Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive86

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

Request concerning Wikifan12345

User requesting enforcement

Tarc (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

WP:ARBPIA#2010

Diffs

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

1. [1] A !vote in AfD directly related to the topic area which this user is banned.
2. [2] comment in same
3. [3] Another.
4. [4] And Another.

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

1. [5] Warning by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (topic banned from 20 Aug 2009 through 31 Dec 2009) (expired)
2. [6] Warning by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (topic banned from 2 Dec 2010 through 2 Aug 2011) (current)

Enforcement action requested (

other sanction

)

Extend the current 8-month topic ban for an additional time period, or perhaps reset the 8-month counter? Something should be done to address a long-running issue.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As far as I am aware, topic bans cover the subject matter in its entirety, which includes discussion pages and XfDs. This was the case for

WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict," would cover XfDs as well. Tarc (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified. Tarc (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Wikifan12345

Statement by Wikifan12345

I didn't intend to violate the provisions of my topic ban. My ban does not extend to all articles relating to Arab governments. I can see why this edit can be construed as a violation of the strict rules of I/P arbitration enforcement. If necessary I will strike my contributions or perhaps someone from oversight can remove my edits. I am currently under the mentorship of User:Danger so hopefully she can weigh in on this incident.

To be honest I planned on appealing my topic ban within the next few months but this request probably eliminates the chance of being paroled.

Thank you. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Tarc. Thanks for the quick response. I have stricken the edits as suggested.

@ Danger. I take the issue of mentorship seriously and have posted a response at your talk page, but for clarity, none of the edits you list below fall under provisions of my topic ban. At best, the edits are questionable under our unique mentorship focus, but not in conflict with the rules of ARBPIA. I'm almost certain of this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Wikifan12345

If it was an honest mistake and they were stricken, IMO I could withdraw this entirely and there'd be no prejudice against any future appeals. Tarc (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Danger

I would note that these edits are also part of a pattern of edits ([7], [8], [9], [10]) violating an extended topic ban that Wikifan agreed to as part of the terms of resuming mentorship with me. My good faith is, frankly, entirely used up with regards to this editor. I see no evidence from his actions in editing or from our mentorship that he has any real intention of changing his behavior and I believe that this series of edits is merely part of his desire to negotiate through violations of his ban rather than to contribute meaningfully to other areas of the 'pedia. It is a shame; I wish Wikifan could bring his passion and attention to detail to work here in a constructive manner. Danger (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Wikifan12345

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

Considering that the edits probably did violate the topic ban but that the AfD was only tangentially related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, that is therefore credible that the edits were a mistake and that Wikifan12345 has struck them as suggested by Tarc, I'll close this request without action unless an administrator disagrees.  Sandstein  21:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this request should be closed with no action, since Wikifan12345 has admitted the mistake. We assume that he will carefully observe the remainder of his I/P topic ban, which expires on 2 August, 2011. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With three uninvolved admins in agreement, myself being the third, I'll hat this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This request contains no diffs of allegedly problematic edits, which is a requirement for a warning. I recommend that you use the standard template, {{

Arbitration enforcement request}}, if there are diffs of such conduct.  Sandstein  21:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I did not request any enforcement. Still, I end up here at this page to write my request, following links. I requested the general (i.e. not personalised) notice to be delivered. I have no diffs at hand of "problematic" edits, except for the histories I referred to (plain, no problematic). Experienced User:Lisa does not seem to get the main points of ARPPIA and its outings. Therefor I ask the boilerplate to be announced to her (as quite probably has been to me). Since only an uninvolved admin can do so formally, says the bottom line, I ask for that here. Without this formal drop, we editors would be at an uneven level (say 3RR vs. 1RR). -DePiep (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, from the boilerplate notice (not a "warning" then by the way):

1: This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem;

2: This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.

I'd say, all in all, you can take it broadly. -DePiep (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Lisa's edits at Deir Yassin massacre. These two edits within 24 hours both look to be reverts, which appears to violate the 1RR rule that applies to I/P articles.

• Jewish->Israeli ("Purity of arms" is an invention of secular Israelis.) 19:00, 21 March 2011
• Jewish->Israeli (Source supplied. Just because the other source had the word "Jewish" inserted by its author (with no source given by him) doesn't make it legitimate.) 00:36, 22 March 2011

Both edits remove the word 'Jewish' which was in the old version of the article, so both can be considered reverts. This is not a trivial change, as the context will make clear. I am notifying Lisa of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. In fact, neither one was a revert. The first was an edit (not a revert). That edit was reverted by User:RolandR, with the edit summary (ES -- see, now I know what that stands for) "Undid revision 420013517 by Lisa. That may be true, but it's not what our source says. If you have an alternative source, please add it." It seemed like a fair request, and by any reading, it was a clear request. While I looked for a good source, RolandR's edit was reverted by User:Brewcrewer. After which, User:SlimVirgin reverted it back once more. By this time, I had found a good source, and went ahead and complied with RolandR's request that I "please add it".

I was unaware at the time that there was a 1RR limitation on the page. I am still unaware of any such limitation. No such template exists on the page itself.

I believe that User:DePiep is, for some reason, engaging in wikilawyering here. I've never run into him or her in the past. I made exactly two edits on this article, the second one in response to a very polite request from someone who reverted my initial edit. I felt that the request was absolutely in order, and made very courteously, and I complied. DePiep, however, has shown no courtesy, and has generally behaved ill-manneredly. The idea of posting about me on an Arbitration Enforcement page is so utterly over-the-top and out of any proportion that I question his or her motives. I find it difficult to assume good faith in a case like this (not that AGF applies here anyway). - Lisa (talk - contribs) 04:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lisa. There's one edit and one revert, not two reverts. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You all so silly. Are you really having this debate whether to notify Lisa of the A-I restrictions? Just notify her and get back to building an encyclopedia.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• She only made one revert, but like Brew said that doesn't matter, just notify her, it's not like you have to do something wrong to be notified of ARBPIA. Passionless -Talk 05:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding Lisa's comment, 'No such template exists on the page itself.' I believe she is mistaken. There is a colorful {{
  ARBPIA}} banner about three inches high at the top of Talk:Deir Yassin massacre, which mentions the 1RR restriction. It was added in November 2010 by this edit. Since we want to assume good faith of Lisa, I encourage her not to protest so strongly against being notified. It is unnecessary for her to question DePiep's motives. EdJohnston (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Seriously? It's just a notification. Assuming you edit constructively, you can completely ignore it. With that in mind, I've notified Lisa. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And with that I'm closing the thread, as this is not a discussion forum and the request has been processed.  Sandstein  06:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning PANONIAN

User requesting enforcement

--Nmate (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

PANONIAN (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

• [12] "It really amuse me how much of their own free time are some people ready to spend to feed their hate and to spread it around. It amuse me how some Greater Hungarian nationalists are still dreaming that borders will be changed and that they again will rule over "minor races". Justice for Hungary was served in Trianon.","distant future Bačka will be attached to Greater Hungary"

These assertions look like ethnic based provocations which may violate

WP:NPA

. As the user assumed that another users living in the proximity of his country are for feeding and for spreading their hates on WP.

• [13] "and have a nice day in Trianon Hungary"

The user again started to provoke the Hungarian users ,referring to the

WP:BATTLE

.

• [14]

Mentioned the words "future Greater Hungary" and "Greater Hungarian nationalistic propaganda " which is an akin provokation to the previous ones aimed at Hungarians per

WP:BATTLE

.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Even if there are some hazy parts in his messages as his English grammar does not always make sense to me, his recent actions look like ethnic based provocations that may be amenable to Wiki policy. Recently, I have tried to contact him telling that this type of behavior is unwelcome on WP and that ask for an Arbitration enforcment warning by an administrator to which the user answered with a talk page revert, using an edit summary of "please find another place for sandbox games".[15]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[16]

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

1. []

Enforcement action requested (

other sanction

)

At this point I'm not asking for a sanction, block or ban. As far as I know, the editor has not been previously aware of the WP:DIGWUREN restrictions, warned of the discretionary sanctions in this area. So that all I would like PANONIAN to receive is an Arbitration enforcment warning by an administrator.

Discussion concerning PANONIAN

Statement by PANONIAN

Hi. I do not understand what exactly seems to be the problem here? I never said a single insulting word about ethnic Hungarians anywhere. I only spoke about Hungarian nationalism, which is indeed an potential factor of instability in Eastern Europe. Since when it is not allowed that I say my opinion about nationalism if nationalism is generally described as evil by whole democratic World of 21st century? I am not trying to provoke any "Hungarian users" here. For all decent non-nationalist Hungarians, Trianon was a rightful treaty that allowed freedom and independence to those ethnic groups that lived in the former Kingdom of Hungary. User:Nmate who posted this request against me actually provoking me (and all other non-Hungarian inhabitants of Central Europe) with statement that "Hungary lost 70% of its territory by the Treaty of Trianon". "Its" territory was actually a territory mainly inhabited by Slavs, Romanians and Germans (my own ancestors lived there) and claim of Nmate imply that my ancestors were actually "guests" there and that land in which they lived was not their own, but "Hungarian". That is exact example of this nationalism against which I spoke about. I do not see how user Nmate would have right to say that Trianon was not rightful and I do not have right to say that it was? (general opinion of people and historians from all countries surrounding Hungary is that Trianon was rightful). Why I would not have right to say my opinion about historical events and modern political ideas? I repeat: I never said a single insulting word about ethnic Hungarians or about current Hungarian state. I only spoke about "historical Hungarian state" that oppressed my ancestors and about "imaginary future Greater Hungary" aimed by Hungarian nationalists. Furthermore, I created several ethnic maps that showing areas inhabited by Hungarians (here are examples: [17], [18], [19]), including this map of proposed Hungarian autonomous region and someone who hate Hungarians would certainly not do something like that. As for issues related to other users, I do not want to mention names here, but if I need to present evidences about nationalistic behavior of some users, I will do that. Also, Nmate forgot to say that I said "Have a nice day in Trianon Hungary" to an IP who said that I am an dirty nationalist. Having this in mind, my response was very civil. Anyway, if I said something wrong or inappropriate on any talk page, I hope that administrators will tell me what exactly was the problem. I really cannot understand what Nmate want to say here. And in the end, my 5 minutes long research found this edit of user Nmate who opened this discussion about me. All in all, user Nmate removed Ľudovít Štúr, one of the greatest figures of Slovak history, from "History of Bratislava" article with explanation that he is "irrelevant, unimportant thief-Slovak agitator". This is clear insult for the Slovak people (for those not familiar with Hungarian nationalism, phrase "thief-Slovak" means that "Slovak people are thieves, who stole Hungarian land". Ľudovít Štúr was not a thief in criminal sense, so there is no other possible interpretation of "thief-Slovak" phrase. If that is not an example of ethnic hatred, I do not know what is). An research longer than 5 minutes could reveal more of this, of course. PANONIAN 15:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I now have more than 5 minutes for this, so let post some nice examples of edit summaries of user Nmate: "I am here sweet Transylvania", "Undid revision by miserable clone", "Undid revision by anonymous pajác", this one is especially interesting, here user Nmate replaced sentence "which made the Slovak inhabitants equal to the German colonists" with "which made the nomad intruder Slav tribes equal to the civilized German colonists", "Take your medicine before you write one like this", "This Slovakizator is such a sockpuppet" (Also, Nmate here removed description about Slovak name for town in Slovakia), "It looks that Yopie needs to be humiliated by a community ban from editing wikipedia for indefinite time" (this is actually the whole point of this discussion against me - user Nmate is trying for long time to block all Serb, Slovak and Romanian users whom he see as "opponents", there is more evidence of this. Obviously, user Nmate is example of a person for whom Wikipedia is an battlefield), "rv abusive Wladthemlat" (is there an evidence that user Wladthemlat "is abusive"? Here, user Nmate simply replaced historical Latin names with Hungarian ones. Note that Hungarian language had no any official status in this time and that there are no historical basis for usage of Hungarian names for these cities), "Yopie is being a nuisance again" (is there an evidence that this IP belongs to user Yopie? No, there is not, but user Nmate here trying to make impression that user Yopie is abusive and that he should be blocked. We also have here another case of inclusion of non-Historical Hungarian names), "I already identified your spoiled education". All in all, edits of user Nmate are full of ethnic and personal insults and it is obvious that he sees Wikipedia as an battlefield. So, I am asking here from administrators that they examine his behaviour as well and that they warn him about inappropriate behaviour. PANONIAN 05:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request

Result concerning PANONIAN

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

Request concerning Hangakiran

User requesting enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement

Diffs

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

1. [20] 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)

1. Warning by
   WP:DIGWUREN
   ".

Enforcement action requested (

other sanction

)

I request that action be taken to stop Hangakiran from referring to content opponents' ethnicity.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Hangakiran notified here.

Discussion concerning Hangakiran

Statement by Hangakiran

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Hangakiran

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

Result concerning Hangakiran

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

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

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

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

• OK. I am also taking into consideration that Hangakiran's editing is focused entirely on
  WP:TBAN) from the subject of Janos Boros (notably, from the article, its talk page and any related discussions). Any uninvolved administrator may lift this topic ban, on the request of Hangakiran, after no less than four months if Hangakiran has made substantial useful contributions to other articles and has engaged in no further objectionable conduct in the meantime.  Sandstein  22:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Request concerning Leidseplein

User requesting enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement

Diffs

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

1. [22] Accusation of trying to impose your POV on the world, which violates
   WP:AGF
2. [23] 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"
3. [24] 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.
4. [25] 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
5. [26] 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.
6. [27] 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
   Goodwin's Law
   violation by comparing my statements to Communist Party propaganda.
7. [28] 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.
8. [29] - question mark abuse. Not really a violation of anything specific but perhaps relevant to this whole "passionately" thing.
9. [30] - 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

1. [31] 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.
2. [32] - "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.
3. Similarly, here [33] 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)

1. [34] - 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.
2. 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 (

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 [35]) - 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:

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

[37] "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 [38]. If there had been some "bad blood" due to the 3O, or he had some kind of problem with me (or I with him) at that point, why come and ask me to review his article? My response to him, btw, was that it was a "a very nice article" and I suggested he should submit it to DYK (though I did note one very minor point which could be clarified). He replied that he was going to ask me for opinions on other Poland-related articles he planned to write. Does this sound like someone I would want to "harass" or "retaliate" against?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[39]

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

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

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Leidseplein

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

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

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

Result concerning Leidseplein

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

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

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

Noncompliance with these principles and other

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. [40] 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. [41] Again accuses Paul of calling him and others Nazis.
4. [42] Strongly implies that I colluded with Shapiro to edit the SAQ page to his specifications.
5. [43] More along that line (see entire discussion for subsequent edits and half-denials, thereby having it both ways).
6. [44] More personal attacks.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Tendentious_editing

1. [45] Adding a clearly non-
   an Oxfordian journal that he edits
   (which he almost always refers to as "leading", "prestigious", or "peer reviewed").
2. [46] Does so again from same journal with no discussion after being reverted.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Talk_pages

1. [47] 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. [48] Continuing to make aspersions of collusion after being asked to retract his remarks.
2. [49] Same again, plus accusation that Nishidani threatened him and that Paul, Nishidani, and I had taken "ownership" of the SAQ page.
3. [50] 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. [51] Accuses administrators of colluding with editors to suppress "open discourse".
5. [52] 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. [53] 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. [54] 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. [55] Encouraging the continued flouting of community norms by banned SPA editor Zwiegenbaum
3. [56] 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. [57] Warning by User:Bishonen
2. [58] Warning by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise
3. [59] Warning by User:EdJohnston
4. [60] Asked to remain civil by User:Nikkimaria
5. [61] Another warning by Nikkimaria.

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

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

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

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

Discussion concerning BenJonson

Statement by BenJonson

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

Comments by others about the request concerning BenJonson

Result concerning BenJonson

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fine, I suppose we can give him

some more rope and stick with topic ban for now. T. Canens (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Request concerning HantersSpade

User requesting enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Further remedies

Diffs

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

1. [62] First revert
2. [63] Second revert, within an hour of the first never mind the 24 hour limit
3. [64] Third revert, within an hour of the first never mind the 24 hour limit

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

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

Enforcement action requested (

other sanction

)

Indefinite block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[65]

Discussion concerning HantersSpade

Statement by HantersSpade

Comments by others about the request concerning HantersSpade

Result concerning HantersSpade

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

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

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. [66] 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. [67] "Rant, rant, rant. The users as you are only good to drive content contributes away."
3. 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

4. [68] "You are lying and trolling as usually"
5. [69] "trolls and wikihounds, [ ] and, who are spreading lies about me"
6. [70] edit line:"responding to the troll"
7. [71] "I hoped that an admin with your experience is able to exercise some common sense." .... "Poor, poor wikipedia that has administrators as you are."
8. [72] "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.
9. [73] "User:Passionless is a wikihound...wikihounding is the worse, the dirtiest kind of behavior one could exhibit."
10. [74] 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.
11. [75]- 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.
12. [76] edit summary of "reverted trolling".
13. [77] "I hoped that an admin with your experience is able to exercise, no not fairness, but just a common sense."

    Incivility

14. [78] "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.
15. [79] "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.
16. [80] "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."
17. [81] Adds links which show number of articles created for the purpose of discrediting another editor as inexperienced.
18. [82] "Of course some people have common sense while others do not."
19. [83] Claiming others are attacking her/witch hunt.

    Saying disturbing/racist things

20. [84] 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.
21. [85] 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

22. [86] "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.
23. [87] 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 [88] the comments.
24. [89] -unilateral move of an article at an AfD to add “(antisemetic and conspiracy theories)” to the title *article has been deleted since her edit*
25. User talk:82.205.53.148, Mbz is giving out notifications as if she was an admin/BITE.
26. [90] "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)

1. [91] Warning by Gwen Gale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. [92] Warning by Ohiostandard (talk · contribs)
3. [93] Warning byRoscelese (talk · contribs)
4. No doubt many more that I have not listed (hard to find)

Enforcement action requested (

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

[94]

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.

• [95] 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
    battle ground behavior of the user.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• [96] "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.

• [97] "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

• [98] 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]
• [99]- 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]
• [100] "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]
• [101] "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]
• [102] 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
    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 [103] 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

• 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

• 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

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 ([104][105][106]), and attempted to game the topic-area 1RR ([107][108][109]).

• 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:
  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
  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.

--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
  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. --

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. --

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? --

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

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. --

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. --

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 [110], [111], [112]). 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 [113]. 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 [114]. 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. --

talk) 16:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

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 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

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

Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

@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 [116] [117].

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
  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 [118]. 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 [119]. 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

]

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".[120] 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. " [121] - 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

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

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:

1. Interaction ban
   between Passionless and Mbz1 per T. Canens' suggestion.
2. 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 [122] 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. (
  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]

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

1. [123], [124], [125] 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.
2. [126] 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.
3. [127] 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
4. [128] Blanking the
   Crobidae and redirecting it to Krobyzoi
   , without any attempt to merge the different content in the two articles.

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:

1. that you are subject to civility parole
2. 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

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.

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: [129]. 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: [130].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

]

• 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.
  •] 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[131][132][133] 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.
  •] 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 [134], [135], [136] 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: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.
  •] 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

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

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

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:ARBMAC. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

1. Feb. 19, 2011 Revert on Tsitsernavank Monastery article
2. Feb. 22 Another revert on Tsitsernavank Monastery article
3. Mar. 26 Revert on Tsitsernavank Monastery article
4. Mar. 28 Revert on Tsitsernavank Monastery article
5. Mar. 28 Revert on Tsitsernavank Monastery article
6. Mar. 30 Revert on Tsitsernavank Monastery article
7. Mar. 31 Revert on Tsitsernavank Monastery article
8. April 5 Revert on Tsitsernavank Monastery article
9. April 4 Revert on Gandzasar monastery article
10. April 4 Revert on Gandzasar monastery article
11. April 4 Revert on Gandzasar monastery article
12. April 5 Revert on Gandzasar monastery article
13. 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)

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

Enforcement action requested (

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

[137]

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-puppetry is a whole other ball game from arbitration enforcement and should be handled at

•] 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]

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

1. [138] Revert 1 With he takes out a Refimprove template.
2. [139] Revert 2, within 24 hours he takes out a paragraph recently added by another editor.
3. [140] 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)

1. [141] Warning by Domer48 (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (

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]

• It very much appears that R. Fiend is intent on making a point, and has not intention of addressing the issues raised by comments [142] [143] and their actions [144] [145]. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:06, 9 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]

• • 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]

• • • 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]

• I'm sorry, what is this proposed one week block for? I self-reverted the "contentious" edit, as requested. Since no one ever complained about the content of the edit, just the timing, I waited until the designated amount of time passed, and edited again. What am I supposed to do, never edit the article again? There is no edit war here. I made 2 completely unrelated changes, but because they both happened to fall under the blanket category of "revert" someone got their panties in a twist and decided to make a federal case out of it. How long would be appropriate to wait until removing a pointless sentence (a sentence whose inclusion, by the way, no one has defended)? A week? A month? The template that was called into question remains in the article and I have no intention of removing it again until an agreement is reached that it is no longer necessary (the endless struggle against people who think no article is complete until it has at least 5 templates explaining to the reader every detail of why an article is not 100% perfect is not something I feel like getting into here). If someone, anyone, has a problem with the sentence I removed I invited them to discuss it on the talk page, where they can explain what they think it adds to the article and how its relevant, and no one has. For the love of god what is the issue here? Can we get back to trying to improve Wikipedia articles now? Don't people have something better to do than try to be the Johnnie Cochran of wiklawyering? -R. fiend (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What exactly is it I'm supposedly "gaming" here? So far no one has stated any issue with any actual edit I've made, only that the timing was off. There is no fucking edit war here. One editor, who has not been involved with this dispute, made a good faith but nevertheless unproductive edit, and I undid it. While that edit certainly wasn't vandalism, it was a detriment (in my mind) to the article. No one reinserted the edit, or even defended its inclusion. Had I made the same edit several hours later no one would have cared, as it would not have violated some arbitrary ruling made 3 years ago. Nonetheless, I reverted it at the behest of you, because it apparently violated some stupid rule I had nothing to do with. Since the only issue was with the timing, not the edit itself, I waited until the letter of the law allowed, and removed the sentence in question at an allowable time. This can hardly be called an edit war; a single sentence was added once, and removed once by me. Since that time no one else has edited the article. How is one removal an edit war? If someone has an actual dispute with an edit I made, say what the hell it is. If not, quit bellyachin' and get back to improving articles. That's allegedly what we're here for. I have always been more than willing to discuss controversial topics on any talk page. In this case no one has tried to engage me in discussion. Since EdJohnson brings up an RfC from a few years back, I'll have to admit that this reminds me a lot of that situation. There I was called out for fixing some obvious typos and egregious errors in a protected article. Some editors actually wanted me to reinsert those errors because, though fixing them was undoubtedly beneficial, they were more concerned with the circumstances under which the edits were made. That is utter bullshit I have no patience for. Anyone who would prefer to add blatant errors to Wikipedia in order to score points shouldn't be an editor here. If mindless adherence to arbitrary rules is of primary concern, go join a neighborhood association so you can fine your neighbors $800 for letting their grass grow half an inch too long. Let the rest of us try to improve articles here without interference. So, once again given that this edit has not been disputed by anyone except in its timing, how long am I supposed to have waited until making it? Or is it now set in stone? Shall I self-revert again, and wait another 24, or 48, or 1024 hours before removing it? Or can we all just let this stupid matter rest and spend our time improving Wikipedia as an encyclopedia instead of nitpicking about how much time should pass between unrelated edits on some damn article? -R. fiend (talk) 06:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My statements above have been moved to a separate section, which is basically fine, but since some of them were specific responses to comments by admins they now seem out of place, and the thing reads a bit like an odd conversation with myself. Is there a way to remedy this without reinserting them in the section below? -R. fiend (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

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

1. 02:35, 7 April 2011 (edit summary: "a bit more accurate") -- [This takes out the Refimprove template on section called 'The Irish Volunteers']
2. 13:52, 8 April 2011 (edit summary: "1 footnote = removal of ugly template") -- [Removes 'Unreferenced', and adds one reference]
3. 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']
4. 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

Statement by Volunteer Marek - This IS indeed very silly. If the removal of that one sentence is in fact uncontroversial, then how is he supposed to remove it? If he does it now he's "edit warring" (with himself) and violating 1RR. If he waits and does it later, he is "gaming the system". So the sentence MUST stay. Ummm, any of you AE geniuses read this book Joseph Heller once wrote? I'm having trouble remembering it's name.

Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia; they should not be intended as a punishment. Could Timotheus Canens or EdJohnston please bear this in mind. MacStep (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The remedies for AE case are designed to be preventative. Violation of these remedies is disruptive. We do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and then outline how we will be gaming the system to force home the point. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are misrepresenting yourself in your choice of links. MacStep (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. No misrepresenting there. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• • • 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
      ]

• This dispute was previously discussed at
  WP:ARBTRB. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• R. fiend has now promised to go ahead and revert after 24 hours are up. He is a long-time Wikipedia editor and former admin, and has an interest in editing contentious articles. It is fair to expect him to understand
  game the restriction, I propose a one-week block. EdJohnston (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That's about as clear an example of gaming as ever. I'd normally try the 1RR/week Troubles probation, but it seems unlikely to work here. Since the only other alternative is a block, I think EdJohnston's proposal is reasonable. In short, 1RR is not an entitlement. T. Canens (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have moved R. fiend's comments into his own section. If this report requires action it is better if some other admin handles it, since I issued the last block of R. fiend in 2009. EdJohnston (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as no action. The discussion above should have adequately reminded R. fiend of the definition of a "revert" for the purposes of xRR rules. Looking the whole thing over again, I'm not inclined to impose a block when the second removal is apparently noncontroversial. R. fiend should try, however, to avoid the appearance of