Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Wikipedia:AutoEd.

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

Hangakiran

Hangakiran is topic-banned from Janos Boros.  Sandstein  22:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Hangakiran User requesting enforcement Biruitorul Talk 22:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Hangakiran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [1] The editor continues to refer to his opponents' ethnicity in a content dispute, thereby creating a battleground atmosphere. Saying "all the Hungarian editors have been banned. The discussion is now entirely one where I am left to defend against many Romanian editors who have started hounding the discussion" is not acceptable. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Warning by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [2] Hangakiran was specifically warned: "I consider using the nationality of editors as an argument prima facie evidence of sanctionable misconduct under WP:DIGWUREN". Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) I request that action be taken to stop Hangakiran from referring to content opponents' ethnicity. Additional comments by editor filing complaint This comment by Hangakiran, made 17 minutes after T. Canens's warning, strikes me as evidence that he did read it. - Biruitorul Talk 17:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC) (Moved from admin section) Hangakiran, you just don't get it, do you? You are not to refer to editors' ethnicity, actual or perceived, because it creates a battleground mentality and assumes, absurdly, that editors of a particular ethnicity will all think the same way. You were warned for this by an administrator and brought here for the same reason. Now you go on to defend your canvassing of "Hungarian Editors", cry about "being hounded by Romanian editors", and raise a claim about "Hungarian editors being banned from contributing". You're incorrigible, it seems, and I really am not sure what good your single-purpose account is doing at this point. - Biruitorul Talk 13:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Hangakiran notified here. Discussion concerning Hangakiran Statement by Hangakiran I would like to bring to notice here that the Diff Biruitorul is referring to was posted against Dahn. If you see what has been posted, Dahn persistently used instigating, rude statements like "I'm not going to waste the day bickering about this with you," and later in the same post "Carry on "answering" if you will, but expect to lose all your remaining credibility when you're manipulating info with sophistry.". This I do consider as rude. Since my requests for contribution from Hungarian Editors to the discussion was declared as canvassing, it so happened that all my posts started having counter-posts form either Biruitorul or Dahn. That is when Dahn started being rude and I warned him. In spite of my warnings, he continued even suggesting I stop, which is not in his right to do so. If one looks at the discussion, Biruitorul replies to my replies to Dahn and Dahn replies to my rebuttals to Biruitorul. If the discussion and their involvement is impartial, why do they keep replying for each other? Lastly, when I pointed out that in the discussion I am being hounded by Romanian editors, I would like to clarify I meant that the Hungarian editors being banned from contributing because of alleged canvassing, I was left to defend against these two editors who constantly hounded me by the tone and tenor of their posts. It meant nothing more. Hangakiran (talk) 09:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Hangakiran Hangakiran's editing pattern is seemingly problematic in that up to this date he only has a single edit that is not related to Janos Boros somehow. Everyone who is on wikipedia for some time is familiar with this practice, of a user showing strong involvement with a single topic (usually a biography). However referring to ethnic issues was unhelpful in this case as the issue was clearly not about that. Hangakiran could be a good editor if he decides to get involved with wikipedia other than trying to maximize the wikipedia coverage of a single person. Hobartimus (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Hangakiran This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I agree with T. Canens's warning that "using the nationality of editors as an argument [is] prima facie evidence of sanctionable misconduct", and as such am open to enacting a short topic ban. But I'm not sure whether a warning left on another user's talk page is enough to satisfy the notification requirement, given that there is no evidence that Hangakiran has read it. What do others think?  Sandstein  16:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Biruitorul, yes, I agree that the diff indicates that the warning was read.  Sandstein  17:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC) I agree that a topic ban is appropriate, for reasons quoted by Sandstein above. Grouping editors by nationality or ethnicity is like the textbook example of battleground behavior. T. Canens (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC) OK. I am also taking into consideration that Hangakiran's editing is focused entirely on Janos Boros. The sanction should therefore give Hangakiran an opportunity to demonstrate an improved understanding of Wikipedia community norms in other areas. For these reasons, in application and enforcement of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, Hangakiran is indefinitely topic-banned (as defined at WP:TBAN) from the subject of Janos Boros (notably, from the article, its talk page and any related discussions). Any uninvolved administrator may lift this topic ban, on the request of Hangakiran, after no less than four months if Hangakiran has made substantial useful contributions to other articles and has engaged in no further objectionable conduct in the meantime.  Sandstein  22:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Leidseplein

Leidseplein warned of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  07:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Leidseplein User requesting enforcement Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Leidseplein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [3] Accusation of trying to impose your POV on the world, which violates WP:AGF [4] Unnecessarily inflammatory language about "Polish hypocrisy", "Polish complicity with Hitler" which violate WP:BATTLE, more bad faith accusations like "editors so strongly oriented towards a pro-Polish POV prove" [5] Another charge of "hypocrisy", this time directed at me personally, which violates WP:NPA. Also some false accusations and insistence on discussing editors rather than content. [6] More personal accusations of "an attempt to advance a pro-Polish/anti-Western POV". Unnecessary inflammatory language: "Attempts to deny printing in this articlethe FACT" (as an aside, anytime someone writes "FACT" in capital letters in a talk page discussion and says people are trying to "deny" this "FACT", well, it pretty much means you've got trouble). More WP:BATTLE violations along those lines: "'It is exceptionally INCONVENIENT...", which ascribes motives to editors [7] More of the same: "it is, instead, merely embarassing, embarassing to those who so passionately believe..." - the "embarassing" part is pretty much a personal attack (though not a particularly extreme one). The "passionately" adjective again discusses editors not content, constitutes WP:BATTLEGROUND language and ascribes states of mind to editors which they may or may not posses. Certainly, I don't think I wrote anything on that talk page while in throes of passion. [8] false and baseless accusation that I ("as advocated by another editor") am trying to ensure that there's "ONE interpretation of history allowed on Wikipedia", i.e. more WP:BATTLEGROUND language. Goodwin's Law violation by comparing my statements to Communist Party propaganda. [9] another baseless accusation of editing "passionately" (which in this context seems to imply "emotionally rather than rationally, hence wrongly"), this time in a section heading. [10] - question mark abuse. Not really a violation of anything specific but perhaps relevant to this whole "passionately" thing. [11] - Assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks: "I do not try to hide my POV by attacking sources, citing wikispeak and using false claims to guidelines that you learned when you felt disciplined by other wikipedians". Even more personal attacks: "That's a laugh and actually explains everything - one thing about becoming an adult is..." There's a couple more in the same vein but that I think is more than enough. There are also a couple strange statements which aren't really any violations but are worth pointing out [12] In this edit Leidseplein states that this matter was "already referred to a board other than 3O early on" - I have no idea what this is referring to or what it's supposed to mean. [13] - "I was asked by a third party to point out..." This is a strange statement as it appears to indicate that Leidseplein was asked to make edits and comments on the article by someone else, as potentially a WP:MEATPUPPET. It looks (I don't know if it actually is) sketchy especially in the context of the battleground nature of this area, the large number of sanctioned and topic banned editors, and editors under interaction bans. Who was this third party? When I asked this question it was repeatedly ignored or evaded by Leidseplein. Similarly, here [14] Leidseplein begins to refer to their edits in the first person plural, "since we, w followed your explicit, not-to-be-contradicted instructions", which again seems to suggest some kind of meatpuppetry or co-editing with another unknown editor is going on. Of course it could've just been a verbal slip up - but then when I asked "who's this "we"" you're referring to, why not just say "hey, it was just a verbal slip up"? Why evade the question? Like I said the above three are not obviously any kind of violations of Wikipedia policy but they do seem strange to me. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [15] - after Liedsplein's initial revert with an accusatory edit summary I posted a comment on the talk page in which I asked him to focus on content rather than on editors: an edit summary that uses phrases such as trying to impose your POV on the world is unnecessarily combative and fails to assume good faith. Contrast that with my edit summary (but 1) this isnt considered to be part of WB 2) different circumstances than German occupation of Sudetenland) which directly focused on content rather than accusing any editor of wrong doing. I asked Liedsplein several times during the discussion to stop making statements which refer to me or my supposed motives personally and focus on discussing content instead. Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Notification of DIGWUREN sanctions. Additional comments by editor filing complaint At this point I'm not asking for a sanction, block or ban. As far as I know, the editor has not been previously made aware of the WP:DIGWUREN restrictions, warned of the discretionary sanctions in this area, or of the especially strong need to avoid making this area more of a battleground than it already is. Another mitigating factor is that Liedsplein, after he reverted me did ask for a third opinion (though his phrasing of the dispute was non-neutral and had to be corrected [16]) - that in itself was commendable. The way he/she/we carried out the subsequent conversation was not. Response to Leidseplein's accusations Leidseplein says: The editor complaining against me is IMO trying to retaliate for a 3rd Opinion I provided in Talk:Siege of Kolberg (1807). My response: This is completely and utterly false. In fact, I agreed with and appreciated Leidseplein's third opinion he provided at Talk:Siege of Kolberg (1807). Please note that Leidseplein provides no diffs to back up his accusation. Here are the diffs which show exactly the opposite: [17] "Thanks for the third opinion, it's much appreciated." [18] "I think that's fine" (agreeing with Leidseplein's suggestion). In fact, I'm pretty sure Leidseplein knew that the third opinion he provided was in fact appreciated by me, as soon afterward, he came to my talk page and asked me to look over an article he had recently written [19]. If there had been some "bad blood" due to the 3O, or he had some kind of problem with me (or I with him) at that point, why come and ask me to review his article? My response to him, btw, was that it was a "a very nice article" and I suggested he should submit it to DYK (though I did note one very minor point which could be clarified). He replied that he was going to ask me for opinions on other Poland-related articles he planned to write. Does this sound like someone I would want to "harass" or "retaliate" against? Leidseplein says: He suddenly started shadowing me, harassing me and disrupting everything I do on wikipedia after the opinion I provided. My answer: Ok, I'm getting really tired of having to come up with suitable euphemisms for the phrase "bold faced lie" so here I'm going to come out and say it - this is a bold faced lie. Note again, that there is absolutely no diffs provided to support the claim. Where have I shadowed him? At Siege of Kolberg, where he he came as a response to my 3O request? At my talk page, where he came asking me to look at his article? These were - AFAIK - my only interactions with these users prior to our interaction at Western Betrayal. How have I "harassed" him? By telling him that his 3O was appreciated and that I agreed with it? By telling him that his article on St. Florian's Cathedral was very good? I guess it was because I disagreed with him in a single particular instance. Leidseplein says: After numerous false accusations (like accusing me of double reverts)... Also false. I made one mistaken statement - he did revert me only once. That's not "numerous" and it's not a "accusation", it was a mistake. A mistake which I immediately corrected when he pointed it out. Leidseplein says: "...threats, hypocritical accusations of personal attacks, inapplicable appeals to wiki policy and an overall inability to accept cited facts contrary to his POV at Talk:Western betrayal, he has resorted to this overblown (Question mark abuse?) and excessively verbose attempt to quash facts he doesn't like...all in service of promoting his version of history (only)" My response: I think Leidseplein's words here speak for themselves. Leidseplein also says: "Volunteer Marek was the subject of a complaint made to me by two other editors for disrupting their work." My response: This means that my suspicions based on his talk of "third parties" and "we", described above, were not unjustified. So what we have here is meatpuppetry. Who are these two other editors whose work I've supposedly disrupted, that asked Leidseplein to edit an Eastern-European related article for them? Are they editors under bans or restrictions on Eastern European topics? Are they one of my regular friends who've been warned about their battleground behavior in regard to myself by ArbCom and at this board? Are they individuals who are currently under an interaction ban with regard to me? This whole thing stinks to high heaven. More general comment: I think I can see what happened here. I first "met" Leidseplein at Siege of Kolberg where he provided a third opinion. Our interaction was positive. He came to my talk page and asked me to review his article. So far so good, very nice interaction and at that point I was happy to have run into him (always could use more people writing articles about Poland). Then all of sudden he just blew up at me at Western Betrayal. I was extremely puzzled by this 180-degree change in his attitude; friendly and reasonable before, going straight for the personal attacks and accusations all of sudden. I think the key to the mystery lies in the presence of these "two sekrit" editors, who apparantly, are unwilling to say anything to me personally. Sometime between me reviewing Leidseplein's article for him and the situation at Western Betrayal, he was contacted by these individuals who egged him on and ... well, got him into trouble. Leidseplein says: Since Volunteer Marek is asking for nothing except to have me notified that sanctions exist on Wikipedia, consider me notified. My response: After this latest batch, I'm very much inclined to ask for a more serious block/sanction on civility grounds alone - making unsubstantiated and false accusations against others is not something that is usually tolerated. However, I do think that Leidseplein allowed himself to be unduly influenced by others. I do think that he should tell us who these individuals are.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [20] Discussion concerning Leidseplein Statement by Leidseplein The editor complaining against me is IMO trying to retaliate for a 3rd Opinion I provided in Talk:Siege of Kolberg (1807). He suddenly started shadowing me, harassing me and disrupting everything I do on wikipedia after the opinion I provided. After numerous false accusations (like accusing me of double reverts), threats, hypocritical accusations of personal attacks, inapplicable appeals to wiki policy and an overall inability to accept cited facts contrary to his POV at Talk:Western betrayal, he has resorted to this overblown and excessively verbose attempt to quash facts he doesn't like...all in service of promoting his version of history (only) and without offering any form of compromise and wihout accepting or countering any of several offered compromise solutions I offered on the talk pages. Volunteer Marek was the subject of a complaint made to me by two other editors for disrupting their work. Their main complaint, which I endorse, is that this editor tries to impose his POV and version of history onto articles without readily accepting compromise or offering agreeeable solutions. It also seems this complaint made by Marek here today is a reaction to Volunteer Marek's sanctions earned earlier this week, seen here...which is taking yet another form both through this complaint and his arguments at Talk:Siege of Kolberg (1807) and Talk:Western betrayal. The statement of my position about the article in question and the full record are available on the Western Betrayal talk pages. This, along with my 3rd opinion on Talk:Siege of Kolberg (1807) is where the main explanation for this complaint by Volunteer Marek can be found, and my contributions there speak for themselves, both good and bad. One more thing, I plead guilty to Marek's accusation number 8 = I AM guilty of 'question mark abuse'. Since Volunteer Marek is asking for nothing except to have me notified that sanctions exist on Wikipedia, consider me notified. Best wishes.Leidseplein (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC) PS someone is editing and deleting comments I make here, if I had hours to argue over trivial details I'd figure it out, but kindly leave my own commments here unedited Comments by others about the request concerning Leidseplein Aim was a Digwuren notification. Which has been implicitly acknowledged by Leidseplein as being understood. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. Close this. Collect (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC) (apparently inadvertently removed) Collect (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Leidesplein, could you please provide differences (i.e, direct quotes with links to specific postings to the talk pages) in order to support your statement. TFD (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC) I notice that Leidesplein has never been warned and therefore the request should have been presented to ANI instead. I suggest that the request be moved there where there will be greater input from the community. TFD (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Leidseplein This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Most of the diffs submitted as evidence are not really problematic, but on the whole they do paint a picture of rather passionate argumentativeness, so I am warning Leidseplein to abide by the following principles enunciated by the Arbitration Committee. They apply, of course, to Volunteer Marek and others as well, and this warning is not to be construed as an endorsement of any inappropriate conduct by Volunteer Marek or others. "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited." (from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli 2#Purpose of Wikipedia, my underlining) "Editors are expected to keep their cool when editing. Uncivil behavior by others should not be returned in kind. Casual allegations of poor wikiquette are considered harmful; such concerns should be brought up in appropriate forums, if at all." (from WP:DIGWUREN#Principles) "Editors with a national background are encouraged to edit from a Neutral Point of View, presenting the point of view they have knowledge of through their experience and culture without aggressively pushing their particular nationalist point of view by emphasizing it or minimizing or excluding other points of view." "Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy, and must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked. Personal attacks are not excused or justified by offers of demonstration of their truth." (from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles) Noncompliance with these principles and other rules of conduct may result in sanctions as provided for in WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  07:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

BenJonson

Request concerning BenJonson

User against whom enforcement is requested = User:BenJonson

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

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

1. [21] Impugns Paul B and accuses him of calling him and others holocaust deniers (later changed to "Nazis").
2. (2nd and 3rd edits down) Impugns honesty of James S. Shapiro and claims he’s my "hero".
3. [22] Again accuses Paul of calling him and others Nazis.
4. [23] Strongly implies that I colluded with Shapiro to edit the SAQ page to his specifications.
5. [24] More along that line (see entire discussion for subsequent edits and half-denials, thereby having it both ways).
6. [25] More personal attacks.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Tendentious_editing

1. [26] Adding a clearly non-WP:RS reference to SAQ page from an Oxfordian journal that he edits (which he almost always refers to as "leading", "prestigious", or "peer reviewed").
2. [27] Does so again from same journal with no discussion after being reverted.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Talk_pages

1. [28] Using the FAC talk page as a platform for his personal views and haranguing other editors.

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Casting_aspersions

1. [29] Continuing to make aspersions of collusion after being asked to retract his remarks.
2. [30] Same again, plus accusation that Nishidani threatened him and that Paul, Nishidani, and I had taken "ownership" of the SAQ page.
3. [31] Denies specifically saying I acted to promote Shapiro’s book while at the same time intimating that I did so (and spamming the page with an external link for his blog).
4. [32] Accuses administrators of colluding with editors to suppress "open discourse".
5. [33] Accuses Paul, Nishidani and I of acting "with impunity and the apparent sanction of Wikipedia admins".

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Revealing_personal_information

1. [34] Refers to my RL employment (although mistakenly; sheriff’s office’s don’t have public relations departments.)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Disruptive_influence

1. [35] Encouraging the continued flouting of community norms by banned SPA editor AdamBerg (as well as spamming his page with external links of Knitwitted’s blog)
2. [36] Encouraging the continued flouting of community norms by banned SPA editor Zwiegenbaum
3. [37] Encouraging the continued flouting of community norms by banned SPA editor Smcamilc

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

1. [38] Warning by User:Bishonen
2. [39] Warning by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise
3. [40] Warning by User:EdJohnston
4. [41] Asked to remain civil by User:Nikkimaria
5. [42] Another warning by Nikkimaria.

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

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

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

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

Discussion concerning BenJonson

Statement by BenJonson

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

Result concerning BenJonson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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