 regularly fails to capitalize the word 'Armenian', but does so properly with other nationalities. This is the type of nonsense which I don't think we should have to put up with - it's not as much a problem in and of itself as an indication that the editor has little desire to edit fairly. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support a six-month topic ban from the AA area of conflict, based on the battleground editing. Verman1's talk page is filling up with warnings asking him to discuss. I happened to notice an edit by Verman1 which changes 'military authorities of Nagorno-Karabakh' to 'military authorities of Armenia'. At first glance this seems to falsify the source which uses the phrase 'military authorities in Nagorno-Karabakh.' That source also speaks of 'Karabakh officials' and the 'Karabakh government.' It is not up to Verman1 to correct how the sources themselves speak of political units. EdJohnston (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd favor an indefinite topic ban for what appears to me to be essentially a POV-pushing battleground SPA, but if my colleagues think that there's still some hope of productive edits in this topic area after a break, I will not interfere. T. Canens (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning R. fiend

User requesting enforcement: --Domer48_'fenian' 22:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

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

[98] Revert 1 With he takes out a Refimprove template.
[99] Revert 2, within 24 hours he takes out a paragraph recently added by another editor.
[100] Revert 3, a very tendentious revert, having self reverted here as requested.

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

[101] Warning by Domer48 (talk · contribs)

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: As noted above, I informed R. fiend of the 1RR violation, and added the template to the article talk page. I asked again, that they address the problem. R. Fiend responded by removing my post, and having commented on this, R. Fiend claimed no violation, and that they did not know about the 1RR. Having being made aware of the 1RR I asked that they address the problem. R. Fiend then made two edits which I can only describe as tendentious, here they self revert, and then revert again, and offering this rational. It transpires that R. Fiend was well aware of the 1RR, and despite this they still protest. The discussion can be found here.

It is suggested that I made two reverts, however, I added the template here and within 24 hours I reverted an edit only once. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification is requested as to this edit were R. Fiend was removing my post. Is this also considered to be a revert under 1RR, on a Troubles related talk page?--Domer48_'fenian' 23:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: here

Discussion concerning R. fiend

Statement by R. fiend

This is bullshit for several reasons. First of all, I made two completely non-related edits: first I removed a template which Domer basically said wasn't relevant ("I do not have an issue with the information"), and when it was put back, I let it go, as the epidemic of the overuse of templates is not the hill I want to die on. Later I removed a completely unrelated edit by a different editor, on the rationale that it did not seem relevant to the article and read like a non-sequitur. I explained why I did so and invited anyone who disagreed to explain why this sentence was relevant to this article. I don't see how this can be called a revert. If one wanted to be an anal retentive wikilawyer about it (something I'm sure Domer would not wish to do, as he consistently berates wikilawyering), one might argue that regardless of what edits were made, if, by happenstance, the resulting versions were the same, it is a revert. To put Domer's mind at ease that I was not editing the same version of the same article twice, I made a very minor change, so that I could get around this absurd technicality with another technicality. This was irrelevant, as the two versions were not the same in either case (note the presence of that template in the latter edits). So what I did was edit the same article twice, and somehow that's supposed to equal me making more than one revert in 24 hours. Doesn't make much sense to me.

Additionally, Domer himself added the same template twice within 24 hours, so by his logic he is more guilty than I am. -R. fiend (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see Domer has now added an alleged revert #3 (disregarding the fact that one's first edit cannot be a revert), by posting a self-revert, which of course, is not relevant to any RR violation. -R. fiend (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

Some recent edits by User:R. fiend at Tom Clarke (Irish republican):

02:35, 7 April 2011 (edit summary: "a bit more accurate") -- [This takes out the Refimprove template on section called 'The Irish Volunteers']
13:52, 8 April 2011 (edit summary: "1 footnote = removal of ugly template") -- [Removes 'Unreferenced', and adds one reference]
15:29, 8 April 2011 (edit summary: "why must people insist on putting ugly, distruptive templates in every article, esp. when there is nothing controversial included?") -- [Takes out the 'Refimprove' that Domer48 had just added on 'The Irish Volunteers']
20:03, 8 April 2011 (edit summary: "rm irrelevant sentence; add link") -- [Takes out paragraph 'People were seeking another means to express their identity..']

This is three reverts by User:R. fiend on April 8th, which breaks the 1RR restriction.

User:Domer48 added the Refimprove template to the 'Planning the uprising' section twice on 8 April, first time at 14:43 and the second time at 19:02. The first addition counts as adding new material, since Refimprove had not been on that section before. Only the second addition is a *revert* by Domer48. So I'm not seeing that Domer48 broke the 1RR on April 8. EdJohnston (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning R. fiend

Result concerning R. fiend

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

That's an unambiguous 1RR violation. Unless I see a self-revert, or another uninvolved admin objects, I'm inclined to block for 24 hours. T. Canens (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please demonstrate where any revert, let alone more than 1 within 24 hours was made. -R. fiend (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - From WP:3RR: A "revert" means any edit...that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material (emphasis mine), regardless of whether other changes are also made in the edit. T. Canens (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - So let me get this straight: any edit that removes anything another editor added is a revert, so if anyone removes anything from any article that is remotely connected to Irish politics, that editor must then start his stopwatch and wait 24 hours before making any other non-related edit that may remove anything added by another editor? That has got to be one of the stupidest things I've heard in a while. Doesn't that make it difficult to improve articles? (I realize actually improving Wikipedia is a secondary priority to some who would rather stress mindless adherence to rules.) Isn't the point of these 3 or 1 RR rules to prevent edit warring? I don't see any sort of edit war going on here. -R. fiend (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - You know, I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll self-revert that edit in which I removed that one sentence. Then I'll wait the requisite few more hours until 24 hours is up, then I'll remove it again. No 1RR violation there. Hope that satisfies everyone. -R. fiend (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. I'll be back editing the page sometime after 3:14 PM EDT. -R. fiend (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This dispute was previously discussed at User talk:EdJohnston#Could you have a look. I agree that it's a 1RR violation. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend, though it provides no relevant sanctions. The data presented in the arb case show some past edit warring by RF in the Troubles area. There is also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/R. fiend. Both of these reports are from 2008. I don't know about more recent events. If this request is closed with a block of R. Fiend, it should be logged at the bottom of WP:ARBTRB. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 9 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] Snyderman, Mark; Rothman, Stanley (1990). The IQ Controversy, the Media, and Public Policy. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. ISBN 0-88738-151-0.

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

[Rushton_2005-5] 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

[G2005-6] 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

[7] 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]

[5]

@@ Line 643: / Line 643: @@
 == Verman1 ==
+{{hat|Consensus is that {{user|Verman1}} is topic banned for six months. If problems continue after six months, the topic ban can easily be re-applied. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]]  17:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)}}
 ''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
@@ Line 718: / Line 718: @@
 :I support a six-month [[WP:TBAN|topic ban]] from the AA area of conflict, based on the battleground editing. Verman1's talk page is filling up with warnings asking him to discuss. I happened to notice [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010_Mardakert_skirmishes&diff=prev&oldid=422829245 an edit by Verman1] which changes 'military authorities of Nagorno-Karabakh' to 'military authorities of Armenia'. At first glance this seems to falsify [http://www.azatutyun.am/content/article/2214372.html  the source] which uses the phrase 'military authorities in Nagorno-Karabakh.' That source also speaks of 'Karabakh officials' and the 'Karabakh government.'  It is not up to Verman1 to correct how the sources themselves speak of political units. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 13:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 :I'd favor an indefinite topic ban for what appears to me to be essentially a POV-pushing battleground SPA, but if my colleagues think that there's still some hope of productive edits in this topic area after a break, I will not interfere. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 13:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
+{{hab}}
 == Request concerning R. fiend ==

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